Monday, February 16, 2004

Solid discussion of legal issues, especially for a newspaper!
S.F. set to defend marriages in court / After mad weekend of weddings, more litigation begins today
Good article addressing some of what I wrote earlier on the issue. Apparently the second group is alleging that city officials do not have the legal authority to decide not to follow a law that they see as unconstitutional. The quote at the end of the article accurately rebuffs such notion: "Public officials have not only the right but the duty to comply with the Constitution, which is the first and highest law of the state.'' All public officials have the duty to uphold the Constitution. However, should a court issue a ruling on what the Constitution does actually say, then they can force city officials to act in a certain manner by order. This would apply when they say: "you must integrate the schools." This is a different scenario - this is city officials attempting to grant persons constitutional rights where a court has not yet determined there to be one. I see no reason why they can't do so.

A big wrinkle - Sacremento has to rubber stamp the marriage certificates, and they might not do so as the certificates had to be altered to become gender neutral. Hmm. looks like the ball's in Arnold's court.


Post a Comment

<< Home