Same-Sex Marriage in the Wild West

Remove all ads!

I don't know who has been following the controversy in California. Almost a week ago, the City of San Francisco started granting marriages for same-sex couples, which is in clear violation of California Law.



Currently the California Constitution contains an Amendment that bans same-sex marriages. In California the people have the right to modify the Constitution by vote - without going through the Assembly or Senate. This exactly happened a few years ago.

What the City of San Francisco is doing is rather clever.

By issuing marriage certificates in violation of the California Constitution, the issue will forced to be heard by the California Supreme Court.

I'm not sure of the details of the process of the California Supreme Court, but from what I have read, the Supreme Court has the authority to clarify places where Amendments are in conflict.

By doing this, same-sex marriage may become legal in California and set a precident nation-wide.

Naturally, conservatives outside California are not pleased. However, without adding an anti same-sex amendment to the Federal Constitution (which must be radified by the member states), the Feds have no authority.

... but, here's the good part. Since the Federal Bill of Rights (the 10th Amendment in particular) takes precendence, if the issue is pressed outside of California, the U.S. Supreme Court could make it legal within all member states.

On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot ban it nationwide - you have to love the 10th Amendment!

Things can be very entertaining in California!

Here's a link: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/17/samesex.marriage/index.html

[ February 18, 2004, 10:31: Message edited by: Blackhawk ]

 

Or, if people want to avoid all of that political hub-bub, they could just go up a few states and cross the border into BC, Canada, where it doesn't matter whether your soon-to-be is man or woman, as long as they ain't family.

-EDIT- BTW, kudos Califorians for forcing the man to adjust to the 2Ks.

 

First, let me express my deepest contempt for the rhetoric placing equals sign between gay marriage and progress, or between whatever the liberals or greens or pinks come up with and the quality of being fit for present era.

I resent that, I oppose that, I contempt that. That is not only a fallacy and a blatantly unfair one, that's a sign of fanatical zeal replacing common sense and ideology replacing reason.

I don't even think about forbidding people to think that way (hint), but it so happens that I don't share their point of view. In so far as I can recall, tolerance relies on not forcing your views as objective truth or objective standards on those who have different views. And it's tolerance of what gay rights people have full mouth.

Having made my points crystal clear on procedural issues, let me please move on to the meritum.

I must say I'm not impressed with the bold actions of San Francisco City. It is against all principles of the rule of law when an authority acts oppositely to the law of the land that people of the land have laid down. Most notably it does great harm to certainty of law, equality under law and the division between legislative, excutive and judicial authority. There's no place for such actions in a civilised country. Whoever of the authorities has been engaged in conducting those should be prosecuted as the law prescribes. Even if gay marriages are to be made legal and the people involved allowed to marry again and legally, all marriages conducted theretofore should be declared null and void. Even if they're going to be conducted lawfully the very next minute.

 

@ cheveliar: may i know how you become a news staff. Better if you could PM me. so as not to disrupt the thread.

Anyways, i am against the idea of same sex marriages. It is just not natural.

 

My question is simply this: If California had a law that banned same-sex marriage - or some similar law stating that marriage was only between a man and a woman - how can the City of San Francisco marry gay couples? I mean, I suppose you could have the ceremony and all, but if the state law says that gays can't marry, then it stands to reason that their marriages aren't going to be accepted or acknowledged by the state, meaning that they are going to get none of the benefits of being married that married couples get. Is this a safe assumption? I mean, what are we seeing here? Is this a harbinger of change, or a dog and pony show?

 

Its more than just law, its an amendment in California Constitution. The City of San Francisco is committing an act of civil disobedience.

The City has also stated that no matter the outcome, they will give FULL benefits to gay couples and will still refer to them as married.

 

Well I may be out of my league here but...

It would seem to me that gay marriage really isn't hurting anybody, nor is it infringing on anybody's rights, so why exactly should it be illegal? The time, they are a changin', and homosexuality is now an accepted part of society, and as such should they not be afforded the same rights as other individuals.

To me a comparisson is women's right to vote, back in the day people saw no reason for women to vote, it was a priviledge of being a man, that was changed and then bedlam... or not. It's no big deal, as it stands the constitution is outdated, someone had to do something.

I say way to go San Francisco!

 

Please, let's not turn this into the right/wrong of gay marriage; there's already a six page thread for that.

It's actually an impressive display of bureaucrats being bureaucrats. The courts delayed hearings on injunctions from two conservative groups due to procedural errors in the filings. Meanwhile the state has rejected the marriage certificates as invalid since they've been altered. Instead of Bride and Groom, SF has modified them to Applicant 1 and Applicant 2.

I drove by SF City Hall over the weekend, and there was a line around the block. Last report I heard this morning, they've already married 2500 couples.

 

Yes, I'm sure there are no conservative gays.

 

OK, but it still doesn't resolve what the state is going to do. Just because San Francisco says it's going to treat the couples as married, the only thing that's going to affect is their local tax return. It in no way obligates the state to follow San Francisco's lead and give them the same rights as traditional couples get.

Given the fact that nearly every conservative in Congress has sought to curtail gay rights, while it would be naive to say there aren't ANY conservative gays, I seriously doubt there are many. For most gays their political allegiances are based on self-preservation.

 

I doubt the assumption that sexual orientation goes hand in hand with political orientation. While I guess (guess), that it would be in many areas of the USA and in many other countries a faux-pas generally and particluarly if one is in a conservative leaning party, to be openly homosexual (or agnostic for that matter), it doesn't mean that parties and even so conservative parties aren't filled with a high quota of homosexuals. Especially if one has to deal with the burdensome restctrictions of a two-party system, where one's personal political priorites and preferences and the choices aviable aren't congruent to a satisfiying degree anyway.

Now, self-preservation, I think if someone is homosexual in the US and conservative and wants to preserve onself and still be conservative, just moves to an urban area ?

 

Magistrates are authority. Authority is hardly capable of civil disobedience. I mean, not this playground. Sort of. They're on the authority side.

 

As I said, I'm sure there are Conservative gays. And I'm sure there's some Bible-thumping straight-laced corporate cash kings that are liberal in their approach. I'm just saying that the majority of gays cannot possibly favor a party that is actively working against them. It would be the equivalent of me favoring a party that tended to restrict the rights of white, straight, Italian-Americans (not that any such party exists to my knowledge). While it would be perfectly legal to support such a party, why would I throw my support to a party that clearly is working against my self-interest?

 

Huh. That's funny Aldeth...for some reason I always thought you were a Mick. Oh well.

Sorry...back to your regularly scheduled soapboxing (of which I'm glady staying out of this time around. )

 

@DR

Me a Mick? Fuhgedaboudit!

No, in fact, I'm only a second generation American. All my grandparents are from "old country" so to speak. I also trace my roots back to Czeckoslovakia, but not Ireland.

 

Don't know. Because your in a two-party system and wouldn't have that much choice in the first place. Still, I don't know how much republicans are actually working against the interest of gay people and that would be pretty important to determine how much adverse effect that possibly would produce.

Then, why would a gay person become a party-leader of right-wing-conservative party ? I don't know, my guess is, it's the attractivity of uniforms on traditional festivals. My further guess is, the more homosexuality becomes normal, the more openly gay will be found in conservative parties, where they were all of the time, just not open.

Or why would women vote for a party or be in a party or become even figure-heads of a party which holds traditional views on the role of women in society. A role a big part of the women who represent them and vote for them don't fit in. Why ? I do not know. But they do. The case I think about, quickly pointed out that the same party holds also views she much supports and that's why she joined, ignoring the sour apple, as this apple is too small too care about anyway, with more pressing issues that wait, like a making conservative politics in other areas, like immagration and fiscal policies.

 

Look no further than Mr. Bush. He is an ardent opponent of gay marriages. I think if your gay, and you wish to get married, and nearly all republicans are against gay marriage (or even civil unions for that matter) the party as a whole isn't working in your best interest.

For example? I don't know of any. Like you said they could be in the closet, but like I said, why would they in the first place? All of the republican party leaders are married - to women - which at least would suggest they aren't gay.

I do agree with this. Once it becomes "OK to be gay", and the public is comfortable with it, then absolutely. But then, chances are, the republicans would not be as opposed to gay marriage as they are now, so my reason for thinking gay wouldn't favor the conservatives would also no longer exist.

For example? I don't know anyone under the age of 50 who still holds the view that women belong in the home, or deserve less rights then men, or any other "traditional views" on the role of women.

Perhaps I am saying things things because I'm speaking only of the politics in the U.S. If you are using examples from beyong the U.S., I admit I know nothing of the political going-ons in other countries.

 

An interesting character in American politics was a man by the name of Ray Cone. He was the behind the scenes "executioner" during the Macarthy hearings on American communism. Ray Cone was an ultra-conservative political figure who was also very light on his feet. He was known to have lavish homosexual parties and unfortunetly, he died of the gay hangover. In his politics he was actually against homosexual equal rights and has generally been regarded by history as a rather evil individual. He was portrayed in a couple films as a man hungry for power willing to betray or destroy friends and colleagues while subverting the law to serve himself and his party.

 

There are, of course, the Log Cabin Republicans. And, Andrew Sullivan may not be a gay Republican leader but he is certainly an extremely influential conservative voice commonly listened to by Republicans.

It should be increasingly LESS surprising when gay people tend toward being Republican. The reason is that the parties move closer together while the public starts to toe the party line less and less. For example, Californians can tend toward fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. Giuliani in New York is a Republican but would be a liberal democrat in the South. The distinctions are blurring in many respects and thus a gay person feeling that a Republican party more closely aligns with most of his or her political beliefs should hardly be shocking.

I am concerned with the belief that doing so is somehow a betrayal.

Check out Andrew Sullivan for an openly gay man with great influence on the Republicans. His blog is widely quoted, he was an editor for a prominent 'conservative' magazine, and he continues to write for the WSJ, WaPo, NYTimes, LATimes etc.

 

@ LNT

Really? I didn't know that. Quite a dichotomy of views if that is in fact true. However, think about it: In this case, even if this man was gay, in this particular instance he was greatly benefiting from the Republican party, so it can be accurately said, that the party WAS working in his best interest. He was getting something out of it (no pun intended).

Yes, I'm sure there are conservative gays, and even conservative politicians who are gay. However, in most of these cases there is some personal interest and self-benefit from doing it. To the average American, the only thing that matters is how the politicians vote, and if a party tends to vote against issues that are important to you, it's difficult to support them. Anyway, I have to end the rant at this point simply because we're getting way