Civil Disobedience or Lawlessness?

[Anonymouse]

Federal and State law are all mostly based on idiotic Statutes and other moronic interpretations that are parlayed into the State Constitutions.

"State laws" in the strict sense of the word with regard to the framers of the Constitution, do not mean anything here, other than an extension of Federalism.

It is precisely the constitutional ambiguity that we have no thanks to a slow and steady process of "democraticization" over the centuries in making "equality" that we have stepped away from the concept of a Republic, per the construct of the framers, and more into a vertically integrated State that is "democratic" and even morality and someones "constitutional right" become a matter of "interpretations".

Screw that.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Federal and State law are all mostly based on idiotic Statutes and other moronic interpretations that are parlayed into the State Constitutions.

"State laws" in the strict sense of the word with regard to the framers of the Constitution, do not mean anything here, other than an extension of Federalism.

It is precisely the constitutional ambiguity that we have no thanks to a slow and steady process of "democraticization" over the centuries in making "equality" that we have stepped away from the concept of a Republic, per the construct of the framers, and more into a vertically integrated State that is "democratic" and even morality and someones "constitutional right" become a matter of "interpretations".

Screw that.

I get the feeling I basically agree with you here, but you aren't being very articulate. Slow down, wait until your heart beat returns to normal and your hands stop shaking, then try again.

[SexyAries]

This is appalling to me!!! How can a person be denied their free will? If one chooses to marry, whether it is to a man or women, they should be married no questions asked. Now I understand your point about the taxes surfer, however it is a matter of just keeping track and our goverment is extremely good at doing that if they can keep track of court cases from the the 1800's to now I'm sure they can keep track of whether a married gay/lesbian couple have kids or not and if they should or shouldn't get a tax break. If the constitution was made up for the rights of our people then why are gays/lesbians being segregaded? They have no rights? They have as much rights as we do and I will be extremely appalled and upset if this doesn't go to federal court, and the judgment isn't in favor of allowing mariages between gays and lesbians. I feel its unconstitional to stop it, and even though some may think it is moraly wrong for same sex mariages, I think it is moraly wrong to get in the way of someones free will and their rights as citizens of their country!

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by SexyAries This is appalling to me!!! How can a person be denied their free will? If one chooses to marry, whether it is to a man or women, they should be married no questions asked. Now I understand your point about the taxes surfer, however it is a matter of just keeping track and our goverment is extremely good at doing that if they can keep track of court cases from the the 1800's to now I'm sure they can keep track of whether a married gay/lesbian couple have kids or not and if they should or shouldn't get a tax break. If the constitution was made up for the rights of our people then why are gays/lesbians being segregaded? They have no rights? They have as much rights as we do and I will be extremely appalled and upset if this doesn't go to federal court, and the judgment isn't in favor of allowing mariages between gays and lesbians. I feel its unconstitional to stop it, and even though some may think it is moraly wrong for same sex mariages, I think it is moraly wrong to get in the way of someones free will and their rights as citizens of their country!

This is a thread about civil disobedience. Post to the gay marriage thread.

[loseyourname]

These are all letters to the LA times:


By comparing the evil of violent crime to same-sex marriage, you're implying we should be outraged about the one and not the other. But our courts and elected officials are not, by and large, thumbing their noses at California citizens when it comes to violent crime. They know it's illegal; they uphold the law accordingly. Not so with same-sex marriage. San Francisco's mayor and judicial activists have told the rest of us we clearly don't count, and they'll do as they please regardless of California's law and Constitution. Don't even try to tell me that's not cause for outrage.

Joe Dallas

Orange

*

In "S.F. Judge Won't Halt Marriages" (Feb. 18), Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for California Families states, "If we don't respect the rule of law, then we are not a democracy. We're a dictatorship." Heady talk.

Perhaps we should remind Thomasson that in this democracy, laws may be passed by the majority, but it is the role of the judiciary to protect the citizens from the tyranny of the majority. If the notion of majority rule had been used to decide every issue in this democracy, then blacks and women would still not have the right to vote.

Pam Watson

Manhattan Beach

*

Re "Lawyer Was Ready for the Marriage Debate," Feb. 15: Matt Daniels' personal history, leading to his drafting of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage, contradicts his own anti-gay-marriage stance.

Here's a man who comes from a broken home with a father who abandoned his family. As a result, Daniels says the presence of a father and mother is critical to a child's upbringing. Fair enough. But it doesn't make a case against gay marriage — it makes a case against bad marriage.

Tell me Daniels wouldn't have been better served as a child by having two loving same-sex parents, male or female, than by one absentee parent and one struggling parent who "slipped into a lifelong depression." It seems as if he is trying to fix his own shattered past on the backs of people who are just striving for the same things he admittedly lacked — love, support, happiness and wholeness.

Gary Goldstein

Los Angeles

*

The proposed amendment is puzzling. How, I ask myself, is the preservation of a heterosexual family with children to be accomplished by a law prohibiting the ritual of marriage between homosexuals? It is not gay marriage that challenges the institution of the traditional family. It is the errant, irresponsible and dissolute parent who abandons the family and leaves behind an unhappy child in a fatherless or motherless household, and no amount of anti-gay furor will stop that.

Howard Calder

Hemet

*

Am I the only Democrat around here who is worried sick that proponents of gay marriage like San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom are taking President Bush's bait and swallowing it whole? Isn't this issue the perfect one to divide the Democratic Party and help ensure that Republicans frame all Democrats as gay-marriage-rights activists?

I am for gay marriage rights, but I am certain of this: If this issue continues to inflate in this presidential election year, and Republicans keep the White House, every citizen in the United States, gay or straight, will suffer diminished civil rights.

Molly Bosted

Glendale