On the state level, states would become individual nations if this principle was followed to its logical conclusion. In effect, this would mean secession and likely bloodshed. Revolutions must always be a last resort. No revolution will result in paradise on earth.
And while I'm in favor of drug decriminalization across the board, I would not be in favor of state-nullification, since pot bans aren't intrinsically evil.
OTOH, states would be within their rights to reject homosexual "marriage" legalization, since such laws deprive children of their God-given right to be raised by their natural parents.
As far as civil disobedience goes, that's fine, as long as you're willing to pay the penalty.
I won't say that's never appropriate, but I also think you are describing a "declaration of Independence" sort of relationship between the governed, and the governor.
Anyway, I'm agreeing with you on that point. My argument was at the OPPOSITE end of the spectrum, where some, few laws are held in disregard. When the civil disobedience can be rationally justified, it is unlikely to result in "anarchy," even if the law was a big social hot-button like homo marriage.
And, it seems we are in agreement, that good order doesn't depend on slavish obedience to the law.
-- As far as civil disobedience goes, that's fine, as long as you're willing to pay the penalty. --
Gandhi submitted, as did Rosa Parks, and MLK. The law poked the stick into its own eye, by punishing people who did nothing wrong, other than break an unjustified law.
Any government action outside its legitimate authority is intrinsically evil - pot pot bans aren't evil enough to justify secession and likely bloodshed.