Burnt Orange Report

The situation in SF is fairly interesting. Clearly the SF City officials acted in violation of the law to issue these marriage licenses. I think a proper analogy is the "civil disobedience" Woolworth lunch counter sit-ins that started in Greensboro, NC. The difference is that the sit-ins were intentional acts of private citizens to violate a law they thought was unjust. In this case, we have a rare example of public officials violating a law they believe are unjust.

This is not the first time a public official has done so. Governor Wallace standing in the door of U-Ala to prevent black enrollment is another example. Before anyone goes bezerk for me comparing Mayor Newsome to Governor Wallace, listen carefully to what I have read. The similarity is limited to the following: both men, using their public official capacity, violated a fairly straightforward law that each one believed, in his own mind, to be unjust. In the Wallace situation, the National Guard stepped in. It will be curious to see what Gov. Arnold "my father was a Nazi" Schwarzenegger will do about it.

(Disclaimer: I do not generally advocate blood corruption and just because Arnold's father was a Nazi does not make him a Nazi. However, he certainly invited the issue upon himself, when he invited Kurt Waldheim to his wedding and went out of his way to propose a toast on his behalf and stick up for him. This is like sticking up for Mengele as just being a "misunderstood scientist." Schwarzenneger is unfit to be a pimple on a governor's butt for that reason alone.)

I'm so happy about this. What pioneers those women are. Congrats to them, and to all of us. I called my parents last night to tell them and they already knew. "Congratulations! See, we told you it would happen." Feb. 12 is Gay Marriage Day.

During the MA debate I kept hearing them say, "Should MA be the birthplace of gay marriage?" Too late! At least that issue will be off the table in March. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

Best Valentine ever.

I back. Miss me? Gotta love the grad school workload, no?

Anyway, WhoMe?, I'm glad to see that you recognize that the SF marriage licences are against California law -- actually, post 1998, the California state consitution. Approve of it or not, what SF is doing is illegal, and the "marriages" have no legal force in the state of California.

What I really wanted to post about, though, was to pose a question to those of who support creating same sex "marriages." You frequently criticize people like me for holding the a priori belief that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, and for not accepting it as normal, primarily based on religious resons, etc. etc. I'm not terribly interested in re-hashing the religious/moral arguments against homosexuality at the moment, but it seems that you also operate from an a priori assumption, -- namely, the belief that homosexual acts and heterosexual acts are essentially equivalent (minus the fact that they can't produce children). You believe that morally, ethically, politically, socially, and hopefully in the future, legally, homosexual acts and heterosexual acts are identical, and thus there is no reason for the law to distinguish between them. You don't simply hold to the moral equivalence of homosexuals and heterosexuals (which I also believe in, since we are all depraved and fallen sinners, and homosexual behavior is no more or less of a sin than extra-marital heterosexual behavior, of which there is a lot going on), but you also believe in the equivalence homosexual and heterosexual behavior itself.

Why?

Seriously, I'd like to know, why this a priori belief, from which your positions on same sex "marriages," civil unions, and the rest logically follow? We've argued before over why I hold the opposing belief, and I'm not trying to start a comment fight right now, I'd just like to know why think homosexual and heterosexual acts are essentially the same.

Regards,

Sherk

Yeah, that would be "I'm back" in the first sentance there. I'm not trying my hand at learning Ebonics here, really, I swear.

Sherk

Sherk,

To answer you rquestion, some people are left handed and some people are gay. I think it is really as simple as that. The gay people I know are certainly not morally depraved. They are just like everyone else. Your entire perspective of whether it's "morally proper" or "amoral" is simply the wrong paradigm. It is neither - it is just the way some people are.

the SF marriage licences are against California law -- actually, post 1998, the California state consitution.

Yep, it's pretty much the same as Judge Moore having the Ten Commandments in his courthouse - unconstitutional, but an act of civil disobedience in the eyes of supporters.

We'll see if the SF people receive the same treatment as Judge Moore.

Was the Cali Constitution actually amended on this issue? I know they have a funky I&R process, but I did not think that it amended the State Constitution. I know they I&R provisions bind the Legislature, but I was not sure if it actually amended the State Constitution. (Kind of a mid- way between Legislature-passed legislation and constitutional amendment)

As an aside, Cali will always be f-ed up, no matter whether Ds or Rs control as long as they have I&R. The problem is that the populace votes absolutely inconsistent I&R provisions and ties the hands of the Leg. For example, the people demand all kinds of spending in one I&R and then forbid the State from raising certain revenue in others. They need to trash their State Constitution and start over.

For starters, straight couples can do EVERYTHING that gay couples can do. So really, what do you think is different about it?

I still just cannot grasp why same-sex marriage ever even comes down to morality or religious conviction/belief. Banning or restricting it in any way is in direct violation of the 19th Amendment of the United States Constitution. It's gender discrimination plain and simple. Why drag anything else in to complicate it?

Tracy,

The 19th Amendment is limited to discrimination in the realm of voting, and is inapplicable to the debate. The "catch all" equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is the constitutional hook upon with to hang any federal constitutional challenge.