allisnow

I know you and I disagree on the gay marriage thing, hon, and that's okay with me. Many people I love dearly agree with you.

It bugs me that they knew all along they were going to have to take this to the supreme court, and they had to jerk the poor couples around in order to make legal points. This was obviously going to get dragged through the courts for years - and give lots of lawyers brand new Carribean vacation homes. :/

We obviously got a lot of coverage on this because I'm only about an hour from SanFran. And even the usual cast of mushhead libs *g* on the news back then were mad at Newsom because it was so obvious that this wouldn't stand. So these people got to be happy and got their hopes up when everyone knew that they would be revoked. Not smart thinking on his part.

Actually ...

If people want to be mad at someone, they should probably be mad at Bush since Newsom made it clear from Day 1 that the idea of handing out marriage licences to gay couples came to him only after Bush's State of the Union address. If Bush hadn't decided to make amending the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage a priority in his address, then Newsom wouldn't have felt the need to call out Bush's actions by showing that allowing gays to marry wouldn't make the ground crumble below us.

And whether or not you agree with what Newsom did, his actions *have* brought the issue of gay marriage back to the forefront in California, and that's what needed to happen for the current law banning gay marriage to be (possibly) repealed.

(Hope you don't mind me commenting here. :) Just stumbled in via my friendsfriends page.)

If people want to be mad at someone, they should probably be mad at Bush since Newsom made it clear from Day 1 that the idea of handing out marriage licences to gay couples came to him only after Bush's State of the Union address. If Bush hadn't decided to make amending the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage a priority in his address, then Newsom wouldn't have felt the need to call out Bush's actions

Oh yes. I definitely blame Bush for the ideas that people have. Tsk tsk. All his fault. Bad Bush!

by showing that allowing gays to marry wouldn't make the ground crumble below us.

*eyes the ground suspiciously* That's a bit of hyperbole. I mean, I oppose 'gay marriage' (whoops, said I wasn't going to go there... oh well) not because I'm worried about the stability of the ground but because I'm a traditionalist. If gay folk want to commit to each other, they're welcome to. I just don't agree with changing the meaning of the word.

And whether or not you agree with what Newsom did, his actions *have* brought the issue of gay marriage back to the forefront in California, and that's what needed to happen for the current law banning gay marriage to be (possibly) repealed.

Yes, because we can't let the *people* actually *vote* to decide the future of their country/state! What do they know. Let's just go to the judges and encourage them to continue legislating from the bench.

Yes, because we can't let the *people* actually *vote* to decide the future of their country/state! What do they know. Let's just go to the judges and encourage them to continue legislating from the bench.


Nah, it's just another one in that long tradition of the US courts moving faster than the legislature can.

Oh yeah. Faster is always better.

*rolls eyes*

Well, it's just a thing with every country - getting the legislature together to debate a law that needs changed *now* isn't always the easiest thing. (Same reason the UK never quite ditched the Royal powers dealing with wars and the like.)

Yeah. I think Newsom did what he has to. Sure, a few laws got broken, but the FMA is the most disturbing thing to come out of America since... well, since Dubyah got elected. *shudder*

Yeah, to heck with the law. It's just there as a guideline anyway.

Oh, please, people have been breaking laws since Day One of society, and America is hardly any different. I mean, refusing to pay taxes to the British? Throwing tea in the Atlantic? Underground railroads? Freedom rides? It's a long-standing method of protest. Civil disobediance, while not down with the law, has always been a population's way of protesting against the legislature.


(PS: Not much eating on a hippie.)

All the courts did was protect the will of the majority of the Californian people.

Then boy am I glad I don't live there. You have my sympathies.

Well Jen, you have to admit we live in two different places with two very different cultures. What's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander ;)

Hem. Hem.
I'm guessing that the culture of Cali and of NY aren't all that different, especially close to sanfran.... so, this particular gander would definitely enjoy what the goose has got. In this case, the Canadian goose. *is amused at self*

The culture of SF and NY not different?! Yikes, woman! :D

Compared to the cultures of the US and UK? Perspective. We are both still boob tube watchin', burger eatin', gas guzzler drivin' americans...

No, what I'm saying is there's a big difference between the cultures of those two cities. And even more different between the UK and mainstream america (which NY and SF really are excluded from)

courts did was protect the will of the majority of the Californian people.

Aren't the courts supposed to be protecting the constitution of california?

I think of what Mayor Newsom did as a powerful act of civil disobediance, showing the inherent conflict between your marriage statutes and the 'equal protection' clause of your constitution. he rights of the individual which were guaranteed in Cal's foremost legal document should NOT be subject to the whims of the people in an individual age.

Yes, it was against the laws defined by Prop 22. The thing of it is, Prop. 22 itself is illegal. Yes, you guys are close to making it an amendement. When that happens? Well, congratulations, the Movement for the Second Class Citizenship of Homosexuals shall have prevailed.

I also feel that those who are mad at the courts have a right to be. The courts may be upholding the 'will of the people', but that will is discriminatory, like it or no. It might be lawful, but it is also shameful. I don't think that these people misunderstood the nature of the act when they got married, nor the fact that it was, indeed, civil disobedience. I do think that they were hoping for a more positive result, as with Mahatma Ghandi's salt march. His actions showed the government the just and sensible route, and they took it. Unfortunately, that was not the case here.


Now. I WILL cap tp. I WILL. *closes all browser windows*

Aren't the courts supposed to be protecting the constitution of california?

Yeah, and guess what the constitution says? The people vote on something, and it becomes a law! What a concept!

Newsom is an ass. In any other region, his smarmy keister would have been arrested for breaking the law.

Now excuse me, I'm going to go back to being a big bad discriminatory homophobic whateverthehellelse conservative. Have fun capping.

Yeah, and guess what the constitution says? The people vote on something, and it becomes a law! What a concept!

And that, umm, final decisions on whether the law is then constiutional rests with the Supreme Court. Like with Brown v Board of Education and Roe v Wade and the like.


Now excuse me, I'm going to go back to being a big bad discriminatory homophobic whateverthehellelse conservative. Have fun capping.

At least you're open about it. :P

And that, umm, final decisions on whether the law is then constiutional
rests with the Supreme Court. Like with Brown v Board of Education and
Roe v Wade and the like.

Very good! You get an A!

Fank oo omg!

*clings to the A*

it really doesnt matter how sensible the route was ,you have to change the law before you can walk it

Yes, it was against the laws defined by Prop 22. The thing of it is, Prop. 22 itself is illegal. Yes, you guys are close to making it an amendement. When that happens? Well, congratulations, the Movement for the Second Class Citizenship of Homosexuals shall have prevailed.

Word.

I also feel that those who are mad at the courts have a right to be. The courts may be upholding the 'will of the people', but that will is discriminatory, like it or no. It might be lawful, but it is also shameful. I don't think that these people misunderstood the nature of the act when they got married, nor the fact that it was, indeed, civil disobedience. I do think that they were hoping for a more positive result, as with Mahatma Ghandi's salt march. His actions showed the government the just and sensible route, and they took it. Unfortunately, that was not the case here.

Yeah. If Ghandi had kept to the letter of the law India would still be British, gah.