Re: But unless I'm mistaken...daltongFebruary 27 2004, 13:27:42 UTC
Thanks...I was wondering about that. He has been purposefully vague, and I believe at one point he called for someone to introduce such a bill (is it called a bill when it's for an amendment?), which implies that he's ignoring what's already been introduced.
One reason could be that it's very anticlimactic to say "Oh yeah, support this thing that's already in committee." Also, the way he said it makes it sound very much like it's his original idea, which some folks who don't follow this would totally believe. Heck, I think a lot of folks don't even realize that he can't be the one to create the amendment, so it definitely works in his favor.
I didn't know about the May 17 date. That makes perfect sense. I thought that Newsom has to show up in court at the end of March? I guess the ruling could be way later than that, though.
I have to tip my hat for Bush's move today. Asking the social security office to refuse automatic name changes for altered (I'm still unclear on why that's illegal) San Francisco marriage licenses is merely asking them to follow existing procedure (and I personally agree that name changes should be made deliberately, with forms), but it comes across like he's taking action/being mean (depending on one's viewpoint). Someone in his cabinet was on the ball last night.
While we're on the topic, I wholeheartedly applaud Newsom's dramatic actions. I do think there is some room for discussion as to whether or not it is civil disobedience (it seems there is a conflict within the state Constitution between non-discrimination and the proposition that was passed defining marriage). But I do believe that this will be, and should be, decided in the courts.
Count the costshoutingboyMarch 1 2004, 12:26:12 UTC
'While we're on the topic, I wholeheartedly applaud Newsom's dramatic actions.'
Just be aware that this has radicalized the opposition, too. Me, for example. In January, I was against a constitutional amendment defining marriage. Now, I'm for it. And I'm not alone. (I think G.W. Bush is in a similar category.)
Was it worth it?
'But I do believe that this will be, and should be, decided in the courts.'
Shouldn't laws be made by the legislatures? Or is that a hopelessly old-fashioned position? Oligarchy does seem to be all the rage nowadays.
One reason could be that it's very anticlimactic to say "Oh yeah, support this thing that's already in committee." Also, the way he said it makes it sound very much like it's his original idea, which some folks who don't follow this would totally believe. Heck, I think a lot of folks don't even realize that he can't be the one to create the amendment, so it definitely works in his favor.
I didn't know about the May 17 date. That makes perfect sense. I thought that Newsom has to show up in court at the end of March? I guess the ruling could be way later than that, though.
I have to tip my hat for Bush's move today. Asking the social security office to refuse automatic name changes for altered (I'm still unclear on why that's illegal) San Francisco marriage licenses is merely asking them to follow existing procedure (and I personally agree that name changes should be made deliberately, with forms), but it comes across like he's taking action/being mean (depending on one's viewpoint). Someone in his cabinet was on the ball last night.
While we're on the topic, I wholeheartedly applaud Newsom's dramatic actions. I do think there is some room for discussion as to whether or not it is civil disobedience (it seems there is a conflict within the state Constitution between non-discrimination and the proposition that was passed defining marriage). But I do believe that this will be, and should be, decided in the courts.
Reply
Just be aware that this has radicalized the opposition, too. Me, for example. In January, I was against a constitutional amendment defining marriage. Now, I'm for it. And I'm not alone. (I think G.W. Bush is in a similar category.)
Was it worth it?
'But I do believe that this will be, and should be, decided in the courts.'
Shouldn't laws be made by the legislatures? Or is that a hopelessly old-fashioned position? Oligarchy does seem to be all the rage nowadays.
Reply
Leave a comment