Thanks...A Response to the CA "Supreme" Court

[Onibubba]

In honor of the CA Supreme Court annulling the marriages of thousands of Americans asking no more than their fair share of the American Dream, their fair share of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, their fair share of equality, I'd like to post one of my favorite pieces by William S Burroughs. Enjoy and Despair.

"Thanks for the wild turkey and
the passenger pigeons, destined
to be shit out through wholesome
American guts.

Thanks for a continent to despoil
and poison.

Thanks for Indians to provide a
modicum of challenge and
danger.

Thanks for vast herds of bison to
kill and skin leaving the
carcasses to rot.

Thanks for bounties on wolves
and coyotes.

Thanks for the American dream,
To vulgarize and to falsify until
the bare lies shine through.

Thanks for the KKK.

For nigger-killin' lawmen,
feelin' their notches.

For decent church-goin' women,
with their mean, pinched, bitter,
evil faces.

Thanks for "Kill a Queer for
Christ" stickers.

Thanks for laboratory AIDS.

Thanks for Prohibition and the
war against drugs.

Thanks for a country where
nobody's allowed to mind the
own business.

Thanks for a nation of finks.

Yes, thanks for all the
memories-- all right let's see
your arms!

You always were a headache and
you always were a bore.

Thanks for the last and greatest
betrayal of the last and greatest
of human dreams."

[Mother Mo]

I love Burroughs.

The drama in California isn't over yet, not by a long shot. Today was merely a court reminding a mayor of what he is & is not allowed by law to do. The principles behind the controversy still haven't had their day in court. Soon, though, very soon.

[Vachy]

="Onibubba"CA Supreme Court annulling the marriages of thousands of Americans

So very wrong. People are so, so insensitive, lazy, and selfish. How can anyone deny the love of thousands of people?

[judas gnb]

Its not about being lazy or selfish its about a mayor who used his power in the wrong way the law clearly stated who he could and could not marry and he broke the law plain and simple.

[Celestial Dung]

In this case I think a little civil disobedience would be a good thing. Laws do not neccessarily reflect the moral rights of the citizens. When these laws infringe upon the moral rights of the citizens then I feel it is the duty of a moral human being to trounce them.

This is clearly a law based around the assumption that the love and union between a couple of homosexual persuasion is not as legit as the love and union between a crouple of heterosexual persuasion. This assumption is not only correct it is immoral.

In conclusion, if it's broken then fix it.

[Onibubba]

Civil disobedience has a long and pretty successful track record when it comes to combating ignorance and blatant discrimination. I say more power to the man - he did what was right, legal or not.

[delphi_ote]

Homosexuals really haven't been getting a fair shake at all lately, have they?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/ ... index.html

[judas gnb]

As much as it may suck the fact is a law is a law and the mayor as a lawmaker should followed the law. (I realise that as a republican im probley goin to be the only one against the whole gay marriage thing)

[Scorptrio]

Taking liberties and exercising freedom in the face of a corrupt and tyrannical government is the oldest American Tradition.

The only liberties you have are the liberties you take, so exercise your freedom or lose it.

[delphi_ote]

Mayor = executive branch. Well, in most cities. Sometimes the mayor is also a part of the city council... ANYWAYS

He's not a law maker, but a law implementor. Granted, he's not techinically supposed to interpret the law at all. But at some point he has to make some decisions as to how the laws are enforced in the city.

This mayor made an unusually liberal interpretation of the law and how it should be enforced. He used his meager interpretive powers very broadly. Hardly criminal. He forced an exact interpretation of the law from the interpretive branch. That's how our checks and balances are supposed to work.

The judges decided his was inconsistent with the law. In my opinion, that is a shame. In yours, it isn't. This is an issue of the ethics of gay marriage, not the law.