Whoa! How'd I miss this? Newsom refuses to comply with fed immigration legislation
 

Subtitled "Thank Goodness There is a Politician with Juevos":shocked:

OT! Warning! OT!!

Just a sidenote, he is really cute. :woohoo: After I watched a show tonight on his plan for homelessness which *incredibly* shows knowledge, insight, foresight, and desire - I was actually thinking "I wonder where I could *accidentally* run into him...:cool: " :laugh:
I will now thoughtfully post a photo - He doesn't usually look this smarmy:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12...vin-newsom.jpg

Sadly, this was his last girlfriend. Apparently an Italian/Greek actress. I've faced that he probably won't ask me out if I do see him. :laugh: But bonus points for him, because she is older than he is. 2 years.
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12...iaMilosf64.jpg

Here is Gavin's Wikipedia, pretty interesting career:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Newsom#Early_life


Okay, back on topic


Sorry if everyone already knows this. I watch/read news sporadically. I heard a few things, but nothing this concrete.
Ha, this is actually from a website that opposes Newsom doing this. But the article they reference is from the examiner, so I'll put that link.


"Mayor Gavin Newsom said Thursday that The City will not comply with any federal legislation that criminalizes efforts to help illegal immigrants.

...

Newsom ... appeared with a group of elected officials on the steps of City Hall to support immigrants, “documented as well as undocumented.”Newsom also signed a resolution sponsored by Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, and passed unanimously by the Board of Supervisors, urging San Francisco law enforcement not to comply with criminal provisions of any new immigration bill.

“San Francisco stands foursquare in strong opposition to the rhetoric coming out of Washington, D.C.,” Newsom said. “If people think we were defiant on the gay marriage issue, they haven’t seen defiance.”[/B]

It is not the first time San Francisco has weighed in on the immigration issue. In 1989, the Board of Supervisors made San Francisco a “City of Refuge.” The ordinance forbids city resources from being used to enforce federal immigration laws or to gather or disseminate information regarding the status of residents of The City. The Board of Supervisors passed a resolution reaffirming the ordinance in January."

The article continues:
http://www.examiner.com/Top_News-a70...e_to_pass.html

His last act of defiance gifted him with egg on face, we'll see what this does. I like the man personally, I just happen to disagree with his position on illegal immigration. The article doesnt say WHY he's taking this position, possibly if I knew his motives I could better understand where he is coming from.

btw, judging by the pulchritude of his last girlfriend, he must have SOMETHING going for him :lol:

I think you have a chance, AMber- go for it. :woohoo:

I love Gavin. That is all.

Hah, if you define "defiance" as a crass publicity stunt that was nothing about furthering gay marriage and everything about winning over gays and progressives to consolidate Newsom's base and power. And to run around the country raising money from fawning queers to eliminate his campaign debt.

edit to add:

I'm glad that he is taking a stand on the immigration issue, though. Just like I was glad when he walked the picket line with the hotel strikers. Once in a while, Newsom seems to take a truly principled stand.

So, the fact that he told...whoever does that...to perform civil unions for gay couples in defiance of the law is meaningless? How should he win over gays? Or any of his constituency? Does the fact that his actions garnered a lot of publicity negate his actions? Who should he raise campaign money from? Shouldn't it be anyone who wants to give him money? Are you suggesting he actually doesn't believe in equal rights for gays, and doesn't really fight or do anything in support of his gay constituency (which is a large percentage of his total constituency)? :confused:
I don't really get your point of view with that, but maybe you know things about him that I don't? If so, tell! :)

Personally, I think it's cool that he takes such a stand. With everyone all on their bandwagons about this issue it's nice to hear someone, especially a politician, who still cares for humanity and basic rights of individuals. :thumbsup:

I know enough people who are close to him to know that the whole thing was a politically calculated move. One month after taking office, Newsom and his gang made the decision to do something bold that would (1) neuter any attacks on him from the progressives for a long time and (2) win support from gays who voted for his opponent. This is a brilliant decision, as consolidating support among a fairly fractured gay community in San Francisco equals much success in local politics. It also means national fundraising from LGBT community.

So the decision was made to do this act of civil disobedience, even though our own openly gay Assemblyman Mark Leno was moving forward with a state bill to legalize gay marriage and lawsuits were making their way through the system in California.

I was just as moved and inspired as anyone else by the massive turnout for marriages over that Valentine's Day weekend. The nation (world?) saw a side of the community rarely shown and for a moment it felt like a little revolution was happening.

After the dust cleared, however, what we got was the obvious. The courts had to nullify everything because the action was illegal. The thousands of gay couples, many of whom came from other states at great expense, went from having their relationships validated to not. I know many are happy enough with the experience, but I know several who are quite disappointed.

Gay marriage is coming, but it won't happen because of a renegade act of civil disobedience. It will happen because courts will recognize the obvious, which is that the marriage ban is discriminatory, leading to legal methods towards legalizing gay marriage, such as in Massachusetts. In the case of California, it is possible that state legislation will be passed and signed allowing gay marriage even without court intervention.

Newsom's action didn't move any of those efforts forward.

To answer your other questions, I absolutely think Newsom supports full and equal rights for gays, and he has an excellent record on gay rights. I know he supports gay marriage, and even in what I am sure was a political and self-serving act, believed that he was doing a good thing for gays.

In my opinion, the way to win over gay and other progressives who didn't support him in the election was not this stunt, but actions that are meaningful and substantive. And legal, so that they aren't taken away. Such as supporting the hotel strikers, advocating for San Francisco universal health care legislation, etc.

The marriage thing gave Newsom a HUGE honeymoon and for a couple of years it was almost impossible to criticize him. Again, it was a brilliant move, but there was really nothing defiant about it. Totally easy to do in San Francisco and almost no downside for Newsom.

I agree that he's hot, though, amber. :nod:

Sure, there's no question that Newsom supports these rights. I'm speaking about his action and how it did nothing to further these rights, actually got in the way of more effective actions, while benefiting himself politically.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I understand the reasoning politically behind this. I mean, the man is a politician. You can't tell me that sitting around and doing nothing is going to help either though. The reason I find it promising is because you have all the Republicans being shameless with their views, and most of the Democrats too ashamed of their views to speak out against this sort of injustice...and then a few like Newsom that give us people in the real world a little bit of hope that we won't wake up to a conformist-enslaved-one-color-no-gay society in the middle of a nuclear war.;)

That is a good point. I'm looking at it all from a rather narrow San Francisco point of view.

:laugh:

I see what you are saying, and I figured that was the case. However, I disagree that the act of civil disobedience got in the way, or was harmful. I think it was a bold and important thing to do (politically motivated or not - and he's a politician, so).
I think it shows a more powerful front beyond just working within legislation - as you well know, sometimes things can't change for the better until someone gets really pissed off and defies unfair legislation. And even though the civil unions were negated, and people knew that would happen, I think the result of that time, all the attention, was far, far, more powerful than just the okaying of civil unions itself. If that makes sense. In other words, even if the gesture proved in practice to be illegal and rescinded - the gesture itself spoke volumes.

Also, if politicians are going to do things that are politically motivated (and of course they will) I'd rather it be done like Gavin is doing it, then like everyone else. I mean, at least he fricking DOES something, you know? He *somewhat, at least* walks the walk. IMO.

*Wait, you know people close to him? Can they set me up?:laugh:

:laugh:

How charmingly optimistic of you!

Depends. Are you a Scientologist?

Good points, above. One thing I will say (which I think is what you're saying as well) is that while most politically motivated acts are anti-gay, this was totally pro-gay. Which, from a national perspective, is really cool. Just that cynical San Franciscans like me know what was behind it all and clouds the bigger picture.

Uh oh. Okay, I know his girlfriend was a scientologist but he isn't one, right?