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
- Frontline does Trump & Clinton
- This New York Times ‘Hitler’ book review sure reads like a thinly veiled Trump comparison
- Chicago Tribune editorial: The government should release secret grand jury testimony about its 1942 scoop: "Jap Plan to Strike at Sea"
- US owes blacks reparations over slavery: UN experts
- Mali Islamist jailed for nine years for Timbuktu shrine attacks
- What Historians Are Saying About the First Trump-Clinton Debate
- Princeton professor documents the movement that ended single-sex education at elite schools
- Annette Gordon-Reed tells historians the controversy over Harvard law school's shield is different from the fight over the Confederate flag
- Historian EP Thompson denounced Communist party chiefs, files show
- Voting opens soon for the leaders of the OAH in 2017