blargblog

Nah, Cantor threatened any gay couples who presented themselves for a marriage license with prosecution for fraud. That is the current low bar in the bigot sweepstakes.

Like a few million other people, I am inspired and excited by the recent wave of gay marriages across the country. I think it moves the ball in the direction of legal progress and public acceptance more than any development in years.

That said, I have a nagging concern. I'm trying to figure out how to distinguish this from the case of the judge in Alabama who defied the orders of higher officials and installed the Ten Commandments in his courthouse, saying his own interpretation of the First Amendment took precedence over theirs. Certainly I agree with the motivation and the outcome in the case of gay marriage and not in the case of government advocacy of religion, but my personal preference shouldn't be the test. In some of the jurisdictions where local officials have instituted gay marriage there may be specific legal defenses of their actions in the face of objections from above. Still, does this boil down to a double standard by which local rebellion is okay when "we" do it and not when "they" do it?

Kip addresses this issue pretty well at his blog.

My view is that, yes, public officials are skirting the law and/or due process by way of upholding higher constitutional (state and federal) principles. Is it different than Roy Moore's establishment of a 10 Commandments monument in the Alabama SC building? Mmm, yes and no. No, in that it's civil disobedience much in the vein of Gavin Newsome's or Dianne Linn's. But yes, in that the 1st Ammendment and a couple centuries of Supreme Court rulings make it pretty clear that putting the big 10 in a public building too closely identifies the state with a religion. So he has no legal ground. Same-sex couples seeking to marry have both the legal grounds and a certain circumstantial necessity to push the issue by extra-democratic means like civil disobedience. "Due process" has been consistently been denied same-sex couples by virtue of majority tyranny, which squashes the debate before it can get started.

It is worth noting, however, that much of the recent move to license gay marriage would not have occured had the Massachusettes SC not ruled that civil unions are unconstitutional (for MA) and that same-sex couples have a right to the full rights and benefits of marriage. This forced other communities to look at their state constitutions and see what their responsibilities were. In effect, actions such as those taken by the Multnomah County commissioners uphold a higher law, whereas actions such those taken by Roy Moore violate a higher law.

Also, I'd point out that every municipality that's performed a gay marriage is waiting with bated breath on what the judges say--and will abide by it; Judge Roy Moore specifically told the courts to go fuck themselves, and violated his oath. --He's free to civilly disobey, but he pays the price just like everyone else.

...whereas actions such those taken by Roy Moore violate a higher law.

Now that I re-read this, it occurs to me that Roy believes he is obeying a "Higher Law", that of The Big Kahuna. Yet such an objection is simply outside the scope of a secular democracy. What God wants makes for a nebulous basis of Law, what with all the confusion about Who God is, what Gender/Sex (if any), never mind divining the will of a divine being. And which text? There are so many.

Yeah, yeah, so I'm being a tad flippant, but I'm pretty serious about it. I'd rather place a basis for law upon the weary shoulders of the Golden Rule, which theists, atheists and apatheists alike can all agree on. When they play nice.