Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, has ordered a stop the the gay marriages being performed in San Fransisco by San Fran mayor Gavin Newsom.
From an MSNBC Story:
Schwarzenegger's directive to Attorney General Bill Lockyer Friday was prompted in part by the judge's decision not to impose a temporary restraining order that would have halted San Francisco's weeklong parade of 3,175 same-sex weddings, said Rob Stutzman, Schwarzenegger's communications director.
"Our civilized society and legal system is based upon a respect for and adherence to the rule of law," Schwarzenegger wrote in a letter to Lockyer. "The City and County of San Francisco's unfortunate choice to disregard state law and grant marriage certificates to gay couples directly undermines this fundamental guarantee."
Whether you believe in gay marriage or not, the issue here is rule of law. California law, as stated by Prop 22 says that Marriage is between a woman and a man. Any other marriage is unlawful. But that is not really the issue here.
The issue is that Gavin Newsom does not have the right to issue marriage licences any more than he has the right to issue gun permits. Both gun permits and marriage licenses are issued by the state. Any permit offered by any other juristiction is nulll and void. Issuing such permits is a felony. Just imagine the outrage if a similarly minded civil disobedient issued gun permits, or exemptions from State income taxes. He has no legal authority. It would be an outrage.
Liberal groups cried foul when Judge Roy Moore refused to remove his Ten Commandments plaque in Alabamba after a court order and state law. In line with the law he was defrocked, and the commandments plaque was removed. Secularist groups were happy that the "rule of law" was followed.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Doc
Oh stop the hystrionics for christ's sake! Arnold shows his true colors now. Sure, it's ok for the gropinator to bother women while he's married (that's sacred!) but two committed people wanting equal rights is breaking the law?
Then my good man, the law is a fool.
Until the courts decide he's breaking the law, Arnie and your opinions don't matter a whit.
2 - Dirtgrain
It's good to see you focusing on the important things going on in the world. An errant, wayward mayor is the last thing this country needs--we already have a president who fits this description. I should say that crucifixion would be going to easy on this irreverent Newsom. Drawn and quartered? Slowly lowered into hot wax? Death by paper cuts?
We need to put a stop to this wanton disregard for our laws; else all out anarchy rages and the constitution is overturned. While we are at it, there is the serious issue of jaywalking that needs addressing. I propose that all jaywalkers be shot on sight. As a way of teaching the ills of jaywalking to young children, we should chop off the hands of any who dare color outside of the lines. We will get our society in line, one way or another.
3 - Tom
It's amazing how you liberals love to talk about rule of law and all that stuff, but when it comes to a law you don't like, you just disregard it.
It's also apparent you are illiterate as my point was not about the gay marriage issue itself, but the fact that San Fran issued marriage licenses against current law. If he issued a marriage license to a traditional couple he would be just as guilty.
It is a felony for any municipality to issue permits, licenses and the such which are not covered in it's juristiction. It is for the State to issue such things. Just as if Mayor Newsom decided to issue Gun Permits or Liquor Licenses. Those would be null and void, and the person issuing such illegal licenses should be brought up on charges.
4 - Dirtgrain
Ain't we durned illitrat peopleses "alllowed" too voce ourn opinons?
Tom said: "It's also apparent you are illiterate as my point was not about the gay marriage issue itself, but the fact that San Fran issued marriage licenses against current law." But in his original post he said: "If the courts overturn Prop 22, and gay marriage is alllowed, then couples wishing to marry can then go through the proper channels to obtain such a permit." Illiterate?
Tom said: "It is a felony for any municipality to issue permits, licenses and the such which are not covered in it's juristiction. It is for the State to issue such things. Just as if Mayor Newsom decided to issue Gun Permits or Liquor Licenses. Those would be null and void, and the person issuing such illegal licenses should be brought up on charges."
You wrote, "it's juristiction?" Did you not get the email from Eric about usage errors and spelling? I admittedly make my share of errors, but your errors stand out in light of your labeling others illiterate. Why are you ignoring my point about jaywalkers? We need to deal with those damned public nuisances--behead them maybe.
Tom, you claim that I'm a liberal and that my response focused on the issue of gay marriage as opposed to your so solidly made points about the rule of law? Who is supposed to be illiterate?
Yes, you point out that we should adhere to our nation's laws. My point, which was probably too subtle in its exaggeration (I guess) for you to notice, was that you have picked a relatively insignificant governmental violation of law, amidst a roiling sea of more severe and significant violations, on which to focus.
5 - Jim Carruthers
According to the front page of today's Globe and Mail, Mayor Newsom has a case that the marriage limiting law is unconstitutional, violating equality rights, and there is no law preventing the city from issuing marriage licenses. If a law is unconstitutional, you have two choices: disregard the law or change the constitution. It has nothing to do with the bipolar political spectrum in the States.
6 - The Raging Critic
How can you give us the "respect for the law" argument when lawmakers themselves are trying to cut corners to purposefeully discriminate.
THE PEOPLE are finally speaking out here - against a totalitarian mentality. This is NOT about Gavin Newsome. This is about the dictator in the White House. It amazes me how conservatives expect the gay people to sit down and shut up when reprimanded. Sorry, but this is life, not something that requires a "Kindergarten Cop."
Gavin Newsome and Chicago's Mayor Daley should be commended for taking a political stance for the gay people. It is about time, and it all makes sense. Look, gay people come from all over the nation. However, due to alienation and a will to escape torment, most flock to the nations urban enclaves. Demographically speaking, the city officials are the ones that need to stand up for us. After all, we know that most statewide officials don't have the guts to stand up to their bumpkin' constituents
I am sick and tired of hearing that "the people" are against gay marriage. Practically EVERY worthy poll you read concerning this issue is anywhere between 55-45 or 60-40. It is not as if there is an overwhelming number of Americans opposing gay marriage. It is not as if 90% of Americans oppose this notion, so stop with the exaggerations already.
Now, back to the grand old law argument. If you know anything about the law then you know that marriage is an issue that has been governed individually by the fifty states. The full faith and credit clause is the only real federal issue that gets tangled into things. Nevertheless, states have retained the right to regulate their own marriage laws. Therefore, to use your example, George W. Bush should be arrested and impeached for his blatant disregard for the law and for advocating ex post facto legislation.
Oh wait a minute, getting a blow job is the only thing worthy of impeachment if you are President.... Nevermind.
7 - Eric Olsen
I sense a certain amount of disingenuousness on both sides of this: only Jim addressed Tom's specific point about rule of law. I am 100% in favor of gay marriage on several grounds, but should mayors be allowed to determine for themselves their own interpretation of what state laws are or are not constitutional? Is this legitimate behavior from a municipal executive? Isn't this for the courts to determine? These would seem to be the matters up for discussion here.
8 - Dirtgrain
I did address Tom's point about rule of law--in both of my previous comments: "Yes, you point out that we should adhere to our nation's laws. My point, which was probably too subtle in its exaggeration (I guess) for you to notice, was that you have picked a relatively insignificant governmental violation of law, amidst a roiling sea of more severe and significant violations, on which to focus."
Carruther addressed it, also: "there is no law preventing the city from issuing marriage licenses."
9 - Jim Carruthers
Regarding the mayor challenging the constitutionality of a law, in Canada, the tried and true method is to defy the law and have the case brought to court. Isn't that the case in the States? If so, then Mayor Newsom is fully justified in his actions? And just how does same sex marriage diminish rights for breeders?
10 - CW Fisher
Attention: This is a Rove tactic. He correctly expects that liberals will take to this issue the way dogs take to dinner, and so far he's right. This is what is known as "dictating the issues." With all the real issues going on right now, can this one really be the most important? Like Poppy's Willie Horton, same sex marriage is neatly divisive.
Let's talk about things that matter and let the Republicans beat themselves to irrelevancy.
I don't like the taste of their bait.
11 - Josh Keller
"With all the real issues going on right now, can this one really be the most important?"
You're not gay, I take it. I know two gay couples who have gotten married in San Francisco, and it's damn important to them. One consistent problem with advancing minority rights is that the majority doesn't think they "matter", and therefore should wait. (I wouldn't mind shifting the debate from terrorist almanacs to Social Security either, but that's another debate). Call me a dreamist, but someone's political actions -- especially a mayor's -- should depend on more than what could possibly affect the presential election. Newsom is running a city, not the Democratic National Committee.
Oh, & when I have to choose between the unjust law and the lawbreakers, I choose the lawbreakers. Judge Roy Moore' Ten Commandments were an act of civil disobedience, but I agree with the law, separation of church and state. If I thought this separation was bad, I would support Moore's actions. There's the difference.
12 - Shark
I must say, gays getting married in San Francisco is SHOCKING NEWS!
Jim: "...in Canada, the tried and true method is to defy the law and have the case brought to court."
That's exactly what's going on. ...Y'know, like that goober who had that Ten Commandments Boulder installed in the lobby of a courthouse?
And just for the record, I agree with:
* Admiral Dirtgrain's roiling sea of more severe and significant violations, on which to focus. (Enron-Halliburton?)
* CW Fischer king's disliking the taste of the bait
~(Here comes that Republican smoke-screen!)
Reporter: "Mr. President, where were you during that year in Alabama?"
Bush: um... wait... look... OVER THERE!!! Bin Laden trying to get a gay marriage license!!!"
Arnold is an idiot; he could balance the state budget and end up with a surplus if he allowed all the gays in California to get married for a few hundred bucks per license. He could probably balance the federal budget!
13 - Ms. Tek
Arnie has a small wee-wee and it's gross looking.
14 - anonymous
"Kindergarten Cock???".......
15 - CW Fisher
Josh, you're right, I'm wrong, simple as that. It's time for civil disobedience because it's happening. I have no problem with the mayor's tactics. The national election has nothing to do with same sex marriage. I'm seeing Rove in every corner. Last night I thought I saw him on Mars. I just didn't want the democrats to get sludged by the Fundamentalist Xian Right. But then, who cares? Right is right. I'm just disappointed we're not "staying on message." Screw the message. That kind of discipline is for Depublicans. And you're right. I'm not gay. I'm goy. Personally I think you guys need a new name, like Jesse Jackson's African-American. Gay is so gay. I'm thinking something all inclusive, like Omnisexual-American. CW
16 - CW Fisher
Or Homosexual-American. Homorican?
Queer is hot. Queer-American.
Maybe retro. Why not Faggot? It's already on our currency. There's a faggot on the bag of each dime (the bundle of sticks that were used to carry fire from one house to another; hence, "flaming faggots"). American-Faggot?
New names always fluff things up.
There you go, for free. Pennance for being nastier than I meant to be.
17 - Mac Diva
Thanks for inserting some actual logic and legal analysis here, Jim. You are correct. Virtually every change in individual rights law occurs because someone creates a test case scenario. No challenge. No change. The situation does not always go to trial. For example, cities and towns in some Upper South states, such as North Carolina, desegregated their schools after Brown was filed, but before a ruling. In San Fran, the worst allowing gays to marry earlier rather than later (after a ruling by the state supreme court) does is hasten the inevitable. Propostiion 22? Localities and states passed all kinds of laws claiming segregation was not just legal, but God ordained, even the cure to psoriasis, maybe. But, what it came down to was whether the leading legal authorities agreed. Ultimately, they did not. This statute's days are limited. Might as well go on and bury it de facto.
18 - Tom
RE: Comment #7.
I have come to be for Gay marriage; through much thought and introspection, I think it isn't the end of the world like so many of my conservative "cronies" would believe.
My only beef is the way it is being done. If it is done in such flagrant disregard for the law, it opens up the gates for polygamy, polyandary, and the like.
19 - CW Fisher
Aw, hell, what's wrong with me? Here's the solution to my fear of Karl Rove: BE Karl Rove!!! Together, we can make it happen. Karl, who learned the art of dirty tricks from the master, Don Segretti, was the man who wrote the letter to press that branded Ed Muskie's wife a drinker, smoker and cusser -- a charge that made Ed cry, which kind of ended his campaign, kerplop. What we need is somebody to step up to the plate and announce he had a torrid love affair with flyguy George while he was taking a little leave of absense from his military "service." Hell, he can't account for his time, so we might as well.
Rove, rove, rove your blog gently over Bush, smearily, smearily, smearily, smearily, Karl likes his tush.
20 - Mac Diva
'Dreamist.' I like it. I also want to reemphasize what Josh says about minority group members being denied their voices by majority group members. Absolutely. That was one of the most glaring things about last week's contretempts to me. A bumbling bigot keeps screaming at a person obviously much better informed than he will ever be to 'Shut up! You have no right to speak!' in the most crude terms and I gather many people saw nothing wrong with that because the person being abused is someone who is 'supposed' to be treated that way. Someone who because of race, gender, class or sexual preference is not supposed to matter.
I wrote an entry Feb. 9 saying gay rights will be the domestic issue for the decade because the GOP wants it to be. The manipulation into that occurring is well on its way and moving fast. The Gropenator will be one of many to exploit the topic.
21 - Red
It seems that you people are ignoring the issue. What mayor Gavin Newsom has done is just as illegal as him issuing tax exemptions with no legal reason. The law must be obeyed.
If I openly defied the law and kill someone, I could simply argue that killng them is just "postponing the inevitable."
I don't necessarily think that Newsom should be punished, I just don't think he should be allowed to get away with flagrantly defying the law.
Just because Canada does something doesn't mean we should do it as well. It also doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Take each issue separately. Is change always for the better?
I personally think gays should have every right to get married. If a proposition were to come up here in Oregon in favor of gay marriage, I would definitely vote for it.
I am a Christian and I believe that homosexuality is a sin, but if they don't believe in the same God I do they have no reason not to get married. I'm opposed to anyone getting away with breaking the law, for any reason.
I have more to say, but I'd like to hear some responses first, if that's alright. I would enjoy hearing everyone's take.
22 - Shark
HERE WE GO AGAIN; GRAB YER SHORTS, FOLKS...
MD:...minority group members being denied their voices by majority group members. Absolutely. That was one of the most glaring things about last week's contretempts to me. A *bumbling bigot keeps screaming at a person[me] obviously much better informed than he will ever be to 'Shut up! You have no right to speak!' in the most crude terms and I gather many people saw nothing wrong with that because the person[me] being abused is someone who is 'supposed' to be treated that way. Someone who because of race, gender, class or sexual preference is not supposed to matter...
Oh jeez.
If the confused newcomer isn't sure whether to get out a hankie or a helmet, I have a hint: THINK KEVLAR. You're welcome.
*extra points to MD for elevating her typical name-calling using alliteration!
23 - Shark
Red, you need to take over the Republican Party. I'd vote for ya.
24 - Josh Keller
Eh, inconsiderate debate is better than reality television. And if there wasn't name calling, stereotyping and gay-bashing, could we really call it american politics? Oh yeah, I'm from Berkeley, too. That'll provide some more ammunition.
Another take on the law question (one that Jim mentioned), aside from justified civil disobedience, is that there isn't one law here, but two. Prop 22 does prohibit gay marriage, agreed. But the CA constitution guarantees equal rights for all its citizens. All won't agree, but it's a legitimate legal question whether the two laws conflict, and deciding between conflicting laws is a matter that courts must deal with all the time.
Newsom thought that not allowing gay marraiges would violate equal rights, so he allowed them. His actions do force the legal questions to be decided, and the court is the final arbiter, as it should be.
If they do contradict, which is more important to keep: the equal rights clause or prop 22?
25 - Mac Diva
People can decide for themselves whether they believe I have characterized the individual Shark is such an avid supporter of accurately.
I am always surprised when I hear the 'all laws are equal and should be obeyed without question' response. It surprises me because people don't behave that way on a daily basis at all. Someone already mentioned jaywalking. But, one also sees that people know all laws are not equally significant in many other ways every day. The city statute in question is slated to fall to a ruling by the state supreme court. San Francisco has anticipated that ruling. This is not a crisis. Some might call it bold leadership. I will call it politically expedient leadership.