Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

S.F. Marries Gay Couples

LGBT Sam-sex marriage San Francisco Disobedience

  • Please log in to reply
339 replies to this topic

#1 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:15 PM

http://www.sfgate.co...MNGUQ50F0J1.DTL

Quote

In a historic act of civil disobedience, San Francisco defied state law and issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples Thursday, a move expected to ignite a constitutional showdown as early as today.

A lesbian couple who have been together five decades were the first to marry, followed by 89 other couples who said their vows in City Hall ceremonies. The cheers and yelps echoed throughout the building all day, as gays and lesbians who had expected to be refused wedding licenses during a planned National Freedom to Marry protest were instead married under the ornate City Hall rotunda. Several couples rushed to get married during their lunch hours after word spread that they could.

"A barrier to true justice has been removed,'' said Mayor Gavin Newsom, who argues that state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman amounts to unconstitutional discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Newsom had announced just three days ago that he wanted the city to explore ways to let same-sex couples marry. City officials rushed the policy into place when they got wind that groups opposed to gays and lesbians marrying were about to file suit to block Newsom's plan.

The Liberty Counsel, a legal-aid group acting on behalf of Campaign for California Families, plans to file suit today in state Superior Court in San Francisco to force the city to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to void those already granted. On Thursday, the city issued a total of 118 marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

So the state will rush to remind everyone of the 2000 voter-approved bill that forbids same-sex marriage, while SF will rush to remind them that the state constitution forbids discrimination in ANY form, and the feds will threaten them with the amendment.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#2 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:20 PM

And so it begins.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#3 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:21 PM

you said it Hawk,

I have no idea where the legal lines run here

but deep in my heart, i know i'm cheering for San Francisco right now

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#4 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:24 PM

Go Newsom. To me it is a clear case of honoring the state constitution that forbids discrimination. And I am completely anit- Bush in this matter. Marriage is not just between a man and a woman. It is between two or more people commited to one another.
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#5 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:29 PM

Well nice. basically tell the voters of the state "We lost the vote and are going to do it anyway" What is wrong about this is the voter basically is having his will defied.


I can see where if the issue had not been settled by a vote that this would have merit.  They need to take the issue to the courts rather than put people to inconvience and expense and then taking it to court.

My personal opinion is put this on the ballot. If it wins then so be it. If it loeses the so be that. I get tired of having a choice I made at the ballot box pissed on by any group left or right.

#6 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,316 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:32 PM

Shalamar, on Feb 13 2004, 12:22 PM, said:

Go Newsom. To me it is a clear case of honoring the state constitution that forbids discrimination. And I am completely anit- Bush in this matter. Marriage is not just between a man and a woman. It is between two or more people commited to one another.
Interesting, Shalamar... I just had a discussion yesterday with someone who did not think that gay marriage should be equated with polygamy - but this viewpoint suggests otherwise.  Is it your position that adults should be able to determine what configuration of "marriage" they want and have it legally sanctioned?

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#7 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:34 PM

I have a really fun image of a nullification crisis in California. :D

Okay, but seriously-- all this is going to come down to is a case of "our constitution is bigger than your constitution", and I fully expect this to be, as appropriately described, "an historic act of civil disobedience". They're offering a secular civil-union in a city that's been notorious for a long time as a harbour of a gay-friendly nature. There is no real surprise here, except that they went out and did it. They could've at any point previous. Now, it just becomes a convenient election issue. ;)

But it also forces the gay-civil-union issue at the court level, with an eye towards constitutional interpretation of the idea of gay civil-unions and "freedom" entailed under that document (and if the Supreme Court gets their hands on it.... who knows).

I'm just really glad that someone played Babylon 5 to President Cla--- er, Bush. All power to San Francisco, baby.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#8 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:34 PM

Refresh my memory: Don't California's initiateves actually amend California's constitution, rather than simply pass a bill? If the voter initiative in 2000 actually amended the constitution, then I would think that it would trump the general 'anti-discrimination' language; specific generally trumps vague.

That being said, this is going to be very interesting to watch...
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#9 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,316 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:36 PM

G1223, on Feb 13 2004, 12:27 PM, said:

Well nice. basically tell the voters of the state "We lost the vote and are going to do it anyway" What is wrong about this is the voter basically is having his will defied.
...

I get tired of having a choice I made at the ballot box pissed on by any group left or right.
Well said, G1223.  OTOH - the people of San Franscico may have overwhelmingly voted in favor....

Perhaps we are moving to a time when we will have specialized living - where smaller municipalities will have greater regulation control in order that the local population can live as they see fit?

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#10 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:38 PM

Shalamar, on Feb 13 2004, 11:22 AM, said:

Marriage is not just between a man and a woman. It is between two or more people commited to one another.
Two or more?
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#11 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:39 PM

BTW Hawk there are a number of people oppsed to gay-marriages are they suppose to just shut up wouldn't their rights thne be decriminated?


Also add in that it discriminates agains th the will of the people. That is what vote  is suppose to do.

#12 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:40 PM

Handmaiden07, on Feb 13 2004, 11:34 AM, said:

Perhaps we are moving to a time when we will have specialized living - where smaller municipalities will have greater regulation control in order that the local population can live as they see fit?
If they try that, the government will just send in the ATF.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#13 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:42 PM

Handmaiden07, on Feb 13 2004, 05:34 PM, said:

OTOH - the people of San Franscico may have overwhelmingly voted in favor....

Perhaps we are moving to a time when we will have specialized living - where smaller municipalities will have greater regulation control in order that the local population can live as they see fit?

HM07
That's nice they voted forit. but this is a state issue and last time I looked San francsico is a part of the state? If it wants to be free of the rules of the rest of the state maybe the can give back the money the state is givingthem for civic improvements?

the first part of the sig says it all.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#14 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:44 PM

G1223, on Feb 13 2004, 06:37 PM, said:

Also add in that it discriminates agains th the will of the people. That is what vote  is suppose to do.
depends on the people

Why does someone sitting in an office in New York get to decide what's legal in a beach house in San Fransisco

what's more, majority rules don't always work, hell the last election proved that

and lastly, wqhat about the gay people, are their rights not being discriminated against by not being allowed the same status as their heterosexual counterparts?

'will of the people' is a tricky thing at the best of times, especially in a country of 280 million where a 51% majority vote still means that 140,000,000 people disagree with it

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#15 WildChildCait

WildChildCait

    And from the ashes of fire, she is reborn

  • Islander
  • 3,416 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:44 PM

I'm with Shalamar. If it's a stable unit, why shouldn't it be *two or more*?
Why should we define ourself by mere two's? The human being is not by nature monogamous, - serial monogamy is the best some of manage, while if you count affairs, polyamory is widely practiced already.

Go SF. loving couples should be able to marry, regardless of gender
RIP Ruby Medallion: 31-10-1999/21-05-2007
one gender-reassigned, world travelling, world class snake.

FKA Chaddee, amongst other things.
http://scentedalchemy.webs.com Custom handmade bath and body products

#16 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:44 PM

Handmaiden07, on Feb 13 2004, 12:34 PM, said:

Perhaps we are moving to a time when we will have specialized living - where smaller municipalities will have greater regulation control in order that the local population can live as they see fit?
We're going to have to.

I'm not sure how this works in the US, but there's been quite active talk in the provinces up here of changing federal funding programs, to give cities of a population of a certain size access directly to the funds, rather than having to brook the vanities of the rest of the province.

Really, it makes no sense when the only city that profits by that is Toronto, maybe Montreal and Vancouver, too. Except to assuage the griping in the downtown core.

But in the US, it makes a lot more sense. Y'all have quite a few cities well over the size of population in question, and it might not hurt to change the regulations so that the business and finances are handled proportional to population rather than geography. But there is danger in any such proposal-- especially when you consider that making any such matter population-dependent essentially puts the treasury under a sort of tyranny of the majority. Government has to be free of such pressures.

All of what I've said, though, is an economic, not a constitutional, matter. (And even where it is constitutional --specifically in sections 91 and 92 of the Canada Act, our constitution-- it's only such for financial reasons).

The regulation is ultimately bound to the federal Constitution. That document overrides all others. And for good reason. But the interpretation of that Constitution could skew in any given direction. And, of course, it can be nullified by an amendment enshrining "marriage" in the legal, if not sacramental, sense as being a union between a man and a woman. Now, that would be struck down under the right court---- but it still comes back to the question of the Supreme Court, and how they intend to handle the matter, since inevitably it'll be their matter to interpret, and determine, the constitutional handling of the definition of "marriage".

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#17 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:46 PM

The concept of marriage can no longer be saved. Its meaning is wiped out. Let's just get rid of it as a government-recognized status. Seriously, not joking. It's the only possible solution left.

#18 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:46 PM

Chaddee, on Feb 13 2004, 06:42 PM, said:

I'm with Shalamar. If it's a stable unit, why shouldn't it be *two or more*?
base 10 math rather than base 2 math?  ;)

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#19 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:47 PM

Delvo, on Feb 13 2004, 06:44 PM, said:

The concept of marriage can no longer be saved. Its meaning is wiped out. Let's just get rid of it as a government-recognized status. Seriously, not joking. It's the only possible solution left.
why do you say this? because two people who love each other and just happen to have the same appendages want to be recognised as 'married'?

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#20 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 13 February 2004 - 12:51 PM

Chaddee, on Feb 13 2004, 11:42 AM, said:

why shouldn't it be *two or more*?
Because then it's not a marriage, it's something else. Nobody's telling them they can't do that. It's just a matter of calling a rock a rock and a tree a tree, not calling everything a tree just because somebody WANTS rocks to be trees even though they just aren't.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Sam-sex marriage, San Francisco, Disobedience

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users