The California Supreme Court has nullified all marriages performed by San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome. Regardless of one’s opinions on gay marriage, it’s hard to see any other way this decision could have been. As the decision states:
As these various examples demonstrate, although the present proceeding may be viewed by some as presenting primarily a question of the substantive legal rights of same-sex couples, in actuality the legal issue before us implicates the interest of all individuals in ensuring that public officials execute their official duties in a manner that respects the limits of the authority granted to them as officeholders. In short, the legal question at issue — the scope of the authority entrusted to our public officials — involves the determination of a fundamental question that lies at the heart of our political system: the role of the rule of law in a society that justly prides itself on being “a government of laws, and not of men†(or women).
As indicated above, that issue ― phrased in the narrow terms presented by this case ― is whether a local executive official, charged with the ministerial duty of enforcing a statute, has the authority to disregard the terms of the statute in the absence of a judicial determination that it is unconstitutional, based solely upon the official’s opinion that the governing statute is unconstitutional. As we shall see, it is well established, both in California and elsewhere, that  subject to a few narrow exceptions that clearly are inapplicable here  a local executive official does not possess such authority.
A local elected official does not have the right to nullify the law no matter what their personal opinion of that law. Newsome’s clear and evident violation of California law was a travesty, not only in legal terms, but in that he had to have known that this was happening. In other words, he was lying to every gay couple he allowed to be married. That sort of behavior shouldn’t be celebrated by anyone, and this decision makes it quite clear that no mayor is above California law – as it should be.
A local elected official does not have the right to nullify the law no matter what their personal opinion of that law.
Don’t elected officials swear to uphold their state’s constitution, however?
Ok, well, I see where the article actually anticipates my question, so nevermind.
But doesn’t the executive branch have prosecutorial discretion? Not all laws are enforced, after all – it would be impractical to expect them to be.
To an extent, yes. However in this case, Newsome was clearly in violation of the law and was charged under state law. The law of a state will always supercede local law unless there’s a state or federal constitutional issue making compliance unconstitutional.
Well, I suppose.
Really, I can’t imagine that he ever did see what he was doing as legal; rather, as an act of civil disobedience.
which is exactly as it should be viewed as, an act of civil disobedience, similar to what the mayor of New Paltz, NY did. They should be viewed as local politicians attempting to challenge laws by making the laws an issue, but should be punished for violating the law, and viewed as martyrs or villians depending on ones opinion.
It’s likely that the mayor knew that what he was doing wouldn’t stand up to judicial review, and that by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples he was just making political hay.
Even those who support gay marriage ought to take a dim view of such monkeyshines. If my assumption is correct, he offered something he had no power to deliver, which resulted in nothing but disappointment to those who were supposedly married under the circumstances.
I see only one way to keep same-sex marriage from turning into an endless, bitter dispute like that over abortion: a Constitional amendment that places the issue within the jurisdiction of states; that exempts states from being required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states; and perhaps most important of all, specifically bars any court, including the Supreme Court, from imposing gay marriage through “interpreting” the Constitution.
In other words, same-sex marriage advocates have an opportunity to get their wish, but only through the ballot box, not by a diktat from the imperial judiciary; and the voters of one state do not have the right to impose their will on other states.
Even those who support gay marriage ought to take a dim view of such monkeyshines.
That’s like saying we should have taken a dim view of Rosa Parks sitting in the white section of the bus, even though we all knew she’d wind up arrested for it.
and the voters of one state do not have the right to impose their will on other states.
It’s not “imposing their will” on you for two gay people to get married in your neighborhood, even if you don’t like it; it is imposing your will on them to prevent them from doing so.
If you’re so concerned about people imposing their will on others, then you need to let gay people get married.