Municipal disobedience

Earlier this month, the mayor of San Francisco decided to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. While the question of whether or not same-sex marriages should be legal is certainly an important one, there is another of equal importance.

Should cities or states be allowed to violate parts of their state's or nation's constitution if they think certain sections are unjust? Put simply, they shouldn't.

If cities are allowed to do things that violate their state's constitution or the U.S. Constitution, our republican form of government will be irreparably damaged. I am no advocate of large, centralized governments getting involved in the affairs of localities, but this instance requires closer scrutiny.

In California, marriage licenses are issued by the state. As such, it is up to the state to decide what should qualify someone for a marriage license. What San Francisco is doing is grossly undemocratic. The people of California made a decision to define marriage as a contract between one man and one woman only a few years ago.

Many reading this may not agree, but there's a better way to change a law you don't like than by breaking it. Work to change the law using legal avenues. If you don't, nothing concrete will have been changed -- other than displaying a will to subvert the democratic process in order to advance an agenda. The will of the people as expressed in a constitution shouldn't be ignored simply because one city decides it doesn't like a singular part of the document.

If San Francisco gets away with this, it will set a very dangerous precedent. Any city or state that doesn't agree with regulations may change as it sees fit. This applies immediately to licenses -- I don't know about you, but I don't want some city granting visually impaired people the right to drive or giving those severely mentally ill concealed-weapons permits -- but has the potential to be much more destructive.

This could take away rights given in any constitution. If San Diego decided to restrict all forms of public political speech, what justification would someone have for stopping it? The justification for a city-by-city take on laws is weak, as is any argument that supports San Francisco's violation of the California Constitution.

Regardless of how illogical parts of a constitution may seem, constitutions are what codify our rights. If one city is allowed to ignore one part of its constitution, any city can ignore any part of its constitution as it sees fit.

The chaos in San Francisco must be put to a halt and all illegally issued marriage licenses need to be dishonored. I say this not just as someone who opposes gay marriage, but as someone who believes in our republic. Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage, I urge you not to support what San Francisco is doing.

If we can't count on those we elect following our constitutions, then our laws, our rights and even our freedom will cease to exist.