Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
danielost

AG Holder tells state AGs to ignore laws

20 posts in this topic

AG Holder tells state AGs to ignore state laws and constitutions on same sex marriages, if they don't agree with them.

So not only is obama ignoring federal law and constitution. He is now telling others to do the same with the states.

This is wrong!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

link? and who is AG?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blink: .....Yeah you need to give some back up info here.

Not sure the premise of your statements. Is he telling Attorney Generals in the states that have same sex marriage to ignore the laws if they disagree and thus do not sue the state?

Or...

Is he telling the state Attorney generals in states that ban same sex marriage to ignore the laws and not sue the state for the right?

I don't get it...

Perhaps he is saying "stop filling up the USA Supreme Court with stupid crap"

Maybe he should tell all those AG's to ignore the laws on certain herbal things as well...perhaps prostitution too....might help with the prison population and cost...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/holder_to_state_ags_dont_bother_defending_anti-gay_marriage_laws.html

Can an attorney general do this - urge state attorney generals not to enforce the law?

When it comes to gay marriage, yes.

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.

Sorry got lazy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If an AG chooses to ignore a law and not prosecute someone for getting married illegally....that doesn't make their marriage legal...it just means it has not been prosecuted...yet. They will still not receive tax breaks or the benefit of inheritance laws and power of attorney...

So...he is saying ..."use your own judgement at the state level"...

Maybe I am missing something, but I personally would prefer the fed gov get out of the middle of crap and let the people of the individual states decide what they want for themselves. States need to be empowered to govern themselves, not the other way around...our founding fathers DID NOT want a centralized government bullying the individual states into submission...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If an AG chooses to ignore a law and not prosecute someone for getting married illegally....that doesn't make their marriage legal...it just means it has not been prosecuted...yet. They will still not receive tax breaks or the benefit of inheritance laws and power of attorney...

So...he is saying ..."use your own judgement at the state level"...

Maybe I am missing something, but I personally would prefer the fed gov get out of the middle of crap and let the people of the individual states decide what they want for themselves. States need to be empowered to govern themselves, not the other way around...our founding fathers DID NOT want a centralized government bullying the individual states into submission...

On THIS issue sure... bu since when did the USAG or the president get to start deciding which laws they would uphold? Lawlessness spreads like a cancer once it starts. If the people see the highest elected officials getting away with it how long before they begin to expect to do the same? This is taking us down a road we do NOT want to see the end of...
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to know what Apple, American Airlines and the Super Bowl Committee's interests are in gay marriage. Why the big rush now in pressuring the Gov of Arizona?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you've never broken a law, raise your hand. The anti-gay laws, in my opinion, are discriminatory, doesn't matter whether the voters approved the legislation. Something can be legal and discriminatory, each of us needs to follow our conscience on issues like this. Nor should the majority religious group force their beliefs & mores on a minority group to create and maintain social, civil, economic and legal inequities.

Edited by Beany
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can an attorney general do this - urge state attorney generals not to enforce the law?

of course. The executive branch of any government body chooses what laws to enforce. Didn't you know this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^I always thought they were there to enforce laws, not choose which ones they want to enforce.

If you've never broken a law, raise your hand. The anti-gay laws, in my opinion, are discriminatory, doesn't matter whether the voters approved the legislation. Something can be legal and discriminatory, each of us needs to follow our conscience on issues like this. Nor should the majority religious group force their beliefs & mores on a minority group to create and maintain social, civil, economic and legal inequities.

My conscience may not agree with a great many laws. So if I view laws as discriminatory in my opinion I should disregard them? Mostly, what's the point of voting for legislation then? Or what's the point of a vote at all?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this is coming to a head in my state VA the newly elected attorney general (AG) was silent on the gay marriage issue during the entire campaign and after one of the closet elections in state history. (hours after he is sworn in) he comes out and says he feels the law that was voted on by the state in 2006 is unconstitutional and won't enforce it. Now I would understand if he would have brought it up during the campaign and let the voters know where he stood but this seems a little underhanded.

I figure he wouldn't have stood a chance at being elected if he brought it up so he was moot on the point and the republican candidate would have been roasted by the media if he brought it up. So there you go again the media does a stellar job smoke screening the election so we the voters have very little info to go on and now we have a constitutional crisis on our hands.

Freedom of the press working hard to keep you as ill informed as possible.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care much about gay marriage so long as the only thing they're entitled to is the legal status. Churches should not be forced to perform religious ceremonies for them.

Edited by Wickian
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you've never broken a law, raise your hand. The anti-gay laws, in my opinion, are discriminatory, doesn't matter whether the voters approved the legislation. Something can be legal and discriminatory, each of us needs to follow our conscience on issues like this. Nor should the majority religious group force their beliefs & mores on a minority group to create and maintain social, civil, economic and legal inequities.

But, the minor religious group can force their views on the rest of us. The at of a state or fed. gov. should not Dec ide which laws to follow. They should enforce them all or have the elected officials change the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^I always thought they were there to enforce laws, not choose which ones they want to enforce.

My conscience may not agree with a great many laws. So if I view laws as discriminatory in my opinion I should disregard them? Mostly, what's the point of voting for legislation then? Or what's the point of a vote at all?

Oh c'mon..you take the legal high road when it is a law that you agree with? You have advocated the breaking of laws that you don't agree with many times on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of course. The executive branch of any government body chooses what laws to enforce. Didn't you know this?

No one ever sent me that memo... although, Holder's pretty much been able to get away with murder...

I always thought that that is why there is (at least there was) a system of checks and balances within our system so one branch doesn't get away with what it is doing these days... the President can't just pick and choose which laws to enforce, that's nothing short of a dictatorship!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh c'mon..you take the legal high road when it is a law that you agree with? You have advocated the breaking of laws that you don't agree with many times on this forum.

Not arguing for F3SS, just noting a fundamental difference..... One is bound by law to enforce the standing laws of the country and one is just a citizen, to my knowledge.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh c'mon..you take the legal high road when it is a law that you agree with? You have advocated the breaking of laws that you don't agree with many times on this forum.

Pretty much what Rut just said. I'm not sure I've advocated breaking laws. Maybe I've railed against a few. Refresh me though. These guys in question though are sworn by oath to uphold the law. That is their job. Problem with the USAG telling AG's around the country to ignore written laws based on their opinion of what is and isn't discriminatory is so murky. That could be used in just so many ways. I'm not how to and why this needs much explanation at all. Let's use the far left as an example: What don't they find discriminatory? Think about it. Nearly everything.

Anyhow, when I do choose consciencely or otherwise to ignore or break a law I certainly don't have a sense of of righteousness about it. Or maybe I do in some cases, not sure but doesn't matter. I'm well aware I'll get what's coming to me if I get caught. I'm quite sure that you get it so where do want to take this conversation from here? I'm game.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought that that is why there is (at least there was) a system of checks and balances within our system so one branch doesn't get away with what it is doing these days... the President can't just pick and choose which laws to enforce, that's nothing short of a dictatorship!

Yes, the executive branch of any government can do choose which laws to enforce, whether it be federal, state or local. And they do, everyday. And have for centuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understood of the issue, Holder didn't tell them to stop enforcing the law. He just said stop wasting government time and money trying to defend them against lawsuits if they know they aren't going to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of like the marijuana thing, then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.