So we can expect you to come here applauding him if this works out in the long run?
No. I don’t subscribe to the tenet that the end justifies the means.
well, you see, that’s not really the point. you said you weren’t personally upset with him. i took that to mean that if this helped the cause rather than hurt it, you saw no problem in his actions. so in that case, you would be a believer in the machiavellian tenet.
if he didn’t in fact hurt his cause, and if he was obeying what he thought to be a higher law (the ca constitution rather than the 2000 initiative), how would the evilness of his means hurt the result?
[aside]as far as the end justifying the means, i can’t argue with the tenet per se. the failure of many to include “the means” in “the end” is what ruins the viability of this believe, in my opinion.[/aside]
Understanding that Gavin Newsom campaigned for Mayor supporting gay marriage, and that he knows that his position is shared by the majority of his constituency (so he is not taking a great immediate political risk), I have no problem believing what he says about the reasons for his decision.
Knowing that he is not going to be harmed politically (at least in the near term) by his actions, he is doing what he believes to be fundamentally right.
Actually it was. If a court rules tomorrow that gay marriage is constitutional in CA, it will undoubtably be becuase of Newsom’s actions. In that case, my analysis (per the OP) was incorrect, and I’ll be happy to admit it. That doesn’t mean that I condone the methods of the mayor in this case. As I’ve said before, that is because he failed to initiate any judicial challenge to the law, and just decided to act as though he, himself, were the judiciary. Had he tried to go the legal route and was ignored, then I think a case could be made for taking the actions he did.
That was in the context of someone asking me if I would be upset at some mayor in the past who issued marriage licenses to interracial couples. But I probably wasn’t clear on that. I meant that his goal is not upsetting to me (I don’t oppose gay marriage), but I thought I made it clear in many other posts that I thought the tactic was irresponsible and unwise. I could be wrong about the second part, but I’ll stand by the first part.
Well, I never said his means were evil-- those are your words. I very well could be wrong about whether his actions will hurt the goal. That’s what this debate is about. I do think there is a place for a mayor to use this tactic (violating a clear statutory law). If, for example, a law had been passed to bar gays from attending public schools in SF, then he would be justified in trying to prevent what could be irreperable harm to those gays excluded from the educational system-- waiting for the courts to act could ruin people’s lives. In this case, I don’t see the dire need to alter the status quo by means of bypassing the perfectly legitimate legal process of challenging the law in the courts directly.
Does this mean that you disagree with the concept of civil disobedience? Was Rosa Parks wrong for refusing to move to the back of the bus?
Balron: From earlier in this thread:
John Mace - Can you clarify what you mean by initiating a judicial challenge to the law? It’s my understanding that you can’t just go to the appeals court and say, “I think this law is bad, can you declare it unconstitutional?” In order to challenge a law in the courts, don’t you need to have a specific case (e.g. a same-sex couple who are married) in order for the court to make a ruling?
At least that’s what Stanley Kurtz says, in this post and the three or so below it. Then again, he also wrote this article I once posted about re: gay marriage has already destroyed heterosexual marriage in Norway. Well, conservatives? Feel obligated to amend the Constitution now that you know what’ll happen if you don’t? 
Though I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised; Shodan has already asserted late in this thread that, based on research of dubious meaning done by someone who’s firmly against gay marriage for religious reasons, gays are too promiscuous to trust with the institution of marriage. Makes me wonder if it makes anyone who posted in this thread want to change his/her mind about what (s)he said therein…
SV:
One scenairo: A same-sex couple have applied for a marriage license, been refused, and then challenged that refusal in court. That would not have been direct action by the mayor (since he’s already married to a woman, and couldn’t initiate this action himself), but he certainly could have encouraged someone to take that action.
Maybe one of our resident lawyers can clarify this, but I’m not sure he couldn’t challenge the law directly by insisting that his office had the right to issue same-sex marriage licenses and ask the court for a ruling. I’m thinking of the case a few years back when Newdow challenged the “under God” phrase in the pledge. That’s going all the way to the Supreme court, and I don’t recall him actually breaking any laws-- just challenging the one that requires teachers to lead to the pledge.
Here’s another example: The way Prop 187 was challenge (and overturned) in CA.
indeed, you did make that clear. my point was that the end contains the means, and if the end (with the means) is greater than the start, then indeed the end does justify, as such, the means. i agree that if he could’ve arrived at this place (presuming this place is a good one) through more responsible means, that didn’t advocate through public action the disregard for the law, i would prefer that route.
yes, they are. i did not intend to put words in your mouth, only to contrast the “good” end with the “evil” means in a typical “does the end justify the means” problem.
i agree, and you will note that i initially thought this was a totally bad move on the mayor’s part. the public response to this (nearly 2500 couples married now) has swayed me more toward the nobility of his means, though, i think. i still question the motives, but i think if things turn out well, a pr stunt just such as this is exactly what was needed in this fight.
If things turn out right, yes the “PR stunt” will prove itself to be the correct tactic.
You completely lost me on: “the end contains the means”. Can you elaborate?
The Constitution of the state of California does contain language that could be used to strike down the ban on gay marriages, if the state Supreme Court were inclined to do so. In particular, I have seen this mentioned:
This specifically grants rights to “classes” of citizens, which could easily be interpreted as providing far stronger protection against discrimination than similar language in the federal Constitution. If I recall correctly, it is similar in wording to a provision in the Massachusetts constitution which was cited in support of the recent ruling by that state’s Supreme Judicial Court.
It’s important to note that the California Constitution is extremely easy to amend. Given the current makeup of the legislature, it’s almost impossible that a two-thirds majority would approve an amendment banning gay marriage, but their participation is unnecessary. We’ve taken direct democracy to such an extreme in this state that all you need to do to amend the constitution is collect enough signatures and the amendment will go up for a vote at the next election, where it can be passed by a simple majority. I note the following:
I’m not sure wether this 8 percent figure would be based on the last ordinary gubernatorial election or the recall election we had last year. About 9.4 million people voted in that election, and the required 750 thousand signatures needed to put an amendment on the ballot could be collected very quickly if some group were willing to fund the effort.
Based on the fact that an initiative statute banning recognition of same-sex marriage passed with nearly 60% support a few years ago, this creates an interesting dilemma for any state judge inclined to see a right to same-sex marriage in the state constitution. If such an implicit right were found, it might be explicitly eliminated very quickly.
Well, that’s been my point all along. Newsom is essentiallly saying to the electorate: “I d-double dare you all to pass an amendment to the State Constitution.” It’s a big gamble.
Looks like a reprieve of at least a few days has been achieved thru the two judicial hearings today, although the 2nd hearing got hung up on (believe it or not) a punctuation error in the petition. In an ironic twist, the judge in the 2nd hearing is the grandson of Earl Warren.
It would be interesting to hear from one of our resident lawyers about what this means (my bolding0:
indeed, section 7(a) is what the mayor himself cited as his constitutional justification for allowing the marriages to take place. he said that it has been construed in the past to prevent discrimination against gays, too.
the ma sjc decision, however, was based on a clause that mirrored almost exactly the due process (and equal protection, in a concurring opinion) clause of the 14th amendment. ma jurisprudence has given this clause a lot more weight than it is given in the federal constitution, though, despite the similar wordings.
Newsom is also a felon.
See the CA penal code, section 115(a).
“the end justifies the means” is generally said to mean that the sum of all utility of a process is based on whether the goal was accomplished. thus, any means necessary to accomplish that goal are acceptable, provided the goal is accomplished.
my point is that this view of things fails to take into account the changes that occurred while the process was taking place. one issue in another thread right now is the validity of strict constructionism. many wish for various rights to be in the constitution and have more-or-less said they would warp it to find those rights. in the end, the right they found is there, but someone might use the same process to remove rights even more important in the future. so the means must be considered when evaluating the utility of the end.
as another example, let’s say that i want a new car. one way i could do this would be to kill my mother, collect life insurance, and run off with the money without helping out my family. then i might have enough for a new car. the end might be said to justify the means, but in this case, when i say “the end”, i mean me with a new car, but without a mom or a family or any friends, and no place to live. so “the means” have to be considered when evaluating “the end”.
boy i hope that makes sense.
Indeed. Especially considering that the CA constution can be amended by simple majority vote from a voter initiative–See Article 18, section 3 as linked.
Prop 22–which was not an amendment to the constitution–passed in 2000 with 61% of the vote, because of the concern that other states would enact same-sex marriage laws. Prop 22 was intended to make that irrelevant. I suspect a CA constitutional amendment would pass now (though with a smaller margin).
Well, I still don’t understand, but don’t worry about it…
BTW, I didn’t mean to imply that I never think the end justifies the means, only that I don’t accept that as generally being true, and definitely not in this case. People aren’t dying (or even being denied even a small part of their livelihood) to warrent such a flagrant disregard of a law that was so recently and so resoundingly passed the people of the state of CA.