Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
That is not what is happening in SF and you know it. Look, I hate slippery slope arguments as much as the next guy, but I can't help but worry that the next time a mayor does not agree with a state law, we now have precedent for a civil disobedience rational for the mayor not to enforce it, which leads to the possibility of (1) system breakdown and (2) tyranical rule by those in power.
|
Yes, the gov-uh-nat-uh's point about providing licenses for assault weapons and illegal drugs was a reasonably compelling one.
But I also think you can reasonably draw a line on the other side of this based on teh harm to others. There really is none, because the ultimate validity of the marriage license itself will be determined by a court. The act of granting the license is purely ministerial and doesn't really allow any of the recipients to do anything that won't be subject to exactly the same challenges as the person not doing anything, because they still have to get someone else to recognize its validity, be it an employer, a taxing authority, another state, etc.
I'm at a loss for an immediate analogy, but even the bus one is on the other side of the line, as had the driver (or a city, despite contrary state law) said, okay, Rosa, sit in the front, that would have directly affected all the white passengers (who, at the time, believed they had a right, under state law, not to have to sit with blacks) immediately. Same with lunch counters. Same with allowing someone to purchase assault rifles.
Having a marriage license does nothing except a) provide a "social" statement that one can already get through some churches and b) provide a basis for claiming certain other rights under state (and federal) law.
