 |
|  |
 |
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999 time: 13:33
|
|
quote: The assessor-recorder, Mabel S. Teng, said her office, responsible for issuing the $83 licenses, performed 825 weddings on Monday, bringing the number of same-sex marriages to about 2,425 since the city opened the gates to gay couples on Thursday.
The clerk's staff, the sheriff's department and volunteers from other offices worked through the three-day holiday weekend without pay, Ms. Teng said. "It's purely out of love and commitment to equal rights."
At least 200 city workers, with additional help from the public, kept the doors to City Hall open over the weekend.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/17/n.../17GAYS.html?hp |
Wow! I'm d*mn proud to be a former San Franciscan!
My feelings towards those tireless hetero city workers volunteering to work for free through their holiday weekend is the same as my feeling toward all you straight Poly posters who have advocated gay marriage so forcefully:

Thanks to Mabel Teng and others like her, the wedding bells are ringing furiously in San Francisco! Let's hope that sound is soon heard across the nation! 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
gamenaught
|
|
It is interesting how many of those that complain how the San Francisco officials exceeded their authority had no problem when Alabama judge Roy Moore ignored the law.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc
The fact remains that the reach of the city officials in this instance seems to have far outreached thier legally alotted grasp in this instance. |
While I haven't reviewd the laws in question, Dinodoc appears to be right. It is generally not a City official's function to determine that a state law is unconstitutional and should not be enforced. Imagine the anarchy if all the cities in a country decided to apply or not apply laws as they saw fit.
BUT
I applaud the action in many ways. This again brings the issue to the forefront and the courts will have to rule on this now .
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970 time: 00:33
|
|
I don't have much time to post right now. Just a couple of short responses.
quote: Originally posted by Theben
Adam Smith & Drake, re: civil union vs. marriage:
say that at 1st marriage & the civil union laws start out legally equal- someone decides to amend the civil union law, downgrading it in some fashion, BUT leaves marriage laws unchanged. Now explain to me how that's "separate but equal". | This is a legal technicality. First, I any law were changed in that manner, I would oppose it. Second, the problem could easily be fixed by adding one line to the legislation to the effect that all subsequent rights would be the same.
Mindseye:
One point I have been trying to make is that laws can only impose requirements on people's tangible actions. In terms of your entrance example, when people in Massachusetts or Vermont start putting "Civil Union Only" signs over selected water fountains, I will oppose their actions. There is no way laws can impose requirements on people's feelings. In the absense of any tangible actions, how is any law supposed to mediate between gays who in some way "feel" like second class citizens" and some religious people who in some way "feel" that their marriages are demeaned?
So far as I can tell, there is no right to have someting called a specific name of one's choosing, especially when others might be opposed. Calling it a civil unoin (with all rights attached) seems appropriate to me. In terms of Asher's numerical argument, 5 = 10/2. The names are different, but any operation you do to one you can do to the other and get the same result.
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
- Eleanor Roosevelt
(edit: removed double negative)
Last edited by Adam Smith on 18-02-2004 at 01:42
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
Wouldn't it be great if mayors of other major U.S. cities decided to go ahead and do the same thing tomorrow? LA, NY, Chicago, San Diego, Seattle, Detroit, Cleveland, Atlanta, DC...
Revolution.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999 time: 13:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Adam Smith
One point I have been trying to make is that laws can only impose requirements on people's tangible actions.In terms of your entrance example, when people in Massachusetts or Vermont start putting "Civil Union Only" signs over selected water fountains, I will oppose their actions. There is no way laws can impose requirements on people's feelings. | But we are talking about actions. With "civil unions" gay people still cannot get married, i.e. they will be legally barred from using the same water fountain as everyone else. Their only chance to drink water will be at the "gays only" fountain. You really think that's decent or fair? I'm surprised.
quote: In the absense of any tangible actions, how is any law supposed to mediate between gays who in some way "feel" like second class citizens" (...) | Again, it's not about feelings, gays will be treated as second class citizens by being refused the opportunity to marry, and being asked to accept something else instead. Only gays will be asked this. Serial killers on death row will still be able to marry, as well as those who have divorced five times. But not gays. And you don't think that implies "second class"?

quote: (...) and some religious people who in some way "feel" that their marriages are demeaned? | The feelings of religious people should not trump the basic right of marriage for others. If you do not agree, are you willing to give up your marriage for my religious feelings? I doubt it, not if your marriage means anything to you.
How would you feel if the government barred marriage to all Chinese-Americans (and only Chinese-Americans), asking them to accept "civil unions" instead? In that situation, you really wouldn't feel that Chinese-Americans were being treated differently?
quote: So far as I can tell, there is no right to have someting called a specific name of one's choosing, especially when others might be opposed. | We're not talking about the right to name something. We're talking about the right to be married. What is your objection to gays getting married? Why should gays be asked to accept anything else? No other group is asked to accept something else. This singling-out of one particular group for special treatment is what makes seperate-but-equal fundamentally unequal.
quote: Calling it a civil unoin (with all rights attached) seems appropriate to me. | That's fine, but I hope you don't mind if those of us actually asked to accept second-class marriages don't share your sanguinity over the prospect.

|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33. Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|