Two major topics: the NJ governor, and the recent california ruling.
Many of the lj’s I subscribe to have said something about James McGreevey, and his combination self-outing and resignation as governor of New Jersey. Basically, he hired an old trick of his, who turned out to be incompetent and, when he fired said ex-trick, was sued for sexual harrassment. He resigns, presumably due to associated bad press.
His resignation speech was filled with shame. That’s kind of appropriate. But it was shame over his digging guys. Shame over your sexuality is pretty dumb. Shame over hiring a guy who turns out to be a total incompetent is totally appropriate, especially if he also turns out to be an asshole. Shame over making hiring decisions based on how good a lay the candidate is, also appropriate. I’m not sure it’s worth resignation, but so it goes.
[edit: Special thanks to
Btw, here’s a quick check for partisan bias. In MA, the state congress wants to rewrite the law so that the republican governor won’t appoint Kerry’s replacement, but the voters will. In NJ, the democratic governor timed his retirement so that a democrat would fill in his position, and keep it for two years without the post coming up for voter decision. If you think both of these are fine and dandy things, you may be suffering under democratic partisan bias, I certainly am. If in both cases, you think these are terrible things, you may be suffering under republican bias. If you actually care about the voters having their say more than you care about which party takes the position, that’s certainly a note in your favor. And if you think governors should have free reign in such things, you’re pretty damn scary, but this also shows signs of no partisan bias.
So, they ruled that Gavin Newsom overstepped his bounds by ignoring the law. I’m not surprised, even if I am a little disappointed. There’s the obvious disappointment of the court not immediately granting full equality to homos in the eyes of the law, but we knew that wasnt going to happen in this case. I’m also disappointed that the court said, more or less, “We are the ones entitled to interpret the constitution, not you.”
Why do I care? The constitutional limitations on the types of laws that can be passed can’t be challenged until the court agrees to hear the case. State congresses and voter referenda are quite capable of churning out laws that violate their own constitutions. That those laws would stand until the courts get around to striking it down bothers me. That officials are expected to act according to those laws, likewise.
In my ideal little world, the constitutional question would have been resolved before the “Was this inappropriate behavior on the part of the mayor” question was resolved. The courts might have said the family code was completely constitutional. Newsom might have gotten smacked around more as a result. The courthouse might have been stormed by a brigade of torch-wielding homos. That outcome is not preferable. But I find that approach more elegant than “we’re annulling thousands of limbo marriages, because they are legally awkward, I mean, because you need closure.”
Not like I think the state ought to have a damn thing to say about marriage in the first place.
Here’s the thing. There’s an inner contradiction in the fact that public officials are called to uphold both the statutes and the constitution(s) with their oath. While it’s the same type of responsiblity that lies with the courts, the powers, of course, ought to be and remain separate. Now, if a public official had standing to challenge in court the consitutionality of a law on behalf of a constituency that he or she feels is being cheated out of their consitutionally protected rights, even in absence of clear controversy, this contradiction would cease to exist, and in that case Newsom’s correct line of action would have been to bring a motion in court asking a court to declare the family code uncostitutional, even if his constitutional rights were not being violated. Unfortunately this is not the current case of the law. Although the california supreme court touched this issue in oral arguments, they never clearly ruled on it.
County and city officials are asked to make determination over the consitutionality of the execution of their powers every day (in distributing license for protest or demonstration, for example). While the constitution has a higher status than any statute, its applicability to “grey” situations is often much less clear, and much more prone to interpretation than it would be to apply a statute – like in this case, where issuing same-sex licenses was in clear violation of the Family Code but only arguably in violation of the CA Consitution. Now the power of making that determination and interpretation should not lie with anybody else other than the courts, I strongly agree. But then what is the point of asking a public official to uphold the consitution first and foremost? I think it would be completely reasonable and admittable that with a public official lie the authority to bring a case in court, even in absence of controversy, to sue in protection of constituonal rights of the people, or minorities thereof, when in conjunction with a function that such public official is called to perform.
And I totally agree with you.
From a political standpoint, though, I think Newsom’s intent was well executed. He said he wanted something that people could understand and empathize with. Something which showed the emotional reality of the events in question. I don’t think a court case would have the same swaying power. And ultimately, I think the problem is one of cultural acceptance more than legal technicality. Cultivate the acceptance, and the law will follow “easily”. In that light, I think I’m glad for Newsom’s civil disobedience.
But I agree that your idea makes a great deal more sense.
separation of church and state indeed..
what we need are some volunteers to get married and then have sex changes. (inclusive) OR have sex changes and then try to get married….
People have done this. One’s post-operative legal sex varies from state to state. I think it’s something that’s largely been brushed aside by mainstream media.
McGreevey
He expressed shame about breaking his vows to his wife – a rather noble and appropriate response. Nowhere in his speech do I see him express shame about being gay. He doesn’t say being gay makes him a bad governor or a bad person, only that his infidelity and coming out are likely going to distract him from his job. All in all, he seems well ajdusted for a 47 y/o formerly closeted politician who just popped out of the closet.
From the stories I’ve been reading, Gov. McGreevey’s leaving quite a few skeletons in the closet he just exited. Is he conveniently smokescreening his other troubles with a coming out party?? Inquiring minds want to know.
Re: McGreevey
Ah, I blame the AP and my own careless reading. To quote the article I read:
I believe what you said, and am hardly surprised that it was phrased so misleadingly, but I am disappointed that the NYT put that spin on it.
Re: McGreevey
Transcript
Re: McGreevey
Thanks. You are completely correct.
Have I mentioned recently how rage inducing I find news distortion to be?