Gay Marriage and the Rule of Law
Newsom would deny others the right to violate a law he believes in, but feels free to violate the law himself when he chooses, even though his sole claim to legitimacy as a government official comes from the law.I'm inclined to agree.
It's not civil disobedience when it's done by someone who controls the machinery of government -- it's usurpation, even when it's in a cause I agree with.
But then I thought, what if this weren't gay marriage in the 2000s, but segregation in the 1950s? Would we feel the same way if the mayor of, say, Biloxi, Mississippi decreed that henceforth all Biloxi public facilities would be integrated, even though Mississippi state law called for them to remain segregated? Both issues involve equal protection. I'm not asking if either or both are 14th Amendment issues -- libertarians can and do disagree on that. I'm just asking whether either or both mayors are/would be doing the right thing in enforcing the idea of equal protection at the expense of the rule of law.
Merely asking the question. Not sure I know the answer.
comments powered by Disqus
- Colorado Students Strip Naked in Protest of ‘Censorship’ of AP History Classes
- They should give this definition of History to all first year undergrads on their first day
- Field Report: What I learned by attending a workshop on Korean history
- Historians suggest ways California can integrate gay history into the school curriculum
- Now it’s Andrew Bacevich’s turn to do a MOOC