(no subject)

[c9]

What's better: to attempt the thing that is absolutely the right thing to do, but almost impossible to do, or to do the thing that is absolutely doable, but not as right?

Specifically (obviously): should US cities be throwing off the yoke of state law and marrying same-sex couples (the right thing to do), or should they wait so as to not accidentally encourage a discriminatory constitutional amendment, but in doing so continue to discriminate themselves?

Philosophers, attack!

Comments

[bartok.livejournal.com]

They should wait for overall federal decisions, since otherwise it generally becomes anarchy. An over all sense of government control is really needed for smaller governments. Also it's smacking a bit of complaints of "State's rights", which has led to minor skermishes in the past...

[c9.livejournal.com]

You're arguing two different things there though. If the argument is states' rights, then the federales need to butt out, and cities (though they may be pushing buttons) are irrelevant, legally speaking. But yes, there is a worry of anarchy because if cities start ignoring laws when they're discriminatory, eventually we'll all have equalityanarchy and we certainly don't want that.

Just playing devil's advocate.

Ahhhhnie was on the news saying that cities ignoring laws will eventually lead to violence, riots, and death. Clearly (this part is not a quote) equal marriage equals death. :)

[nihilicious.livejournal.com]

It's not really a "States' Rights" issue re: San Fransisco, since both state and federal government oppose the mayor's actions.

But I agree, a city has no place disobeying a state law.

However, where do you draw the line? Say the state tried to eliminate inter-racial marriage, despite the fact that legal analysis would indicate that it is unconstitutional? Should a mayor disobey the law?

I'd be more inclined to say yes in that case, because
(1) the legal indications are much more clear on that point, and
(2) it's the state being "activist" by changing the status quo; the mayor would be protesting change rather than instigating it.

But neither of those make strong principled bases for argument.

[c9.livejournal.com]

Although of course that's your regular angle, that has the scent of "can I win this argument in court" to it. Does this mean that those who fight for change are doomed to lose more often than they win?