[livius]

It's a very bizarre situation - actually, in the case of Judge Moore, of course, the ACLU and everybody else in the universe came forward to demand that he adhere to state law. But I'm not expecting this to happen here...

The problem is that the Executive Branch cannot deal with a judicial and state issue, particularly when it has been Oprah-ized - that is, taken out of the legal context entirely and turned over to the emotions of the ruling bureaucratic class (I wish to remind everybody that the CITIZENS of San Francisco, except for the gay ones, have had no say in this). That's one of the reasons we need to get a lot of strict constructionist legislators elected, so that they can appoint judges who will knock this stuff back.

Our society is founded on the rule of law; the judiciary has obviously done a lot to undermine this (in this case, simply by withholding their decision, because they know there's no legal support for gay marriage in the State of CA). But if we let this go, we're in for serious problems in the future.

Unfortunately, it's not something the Executive Branch can really handle at the state level.

Call to Freepers - does anybody have any idea how people can defend the rule of law in our country?

[JimSEA]

Unfortunately, it's not something the Executive Branch can really handle at the state level.

Also, as your analysis highlights, the rule of law depends on broad public acceptance if it is to work well. We have lost some of that general agreement, thanks in part to the John Kerrys and Bill Clintons of the 60's and to the radical lawyers, Kuntzler and Kubie for example.

[Clint Williams]

Call to Freepers - does anybody have any idea how people can defend the rule of law in our country?

Do what we haven't been doing -- watering the roots of the tree of liberty? I don't know.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Only Democrats can call for the rule of law AND break the law at will.