Mayor Newsom did not make us look good

[brainwashed_youth]

Alright, I'm sure most of ya'll have heard about San Francisco Mayor Newsom marrying those 87 gay couples in California. Now, I don't really care one way or another if gays want to get married, but I have noticed some hypocrisy on this on our part. Think back to when Roy Moore wanted the 10 commandments displayed. There was a national outcry from the Progressive community saying "It's against the law to do that!" Well, it was against the law for Mayor Newsom to marry those gay couples, but I see no outrage from the left. That whole thing out in San Francisco makes it look like we will break a law if we don't like it, and I don't think I want people thinking of the Preogressive community that way.

[tabasco]

1. It's more than just what is "illegal."

There is a concept of right and wrong. Separation of church and state is a good thing. We support that. Equal rights for gays is a good thing, we support that too. I also support the SF marijuana clubs, even though they are "illegal."

[mitchtv]

2. sorry you feel that way

these gay people are not damaging you or anyone else. I'm sure Zell miller will agree with you.

[brainwashed_youth]

8. wsa Roy Moore damaging anyone else

was he?

[foreigncorrespondent]

9. And how is...

...my love for Sapphocrat damaging anyone else? Well?

[brainwashed_youth]

11. it's not

all I'm saying is that just because you don't like the law does not give you the right to break it. Isn't that what everyone said about Judge Moore?

[OhioStateProgressive]

13. actually

Many schools of thought say it is essential to not obey unjust laws.

Societies accepting unjust laws is a sure way to fascism.

[rumguy]

16. but see: Judge Moore would say the same thing

the issue here is a STATE SUPREME COURT JUDGE disobeying a direct judicial order (even the repuke dominated Supreme Court turned him down)...

Religious freaks have the right to civil disobediance, just like we do...but if you are a judge you do not have that right (regardless of party or ideological affiliation)...you do NOT the right to forsake your sworn duty as a judge...he let his personal viewpoints to trump clearly stated law, and was in direct violation of the Constitution...

[OhioStateProgressive]

I understand

I think you took my post the wrong way.

I absolutely agree that once the court stepped in and removed Moore, his right to protest as a Public Official was terminated, but his individual right to protest wasn't

No Court has stepped in and stated Mayor Newsom can't do this.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

34. The lawsuits

were underway before days end. Give it time. People are chomping at the bit to take all the marriages to court. It's really sad that people feel the need to rush to court over people joining together to create a family unit. And hell, marriage needs to be turned over to those who will actually take it seriously because it's painfully obvious by the divorce rate that us hetrosexuals can't be trusted with marriage.

[OhioStateProgressive]

38. true

I believe in the end gay marriage will prevail in San Francisco and California, and Massachusets...and eventually the US as a whole.

We know discrimination when we see it, and as more politicians speak to peoples heart, they will see this to be the case.

[brainwashed_youth]

45. your own words damn you

you said "he let his personal viewpoints to trump clearly stated law". According to Proposition 22, marriage is only recognized between a man and a woman. So, I guess Mayor Newsom let his "personal viewpoints" get in the way

[knight_of_the_star]

47. Little difference

No court ordered Newsom to NOT conduct the marriages. Roy Moore REFUSED to take down his block of granite even after the Supreme Court of his own state ordered him to take it down, then the Federal Appelate Court backed them up, and the SCOTUS refused to hear the case which essentially said, "Shut up Roy, we're siding with the Appellate court on this one." Newsons' actions haven't been challenged in court yet.

[rumguy]

51. well put....eom

[rumguy]

48. Newsom is making a statement - he will obey a court if, and when, one gets

involved - I can guarantee you that....

Newsome is issuing a challenge - it will be tested in Court - but if he loses I guarantee you that he will obey the law...

Moore lost, and lost big, and then he decided to not obey the law.

BIG DIFFERENCE THERE!!!

[OhioStateProgressive]

50. no

He is excercising a loophole that exists between a state ballot proposition and a section of the state constitution.

[foreigncorrespondent]

14. Excuse me...

...but have you heard of a little thing called SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE? Now, have you heard of a little thing called CIVIL RIGHTS? There is a BIG difference to both.

I'm not breaking any laws either, mate! I have had ample opportunity to, but neither myself or Sapphocrat wanted to do it that way. But, had Moore places the ten commandments in court, he would have been breaking laws.

Get your facts straight before you start dissing my community for wanting to marry, and a mayor who realizes pure discrimination when he sees it.

[rumguy]

10. Hey, it's government property...owned by the people

a judge does not have the right to flagrantly disobey the justice system...

He should have been removed...and should never be allowed to judge any case again...

[bushwakker]

17. Wrong - must have respect for the law

rightwingers here in mass are saying the same thing in regards to the gay marriage ruling. judges are the justice system.

[rumguy]

19. I miss your point...

[bushwakker]

22. has there been a definitive ruling?

all i am saying is to wait for the courts to go hand down a judgment.

[brainwashed_youth]

25. yes

it was called Propostion 22. It declares marriage to be between a man and a woman only.

[rumguy]

26. the judgements were all against Moore!!!!

You are not making sense....

[brainwashed_youth]

27. yes they were

because he broke the law. and mayor newsom did the exact same thing.

[brainwashed_youth]

24. true

the law is there for a reason. Besides, in 2000, the huge majority of california voters voted to pass Proposition 22. That propostition declares marriage between a man and a woman only. So, even if the judges come around, it's still not the will of the people to allow gay marriage.

[rumguy]

28. Newsom will make his point - and obey the law....

If, and when, the courts step in, Newsom will obey the law, UNLIKE Judge Moore who thinks he has a direct line to God...

[GodHelpUsAll2]

41. it's a violation of constitutional rights

TAHT is the arguement that is/will be made. You can not just have a vote on whether or not "the people" decide they want to violate peoples constitutional rights. As for it being a states decision, that's a crock too. If you start deciding who can and can't then you open up a whole ugly can of worms. Where does it end? Does the legal age to marry get changed to 35 because people decide it's better? Do people who have more than 5 years age difference between them no longer have the right to marry because it's not acceptable? When does it end?

[mitchtv]

15. well it is a direct violation of the constitution

besides prohibiting same sex marriage, the California constitution also forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, so there is enough wiggle room to drive a muni bus and five cable cars through. Besides it takes some heat off Mass, and puts SF in the forefront of the fray where she belongs. It's a matter of pride. "get out of the way , if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changeing"

[bushwakker]

23. gotta play by the rules

let the courts speak

[PVnRT]

3. How dare he enforce equal rights

That son of a bitch.

[dtseiler]

4. Differences

I think the reason many (including myself) were agains Moore is because he quite plainly, knowingly violated the Constitution.

By that same token, I believe that banning gays from marrying would also violate the Constitution and discriminate against gays for the sole reason of their sexual orientation.

That is why I decry the former and applaud the latter. Above all, the Constitution is what matters most.

[foreigncorrespondent]

5. No he didn't.

You need to remember that it is against the United States Constitution 14th Amendment for any state to deprive any person of life, liberty or property.

[rumguy]

6. go tell Rosa Parks!

civil disobediance has its place - a state Supreme Court judge cannot however disobey the law as set forth by federal judges and accepted by his fellow supreme court justices...

BIG DIFFERENCE - BEST KEEP WORKING ON THAT BRAINWASHING....

[still_one]

7. You don't understand San Francisco politics

Newsom almost lost against Gonzolez, the Green Party Candidate, and in order to secure the gay vote, which is a significant part of the city, he is doing this. Even if it gets overturned, he tried.

If the Green Party Candidate had won, it would give an illusion of grandeur to them, and they might push a third party candidate.

[mike1963]

12. Well, if you cannot discern the difference between

one person injecting a religious monument and position into a public place dedicated to justice, and another attempting to affirm basic civil rights to a significant portion of the electorate, there probably isn't much reason for discussion.

[bushwakker]

20. must wait for the courts to speak

the courts have to be respected.

[mike1963]

33. No, they don't have to be "respected". Usually they have to be obeyed,

though...it depends on whose ox is being gored. I have no obligation to respect the supreme court when it selects Shrub, and reserve the right to agree with it in the Texas sodomy case. Courts are just people. A fairly close friend of mine is the senior judge in the eastern half of this state...we regularly have (in social meetings) fairly vehement disagreements. We frequently inform each other "you are wrong." I "respect" his position and his history (he's an old phart pilot like me but he's a Repug and I'm a Democrat) but he knows damn well I think he's full of shit on a lot of issues. It's a tenuous friendship but we both seem able to keep our disagreements (just barely) below violent. ;-)

It ain't likely either of us will bring the other over to the other side...

[brainwashed_youth]

36. exactly

well said. you don't have to like it or respect it, but you do have to obey it. the law is there for a reason

[bushwakker]

18. I agree brianwashed

the rule of law must be respected by both sides. here in mass the legal systen has spoken and the rightwingers are attacking the judges. the judges must be respected - it is the system.

[cally]

21. Newsom showed a Dem backbone

and decided to stand up to all the bigots. I watch the local coverage and just feel proud that Newsom made marriage available to loving couples. Seeing thousands lined up to get married or get licenses, ordinary folks, who just want to commit to each other. It just seems so normal and a happy event. I have no idea how the court cases will play out on this, but I'm glad Newsom made a stand.

[ulysses]

29. It's pretty simple.

Roy Moore stands for the restriction of rights. Gavin Newsom, happily and at least in this case, did not.

[brainwashed_youth]

31. restriction of rights?

are you talking about gay marriage? Marriage isn't a right, it's a privilege

[foreigncorrespondent]

35. Yes...

...and the gay community is denied that privilege. So let's call it a restriction of privileges shall we?

[brainwashed_youth]

39. i can buy that

But is breaking the law really gonna make anybody more sympathetic to your cause?

[foreigncorrespondent]

40. By standing up...

...to the law and showing people how flawed some laws really are, is the only way minority groups through out history have been able to win much needed civil rights.

[foreigncorrespondent]

58. I would like to add...

... that for anyone who is against what Newsom has done, that they go look up a few things:

1. What Martin Luther King had to say about civil disobedience. As well as Thomas Paine.

2. The I suggest reading up on Gandhi.

Then for those against what Newsom has done, to further answer this question:

Who do YOU believe the most: these patriotic civil-rights warriors, or the Radical Right into whose hands YOU are playing?

[ulysses]

37. really now.

Yes, I'm talking about gay marriage. Here's a thought experiment- imagine banning heterosexual marriage, and then imagine the outcry about the abrogation of rights involved in what you've done.

Marriage is neither a privilege nor a right, when you get right down to it. But if you're going to give particular civil advantages to one based on the willingness to commit to one partner, then you must give it to all based on the same willingness.

[mike1963]

42. Marriage is a "privilege"???????? I think you need a dictionary, sonnyboy

:eyes:

[brainwashed_youth]

43. webster's definition of marriage

1. the state of being married: the mutual relation of husbad and wife: the insitution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of maintaining a family

2. an act of marrying or the rite by which the marriage stauts is affected: the wedding ceremony and attendant festivites or formalities




Nothing in there about marriage being a right......sonnyboy

[foreigncorrespondent]

44. Nothing in there...

...about it being a priviledge either.

[brainwashed_youth]

46. so, what is it then

if it ain't a right, then it must be a privilege? or not? if it ain't neither, then what is it?

[foreigncorrespondent]

49. Marraige...

...is a commitment made by two people who love one another and want to spend the rest of their lives together.

I would marry Sapphocrat today in San Francisco if I was able to get there. Illegal or not, I don't give a shit. What I give a shit about is my communities rights being trampled on by powerful bigots and their bigoted bandwagon of followers.

[mike1963]

52. It is an artificial contrivance with a lot less history than

most people realize. What it OFFICIALLY (legally) is, is a civil contract that has the imprimatur of law in some countries. It also has religious connections, in that some religions consider one man/one woman a legitimate situation, and others give sanction to other arrangements.

It seems that you consider anything that isn't a "right" to be a "privilege". That is shallow thinking. Many things do not fall under the umbrella of either. Hence the concept of "freedom"...something most Americans and most other peoples consider to be fairly important (although many only embrace it when it only applies to their own activities.)

An old quote "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" or something like that illustrates the point. How can you rationalize an opinion that someone else shouldn't "do" anything that does not harm you just because you think it's "wrong" for whatever reason?

You do have the 'privilege' to be offended at behavior you consider "wrong", but you do NOT have the right to deny their freedom to do so if it isn't interfering with your ability to function.

(assuming you have it)

[brainwashed_youth]

53. hey, i feel ya

I'm not the one making these laws. If gays wanna get married, more power to em.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

56. Very well stated Mike1963

Bravo!

[theoceansnerves]

30. bill o'reilly talking points

your talking points are lifted directly from o'reilly's show on friday. do you also agree with bill that newsom should be immediately arrested and charged with disorderly conduct?

[brainwashed_youth]

32. no

and yes, for once, bill did make sense. and no, roy moore shouldn't be arrested or charged with disorderly conduct or any nonsense like that. although i do imagine there will be repurcussions for him much like there were for Moore.

[NWHarkness]

54. It was against the law for Blacks to eat at white lunch counters

[JackRiddler]

55. Who is us fer chrissakes?

I'm really starting to hate Parties.

[Exultant Democracy]

57. The is a difference between constitutions and laws

The constitution is the more powerful of the two and always trumps laws. When Moore put up the 10 commandments I am willing to bet he was not breaking any laws, but he was in violation of the Constitution.

Mayor Newsom on the other hand is upholding the higher law of the land by enforcing the constitution that grantee equal rights. He realized that the DOMA laws were unconstitutional so he rightly ignored them as he is charged to do by the office that he holds.