I agree the argument against gays getting the same privlidges is extremely weak.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
does not appear to be true (at least based on the analysis referenced above) since:
Certainly things that would be handled by “administrative agencies”.
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.
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…)
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.
). It’s certainly not a principle unique to the United States - it’s shared with almost all of the common law countries.