On 2/22/04 5:22 PM, "Bill Cullen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This morning Gov. Schwarzenegger was on Meet The Press. Tim Russert (the
> host) asked the Governor about the issue of gay marriages. Without taking a
> stand on the issue, he made an excellent point. The Gov said a mayor cannot
> decide to break state law. He then asked a rhetorical question: What
> should be done if a Mayor decides to hand out drugs or guns.
What would happen if a state enacted a statute proscribing interracial
marriage? Could the mayor order city institutions to continue allowing
interracial marriage, based on the state and federal constitutions -- both
of which trump state law? I think so -- I think that should have happened
during the civil rights movement.
> It is a valid analogy. Some people think more guns are better and others
> think legalizing drugs is ok too.
Interestingly, pro-lifers are doing something analogous in South Dakota,
w/r/t abortion. I haven't seen many people reconcile the two, but I support
Mayor Newsom and am critical of the South Dakota legislature because I think
the same-sex marriage issue is (unlike abortion) still unresolved. Even so,
I wouldn't take any of the hyperbolic responses to SF ("Civil Anarchy!") and
cart them out to SD.
Except this issue implicates constitutional rights, whereas drug
legalization / decriminalization is typically considered a policy issue.
> I agree with M. G. Stinnett. We should not encourage out leaders to break
> the law. I also like the ideas out here on civil unions for gay couples.
> Are there drawbacks to civil unions that have not been outlined on this
> forum?
I think civil unions are a good idea, and they should also be available to
opposite-sex couples. However, if one institution is available only to
straight people and another is available to gay people, you wind up with
another "separate but equal" situation, like in the early days of the civil
rights movement. As long as the institutions are separate, there will be a
temptation to favor one over the other.
On 2/22/04 5:59 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bill Cullen writes:
[...]
> The mayor of San Francisco is being civilly disobedient, in effect sitting
> in at the lunch counter of this nation's double standard for homosexuals.
[...]
Actually, I don't think Mayor Newcom is being civilly disobedient at this
point, because the issue of law is unclear under both the state and federal
constitutions. Remember, it was no less a conservative figure than Justice
Scalia who predicted the SCOTUS's decision in _Lawrence_v_Texas_ set the
nation down the path to same-sex marriage. As long as that issue is open,
Mayor Newcom is still acting within the law.
Mike Skoglund // Bancroft and Financial District neighborhoods (MPLS, NYNY)
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
