# Law says, "Blacks can't ride in front"; should City enforce that law? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 6, 2004, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863 "2004-03-06T17:05:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2004, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863/21 "2004-03-07T05:04:54Z")
> [@madonnaman](#): > > The joining of a woman and a woman (or a man and a man) that love each other in order to form the nucleus of a family seems fairly common these days. So even if this “family nucleus” theory of why we have civil marriage is correct (in my opinion, civil marriage serves primarily to grant to otherwise unrelated individuals who decide to live together as a couple legal rights and responsibilities towards each other and between the couple and the state), same-sex couples ought not to be excluded from the equation. I agree the argument against gays getting the same privlidges is extremely weak. > [@](#): > > And the reason why so many people feel this way? Irrational animus and the enforcement of a particular brand of morality. Neither of which standing alone are a legitimate governmental interest that could justify an otherwise unconstitutional discriminatory law. A discriminatory law is not nessecarily an unconstitutional law. For example the drinking age discriminates agianst legal adults on the sole base of age. > [@](#): > > But doesn’t this line of reasoning abridge the right of a particular state to protect its citizens equally? What if 99% of the citizens in state A want full marriage equality–shouldn’t state A be able to grant equal marriage rights to its _own_ citizens regardless of what people in states B, C and D think? Yes absolutely. I personally would not support this law becuase it would force states B,C and D to recognize gay marriage even if 99% of those states are against it but state A is well within their rights to do so. > [@](#): > > Back before _Loving v. Virginia_, couldn’t the same argument have been made that no state should recognize interracial marriages because some states (Alabama, Mississippi, etc.) would not want to recognize them? Yes it could have. However it is against the constition to discriminate on basis of race. Giving privlidges to straight married couples and not giving them to homosexual couples does not violate the constitution. > [@](#): > > To answer the OP more directly, I think that some laws are so hideous, so blatantly composed of nothing but irrationality and animus, so unjust in their application, so clearly unconstitutional that they could not be enforced in good faith. So, no, I don’t think a city should enforce a “Blacks can’t ride in front” law any more than they should enforce a “Gays can’t marry the people they love” law. And yes, that may mean that the city would be engaging in civil disobedience. Civil disobedience, when used for the right reasons, can be a powerful tool for change. And, in some cases, it’s simply the only right thing to do. Our whole government is based on the executive branch enforcing the laws duly passed by the legislature. If a official refuses to enforce any law that official should be replaced immediately with one who will. The only acceptable way to get a law struck down is through the courts. In this case the executive branch also has a duty to vigorously defend the law. ---
**Author:** ![nisosbar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c37758/32.png) [@nisosbar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nisosbar)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2004, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863/22 "2004-03-07T13:20:39Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Giving privlidges to straight married couples and not giving them to homosexual couples does not violate the constitution. Yes, it does, since in one situation, the government is saying, a woman may confer to a man rights associated with marriage through entering a contract with him, but that same woman may not confer those same rights to a woman. I guess the term is _stare decisis_ - the history of how courts have ruled about these matters. Using _stare decisis_, which effectively makes gender discrimination unconstitutional, it can be persuasively argued that this type of discrimination is indeed unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2004, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863/23 "2004-03-07T15:01:59Z")
> [@](#): > > originally posted by **treis** > In my opinion marriage is a joining of a man and a woman that love each other in order to form the nucleus of a family. In my opinion the key part of this is the forming of a nucleus of a family. Well then, in your opininon, should a 80 y.o man be allowed to marry an 80 y.o. woman? > [@](#): > > originally posted by **treis** > A discriminatory law is not nessecarily an unconstitutional law. For example the drinking age discriminates agianst legal adults on the sole base of age. Yes, there is such a thing as legal discrimination, but discriminating against sex is not an example of that. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2004, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863/24 "2004-03-07T15:35:58Z")
> [@nisosbar](#): > > I mean, Newsom faced an analogous situation, IMO. Your opinion is at variance with reality. The US Supreme Court has ruled ALL such laws unconstitutional. Which California court has ruled the California restriction unconstitutional? Why do people love dictatorial executive officers when those officers’ dogmas happen to agree with their own? ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2004, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863/25 "2004-03-07T15:37:39Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Oh, ok, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about if a law like that was passed now. > > Yes, I think the mayor should enforce that law. He would not be able to, because _CURRENT SUPREME COURT RULINGS ALREADY EXIST_ that make such “bus seating by race” laws unconstitutional. Point out the SPECIFIC California or US Supreme Court ruling that says anything at all about California’s current marriage law. Cite the case. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2004, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863/26 "2004-03-07T16:51:52Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > \*\*Physically \*\* seperate. Not at all the same thing. The analogy fails! That is the weakest… **John** , your argument here was clearly that homosexuals have a **seperate** means to the **same** end. Physically seperate, legally seperate, why does that really create a point of contention for you? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2004, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863/27 "2004-03-07T16:55:00Z")
> [@Dogface](#): > > He would not be able to, because _CURRENT SUPREME COURT RULINGS ALREADY EXIST_ that make such “bus seating by race” laws unconstitutional. Right, I know, and if you’ll check, in my first two posts, I pointed out both Supreme Court rulings and federal law that made bus seating by race laws unconstitutional. But, in subsequent messages, the OP tried to clarify his original post, asking if segregationist bus seating should be enforced if no such court decisions or federal laws prohibiting it existed. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863/28 "2004-03-08T16:49:48Z")
I again refer those interested to Article III, section 3.5 of the California Constitution, since no one seems to be acknowledging its existence. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863/29 "2004-03-08T17:46:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Article III, section 3.5 of the California Constitution says that an “administrative agency has no power to refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of its being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional.” > The constitution itself says that when an agency thinks that a statute violates the constitution, the agency must obey the statute until the courts have resolved the issue. > > - Rick Did you read the whole thing, Rick? > [@](#): > > SEC. 3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative > agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no > power: > (a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a > statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an > appellate court has made a determination that such statute is > unconstitutional; > (b) To declare a statute unconstitutional; > (c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a > statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit > the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a > determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by > federal law or federal regulations. So it’s your argument that the mayor’s office of San Fancisco is an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute? Care to cite the Article/Clause in the Constitution or the relavant statute? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863/30 "2004-03-08T18:18:46Z")
All this legalese just serves to remind me how pathetically stone age our laws and constitution are with respect to sexuality. Every single legal statement made here could easily have been made with respect to race or gender back in the day. “it’s the law” “it’s not prohibited by the constitution” etc. Back in the times when our laws allowed hideous treatment of others, in ways we are embarassed to recall. This person can’t vote. That person can’t use the ‘white’ bathroom, or water fountain. These two people can’t marry because it’s ‘unnatural’. Just because we’ve caught up with respect to race doesn’t make the two situations different. It all boils down to having human beings denied rights over aspects of their person that mean _ **nothing** _ with respect to their individual humanity. ---
**Author:** ![anonplz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7cd45c/32.png) [@anonplz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anonplz)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863/31 "2004-03-08T20:36:54Z")
**Cheesesteak** , thank you for reading my mind. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863/32 "2004-03-08T21:05:12Z")
> [@grem0517](#): > > Did you read the whole thing, Rick? > > So it’s your argument that the mayor’s office of San Fancisco is an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute? Care to cite the Article/Clause in the Constitution or the relavant statute? Are you seriously contending that the San Francisco clerk’s office responsible for issuing marriage licenses is NOT an administrative agency? The city of San Francisco itself is a creation of the legislature’s exercise of power from the state constitution. Art. 11, Sec 2(a). A city’s agency power to make and to promulgate ordinances derives from the state constitution. Art. 11, Sec 5 (a) _et. seq._. And it’s not “an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute.” It’s “an administrative agency, including including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute.” It applies to any administrative agency in the state. Come on. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863/33 "2004-03-08T21:14:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The constitution itself says that when an agency thinks that a statute violates the constitution, the agency must obey the statute until the courts have resolved the issue. I promise I wasn’t ignoring it. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863/34 "2004-03-08T21:37:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Are you seriously contending that the San Francisco clerk’s office responsible for issuing marriage licenses is NOT an administrative agency? Well, actually, within the confines of applicability of Article III… Maybe, maybe not. I can’t find a definition for the term “administrative agency” as used in the Consitution of California. The term is used only in Article III, Section 3.5 which is (I assume) a section inserted between Section 3 (describing the powers of **state** government) and Section 4 (referencing salaries of **state** elected officials and judges). In fact, Article III is titled “State of California” and references state functions and issues exclusively for all of the rest of the Article. Now, there may certainly be some case law which details that Article III, Section 3.5 is indeed generally applicable and I will search for it. Not being a lawyer, I may not have access to everything you would and would appreciate any cites you might be able to find. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2004, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863/35 "2004-03-08T21:41:19Z")
> [@nisosbar](#): > > If we use the same line of reasoning which people who object to Newsom are using in order to suggest that what he is doing is objectionable, then the answer to my question in the OP is that the laws prohibiting blacks from riding in the front of the bus should be enforced. After all, a law is a law. > > Likewise, those who oppose SSM are supporting bigotry, or at the very least, subscribe to an understanding of California law which represents only one side in the current dispute, not which represents the “correct” point of view. Can you just see George Wallace and Ross Barnett grinning in their graves? I wonder if Mr. Bush would be so kind as to stand in the courthouse door to prevent this dreadful thing from happening. This is so reminiscent of the early '60s as to be frightening. I think most people today are too young to remember what it is like. I got to read about this from afar, being a Yankee. don’t think that some (most?) Southerners back then were just as adamant as some of you. My Mom told me that when she went to Georgia in 1943 to be near my Dad at his army base, she, being a Jewish girl from New York, drank from a colored-only fountain. People looked at her like she had committed some sin against nature. And John - a black person in the back of the bus gets there at almost the same time as a white person in front of it. That’s a lot more equal than a gay partner not being able to visit his or her partner in the hospital, something not covered by contracts. Voyager - still trying to figure out how SSM would hurt my 25 year heterosexual marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863/36 "2004-03-09T21:14:18Z")
While not a court case, I was able to find something that seems to point out the error in my reasoning concerning the application of Article III to San Francisco: [The California Constitution and Same-Sex Marriage](http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20040305.html) See in particular the section “Is San Francisco an “Administrative Agency” Within the Provision’s Meaning?” I do take some pride in noting that the inclusion of this section and the subsequent analysis means that it was a valid question to raise even if I now must consider that the answer is probably “Yes, it does apply and, while honorable, it appears the Mayor’s actions were probably unconstitutional.” However **Bricker** > [@](#): > > It applies to any administrative agency in the state. does not appear to be true (at least based on the analysis referenced above) since: > [@](#): > > It is true that cities in California enjoy some protection under the California Constitution to decide for themselves, free from state control, some matters. But the California Constitution limits these local autonomy realms explicitly to “municipal affairs.” Municipal affairs may include such things as setting salaries for city employees, contracting for city construction projects, taxing local residents, and the like. Certainly things that would be handled by “administrative agencies”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2004, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863/37 "2004-03-10T03:34:03Z")
> [@grem0517](#): > > Certainly things that would be handled by “administrative agencies”. I’m glad we’re on the same page now concerning the mayor’s actions being unconstitutional. I have a rebuttal to the comment concerning administrative agencies, but since it’s not germane to the argument, there’s no need to hash it out here. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2004, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863/38 "2004-03-10T04:56:27Z")
> [@nisosbar](#): > > The point being that he was faced with a dilemma, as a new mayor, to either uphold the CA Constitution faithfully, as he swore to do when he took the oath of office, or else uphold laws which subvert CA’s Constitution, as the laws prohibiting SSM do. Seems to me that you’re assuming the mayor only had these two options and none others. That’s a false conflict. There is at least one other option available: the mayor applies to the court for a ruling that the statute is unconstitutional, and seeks an interim injunction enjoining the bus drivers/city police from enforcing it while the law suit proceeds. He could argue that he has standing to bring the suit for exactly the conflict that you raise: he feels that he is faced with conflicting legal directives; personally believes that his interpretation of the Constitution is correct and the bus law is invalid; but as he has sworn to uphold the law, he does not feel he can simply ignore the bus law. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2004, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863/39 "2004-03-10T05:03:30Z")
> [@nisosbar](#): > > As to laws saying the gays should get married, that’s not how our legal system works. To be simplistic, “if it’s not prohibited, it’s allowed” is how some people characterize law in the US, **as opposed to England, where "if it’s not allowed, it’s prohibited."** Where’d you get that idea from?? The principle of “if it’s not prohibited, it’s allowed” is one of the basic principles of the English common law, which England passed on to its colonies (even the wayward rebellious ones 😃 ). It’s certainly not a principle unique to the United States - it’s shared with almost all of the common law countries. Sheesh. Next, you guys will be claiming to have found the German code machines during WWII and broken the Ultra code (oh, wait…) ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2004, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863/40 "2004-03-10T10:44:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m glad we’re on the same page now concerning the mayor’s actions being unconstitutional. Good thing we don’t need to go through all those pesky court battles to determine if the mayor’s actions are unconstitutional. We’ll reserve that lengthy legal process for the anti-gay-marriage law, the mayor, OTOH, needs to stop _NOW_. Snarkiness aside, am I wrong in seeing a disconnect here? The mayor’s unconstitutional acts need to stop immediately. The legislature’s unconstitutional acts (the law in question) get to go on and on until the courts rule. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-says-blacks-cant-ride-in-front-should-city-enforce-that-law/232863.md?page=3)