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
- Revised AP U.S. History Standards Will Emphasize American Exceptionalism
- In a county that tried to amend U.S. history course, a lesson in politics
- Overhauling La Guardia, an Airport With a Historical Name but a Tarnished Image
- Now it can be told: The weakening of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is the crowning achievement of GOP partisans who detested the law
- Japanese textbooks may sanitize history, but comic art books don't
- Historians Against the War gathering signatures for new resolution to AHA on alleged violations of academic freedom in Israel
- Academic Seeks Death Certificate for Outlaw Billy the Kid
- Murderer of historian of Czech Jewry goes on trial
- Election results are in for the American Historical Association
- Nial Ferguson warns Obama’s bet on Iran has low odds of success