Civil Disobedience or Lawlessness?

[loseyourname]

Gay Marriage in San Francisco

What do you guys think? Is it right for the mayor and county clerk to ignore state law if they believe the state and federal constitutions conflict with it? Should elected officials disregard laws that they find unconstitutional or morally objectionable? What about ordinary citizens? Is it our moral obligation to peacefully break laws that we object to?

The US and every other nation has a history of unjust laws and oppression of minorities and minority opinions. Willful disobedience has at times led to meaningful reform, but it can also lead to anarchistic behavior (in the modern, not classical, sense). When voting and petitioning and protesting aren't enough, how far would you go?

[surferarmo]

VERY GOOD THREAD! DAMN. I will give you a response at the weekends end.

This is refreshing.

[loseyourname]

Good to know that San Francisco county is breaking federal and state law, and no one here seems to have any opinion about it.

[Dan]

The most effective way would be <self-censored>.

This thread is pointless. I suggest that it be locked, as it is of an inflammatory nature.

I'm not being sarcastic, btw.

[surferarmo]

Originally posted by Dan The most effective way would be <self-censored>.

This thread is pointless. I suggest that it be locked, as it is of an inflammatory nature.

I'm not being sarcastic, btw.

So why did you bring it back up to the top? Dan, you suck.

I think cities should be able to do what they please. Power to local governments means less, smaller government, which is good in most cases.

However, I have my economic points of view. When people are married they are eligible for tax breaks. They deserve it because they can produce children which is, economically speaking, an expense. Gay couples can not produce children and in situations as such, both partners are working and derive revenues from two sources. They do not need tax breaks. If you are one of those people who believe that "those with money should pay more taxes" then gay marriages should not be gifted with tax breaks, because most gay couples have a higher income than most straight couples.

Whether or not they should be allowed to adopt children is a whole other thread.

[Dan]

I did not bring it back up to the top. Loseyourname did. And I posted in it saying this thread had a potential to be inflammatory, considering what's been going on on the board lately.

[Dan]

most gay couples have a higher income than most straight couples.

And how did you arrive to that conclusion? What's so different about gay couples and straight couples when it comes to income? it's post-spending that gay couples and straight couples differ..

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by surferarmo I think cities should be able to do what they please. Power to local governments means less, smaller government, which is good in most cases.

So a mayor should be able to unilaterally act in violation of state and federal law if he feels that law is unconstitutional? In a way, I think this is the most beautiful thing I have seen happen politically in quite some time. But another part of me fears that this sets a dangerous precedent. I don't want to use a slippery slope argument because that is an invalid form of argumentation, but nonetheless, it is a bit worrisome.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Dan And how did you arrive to that conclusion? What's so different about gay couples and straight couples when it comes to income? it's post-spending that gay couples and straight couples differ..

Dan, if you don't want this to become inflammatory, don't turn it into a thread about gay marriage. That isn't what it is. Read the subject heading.

[Dan]

where on earth did you read the word gay marriage????? stop this sh*t right now, in the name of whatever god you worship.

I tried PM-ing you but your inbox is full. k nevermind.