on gay “marriage” ::: part VI of many
daniel oaks
The only accurate way of describing the mayor of San Francisco’s behavior is rebellion. Those supporting him are supporting the rebellion of a self-appointed dictator. I do not believe this is the intent of the mayor or his supporters, but that does not change the true nature of his actions. Extend the mayor’s actions to their logical conclusions: If a city mayor can determine who to issue marriage licenses to, why not driver’s licenses? What if a mayor decides to ignore California law and issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens? Could a county poll worker decide to allow non-citizens to vote? This is bigger than same-sex marriage. At its heart, this issue is over authority. Who has it? If authority is not determined by Constitutional provisions, then what separates us from anarchy? If the will of the people can be overturned by one, unelected, self-appointed man — can we truly claim to be a democracy?
The mayor and his supporters make the claim of Moral Authority, drawing comparisons with the Civil Rights movement. Even setting aside the incongruity of a group claiming Moral Authority while promoting approval of a lifestyle denounced by all major religions as immoral, the comparison is fallacious. The Jim Crow laws in the South, and the behavior of her elected officials were in direct defiance of civil rights laws that had been on the books for over fifty years. The Civil Rights movement was not only protesting immoral laws, they were protesting illegal laws. The federal government had simply declined to exercise its power, and allowed the Southern Sates to usurp its authority, thus betraying the Black People, and the promise of Reconstruction. The power of the Civil Rights movement was that it shamed the country into enforcing its own laws. [source]
