Civil Disobedience or Lawlessness?

[surferarmo]

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..

You did not read the post thoroughly enough. I said that most gay couples have two sources of income. This is because both are working because they can not produce or adopt children. Therefore, a partner is not required or obligated to stay home. Since there are two sources of income, there is a higher combined income in the household.

Implications can be derived from that conclusion. Money is not spent on children (food, clothes, transportation, time=money), so they have much more disposable income. Because they are not producing members of the market, the economy is not provided with more consumers. So why shouldnt they have higher taxes to give to the government?

Simple logic. That is how I came to that conclusion. Then again, who needs common sense?

[surferarmo]

Originally posted by loseyourname 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.

It is worrisome that a city would violate the consititution. Loose interpretation has become too broad a term. If policy becomes inconsistent, then it is bad policy. I do believe that local government is the best representation of the people. I especially enjoy state sovereignty. They are violating state constitution and federal, therefore, I am opposed to the recent marriage because it threw due process out the window. The constitution was ratified by due process, so to disregaurd due process, is in essence to disregaurd the constitution. Rule of law is a device which protects citizens from in this nation from the government. The fact that a city government has exempted itself from policy and rule of law is dangerous precedent.

If, however, gay marriages were ratified, I would have an economic problem with it. Others would have problems because of opinions. In short, I am against what SF is doing because it mocks due process, and steps over the boundaries of state sovereignty.

Also, I might add that the mayor did not do this on his own. He did it with consent of city counsel.

[Dan]

surferarmo, cut the insults please, first of all.
second, you're talking about the traditional (old days) family where the wife stays at home. almost all women in Toronto who are married go to work (exceptions exist). I am talking about the majority here, and the majority of couples, be they straight or gay do go to work. as i said, it is only the post-spending amount of remaining money that varies.

[surferarmo]

You must be vehemently opposed to keeping the focus of a thread.

I brought up the points to clearly illustrate the arguements for those who have a political and economic standpoint opposed to gay marriages. The point is, it violates the Fed and State constitution which was ratified by due process. Instead of adopting a resolution or making an ammendment the city of SF said "Screw it" and did their own thing. That is not right by political standards and it sets a scary precedent. This has nothing to do with being Republican or Democrat or Green, this is a simple matter of process. The city of SF is wrong.

[Dan]

What do incomes have to do with the argument then? I fail to see your point about the incomes. Gay couples can adopt children and help the economy by reducing the pressure and amount of money needed for orphanages, etc.

Btw, isn't civil disobedience a form of lawlessness anyway? So isn't it a subset rather than a different category in and of itself?

As for my point of view on this, I disagree with what they did. I'd say it's more lawlessness than civil disobedience.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by surferarmo It is worrisome that a city would violate the consititution. Loose interpretation has become too broad a term. If policy becomes inconsistent, then it is bad policy. I do believe that local government is the best representation of the people. I especially enjoy state sovereignty. They are violating state constitution and federal, therefore, I am opposed to the recent marriage because it threw due process out the window. The constitution was ratified by due process, so to disregaurd due process, is in essence to disregaurd the constitution. Rule of law is a device which protects citizens from in this nation from the government. The fact that a city government has exempted itself from policy and rule of law is dangerous precedent.

How far would you like to extend local sovereignty? I think it is safe to say that the people of San Francisco want this to take place, and that they had little say as to whether or not the state and federal laws were ever put into place. Why should people in a metropolitan city have to be governed by country bumpkins, and vice versa? Certainly we need some amount of centralized government to maintain any creedence in world affairs and an acceptable level of national security, but in a nation this large and this diverse, can't there be a way of giving localities more autonomy and more of an individual voice in the way they are governed?

[surferarmo]

Originally posted by Dan What do incomes have to do with the argument then? I fail to see your point about the incomes. Gay couples can adopt children and help the economy by reducing the pressure and amount of money needed for orphanages, etc.

Btw, isn't civil disobedience a form of lawlessness anyway? So isn't it a subset rather than a different category in and of itself?

As for my point of view on this, I disagree with what they did. I'd say it's more lawlessness than civil disobedience.

Gay couples are not allowed by law to adopt children.

[surferarmo]

Originally posted by loseyourname How far would you like to extend local sovereignty? I think it is safe to say that the people of San Francisco want this to take place, and that they had little say as to whether or not the state and federal laws were ever put into place. Why should people in a metropolitan city have to be governed by country bumpkins, and vice versa? Certainly we need some amount of centralized government to maintain any creedence in world affairs and an acceptable level of national security, but in a nation this large and this diverse, can't there be a way of giving localities more autonomy and more of an individual voice in the way they are governed?

Well, yes they did have say in the formation of the constitution. They vote in members of congress who represent them at a national level. Also, they elect assembly people to represent us at a state level. A city should have the autonomy to the fullest capacity that it does not hinder or undermine the constitution of the state or nation.

As for you last question, I am listening.

[Dan]

Originally posted by surferarmo Gay couples are not allowed by law to adopt children.

yes, but I am talking strictly about the potential economical benefits to the system.

besides, we were talking income pre-expenditure not post-expenditure.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by surferarmo Well, yes they did have say in the formation of the constitution. They vote in members of congress who represent them at a national level. Also, they elect assembly people to represent us at a state level. A city should have the autonomy to the fullest capacity that it does not hinder or undermine the constitution of the state or nation.

As for you last question, I am listening.

I wish I had an answer, but hey, I'm only a biology student. The best model I can really think of is the Iroqois nation. I'm not sure what the finer details of the governmental structure were, but I know that each tribe (out of an eventual six) maintained autonomy, keeping its own laws and customs and its own tribal leaders. They existed as six sovereign nations. They were bound by treaty to maintain joint war and negotiation efforts. Surely this could be extended to maintaining a national currency, and leaving our armed forces the way the are. There was no president of the confederation as far as I know, just a council of tribal leaders that made joint decisions, but again, these decisions were limited to actions regarding outside entities. Basically, this means that there would have to exist some council of state leaders that would make foreign policy decisions, but all domestic policy would be unique to each state. I suppose the idea would be similar to the European Union, but with a federal army and no separate officeholders. State borders would of course remain open. Federal bureaucracy, regulations, and income taxes would be completely done away with. Aww heck, this is all so scattershot, let me think this through a bit more. Perhaps you have some ideas. It's not like such a drastic restructuring of the US government is going to happen anyway. Still, it does at least seem possible, if we could only maintain stability within the administration - basically meaning we don't switch parties every time the short-term economy goes south but rather focus on long-term goals - to do away with a good deal of federal government currently in existence, especially the extremely bloated executive branch.