Yeah. Dang. A number of acquaintances who went through the marriage process. Guess they now own an interesting artifact instead of a marriage certificate.
This situation troubles me. The law against gay marriage is wrong, but it is a law, and I think the court is right in saying that as long as it is the state law, the local officials don't have the right to ignore it. The right to challenge laws doesn't hinge on whether I happen to think the law is right or wrong, and I'd hate to see a precedent that encouraged people who feel they have rights, either inherent or constitutional, to ignore laws they feel are trumped by those rights. I don't want some local sheriff deciding that the constitutional right to free exercise of religion means he has a mandate to enforce Leviticus. I don't want anything that could look like such a precedent to the kind of mind that would look for one.
Got to agree with you. Not that I'm disparaging Tom in any way, but it seems contradictory to rant about the 'concientious pharmacists' in this space while praising judges acting from basically the same impulse.
All good -- not insulted or disparaged or anything. It's a good debating point, although I don't think it holds.
See, right now my "crap" reaction to the same-sex marriage thing is just depression at a setback, ideally a temporary one. The marriages were voided because the CA S.C. found that the mayor of San Francisco exceeded his executive authority by issuing the licenses. They avoided the constitutionality of same-sex marriages completely. At the time, however, even though it was of dubious legality, it was not of obvious illegality... and it's all in what I and lots of others consider a good cause. Best form of nonviolent civil disobedience. Kinda like sitting at the front of a bus, only with more rice in your hair.
The pharmacists, on the other hand, are presuming that their civil right to practice their religion as they see fit trumps the civil rights of at least two other people -- the doctor and the patient -- and over the doctor-patient relationship. Because their sensibilities are offended and their God tells them it is wrong, they are interfering with the right of the patient to practice her religion, the doctor to prescribe the care he believes the patient needs, and potentially the health of the patient. This is wrong on so many levels that it should never even get to the legal argument.
There is a case coming before the court later this month sometime that will challenge the law that says a marriage is only between a man and a woman. Hopefully that will be overturned.
The court did not resolve whether the California Constitution would permit same-sex marriage, ruling instead on the limits of authority regarding local government officials.
As I read it, the court didn't decide whether gay marriage is legal or illegal in California, only that it wasn't up to Newsom to interpret the law.
Of course, that's not the way everyone's taking it.
(Oh, and hi. Sorry for popping in uninvited. Hope I didn't disturb anything. Oops! Sorry, tripped over a power cable. Um... that wasn't anything important, was it?)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-12 11:07 am (UTC)The war continues.
/straight but not narrow
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-12 11:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-12 11:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-12 12:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-12 07:15 pm (UTC)Just my thought.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-12 08:00 pm (UTC)See, right now my "crap" reaction to the same-sex marriage thing is just depression at a setback, ideally a temporary one. The marriages were voided because the CA S.C. found that the mayor of San Francisco exceeded his executive authority by issuing the licenses. They avoided the constitutionality of same-sex marriages completely. At the time, however, even though it was of dubious legality, it was not of obvious illegality... and it's all in what I and lots of others consider a good cause. Best form of nonviolent civil disobedience. Kinda like sitting at the front of a bus, only with more rice in your hair.
The pharmacists, on the other hand, are presuming that their civil right to practice their religion as they see fit trumps the civil rights of at least two other people -- the doctor and the patient -- and over the doctor-patient relationship. Because their sensibilities are offended and their God tells them it is wrong, they are interfering with the right of the patient to practice her religion, the doctor to prescribe the care he believes the patient needs, and potentially the health of the patient. This is wrong on so many levels that it should never even get to the legal argument.
That totatly bytes
Date: 2004-08-12 01:26 pm (UTC)1 step forward
10 steps back
@#$ you SHRUB
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-12 06:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-12 09:19 pm (UTC)As I read it, the court didn't decide whether gay marriage is legal or illegal in California, only that it wasn't up to Newsom to interpret the law.
Of course, that's not the way everyone's taking it.
(Oh, and hi. Sorry for popping in uninvited. Hope I didn't disturb anything. Oops! Sorry, tripped over a power cable. Um... that wasn't anything important, was it?)
*BZZT* *Brrrzzhhhh....*
Date: 2004-08-13 02:17 am (UTC)Re: *BZZT* *Brrrzzhhhh....*
Date: 2004-08-13 05:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-12 09:23 pm (UTC)