Bill O'Reilly mentioned:

"When Alabama Judge Roy Moore defied a federal order to remove the Ten Commandments, most Americans - even those who obeyed with Moore - said he had to obey the law. But where is the outcry demanding that Newsom obey the law?"

Not a bad point. People who claim to act in the public interest shouldn't then act only to further a liberal agenda. More and more I see the ACLU and their kin as tools to legislate via the court system, not brave defenders of my rights.

Its called civil disobedience. Both Judge Moore and those in SF are practicing it. Sometimes one wins and sometimes one loses. Judge Moore lost the fight but became a media-cult-hero for the religous conservatives in this country. How will the SF action play ot? Who knows, only time will tell, they are only doing what they feel is right, as did Judge Moore.

"Both Judge Moore and those in SF are practicing it. "

No, there's a difference between displaying a religious belief in a public building and issuing illegal documents to people who will expect them to be legally binding. He is officially presiding over what he attests to be legally binding marriages. They probably won't be so, since it is outside his authority to grant such between people of the same sex. If tomorrow someone at immigration started handing out illegal visas on principle, or someone at the DMV started handing out illegal licenses, they'd be fired and probably punished.

I'm sick of PC issues being hands-off. He has abused his office in an attempt to by-pass the legislative process and he should be immediately relieved of that office.

Perhaps I need to clarify my statement. Judge Moore's act of civil disobedience was not in putting up the plaque, it was in refusing to take it down. Perhaps also, it is too early to judge if the action in SF is civil disobedience or not, if they are willig to face the legal consequences of their actions then it is an act of civil disobedience, if they are unwilling it is not. You agree with one action and not the other which tempers your beliefs and opinions. I did not judge either action as right or wrong, just pointed out that each comes from a similar belief that what they are doing is correct, and that the government, laws or legal rulings are wrong.

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/civ-dis.htm:
"Civil disobedience is a form of protest in which protestors deliberately violate a law. Classically, they violate the law they are protesting, such as segregation or draft laws, but sometimes they violate other laws which they find unobjectionable, such as trespass or traffic laws. Most activists who perform civil disobedience are scrupulously non-violent, and willingly accept legal penalties."

However, in my definition, those who perform civil dicobedience must be peaceful and must accept the legal penalties.

Heheh. Who cares - you lose Messy. What is the saying "you can't stop the march of time" ?

"You agree with one action and not the other which tempers your beliefs and opinions."

Nope, I disagree with both actions. I disagree with anyone getting to break the law because enforcing it isn't PC. I don't like the fact that these civil liberties groups have been hijacked and only seek to protect people of particular bent. I don't like groups bending to constitution in order to preempt the normal process of legislation.

I never once said I agreed with having the ten commandments in the court house. You just assumed so because of another opinion I have. Unsound.

Heheh. Who cares - you lose Messy. What is the saying "you can't stop the march of time" ?

What exactly is your point?

There's a pretty huge difference here between Judge Moore and Mayor Newsom. Moore behaved in a manner that defied the edict of a federal judge. Newsom behaved in a manner that defies the edict of the people of California. I'm not saying that Moore shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of his actions (even though I personally support them), but in my mind a sin against the edict of an appointed judge is less significant than a sin against the edict of the people (assuming that the edict of the people doesn't cause the government to infringe upon any rights they're not constitutionally entitled to infringe upon). Bad Newsom, no biscuit!

Actually, Messy wins. San Francisco's mayer can no more hand out marriage licenses than I can.

If anyone wants to get married, I'll set them up for $20,000 a pop.

Seriously, comparing the 10 commandment case this case are apples and oranges. The judge wasn't actually violating any particular law. He was overruled by other judges.

By contrast, the mayer of San Francisco is violating a state law that was enacted by a referendum in California. We're not talking about some federal law that they're violating, they're basically saying "up yours" to the people of California.

It's not the point, it's the vector. You swing where the ball WAS - you strike out. Fragged.

That woosh, woosh, woosh - its the tide coming in.

And it continues...

Excerpt:

On Sunday, 487 couples were married, bringing the total since Thursday to more than 1,600. If Monday's goal is met, the total will exceed 2,250 -- all of them married by city officials who volunteered their time over the holiday weekend.

Prolly the licenses will be voided... this time. Woosh, woosh, woosh.

Suppose a legislature, be it a state legislature or the US Congress, passes a law, and then someone violates that law and is penalized for it. This someone sues, and a state supreme court or the Supreme Court of the United States rules that the law was unconstitutional to begin with. Then the law was never valid, and the person's conduct was never illegal.

It is legally possible (though obviously not likely) that the California Supreme Court or the Supreme Court of the United States could declare the ban on gay marriages unconstitutional, in which case Mayor Newsom's actions would be completely legal.

No such possibility existed for Judge Moore; he was completely rebuffed by SCOTUS.

The state constitution of California trumps the voters that passed their discriminatory laws. The mayor of San Francisco did the right thing in upholding the states constitution. GCJ