I’ve got to add a “me too.”
Events such as this make me particularly proud to be an American. We’re living up to the Founders’ dreams!
when i heard about Portland from the TV tonight i thought cool…thats news great
news
i know my parrents don’t approve of SSM since when the thing started in SF and one
of them bigots was on the news going on about the need for that b–ch musgrave’s
hate amendment i said to the tv “let those people marry” “and quit making such a
big deal of it” my mom then said something like “just don’t call it a marriage”. after
that i said they shouldn’t make such a big deal of it & walked away
i just can’t see any reason to prevent them from marrying…
…so adding to what the OP said ‘‘Open the floodgates’’… let the marriages begin!!
anyone care to take a guess what do you think will be the next city/county/state
to start doing SSM’s?
I just heard on the news the courthouse issued 422 licenses today.
I don’t recall the amount issued in San Francisco the first day but it was around 160-180.
People are driving in from all over to get married. I saw several interviews on the news with people that drove 4-5 hours to get here.
All I can say is HELL YEAH! This is so cool.
Yeah, just like we remember Rosa Parks as that woman that set back the black civil rights movement by being all uppity on a bus.
If something’s unjust, you don’t just roll over and take it because you’re scared people might get upset. You go out there and challenge it. Good for you, America. This is the sort of thing that made - and continues to make - your nation great. Countries like yourself and Canada aren’t only effecting change within your own nations; you’re having a wordwide impact.
I’m just wondering what this will do for Bush’s legacy. When gay marriage becomes everyday (and we can now see that it will happen*) he’ll be remembered as the President that wanted to bring in a constitutional amendment to deny people their civil rights, as well as presiding over a terrible economy and taking his country to a damn fool war. That’s a pretty nasty trifecta.
This makes me think it’s not gonna happen here any time soon. On the other hand, that’s just Detroit. There’s nothing to stop another city from deciding to fight the law. Ann Arbor, maybe?
(Sidenote - Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow has said she’s going to vote against the proposed Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. Go, Debbie!)
Can anyone point me to a site where I can find newspaper reactions from 1958, when California made it legal for couples who weren’t of the same race (sic) to marry? I’m curious about (1) How the decision as reached; and (2) What the public response was. Thanks.
Yay! Bouncing up and down in my seat and applauding like an idiot over here!
Suzene
Yah shure, you betcha!
And up here in Minnesota, with all our swedes & norwegians, the new bunch of Ole & Sven jokes are already starting to make the rounds!
You’re attributing more to what I said then I intended. I’m all for protesting this. I just question the wisdom of making it a major issue at this particular moment, when we’re on the eve of a presidential election featuring a relatively popular incumbent social ultra-conservative who would love to have an issue like this to energize his fascist religious-right supporters to get out the vote.
Protest away, just wait a few months. 
Except he’s not really that popular at the moment (lowest approval ratings ever, loses to Kerry-Edwards ticket in every major poll, etc.) and he’s staking a position regarding the proposed Constitutional amendment that’s at odds with the majority of the country. He panders to the base and loses the middle. SSM is simply not an important enough issue to the vast majority of the American people that Bush is going to see much gain.
You must pass some along! I need them for after church on Sunday (liberal Norskie church, don’tcha know).
try a google search of '+1958 +California +“interracial marriage” ’
Joining in the happy dance!!!
I suspect I’ll get yelled down, but here goes anyways…
You don’t get to ignore the laws you don’t like. You file a suit, you appear before the appropriate judges and you sort it out. You lobby your state legislators, you lobby your Congresspeople and your Senators and you get the laws changed. (And the Civil rights act is the very best proof that that DOES work.) But you don’t wake up one day as Town Council leader or Mayor and throw the laws you don’t like out on a whim.
Elected officials have a clear and constant duty to uphold the law and abide by it, no matter how much they disagree with it. It is NOT up to the Executive branch of ANY local gov’t to do the legislative or judicial branches jobs, and worse, to ignore them and make up their own laws as they go along.
Here’s a worst case scenario. GWB, because of what he believes to be right does exactly what the Mayor of SF is doing because he believes he is right. He ignores the current legal and judicial system and orders all Homosexuals rounded up and held in prison. Oh, but the law doesn’t allow for that!
Well, the law doesn’t currently allow for homosexual marriages in CA or any of it’s incorporated towns, cities, or counties either! Doesn’t seem to be stopping the Mayor in SF though, does it?
That’s the real problem here. The Executive of a locality simply has no business ignoring or deliberately breaking the laws he/she doesn’t like. Frankly, they ought to charge him with multiple counts (one for each license issued) of criminal malfeasance and misusue of office. It’s a very serious breach of the seperation of powers and it ought to be treated that way.
Regardless of how you feel about all this, you have to consider one other factor. Blowback. The fact is, that these actions make the passing of a Constitutional Amendment more likely. I’ve said elsewhere that I didn’t believe such an Amendment would pass. OTOH, more and more middle of the road Senators are getting angrier about various Mayors and localities simply ignoring state laws, and that’s NOT good. It could easily become a Federal Gov’t versus Activist Mayors issue, and that COULD drive a national amendment onto the ballot.
You win these fights in the courts. You do NOT win them by pushing the Federal Government into a corner. It’s as true for these states and localities as it was for the south during segregation. It’s entirely possible that because of their actions the consequences may be the exact opposite of what they desire to occur. The rule of law MUST trump any local decision making or this could spin out of control. I mean, really, what IS to stop various other CONSERVATIVE Mayors from imposing THEIR views on the citizenry regardless of the law?
Well?
That question ought to make all of us a bit uncomfortable, because the only answer is… nothing.
That’s why what is happening now is a bad idea. It’s shortsighted and could well cause them to LOSE in a FAR more permanent way gains they have made in the last fifty years. It may also galvanize Conservative Mayors to Outlaw Abortions, or Affirmative Action, or require all Homosexuals to Register with the Police, or Require all African-Americans to provide DNA samples. Or, they might start handing out Concealed Weapon Permits to anyone who wants one or throwing out anything else they disagree with. Not such a keen idea when the coin is flipped to the other side, is it.
Look, I want Gay couples to have the same legal rights as hetero couples. But I want them to get those rights in a legal way through the system the way that any other group has to do it. Because there will be compromise, and neither side will be 100% happy with it, and it’s a fairer, more balanced solution that reflects the will of the people as a whole, and not just one side. Just as importantly, once passed it has the full force of the law behind it.
We are a nation of laws. And we should remain one.
I know some folks are probably frothing at the mouth about now, that someone disagree’s with their getting married. Thing is, as I said above, I don’t. But I have a real problem with the idea of any executive authority in the Gov’t just making shit up as they go along. It’s a bad idea. A really bad idea. Because it leads to gov’t by executive fiat. The probability of abuse increases as time passes. This IS an abuse of his power as Mayor. And just because you get what you want today doesn’t mean it won’t come back to bite you in the ass tomorrow. It almost certainly will.
Sigh… okay I’ll put on my flame retardent suit now…
Regards,
-Bouncer-
Actually, I thought it was a pretty even-keeled, well-written post that made me consider the issue from another angle, Bouncer.
Uhh, man? This is how change happens in this country. Read an American History textbook and 9 out of 10 major legal decisions (from a historical sense, not neccessarily a legal one) were not lawsuits. They were some person getting arrested for breaking an unjust law.
Valid point, Bouncer, but I don’t think this is a simple case of an executive fiat. As schlepbordnik noted earlier, Oregon law is written in such a way as to allow for this interpretation. Also, according to an article I read today in the Portland Tribune (http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=23378), the council members sought the opinion of a lawyer before handing down the decision.
I’m not saying there weren’t procedural irregularities, because there were. But this is not a simple case of “ignoring the laws you don’t like.”
And I still think it was the right thing to do. Whether it was legal is perhaps debatable, but legal does not always equal right.
Blowback? Winning in court? You mean like the blowback of a federal DOMA and 38 state DOMAs (with three more on the way) in response to court victories in Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont and Massachusetts? Is that the sort of blowback you’re talking about? Because the back’s already been blown on this one. The federal government isn’t backed into any corner here.
First, thanks for the polite replies.
Second, I was refering specifically to an Amendment to the Constitution. While I still think it unlikely, I think it more likely than I used to. I think this because of the number of Activist Mayors defying their own state legislatures and Representatives and Senators in Congress and, in at least some cases, apparently violating the law over and over again. That’s not going to be without consequence. And the consequence could, in fact, be a Constitutional Amendment.
You realize, of course, that should an Amendment actually pass then that’s the whole ball game. Not only does it re-inforce the 38-41 state DOMAs, but it also effectively repeals the rulings in the four or five states (Didn’t you forget New Mexico or did I misread something?) that are recognizing these couples. Because at that point the SC’s hands are tied, and you’re left trying to get a Constitutional Amendment repealed. Which may be even harder than getting an Amendment created in the first place! If you thought you had an uphill battle before…
That’s what I meant by blowback.
As I said in my original post, I am not against gay couples recieving the legal benefits they are entitled to. I am very concerned about the violation of seperation of powers, and I am concerned that they may enjoy a short lived victory which gets torn down by some draconian response. To be honest, I’m mostly concerned about the seperation of powers issue, because I can damn well guess that the Conservative mayors are going to seize the opportunity to govern by fiat as well.
So much for Roe V Wade in Houston.
See what I mean? This sort of behavior by elected officials really does tear at the very fabric of our society because the potential for abuse “because I, Mayor Quimby, believe it’s the right thing to do” is very very real. I think it’s more a matter of when and where, rather than if. That is why I think that in order for Gay couples to get the rights they deserve, they need to stop acting as if ignoring the existing law they disagree with were the solution to the problem. It’s not and it never will be.
On another related point, I’m unsure about what tangible benefits these couples are seeing. Seriously. Are CA medical insurance companies obliged to respect a Activist Mayoral decision from SF when it flies in the face of what the Governor has said? I’m not taking sides, but if I were a CA Ins Co. lawyer I’d be taking a very wait-and-see approach and denying every claim for spousal benefits until such time as there’s some law codified one way or the other. This is another reason I think the gay couples need to work more substantively to get the actual laws changed rather than just pretend the laws don’t exist. They may have a piece of paper, but I’m dubious (please enlighten me if you know more about this) as to what actual legal benefit there is when the issuance of the paper itself may be in violation of state law.
Which leads yet inevitably back to why we are and should remain a nation of laws, and why the gays should work to change the laws, rather than simply contravening them.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
Wasn’t civil disobedience a big factor in the Civil Rights movement of the '60s? If these mayors are suffering the consequences for their actions (as the one New York mayor is threatened with), then is there much danger of rule by executive fiat? If he gets kicked out of office, that hardly encourages other mayors to do the same type of thing, no? If they violate the law even while expecting and accepting punishment in order to promote social change, that is a true act of courage which I can only respect. Yes, opposing mayors may engage in other self-sacrificial behavior to imprison homosexuals (or whatever), but they would still have to accept the consequences. If they think it’s worth the sacrifice, so be it, even if I abhor what they stand for. They’re not breaking the system, but accepting martyrdom in order to change it. If they touch enough hearts and minds that it does change the system, they will be redeemed; if not, they fry (so to speak), but that is the risk they take. I don’t really see a problem with all that.