Ax, Bob and Matt - you guys need to cut it out!

You made me laugh so hard the milk came out of my nose!

There are LOT of things different in California (some of them VERY different ), but this isn't one of them. It's the same in Lousiana and Alabama, too.

The Mayor of SF and Judge Roy are similar in that they chose to use civil disobedience to make a point based on religous ideals; one pro, one con. In neither case have the perps been hauled off to the pokey, although either one of them could have been. Roy lost his job, and hizzoner the mayor may well lose his. It's the chance they take, and I'm sure that either one of them would tell you that their goal was worth the risk. In both cases it is the courts who will decide, and they'll decide based on the constitution.

My point is that it is more important to preserve this system (informal and cantankerous as it is)than it is to achieve the goals of either one of them.

It doesn't matter where it happens.

Here's the difference:

The Monday morning "Roy's Rock" was discovered, all hell broke loose. A lot of people (including me) thought that a public posting of the Ten Commandments might do folks a lot more good, than harm - especially since nobody is required to read, recognize or obey the chiseled words in stone.

Yet, all the king's horses, and men - mostly in the form of the ACLU - were most determined to have that offnsive stone removed posthaste, forthwith, and right now!

On the other hand, what the mayor did was worse. The actions that he took, directly changed law. In Roy's case, there is no change in how justice and the law was administered. In the mayor's case, he changed the law, and the way it was administered for his own purposes. That is anarchy, pure and simple. And nobody was in a hurry to enforce the law, since now we apparently enforce the laws we want to, when we want to enforce them.

Roy Moore. Yes. Roy Moore is running for President. Vote for Roy. Go Roy.

jf

Not so different, IMHO:

[/b]

An equal quantity of hell broke loose when the gays started getting marriage licenses in SF. A lot of folks (including me) thought that a public airing of this debate might do more good than harm - especially as no one is required to marry someone of the same sex if they don't want to.

[/b]

An equal (and equally vocal) number wanted the granting of licenses to stop, with equal haste. Just as in Roy's case it's taking a while, and I view this as good. In neither case was there a need for immediate action.

[/b]

Roy wanted to change the law, but when his actions were weighed against the constitution, he was unable to do so. The mayor hasn't changed any laws yet, but he wants to. The jury is definitely out on whether or not any laws will change at all. Hizzoner's actions will also be weighed against the constitution, and appropriate action will be taken. I'm particularly interested in seeing how the current ban measures up against the "Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" provision. Note that it will probably take several - very narrowly defined - lawsuits to decide this. It's how the court handles this sort of thing.

Naw, it's not anarchy. It's civil disobedience in the grand old tradition. It's not unlike throwing tea in a harbor or refusing to move to the back of a bus.

It's messy, but I wouldn't have it any other way.

Our activist members of the county commissioners decided to go against the governor's wishes as reported a few minutes ago. Marriage license to gays are being granted again today. The activist chairwoman told reporters that she had carefully read the attorney general's lengthy report, and decided there was no reason to stop.

A judge issued something called a "mandamus," which I guess means that the county is suppose to justify its legal basis for allowing gay marriages to continue (maybe KathyK can explain what that word means). Of course all of this is foreplay, it will go to the state supreme court.

It was pointed out in yesterday's newspaper, that Oregon has the most liberal laws in the country, and that overall, all states' constitutions are more liberal than the federal, as the federal amendments are a "minimum standard" whereas states can be much broader in protecting rights.

The highest concentration of "adult" entertainment is in Oregon. Just last week on the news, was yet another group of people protesting a new adult video store opening by a school. This happens frequently -- parents do not want this sludge in their neighborhoods -- but it never works. The courts uphold the rights of the porn industry regardless of where such businesses open. Right down the street (1 block) from our local high school, is a topless bar, and within a quarter mile are a couple of adult porn shops. Actually, we should be proud. These aren't little sleazy sticky shops, but large stores with wonderful neon signs. Can't figure why our unemployment is so high, we've got so much to offer here!

Maybe that's the real issue: we're all sex crazed in this state, gays and straights alike. Just can't get enough, and no time left over for finding work.

You know, I vaguely remember writs of mandamus from Constitutional Law.

Here's the definition I just found:

MANDAMUS, WRIT OF, in English law, a high prerogative writ issuing from the High Court of Justice (named from the first word in the Latin form of the writ) containing a command in the name of the king, directed to inferior courts, corporations, or individuals, ordering them to do a specific act within the duty of their office, or which they are bound by statute to do, and performance whereof the applicant for the writ has a specific legal right to enforce.

Of course, the command is not from the king in this case, but same idea.

I knew there was something I liked about Oregon besides its natural beauty!

Here's where I think you are wrong:

A marriage license carries with it civil authority. In the case of Roy's Rock, no such legal barrier was breached.

Also, the mayor was in direct defiance of a recent california plebiscite on marriage - one of which he was well aware, and referred to.

As for civil disobedience, we know quite a lot about that down here.

We have the battlefields, and the graveyards, to prove it.

Some unfortunate backlash...

outlawing gays

Beautifully written.

Quoting from the article:
"That is the most farfetched idea put forth by any kind of public official," Nevels said. "I'm outraged."

Funny, that's the same sentiment as here when assessing the county commissioner ladies that have allowed gay marriage to proceed here in Portland. Same sentiment, opposite perspectives.

Benton county, home of Oregon State Univ. in Corvalis, will begin offering marriage licenses to gays next week. The students at the university seem to think it's no big deal (of course, how many of them have any experience in the institution of marriage) - but, they are constantly asked by TV news teams.

The difference with Corvalis though, is that it is rural. There are a lot of "traditionalists" in that area, so there may be a different reaction. Seems the media is hoping for something awful, the way they keep mentioning a possible yet unknown backlash from the hicks.

I mentioned to my wife, that it was curious that in Benton county, as with Multnomah (Portland), those that were activists for gay marriage were female, while the men on the board were against gay marriage.

My wife's opinion: women are more compassionate.

Could be, I guess.

Just wanted to note in this thread that Spain's incoming president, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, has announced his intention of allowing civil unions for gays. He made sure to be clear that it would not be called marriage, as that entails a religious ceremony, but that he would work towards giving them the same legal rights as any other married couple. For Spain, this is HUGE. Not sure if it will pass though, the Catholic church still has incredible influence and power here. But it is an impressive step for the new government.

Elena
http://www.pianofourhands.com

Are you gay?

Otherwise, I would think that gay civil unions would be a rather insignificant issue in the grand scheme of things - at least it would seem there would be larger interest groups for the new socialists to pay-back first.

But then again, as I recall, when Clinton took office, one of his first concerns was gays in the military.

Benevolent leadership, I guess.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rvaga:
Are you gay?[/b]

Lol... it's more fun to keep you wondering!

Sorry it took so long to respond, I just saw this post.

Otherwise, I would think that gay civil unions would be a rather insignificant issue in the grand scheme of things - at least it would seem there would be larger interest groups for the new socialists to pay-back first. [/b]

No because just the fact that it is being talked about as a possibility means a huge shift in the society and mentality of Spain. The socialists try to focus more on improving social and cultural conditions (not always successfully) not simply economic ones.

Elena
http://www.pianofourhands.com

Not trying to bump this thread up, but didn't want to go off-topic in the "Cootie Monster" thread. . .

The Oregonian (our major newspaper) in Sunday's op-ed section presented a scathing endictment of the 4 women County Commissioners. This is a very rare occurance for the Oregonian, as this newspaper tends to be quite liberal.

Their contention: the Commissioners "violated the public trust" and because of this, the Oregonian supports a recall election of these women.

I predict the recall will be successful. This has nothing to do with gay marriage, but has everything to do with the clandestine method used by agenda-driven Board members. As the governor pointed out, his efforts have been to rebuild public trust in state government, and these women have done considerable damage to such efforts.

Gay marriage was not implemented democratically by these night-riders, but booting these women out of office will be done democratically.

The system works, sometimes. We'll see.

Thought I'd update anyone interested about how the marriage license issue in Benton county (Corvallis, home of OSU) is being handled.

An attorney filed a suit against the county. The Commissioners decided to back off from their previous decision to allow same-sex marriages to begin this Wednesday. Their solution -- no marriage licenses (straight or gay) will be allowed until the issue is resolved by the Oregon Supreme Court.

. . . all quiet on the western front . . .

They won't even issue normal marriage licenses?

Nope. Nada.

The backlash has been (I think) more than any of these Board members in Multnomah county or Benton county expected. Does power really go to the head as much as these people exhibit? They have turned a commitment of public service into some sort of personal/group power trip. Even the newspaper commented that if these people are the types that work behind the scenes ignoring public input and debate - what can they be trusted with? What other decisions regarding county matters would they be willing to make behind closed doors, what decisions have they been making behind the backs of the people?

Sure, they undoubtedly expected a bit of an uproar, but I don't think they expected such an explosive reaction, including even the quite liberal governor. It's interesting to watch these 4 women on TV, answering questions with calmness, but looking very much like the proverbial deer in the headlights.

On the other hand, maybe they thought they were doing what they had to do, based on the state constitution and the loophole (constitution does not mention man and woman). Nawww: behind closed doors with the ACLU and gay activist groups violating the open meeting laws makes any pretense of good intention suspect.

If somehow gay marriage ends up being legal, fine. The sun will rise, the planet keeps spinning.

But, if gay marriage is struck down, this becomes a classic example of how well-intentioned legally imposed social engineering backfires, with the opposite of the original intent(s) becoming the result.