O.k., I promise that this is my last posting tonight on this subject.
The left-leaning magazine Slate posted two very interesting articles on
this subject yesterday. The first, by my favorite political reporter,
Dahlia Lithwick (whom I regularly disagree with, BTW), focuses on the
proper role of the California Attorney-General in this situation:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095945/
The second, by an author I am not familiar with, Richard Thompson Ford,
looks at the civil disobedience angle, and raises this ominious paragraph:
But I worry about the types of constitutional revelations we might expect
in other cities with different political constituencies. Employing San
Francisco's argument, a local school board official who personally believes
that the constitutional right to religious freedom entitles teachers to
lead their classes in prayer could order school principals to allow the
practice. A local official who personally believes affirmative action is
unconstitutional could refuse to implement a state law requiring it.
Further on, Mr. Ford reaches the very interesting conclusion that if San
Francisco really wanted to engage in "legal" civil disobedience, it could
refuse to issue marriage licenses until the State of California changed its
laws to permit homosexual marriages. Read the full story here:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095955/
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
