Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (30417)	2/19/2004 9:16:26 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793905

S.F. mayor has the right idea, but wrong approach By Daniel Weintraub - Sac Bee Watching the lines form around the block at San Francisco City Hall, seeing couples streaming into town from all over California and beyond, many of them having been together for years or even decades, it is hard not to support their cause: marriage for all. It is also difficult to understand what frightens some people about gay marriage, why opponents think that it would somehow undermine the institution to allow same-sex couples to celebrate it, and to have their unions recognized by government. But gay marriage isn't the only issue at stake in San Francisco this week, nor the most important. What is at issue is the rule of law, and whether one public official, even if his cause is just, has the right to take the law he has been sworn to uphold into his own hands. I still think the best solution to this problem is to get government out of the marriage business entirely, to make all unions a private matter among couples and their faiths, if they want their marriage to be blessed by their religion. Our legal system already has the tools to handle the contract implicit in the ceremony. The state needn't do much other than allow the courts to enforce those contracts like any other, and perhaps provide a public registry to record the names of those who have chosen to marry. The government monopoly on marriage is a convenient shortcut that makes the whole thing much simpler, since everyone who marries is automatically subject to the same laws covering taxes, inheritance, child custody and the like. But surely we have the wisdom to resolve these issues in marriage as we have for other matters. That libertarian view, though, isn't likely to take root anytime soon. So recognizing same-sex marriages seems to be the simplest alternative. Now comes the catch. Four years ago, the people of California voted on Proposition 22. That measure included 14 simple words: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." I voted against it. But nearly 60 percent of those who voted that day supported the proposition. Their intent was clear: no gay marriage. After that vote, the Legislature and former Gov. Gray Davis expanded domestic partnerships for same-sex couples, who are allowed to register their unions with the state. Later, more rights were added to the package, and last summer, a law was adopted giving domestic partners many of the same rights - and responsibilities - of married couples. The supporters of Proposition 22 challenged that law in court, arguing that creating a parallel system for gays that was very similar to marriage violated the measure the voters adopted. But so far that suit has failed. The argument also comes up short as a political matter, because Californians, even as they back traditional marriage, have said in polls that they support granting similar rights to same-sex couples registered as domestic partners. But these advances came with mixed feelings in the gay community. Many gays understandably resent their second-class status, a separate but almost equal form of marriage just for them. They would rather be married, period. Enter Gavin Newsom. San Francisco's newly elected mayor, no radical, wrote a letter to the county clerk last week asserting that his obligation to uphold the constitution led him to declare that marriage, in his city, would be for any two people, regardless of gender. While Proposition 22 might have outlawed it, Newsom wrote, that measure violated the constitutional provision guaranteeing each California citizen equal protection under the law. Supporters have hailed Newsom as a hero, and described his rebellion as an act of civil disobedience. But those who embrace his action as courageous should consider what the state would be like if every other public official followed his example, interpreting the laws for themselves whenever they felt the urge to do so. Maybe the mayor of Bakersfield believes that background checks for gun purchases violate the Second Amendment. Perhaps the school superintendent in San Diego thinks prayer in the classroom is a First Amendment right. Might the district attorney in Shasta County decide that abortion is murder, and should be outlawed in his jurisdiction? OK. All of these issues, unlike Proposition 22, have already been settled by the courts. But there are thousands of state laws that have yet to be challenged and could be enforced or not at the whim of hundreds of local officials. And there are millions of citizens who might like to decide for themselves which state laws to follow and which to ignore. Every Californian is free to defy state law in protest, as a way of provoking the courts and society into righting past wrongs. But such defiance usually carries with it the risk of prosecution and jail time. As a public official, Newsom apparently faces no such consequences. He is turning civil disobedience on its head, abusing the power of his government position and forcing the people who voted for Proposition 22 to go to court to ensure that it is enforced. I agree with his ends. But his means are corrupt. The Sacramento Bee