State lawyers don't have to defend gay marriage bans: Holder

[onehandle]

Source: Reuters

[IMG][/IMG]

(Reuters) - The United States' top law enforcement official has launched into the divisive gay marriage debate by telling a newspaper his state counterparts do not have to defend laws and bans in court that they think are discriminatory.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's comments to the New York Times came after at least five state lawyers, all of them Democrats, came under fire for refusing to try and defeat legal challenges to bars on same-sex unions in their areas.

Some Republicans and campaigners against gay marriage have criticized the stands taken by the state-level attorneys general, saying they have a duty to defend state law, whether they agree with the policy or not.

But Holder, the nation's first black attorney general who has called gay rights one of "the defining civil rights challenges of our time", drew parallels with legal fights over the racial integration of schools in the 1950s.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/25/us-usa-gaymarriage-holder-idUSBREA1O0CG20140225

[merrily]

1. Holder defended federal bans on equal marriage until Obama told him to stop.

And in very unpleasant terms, too.

[RKP5637]

2. K&R !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[Scuba]

3. But Wisconsin AG J.B. Van Hollen says persecuting gays is important legal work ...

http://www.jsonline.com/news/van-hollen-criticizes-holders-advice-on-gay-marriage-bans-b99212994z1-246985401.html

Van Hollen criticizes Holder's advice on gay marriage bans

Washington — Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday that state attorneys general who believe that laws in their states banning same-sex marriage are discriminatory are not obligated to defend them.

The position put Holder in conflict with Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen. "It really isn't his job to give us advice on defending our constitutions any more than it's our role to give him advice on how to do his job," said Van Hollen, a Republican who is president of the bipartisan National Association of Attorneys General. "We are the ultimate defenders of our state constitutions."

'Cause persecuting your citizens is "defending" the state constitution. Yeah, that's it!

[alc]

4. what laws should federal/state administrations defend?

And who decides?

I prefer that administrations defend ALL laws passed by congress and signed into law. Then courts decide which are unconstitutional and are thrown out. Government gets real shaky when individuals (president, governors, AGs) get to decide what is/isn't legal for the next 4 years.

Defending and enforcing are different. So I can be ok with administrations enforcing laws while not defending them in court. But I can also see an R governor/AG secretly working with a concocted defendant to get laws struck down. It doesn't even have to be so secret. If an R wins President in 2016, how much do you want him/her to defend Obamacare cases after that?

[WinkyDink]

5. This is NOT good. It is, IMO, merely the mirror image of refusing to serve gays or alcohol-buyers or

being exempt from aspects of the ACA because of personal beliefs.

That is to say, if one wants to practice civil disobedience, go for it! But then quit your job.

BTW, I am 100% on the side of abolishing discriminatory laws. I AM a Democrat. Just not an ad hoc one.