Well, unless you've been completely out of the loop for the past two weeks or so, you've probably heard by now that the Mayor of San Francisco has ordered some state clerk or another to issue marriage licenses to Homosexual couples. The issuing of these marriage licenses apparently runs contrary to some state law or another (hell most states have one that effectively bans homosexual marriage).

I’ve been thinking about this issue for a while, and frankly I’m not sure how I feel about it. At one time, I certainly want the government to get off it’s right-wing religious nutter kick, and start allowing homosexuals to marry, as it rightly should. On the same note, I also approve of civil disobedience, and have been waiting for something like this to happen since this issue really began coming to the forefront; The protest in Massachusetts seemed a little too vanilla for me, and I was waiting for some moral idealist to either start killing conservatives in their homes, or taking some sort of stand. So it does please me to see this sort of thing happening, but again, I don’t know if it’s really in the best interest of actually achieving state endorsed homosexual marriage.

Apparently the validity of these same sex marriages are in some sort of legal limbo for the moment, though I honestly can’t see how they’d end up being fully recognized. Another aggravating problem is that many of the homosexual couples getting married in SF in the past two weeks are not from San Francisco, or even California. SF is the only place in America right now actively issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals, so they’ve got a monopoly on that particular legal document. Some homosexual couples have been waiting for decades to get married, so of course taking a trip to San Francisco to finally see it through is no real big deal. In other words these marriage licenses could very quickly become a national issue, as fights to have them recognized in other states begin (What ever happened to full faith and Credit? I guess that went out of fashion in ’96).

To be honest I’ve got my reservations about breaking the law in order to promote this issue, it seems awfully clever in the short term, but in the long run I think it casts a bit of a dark shadow over the whole thing. What happens, to those hundreds of couples who were legally married when these licenses are finally ruled to be null and void. Once you give people a taste of the freedom they’ve been seeking, and then revoke it just as quickly. . . well that’s going to cause a lot of bad blood, I don’t think that it would be out of the question to expect riots.

One of the most amusing things about this whole fiasco, though, are the conservative groups coming out of the woodwork to try and get it to stop. One such group is even based out of my own home state of Arizona. As I’m sure you can tell I feel pretty proud to be an Arizonan right now. . . I’m going to see about having all the state’s locks changed before these wackos come back. California has it’s own group dedicated to stopping the issuing of these marriage licenses, as well:

"State law of California says that marriage is only for a man and a woman," Randy Thomasson, executive director for the Campaign for California Families, said. "The renegade mayor of San Francisco is violating the state law. He's pretending to be a dictator. He's imposing his own values upon the citizenry, and he is really out of order."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/17/samesex.marriage/index.html


Now, the thing that strikes me as being really absurd about this quote-aside from the idea of calling your group such and such For Families, when clearly your organization is only for some families, but their stated purpose is to be against specific families-is the accusation that San Francisco’s Mayor is trying to impose his values on the citizenry.

I honestly wonder how they can backup a claim like that. So far his actions (In regards to this issue) don’t effect anyone that doesn’t already hold his same values. He hasn’t made same sex marriage mandatory, has he? I’d be eager to know how exactly “The citizenry” aside from the percentage of the citizenry who are homosexual couples wishing to get married, are effected like this. Where’s the imposition on heterosexual couples? At what point are his values being asserted over them? I must have missed out on that.

To be honest I’ve got my reservations about breaking the law in order to promote this issue, it seems awfully clever in the short term, but in the long run I think it casts a bit of a dark shadow over the whole thing. What happens, to those hundreds of couples who were legally married when these licenses are finally ruled to be null and void. Once you give people a taste of the freedom they’ve been seeking, and then revoke it just as quickly. . . well that’s going to cause a lot of bad blood, I don’t think that it would be out of the question to expect riots.
Maybe that was part of his intention.
Not the bad blood, but riling people up by giving them that first taste so they will push the issue further and harder than they have been.

I also have mixed feelings about it, however.
On one hand I commend him for risking his job by breaking the law to stand up for what he believes is the greater good (I think more people should do that).
However, him being a public official makes it a little different.
What if the mayor of my town decides that he wants to do what he wants to regardless of the law, and I disagree with his actions?
I can't think of a good example right now... Say he decides he has had enough of unmarried couples living together and decides to ban it?
Then orders the town employees (like the cops) to make sure that it doesn't happen?

The role of the elected officials, above all else, is to uphold the law.
While I agree that homosexual marriages should be legal and the couples shoud have every right afforded to heterosexual marriages, it isn't up to elected officials to take the matter into their own hands.

Civil disobedience should be in the hands of civilains.
Although state officials should encourage it, i am not so sure I approve of them participating in it.

However, him being a public official makes it a little different.
What if the mayor of my town decides that he wants to do what he wants to regardless of the law, and I disagree with his actions?
I can't think of a good example right now... Say he decides he has had enough of unmarried couples living together and decides to ban it?
Then orders the town employees (like the cops) to make sure that it doesn't happen?


That's a good point. I think that there is a large fundamental difference in your example, however. In the hypothetical case you put forward, those who might be against such an action are directly effected by it, this makes it a bit more tyrannical, and frankly oppressive, in other words it’s a direct imposition on peoples rights regardless of their consent. In the case of these illegal marriage licenses, however, only those who agree with the policy are directly effected, while all of those who are opposed are effected in no way except that they live in the same society in which it occurs.

Nice catch.

So, should public officials be allowed to partake in civil disobedience, or should they be required to vacate their post and become a civilian (as a result relinquishing their power over the people) in order to participate?

Nice catch.

So, should public officials be allowed to partake in civil disobedience, or should they be required to vacate their post and become a civilian (as a result relinquishing their power over the people) in order to participate?

Well you're 100% right there. Outside of their regular duties (Be it interpretation, writing new legislation/amending old legislation, vetoing/signing new legislation, or simply carrying it out) elected officials should uphold the system as it stands. Office holders reaching outside of their boundaries and using their authority to contradict rules that they're supposed to follow is just trouble, take a look at Bush and his "Enemy combatants" for instance. What is happening in San Francisco is not good government, but by God it's just so hard to disapprove of.

by God it's just so hard to disapprove of
So true.
Did you see the picture I posted in the other thread?

In case you didn't.
Here it is again...
This was the first couple that were "legally" married in San Francisco.
http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2004/02/13/ba_gaywed_01_lm.jpg
Phyllis Lyon, 79, left, and Del Martin, 83, embrace after being married at San Francisco City Hall on Thursday. They are the first same-sex couple to be officially married in the United States.
They have been a couple (without the rights of a married couple) for 51 years!

Let's get those degenrates off the streets NOW!! :rolleyes:
"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred sixty two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean
that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." -Lynne Lavner

Look how happy they are!
Why should that be a fucking crime??
Who are they hurting?

Don't you see the evil in it, raven? They're subverting righteous Christian morality everywhere! Which reminds me that if your sense of morality involves your own inherent right to dictate the lives of others, you’re probably doing something wrong.

Hey, it seems now, that New Mexico is getting in on the action:

A county clerk issued marriage licenses Friday to at least 15 gay couples, some of whom then exchanged vows outside the courthouse, and dozens more same-sex couples lined up for a chance to tie the knot.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/02/20/samesex.marriage.nm.ap/index.html


Good for them I say. New Mexico in general is still a hole, though.

Hey, it seems now, that New Mexico is getting in on the action:



Good for them I say. New Mexico in general is still a hole, though.

there is some good rock climbing there though :D