Opinari.net
Opinari - Latin term for Opinion. Opinari.net is just what it seems: a cornucopia of rants, raves and poignant soliloquy. |
Saturday, February 21, 2004
On Gay Marriage:
Arnold today finally spoke about the gay marriage issue in California:
Schwarzenegger told a cheering crowd at the state GOP convention that “in San Francisco, the courts are dropping the ball.”
“It’s time for the city to stop traveling down this dangerous path of ignoring the rule of law. That’s my message to San Francisco,” he said Friday night.
Schwarzenegger’s directive to Attorney General Bill Lockyer was prompted in part by a judge’s decision not to impose a temporary restraining order that would have halted San Francisco’s weeklong parade of 3,175 same-sex weddings, said Rob Stutzman, Schwarzenegger’s communications director.
Now, whether or not gay marriage should be instituted is a question left to others (see Donald Sensing).
My question is this: if it is alright for a group to ignore the law, instead of seeking to first change it (as is the case with gay marriage), should it also be okay in other instances? For example, what if a rural Republican in northern California decides that the state's gun laws are insane, and shouldn't apply to him? Is it okay for him to simply ignore them? What about the income tax (debatably an unconstitutional confiscation of money by the government from its citizens)? Can Californians, and even citizens of other states, simply forgo paying their taxes? Can they contend that such laws are unconstitutional, and sidestep them?
I contend that laws should be changed, before they are broken. If American marriage laws are so offensive to the homosexual community, they should petition the courts to review them, vote for representatives that will represent them, and continue their protests until the changes are realized. Hopefully, this is how this debate will be resolved, instead of the anarchy we are seeing today.Labels: Archives_2004
.: posted by
Dave
3:58 PM
| |
Recommended Reading
|
