For the last several days, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has been issuing "marriage" permits for same-sex couples in an act of "civil disobedience"... in other words, a deliberate and flagrant violation of the law by the man elected to uphold it.  The pieces of paper his office hands out are completely worthless -- the poor saps might as well print them out at home and save the license fee.  On 7 March 2000, California voters -- not the legislature working against "the will of the people" -- passed Proposition 22 by a 61% to 39% direct vote.  The entire text of Prop 22 is: "Only marriage between a man and a women is valid or recognized in California."  That's it -- no legal mumbo-jumbo, no wordy caveats, just a plain and simple statement.  And the people of California spoke, and what they said was, "Hell, yes!"

To Liberal elitists, however, the people don't matter.  Their wishes don't matter (they don't know what's good for them).  Their votes matter, but only because you have to gather a certain number of them to gain power.  Mayor Newsom, in his infinite wisdom, decided that since he doesn't agree with the Constitution of the State of California, which he swore to uphold, it doesn't apply.  On 10 February 2004, after only two months in office, he ordered County Clerk Nancy Alfaro to begin issuing marriage licenses altered to remove all references to the sex of the applicants.  Two days later, before the first illegal license (I believe I've discovered a new oxymoron!) was issued, a lawsuit was filed requesting an emergency order blocking the Mayor from taking the law into his own hands this way.  Two judges have so far declined to uphold the law and prevent Newsom from issuing the false licenses or performing "marriage" ceremonies for people of the same sex, though Superior Court Judge James L. Warren did "agree to order the city to either 'cease and desist' issuing the disputed licenses or to come back to court on March 29 and explain why they haven't."  Meanwhile, the "wedding" march plays on... and on... and on.

Now let's compare and contrast. 

In 2001, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Judge Roy Moore, unveiled a massive granite monument featuring the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama State Courthouse building.  He was immediately reviled and attacked by the ACLU and other Liberal groups.  Though the Ten Commandments is not a part of any one religion (it's part of at least three -- the various forms of Christianity, Judaism and Islam), Moore was criticised for imposing "his version" of Christianity on people.  The Alabama Supreme Court is not Congress, and did not make any law.  However, Moore was reviled for violating the "separation of Church and State" clause Liberals discovered hidden in the First Amendment during the Everson vs. Ewing Township Board of Education  case of 1947.  (I still don't see how you can hide as many words in the phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" as Liberals claim to have discovered over the years.  Perhaps the Founders were fond of invisible ink.  Notice, too, how Liberals never have anything to say about those who violate the second part of that phrase.)  Moore was finally ordered by the United States Supreme Court to remove the monument. When he refused, he was removed from the bench, and rightly so, for he violated the law.  Olivia Turner, executive director of the Alabama ACLU, stated, "If Chief Justice Moore can decide which federal court opinions he wants to comply with, then nobody's rights are safe from any state officials who disagree with the law." 

So where is the ACLU now, with Mayor Newsom violating the law, ignoring court orders, and lying to thousands of homosexuals by telling them they're legally married when they aren't?  For that matter, why aren't the environmental groups complaining about the waste of thousands of "marriage" licenses that aren't worth the paper they're printed on?  Why aren't they flooding the streets waving signs (painted on cloth, no doubt), saying "Newsom Lied, Trees Died"?  For that matter, why aren't gay rights activists outraged at being lied to?  Do all Liberal groups automatically agree with Mayor Newsom that if you don't like a law, you don't have to obey it?  If so, then why didn't they agree with Judge Moore for doing the same thing?  We'll even ignore the fact that 77% of the citizens of Alabama supported Judge Moore's stance while 61% of Californians oppose Mayor Newsom's. This is about upholding the law.

It seems that it all boils down to Liberals supporting the laws they want to obey, and feeling justified in violating those they don't.  But such anarchy is no way to run a country.