Just like you and me, only better
I am curious why no one has arrested the various mayors and city officials who are authorizing gay marriage licenses? It is illegal. Someone should be arrested. After all, if I or any other regular Joe practiced civil disobedience, we’d likely get arrested. Just a thought.
March 5th, 2004 at 10:23 am
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
March 5th, 2004 at 10:32 am
Civil disobedience can only be practiced by private citizens.
When practiced by agents of the state, it’s called Usurpation of Powers.
When they aren’t arrested, it’s called Conspiracy.
Laying aside entirely the issue of gay marriage, this mass hemhoraging of structural integrity of government is a dark portent.
We _used_ to be able to say we were a nation of laws.
Now….who knows?
March 5th, 2004 at 11:22 am
“Well, it’s been almost a month since the gay marriages started up in San Francisco, and the sky hasn’t fallen. There’s been no adverse affect on heterosexual marriages, like the doom-and-gloom crowd predicted. Who knows, maybe the divorce rate will go down now that there’s an infusion of people apparently eager to get married — as opposed to the Britneys and Justins of the world.” 🙂
Also, I’m not sure everything that is illegal is arrest-worthy, even under law. Refusing to abide by a court ruling might be, but that’s been the issue in SF, right?
But I agree that if it turns out that arrests were truly called for, you’d be right: people should assume responsibility for their actions, and accept the consequences including arrest. No-risk civil disobedience would be an empty thing to do.
March 5th, 2004 at 11:30 am
Thomas, I absolutely agree with your assessment. My problem comes from the fact that if I engaged in civil disobedience of some kind, I would be arrested. Period.
I support gay marriage. Have all along. I applaud the effort. I don’t like the fact this issue gets a pass.
March 5th, 2004 at 12:46 pm
I don’t think anyone would be making excuses for these rogue mayors if the tables were turned, i.e. if gay marriage was legal and mayors of certain right-wing towns refused to issue marriage licenses to gays.
As to court orders, I have never in my life been ordered by any court not to rob a bank. Can I start doing so now, as long as I promise to quit just as soon as a court tells me to?
March 5th, 2004 at 2:06 pm
Some things that are against the law are not criminal acts. They’re civil violations. Littering, for example, will get you a ticket but not get you arrested. My guess is that solemnizing these marriages is a civil rather than criminal violation.
So if the punishment for solemnizing marriages you shouldn’t be solemnizing is just a fine, it’s likely that nobody has the power to arrest you. They can fine you for it after you do it. A court can order you to stop doing it (and if you don’t stop you’ll likely face arrest).
Also, when a government official exercises the powers of her office, she has certain immunities from prosecution. Not sure how they play out here, but those immunities exist.
With respect to San Francisco, the people performing the marriages aren’t the policy-makers. The mayor isn’t performing marriages (AFAIK). The clerks are the ones doing it. So he’s not really breaking the law. It’s more like he’s ordering others to break the law.
March 5th, 2004 at 2:13 pm
I guess this took a while to make the national news. Up here in blue land they’ve been talking about it for days.
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/19598.htm
March 5th, 2004 at 2:26 pm
Ah, so someone has been charged.
March 5th, 2004 at 2:34 pm
I remember seeing a transcript of an O’Reilly Factor show where the Fox News legal analyst basically said that there is no grounds to arrest Newsom as the laws simply weren’t written that way. And as noted, the New Paltz mayor has been charged.
March 5th, 2004 at 3:00 pm
Manish: I saw that segment too. The analyst, Andrew Napolitano, was wrong. My guess is that he reviewed the Family Code provisions, found no criminal statutes there, and assumed there were none to be found anywhere else. He should have looked in the Penal Code (scroll down to Section 359).
March 5th, 2004 at 5:06 pm
XRLQ: What does solemnize mean? Is issueing a marriage certificate solemnizing or is performing a ceremony solemnizing? Or both or neither? (I’m asking by the way, I’m not sure but suspect its performing the ceremony). If solemnizing is performing the ceremony then the people performing ceremonies are potentially liable. Not sure what hauling off ministers and bishops in handcuffs will do for the debate.
March 5th, 2004 at 5:44 pm
Performing the marriage is solemnizing it. The NY mayor got in trouble for solemnizing without the requisite licenses being issued. Newsom ordered the weddings to be performed with illegally issued licenses. Not sure if there is criminal liability for those who issue the bogus licenses or not.
Here’s what enforcing the law would do for the debate: it would drive home the fact that laws are to be respected by everybody, not just by those who happen to agree with them.
March 5th, 2004 at 8:08 pm
it would drive home the fact that laws are to be respected by everybody, not just by those who happen to agree with them.
including the participants of the Boston Tea Party, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks?
In Canada, a lot of the opposition to abortion was muted when Dr. Henry Morgentaler, repeatedly broke the law and was repeatedly arrested and tried. Eventually, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the abortion laws (based on unequal application of the law, not any belief that abortion was legal or illegal under the Constitution, it’s a long story) and no law was ever passed to replace it making abortion legal in Canada.
I suspect that something similar will happen with gay marriage, that the legal system will pick on someone that strike a nerve. It might end up being Newsom or one of the ministers or bishops that were performing gay marriages. It won’t be the New Paltz mayor though.
March 5th, 2004 at 11:15 pm
I don’t think anybody’s arguing that sometimes civil disobediance is a good thing. The problem is: in this case the person breaking the law is the one charged with enforcing it.
Now, that may also be a good thing; there’s something to be said for not enforcing a bad law. Yes, of course executive branches always have discretion on which cases they choose to pursue. However, I think it’s quite a different thing for government officials to decide to publicly and flagrantly _violate_ laws.
Finally, it’s a good thing to remember that civil disobedience has another long tradition associated with it: serving jail time.