What if, instead of allowing gay marriages, San Francisco put a moratorium on heterosexual marriages because of the inherent unfairness in the law that provides the right to only some. I tend to think the courts would take the issue up more quickly (when bridezillas start whining), the issue would be framed in a more appropriate discourse (rather than the old “trot out the gay people to stare at on national news each night”), and there is probably a much better legal avenue this way as well (as argued by Slate). The city has not right to create laws which are strictly a state domain (as marriage is); however, there is plenty of precedent for localities to object to and NOT enforce state or federal laws. The real civil disobedience is to not allow straight marriage because it is discriminatory.
Like everyone (who is rational and humane), I am appalled and scared at the President’s call for a constitutional amendment discriminating against gay people. I hope it brings his “compassionate conservatism” BS to an end. We run a site comprised of folks up and down the political spectrum, and I was pretty pleased not only at the rational debate our members had on this issue, but that even most of the most conservatives didn’t think a constitutional amendment discriminating against people was a good idea. Marriage is, after all, about love. (I’ve argued in the past for privatizing marriage, which I still think is a good idea.)
Crikey, we couldn’t pass the Equal Rights Amendment after TWELVE years….