Soon-to-be-unemployed AG seeking LE support
Lockyer, a Democrat, has not only refused thus far to act against Newsom, but he's also used the opportunity to publicly dis the governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who demanded last Friday that he "take immediate steps to obtain a definitive judicial resolution of this controversy."
Lockyer's response? "The governor can direct the Highway Patrol. He can direct the next Terminator 4 movie if he chooses. But he can't direct the attorney general in the way he's attempted to do," he told the San Francisco Chronicle. Already his conservative critics are threatening to take action against Lockyer for "not doing his job."
I think that California elects attorney-generals (in my opinion, a stupid thing. Electing state supreme court justices is a bad thing.) but as part of the state government Lockyer has an obligation, unwritten or otherwise, to serve the interests of the governor, or failing that, the state, which has passed a defense of marriage act. In another Slate article,
Professor Richard Thompson Ford makes the case that the scraps of paper declaring gay couples married are just, well, scraps of paper declaring gay couples married. The city dispenses, the state sanctions. Lockyer should stop being insubordinate and tell San Francisco that the state will not recognize any gay marriages, and a feint and trojan horse if he feels inclined, refuse to recognize any San Fran marriages if the mayor persists (See paragraph eleven of the Ford article.)
If Lockyer continues as is it is 99% likely he will lose his position one way or another, and I'm one social liberal who won't give a damn. If you want to advocate and legalize gay marriage, run for legislature, or better yet, resign and start preparing to campaign against Schwarzenegger in 2006. Just don't take up space not doing your job.
If anyone was confused, LE stands for Liberal Establishment. And yes, I am for legalizing same-sex marriage, as most of the best arguments against it rely on
godless biological philosophy or anti-homosexualism. However, the right way to do so is through the legislature, as marriage is recognized in a legal sense by the state, therefore it is a created privilege, not a right, and all have access to the same privilege from it, marriage to someone of the opposite sex, so it narrowly stands as not discriminatory by the 14th on the same grounds that homosexual sodomy bans are constitutional. However, the sodomy laws are government restrictions where the government lacks the power to restrict. On marriage it can do whatever the heck it wants as far as the Constitution is concerned. Same-sex mariage will only really be accepted when a majority of citizens want it to be legalized, and I think that efforts to legalize same-sex marriage would be better spent raising the public awareness and talking to legislators than using the courts and taking empty symbolic actions.
This has to be the longest footnote I have ever written.