A Stitch in Haste

(Sorry, but when it's Ithaca, New York, "city" simply must be put in quotation marks. I should know, I endured five impoverished graduate student years there. New York is a city, San Francisco is a city, Las Vegas is a city. Ithaca is not a city -- it's an almost-village attached like a crusty barnacle to Cornell University -- which itself is far closer to a city than Ithaca ever will be.)

Yesterday I reminded my loyal readers that political subdivisions such as counties, cities and school districts exist at the whim and for the convenience of the state.

But if it's a "city" full of socialists (the mayor when I was there was in fact a bona fide, card-carrying member of the DSA), then who needs pesky nuisances like the Constitution when there is frivolous litigation to be pursued:

A New York State Supreme Court judge will hear arguments Friday from attorneys representing 25 same-sex couples suing the state of New York and the ["]city["] of Ithaca for the right to marry. But Ithaca has filed a cross-claim and is actually supporting the so-called "Ithaca 50."
...
Ithaca City Attorney Martin Luster told The New Standard that the city had planned to ask the state Department of Health if such licenses could be issued. But, Luster said, the state beat them to the punch by issuing directives advising localities not to give licenses to same-sex couples.
...
"Ithaca sued the Department of Health on a number of items," explained Luster. According to Luster, the city suit’s first objective is "a declaration that the existing statute of domestic relations law permits recognition of same-sex marriages." Secondly, Ithaca argues "that the directive issued by Department of Health was invalid for a number of mainly technical reasons." And finally, Ithaca sets forth that denying marriage licenses would violate guarantees of equal protection and due process of law provided by both federal and state constitutions.

The New York State Constitution does not ban same-sex marriage outright, though it does use gender-specific language such as "husband and wife" and "bride and groom."

Now the first-year law school final exam answer goes something like this: The "city" of Ithaca has no standing to sue for gay marriage and should be dismissed as a litigant and possibly sanctioned. Q.E.D.

The libertarian lawyer-blogger answer goes something like this: While there is certainly nothing wrong with elected (or unelected) municipal officials speaking their minds and taking positions on political issues, it is a flagrant abuse of one's office to waste taxpayer resources on frivilous litigation that in no way whatsoever impacts your locale. Moreover, such arrogant acts of vanity are, or at least should be, impeachable offenses.

Moreover, such acts are not "civil disobedience." They are betrayals of one's office. Only private citizens can engage in civil disobedience, in the same way that only government can truly "censor." The notion of "governmental civil disobedience" is a monstrous contradiction in terms. The concept of a public official intentionally exceeding his authority or ignoring the laws of his state to "make a statement" is not "civil disobedience," but rather willful and gross misconduct.

When the southern states seceded, it wasn't "civil disobedience," it was violent rebellion. When Ross Barnett blocked the doors of Ole Miss, it wasn't "civil disobedience," it was contempt of court -- the Supreme Court, in fact. When San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom intentionally issued fraudulent marriage licenses, it wasn't "civil disobedience," it was willful misconduct and vain unproductive grandstanding.

When the officials of the "city" of Ithaca abuse their positions to have the "city" sue its own state just to grab some headlines, it's not "civil disobedience."

It's just pathetic.

Related Post:
"I Left the Law...in San Francisco..."
Equal Rejection Clause