Old Post: My original comments are below.
In the previous post I said, "You know, if this were not in direct defiance to California's laws, I wouldn't be so bothered by this. At least it's an elected official doing this, and San Francisco being San Francisco, I doubt he's acting against the public will." Captain Ed explains why this is the wrong attitude (in a post that clearly has nothing to do with mine, by the way): "Legislatures make law, not the executive or the judiciary; the executive enforces law. Saying that the legal process is satisfied when any old elected official creates a law is to argue for the abolition of Congress." I'd defend my position, but it's not really defensible. I didn't really think it through, beyond relief that at least someone reasonably representative of the people was involved in the decision this time. I could probably argue that I was technically in the right, since my whole argument was that this was outside of his authority. And hey, I was just conceding a point before I went on the attack anyway. But that would be weaselly.