Local stances on marriage

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

SHOULD PARISI ISSUE LICENSES?

Poll ended at Fri Apr 02, 2004 2:29 pm

Yes. He thinks its so fair, he should walk the walk. The Midwest should get in on this!
17
65%
No, the law is the law (except equal protection clauses which remain to be fully interpreted).
3
12%
No, he knows that gays using questionable licenses would not be a potent way for them to fight.
6
23%
 
Total votes: 26

ShaneDog
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4296
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 2:46 pm
Location: E Wash
Contact:

Postby ShaneDog » Wed Mar 03, 2004 4:10 pm

Daisy wrote:
ShaneDog wrote:True, and if they could demonstrate how they are being harmed by not having a display of the 10 commandments I would agree with their needing to do civil disobediance to keep them there. I doubt they would be able to convince anyone that they are being harmed by temporarily not having the 10 commandments displayed. In this case, people are actually being harmed in a demonstrable, concrete way, by not being allowed to marry.
Although I happen to agree with one and not the other, I submit that the 2 groups probably perceive being "harmed" in roughly the same way. One group is denied public recognition of personal commitment, the other is denied public recognition of spiritual commitment.

The thing is - the harms I'm talking about have nothing to do with public recognition. I'm talking about the legal protections of marriage, ie. not being able to make medical decisions for a partner, not having health insurance, not being able to legally be a parent...etc. Those are concrete harms that make the situation different.

FaeryGurl
Forum Addict
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 2:35 pm
Location: out of sorts
Contact:

Postby FaeryGurl » Wed Mar 03, 2004 4:13 pm

Daisy wrote:
FaeryGurl wrote:Then it is the responsibility of the rest of us to get off of our butts and throw our support in on the "right" side of the moral issue in order to change the wrong laws(discriminatory marriage laws) and protect the right ones (separation of church and state).
Sorry...I didn't get the memo stating that we liberals are now moral absolutists.

I was still operating under the OLD construct that - on many questions - different people subscribe to different notions of what's "right" and "wrong."

I'll update my files post-haste.


All right smartass, you wanna fight? :lol:

Don't pretend for a second that you don't believe that the opinions you hold on those mentioned, and most other controversial issues is the right opinion.

People fight for what they believe is right and against what they believe is wrong... that was my point.

And people, be they elected officials or not, need to fight about these issues in public forums, and we should feel a responsibility to change those laws that we think are wrong, even if not everyone agrees with us.

Daisy
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6044
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 10:51 am
Location: New York, NY

Postby Daisy » Wed Mar 03, 2004 4:14 pm

ShaneDog wrote:The thing is - the harms I'm talking about have nothing to do with public recognition. I'm talking about the legal protections of marriage, ie. not being able to make medical decisions for a partner, not having health insurance, not being able to legally be a parent...etc. Those are concrete harms that make the situation different.
Agreed, but they don't neccessitate the institution (or label) or marriage to be addressed. Domestic partnerships/civil unions get you the same thing.

FinsburyPark
Senior Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:43 pm

Postby FinsburyPark » Wed Mar 03, 2004 4:43 pm

Daisy wrote:
ShaneDog wrote:The thing is - the harms I'm talking about have nothing to do with public recognition. I'm talking about the legal protections of marriage, ie. not being able to make medical decisions for a partner, not having health insurance, not being able to legally be a parent...etc. Those are concrete harms that make the situation different.
Agreed, but they don't neccessitate the institution (or label) or marriage to be addressed. Domestic partnerships/civil unions get you the same thing.


That's not entirely true...while some DP benefits go a long way, and some civil union legislative mandates go even farther, there are many benefits (those given mainly by the federal government) that still aren't recognized. This is why DOMA (the Fed. Bill) was so harmful.

Daisy
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6044
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 10:51 am
Location: New York, NY

Postby Daisy » Wed Mar 03, 2004 4:48 pm

FinsburyPark wrote:That's not entirely true...while some DP benefits go a long way, and some civil union legislative mandates go even farther, there are many benefits (those given mainly by the federal government) that still aren't recognized. This is why DOMA (the Fed. Bill) was so harmful.
Please clue me in (seriously). I was operating under the (apprently erroneous) assumption that DP/CU were basically all of the legal/practical benefits of marriage, with a different semantic label. What are some of the other differences?

wee beastie
Forum Addict
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:27 pm
Location: thither and yon
Contact:

Postby wee beastie » Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:19 pm

Aphrodite wrote:There's a difference between "breaking laws you happen to not like" and taking a stance when others are having their constitutional rights violated. In this case, I think elected officials have a moral imperative towards civil disobedience.


I think aphro is beginning to get at the solution to this issue of whether it is proper for "elected officials" to break the law through civil disobedience.
We have to ask:
1) what type of "elected official"? All? Local, state, federal?
2) what type of law? ordinance? statute? federal? international treaty? civil? criminal?

I tend to think that it would only be improper when two conditions are met:
1) The level of law is matches the level of elected official. In other words, a city official civilly disobeying city ordinance. A state official civilly disobeying a state law, etc. (However, I do believe that local officials, as part of their swearing-in, agree to uphold the laws of the state and its consitution -- although, don't quote me on that)
I can see no argument of impropriety against, say, County Register of Deeds, Jane Licht, civilly disobeying a tenet of NAFTA, for example.
2) There is a linkage between the issue being disobeyed and the duties of the elected office.

Igor
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 11:48 pm
Contact:

Postby Igor » Wed Mar 03, 2004 7:20 pm

ShaneDog wrote: In the case of displaying the 10 commandments in a courthouse or wherever it was, no one is being harmed by the presence or absence of the 10 commandments so it's really not at all analogous.


Then why the need to have them removed? I agree with you, but the legal system feels differently. Phrases like "give the appearance of" and "chilling effect" pop up frequently.

I have sat through enough MMSD "winter" band concerts that featured seasonal fare like the "Peter Gunn" theme "All Star" by Smashmouth, to know that a tangentially pro-religious stance can be considered harmful to the community.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 14031
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Postby snoqueen » Wed Mar 03, 2004 7:51 pm

Daisy wrote: I was operating under the (apprently erroneous) assumption that DP/CU were basically all of the legal/practical benefits of marriage, with a different semantic label. What are some of the other differences?


Rights accorded married couples under federal laws and administrative rules, quite possibly.

One example is taxes. Civil unions (created under a state law) would not necessarily allow people the advantages (or disadvantages) of being able to do married-filing-jointly or married-filing-separately on their federal tax forms. As far as I know, there's no record indicating how the IRS would treat such marriages.

Other areas, like naturalization, are also not under the purview of the states. So if your same-sex partner wanted to immigrate to the US and join you, you might face different treatment than you would bringing in your opp-sex bride.

Here's one list:

http://www.pflag.org/education/marriage.html

Another place I looked gave the information that about 1000 rights of opp-sex married couples would not automatically belong to same-sex couples who married under the law of an individual state.

Harbinger
Forum Addict
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2002 1:07 pm
Contact:

Postby Harbinger » Thu Mar 04, 2004 1:32 am

Daisy wrote:the 2 groups probably perceive being "harmed" in roughly the same way. One group is denied public recognition of personal commitment, the other is denied public recognition of spiritual commitment.


No, the kind of recognition that gays want is mostly private. It does not intrude on anyone for these couples to get the same civil certificate that other couples do. You don't like it, don't go to their wedding. But having the courts choose one religion, is more public. It is more of a public display and it's discriminatory, not equal.

I think there is some philosophical risk of advocating general civil disobediance of all public officials on all issues, but that's a pretty broad threat there. Also, I have more respect for Moore than someone like Kerry or Edwards, at least he knows what he beleives.

I'm not even sure that civil disobediance is the correct term for this. It's more like a classic checks and balances: executive, legislative and judicial. And with power comes responsibility, even if your only power is to embarass the legislature or make the judiciary admit it's prejudices.. Could the feds declare laws unconstitutional, or enforce de-segregation, or create abortion rights? If they had decided they couldn't, it would now be considered disobediant if they tried. Good thing they tried. And as for executive power, the fact is, we elect people and can unelect them if they abuse the authority. But they can't honestly deny that they could take that risk and abuse that authority, or that there are no occassions (nazi's just following orders) when they would have to. And, similarly, if a jury is being "civil disobediant" if it refuses to convict people for pot, well I plan to be that kind of civil disobediant if I'm ever selected, and I hope you all will be too if you're ever on my jury. Is that anarchy? Dangerous? I don't know. It feels right. It seems better than doing nothing.

hotshot
Forum Addict
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 1:37 pm
Contact:

Postby hotshot » Thu Mar 04, 2004 1:48 am

Daisy wrote:
FinsburyPark wrote:That's not entirely true...while some DP benefits go a long way, and some civil union legislative mandates go even farther, there are many benefits (those given mainly by the federal government) that still aren't recognized. This is why DOMA (the Fed. Bill) was so harmful.
Please clue me in (seriously). I was operating under the (apprently erroneous) assumption that DP/CU were basically all of the legal/practical benefits of marriage, with a different semantic label. What are some of the other differences?


There are over 1,100 federal rights associated with marriage. If you threated the spouse of Dick Cheney's straight kid it violates secret services felonies, but not if you threaten the partner of Dick Cheney's gay kid. If your gay partner leaves you $100,000 when they die instead of NOT being taxed, you pay tens of thousands. If you are sued, you have no marital confidentiality with your DP. Tax benefits. Veterans bennefits. Etc, etc, etc. None of these are changed by a domestic partnership.

http://www.glad.org/Publications/CivilR ... rriage.pdf

"Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians... within the United States... is forever prohibited."
- Rep. Roddenberry's proposed constitutional amendment, which did not pass in 1912, although 90% of Americans at the time opposed interracial marriage.

Aphrodite
Senior Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:09 pm

Postby Aphrodite » Thu Mar 04, 2004 12:15 pm

wee beastie wrote:
Aphrodite wrote:There's a difference between "breaking laws you happen to not like" and taking a stance when others are having their constitutional rights violated. In this case, I think elected officials have a moral imperative towards civil disobedience.


I think aphro is beginning to get at the solution to this issue of whether it is proper for "elected officials" to break the law through civil disobedience.
We have to ask:
1) what type of "elected official"? All? Local, state, federal?
2) what type of law? ordinance? statute? federal? international treaty? civil? criminal?

I tend to think that it would only be improper when two conditions are met:
1) The level of law is matches the level of elected official. In other words, a city official civilly disobeying city ordinance. A state official civilly disobeying a state law, etc. (However, I do believe that local officials, as part of their swearing-in, agree to uphold the laws of the state and its consitution -- although, don't quote me on that)
I can see no argument of impropriety against, say, County Register of Deeds, Jane Licht, civilly disobeying a tenet of NAFTA, for example.
2) There is a linkage between the issue being disobeyed and the duties of the elected office.


I think you make a thoughtful point, but I would argue that elected officials most in touch with an issue might be the ones who are most effective in making a stand. And, if morally opposed to a law, are perhaps in personal conflict about it.

I realize in this my own logical inconsistency, as I argued that Pharmacists are duty bound to fill birth control prescriptions, even if morally opposed to the idea, or else they should not be pharmacists. But hey, if we can't conveniently argue both sides here, where can we?

So, do you see that Parisi issuing marriage licenses would be too close a linkage between his duties and the issue? Or is he exactly the person who can make an effective statement by disobedience?

Daisy
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6044
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 10:51 am
Location: New York, NY

Postby Daisy » Thu Mar 04, 2004 12:18 pm

Aphrodite wrote: So, do you see that Parisi issuing marriage licenses would be too close a linkage between his duties and the issue? Or is he exactly the person who can make an effective statement by disobedience?
He's in the process of running for the state legislature, so disobeying its laws is probably not the smartest move right now.

hotshot
Forum Addict
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 1:37 pm
Contact:

Postby hotshot » Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:59 pm

He's in the process of running for the state legislature, so disobeying its laws is probably not the smartest move right now.


Ah. Explains so much.

Sorry, but what an ass. Where does he live? In Madison it would probably propell him. in In a city that's compared to Berkley that would be the sixth or seventh one to do this, in Dane County where Tammy Baldwin is in Congress by beating a moderate, if you can't stand up for gay rights here, you should reconsider your perception on what principles must fall to pragmatism. Life's too short to play it so safe you forget who you are.

Daisy
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6044
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 10:51 am
Location: New York, NY

Postby Daisy » Thu Mar 04, 2004 3:05 pm

hotshot wrote:Sorry, but what an ass. Where does he live? In Madison it would probably propell him. in In a city that's compared to Berkley that would be the sixth or seventh one to do this, in Dane County where Tammy Baldwin is in Congress by beating a moderate, if you can't stand up for gay rights here, you should reconsider your perception on what principles must fall to pragmatism.
Please cite an example of Tammy disobeying the laws of the Congress in which she serves.

I suspect you, me, Joe and Tammy all agree on outcome here.

Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 14316
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm
Contact:

Postby Ned Flanders » Thu Mar 04, 2004 6:08 pm

wee beastie wrote:I understand that some on this forum, who are otherwise supporters of gay marraige or civil unions, have voiced their opposition to elected officials engaging in civil disobedience on this issue.
At first blush, it seems a compelling argument that elected officials should set an example by following the law (despite disagreeing with it), and leave civil disobedience to regular citizens. Having elected officials decide which laws to follow and which to not, sets a bad precedent. It seems somewhat hypocritical for law-makers to be selective law-breakers.

However, that said, we are faced with the fact that the American Revolution would never had occured if this philosophy was followed.
Those who signed the Declaration of Independence and who broke with the British Empire were government officials of various stations.
Should they have left the revolution to the farmers and shop-keepers?
If so, it would have never occured.


I sure you'll join me then, in applauding elected officials who allow citizens to carry side arms at all times, seeing that it is right actually enumerated in the Constitution.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests