Is anyone surprised, upset, happy by what happened in ...
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32
  1. #1
    banned
    Reputation: Live Steam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    14,685

    Thumbs down Is anyone surprised, upset, happy by what happened in ...

    San Francisco? Personally I have no problem with same sex unions. I am not sure they should be called marriages though, but that is not the issue I want to discuss.

    My problem is with how the whole thing transpired. In my view the rule of law was trampled upon. An elected official made the decision to ignore the laws of the state and the laws he swore to uphold, and made a mockery of them. What type of nation are we becoming when elected officials make their own rules? Should we accept such extreme reactionary actions from our elected officials? Should this mayor be removed from office for such a blatant attack on the state constitution and the rules that govern our nation?

    Let's not let this degrade into something else. Is it possible for this board to stick to the subject at had without making this about Bush or something else?


  2. #2

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    301

    Yeah. Let's make it about Bubba, which is

    where the blame belongs. It was Clinton who started all this lawless disregard.

    Thought I'd go ahead and get that in here so the deranged flights of fancy can proceed.

  3. #3

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Posts
    3,567

    mixed feelings, but

    Quote Originally Posted by Live Steam
    San Francisco? Personally I have no problem with same sex unions. I am not sure they should be called marriages though, but that is not the issue I want to discuss.

    My problem is with how the whole thing transpired. In my view the rule of law was trampled upon. An elected official made the decision to ignore the laws of the state and the laws he swore to uphold, and made a mockery of them. What type of nation are we becoming when elected officials make their own rules? Should we accept such extreme reactionary actions from our elected officials? Should this mayor be removed from office for such a blatant attack on the state constitution and the rules that govern our nation?

    Let's not let this degrade into something else. Is it possible for this board to stick to the subject at had without making this about Bush or something else?

    Historically, a bit of civil disobedience has accompanied most civil rights changes. Nothing new, really. I think at worst case here the marriages are simply a nullity, if there were no legal basis for them. If we think hard, I bet we can come up with lots of examples, like the judge and the 10 Commandments, Wallace blocking the door to the university, etc.

    I'm tending to think about this issue more in a civil rights historical context. The most prolific argument I hear against these marriages is that "marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman." Well, at one point marriage was defined, in reality, as between a man and woman of the same race. We did away with that just fine, and the institution of marriage survived. Wasn't that long ago that marriage was not restricted to 1 man and 1 woman, so the narrow definition we have today was not always the same.

    Civil rights have throughout history by nearly every society been debated in terms of "definitions," much like this one. Problem is, that's a circular argument. People have and still do define some other groups of people as less than human or "infidels" to justify genocide, much like the Nazi's. Pro-choice advocates define the unborn as "not human", in effect, for the same purpose (like it or not, that's exactly what they do -- "it's just tissue."). Slave owners defined blacks as less than human to justify slavery. The point is, you can't simply come up with a definition that fits historical usage to justify a law or restriction on human rights. It's not logical and almost always is proven to be wrong in the long run.

    Similarly, I think opponents of gay marriage are going to have to come up with an argument that is more than a definition.

    All that aside, the mayor's stunt here is really nothing more than that. It was not legal here in California, as far as I know, but then it was not "il-legal," in the sense that no laws were broken, much less criminal.

    Doug

  4. #4
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    11,561

    Not really bothering me..

    although I think it's a silly issue. Get on with it, create civil unions or whatever you want to call them and let any two people establish a legal relationship with one another if they so chose.

    I'll tell you what's been bothering me. On the Howard Stern Show a few days ago, they had a woman who pitched in the minors for 4 years. She said all 11 times she got to bat in college the opposing pitcher hit her. That's pretty despicable.

  5. #5

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    3,079
    The "rule of law" has been trampled several times over this country's history on behalf of minority rights. It might seem unusual for civil disobedience to come from civil authorities, but in this case that is what was required.

    Moreover, this hardly rates as "extreme reactionary action" in San Francisco. Who is going to remove him from office? The voters?

  6. #6
    banned
    Reputation: Live Steam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    14,685

    You are arguing the merits of gay marriage

    That is not what I think the real issue is here. That is a topic that is relevant once we determine if it is acceptable for elected officials to usurp the system of government that many have given their lives to protect. Right now it isn't an issue of gay rights vs. what ever. The 10 Commandments example you cited is more to the point. That had everyone here up in arms because they believed it violated the spirit of the Constitution. I believe that this similarly does damage to the Constitution. Do we want elected officials foisting their beliefs upon us without using the channels of government that they swore to protect and serve?


    Quote Originally Posted by DougSloan
    Historically, a bit of civil disobedience has accompanied most civil rights changes. Nothing new, really. I think at worst case here the marriages are simply a nullity, if there were no legal basis for them. If we think hard, I bet we can come up with lots of examples, like the judge and the 10 Commandments, Wallace blocking the door to the university, etc.

    I'm tending to think about this issue more in a civil rights historical context. The most prolific argument I hear against these marriages is that "marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman." Well, at one point marriage was defined, in reality, as between a man and woman of the same race. We did away with that just fine, and the institution of marriage survived. Wasn't that long ago that marriage was not restricted to 1 man and 1 woman, so the narrow definition we have today was not always the same.

    Civil rights have throughout history by nearly every society been debated in terms of "definitions," much like this one. Problem is, that's a circular argument. People have and still do define some other groups of people as less than human or "infidels" to justify genocide, much like the Nazi's. Pro-choice advocates define the unborn as "not human", in effect, for the same purpose (like it or not, that's exactly what they do -- "it's just tissue."). Slave owners defined blacks as less than human to justify slavery. The point is, you can't simply come up with a definition that fits historical usage to justify a law or restriction on human rights. It's not logical and almost always is proven to be wrong in the long run.

    Similarly, I think opponents of gay marriage are going to have to come up with an argument that is more than a definition.

    All that aside, the mayor's stunt here is really nothing more than that. It was not legal here in California, as far as I know, but then it was not "il-legal," in the sense that no laws were broken, much less criminal.

    Doug

  7. #7
    Banned forever.....or not
    Reputation: MR_GRUMPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    24,120

    I've got no problems with it.

    It's no skin off of my nose if two adults of any sex or race want to get married.

    Some people worry about silly things.
    If your opinion differs from mine, ..........Too bad.
    .
    How would you like it if Hitler killed you
    Dogbert.

    I>U

    Buying parts to hang on your bike is always easier than getting fit.

    If you feel wimpy and weak, get out and train more, ya wee lassie!

    If Jesus had a gun, he'd be alive today!

  8. #8
    banned
    Reputation: Live Steam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    14,685

    Maybe

    So you accept this type of action by an elected official because you happen to agree with the cause? The ends justify the means? From your posts on other issues, I never thought you would accept this a justification for anything. How would you feel if say a mayor in some US city suddenly made abortion illegal?


    Quote Originally Posted by czardonic
    The "rule of law" has been trampled several times over this country's history on behalf of minority rights. It might seem unusual for civil disobedience to come from civil authorities, but in this case that is what was required.

    Moreover, this hardly rates as "extreme reactionary action" in San Francisco. Who is going to remove him from office? The voters?

  9. #9

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Posts
    3,567

    it's just a stunt, though

    Quote Originally Posted by Live Steam
    That is not what I think the real issue is here. That is a topic that is relevant once we determine if it is acceptable for elected officials to usurp the system of government that many have given their lives to protect. Right now it isn't an issue of gay rights vs. what ever. The 10 Commandments example you cited is more to the point. That had everyone here up in arms because they believed it violated the spirit of the Constitution. I believe that this similarly does damage to the Constitution. Do we want elected officials foisting their beliefs upon us without using the channels of government that they swore to protect and serve?

    I doubt anyone involved really believes that got married. Let them go apply for social security benefits or something like that and see what happens. They'll likely be told that, "No, you are not legally married."

    There was no law broken here, as far as I can tell. It's more like giving a key to the city or something symbolic like that. It is not against the law for a mayor to ostensibly approve a marriage that really isn't legally sanctioned. It's just symbolic, like it never really happened. So, in that sense, it's not even civil disobedience. It's a nullity.

  10. #10
    banned
    Reputation: Live Steam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    14,685

    Most of you are skirting the issue

    I said gay rights wasn't the issue. The issue right now is the rule of law and due process. I want to know if it is OK for an elected official to act in defiance of established law. Do not matter what the cause is. Should people we elect to office, and who took an oath to uphold the laws under which they accepted the mantle of leadership, be allowed to disregard those laws because they don't agree with them? Jurists are doing this more and more. Do we want the executive branches of our government doing this too?

    Quote Originally Posted by Live Steam
    San Francisco? Personally I have no problem with same sex unions. I am not sure they should be called marriages though, but that is not the issue I want to discuss.

    My problem is with how the whole thing transpired. In my view the rule of law was trampled upon. An elected official made the decision to ignore the laws of the state and the laws he swore to uphold, and made a mockery of them. What type of nation are we becoming when elected officials make their own rules? Should we accept such extreme reactionary actions from our elected officials? Should this mayor be removed from office for such a blatant attack on the state constitution and the rules that govern our nation?

    Let's not let this degrade into something else. Is it possible for this board to stick to the subject at had without making this about Bush or something else?


  11. #11
    banned
    Reputation: Live Steam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    14,685
    OK I'll accept that. However is this a precedent we want our elected officials to set? Isn't their a process for this sort of thing? Should the mayor have made a case before the state assembly to draft a bill for consideration?

    Also I think the idea that these are not legal marriages, is still in abeyance. Check the link.
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/02/13/samesex.marriage/


    Quote Originally Posted by DougSloan
    I doubt anyone involved really believes that got married. Let them go apply for social security benefits or something like that and see what happens. They'll likely be told that, "No, you are not legally married."

    There was no law broken here, as far as I can tell. It's more like giving a key to the city or something symbolic like that. It is not against the law for a mayor to ostensibly approve a marriage that really isn't legally sanctioned. It's just symbolic, like it never really happened. So, in that sense, it's not even civil disobedience. It's a nullity.

  12. #12
    Banned forever.....or not
    Reputation: MR_GRUMPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    24,120
    Elected officials break the law every day.
    (Don't forget, I live near Chicago)
    If your opinion differs from mine, ..........Too bad.
    .
    How would you like it if Hitler killed you
    Dogbert.

    I>U

    Buying parts to hang on your bike is always easier than getting fit.

    If you feel wimpy and weak, get out and train more, ya wee lassie!

    If Jesus had a gun, he'd be alive today!

  13. #13
    gazing from the shadows
    Reputation: QuiQuaeQuod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    26,384

    Better to ask WHEN it is all right for people to break the law.

    "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison ... the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor." -- Henry David Thoreau

    Please note that Thoreau said that civil disobedience is justified to right a wrong, but also that those who break the law in the pursuit of justice should expect to pay for their crimes.
    .
    Stout beers under trees, please.

  14. #14
    Seeking shades of grey
    Reputation: Duane Gran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Live Steam
    In my view the rule of law was trampled upon. An elected official made the decision to ignore the laws of the state and the laws he swore to uphold, and made a mockery of them. What type of nation are we becoming when elected officials make their own rules? Should we accept such extreme reactionary actions from our elected officials? Should this mayor be removed from office for such a blatant attack on the state constitution and the rules that govern our nation?
    I agree with you. It is a bad precedent for politicians to blatantly push the boundaries of the law. Likewise, I think Roy Moore in Alabama crossed the line when he was ordered to have his 10 commandments monument moved and he refused. At some point a politician has to uphold the oath to serve even if they personally feel strongly about a particular issue.

  15. #15

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    3,079
    Something else you might recall from my posts:

    "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. . ." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

    So yes, I accept breaking the law in some cases but not in others, depending on the circumstances. I don't seen any down side to letting commited adults have that commitment recognized. In your abortion hypothetical, an authority would be denying rights. That is diametrically opposed to recognizing rights, so taking an opposite stance seems perfectly natural to me.

    Would you apply the same "ends can never justify the means" obectiontion to civil rights for other minorities?

  16. #16
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: shawndoggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,083
    Steam, here's an example. "The law" includes judicial decisions (that thar 'd be the "common law"). The Ninth circuit has said that the pledge of allegiance is a violation of the separation of church and state. My daughter's elementary school principal as well as the school superintendant are on record as saying they will not recognize the ruling.

    Again, a bit of civil disobeience for you.

    Lots of yahoos in my community agree with this stance. Personally I'd rather get the stupid brainwashing pledge of allegiance to a piece of cloth out of our schools, but I'm not emperor of the universe yet. But nobody's calling for the ouster of these local officials.

    In fact whether they are following the law or not is probably debatable until all judicial options have been exhausted. Same goes for SF... maybe the "law" that they've broken is unconstitutional in the first place, eh?

    Personally, I've got no problem with this kind of yahooism.

  17. #17
    banned
    Reputation: Live Steam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    14,685

    Hmmm?

    I'll stay on topic, as I asked of you "... stupid brainwashing pledge of allegiance to a piece of cloth..." Hmmm?

    The Ninth Circuit is an activist body as far as I am concerned. They legislate from the bench which I believe at some point in our history, needs to be addressed. Many liberals believe this to be just fine and dandy until it doesn't agree with their agenda. I suspect the same applies to the actions taken by elected executives that are supposed to protect and uphold the laws that are on the books.

    I see this type of activism is of concern to liberals when court nominees are presented by conservatives, for appointment, with good reason. Liberals are accustomed to, and expect activism from public servants when it benefits their cause, but are outraged and even incensed when the desired outcome isn't achieved. That's quite a double standard. Case in point is the fight over the right to bear arms.


    Quote Originally Posted by shawndoggy
    Steam, here's an example. "The law" includes judicial decisions (that thar 'd be the "common law"). The Ninth circuit has said that the pledge of allegiance is a violation of the separation of church and state. My daughter's elementary school principal as well as the school superintendant are on record as saying they will not recognize the ruling.

    Again, a bit of civil disobeience for you.

    Lots of yahoos in my community agree with this stance. Personally I'd rather get the out of our schools, but I'm not emperor of the universe yet. But nobody's calling for the ouster of these local officials.

    In fact whether they are following the law or not is probably debatable until all judicial options have been exhausted. Same goes for SF... maybe the "law" that they've broken is unconstitutional in the first place, eh?

    Personally, I've got no problem with this kind of yahooism.

  18. #18
    off the back
    Reputation: rufus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    14,024
    Quote Originally Posted by Live Steam
    San Francisco? Personally I have no problem with same sex unions. I am not sure they should be called marriages though, but that is not the issue I want to discuss.

    My problem is with how the whole thing transpired. In my view the rule of law was trampled upon. An elected official made the decision to ignore the laws of the state and the laws he swore to uphold, and made a mockery of them. What type of nation are we becoming when elected officials make their own rules? Should we accept such extreme reactionary actions from our elected officials? Should this mayor be removed from office for such a blatant attack on the state constitution and the rules that govern our nation?

    Let's not let this degrade into something else. Is it possible for this board to stick to the subject at had without making this about Bush or something else?

    didn't see you too upset about it when it was a certain alabama chief justice was the one doing it.

  19. #19
    banned
    Reputation: Live Steam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    14,685

    I'm not sure why I didn't weigh in on it or did I?

    I may have not been visiting the board at the time or was only able to glance at the discussions without having time to post. I am not in favor of any activism on the part of any elected or appointed officials.

    Quote Originally Posted by rufus
    didn't see you too upset about it when it was a certain alabama chief justice was the one doing it.

  20. #20

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,360

    Knocks Newsom out of the 2016 pres race

    I predicted a few weeks ago, only half tongue-in-cheek, that Gavin Newsom would be the next Democratic pres, after Bush was re-elected and Hillary lost. This certainly renders that inoperable
    Any indignation about the rule of law in this case seems specious, though, unless we're also going to enforce laws about corporate fraud, bilking investors, misstating earnings, not showing up for military duty, destroying government records, blah blah blah.
    Having said THAT, though: How can anybody even CARE about this? What difference does it make to me how people I'll never meet or see conduct their lives?

  21. #21
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: shawndoggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Live Steam
    The Ninth Circuit is an activist body as far as I am concerned. They legislate from the bench which I believe at some point in our history, needs to be addressed. Many liberals believe this to be just fine and dandy until it doesn't agree with their agenda. I suspect the same applies to the actions taken by elected executives that are supposed to protect and uphold the laws that are on the books.
    Steam, I guess I didn't say it clearly enough. Or maybe I did and proved the point to myself...

    The way I read the above response is to say that you hold the 9th Cir. in contempt as an activist body. Back to the (your) point, though, wouldn't you still be outraged if your own public officials (assuming they were within the 9th Cir.; I know they aren't) openly flauted the Court's rulings?

    Pot/Kettle, Goose/Gander and all that rot. My point is that either you accept a level of activism from your public officials (performing gay marriage & ignoring 9th Cir fall into that same broad category) or you don't. I do accept this activism, even though I don't necessarily agree with the school administrators' opinion regarding the 9th Cir's holding.

    Sheesh, I don't remember reading about your outrage over the tax dollars wasted so our elected officials could grandstand over calling stuff "freedom _____" instead of "french _____." I mean really, what basis for authority would they draw on to do that? The dictionary is a private sector concern after all.

  22. #22
    banned
    Reputation: Live Steam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    14,685

    Unhappy President? I don't think so

    I think we are enforcing laws about corporate fraud, bilking investors and misstating earnings. Your other insinuations are just that. I know - you can't help yourself But you missed the point. I don't care about the issue per say, but the method that Newsom chose. Aside from the fact that he disregarded the laws on the books, he used public resources and the power of his office to make a political statement. He also showed contempt for the public that he serves. After all he doesn't only represent gays and people who believe in gay marriage rights. He also represents those that oppose. But I guess you feel they don't matter if they don't share his view on the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cory
    I predicted a few weeks ago, only half tongue-in-cheek, that Gavin Newsom would be the next Democratic pres, after Bush was re-elected and Hillary lost. This certainly renders that inoperable
    Any indignation about the rule of law in this case seems specious, though, unless we're also going to enforce laws about corporate fraud, bilking investors, misstating earnings, not showing up for military duty, destroying government records, blah blah blah.
    Having said THAT, though: How can anybody even CARE about this? What difference does it make to me how people I'll never meet or see conduct their lives?

  23. #23
    banned
    Reputation: Live Steam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    14,685

    I do hold the 9th in contempt


    You ask if I would be outraged if the case fit my perspective? I didn't state my position on gay marriage, however, yes I still would be if this involved some issue with a conservative bent. I do not believe the courts should overstep their bounds and legislate. They cross the line between separation of powers when doing so. I also do not appreciate elected officials taking the law into their own hands. They are elected to ensure that the laws that our representative legislators adopt are followed in the spirit they were intended. They are not, as many liberals claim Bush to be, kings with the power to do what they believe is the correct course of action. They must follow the rules like the rest of us.

    Tax dollars wasted over freedom instead of French? Please refresh my memory if I'm wrong. I thought that was a silly argument to begin with, but I doubt many resources were devoted to that fight. However that said, I believe it was debated by our representatives. That is what they are supposed to do. They didn't decree that freedom would replace French. I believe that is the distinct difference.



    Quote Originally Posted by shawndoggy
    Steam, I guess I didn't say it clearly enough. Or maybe I did and proved the point to myself...

    The way I read the above response is to say that you hold the 9th Cir. in contempt as an activist body. Back to the (your) point, though, wouldn't you still be outraged if your own public officials (assuming they were within the 9th Cir.; I know they aren't) openly flauted the Court's rulings?

    Pot/Kettle, Goose/Gander and all that rot. My point is that either you accept a level of activism from your public officials (performing gay marriage & ignoring 9th Cir fall into that same broad category) or you don't. I do accept this activism, even though I don't necessarily agree with the school administrators' opinion regarding the 9th Cir's holding.

    Sheesh, I don't remember reading about your outrage over the tax dollars wasted so our elected officials could grandstand over calling stuff "freedom _____" instead of "french _____." I mean really, what basis for authority would they draw on to do that? The dictionary is a private sector concern after all.

  24. #24
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: shawndoggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Live Steam

    You ask if I would be outraged if the case fit my perspective? I didn't state my position on gay marriage, however, yes I still would be if this involved some issue with a conservative bent. I do not believe the courts should overstep their bounds and legislate. They cross the line between separation of powers when doing so. I also do not appreciate elected officials taking the law into their own hands. They are elected to ensure that the laws that our representative legislators adopt are followed in the spirit they were intended. They are not, as many liberals claim Bush to be, kings with the power to do what they believe is the correct course of action. They must follow the rules like the rest of us.

    Tax dollars wasted over freedom instead of French? Please refresh my memory if I'm wrong. I thought that was a silly argument to begin with, but I doubt many resources were devoted to that fight. However that said, I believe it was debated by our representatives. That is what they are supposed to do. They didn't decree that freedom would replace French. I believe that is the distinct difference.
    WHY WHY WHY Steam do I ever try to reason with you? It doesn't work. I know that from my personal discourse with you and I know it from reading how you respond to others but every once in a while you show some spark of meaningful consideration of an issue and......

    I wasn't talking about the courts man, I was talking about disregard for the "law" by public officials. The example I fed you was whether you'd support disregard of a judicial ban on the pledge in school. You give this diatribe against the 9th circuit.... now without going to google can you name another 9th circuit abomination off of the top of your head? But anyhow I digress. The point is that if you were an elected official and your federal appellate court (2nd Cir. in you case, I believe) held that the pledge couldn't be spoken in school that you'd enforce that ruling without protest or drama, just as the SF officials should enforce the "marriage between a man and a woman" law, right?

  25. #25
    banned
    Reputation: Live Steam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    14,685

    You seem to be the one ...

    going into a diatribe. I think I answered your question, but to reiterate since your reading comprehension skills need some work --- (copied from the post above) - "...I also do not appreciate elected officials taking the law into their own hands. They are elected to ensure that the laws that our representative legislators adopt are followed in the spirit they were intended." I also stated in the post above - "... I would be outraged if the case fit my perspective? ..... yes I still would be if this involved some issue with a conservative bent." This statement applies equally to both those in the legislative and executive branches of government. It should also apply to civil servants. Civil servants are there to serve the public interest, as the title of the position plainly states. They shouldn't use their public platform for political activism when they are on the public dole. They should leave that for their personal time. If they want to march on their day off, fine by me. The teachers in the school you referenced, should do as the law states. Period. This society will be less than civil if everyone did what ever they wanted.

    I hope I answered you questions. It's very important to me that they were answered to your satisfaction.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.