Ignoring the Law
 

The mayors around the country who are marrying gay couples are in most cases ignoring laws which are on the books and being praised for it. Is a willingness to break laws they dislike, the real differance between the left and right? Or as a society are we all growing contemptuous of the layers of law being foisted upon us? Is it okay to break the law because you think its wrong?

I'm not much of a lawbreaker but there are many really absurd laws on the books that the proponents of seem to expect us to follow. From my group of friends, the lefties while supporting much more new legislation, are the same folks who ignore laws already on the books. Don't get me wrong, I'm an anarchist at heart but I'm wondering if the consensus is that rule of law is over so I can start building a new way of life free from your mandates.

It is indeed OK to break the law if you disagree with it, but you must expect to suffer the consequences. Civil disobedience doesn't work fast enough to protect the first group from prison, and if the first group gives up rather than go to prison, then the civil disobedience has a lesser chance of working at all. The goal of civil disobedience isn't anarchy, it is to change the law.

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.

Never's a long time, UT. Desirable is pretty subjective, too. What they have been living with for 2 thousand years is not desirable to us, but they may be comfortable with it. At least the adult males.;)
Or dress up like Indians, then throw the tea in the harbor.

What seems to happen in cases like this is that someone put themselves out there. They know the risks, but persist in spite of them. During the Civil Rights Movement, it was Rosa Parks. During the current situation, it's Gavin Newsom.

And in these kinds of situations, the stars just seem to align at the right time. Newsom has only been in office a few months, the issue has been simmering for a few years now, the MA Supreme Court ruling came out, San Francisco is a gay-friendly city and it's both a city and county (like Philadelphia).

Imagine what would happen if no one ever stuck their neck out...where we would be not only as a country but as a society?

Everyone thinks about the Rosa Parks/ Paul Revere set, but what about when you "know" you are right but in retrospect you're really evil, say a hood wearing whitey in 1876 Mississippi, making sure reconstruction fails? A more contemporary and less clear cut one would be property owners ignoring stupid or just inconvenient enviromental laws. I just wanted to make sure that everyone agrees that law and government are irrelevent, since we're going to pick and choose the rules we follow. I also want to bait the left a little on their constant rule making for others when they fully support ignoring any law they dislike.

Gavin Newsom and Rosa Parks trying to win rights for certain people did not interfere with the lives and rights of others, IMO. Blacks being allowed to sit in the front of the bus and gays getting married aren't really hurting anybody. Joe Bob in the Klan outfit was trying to prevent Willie the former slave from being on the same footing as himself. You ignoring an environmental law could cause damage to the soil beyond your property line and pollute the air that thousands of others breathe.

Nice try, Griff. I'm going to give you a B+ for effort. :)

You're really not gonna let me start a shit-storm here, are you. :)

I think I deserve props for serving that up libertarian-style. :)

(EDIT: Was testing whether I could delete a post on the main board. Apparently, I cannot.)

See you missed a spot here. My favorite example would be the state mandated septic systems which are not as effective as composting toilets and are so expensive that folks avoid improving their existing systems when they are failing. Those are two places where the enviromental laws make the enviroment worse.

Let me do some research on this, bud, before I get back to you. Unfortunately, I'm not overly familiar with either setup.

Okay...based on my research, it would seem that composting toilets make more sense. Although, they don't seem to address the issue of greywater very well. Not to mention, I don't know what township you're in, so I don't know what kind of regulations they have regarding waste disposal.

(Griff, your issue seems to be more with your township than the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth seems to be cool with composting toilets. Why can't you install one?)

It looks like they updated the acceptable systems two years ago. We still have the problem in greywater disposal. You have to have a septic tank and a minimum mound 60% the size of a full system for your lot. There is some variation based on whether your township is COG but you can't duck this expense if you're going with composting toilets.

8. Greywater Systems
The treatment of greywater requires the same methods of sewage disposal used in soil-based onlot
disposal systems. Occasionally, the applicant may wish to separate “blackwater” (domestic human
waste) from “greywater” (washwater etc.) in order to reduce the amount of absorption area needed.
The use of “blackwater” treatment systems such as composting, chemical, recycling and incinerating
toilets or privies (proposed in conjunction with water under pressure), must meet the following
conditions for the treatment of greywater:
A. An onlot system meeting Chapter 73 standards or other approved method of sewage disposal
must be installed to treat greywater flow from the structure. Septic tank installations must
consist of either a two-compartment rectangular tank or two rectangular tanks in series and
must be in conformance with Chapter 73, Section 73.31. Aerobic tanks used must be in
compliance with Chapter 73, Section 73.32.
B. Only the absorption area may be reduced by up to 40 percent as a compensation for the use of a
non-flush toilet alternative. No reduction of septic tank sizing is allowed.
C. If planning is required, general soil and site suitability must be conducted in accordance with
Chapter 71, Section 71.62.
D. When a blackwater treatment system is proposed for use in conjunction with a greywater
system in a subdivision, the provisions of Chapter 71, Section 71.63(f)(1) apply, i.e. the site
and soil suitability testing must be sufficient to document the availability of an area for a full
sized system.
E. An SEO that has successfully completed the appropriate DEP-sponsored continuing education
course that included this specific technology may independently review the design and issue
the permit for systems approved under this listing.

Clivus Multrum is the outfit to deal with for composting toilets. They also have greywater systems which actually work, unlike sand mounds which aren't really designed to handle greywater without humanure.

and how cool a name is Clivus Multrum? yeah.

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

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.

The majority, also.;)

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.

Democracy: the tyranny of mediocrity

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Greenleaf and Sangrey were charged with solemnizing a marriage without a license, the same charges leveled against New Paltz Mayor Jason West, who last month drew the state into the widening national debate over same-sex unions.
~
In a statement, the Boston-based Unitarian Universalist Association said its ministers have been officiating at religious marriages for same-sex couples for more than 35 years.

Interesting theocracy we're developing here, the state is moving from enforcing contracts to dispensing sacraments. It kind of makes a guy want to vote Libertarian.

You're starting to sound like Radar. :)

Griff, the Jesus freak Radar...

Nah, you're not that bad...you still have a soul.