Congratulations to Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Dell Martin, 82, long-time gay rights activists who have been together for 51 years (!). They were married yesterday in San Francisco, after city officials issued 95 marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of state law.
There’s so much to say, but it’s all already been said. I wonder if they’re registered anywhere?
Even being for gay marriage, a city just doing the legal equivlent of mooning the state’s laws is just plain stupid. It is no different than trying to put Jim Crow laws in Alabama because you don’t want black people voting and damn that 14th amendment. States are greater than cities, state says no, the city can’t say yes. Even San Francisco.
The worst part is it’s not just annoying city council members trying to prove a point. The state will likely sue, which will cost the city money for lawyers, people enormous amounts of time, possibly more money in fines, and of course, an anullment of the marriag (and possibly a fine for them too since they *still* broke state law).
If that is the case, the state has every right to do all that, their laws were broken. Whch is really the worst part, for the sake of sticking their tounge at the man the common council has hurt many other people.
So Mosey, do you support gay marriage?
Yup. I said that already.
Can I expectyou to turn that into, “Mosey hates gays” or some other thing I never said?
Just asking. You tend to write a lot about what Adam’s wrong about, and very little about what you actually think.
I’m not going to try and argue that you hate gays or are homophobic or any such nonsense. I am, however, going to argue that you don’t understand how social change happens.
If you look at the history of civil rights, from the end of slavery to women’s sufferage to worker’s rights to the anti-trust movement to the Jim Crow era, to the gay rights movement, progress was not made by people obeying the law. Orderly, respectable people working within channels were not the people who effected change. The people who created change were people who defied unjust laws, who challenged unjust social policies, and who challenged unjust societal attitudes.
You’re right: the people in San Francisco who are getting married are breaking state laws. You’re right: state law takes precedence over county or municipal law. But where you’re wrong is in thinking that actions like these will ultimately harm gay and lesbian people in their struggle to get legal recognition of their marriages.
This is not anarchy. This is civil disobedience, and as an engine for change it has a long and distinguished history. It is folly to simply follow the law because the law is the law. Gay and lesbian people have been subject to several unjust laws over the several decades during which the government has decided to acknowledge our existence, and after decades of struggle, our straight brothers and sisters are beginning to see how silly it is that two women who have pledged their lives to one another can’t have the same legal arrangement as a straight couple. This isn’t about values. This isn’t about religion. This isn’t really even about love. This is about a legal and financial contract that, as tax-paying citizens, gay and lesbian people are denied.
If the City of San Francisco has to stand up to the State of California to get the ball rolling, so be it. And if every state in the union passes a DOMA amendment, and if the FMA passes Congress and is ratified, then don’t be so naive as to lay the blame on gay and lesbian activists who “went too far”. The cause is simple and easy to identify: the belief that gay and lesbian relationships are inferior at best, damaging at worst, when compared to straight relationships.
This would have happened, no matter how humbly we approached the altar.
city councils are not civil disobidance, nor did I say it will hurt the movement (oh shock, you made up something I said and argued against it!).
And in fact, most change is NOT because of someone breaking the law. Women didn’t get to vote because women were voting when they shoudn’t. People under 21 didn’t either.
You can’t just make up that they did. Sufferagettes marched, they didn’t just decide to start voting. You can’t make up they did. Emancipation was hardly civil disobediance, you know a war and stuff.
Gay rights (the ones that are there) didn’t happen because laws were broken. Or do you think that, oh, hate laws were enacted because gay rights groups somehow kept pre-offenders in jail longer. No? They couldn’t? You mean they lobbied instead?
Or on another subject, did conceal and carry laws get enacted because, “everyone is doing it already.” No? You mean they passed actual laws and lobbied and never argued, “the law is being broken and it is unjust, so we might as wel legalize it any way.”
Jim Crow laws were not abandoned because blacks didn’t pass ownership laws ans still did it. In fact, all those things were because a group OUTSIDE the affected group acted.
In fact, Civil Disobediance is a relativly new thing. It certainly does not have a long and distinguished history.
Most important, people use this method, not cities. Cities are thousands of people. A person is one person. The city, as much as I bet it thinks it does, does not represent everyone in the city (or maybe even the majority). When a person acts alone, they represent themselves, they take their own consequences. When a city acts, they act outside hte wishes of their memebers, and then thrust the results on ll memebers anyway.
If *A* common council member wanted to marry a couple then the three involved would be responsible for their own actions. That is not what happened. Now, there is a shared responsibility, including many, many people who did not break the law, but will still have to pay for it. Cities aren’t people. Cities can not, and should not be civily disobediant (which on a muninicipal level *is* anarchy).
This is the worst thing a city can do because the entire structure they are founded on is based on the rolling downhill of rights. That is unless you think the state or federal government now can be “disobediant” and not give them money for schools based on a principal despite the laws in place.
Or wait, how about if Atlanta just decides being gay is still illegal and arrests anyone at a gay bar because of it. They can even pass an ordinance. You’d be for that right, because they had to “get the ball rolling.” after all. They stood up to the man. If they have to stand up to the state of Georgia, so be it. They are just advancing the rights of good Christians afterall. You’d jump up and clap right, Atlanta is just enacting civil disobediance.
Oh wait, probably not since you only want it to work for things you *like*. If the city started doing that you’d be against it and saying they overstepped their bounds.
It’s no different than a 16 year old kid argung to his parents “me and my twin brother should drink when we want, we already do.” Especially if his brother doesn’t drink.
And of course this most certainly wouldn’t have happened any way. As your third piece of revisionist history, there is already at least one state that has full-fleged gay marriage (i.e. not union) and probably more within the year. To act as if that would never be an option is stupid.
Oh look, I never said ativists went to far, or mentioned the DOMA, or anything like it. Huh, imagine that, you made up what I said then argued against it (this should start to sound familar by now).
Mosey writes:
“city councils are not civil disobidance, nor did I say it will hurt the movement (oh shock, you made up something I said and argued against it!).”
When acting in defiance of state law they deem unjust, and acting as representatives of the people who voted for them, a city council *can* engage in acts of civil disobedience in coordination with citizens like the lesbian couple mentioned above. As to whether this will hurt the movement, what you *wrote* was that the council hurt “many other people”. Maybe I’d put fewer words in your mouth if you spoke more freely, or if it wasn’t hanging open so often.
Mosey writes:
“And in fact, most change is NOT because of someone breaking the law. Women didn’t get to vote because women were voting when they shoudn’t. People under 21 didn’t either.”
Women agitated for the right to vote by marching in the streets, making speeches, and publishing tracts; and while much of what they did wasn’t technically illegal, it was most certainly disobedient if you look at what they were doing in the social context of the time. Women were neither expected nor encouraged to voice their opinions in such a manner, and even though they were ultimately granted the right to vote by men, they wouldn’t have gotten the vote by doing nothing.
Mosey writes:
“Jim Crow laws were not abandoned because blacks didn’t pass ownership laws ans still did it. In fact, all those things were because a group OUTSIDE the affected group acted.”
So blacks just sat there until the laws changed? Read. Some. History. While it was the white majority that eventually changed the laws (over the hue and cry of many other whites who liked the racial power structure just fine), it was the black minority whose activism opened the door. They marched, they demonstrated, they went on strikes and they got beaten by mobs and by the police for it. While I don’t want to take credit away from those whites who helped enact change, I think it’s historically irresponsible for you to attempt to erase the immense power of activism in that time.
Mosey writes:
“And of course this most certainly wouldn’t have happened any way. As your third piece of revisionist history, there is already at least one state that has full-fleged gay marriage (i.e. not union) and probably more within the year. To act as if that would never be an option is stupid.”
I disagree. While there were several states where it was likely that Supreme Court decisions might have permitted marriage (like Mass., though it hasn’t actually been *implemented* yet in any meaningful form), it’s also likely if not absolutely certain that the legislatures of those same states, acting as the “voice” of the people, would have proposed and in many cases won constitutional amendments that would have voided those Supreme Court decisions.
Be careful about calling me stupid. You’ve got good High School forensics skills, but you do a poor job of showing people what your *values* are, as opposed merely to your rhetorical skills. You’re good at “gotcha”, but you’re a horrible communicator, which means that in the end you’ll come off as a kibbitzing troll who cares about winning more than he cares about convincing, whereas I might be a pompous ass whose zealotry causes me to put words in peoples’ mouths, but at least you know what I actually believe.
“When acting in defiance of state law they deem unjust, and acting as representatives of the people who voted for them, a city council *can* engage in acts of civil disobedience in coordination with citizens like the lesbian couple mentioned above.”
So apprently you think they speak for everyone. And thus, you don’t mind at all the Altanta example I put up there, right? I mean, no one is responsible, not a person, but a group.
Hell, If that is your thought I am sure you’d love the city laws that go against state laws in the South, afterall, they were elected officials, the speak for everyone. I’ll wait to see you defend anti-sodomy laws in Florida and Lousiana.
It is very simple: city councils, individuals. Not “the people” civil disobediance, that’s a *person* not a class. when a person puts his ass on the line, that is one thing. When a small, tiny group of people claim to speak for everyone, and puts everyones ass on the line. Well, that’s not civil anything. That’s just a lot of people being held accountable for the acts of a few.
Oh, and of course what does it say if they knowingly break the law to do it. When a person does it they are accountable. When a city does it, they are not (or are and it hurts everyone) and it breaks the rules of structure which is in place, carefully defined and solidly in place.
BTW, yes, you did. “Many other people” was spelled out, good job taking a quote out of context and putting a new party to “people.”
re Jim Crow: Really, where, you said it, you show me. Yes, they did just “sit around” pretty much all they could do. And FYI I am a historian by education.
As for your revisionist, you can’t disagree, there is nothing to disagree with. You said, “this would have happened no matter what.” Well, you just said there are LOTS of why this couldnt have happened, and legally. You are nitpicking a few months, trying to predict the future (and against your own argument to boot). It most certainly can happen another way, and almost certainly will. Trying to use a false delimmia “oh there was no other way, so it must be right” is stupid since first you argued points to prove yourself wrong, and then argued that you are still right.
They broke the law, you are defending it, and ignoring that you only wnat it broken because it benefits you. (and disrupts the system of law). Frankly, if the state sues/arrests the members of the council and declares them guilty, the entire council would and should lose their seats. Of course that is fine, except many other people (who I still defined earlierand you ignored) would still be hurt by this because all that wastes a ton of time and money. Much less *does* create an anarchy (by definition)
As for what I believ,e it really doesn’t matter. If I agreed with you on everything, you’d still be wrong on why. And wrong is wrong. Or do you just need someone to demonize so you can ignore hte process? (since you as much as admitted you do). In fact, you are begging for a way to say, “yeah well, but yu believe… so I can rationalize what I want.”
I know it sucks having to argue against, you know, right and wrong instead of just being able to write off what you like because you don’t like the person. Might have to actually read what is said. Gee, it’s a shame I don’t put my views out there, and make you actually think about whatyou say instead of letting you label someone (which you love to do) and just rationalize your way out of it ignoring what you are actually saying. Damn, you might have to actually argue logial points instead of making some sort of “you people” argument. That would be awful.
Words mean things and all that.
It seems like you’re making a dangerous assumption: that governments, by the purely democratic will of the people, can legislate on whatever topic they choose. The main reason we disagree is that I believe there are some things that no government can justly legislate upon, and the particular scope of this gay marriage argument is one of them. While individuals and non-governmental institutions like churches can make whatever decisions regarding marriage they want, the legal aspect of marriage as defined by governments is entirely another story. If the San Francisco council sees — as I believe they correctly see — that the state is unjustly legislating against a class of citizens for purely private-sector reasons (personal morality, religion, cultural tradition), then I think they’re right to defy the law, and if they’re arrested and there’s a turnover in the composition of the council, then so be it. You act as if they flaunt the law, but in the end the law will either change or it will snap everyone back into line.
I won’t argue the civil disobedience point with you because you’re too incoherent and angry at this point. The idea that black people did nothing to secure their own civil liberties while the whites around them did all the work is absurd and is clearly contradicted in so many books of that period that the proper venue for such a discussion is in a forum with a more specific purpose.
It seems like your fundamental assumption is that the law is always good, the law is always right, and that laws can only change for the better if everyone follows the law. This flies in the face of reason and history.
Particularly in the realm of gay rights, if brave people over the last fifty years hadn’t stood up and put their individual asses on the line to create more visibility and understanding for the gay community, we wouldn’t be here today. While few straight people are truly vicious homophobes, before P-FLAG there was never an organized push on the part of heterosexuals to bring us into the fold.
A right isn’t a right until you exercise it. Those couples in San Francisco believe that governmental acknowledgement of their marriages is a right, and they’re behaving accordingly. The system will sort it out.
And what, pray tell, is the alternative?
Perhaps I should have a separate Kusch-Mosey Debating Society page on this site. 🙂
“It seems like you’re making a dangerous assumption: that governments, by the purely democratic will of the people, can legislate on whatever topic they choose.”
Funny, I was pretty sure you were the one who excused the council because they were doing the will of the people.
Cities can’t break laws because it *does* affect everyone. Not just an individual. I know you like everyone to have a title and deal with them as a class, but it just isn’t so.
“It seems like your fundamental assumption is that the law is always good, the law is always right, and that laws can only change for the better if everyone follows the law. This flies in the face of reason and history.”
This is where you hear the part about making shit up. Not only haven’t I ever said that, I never said anything close. I don’t even know where you are gettng that idea… but you argued against it any way.
Note that when asked for evidence you said, “it is out there, you find it, do my reesearch for me.” I stand by what I said. You had ample chance to give an example, you didn’t.
Oh yeah, and I am apparently “angry” God forbid you type a paragrapgh without putting a label on someone. Otherwise you;d have no idea what to argue against them. Without those labels you’d have no way to rationalize they are just a group you don’t like. Hell, you might even have to think about what you are saying.
The “idea” that a right isn’t a right until you excercise it is about the dumbest thing ever written. You are still arguing that San Fransisco (the city, not a person, not even a group, ALL the people of SanFrancisco, they all think as one person I guess) had no choice but to do this. Despite that you know there were, are and will be many, many ways to do it without breaking the law.
But then I am sure you will be a full supporter of those Atlanta amendments banning gays in the city, after all, they *had* to, and the common council did it and someone had to get the ball rolling. The fact state law doesn’t agree is moot, someone had to do it and that’s the only way it can get done.
Fact is there are many, many processes in place to do exactly this, but San Francisco common council decided they’d rather bltently break the law than wait a month or two. And you think that is ok. It’s ok to break the law if you belive in something.
Just ask Eric Rudolph who apperntly you think is entirely within his “rights” (since he enacted them) to protect unborn babies. Afterall, someone had to. You must consider him quite the hero. He did all the things you are applauding San Francisco for doing for all the same reasons.
Okay, now we’re equating people getting married as an act of civil disobedience with a murderer. Hitler can’t be far off — let’s just head that off at the pass.
Laws, merely by virtue of being passed, are not necessarily moral. Our history has many examples of this, including Jim Crow laws. Laws never change without activism, without struggle, and sometimes, without acts of disobedience by the public.
If you don’t always think the law is good and moral, maybe you think the law should always be adhered to. Why else would you decry this act as “anarchy” when there have been so many other times in our history where similar acts of disobedience took place without the utter destruction of our society?
And Adam: I’m sure your site isn’t about arguments like this. Tell me to shut up, and I’ll shut up.
Laws very often change without activism. Which isn’t even the point that a city should not be an activist in the first place (hint: I’ve mentioned it before, it has to do with responsibilities for actions).
And yes, laws should be adheeared to, and enforced, or they should stop being laws. And in fact, if they are broken, there is a responsiblity to pay for it. Huh, novel concept, the reasons laws exist is to control behavior, and when they are broken someone has to answer for that. That’s amazing. You though think that isn’t true and anyone who wants to be an “activist” can ignore laws for what they want. Like, well, any of the things I mentioned, which apparently you agree with.
Or wait, does “activist” only mean “liberal causes I agree with.” since I am guessing you still aren’t fond of an anti-sodomy law in Atlanta despite the common council passing it there would be acting exactly in the same vein as the San Francisco Council. I bet you wouldn’t think that was “something that had to be done” and there was no other way.
Funny, no one said anarchy is destruction. Hmmm, some zealot said something very similar, oh yeah, that gay marriae would be a moral downfall of society. I bet you thought that logic was pretty stupid too (and for the record, that was your idea, not mine. I, once again, never said any such thing)
And yet, you haven’t said you disagree with any of the examples I gave despite they all use your logic.
Still waiting for all those long and historic acts of civil disobediance you said exist.
Do you know why I think that the action in San Francisco was right, and that a law banning gay and lesbian people in Atlanta would be wrong?
One answer: the Fourteenth Amendment.
As far as black civil disobedience in the heat of the civil rights movement, these non-violent activities include, but are not limited to:
1. Sit-ins at lunch counters and other racially-segregated public places.
2. “Freedom Rides” geared toward ending segregated transportation in America.
3. The 1963 March on Washington (which was not the first-ever March on Washington, though it was the first based on racial issues)
The people who participated in these demonstrations, regardless of their race, faced arrest, imprisonment, brutalization or even murder because they stood up for what they believed in.
In addition to these non-violent demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience (which does not only denote “illegal” activities but activities in defiance of social norms of the time), there were also intermittent violent clashes directly related to race relations that increased in frequency and intensity during the mid-to-late 1960s tha took place across the country, including in my home town of Milwaukee.
* * *
When people contradict a law they perceive to be unjust in a non-violent manner, that is civil disobedience. When some guy in the woods decides to start bombing and shooting people because of his religious beliefs, that’s murder. While the basic principle might be similar (i.e., that there are some laws that should not be followed because they are unjust), there is both a qualitative and quantitative difference between getting a marriage license in defiance of state law and killing civilians for a self-proclaimed holy war.
If I marry my boyfriend, no one will die as a result. It isn’t that big of a deal in the larger sense — we’re simply not willing to respect governmental institutions that don’t respect us. That might lend some perspective to the issue.
For a longer history of civil disobedience in the United States, you might skim “A People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn, which is heavily annotated and tracks acts of civil disobedience from the Revolutionary War to the Civil War to the great Labor uprisings from the 1890s through the Great Depression, to women’s sufferage to World War II, to the civil rights era, the gay rights era and beyond. There are citable and documented instances of uprisings, strikes, sit-ins, conscientious objections, and other manners in which people defied laws and governmental structures that they felt were unjust or immoral.
And they all paid the price for their disobedience, to all our benefit.
If all those marriage licenses are voided next Tuesday, as is very likely, then this action will have served its symbolic purpose and whoever applied for those licenses and whichever council members granted those licenses will face the consequences, *not* you. If they started offering marriage licenses in Madison, I’d try to be at the front of the line, and I’d take my licks whenever they were handed down. I’m *proud* of those people in San Francisco, and I’m disappointed that I can’t be one of them.