Okay, time for me to weigh in...

[arib]

See, here's the thing. I'm all for legalized same-sex marriage. I just think that San Francisco's going about it the wrong way, and that'll make things more difficult for folks in other parts of the country.

I know many people argue that San Francisco's decision to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples is "civil disobedience," but I beg to differ. Civil disobedience is carried out by civilians, not government workers. Members of county government involving themselves in this raises the bar to a level that practically invites a negative reaction

(To give an example, GLBT couples arriving en masse at town hall to request marriage licenses knowing they'd be turned away, but still take up a large amount of the city's time would be civil disobedience, sit-ins would be civil disobedience. One city flouting state law is secessionist (sp?) )

Thus far, the only thing that I've seen as a result of San Fran's issuing marriage licenses is to cause more polls taken here in Boston show more people opposed to gay marriage, which won't bode well when a theoretical constitutional amendment hits the polls some years down the line.

Appologies for not being as coherent as I usually am, I'm a bit on the tired side.

Comments

[hfcougar.livejournal.com]

I think a separation needs to be made between the strategic factors in this event and the emotional, real-live-people factors. Strategically, they certainly jumped the gun and this may very well hurt in the long run. They stole Massachusetts' thunder, a state going about things the legal, slow, through the courts, play-by-the-rules way, and San Francisco's action may take a lot of teeth out of what happens or would have happened in Massachusetts come May. Emotionally, however, this does not remove or lessen the positive changes made in real human lives, the benefit to people finally able to marry even if only in the eyes of one city. I'm wary about one and its possible aftermath, but I am wholly in support of the other, and having seen it I don't think I could choose to have it not have been.

Whether or not this is civil disobedience is a purely semantic argument. No, going by the usual definition, it's not. The people acting are in significantly more power here than a normal citizen, whether as a judge or attorney general or mayor, or just someone whose job by good fortune happens to be as a city hall clerk. However, the spirit of civil disobedience is definitely present. People, finding a law unjust, and acting in defiance of it. They may be the representatives of official offices and positions, but they are still individuals as well. They had the choice as individuals to go with the flow and obey the law, or to use their positions to flagrantly ignore an unjust law, whether by ordering City Hall to give the licenses or tossing out a court appeal on the matter of a semicolon. Even the clerks had the choice to obey their superiors' decisions, or to refuse or protest on the legitimate grounds that it was against the law. Perhaps along the line some people did question, protest or refuse but their actions were lost in the shuffle.

Strategically, this may in time prove to have been a massive cock-up. Emotionally, I'll still never be convinced that it was wrong these people got their shot at joy, even prematurely.

The only level on which I'm offended at all is purely irrational, and probably petty: no doubt you have seen that I finally posted my version of Brendan's story, opting for timeliness over any further reflection. Perhaps that's what got you thinking to the point that you made this post. Given the significant overlap in our friends lists and the fact that this was posted only an hour and change later, they'll probably appear near to side by side for many. I want as many people as possible to see his story, and appreciate it for what it is. The strength of the human factor, regardless of the strategic factor. Even though logically I know our friends are far too intelligent for that, I fear this may take some of the wind out of the sails of my post, and that does annoy me rather a bit.

And yes, as dafydd said, it had to start somewhere. I'm not sure it needed to start here, not when Massachusetts had already laid the groundwork for a legal beginning, but it did have to start somewhere. Sometimes people feel they just can't wait any longer even if it means the risk of losing it all. The hope now is that they haven't lost it all for the people who married as well.