[richlevy]

Whenever the court acts on a divisive issue, there are always sore losers. I will say that at least the left has not coined the phrase 'activist judges' to explain away valid judgements like some conservatives have.

The ruling simply states that the mayor overstepped his authority in the situation and ignored the law in the face of his own convictions. In a way it is similar to the judge with the large statue of the ten commandments on display who refused to remove it.

IMO, as a civil authority, the mayor could not perform an illegal ceremony. However, if the mayor had been a clergyman the issue would have been much more interesting because of the 1st amendment. In fact, when interracial marriage was illegal, the church had a proud tradition of flouting the law and even in some cases keeping a second set of books to record marriages.

In this case the court had the responsibility to uphold the law. Whether they had to void the marriages already performed is a seperate issue. IMO, they should have issued an injunction against further marriages and left the marriages intact pending appeals.