If Liberals Can Ignore Immigration Laws, Conservatives Can Ignore Same-Sex Marriage Laws

oped: Indeed...all I have to add to this is: http://sharlaslabyrinth.blogspot.com/2015/07/sanctuary-and-free-zonesoh-my.html

by:Common Constitutionalist 
Regarding same-sex marriage, the Knoxville Sun Sentinel wrote: "In a historic decision, a sharply divided US Supreme Court on Friday extended the right to marry gays and lesbians. The 5-4 decision immediately wiped out Tennessee's constitutional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. All states now must license and recognize same-sex marriages. Gov. Bill Haslam and state Atty. Gen. Herbert Slatery, though expressing dismay at the outcome, pledge to abide by the decision." 

Many states have said something similar. "Once the Supreme Court has ruled, it's order is the law of the land,’ Georgia Atty. Gen. Sam Olens wrote. As such, Georgia will follow the law and adhere to the ruling of the court." And Arkansas Atty. Gen. Leslie Rutledge wrote that, "I am disappointed that the justices have chosen to ignore the role of the states to define marriage. The justices have issued a decision, and that decision must be followed." 

So it appears most of the remaining holdout states are falling in line. But one isn't, and that one is Texas. "A judge-based edict that is not based in the law," is how Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton described the Supreme Court ruling.
If I may divert slightly -- regarding the 13 holdout states -- I've heard and seen the left describe them derogatorily as backwards. But I've also seen the stats regarding those 13, and many more states. Invariably, when the question of same-sex marriage is put on a state ballot, the voters overwhelmingly reject the measure -- even in ultra-liberal California, with blacks and Hispanics leading the no-vote pack.
March 7, 2000: By a 61% majority, California voters approved Proposition 22, which says only marriage between a man and a woman is valid.
But one might say, that was a long time ago. A lot has changed. True but several years later, on November 4, 2008, by a 52% majority, California voters approved Proposition 8, which restored the ban on same-sex marriage.

Twice a majority of voters exclaimed they did not want same-sex marriage and twice the California Supreme Court defied the will of the people. And now the federal Supreme Court has done the same nationwide, by inexplicably bestowing rights as if they were God.
Okay, same-sex marriage is now the de facto "law of the land," despite, as the Texas AG said, it is an edict, not a law. But the left says it is the law, so we backwards bumpkins must follow it.

Why can San Francisco or any other sanctuary city defy immigration "laws of the land"? If we must adhere to the law, why don't they have to? And why is no one calling them on their hypocrisy?
If I were Texas AG, I would propose something like this. Publish an open letter and send it to every major newspaper, cable news outlet an Internet site out there.
Propose the following: Texas will agree to issue same-sex marriage licenses the day every sanctuary city and state in the nation denounces their current unlawful practices, follows all federal immigration laws, and disregards any and all Obama executive orders and unlawful mandates, beginning with San Francisco.
Or better yet, maybe we get Donald Trump to draft the letter.