I can appreciate the statement that the city officials of San Francisco are trying to make in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I personally don't care who is allowed to marry whom, and I can see some benefits to permitting people to marry any consenting adult they choose. No one is harmed, and this is not foisting same-sex marriage on religious institutions, who have always been free to refuse to officiate marriages to which they disagree. Churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. would still be free to refuse to officiate same-sex marriages if they are eventually declared legal. Judges would probably wind up officiating most same-sex marriages, just as they officiate many heterosexual marriages now--mine included.
The city officials call their issuance of gender-neutral marriage licenses an act of civil disobedience. Putting aside the question about whether the government can engage in civil disobedience, I really hope the officials do not extend their demonstration to the point of failing to abide by the letter of any court injunction to stop. If their intent is to force the issue into court, I respect that and appreciate their choice of tactics; if they start flouting court injunctions, they will be in the same position as the Alabama state supreme court judge who refused to obey a court order to remove the Ten Commandments from the courthouse. He abused his position to further his personal beliefs. My problem with the Alabama judge was not so much the display, though I think the Ten Commandments have their place outside our secular judicial system, but rather with his putting the advancement of his personal beliefs over the execution of his job. The current situation in San Francisco toes this line and may cross it. At the moment, they are in a legal limbo in which they are doing something of dubious legality that, thus far, the judiciary has refused to halt. I'm reserving final judgment until after they have court orders to react to.
No comments:
Post a Comment