Gavin Newsom... A Rising Star?

[mgarretson]

Love him, or hate him... Gavin Newsom seems to be standing quite firmly on his principles regarding gay marriage. I've heard some talk of this being a publicity stunt but I've heard far more accounts that dispute that view, but my question is: Do you think SF Mayor Newsom is a rising star in our Party or do you think he will soon return to mediocrity after his 15 seconds of fame?

It's interesting to me that he puts a clean face on what many people might presume to be San Francisco... He's clean cut and I'm sure women would find him attractive... He has strong liberal views but he was also challenged mighty heartily from the left in the mayor's race... He just seems to be the full package... a dream come true for Party leadership.

I understand his standing might worsen if the courts eventually go against him and force him to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, but I'm going to remain positive at this point...

What do you think?

Edited to say: Wow, his wife's a hotty too! :evilgrin: http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/mayor_index.asp?id=22025

[northernsoul]

1. maybe he's getting ready to take on Arnie in a few years

if so, best of luck to him!

[IronLionZion]

2. i hope so

He seems like a good guy so far. And his wife....WOW!

[slinkerwink]

4. wow!

[hellhathnofury]

3. He could take over Feinstein's seat.

She can't hang on that much longer, 06 if I'm not mistaken is when she's up again.

[CHestonsucks]

5. Gavin Newsom

Big city mayors, and perhaps all mayors, need to maintain visibility. Typically San Francisco has no shortage of issues into which an enterprising mayor may become involved with. In my opinion, Gavin Newsom, afer receiving the benediction of Willie Brown, is positioning himself as the un-Willie and has found issues that would advance this cause. Even if the courts do rule against the practice of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Newsom has taken an unambiguous stand on the constitutional principle of equal protection under the law. He is saying, in effect, "equal protection means equal protection even for the people you (the religious right, et al) despise." He should be commended and admired for this; and he's not just saying he believes constitutional principle is paramount, he's putting his money where his mouth is. I see a bright future for this proud liberal Democrat and much agida for his detractors on the dark side.

And, yes, his wife is a stone fox. Smart, too.

[hellhathnofury]

11. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[newyawker99]

12. Hi CHestonsucks!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Xanth]

6. A Rising Star?

doubt it. Criminal maybe. I do support equal rights, but I don't support breaking the law. He clearly went against the California voters in doing this. It may look good on it's face, but in reality the license is worth nothing. And I hate so see all those peoples faces when the rule is made that all those illegally attained licensed, well, trash them.

I want more money, but I don't rob banks.

http://www.detnews.com/2004/nation/0402/13/a07e-63174.htm
No state legally sanctions gay marriage, and it remains unclear what practical value the marriage licenses will have. The weddings violate a ballot measure California voters approved in 2000 that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

My two cents.

[kiahzero]

7. Rosa Parks was a criminal!

Quick, let's see your condemnation.

An unjust law is not a law worth following.

[northernsoul]

10. no, she was refusing to comply with an invalid law

the law that made Rosa Parks a "criminal" was itself illegal. There's nothing criminal about defying an unconstitutional law (so long as you've made a validly good-faith determination that said law is unconstitutional AND the courts end up endorsing your interpretation).

Standing up for what's right always takes the guts to tell established authority that they're wrong.

[mgarretson]

8. in response...

Newsom supposedly responded to charges that he was going against the will of the people and over-stepping the bounds of his office by saying that the system is working perfectly, that the courts will determine the legality of his actions.

Without getting too philosophical, the question of how to approach a law you believe to be immoral is dicey and far from unsettled. Do you follow the law and do your best to change it from the inside or do you stand up and scream at the top of your lungs about it's immorality? I don't think the Thoreau approach is always a viable one, but it remains an option. I also like that the bans against gay marriage are being challenged both through the legal process and by process.

Edited to add link to Newsom's comments from Salon.com: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/02/26/weddings/index.html

-Mike

[northernsoul]

9. Criminal?

If Gavin Newsom truly is a criminal, please direct us to the section of the California Penal Code he has been convicted for violating.

Now, as for the jurisprudential question of whether he has overstepped the boundaries of his authority by proactively using his executive authority to uphold his good faith interpretation of the 14th amendment and thereby create a justiciable controversy over the constitutionality of the the California civil statute that purports to forbid what he's doing - well, the jury's still out on that one (pardon the bad pun). Given that the highest court in California has declined to intervene at this point, SF's actions are legally valid and will continue to be so until a binding authority specifically says that they aren't.

This sounds wierd, but in the American system not all laws are created equal. Just because a law is on the books does not mean that it's constitutionally valid, as all laws must conform to the constitution. Most of the social progress that America has made in the last 100 years has come from somebody "breaking" (or at least failing to comply with) unconstitutional laws in order to create a genuine legal controversy so the courts can strike down the unconstitutional law. This all within the good and honorable tradition of Brown vs. Board of Education.