Gay marriage is a threat to the “social order.” :rolleyes:
Well, my papers are in order - does that make it okay? :mad:
Dude, I think that a little more effort in fleshing out your Pit threads is in order…
Nice comment there. Wonder what your reaction would be if someone would have asked you about your “gay-sounding voice”?
You don’t read the news?
And yo, Ilsa, it’s the Pit - when you are upset about something, you aren’t going to flesh things out like in GD.
I knew what you were talking about, I just thought that this was a lame pitting. Even lamer than some of mine.
LOL
I suppose you’re right. A cheap shot which was too easy. LOL.
sigh. I’m just too damn nice. 
I’m as much for gay marriage as probably anybody, but I agree with Arny that granting licenses that are clearly against state law is a “risk to civil order”.
I want gays to be able to marry, but I want the rule of law even more. I think this probably hurts the gay marriage cause more than it helps.
Of course, Arny might mean that gay marriage itself is a “risk to civil order”, which I don’t agree with.
Yes. This is how you Pit someone:
For homework, compose a pitting for something that you do not feel strongly about, just as an exercise.
*In his letter to the Attorney-General, Mr Schwarzenegger said: “Because the city and county of San Francisco’s actions **are directly contrary to state law ** and present an imminent risk to civil order, I hereby direct you to take immediate steps to obtain a definitive judicial resolution of this controversy.” *
So Arnie is saying that the risk to order is a city official violating state law. And he’s telling the Attorney General to get judicial resolution – not to “stop these gay marriages from ever happening” – sound to me like he’s being pretty sensible here. Basically saying that it needs to be resolved whether the state law prevents what the mayor is doing, and more than likely, whether the state law is constitional in the first place.
Some Nazi, that Arnold. Telling government officials they must enforce laws passed by the majority of the citizens…
This is in fact the correct pronunciation of “MPSIMS.”
Don’t you just love the response the Governator got back from the Attorney General’s office?
“The governor cannot direct the Attorney General.” said Hallye Jordan(Spokeswoman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer), “he can direct the highway patrol. He can direct Terminator 4. But he can’t tell the attorney general what to do.”
I don’t really love her response, no. I think it’s because Ms. Jordan appears to be a partisan moron who ought to be booted to the street so hard she bounces.
In the U.S., as head of the executive branch, the Governor is really the state’s chief law enforcement officer. It is ultimately his or her responsibility to see that the laws are faithfully executed.
In this constitutional scheme, the attorney general is, in effect, the Governor’s lawyer. In other words, you bet the Governor can, within the limits of the law, tell the Attorney General what to do, just like any client can give directions to his attorney.
Ms. Jordan seems to have the hazy idea that this is some sort of separation of powers issue. It’s not – both the Governor and the Attorney General are members of the executive branch and the Governor’s in charge. Bill Lockyer is not his own client.
Nisobar, you’re zero for two with these threads lately. Lots of reasonable people strongly object to what’s going on in SF and it’s got nothing to do with their feelings about gay marriage. What’s going on there is quite simply wrong and Schwarzenegger is right to want it stopped. There are ways to go about these things and that’s not it. The rule of law is too important. Indeed, it’s much more important than any one issue, no matter how strongly you personally might feel about it.
At a bare minimum, it’s going to cause immense confusion and chaos if and when these things are declared invalid. San Francisco should have done what it ultimately did, which was file a lawsuit.
The Nazi thing is also completely out of bounds. You ought to apologize.
Isn’t the law against gay marriage injust though? It infringes on the rights of same sexed couples. How can this be a law worthy of following?
I understand what some of you are saying, especially since it is equally possible that a county in Vermont could say that gay marriage is now illegal, but worshipping the “rule of law” no matter what isn’t going to do gay marriage proponents any good.
Would it do any good?
Arnie is doing the right thing, though it’s not clear that he DOES have direct authority over the AG in Cali: I just don’t know enough about their constitution to say.
I would be a little more defensive of Arnold, however, if he hadn’t laughingly and smilingly made the announcement in front a cheering crowd who’s interests likely go a bit beyond mere concern about civil order and the respect for law.
Up to a point, my lord. Civil disobedience as a protest tactic has a long and honorable history, from Thoreau serving a night in jail because he refused to pay his poll tax as a protest against the Mexican War to the suffragettes chaining themselves to the railings of the White House fence to demonstrate their resolve to win the right to vote. The only difference in this instance is that the civil disobedience has the backing of the city of San Francisco. The entire purpose of civil disobedience is to use moral authority to provoke a response from the oppressor; the gay couples getting married have been entirely succesful in getting this subject raised in the national consciousness.
A parallel to this scenario was the reaction of Northern cities in defying the Fugitve Slave Act of 1850. Entire municipalities defied this Federal law and refused to assist the legal owners of runaway slaves in recapturing their property. If it was morally right to disobey an unjust law then, explain why it’s so wrong now.
Doesn’t civil disobedience usually involve, well citizens? In this case, it was a government official, charged with a duty to, when acting in his capacity as a holder of public office, to uphold the law.
Now, I appreciate his point that he is torn by two duties: to act as he believes the equal protection clause demands AND to uphold the “dicks in chicks” law. But nevertheless, his disobedience is not civil: it’s governmental.
I’m waiting for him to send in the troops to stop the marriages, so when i participate in the riots, i can truely say i Raged Against the Machine! (cuz he’s a cyborg and all)
Funny how people are anti arnie because hes a body builder
Coming from a heavy gym buff, it takes DRIVE and PERSEVERANCE to do what he does/did.
You guys are insane if you dont want those qualities in a politician.
Not according to what I read in the California Constitution:
What about the people getting married? They are the “citizens” that are involved in the civil disobedience. The mayor of San Francisco is also a citizen as well.