Victory for the rule of law

This is a nation ruled by laws, not by dictators — even in California.

Regardless of how angry gay couples, married there earlier this year, are at the state Supreme Court's decision last week to nullify those unions, any other ruling in the matter would have been unthinkable.

It would have legalized anarchy. It would have opened the door for every city, county and governmental agency in California to pick and choose which laws to obey and which to toss out as being personally offensive. It would have rendered the state legislature weak and useless and, by extension, weakened the franchise of every registered voter. In California, especially, where citizens often pass laws by referendum, it would have been an affront to democracy.

It would have been worse than judicial fiat by activist judges, which is bad enough.

Why San Francisco's mayor can't see that is anyone's guess. He is the one who tossed aside state law and issued nearly 4,000 marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples last February and March. Last week, he called a news conference and vowed to continue the fight, saying he was "proud of those 4,000 couples." That, of course, isn't the point.

California's gay marriage struggles will now proceed with lawsuits challenging a 27-year-old law defining marriage as what it always has been — a union between a man and a woman. Similar legal battles are taking place in other states.

The outcomes of these battles remains in doubt, but the seemingly random decisions by various judges and the outrageous power plays by people such as San Francisco's mayor have no doubt left many law-abiding Americans feeling powerless. No wonder people in several states, including Utah, have demanded public votes on constitutional amendments this fall. The actions of a few pro-gay-marriage zealots have shown that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution may be the only way to guard against a culture-war coup.

In the United States, not even the president is supposed to have the power to impose his version of fairness and morality on the people without a public process that includes the consent of elected representatives. That sort of thing happens in tin-horn dictatorships. It happens in places where leaders rule by emotion and where the public is told to go along or shut up.

It does not happen in places that respect the rule of law. Thank goodness California's highest court reinforced that basic principle.