• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State attorney general won’t defend gay marriage ban

Deuce said:
She was doing that. Defending the state and Federal constitution against an unconstitutional law. (by not defending that law in court)
Click to expand...

Gay Marriage is not in the Constitution

The Founders never would have supported such an abomination sham like gay marriage

Nice try though

Unitedwestand13 said:
but gay marriage is not illiegal in some states.
Click to expand...

If states vote individually to allow an abomination like gay marriage to exist, then that is perfectly within their right. Social issues such as pretend sham marriages like gay marriage are relegated to the states BY DESIGN

We get it though. Laws only matter if corrupt left wing radicals agree with them
 
Deuce said:
It does matter. Because the task of defending Obamacare would fall to the Federal government. Not the states. Unless you think the Obama administration is going to elect not to defend Obamacare...
Click to expand...

I think that he may go lax on enforcement in the interest of self-preservation.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
but regular marriage is not in the constitution either.
Click to expand...

Exactly

Which is why Government should get out of the marriage business completely. No government in marriage at all. No tax breaks. Nothing. If gays want to have their silly little ceremonies and call it "marriage" fine. They are just playing dress up. It's not real.

If someone demands that gay pride parades have to change their name to Christian Pride Parades where gays have to accept Christian beliefs by force does that person have the right to force them to change their institution?
 
Bronson said:
Exactly

Which is why Government should get out of the marriage business completely. No government in marriage at all. No tax breaks. Nothing. If gays want to have their silly little ceremonies and call it "marriage" fine. They are just playing dress up. It's not real.

If someone demands that gay pride parades have to change their name to Christian Pride Parades where gays have to accept Christian beliefs by force does that person have the right to force them to change their institution?
Click to expand...

Faulty comparison: Christianity does not hold title to the word "marriage." Nor are any Christians being "forced to change their institution."

Nobody ever said the government should get out of marriage until gay people started using the word too. Talk about wanting to take "your" ball and go home.
 
Deuce said:
Faulty comparison: Christianity does not hold title to the word "marriage." Nor are any Christians being "forced to change their institution."

Nobody ever said the government should get out of marriage until gay people started using the word too. Talk about wanting to take "your" ball and go home.
Click to expand...

My point went completely over your head. Par for the course.

If gays have the special right to start making demands that institutions change their meanings, if they can force their morality onto others, than why can't groups/individuals force the gay agenda to change their institutions and beliefs as well? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Secondly, gay marriage is pointless. It makes the point of marriage pointless. So if the institution of marriage is pointless there is no need for Government to be involved since it serves no purpose.
 
Bronson said:
My point went completely over your head. Par for the course.

If gays have the special right to start making demands that institutions change their meanings, if they can force their morality onto others, than why can't groups/individuals force the gay agenda to change their institutions and beliefs as well? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Click to expand...

No, my point went over your head. What you missed is that gay people aren't doing that. They aren't forcing anyone to change their beliefs or their meanings. I understand exactly what you are saying and what you believe. You're just wrong.

Secondly, gay marriage is pointless. It makes the point of marriage pointless. So if the institution of marriage is pointless there is no need for Government to be involved since it serves no purpose.
Click to expand...

It is not up to you, or to the government, to decide what "the point" of someone's marriage is.
 
Deuce said:
No, my point went over your head. What you missed is that gay people aren't doing that. They aren't forcing anyone to change their beliefs or their meanings. I understand exactly what you are saying and what you believe. You're just wrong.
Click to expand...

Of course they are. Marriage has never meant anything other than man + woman in the entire history of the human race. So tell me why can't a group or individual force gays to change their institutions like their pride parades to include new definitions, meanings and beliefs?

If gays can demand Marriage means what we want it to mean now and not what is has always meant, then why can't a group or individual demand the same thing of their gay institutions? Gays don't want to create their own institution of marriage. They want to change the existing institution of marriage to fit their emotional needs.

It is not up to you, or to the government, to decide what "the point" of someone's marriage is.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. I don't worship and accept everything Government demands by decree like you do.
 
Last edited:
Bronson said:
Of course they are. Marriage has never meant anything other than man + woman in the entire history of the human race. So tell me why can't a group or individual force gays to change their institutions like their pride parades to include new definitions, meanings and beliefs?
Click to expand...

Two men can get married in several states and some other countries. Has your belief changed? Do you suddenly approve of same-sex marriage? Do you love your wife less? (if married. if not, do you figure that's something that would happen?) Has your church, or any other, been forced to accept homosexuality? Forced to perform same-sex ceremonies? (and what do you mean "forced?" gunpoint? by law?) Have they re-written the bible?

I guess I'm just trying to understand your perspective here. I really don't understand what exactly you think is being "forced" upon you, and how.

If gays can demand Marriage means what we want it to mean now and not what is has always meant, then why can't a group or individual demand the same thing of their gay institutions? Gays don't want to create their own institution of marriage. They want to change the existing institution of marriage to fit their emotional needs.
Click to expand...

They want the government to let them sign a legal contract granting certain benefits regarding the person they love, like everyone else. "The existing institution" is not a monolithic idea shared by all. Clearly.

No it isn't. I don't worship and accept everything Government demands by decree like you do.
Click to expand...

You're the one arguing that the government continue making a gender-based distinction regarding a legal contract between private individuals. Based on.. what, exactly? A nebulous "tradition" or "institution" or "definition?" Why should the government base a gender-based classification on the morals of ~50%-and-dropping of the population?
 
She shouldn't leave her job at all. She did the right thing, this isn't the 1800's. You think if she refused to enforce a gun ban that conservatives would be howling? No, it's just because they're a bunch of homophobic Christians that want the country run by the Bible.
 
Blue_State said:
I believe it is legal for her to have another "more qualified" lawyer try the case then herself.

However, I believe she should resign.
Click to expand...

Is she refusing to do her job based on her inability? Or based on her politics?
 
iacardsfan said:
She shouldn't leave her job at all. She did the right thing, this isn't the 1800's. You think if she refused to enforce a gun ban that conservatives would be howling? No, it's just because they're a bunch of homophobic Christians that want the country run by the Bible.
Click to expand...

Her job is to uphold the law, not decide which laws she's going to uphold and which ones she isn't. I think she needs to be fired.
 
apdst said:
Her job is to uphold the law, not decide which laws she's going to uphold and which ones she isn't. I think she needs to be fired.
Click to expand...

Of course you do because I'm guessing you are against gay marriage. Please point out to me where in the Pennsylvania Constitution it states that the Attorney General must file charges against EVERY violation of the law?
 
Deuce said:
Two men can get married in several states and some other countries. Has your belief changed? Do you suddenly approve of same-sex marriage? Do you love your wife less? (if married. if not, do you figure that's something that would happen?) Has your church, or any other, been forced to accept homosexuality? Forced to perform same-sex ceremonies? (and what do you mean "forced?" gunpoint? by law?) Have they re-written the bible?
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? You're spewing nonsensical gibberish.

Marriage has never meant anything other than man + woman since the beginning of mankind. The collective notion that the definition of marriage has always meant man + woman is not debatable. The institution of marriage was created because of specific biological, social and economic purposes. It wasn't created so 2 sodomites could get a tax break.

I guess I'm just trying to understand your perspective here. I really don't understand what exactly you think is being "forced" upon you, and how.
Click to expand...

Washington State Sues Florist for Refusing Gay Couple's Wedding | Advocate.com

Vermont's Wildflower Inn Settles Gay Marriage Lawsuit With Lesbian Couple

They want the government to let them sign a legal contract granting certain benefits regarding the person they love, like everyone else. "The existing institution" is not a monolithic idea shared by all. Clearly.
Click to expand...

Not like everyone else. Group Marriage and Polygamists and any other weird sexual perversion doesn't have the same rights. You're also dodging the question. If gays can force institutions to change their meanings and beliefs, then why can't individuals and groups force gay institutions such as pride parades to change theirs? Polygamists should be able to force gays to change their pride parade to include Polygamy pride, or heck how about pedophiles forcing Gay Pride Parades to celebrate "Pedo Pride"? :lol:

You're the one arguing that the government continue making a gender-based distinction regarding a legal contract between private individuals. Based on.. what, exactly? A nebulous "tradition" or "institution" or "definition?" Why should the government base a gender-based classification on the morals of ~50%-and-dropping of the population?
Click to expand...

A "nebulous tradition"? :lol: It's a tradition that has always had specific biological, social and economic purposes. Even the Spartans recognized this and they had rampant homosexuality within their culture. The concept of marriage has always been classified by gender. The whole POINT was to bring the genders together. Gay Marriage is a sham. Pointless and pretend play acting.

The acceptance of gay marriage is not morally superior to the opposition of it. Where do you get your concept of morality from? What moral authority (beyond The Mob or The State) has made this decree? Using that logic if enough people supported and voted for pedophilia would that make it morally right? How about burning down churches? You're forgetting that even in CA gay marriage was voted down and still the radical gay mafia wouldn't accept the will of the people. So this notion that if more than 50% support that it makes it "morally superior" is laughable on it's face. Not even the radical gays accepted that "logic" which is why they are using the liberal courts to ram their agenda down everyone's throats trying to rationalize and normalize sodomy and sexual perversion.

Marriage is more than a "legal contract". It is an institution with specific biological, social and economic purposes. Gays should have created their own institution of marriage if this issue was about "legal contracts" instead of trivializing the purpose of marriage as an institution.

Government should get out of marriage since marriage is now pointless
 
iacardsfan said:
Of course you do because I'm guessing you are against gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm not, but I know that goes against your narrative that all Conservatives are rich, white, racist, sexist, homophobes.

[/quote]Please point out to me where in the Pennsylvania Constitution it states that the Attorney General must file charges against EVERY violation of the law?[/QUOTE]

really??
 
apdst said:
Actually, I'm not, but I know that goes against your narrative that all Conservatives are rich, white, racist, sexist, homophobes.
Click to expand...
Please point out to me where in the Pennsylvania Constitution it states that the Attorney General must file charges against EVERY violation of the law?[/QUOTE]

really??[/QUOTE]
actually yes, because if thats the case every attorney general in the nation needs to be fired. No way they try every single "crime" committed
 
“I cannot ethically defend the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's (law), where I believe it to be wholly unconstitutional,” Kane told reporters in Philadelphia.
Click to expand...

That is her reasoning from the article. And...

Pennsylvania law stipulates it is the attorney general's duty to defend the constitutionality of state laws but says the attorney general can allow lawyers for the governor's office or executive-branch agencies to defend a lawsuit if it is more efficient or in the state's best interests.
Click to expand...
 
iacardsfan said:
She shouldn't leave her job at all. She did the right thing, this isn't the 1800's. You think if she refused to enforce a gun ban that conservatives would be howling? No, it's just because they're a bunch of homophobic Christians that want the country run by the Bible.
Click to expand...

She was hired to do a job. That job is to uphold and defend the laws of PA. She isn't doing that. She should step down.

She is doing the right thing by not defending the state. At the same time, she is not doing her job by not defending the state. My 2 cents.
 
apdst said:
Her job is to uphold the law, not decide which laws she's going to uphold and which ones she isn't. I think she needs to be fired.
Click to expand...

Her oath is to protect the constitution which does not include defending unconstitutional laws in court.

With the oath she's taken, let's say a law banning any and all firearms was enacted by the state. Should she defend it?
 
Blue_State said:
State attorney general won't defend gay marriage ban | TribLIVE

I very much respect this woman for standing up for her principles. I believe she should leave her job because it is her job to defend the state's laws. However, great to see her standing up for what she believes is right. Tough call on her part.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Who gives a flying @(#(#$ what the law is? And why in the world should an Attorney General enforce it, anyway?!?

:roll: Executive nullification is something ya'll are delighting in now. It's going to piss you off in 4 years when the next Republican president directs the IRS to no longer enforce the Corporate Tax.
 
Deuce said:
Her oath is to protect the constitution which does not include defending unconstitutional laws in court.
Click to expand...

If she feels that way about this, she is free to quit and found an organization dedicated to convincing her populace of that. But we do not give our public servants the right to run roughshod over our will or toss out representative government simply because it pleases them.
 
What an ass. She refuses to defend the law because she disagrees. What about the voters and people of the state she's essentially refusing to legally protect? What an unjust action. She needs to represent the laws of the state in an unbiased manner, not interject her own morals and political beliefs into what she chooses. If she can't handle that she needs to resign.
 
Last edited:
Anagram said:
Except that according to the article, unlike the Obama administration, the Attorney General's office in Pennsylvania was created with the duty to uphold the constitutionality of the law. I can still read it as her doing her best to defend it by not giving a half-hearted attempt and allowing its defense to rest on the Governor's lawyers. But it is not as cut and dry as Obama's non-defense of DOMA.
Click to expand...

Was the Constitution amended or something? Where does it grant the president the power to pick and choose which laws to uphold?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom