They Must Be Out To Turn Me Against Them

I've been saying for a while now that I'm am generally for a form of legalized gay civil union (and I'll admit that I sometimes lapse into incorrectly using the term marriage instead of civil union. There is a fine distinction and I believe that it is important to maintain that distinction). First we had the Massachusettes Supreme Court decision that I found offensive because of the way it was handed down. Now we have the mayor of San Francisco defiantly and willfully violating California state law to "marry" gay couples. This is really starting to go to far....

There is no excusable reason for the mayor of a city to deliberately violate state law. He may not agree with the law. He may even believe that it violates a portion of the State Constitution. But until a court rules on the Constitutionality of the law, it is his responsibility to uphold the law as written. The mayoral office is in the executive branch. In our system of government, and even that used in San Francisco, it is the responsibility of the executive branch to uphold the will of the people, as expressed through the legislative bodies, until such time as the judiciary determines that a law violates the Supreme law of the state or the nation.

Now in the system of checks and balances, I can see a real and justified reason for the executive branch to fail to enforce a law, for instance one that requires the summary execution of all three foot tall, one armed black, jewish, American Indians whose mother hailed from any South American country ending with "-zil."

But this isn't a failure of enforcement. This is open defiance. This is a usurption of the legislative and judicial functions of government. It is the Imperial Mayorship.

I also believe that it should be grounds for his immediate removal from office. If the mayor is allowed to openly flaunt the law, why should there be any expectation that anyone else would obey any law either?

The precedents being set in both Massachusettes and now San Francisco are deeply disturbing. In both cases the will of the people, as legally expresssed through our elected representatives is being discarded or ignored by other branches of government that happen to find it distasteful. Our government is one of the people, by the people and for the people. Or least it was.

Now it seems, the people don't matter.

We're becoming more faced with this question every day: are we the government as the by, of and for would indicate or are we now the simply the subjects of a benevolent tyranny?