Pennsylvania AG refuses to defend gay marriage ban

Whether you agree with, or disagree with the premise of gay marriage and Constitutionality of it, I am fairly certain that an AG's purpose is to defend the laws of their particular state (or Nation in Eric Holder's case). Cherry picking what laws you choose to enforce and defend in court seems rife with politicization. IMO when a state's chief law enforcement officer chooses not to fulfill the obligations of their post, just because it isn't popular at the current juncture, is waters down the entire system of laws we have in place.

Kathleen Kale's personal opinion of gay marriage is moot and nowhere in her job description does it say she can roll over just because a law is unpopular. Her constituents spoke and the burden of proving unconstitutionality is on the detractors.

news.yahoo.com... -general-refuses-to-defend-gay-marriage-ban-163105453.html

reply to post by Lipton


I just got sick reading this.....

"we" were going good with the straight marriages until now.....

This country makes me sick sometimes......

Sorry gays....Nothing against you - other than it isn't right to marry.....Keep it to yourself behind closed doors.....

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by Lipton

 

I just got sick reading this.....

"we" were going good with the straight marriages until now.....

This country makes me sick sometimes......

Sorry gays....Nothing against you - other than it isn't right to marry.....Keep it to yourself behind closed doors.....

You call 50% divorce rate "going good"??

Sorry homophobes....nothing against you - other than it isn't right to deny equality to gays .... keep your gay hate to yourself, behind closed doors.

My concern is that the example of the Obama administration is travelling out to the state capitols. His principle, demonstrated over and over, is "The law doen't matter if it gets between me and my goals." We can no longer claim to be a nation of laws.

It's going to take a long time to clean this up.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Keep your "straight hate" to yourself...

I said I don't hate gays by the way if you READ......I said they shouldn't be allowed to marry....Big difference!

Being gay is fine, getting married is not....TO ME......The beauty about your EQUAL rights you so boldy claim.....The right to say what the hell I want

I have never seen a prosecuting entity that didn't pick and choose their cases. They all do this right down to mayors court. Even if a grand jury is involved they pick what cases they will bring to the GJ and what they won't prosecute.

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein



I couldn't care less about two boys kissing or two girls scissoring. What I am just plain tired of is being labeled as being bigoted, racist and white trash just because I don't vote Democrat.

Personally I feel that we as a Nation have a hell of a lot more important issues facing us as a whole and it is sort selfish of homosexuals to demand 24-7 coverage of a non-issue that affects ~3% of the population and their 'plight'. I also find it laughable that the choose their candidate based on who supports their lifestyle, rather than on REAL issues.

I'm of the opinion of just giving them their marriage, just so that we can move on to real issues, such as the upcoming fights over polygamy, age of consent, and legalization of inter-species relations.

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by Lipton

 

I just got sick reading this.....

"we" were going good with the straight marriages until now.....

This country makes me sick sometimes......

Sorry gays....Nothing against you - other than it isn't right to marry.....Keep it to yourself behind closed doors.....

Seeing how straight people has made marriage a joke what with the divorce rate being what it is what does it hurt for gays to marry? What makes me sick is people who think it is ok for the government to be able to tell you who you can and cannot marry. If a person supports this then they shouldn't be able to complain when the government sticks their nose in every aspect of their life.

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


It's none of your business who other people marry.

reply to post by buster2010

Seeing how straight people has made marriage a joke what with the divorce rate being what it is what does it hurt for gays to marry? What makes me sick is people who think it is ok for the government to be able to tell you who you can and cannot marry. If a person supports this then they shouldn't be able to complain when the government sticks their nose in every aspect of their life.

That's fine and interesting. Do you support a similar rationale for the AG's actions? Should the AG be able to pick and choose? What's your thought on the subject of the OP?

Originally posted by damwel
I have never seen a prosecuting entity that didn't pick and choose their cases. They all do this right down to mayors court. Even if a grand jury is involved they pick what cases they will bring to the GJ and what they won't prosecute.

I agree with you to a point. But for an AG to not defend a state law because of her stated personal beliefs is not how the job works. She is not the arbiter of constitutional law, the courts are.

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


The Beauty of freedoms is whilst you have the freedom to say whatever you want, we have the freedom to express ourselves however we want

this whole 'Keep it behind closed doors argument is tiresome, if you believe that way, good for you, your rights and i will defend them, but why not say the same about straight people? or religious people? or *insert* person?

as much as you say that people pick and choose laws, people equally pick and choose parts of the constitution they want upheld,

"All men created equal'

reply to post by buster2010

If a person supports this then they shouldn't be able to complain when the government sticks their nose in every aspect of their life.

WHEN DON'T THEY ALREADY????

Tell me something the government isn't involved in? Since they are, I keep my stance....When this nation TRULY becomes free from government strangleholds, then gays can get married.....Until then, my stance stays the same!

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by buster2010

 

Seeing how straight people has made marriage a joke what with the divorce rate being what it is what does it hurt for gays to marry? What makes me sick is people who think it is ok for the government to be able to tell you who you can and cannot marry. If a person supports this then they shouldn't be able to complain when the government sticks their nose in every aspect of their life.

That's fine and interesting. Do you support a similar rationale for the AG's actions? Should the AG be able to pick and choose? What's your thought on the subject of the OP?

When the AG sees the law as unconstitutional as she does then yes they should be able to pick and choose. Why should a person be forced to defend something they see as illegal?

reply to post by damwel


The point is not picking and choosing their cases. This situation is about choosing which laws to support and defend.

The legislature and the Governor say, "OK, this is the law." Who is the AG to say "No, it isn't. Forget you passed and signed it, I won't do my job?"

Originally posted by damwel
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein

 

It's none of your business who other people marry.

It sure is.....When the law states otherwise......

Not to mention the "gay movement" is destroying this country with their votes! They are voting in ONLY people who support gay marriage.....That candidate could state they are raising taxes 1000% BUT they support gay marriage so it's okay to them....

Why can't it stay behind closed doors like it always has been? Why the drastic changes needed?

reply to post by charles1952

The law doen't matter if it gets between me and my goals."

Show me a President since...well...The late 1800's who didn't do the same.

The law of the land has always been political and American's rights were being eroded the moment the first legal challenge to the constitution was made. Even though some if not most of those changes were positive, they created a frame work for politicians to manipulate the judicial system into doing whatever it is that was politically convenient.

~Tenth

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


why support suppression? shouldn't we embrace equality for All and you can't say that us gays are the only ones that vote on a bias

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by buster2010

 

If a person supports this then they shouldn't be able to complain when the government sticks their nose in every aspect of their life.

WHEN DON'T THEY ALREADY????

Tell me something the government isn't involved in? Since they are, I keep my stance....When this nation TRULY becomes free from government strangleholds, then gays can get married.....Until then, my stance stays the same!

So when the government is out of everyone's life then the gays can marry. People like you never change their minds even when the government is out of people lives people like you will still find a reason so gays can't marry.

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein

Originally posted by damwel
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein

 

It's none of your business who other people marry.

It sure is.....When the law states otherwise......

Not to mention the "gay movement" is destroying this country with their votes! They are voting in ONLY people who support gay marriage.....That candidate could state they are raising taxes 1000% BUT they support gay marriage so it's okay to them....

Why can't it stay behind closed doors like it always has been? Why the drastic changes needed?

Why is it your business who other people marry?