More on SF gay marriage
4 Responses to “More on SF gay marriage”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 19th, 2004 at 3:51 pm
Uncle:
After all, we expect Roy Moore to comply with court orders.
I wasn’t aware that there had been a court order in the SF Marriage case. If there is one, and Newsom continues, then by all means I expect him to be punished. In fact, if he loses the court battle that will ultimately come from this, I also expect him to be punished.
February 19th, 2004 at 5:25 pm
We expect public officials to obey the law. The reason we expect Roy Moore to comply with court orders is because the law requires you to comply with court orders. It also requires you to do and not do a number of other things.
I don’t expect Gavin Newsom to be punished for his crimes, but he certainly could be (and, IMO, should be).
February 20th, 2004 at 12:28 pm
Xrlg:
We expect public officials to obey the law.
Generally speaking, yes we do. We also expect soldiers to obey orders. But when orders are illegal, soldiers are expected (indeed, compelled) not to follow them. I would expect similar behavior concerning public officials and unconstitutional laws. Which is where the courts enter.
I fully expect the court to order a cease-and-desist. And if the mayor fails to comply with that, or if he loses the ensuing court battle, I expect him to at least be fined.
And no matter what happens in the courts, or with the law, the mayor is ultimately responsible to his constituents. If the people of San Francisco are unhappy with his actions, this will cost him his office.
Besides, shouldn’t you be all for this? A city standing up to the state is analagous to a state standing up to the federal government. I thought more local control was better?
February 23rd, 2004 at 9:44 pm
If a law is genuinely unconstitutional, then I agree it should not be followed. The “constitutional” claim here, however, is extremely flimsy. If Frisco’s mayor believed it had merit, he should have challenged it in the courts. He should not have begun flouting the law. And per Sec. 359 of the Cal. Penal Code, he ought to be fined, if not imprisoned, for what he has done up to this point. It is not acceptable to flout laws until a court gets around to telling you not to.
I don’t know where you get the bit about local control being better than uniform enforcement of the law. It’s not. Obeying the law is better. That your own constituents may dislike that law is no excuse for breaking it.