Ignoring the Law

[warch]

and how cool a name is Clivus Multrum? yeah.

[Griff]

It's almost as much fun as working humanure into a conversation.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by Undertoad
They did a great job of ignoring the law in post-Saddam Iraq and it was helpful to this ex-Libbie to see what an armed society does in the face of complete lack of rule of law. I don't think I would want to live in such a situation and don't think it would feel very free. Sure looks like it was helpful to have Democracy prodded at them and that it would never have evolved naturally into a desireable society.

Of course it is also interesting to see what happens when 'conservatives' seize power and subvert the law. Which is why we have separation of church and state and three branches of governement, with many checks and balances. Much of what Hussein did was technically legal because he was an autocrat with a tame ruling party who was able to subvert the legal system and create his own laws to reflect his prejudices.

In some countries, now and in the past, it was actively discouraged or even illegal, to belong to the 'wrong' religion. Here again we have the bias of a ruler and/or ruling party being reflected in law and custom.

True conservatives and liberals of the Republic of the United States of America have an obligation to keep these barriers in place for the common good, and to oppose the efforts of a vocal minority to subvert the laws and institutions to single out other minorities for special treatment, whether it is oppresion or favoratism.

[xoxoxoBruce]

oppose the efforts of a vocal minority

The majority, also.

[godwulf]

Just reading through all the previous posts, and thank goodness the stream of conversation seems to have come back from the whole composting toilet-septic system sub-thread...and just for the record, isn't the Clivus Multrum a female erotic zone?

I used to listen to a lot of (mainly 'conservative') talk radio - sacrificing innumerable brain cells in an effort to keep abreast of the latest, cutting-edge developments in the field of logical fallacies - so I'm aware of the tendency of those who like to think of themselves as 'conservatives' to blame just about any nutty, anal or illogical behavior, law or policy (with which they happen to disagree) on 'liberals'.

While I haven't been exposed to all that much far-left rhetoric, I suspect that there are also vocal forces out there somewhere, laying every nutty, anal or illogical behavior, law or policy with which THEY disagree at the door of 'conservatives'.

Let's be honest about this - it isn't one 'side' more than the other that practices (what, if you agree with it, you call) civil disobedience or (if you don't, you call) "ignoring the law". Feeling strongly enough about a given thing to (some would say) "flout" or (in others' eyes) "challenge" a law is something entirely apart from how one pigeon-holes oneself politically, socially or religiously.

So is the compulsion to micro-manage the lives of others - it is not, if one thinks about it seriously, while tuning out the one-sided rhetoric of the far left AND the far right, a 'conservative' OR a 'liberal' thing to do; it's what those people do who feel the need to do it, regardless of their politics.

Are we living in some kind of an anarchistic post-law society? Not at all - but I believe that average people ARE becoming more convinced that when it comes to matters intimately affecting their personal lives, bureaucrats and legislators have gone far beyond their mandate and authority, and that the courts are their only hope for restoring some balance and sanity to government.

[Troubleshooter]

Democracy: the tyranny of mediocrity

[Beestie]

During the Civil Rights Movement, it was Rosa Parks. During the current situation, it's Gavin Newsom.

Please. Comparing Gavin Newsom to Rosa Parks is like comparing Barney Fife to Buford Pusser.

[russotto]

It's OK to break the law as long as

1) It would be OK to perform the action if the law didn't exist.

2) The existence of the law doesn't create such a strong expectation of compliance to the standard set forth in it that violating that standard causes harm to others.

and the big one

3) You can get away with it.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Beestie
Please. Comparing Gavin Newsom to Rosa Parks is like comparing Barney Fife to Buford Pusser.

Both took stands on issues that were not popular with people as a whole. They risked possible sanction to stand up for what they felt was right.

The only real difference between the two, as I see it, is that Parks fought for something that directly affected her. Newsom is fighting for something that does not directly affect him (as he is not gay).

[Happy Monkey]

Also, I think that Gavin Newsom has stopped now that the State Supreme Court told him to. But that's consistent with his stance that the law is unconstitutional.

[Beestie]

I'm not sure exactly what Newsom is/was up to. Barney Frank called him and begged him not to start granting licenses to gays indicating that "it wasn't time."

I was really reacting to the amount of courage displayed by the two. Parks risked life and limb in a time when a James Byrd story would barely (if at all) have made even the local news. Newsom took a garden variety political gamble in a town where he is surrounded by those who support his decision.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Beestie
I'm not sure exactly what Newsom is/was up to. Barney Frank called him and begged him not to start granting licenses to gays indicating that "it wasn't time."

Frank was probably worried about what would happen in Massachusetts. It sounds like they're headed towards a Vermont-style setup at this point.

As far as Newsom's own motivations...well, figure he has roughly 80,000 gay residents for starters. He is also in charge of one of the most liberal cities in the world. And based on what I've seen and read, he seems sincere in his beliefs.

Newsom took a garden variety political gamble in a town where he is surrounded by those who support his decision.

I wouldn't call it garden variety by any means. He made a decision that could have easily ended his political future (and still could), he could be penalized by the State of California and he's received death threats. And I suspect he's gotten his fair share of "fan mail" and phone calls over it.

In the end, I'd say it's a combination of "pleasing the constituents" and genuine belief, leaning more towards the latter. After all, I'm sure he knew his decision wouldn't win him THAT many friends and would cause an instant shitstorm.

[xoxoxoBruce]

After all, I'm sure he knew his decision wouldn't win him THAT many friends and would cause an instant shitstorm.

Disagree. It's won him a hell of a lot of friends and I think he knew it would.

[Griff]

File this under whatever happened to Separation of Church and State

So when ministers Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey were charged with criminal offenses Monday for marrying 13 gay couples, critics said the action was unprecedented and accused prosecutors of violating religious freedom.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
It's won him a hell of a lot of friends and I think he knew it would.

Of course...but while he may have a hell of a lot of friends, he probably has a hell of a lot of enemies too.