What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?

I'm not "attacking pictures," nor am I comparing the pictures to the images of the Civil War and the Iraq war. I'm merely questioning the relevence of those pictures to this debate.

(Regardless, we're not the first to bring up the Civil War; McCartney compared Newsom to Lincoln.)

If this thread were a sanctuary of gay-marriage gushers, no problem. But it's not a thread for gushers: supposedly, this discussion is about the intellectual questions surrounding this controversy, whether marriage should be redefined, whether it's an issue of civil rights or states rights (and it cannot be both), whether Newsom was right to break the law, etc.

So, what does those pictures add to this debate?

"I believe the links were provided to give add commentary to the thread by those who were there. By showing these images and hearing these testimonies, it gives one a better idea of the situation at City Hall--that is to say, it wasn't a croud of political activists angrily seeking to destroy the state constitution with their hatred for everything heterosexual. It was about who have loved each other (in many cases, monogomously for decades) seeking to solemnly promise their lifelong commitment to each other."

So the fact that the pictures show the couples are breaking the law joyfully instead of angrily actually means something?

I doubt it does, since nobody here is suggesting that gay couples are doing this out of anger. And I'm not suggesting that the entire movement's goal is to destroy marriage, but rather that the destruction of the insitution is a likely result regardless of whether that result was desired.

And, I seem to remember seeing a lot of looting on television during the LA Riot. My memory may be fuzzy, but quite a few of the looters seemed quite giddy about the crimes they were committing. Does that joy then justify them breaking the law?

Does the joy now justify Newsom breaking the law?

I doubt it does in either case, and I suspect that there is no real commentary in those pictures: it's merely an attempt to move this debate from the intellectual to the emotional.


So, we've pretty well run the distance of attacks. We've gone from arguing over the actual issue to attacking judges and city officials with whom you don't agree, to attacking the court system as a whole, to attacking pictures.

Odd.

No, it isn't. You're the ones who first celebrated city officials committing crimes, and we're just responding. You're the ones who first introduced photography as if it was relevant, and we're just responding.

Sorry if you think we're wrong to "attack" the idea that city officials should be free to break the law. Sorry if you think we're wrong to "attack" the idea that photography somehow settles an issue of this complexity.

But rather than noting how odd you think it is that we do these things, why don't you explain why we're wrong to do so?

Explain how elected officials should be above the law, and explain how Kodak moments should take precedence over the Constitution.

 

Alright, I'm having a Bad Lupus Day (woke up with a fever when I usually don't run one until at night) and I feel like crap, so I'm not sure how coherent I'm going to be, but I'll try to address some points.

Bubba: You have indicated over and over by your posts that you believe parenthood is the most important reason for marriage, and that society could not survive without parents, and therefore parents are to be treated with some sort of deference that non-parents are not awarded.

I have no problem with the idea that society should take care of children; however, I strongly disagree that allowing homosexuals to marry would keep any heterosexuals who planned to marry and have children from doing so.

And any heterosexuals who are not interested in marrying and having children should not be doing so. Period. Whether homosexuals are allowed to marry or not. It is not in the best interest of the child to be the product of a token marriage.

True enough, condoms would have prevented the increased promiscuity from resulting in the spread of disease, but it is the promiscuity that necessitated the condom to begin with.

And that promiscuity can be traced back to the free love movement of the '60's. That movement did have negative consequences.

Whether or not other people have one partner or 200 is also none of your business. The problem with the times before the "free love movement of the 60s" was that people were so nosy that they actually thought it was up to them to judge what other people did in their bedrooms. They thought someone had died and made them god over everyone else.

That is the problem: there needs to be some promotion of stable environments for children.

Children need to be taken care of, but they are taken care of just as well with a pair of homosexual parents as with a pair of heterosexual ones.

"The government should be concerned," great, but what should the government do?

Remove children from physically and emotionally abusive homes. Allow schools more leeway in taking care of and disciplining the children we are entrusted with eight hours a day--that includes making laws prohibiting the types of frivolous lawsuits put forth by money grubbing parents who are upset because Johnny got an F in Mrs. Smith's class.

I don't know that this is up to the government, but someone should give people a realistic idea of what being a parent is like--to start with, you will not get any sleep the first six months of the child's life. You and your wallet are that child's slave for the next eighteen years. You will, in all likelihood, get little to no appreciation for what you have tried to do. It is not this romantic job where you have this cute little baby who loves you and you live happily ever after. Then maybe people, especially these fifteen-year-old kids, would think twice before having babies. We should also be promoting easy access to birth control and instruction on how to use it, because let's face it--I'm all for promoting abstinence as the only 100 percent foolproof method of avoiding pregnancy, but some people are going to have sex. I'm also in favor of safe, legal abortion during the first trimester. Topic for another thread though.

The vast majority of those pregnancies resulted from heterosexual intercourse.

Heterosexual intercourse and a lack of birth control.

If you have limits on who has reproductive rights, are they really rights?

You're the one who said you wanted to take care of kids. I think making sure they are born to parents who really want them is pretty damn important.

I'm concerned with the possibility that changing the definition of marriage will lead to more illegitimacy.

I don't think anyone is going to decide not to get married just because gay people can. And if they were, they shouldn't marry in the first place.

So some people see sexual gratification as so all-consuming that they refuse to take responsibil

 

Explain how elected officials should be above the law, and explain how Kodak moments should take precedence over the Constitution.

If the mayor truly believes the law is unconstitutional, he is required to break it since the Consitution is higher than the law. If it ends up that he is wrong, then he will be punished. That is the risk he is taking.

 

If the mayor truly believes the law is unconstitutional, he is required to break it since the Consitution is higher than the law. If it ends up that he is wrong, then he will be punished. That is the risk he is taking.

In a nutshell, that's right. Upon his inauguration as Mayor of San Francisco, he swore to uphold the Constitution of the State of California.

Legally, he has done so, as the Constitution states that at no time can any law discriminate against a group so as to create a second class.

Now it's up tot the courts to decide whether he and his administration are correct.

Checks and balances.

 

If the mayor truly believes the law is unconstitutional, he is required to break it since the Consitution is higher than the law. If it ends up that he is wrong, then he will be punished. That is the risk he is taking.

If he believes it is unconstitutional, he does have a right to challenge it.

However, as his actions last Thursday show, he could have done that by having the city sue the state. There was no need to violate the law for him to challenge the law.

You see, the lawsuit that the city filed Thursday was different in character from what you would expect for something involving civil disobedience. With civil disobedience, the case is brough by the accusing party (in this case it would have been brought by the state against the city), and then the entity would defend themself by showing it was unconstitutional.

However, Newsom didn't wait for charges to be filed against him for his "civil disobedience", instead he instigated a suit to challenge the constitutionality of the law. He could have filed that suit without breaking the law in the process.

So, yes, he is required to challenge the law, but his method of challenging it is completely inappropriate. He should have used the means that he had within the system first (i.e. he should have filed the lawsuit first), not gon e for breaking the law from the get-go.

Kimball Kinnison

 

However, Newsom didn't wait for charges to be filed against him for his "civil disobedience", instead he instigated a suit to challenge the constitutionality of the law. He could have filed that suit without breaking the law in the process.

However, if the legislation is unconstitutional, he is not breaking the law, but upholding it by disobeying this legislation.

Note that Superior Court Justice Quidachay denied the action to halt same-sex marriages because.. why? because "the conservative family values group, the Campaign for California Families, had not presented evidence showing that irreparable harm would be caused by allowing the weddings to continue."

Hmmm. no harm.

What does that tell you about the legislation?

 

Ivy, the point we're trying to make is we shouldn't be arguing public policy on the basis of nothing more than photographs.

Of course not. I thought it was sort of an absurd comparison. You said,

I think those pictures ultimately prove one thing about the people there: People become very happy when they get what they want. The people there, they wanted gay marriage, they wanted it badly, and now they're getting it, they're happy!

However, there are those of us here viewing the joy on their faces and these images as a pivotal moment when social prejudices and discrimination have come down. Anyway, I've backed same-sex marriages for as along as I remember, and these images represent more (to me) than a moment in time. They ARE celebrating!

If we're ALL (gay or straight) raised to believe that marriage is the ultimate union between two individuals who love each other, then I feel we ought mean it for everyone.

Small sidetrack:

Fwiffo; I hope you're geting sources other than CNN. There is much, much more to the war than a few jubilant moments. It just wasn't the greatest comparison.

Ivy

*who believes that America has always been about pushing limits and breaking down preconcieved beliefs, not settling for less than we believe we deserve.*

 

Some of you for gay marrage who say 'they are so happy', are you anti war (with Iraq)?

Nope, I'm pro-war.

Neener-neener? ?




Don't leave me.
Don't ignore me.
Don't kill me!

 

Do they prove that those couples were being discriminated against? No, they think they were being discriminated against. They're not exactly unbiased judges in a position to make that determination, are they?


Who is best suited to note and object to discrimination than those being discriminated against? Do you suggest that blacks are just making it up when they complain about racial profiling that still goes on today?

 

The Mayor is excercising a power of his as mayor. He did it. I don't see any law saying what he did was illegal.

If it was illegal, the Mayor will suffer the consequences. The system works!

 

Funny, a person who compares Newsom to Rosa Parks and praises him for civil disobedience doesn't think Newsom did anything that is illegal.

I thought the phrase "civil disobedience" implied that a law was being, you know, disobeyed.

Mr44 explained the illegality on 2/19:

Newsome did break the law, under California and other state's Offical Misconduct statute:

Offical Misconduct:
A public officer or employee commits misconduct when, in his offical capacity, he commits any of the following acts:
(a) Intentionally or recklessly fails to perform any mandatory duty as required by law; or
(b)Knowingly performs an act which he knows he is forbidden to perform; or
(c) Solicits or knowingly accepts for the performance of any act a fee or reward which he knows is not authorized by law.

The penalty for offical misdonduct:

A public officer or employee convicted of violating any provision of this section forfeits his office or employment. In addition, he commits a Class 3 felony.

State law defines the criteria to issue marriage licenses. It is not up to the individual municipalities to interpret law.

Whatever the result, Newsome knew that he was forbidden to issue licenses that are not valid under the law.

Is this debate filled with such dishonesty that we will praise Newsom for breaking a supposed immoral law but, when pressed, we cannot admit that Newsom's actually breaking the law in the process?

McCartney, Newsom's clearly breaking the law.

There have been cases -- from OJ to campaign finance reform -- where it's not at all clear that the system works. Here, one judge didn't stop Newsom because of a semi-colon, and another judge didn't stop him because he didn't see the harm that was being caused, despite the fact that the judge should have ruled on legality, not harm.

Oh, yeah, the system's working quite well.

But beyond that, your missing a point that we keep bringing up. When we asked about parallel circumstances (like a mayor breaking laws he thought violated the right to bear arms, a right that's actually found in the Constitution), you didn't just say the system would work itself out.

You said you would support the system working itself out. You said you would be furious. "Pissed" was how you put it.

Where's the outrage here? Where's the support for Newsom being -- at minimum -- removed from office?

Why can't you at least admit there's an appearance of inconsistency on your part?

 

The Mayor is excercising a power of his as mayor.

C'mon OWM.

You're going to be a lawyer, right? You know that Newsom doesn't have the power to do such a thing and violate State law in this fashion.

Did Justice Moore have that power, too? I think not.

This is clear evidence of the hypocracy on the left when lawbreaking suits their cause.

Example: That's it. I'm going to inform my mayor here in New Orleans that it's perfectly OK to issue concealed weapons permits to anyone and everyone who comes in. Hey, it's in the 2nd Amendment, and I don't believe these laws restricting such are Constitutional.

Homosexuals aren't entitled to marriage, nor do they have the inherent right to marriage. Simple as that.







Ok, here's another example:

For the sake of argument, say I'm a bisexual (I'm not, of course). I want to marry one man and one woman, only one of each. I say I was born this way, and it's unfair if I can't marry how I so choose. It's unfair under the 'equal protection clause' because homosexuals, who say they're born that way as well and are in committed relationships just like I am with my two partners, are covered, so why aren't I? It's discrimination, I tell ya! It's unfair! I was born with attractions to both sexes, and I'm deeply in love with Jane and John and they're deeply in love with me. But, we've been together 15 years! We're a family, right? I am entitled to marry these people whom I've loved for so long, because this is inherently who I am and this is my family. I want benefits for my partners and I, don't you think I deserve them?

 

Hey, you guys against man-man love, what about someone who is bi-gendered? What about a person who has both male and female parts? Who can they marry?

Furthermore, I don't see why you guys are getting so riled up. Judge Moore defied the law, he defied a DIRECT FEDERAL COURT ORDER.

What court order has Newsom defied? What law has Newsom broken? Seriously. I haven't seen any evidence to show that what he did is ILLEGAL.

I'll say it again. The state law only says that marriage licenses between men and women are the only ones that the state will recognize. It does not say that a city cannot grant same-sex marriage licenses.

If the court comes back and says that its illegal, then he has to stop, and if he doesn't stop then, he will be in DIRECT violation of the law, and then the law can punish him.

I am giving the civil disobediance argument to you who are convinced what he is doing is illegal, but I don't personally think he technically broke the letter of the law.

 

What I'm really confused about, and I just want to know the answer to.

What is so wrong about it? The majority of the people I've talked to don't like it because 'it's disgusting', ect. or it's 'morally wrong' for two men or two women to be together. Well, nothing physically that will effect me or you will change. They will still be allowed to kiss, hug, hold hands, have sex, live together, love each other, in public.

Nothing will change that will effect any of our lives, and it will make a lot of people happier. So what hate the idea of it? That's what I could never figure out.

 

I'll say it again. The state law only says that marriage licenses between men and women are the only ones that the state will recognize. It does not say that a city cannot grant same-sex marriage licenses.

Wrong, McCartney, the proposition that passed in 2000 reads thus:

308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

It doesn't say, "the state government will recognize only marriage between a man and a woman."

1. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

2. San Francisco is in California.

3. Therefore, the law applies to San Francisco, such that, legally, "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized" in San Francisco.

4. Therefore, by issuing licenses that are not between a man and a woman, Newsom is issuing invalid licenses.

You don't have a legal leg on which to stand.

 

For Genius and DM:

Wednesday, 18 February, 2004,
Statement from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom:

?Stated simply, my actions are consistent with California?s Constitution, the highest law of our state. There is no ambiguity in our Constitution when it comes to discrimination. It is prohibited.

The oath I took last month directs me to uphold the California Constitution. I am proud to honor my oath of office, defend the state?s Constitution and reject injustice in our city.

I ask the President to meet Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin and discuss with them why they simply want the same rights as a couple of 51 years that my wife and I enjoy today.?
SF gov website

---

Tuesday, 17 February, 2004,
[b]Press Release from Mayor's Office:[/b]

[color=blue][b]Following consultation with San Francisco?s City Attorney Dennis Herrera[/b], Mayor Gavin Newsom announced today that the city would continue issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. The decision came after [b]two[/b] courts declined to stop the city?s actions.

?The issue here is simple: [b]the state?s Constitution does not permit discrimination at all, anywhere[/b]. We are in [b]full compliance with our state?s equal protection clause[/b] prohibiting discrimination in any form. While some may believe that separate and unequal institutions are acceptable, we will oppose intolerance and discrimination every step of the way. San Francisco is a city of tolerance and mutual respect and we will accept nothing less than full civil rights for all our residents,? said Newsom.[/color]
[link=http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/mayor_page.asp?id=22918]SF gov website[/link]
[hr]

Now, a comparison... of sorts.

The actions of former Justice Roy Moore
v.
The actions of Mayor Gavin Newsom.

[b]Moore:[/b]
[ul][li]sought to place his personal beliefs and the beliefs of "the majority" above all others in a place where all are to be treated equally under the Constitution;[/li]
[li]disobeyed the very Constitution he had sworn to uphold by ignoring the First Amendment, which--by previously established precedent--outlines that the government should not and cannot establish (or show preference) to one religion over another;[/li]
[li]disobeyed a higher court's ruling to remove said religious icon;[/li]
[li]disobeyed the same higher court's reiterated warning to remove said icon;[/li]
[li]was removed from the bench for disobeying higher court ruling.[/li]
[li]Public outcry for and against Roy Moore's actions was vocal and highly charged.[/li][/ul]
[b]Newsome[/b]:
[ul][li]In keeping with his promise to uphold and protect the Constitution, sought to eliminate the injustice of discrimintation, as outlined in said state Constitution;[/li]
[li]sought legal advice from city attorney's office prior to and concurrently with action taken;[/li]
[li]continued action after courts declined a 3rd-party request to stay his action;[/li]
[li]continued action after courts declined a 3rd-party request to stay his action a second time, citing no evidence of harm;[/li]
[li]has been advised be city lawyers that he is operating legally within his duties as mayor and within his obligation to protect the Constitution and all residents of San Fransisco.[/li]
[li]Public outcry for and against Gavin Newsom's actions was vocal and highly charged.[/li][/ul]

Another between Nsignificant difference Newsom and Moore is [b]motive[/b]:
Moore sought to advance his own personal preferences above all others'. He is Christian, and "believes" our laws are based on the Christian Bible.

Newsome, on the other hand, sought to advance society by tearing down a wall of discrimination, despite his own personal preferences. He is heterosexual, married, and is Catholic--whose church doctrines forbid gay marriage.
[hr]
[i][color=slateblue]Nothing will change that will effect any of our lives, and it will make a lot of people happier. So what hate the idea of it? That's what I could never figure out.[/i

 

Bubba:

It doesn't say "The mayor may not issue licenses"--it only indicates that the licenses will not be recognized or are not valid.

Hardly a "crime" worth impeachment.

Then again, neither was Clinton getting some nookie in the Oval Office, but that's a topic for another thread.

Cheveyo:

Gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage because marriage is about 1 woman and 1 man because 1 woman and 1 man are the only combination that can biologically bear children even the children aren't all that marriage is about because some people (1 man and 1 woman only) can marry without having cildren and it's perfectly fine because even though they can never have children biologically they still "look" like they can have children which is resally all that matters since that's the only real difference between gays and straight married couples who can't conceive even though marriage isn't really about children.

You stated the other side's logic much better than I could.

*spins around drunkenly, takes another sip of coffee*

 

There have been cases -- from OJ to campaign finance reform -- where it's not at all clear that the system works. Here, one judge didn't stop Newsom because of a semi-colon, and another judge didn't stop him because he didn't see the harm that was being caused, despite the fact that the judge should have ruled on legality, not harm.

Umm, I hate to burst your bubble on this one, but in a civil lawsuit of this type, there has to be proof that the person raising the suit is being irreparably harmed. Since there is no physical, financial, or emotional damage being caused by these marriages, there is no legal grounding for the lawsuit to go forth, let alone cause a stay on the marriages.

 

N.B. - Newsom isn't really Catholic if he's openly sanctioning gay marriage and believes it's right (and supports abortion). At least no more than Kerry, Kennedy, or any other "Catholic" politicians.

You can believe what you want to on those subjects, but you can't pretend that these questions are open for debate if you're a Catholic, and should not represent yourself as such.

 

Newsom isn't really Catholic...

Really? Says who? His priest? His God, perhaps? You?

 

There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Catholics in this nation alone who do not agree with all of the tenets of the Catholic Church, yet they continue to claim that as their church.

 

Cheveyo, you have to follow Catholic doctrine to be Catholic. Newsom isn't following Catholic doctrine, therefore he is not Catholic.

What's so bad about that?

 

If his priest doesn't, he should. Several bishops have spoken out recently about politicians representing themselves as Catholic but openly supporting policies in direct opposition to what the Church teaches. As far as I know, it's not even as though Newsom is "personally opposed" to abortion but supports laws upholding it - he's personally introduced resolutions supporting abortion and talked about supporting it personally. He didn't have gay marriage forced upon him, he looked for ways to make it happen. The Church teaches that Catholic politicians have an obligation not to publically act or be seen to give public support for morally wrong actions.

Catholic doctrine on most questions isn't a "see for yourself what you think and believe" - there are some nonnegotiable things, like the fact that abortion is a grave moral evil and homosexual actions are morally disordered. It no doubt is repulsive to you that anyone could say that a person's actions might make it clear he is not a certain religion, but think about it this way: If a self-professed Muslim went around loudly proclaiming that alcohol was great, everyone should be allowed to drink it, and furthermore Jesus was the Lord and Savior of the world and Mohammed wasn't, would anyone seriously continue to call that person a Muslim? Would other devout Muslims appreciate this guy being trotted out by Western sympathizers saying, "See? This guy's a Muslim and he thinks Jesus and alcohol are great! One person's Islam is as valid as another's!" I don't think so.

Kessel - Some people have studied issues and informed their consciences and sincerely disagree with the Church, which may be okay. Some people haven't really informed their consciences and just flat out disagree without reference to specific Church teaching. But people in public office have special obligations not to knowingly go against the teachings of the Church if they are going to represent themselves as Catholics.

 

One of the things I am very happy about with this whole situation in SF taking place now is that this is an election year.

Democrats do not like this one way or the other. Prominent Democrats like Barney Frank and Barbara Boxer don't want this to happen in an election year, although they support it. What does that tell us?


As this continues we're going to get a number of other states as this spreads like wildfire. It's going to put Democrats on the spot. They're going to have to find a way of dealing with this one way or the other. One of the things you have to understand about gay marriage, aside being just about homosexuality, is that it's liberalism. These are ultra-left-wing liberal extremists that are behind all of this. Whether they be environmentalists or gay activists or animal rights people or the feminists, they're all liberals. So let 'em shine. After all the majority of American's are against this issue. Therefore the majority will definitely consider this a huge campaign issue.

Already we see liberals who have supported gay marriage come out against it due to it being an election year. Why is this? If they support it then support it, but as we all know the liberals don't like the truth about them to be show. A perfect example is Kerry and Dean. Why do you think Dean imploded? It's because he was a liberal in every sense of the word, he wore his liberalism on his sleeve for everyone to see, that is why the liberal higher ups did everything they could to pull the rug out from under him and effectively terminated his campaign.

A county in New Mexico has just said that they are going to begin extending marriage licenses for same-sex couples. This is good, ladies and gentlemen. New Mexico is a battleground state, a tossup state, a state the Republicans will need to win the White House. Democrats will be hustling to New Mexico to try to shut this one down, too. Barney Frank will be on a plane. New Mexico is next in line, and then we'll have Chicago. It's just a matter of time till the democrats and liberals do so much damage to their hopes of winning the coming election and their own party. I actually enjoy sitting back and watching the liberals implode.

 

Cheveyo, you have to follow Catholic doctrine to be Catholic. Newsom isn't following Catholic doctrine, therefore he is not Catholic.

Many Catholics also use birth control. Are they therefor not Catholic?

What's so bad about that?

What's bad is you saying he is not one thing or another when he, himself, defines himself as something by his own beliefs and faith. I didn't know that belonging to a religion was by public vote only.

If his priest doesn't, he should.

Again, says who?