(no subject)
Feb. 27th, 2004 04:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
c9What'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!
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!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 01:01 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-27 01:07 pm (UTC)