Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I think all of you would have a far different take on this is Newsom was issuing assault weapon licenses, and that is what really scares me. Breaking the law is OK if I agree with it, but not if I don't? It is just an unworkable system.
|
If we do, why? I think it's because of why I said. If Newsom looked at the state constitution, or the federal one, and had a credible basis for saying the 3d amendment compelled him to issue such licenses, and did so, I would not have a problem with it. So long as he suspended his implementation/grant of the licenses until the issue was resolved. But why would I require the issue to be resolved first there, but not here? For the reasons I said above--assault weapons cause immediate, tangible harm, whereas a marriage license's grant causes harm (if any) that is neither immediate nor tangible. The
worst I can imagine it doing is that some folks will have to pay slightly higher premiums on insurance or taxes for benefits that are claimed, and I seriously doubt that any payments to a new spouse will actually go out before the resolution of this issu, and certainly not without a disclaimer that the payor is entitled to recoupment in the event the marriage is voided by court decision.
(ETA) I don't think it's that radical an idea. It's not much different from the standard for a preliminary injunction--balance of harms. You'd enjoin the non-enforcement of a weapons ban, but maybe not on marriages, because no one's getting hurt in the interim.
