# The terminator wants to terminate gay marriages



## somemama (Sep 25, 2002)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/21/same.sex/index.html


----------



## DreamsInDigital (Sep 18, 2003)

ARGH


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

It is already out of his hands and into the courts.

If he really wanted to move on it, he would have said something earlier. He is only posturing. Alot of fluff.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

ITA applejuice--- you'll notice he finally got around to it at the state's Republican convention







:

But...

Quote:

Thursday, the city filed its own lawsuit, charging that a state law that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman violates California's constitution.
Not *that* is getting it somewhere









Also, you just gotta love the civil disobedience. I don't care if the major is a twerp in real life:

Quote:

Newsom has said his obligation to follow non-discriminatory practices trumps that statute.
Thats correct. Doing what is RIGHT/MORAL *is* more important than doing what is LEGAL







And soon, it will be legal too!


----------



## Ruby (Jan 20, 2004)

I have a problem with an elected official showing total disregard for the law. If we allowed our elected officials not to follow the law because they disagreed with it we would have chaos. I'm not sure whether he did more harm or good for the issue. He'll have people on both sides angry.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Well, I can't imagine anyone is surprised that the sexist repub terminator is against it.







:


----------



## calgal007 (Nov 20, 2001)

Applejuice, have you worked in politics? You got the reason behind Arnie's timing on his "protest" about samesex marriage right away. . .

I used to work in politics and I can smell that kind of thing just as clearly as what comes out of my dear doggies bottom . . .


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Ruby, in light of the lawless behavior in the Oval Office, I think the SF mayor is pretty harmless... no one is being killed.

It still absolutely mystifies me that Ah-nohld is the governor. The repubs (and dems) shouted up and down the wall that Howard Dean wasn't a virile politician b/c of his lack of experience... and CA elected an actor????? With a history of groping women and saying he admired Hitler?

The world has gone mad.

I applaud SF's civil disobedience, and respect for a more perfect union in more ways than one.....


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by IslandMamma_
*Ruby, in light of the lawless behavior in the Oval Office, I think the SF mayor is pretty harmless... no one is being killed.*
IslandMamma - do you really think that 2 wrongs make a right? I'm talking "wrongs" in a legal sense, not in a moral sense. I fully believe that the mayor is enabling the morally right thing to happen. But I've said it before and will say it again - I can't support a government official disregarding the law. It worries me. Next time, it might not be my "side" that it benefits.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

well I've never believed in blind support of any law. I trust my own morality more than anyone elses. I have no problem with civil disobedience. Does that make me an anarchist?? I don't know.

And to just show what a hypocrit I am, I figure that CA deserves what they get in Ahnold after all they voted him in. I'm so thankful I don't live there anymore.


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Good point, Dragonfly. You give me pause.









I need clarification.... what IS the law regarding gay marriage in CA? Was in totally illegal before SF started issuing licenses? Or is he breaking the law after the fact?

Two wrongs don't make a right. But I am somehow comforted by the fact that the SF mayor is comitting an act of civil disobedience; that someone is willing to stand up to the conservative grind. I wish there had been senators that did that as we went to invade Iraq.....

You are right, though Dragonfly. I totally have a double standard here, but I think there's a world of difference between deliberately lying to the public in order to invade a country (oil, oil, oil...) and being absolutely forthright and saying "I believe that discrimination is wrong, and I intend to uphold the constitution as it is written".


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

CA voted in the "defense of marriage act" that defines "marriage" as only between a woman and a man.

AFAIK there hasn't been a constitutional challenge to the law in CA YET.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Arduinna_
*well I've never believed in blind support of any law. I trust my own morality more than anyone elses. I have no problem with civil disobedience. Does that make me an anarchist?? I don't know.

And to just show what a hypocrit I am, I figure that CA deserves what they get in Ahnold after all they voted him in. I'm so thankful I don't live there anymore.*
I should clarify, Arduinna. I think civil disobedience is great - just not by elected or appointed officials who have sworn to uphold the law.

Civil disobedience by the "common" folk can be a brave and effective method of revolution and has been a huge driving force for change.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by IslandMamma_
*I totally have a double standard here, but I think there's a world of difference between deliberately lying to the public in order to invade a country (oil, oil, oil...) and being absolutely forthright and saying "I believe that discrimination is wrong, and I intend to uphold the constitution as it is written".*
I see your point... and I agree that there is a difference. And I would feel much better if the mayor was dismissing the state's constitution in favor of the accepted interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. This would give him fairly solid legal standing and probably still qualify (in a sense) as an act of civil disobedience. But the U.S. Constitution hasn't been interpreted in favor of gay marriage yet. I'm crossing my fingers that it will be. Until then, though, this rubs me the wrong way.


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

... has anyone else noticed that all the govenator is saying about this issue is just really dumb stuff? like, "These same-sex marriage licenses are against the law because they're not between a man and a woman..."

:LOL

i think we need to recall him... :LOL


----------



## Curandera (May 17, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by klothos_
*... has anyone else noticed that all the govenator is saying about this issue is just really dumb stuff? like, "These same-sex marriage licenses are against the law because they're not between a man and a woman..."

:LOL

i think we need to recall him... :LOL*
Gee, if saying really dumb stuff works for the pResident, shouldn't it work for the Govenator?


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

... has anyone else noticed that all the govenator is saying about this issue is just really dumb stuff? like, "These same-sex marriage licenses are against the law because they're not between a man and a woman..."
No offense to ELCA Lutherans here, but...

Arnold is not the only one who does this. When confronted w/gay marraige a few years ago the ELCA said they would not perform them because they were against the law. BUT, they also wouldn't support making them legal







: I like religions like the Roman Catholics--- they just say it straight


----------



## MelKnee (Dec 5, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dragonfly_
*I'm talking "wrongs" in a legal sense, not in a moral sense.
*
It was *illegal* for Rosa Parks to refuse to give her seat to a white man.

Should she have gotten up?


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Ruby_
*I have a problem with an elected official showing total disregard for the law. If we allowed our elected officials not to follow the law because they disagreed with it we would have chaos. I'm not sure whether he did more harm or good for the issue. He'll have people on both sides angry.*
Actually, Prop 22 which defines marriage as between an man and a woman only is a violation of our state law. It's only taken a few years to get this in the courts is all. So he has total regard for the law, the state consitution that says discrimination is illegal.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by MelKnee_
*It was illegal for Rosa Parks to refuse to give her seat to a white man.

Should she have gotten up?*
An excelent point.

When laws are made by the majority about a group in the minority, it never comes out in the minority's favor. So when we have laws that are discriminatory, if we sit around and wait for people to file suit and wait for a system made up of the majority to make a decision in favor of the minority, we'd better not hold our breath. Discriminatory laws were made to be broken.
Lauren


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by MelKnee_
*It was illegal for Rosa Parks to refuse to give her seat to a white man.

Should she have gotten up?*
MelKnee,

Maybe you missed the part where I said I was talking about government officials practicing civil disobedience, not "ordinary" people.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by veganmamma_
*An excelent point.

When laws are made by the majority about a group in the minority, it never comes out in the minority's favor. So when we have laws that are discriminatory, if we sit around and wait for people to file suit and wait for a system made up of the majority to make a decision in favor of the minority, we'd better not hold our breath. Discriminatory laws were made to be broken.
Lauren*
As I said, in general I think that civil disobedience practiced by the average citizen is a *great* idea and can be very effective. Rosa Parks is a perfect example.

When it comes to mayors who have sworn to uphold the law violating that very law - no thanks. It's a scary precedent. As I said before - it's all cheers and happiness when it works in favor of your side. What if it doesn't? Let's consider, for instance, if a state governor decided that Christian prayer would be mandatory in all of the schools in the state. I imagine some of you who are praising Newsom's decision would be calling for that governor's resignation. Or, hm, let's consider the case of a chief justice of a state supreme court installing a biblically significant sculpture in the courthouse and refusing, despite court order, to remove it? Many of us would want his head on a platter.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. That's what scares me. I don't care to go down the road where civil disobedience by public officials is accepted. If you do, so be it. Just be prepared to accept the consequences.


----------



## Curandera (May 17, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dragonfly_
*Let's consider, for instance, if a state governor decided that Christian prayer would be mandatory in all of the schools in the state. I imagine some of you who are praising Newsom's decision would be calling for that governor's resignation. Or, hm, let's consider the case of a chief justice of a state supreme court installing a biblically significant sculpture in the courthouse and refusing, despite court order, to remove it? Many of us would want his head on a platter.

Just be prepared to accept the consequences.*
Dragonfly, you've made some good points on this thread. Now I'm scared. Will this turn out to be a legislative tit-for-tat? What are the conservative judges do to revenge?


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

I like civil disobedience also, but I have a different take on this thread.

Often, when I desparately need the assistance of a government official, and I cannot find them. They are on a break, or on a lunch hour, in a meeting or they are on vacation.

However, this was a three day weekend, a Federal Holiday. The City Hall was supposed to be closed. Here are the City Officials at the City Hall throughout the holiday, working without pay, performing a public service with dubious validity in the law.

When I want help for something as valid and necessary as trash pick-up or dead animal removal or pot hole repair, I want it NOW! I do not want to wait over the holiday - I want it now!

City officials are paid to perform public services in an efficient manner, not to make political statements. They are not even supposed to do any kind of electioneering. Why were they doing this?


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dragonfly_
*As I said, in general I think that civil disobedience practiced by the average citizen is a great idea and can be very effective. Rosa Parks is a perfect example.

When it comes to mayors who have sworn to uphold the law violating that very law - no thanks. It's a scary precedent. As I said before - it's all cheers and happiness when it works in favor of your side. What if it doesn't? Let's consider, for instance, if a state governor decided that Christian prayer would be mandatory in all of the schools in the state. I imagine some of you who are praising Newsom's decision would be calling for that governor's resignation. Or, hm, let's consider the case of a chief justice of a state supreme court installing a biblically significant sculpture in the courthouse and refusing, despite court order, to remove it? Many of us would want his head on a platter.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. That's what scares me. I don't care to go down the road where civil disobedience by public officials is accepted. If you do, so be it. Just be prepared to accept the consequences.*
Maybe you missed my post where I show how the law that he is violating is in ciolation of our state constitution. DOMA is illegal, discriminatory and downright scary, IMO. Newsom is upholding one of our most important laws, the one that says in CA, we don't discriminate.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by veganmamma_
*Maybe you missed my post where I show how the law that he is violating is in ciolation of our state constitution. DOMA is illegal, discriminatory and downright scary, IMO. Newsom is upholding one of our most important laws, the one that says in CA, we don't discriminate.*
I did miss that post. But it wouldn't change my mind, or my argument. If it's unconstitutional, it needs to be challenged in court by those with standing to do so. Or the mayor could do his part to get the law changed. IMO, civil disobedience by a government official will never be part of that. As I said -- scary precedent. I certainly don't want that sort of thing working against me. Do you?


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

I'm assuming that the arguement is that since it has been determined in MA that excluding homosexuals from the instituation is against the constituation, *all* laws doing so are illegal. The are definately arguements on both sides that suggest the lawfullness of one course of action or another.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dragonfly_
*I did miss that post. But it wouldn't change my mind, or my argument. If it's unconstitutional, it needs to be challenged in court by those with standing to do so. Or the mayor could do his part to get the law changed. IMO, civil disobedience by a government official will never be part of that. As I said -- scary precedent. I certainly don't want that sort of thing working against me. Do you?*
It is being taken to court, I understand what you're saying re: civil disobedience, but IMO, it isn't really.

Say a southern state outlaws interracial marriage and the mayor of a major city there refuses to follow the new law under the grounds that it violates a previously instated law against discrimination. Is that civil disobedience? Is it wrong? I fail to see the difference. I do understand your slippery slope argument, but nothing was happening until Newsom put this out there.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by veganmamma_
*It is being taken to court, I understand what you're saying re: civil disobedience, but IMO, it isn't really.

Say a southern state outlaws interracial marriage and the mayor of a major city there refuses to follow the new law under the grounds that it violates a previously instated law against discrimination. Is that civil disobedience? Is it wrong? I fail to see the difference. I do understand your slippery slope argument, but nothing was happening until Newsom put this out there.*
My last post for the night.... I swear I'm going to bed.

IMO, in your scenario, it would still be wrong. Just as it was wrong for state governors to refuse to integrate schools once the Court ordered desegregation.

It can be difficult when you get morality and legal processes intertwined. They can really seem to fly in the face of one another. This is one of those cases. I guess I'm just one of those idealists who believes it will work out in time - in the proper forum.


----------



## MelKnee (Dec 5, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dragonfly_
*MelKnee,

Maybe you missed the part where I said I was talking about government officials practicing civil disobedience, not "ordinary" people.*
Actually, I did. I posted before I read the whole thread.

I do understand what you are saying about official persons, I was thinking of the people getting married.


----------



## sadie_sabot (Dec 17, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dragonfly_
*As I said, in general I think that civil disobedience practiced by the average citizen is a great idea and can be very effective. Rosa Parks is a perfect example.

When it comes to mayors who have sworn to uphold the law violating that very law - no thanks. It's a scary precedent. As I said before - it's all cheers and happiness when it works in favor of your side. What if it doesn't? Let's consider, for instance, if a state governor decided that Christian prayer would be mandatory in all of the schools in the state. I imagine some of you who are praising Newsom's decision would be calling for that governor's resignation. Or, hm, let's consider the case of a chief justice of a state supreme court installing a biblically significant sculpture in the courthouse and refusing, despite court order, to remove it? Many of us would want his head on a platter.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. That's what scares me. I don't care to go down the road where civil disobedience by public officials is accepted. If you do, so be it. Just be prepared to accept the consequences.*
Dragonfly, I think this is a good point you raise. I would definitely be upset if the above scenario happened. I guess for me what it comes down to is that it is right to do the right thing. Wether you're a public official or not; wether it's against the law or not. So I support the marriages going on, not because I have a theoretical support for public officials doing civil disobedience (and I still am not convinced that's what's happening, see veganmamma's points about the constitution), but because it's the right thing to do.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by sadie_sabot_
*Dragonfly, I think this is a good point you raise. I would definitely be upset if the above scenario happened. I guess for me what it comes down to is that it is right to do the right thing. Wether you're a public official or not; wether it's against the law or not. So I support the marriages going on, not because I have a theoretical support for public officials doing civil disobedience (and I still am not convinced that's what's happening, see veganmamma's points about the constitution), but because it's the right thing to do.*
This is why I feel conflicted about what's going on - because I also believe that the end is right.

My problem is with the means (obviously... think that's pretty clear). I can't look at the mayor's decision without a lot of tarnish on the shine because of the worry that the means could very well bring about an end that none of us want.

I'm interested in exploring a potential conflict between the state constitution and the law that is in dispute. Is there a facial conflict? I mean, are homosexuals specifically included in the language that forbids discrimination? If not, then I don't think one can conclusively say that the law is in conflict with the state constitution. That doesn't make it any less disturbing, of course.

But, then, even if there *is* a facial conflict, I still can't get behind Newsom's decision. It still qualifies as civil disobedience and, well, you know my position on that.









Regardless, thanks for the good conversation. This is an issue near and dear to my heart and in my heart I am so joyful for these people who are fulfilling a dream of marrying their chosen life partners (even though I also am not too keen on the institution). I wish I could go with that feeling entirely, but I think maybe, at this point, I'm a bit too cynical for that.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dragonfly_
*My last post for the night.... I swear I'm going to bed.

IMO, in your scenario, it would still be wrong. Just as it was wrong for state governors to refuse to integrate schools once the Court ordered desegregation.

It can be difficult when you get morality and legal processes intertwined. They can really seem to fly in the face of one another. This is one of those cases. I guess I'm just one of those idealists who believes it will work out in time - in the proper forum.*
Okay, so say a state passed a segregation law, voted on by it's citizens. Now say a mayor of a large city was newly in office and said, he wouldn't allow the new law to be followed because it was against the constitution and should never have made it into law in the first place, and then filed a lawsuit against that law. Would THAT be civil disobedience?


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by veganmamma_
*Okay, so say a state passed a segregation law, voted on by it's citizens. Now say a mayor of a large city was newly in office and said, he wouldn't allow the new law to be followed because it was against the constitution and should never have made it into law in the first place, and then filed a lawsuit against that law. Would THAT be civil disobedience?*
Yes and no. The part where he files suit wouldn't be because he's addressing it in the proper forum. I don't know about standing to file suit - not really clear on that when it comes to public officials. My gut says he *would* have standing to file suit, but I may very well be wrong. I'd think he would request an injunction to keep the law from being implemented while the court considered the issue.

Now where he outright dismisses the law and says, "Nope, sorry, won't be doing that," that would qualify as civil disobedience, in my view. And as much as I'd want to support that in my heart, I probably still wouldn't be able to for the same reason.









I would, however, be marching in the streets with the rest of the opposition.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

If he follows the DOMA law, it is civil disobedience because he is violating the constitution. The constitution trumps DOMA, and existed first. So I still disagree with you.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by veganmamma_
*If he follows the DOMA law, it is civil disobedience because he is violating the constitution. The constitution trumps DOMA, and existed first. So I still disagree with you.







*
]

Which is certainly you're right.







But I'll still hold onto the fact that it's not in his job description to consider whether or not he's going to follow a law, regardless of whether or not it's unconstitutional. As you pointed out with your lawsuit scenario, he has legal processes he can follow if he thinks it is unconstitutional.


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

Quote:

I would, however, be marching in the streets with the rest of the opposition
the one thing that's really bothering me about this position (that elected officials should not practice civil disobedience) is this.

obviously, going the "normal route" against the laws in question *has not worked in the past.* the protests that have been held, the lawsuits that have been filed by activists and by gays and lesbians who want to get married -- *none of those did any good.* the *only* reason we're seeing any change right now is because the elected officials are finally realizing it's time for a change... and they're trying to implement the change in the only way that has thus far worked.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dragonfly_
*]

Which is certainly you're right.







But I'll still hold onto the fact that it's not in his job description to consider whether or not he's going to follow a law, regardless of whether or not it's unconstitutional. As you pointed out with your lawsuit scenario, he has legal processes he can follow if he thinks it is unconstitutional.*
So I'm totally not trying to push your buttons, I promise. Now say the mayor in the town with the segregation law files the lawsuit against the law. Say this lawsuit takes 4 years to go through. Now, should he follow the original law, the constitution which trumps the new, illegal law, or should he follow the unconstitutional law?


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

IMO (for whatever that's worth :LOL), he should follow the existing law, no matter how much it sucks, until it's declared unconstitutional.

Now please don't ask me anymore questions because I *really* have to write this paper and this thread is so much more interesting! :LOL


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

I did want to add that my guess is that there would be some sort of injunction to keep the law from being implemented, so the scenario of actually following the unconstitutional law (particularly with something like segregation) probably wouldn't happen. I know it was a hypothetical, but it's a hard one to work with because it's really hard to see happening!


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by klothos_

*the one thing that's really bothering me about this position (that elected officials should not practice civil disobedience) is this.

obviously, going the "normal route" against the laws in question has not worked in the past.*
Isn't it working (in a sense) in Massachusetts right now? I know it's been a long road... but civil rights usually are. It also worked BIG TIME (not with respect to gay marriage - though perhaps indirectly - but *definitely* with respect to gay rights in the _Lawrence v. Texas_ decision from last term.

Maybe that's no consolation, but it's still no reason (again, IMO) to approve of behavior that could really blow up in everyone's face.



*Quote:*

the protests that have been held, the lawsuits that have been filed by activists and by gays and lesbians who want to get married -- none of those did any good.
They're doing some good now. I would argue that they haven't in the past because the time just wasn't right. It's getting there, thankfully!


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dragonfly_
*IMO (for whatever that's worth :LOL), he should follow the existing law, no matter how much it sucks, until it's declared unconstitutional.

Now please don't ask me anymore questions because I really have to write this paper and this thread is so much more interesting! :LOL*
Ah, but you see, he is following existing law. Existing CONSTITUTIONAL law!! It existed before DOMA law. So he is following the accepted, pre-existing law and not following a law that is new and challenges it.


----------



## burritomama (Aug 26, 2002)

Elected offcials still have the same rights as other citizens to follow their consciences and obey/disobey the law --and then - take the consquences of that.

One doesn't lose rights when one takes office.

We've had many brave elected officals in the past who have risked violating the law to make a larger, greater point or to obey a more just law or principle. Their elected office gave them more power or status, if you will - and they used it effectively. They get to say NO too - just as we do - or YES or in this case, I DO.

Of course, there are examples of elected officials who I would consider my "opponents" in the Gandhian sense, who also challenged laws they believed to be unjust - and even as I disagree with them -- I support their rights to do so. And my right to oppose them.

Yes, the courts did and will sort it out -- but its the people, elected and unelected, who create the pressure, the tension is you will, what Gandhi called, soul force or satyagraha, to force it to resolution.

We're all in this together.

And now I'm going to sleep.

I hope this makes sense.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by veganmamma_
*Ah, but you see, he is following existing law. Existing CONSTITUTIONAL law!! It existed before DOMA law. So he is following the accepted, pre-existing law and not following a law that is new and challenges it.*
I think we're passing "like ships in the night" on this one, Lauren.









And burritomama - I think I've been pretty clear on why I'm not comfortable with public officials disregarding the law. I can't say it any other way. If you're okay with taking the risk that it's going to really not work in your favor some day, then it's your prerogative. I just can't get there.


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

Quote:

I'm assuming that the arguement is that since it has been determined in MA that excluding homosexuals from the instituation is against the constituation, *all* laws doing so are illegal.
The situation in Mass is different. The courts found that the law violates the *Massachusetts* constitution, which is different than the California constitution or the Federal constitution.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

In CA it is about our constitution as well. I need to get my hands on a copy of it.


----------

