Posted on 02/16/2004 12:14:53 PM PST by L.N. Smithee
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:45:46 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I disagree only in light of what the article describes as the actions of Mr. Newsom prior to his action. It's a small, but significant point.
If this be "Anarchy," it be a very well planned one. There may be an absence of law, here but not, unfortunately of Government. The lack of outrage out here is staggering. It's (obviously) being viewed as a "dog bites man" story, except with it's fatal consequences--for our Society.
I believe it's either a Publicity Campaign (Tourist or Political, you decide), or, more sinister, an attempt to circumvent the Law of the Land, and Several Millennia of Tradition. Either way, I see no absence of "order," on the contrary, it was obviously well thought out, and with the collusion of State Government Officals.
I don't think there's anyone left in that city sane enough to mount a recall. It's a shame, it was one of America's Great Cities. I still have friends there. I just refuse to visit them and have told them why. They think I'm nuts, and in a "Oliver Wendell Douglas" of Green Acres way, they are correct.
I'm just wondering what would happen if San Fran had about an 8.5 quake about now. I'd be the first to ask, "Anybody that doesn't believe in God, raise their hand".
There is a word to describe what's happening in Sin FRancisco in this matter:
ANARCHY!
And the mayor is an anarchist who should immediately be recalled.
No, it's not anarchy, nor is it "civil disobedience", which is the term they initially applied to their action.
Anarchy is the absence of government, every man for himself. A government official, issuing licenses is anathema to the concept of "anarchy". ("Hi, I'd like to sign up to be an anarchist. Where can I find the rulebook, and how much will the license cost me?")
It's not "civil disobedience" either, but for different reasons. Civil disobedience is by definition the populace rebelling against the state. When you have one unit of government squaring off against another unit of government, it's not "civil disobedience" by any stretch of the language.
So if it's not "anarchy", and it's not "civil disobedience", then what is it?
It's civil war of course.
How it ends up will determine not so much what kind of future we have as a nation, but whether we've got much of a future at all. Rome is falling, version 2.0.
Please note that I am not engaging in either hyperbole or a term of art when I used the expression "civil war" to describe their actions. I was being as clinical and accurate as possible. One unit of government has decided to break away from the rest of the country, and operate in complete defiance to the rule of law, to which it is officially subject.
San Francisco has in a very real way decided to secede from the USA. How the USA responds to this act of civil war will determine our future.
I will not be surprised, though, if the response boils down to surrender.
It's more than even that. The concept of "marrying" two people, things, whatever (it's a term used in a variety of contexts, including cooking, i.e., to "marry" the flavors of various ingredients) means to mix and combine two different things.
You cannot "combine" two same things.
Now, consonant with the concept of "marriage" among human beings is the concept of "heterosexual". The "hete" root is the key. Heterosexual means something. What it means, is that a heterosexual is attracted to and mates with someone of a different gender.
The two concepts -- heterosexuality and marriage -- are part of the same story. Two views of the same picture. You cannot take one away and maintain the other. (Even when using terms like "common law" marriage.)
To -- by fiat -- declare that two same-sex individuals can "marry" is tantamount to declaring that the law of gravity is null and void within the boundaries of San Fransisco. Or that people shall be allowed to watch television on their Etch-a-Sketch toys.
The law can demand it. People can even go through the motions of pretending to "enjoy their newfound rights. But nothing will be changed, other than to institutionalize Orwell's doublespeak.
And you can't do that without creating a type of mass insanity.
Only an act of Congress could do that. Yes, it would take a simple majority, rather than a two-thirds majority like an Amendment needs, but it won't happen. The news media would be all over this story, you can bet that SF (and CA, for not doing anything to stop it) would become the victims.
You might have a chance of this coming up in January, but you can bet that GWB doesn't want anything else muddying the waters between now and November. National defense needs to be the predominant story, sideshows just make our message diluted.
Back to the main point, Newsom is looking to make himself a media hero. Any "persecution" of him or of SF just plays into this. If conservatives are smart, they will save their lawyering for the hearings to determine the validity of the certificates. I'll bet the news media doesn't want anything so boring.
Sooner or later, at least the premise of your suggestion is bound to occur, if it hasn't already, in venues that decree benefits to "same sex partners."
If you are a single straight person, with a friend or relative of the same gender, who is in dire need of medical treatment, but cannot afford it, and, you work for an employer who offers free group insurance benefits to "same sex partners", it would make perfect sense to sign that person up as your "partner" in order to save his or her life.
As legal, social, commercial, etc. benefits to homosexuals increase, it will be increasingly tempting to foist oneself off as "gay", simply to avoid massive reverse discrimination.
Some years back, I began work on a piece of "fiction" (it's so difficult to stay ahead of the reality curve), in which the government, in order to prevent "abuses" of this "right", required homosexuals to submit proofs of their... "orientation". I leave the gory details to the reader's imagination.
We are headed down a path from which there is no return. Society is embracing a disease which has no cure, no remedy, no treatment, other than allowing it to run its course.
The name of this disease is not "homosexualty". The name of this disease is "madness."
Would you take the abscence of a destructive earthquake for, say, a couple of years or so, as divine approval?
Just keep pushin' the vengeful God angle, and see which way it moves the public opinion polls.
Yes. The very fact that Mr. Newsom called the State's senior Law Enforcement Official and the Secretary of State, the keeper of the State's Vital Statistics, and was not clapped into irons shows me that State Government Officials are in on this. It does, in my biased opinion, at this point become a Federal Law Enforcement issue. But how to procede? Why not let SF secede (PLEEEZE!!!), or become a semi-autonomous City State?
If it's good enough for Vatican City, why not SF?
Let the "Rear Door of the Church" jokes begin.
Only in the same sense that the South was engaging in "anarchy" when it seceded from the country and set up its own government. In other words, "not at all". It's an act of civil war, not an act of anarchy.
Being backed by no basis in Law, the pieces of paper he is issuing to the queued deviants are of no value
No more value, at least, than Confederate Dollars in the USA.
Probably nothing, I'd imagine. He might make a good natured joke -- completely inoffensive, of course -- but I don't expect him to do anything about it. He's auniternotadivider, remember.
As for Newsome, his wife is making the round of TV shows such as Larry King and some on MSNBC. She has been an anchor on Court TV where she gives analysis of criminal procedures. She is or used to be a prosecutor and looks rather masculine.
As for Newsome, his wife is making the round of TV shows such as Larry King and some on MSNBC. She has been an anchor on Court TV where she gives analysis of criminal procedures. She is or used to be a prosecutor and looks rather masculine.
There was just a hint of sarcasm there. I'm sorry that came off so strong.
How it ends up will determine not so much what kind of future we have as a nation, but whether we've got much of a future at all. Rome is falling, version 2.0.
...San Francisco has in a very real way decided to secede from the USA. How the USA responds to this act of civil war will determine our future.
I will not be surprised, though, if the response boils down to surrender.
Then there will be a lot of us who will want to secede from such a corrupt, perverse nation and form our own perfect union.
I have stated previously on this forum that Leftist-liberalism leads to mental illnes, having observed this result in family members.
Sorry for taking it that way. I just hear a lot of "fire and brimstone" on other gay marriage threads, and I thought this might have been some of the same. It's just my belief that if the people in the middle who are unsure about gay marriage are going to come out against it, it won't be because somebody has beaten them over the head with a Bible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.