A Fine Line: As someone who has a deep feeling of dislike and distrust of many things that the President does and thinks, I know more than some others the care that must be used in not going overboard when attacking him. At some point it gets counterproductive, but surely this does not mean you must ignore how bad you feel he and his supporters might be in various cases. I discuss this issue as related to campaign strategy as part of an interesting thread, here.

---

Tricky Wicket: The current civil disobedience action in San Francisco is a tricky wicket. I fully understand how even some who support the rights of homosexuals to marry feel uncomfortable with the city directly ignoring state law to provide thousands of marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Others note that the fact city officials are doing it makes it more appropriate than if it was a court because it is more democratic, and democratic officials are the best ones to challenge the law. And, what better locale for this particular issue can be found? [Arguably, my own city of New York, especially because the marriage statutes are on their face sex neutral, is such a locale. On the other hand, SF in fact trumps NYC on this issue, especially given we have a Republican mayor. A political label of convenience in his case, but important to his success all the same.]

I think the basic right at issue as well as the fact that the city officials are truly acting in the spirit of the community, makes it an acceptable act. It perhaps might even be deemed "legitimate," if not in the sense of being "legal" under California law. And, yes, I reckon the principle can be applied in other cases, but the ability of the state to override provides a core check.

Meanwhile, helped by a bunch of outside agitators (an Arizona-based group), some citizens are trying to block the city, apparently arguing that they have a general interest in defending the marriage law. Given the ballot politics of the state, I wouldn't doubt they have a case, and I think the state has some obligation to act one way or the other. A recent law reaffirmed the anti-homosexual nature of marriage in California, and it must be faced. They might be loathe to do it, likely because it will look to many like a discriminatory move, mostly because in some fashion it clearly is. I think in some fashion this is what the city expected to happen anyhow.