Page 2 of 3
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:29 am
So, given what the city attorney has said here, why donÃ¢??t all of the people who signed on to this proposal hold a news conference at the gravesite of the Ã¢??Unknown Significant Other,Ã¢?Â
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:40 am
chance wrote: This whole thing seems really just to be in the nature of grandstanding.
I don't think so, as passionately anti-marriage ban as I am myself, I would have a real issue with swearing to uphold it. I'm sure others feel the same.
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:28 am
When I am elected aldergirl I will add, "and be nice to puppies and kitties" after my pledgie thing.
Puppies and Kitties are soooooooooooooo cute!
I miss mr. green emoticon lots!
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:26 pm
Everybody is going to sign and take the regular oath. Then they're just going to say some stuff after taking it.
Given that, what I don't understand is why this even required any official action at all.
Actually, this voluntary, addendum to the oath would be said as part of the oath. With one's hand still raised while the other one is still on the Bible (I'm guessing they still swear on a Bible here).
Another point raised a few posts ago was why can't someone like the mayor take the regular oath, and then during an inaugural address, discuss how he hates the marriage amendment. He could, because the position of mayor garners a lot of attention. But this oath applies not just to mayor and council members, but to all those citizen appointees to the dozens of city committees and commissions. Those are people who rarely get the public spotlight to voice their concerns after taking the oath. As Channel 27 pointed out last night, this was particularly distressing to members of the EOC, because they felt that committee became a contradiction in terms.
In the end though, it seems this is symbolic, and nothing more. Much like all those Bring the Troops Home referenda back in April.
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:31 pm
I'm guessing they still swear on a Bible here
I don't think so. Don't the new Alders all recite the oath at the same time? I suppose if someone wanted to bring their own bible, koran, cosmo, etc. they could do so but I don't recall seeing bibles on the council floor. (And that's a good thing.)
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:23 pm
ConstantTraveler wrote:Actually, this voluntary, addendum to the oath would be said as part of the oath. With one's hand still raised while the other one is still on the Bible . . .
Uh, go back to p. 1 of this thread and read City Attorney May's take on this. Basically, if you actually make this stuff "part of the oath", you've got a problem. The only way to make it not
a problem, is to not
make it "part of the oath".
ConstantTraveler wrote:In the end though, it seems this is symbolic, and nothing more.
Yep. But Madison's "more-principled-than-thou" politics lives on symbolic gestures.
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:04 pm
What effect does the oath of office actually have on an elected official's conduct and performance?
I'd argue none whatsoever.
The ballot box holds true power. Swearing an oath is tantamount to ass wiping among elected officials hell bent on corruption.
The oath accomplishes nothing but false mollification of the masses.
Out with the oath.
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:48 am
Brenda Konkel wrote:I think it goes beyond politics, it is also a moral and ethical issue. If you swear to uphold the constitution and know you disagree with a major issue within it, isn't that problematic in an ethical and moral sense.
Yes, so when you take the oath next spring, say your new little protest pledge and immediately resign from office. It is the only ethical option you have.
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:09 am
The oath addendum is a nice gesture, I doubt it will change the minds of many gays and lesbians who are preparing to leave the state due to the amendment.
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:26 am
Bump. City Council members take oath on April 17.
Who will addend? What will they addend to?
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:32 am
What part of the word freedom don't the fascists that haunt this forum understand?
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 6:55 am
What part of the word moron don't you understand?
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:10 am
What part of the word flocciÃ‚ÂnauciÃ‚ÂnihiliÃ‚ÂpiliÃ‚Âfication does anyone understand?
I think it would be nice for an Alder to slip that into their addendum.
Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:26 pm
Since nobody in this group is likely to be putting their hand on the bible while taking the oath, wouldn't it have been enough to cross their fingers behind their back? Or they could just rebut themselves by saying, "just kidding," or "not" or "opposite day" or "cept for the parts I don't agree with."
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:14 am
Randy New Man wrote:Since nobody in this group is likely to be putting their hand on the bible while taking the oath, wouldn't it have been enough to cross their fingers behind their back?
What does the bible, or lack thereof, have to do with your fauxth
I donÃ¢??t see this as a political issue as much as a practical one, from my p.o.v. anyway. Without the amendment you have one of two things: many committee appointees serving without signing any oath, or the subsequent removal of all these members because of their unwillingness to sign w/o the amendment.