[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

The mayor of New Paltz, New York is about to start performing gay marriages.

The story highlights an important aspect of this issue: namely, that the New York state constitution does not specify marriage as being between a man and a woman. Nor does the Massachusetts state constitution. The Massachusetts SJC, like the mayor of New Paltz, are in fact taking strict constructionist approaches to interpreting the law. Does the state constitution say that marriage is restricted to one man and one woman? If not, by strict constructionist doctrine, it is not.

Comments

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

However, it is the state and not the city that has the power to marry. The city in just about every state in this country performs marriages as an agent of the state. I look at this similar to an other agency, if you don't like the terms of the agency your only recourse is not to do it. You just don't have the ethical, moral or legal basis to do the complete opposite. I don't want my police officers doing this and I don't want cities doing it.

And I think it is a dangerous precendent to put the burden of constitutional interpretation on the city. I may support same-sex marriage, but I'd hate for the next time a city is breaking state alw to be about something more fundamental, like say enacting an outright abortion ban.

[bryant]

There's more strength to the argument with regards to the MA SJC than to the mayors, definitely. On the other hand, if the state agency says "No, you can't do X" and it's clearly based on a bad interpretation of the law... should you obey the law, or the appointed agency directors?

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

I think that, at that point, you take it to court. The civil disobedience is optional.