• 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

digsbe said:
Yes, what bothers me though is she won't act in an unbiased manner and protect the law. If she can't do her service she needs to resign. It is unjust to not stick up for a good law because the person in question essentially feels that it's unconstitutional before a ruling. It's a disservice to the people of PA.
Click to expand...

"A good law." :lamo
 
digsbe said:
Yes, what bothers me though is she won't act in an unbiased manner and protect the law. If she can't do her service she needs to resign. It is unjust to not stick up for a good law because the person in question essentially feels that it's unconstitutional before a ruling. It's a disservice to the people of PA.
Click to expand...

If she believes the law contradicts either the state constitution or the US Constitution, she is morally (if not legally) obligated refuse to defend or enforce it.
 
digsbe said:
Yes, what bothers me though is she won't act in an unbiased manner and protect the law. If she can't do her service she needs to resign. It is unjust to not stick up for a good law because the person in question essentially feels that it's unconstitutional before a ruling. It's a disservice to the people of PA.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, Digsbe, you believe that gay marriage constitutes discrimination against Christians, so I think you'll understand if I take what you consider to be a "good law" with a grain of salt.
 
Cardinal said:
With all due respect, Digsbe, you believe that gay marriage constitutes discrimination against Christians, so I think you'll understand if I take what you consider to be a "good law" with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

does he really believe that?
ive never read him say that? ill have to wait for his answer

but i do agree, him saying "good law" could be very telling of his own bias and not the AG bias
 
AGENT J said:
does he really believe that?
ive never read him say that? ill have to wait for his answer

but i do agree, him saying "good law" could be very telling of his own bias and not the AG bias
Click to expand...

Yes. And sadly it's not at all an uncommon claim in this debate.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes. And sadly it's not at all an uncommon claim in this debate.
Click to expand...

And always hilarious when no one has an answer for how that can be discrimination against their particular anti-SSM religion, but banning it isn't discrimination against a religion that endorses SSM. No one ever has an answer for why Evangelical Christianity gets to trump Reform Judaism.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes. And sadly it's not at all an uncommon claim in this debate.
Click to expand...

well i hope you just misunderstood because in general and in the vast majority of case i view DIgs to be smarter than that

but anybody that claims that, has no logical, educated, intelligent, honest or objective foot to stand on for this topic.

thats one of the biggest nonsensical failed strawmen there is on this debate besides bestiality and pedophile comparisons.
 
Paschendale said:
And always hilarious when no one has an answer for how that can be discrimination against their particular anti-SSM religion, but banning it isn't discrimination against a religion that endorses SSM. No one ever has an answer for why Evangelical Christianity gets to trump Reform Judaism.
Click to expand...

Evangelical Christianity has more letters in it and that is why!
 
AGENT J said:
well i hope you just misunderstood because in general and in the vast majority of case i view DIgs to be smarter than that

but anybody that claims that, has no logical, educated, intelligent, honest or objective foot to stand on for this topic.

thats one of the biggest nonsensical failed strawmen there is on this debate besides bestiality and pedophile comparisons.
Click to expand...

He's said it too often now for me to misunderstand every single time.

Besides, compartmentalized intelligence is nothing new. I frequently see posters on this forum whom I consider to be highly intelligent go full retard in a heartbeat once the topic touches on something personal to them. In one breath they'll be telling you things about psychology, history and economics you never knew and with an insight that would take you years of personal experience to reach 1/5th of, and in the next breath they'll say, "And by the way, the earth is really 4000 years old."

For probably the most breathtaking example of compartmentalized intelligence, see "Eliot Spitzer."
 
Deuce said:
Irrelevant. The first marriage contracts were exchanging property. By property, I mean the wife.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant and where is your source for this? You're claiming that every early marriage was only about the exchange of property? And you can prove this how? Secondly even if this were true ( and it isn't) that doesn't change the fact that marriage has always meant man + woman since the beginning of mankind.

That was a business, not a church. A business is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. This is already the case, and same-sex marriage does not change this. Irrelevant. Has your church changed its opinion? Performed any ceremonies? Have you changed your beliefs? No? Nothing has been forced upon you because of same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Wrong. They are being forced to engage in commerce against their morality and beliefs. Can a drunk force a bar to serve him alcohol? Especially if he clearly intoxicated? A florist should have the legal and moral right to not support what they believe to be morally wrong.

Comparing gays to pedophiles? Wow, how do you live with such hate?
Click to expand...

I compared gays to pedophiles? Wrong again. You're also still dodging the question. Par for the course.

You just admitted that it's not up to you to decide what the point of someone's marriage is.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I said Gay Marriage trivializes and makes marriage pointless. Marriage has always had specific social, biological and economic purposes. Gay Marriage has none of those things. It's sham, selfish and pretend marriage.

I am an American, therefore I believe that freedom is a morally superior argument. Gay marriage does not cause harm to others, therefore the government has no business restricting it. Which one of us was for "small government" again? :lamo
Click to expand...

Wrong because you just made the case against freedom not 3 sentences above when you claimed a florist who has moral beliefs against homosexuality and gay marriage should be forced to support their institutions and beliefs. I'm the one who claimed Government needs to get out of marriage. You're the one who claims a tyrannical Government should force individual citizens to accept and support the homosexual agenda. You're the one arguing for Big Government.

Pedophilia and burning down churches cause provable harm. Therefore the state has interest in restricting it. Also, "radical gay mafia." :lamo Wow, man. You really regurgitate the talking points well.
Click to expand...

Yes Radical Gay Mafia. The Mob doesn't determine morality. Neither does the State. You also dodged the fact that gays themselves didn't accept the majority will of the people and have used the courts to overturn it.

That wasn't the "logic" at all, but keep hittin that straw man! Oh hey, another original phrasing "down everyone's throats." You sure are obsessed with the sexual aspects of this discussion. Here I'm talking about marriage contracts and how the government recognizes them, and you keep bringing up GAY SEX GAY SEX IN OUR THROATS. I wonder what Freud would say about that.
Click to expand...

So instead of an argument now you're engaging in silly little ad hominems and implying I'm a homosexual. Infantile and pathetic, but it just shows you're running out emotional arguments.

A separate but equal institution, you mean? Gee, I wonder why people might not like the idea. Marriage is more than just a legal contract. But the government's role is not to decide that for you. It is not their job to require married couples to have children, or to be Christian, or to be straight.
Click to expand...

Institutions by their very definition EXCLUDE. A Gay Pride Parade by it's very nature EXCLUDES groups and individuals. An all female gym by it's very natire EXCLUDES an entire gender by it's very nature. Where is this cosmic written rule that there has to be full inclusion and equality in everything? There isn't one. Clubs, institutions and traditions by their very nature fulfill specific needs and have specific purposes. Baptists don't have to hold catholic masses. Baseball doesn't have to include Football. You're emotional argument is a strawman.

Claiming that Marriage is just a "legal contract" is a strawman. The institution of marriage was never created just so sodomites could get a tax break. It is an institution with specific social, economic and biological purposes.

[quote[Cry some more, take your ball, go home. How do you live with such hate? That's not healthy, man. Gay marriage doesn't affect you in any way. Maybe it's better if you just let go.[/QUOTE]

More ad hominems and useless talking points that have been debunked a billion times. I've asked you specific questions which you refuse to answer multiple times within this thread now which tells me everything I need to know. For any future replies feel free to reference this post and any earlier posts for my response.
 
Anthony60 said:
You are not really trying to say that the Constitution gives the President that power, are you? You referenced Article 2 section 1, but there is nothing there. And just because this president takes action that he does not actually have the power to do, doesn't make it okay. That's one of the biggest problems today, government doing things that it shouldn't be doing.
Click to expand...


Yes I am. Article II section I references the Presidental Oath of Office which includes his duty to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". His oath, in conjunction with the Supremacy Clause, require the President to not enforce laws he feels are unconstitutional. There is a large history and legal body of evidence, including several Supreme Court decisions, supporting this position.

The idea goes back to the founding of the country. While Washington never disregarded any laws Congress passed - remember there was no legislative history when he became President - his writings and the fact that he refused a number of Congressional requests strongly imply that he would have if he needed to.

Jefferson did refuse to enforce the terms of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which Adams passed, when he became President. He flatly stated that he deemed them unconstitutional and that he had a duty to not enforce them.


Ask yourself this question. If Congress, over a Presidental veto, enacted a law that shuttered every newspaper in the country - an obvious violation of the 1st amendment - would the President be required to enforce it until it was ruled unconstitutional?
 
85% Think Christian Photographer Has Right to Turn Down Same-Sex Wedding Job - Rasmussen Reports™

Americans draw a fine line when it comes to respecting each other’s rights. If a Christian wedding photographer who has deeply held religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage is asked to work a same-sex wedding ceremony, 85% of American Adults believe he has the right to say no. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only eight percent (8%) disagree even as the courts are hearing such challenges.
Click to expand...
 
I don't see on what grounds a court would have the right to force a photographer to accept a contract to document the wedding of two men or two women. On the other hand, if the photographer accepted the contract and then found out it was two men or two women, that's a different story.
 
Cardinal said:
He's said it too often now for me to misunderstand every single time.

Besides, compartmentalized intelligence is nothing new. I frequently see posters on this forum whom I consider to be highly intelligent go full retard in a heartbeat once the topic touches on something personal to them. In one breath they'll be telling you things about psychology, history and economics you never knew and with an insight that would take you years of personal experience to reach 1/5th of, and in the next breath they'll say, "And by the way, the earth is really 4000 years old."

For probably the most breathtaking example of compartmentalized intelligence, see "Eliot Spitzer."
Click to expand...

I'd just like to say that I came back to this post and feel that the "full retard" comment was uncalled for and was more fitting for the basement. I take it back, and would like to replace it with the sentiment that when a topic become personal or touches on faith, even a very intelligent person can cease to approach it with the same level of objective thinking that they will in other topics.

That's all.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I don't see on what grounds a court would have the right to force a photographer to accept a contract to document the wedding of two men or two women. On the other hand, if the photographer accepted the contract and then found out it was two men or two women, that's a different story.
Click to expand...

it doesnt its just more nonsensical ranting that has been defeated as illogical and meaningless countless times. He thinks people fall for it.
 
winston53660 said:
Why would a gay couple want to hire a photographer. Like that in the first place?
Click to expand...

If you didn't know they were like that, and you signed a contract and put down a non-refundable deposit, you'd want your money's worth.

Also, it may be that they couldn't get anyone else due to scheduling problems, who knows?
 
Gaius46 said:
Yes I am. Article II section I references the Presidental Oath of Office which includes his duty to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". His oath, in conjunction with the Supremacy Clause, require the President to not enforce laws he feels are unconstitutional. There is a large history and legal body of evidence, including several Supreme Court decisions, supporting this position.


Ask yourself this question. If Congress, over a Presidental veto, enacted a law that shuttered every newspaper in the country - an obvious violation of the 1st amendment - would the President be required to enforce it until it was ruled unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

No, it really does not say that the president can decide which laws are constitutional and which are not. In fact, it does not give that power to anyone, the Supreme Court just took it upon themselves to do it.
Yes, the president would have to enforce a law over his veto, that is a simple one. Congress has the power, explicitly, in the Constitution to override a presidential veto, without question.

There is a problem in this country with those that find ways of ignoring the Constitution while claiming to support it. I heard someone on the radio this week who claimed that the "general welfare" clause gave the government the power to do anything it deemed to be for the general welfare of the country. This kind of dictatorial thinking is dangerous. That is how governments turn in to the very tyranny that we broke away from.
 
Anthony60 said:
No, it really does not say that the president can decide which laws are constitutional and which are not. In fact, it does not give that power to anyone, the Supreme Court just took it upon themselves to do it.
Yes, the president would have to enforce a law over his veto, that is a simple one. Congress has the power, explicitly, in the Constitution to override a presidential veto, without question.

There is a problem in this country with those that find ways of ignoring the Constitution while claiming to support it. I heard someone on the radio this week who claimed that the "general welfare" clause gave the government the power to do anything it deemed to be for the general welfare of the country. This kind of dictatorial thinking is dangerous. That is how governments turn in to the very tyranny that we broke away from.
Click to expand...

What mechanism then does the Constitution provide for the removal of an unconstitutional law? There has to be one. A Constitution that doesn't provide for means to insure that it can be enforced is useless.

I'd also suggest that your contention that an unconstitutional law must be enforced unchallenged by a President is far more dangerous than giving the President the ability to ignore laws he finds unconstitutional. If the electorate disagrees with the President's decision they can remove him in at most four years.

In either case as a practical matter, as I said, there are some 213 years worth of history of Presidents refusing to enforce laws they deem unconstitutional and legal decisions agreeing. It's a part of the way our government works, like it or not. I believe the President Constitutionally has that power and I believe any reasonable reading of the Presidential Oath of Office and the Supremacy Clause inevitably lead to that conclusion. How can one seriously argue that enforcing a law suppressing freedom of the press or demanding the internment of a class of American citizens is "defending the Constitution"? More making a mockery of it.
 
Gaius46 said:
What mechanism then does the Constitution provide for the removal of an unconstitutional law? There has to be one. A Constitution that doesn't provide for means to insure that it can be enforced is useless.
Click to expand...

They put the President in to act as a check against a runaway Congress, they put the veto over-ride in place to act as a check against an overbearing President, they established the sequence of supremacy of the nation's laws, and then they put the Court in to interpret the laws according to that hierarchy. They probably figured all that was enough, given the overt simplicity of the Constitution itself.

Gaius46 said:
I'd also suggest that your contention that an unconstitutional law must be enforced unchallenged by a President is far more dangerous than giving the President the ability to ignore laws he finds unconstitutional. If the electorate disagrees with the President's decision they can remove him in at most four years.

In either case as a practical matter, as I said, there are some 213 years worth of history of Presidents refusing to enforce laws they deem unconstitutional and legal decisions agreeing. It's a part of the way our government works, like it or not. I believe the President Constitutionally has that power and I believe any reasonable reading of the Presidential Oath of Office and the Supremacy Clause inevitably lead to that conclusion. How can one seriously argue that enforcing a law suppressing freedom of the press or demanding the internment of a class of American citizens is "defending the Constitution"? More making a mockery of it.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
Gaius46 said:
What mechanism then does the Constitution provide for the removal of an unconstitutional law? There has to be one. A Constitution that doesn't provide for means to insure that it can be enforced is useless.

I'd also suggest that your contention that an unconstitutional law must be enforced unchallenged by a President is far more dangerous than giving the President the ability to ignore laws he finds unconstitutional. If the electorate disagrees with the President's decision they can remove him in at most four years.

In either case as a practical matter, as I said, there are some 213 years worth of history of Presidents refusing to enforce laws they deem unconstitutional and legal decisions agreeing. It's a part of the way our government works, like it or not. I believe the President Constitutionally has that power and I believe any reasonable reading of the Presidential Oath of Office and the Supremacy Clause inevitably lead to that conclusion. How can one seriously argue that enforcing a law suppressing freedom of the press or demanding the internment of a class of American citizens is "defending the Constitution"? More making a mockery of it.
Click to expand...

I'm no lawyer, but as far as I understand, there is no express means of removing an unconstitutional law. There is the long process of electing a new Congress that can repeal the law. So it seems that the founders felt that it was up to the people to make it known to Congress that they don't want that law. As far as the President, he would be acting unconstitutionally himself if he ignored laws.

They all need to follow the process and functions according to the Constitution. This is something I feel that our governemnt has strayed way too far from. This country would have to be radically different if we had a Congress that would pass a veto proof law shutting down freedom of the press. If we elected people like that, I would think that the Constitution would be meaningless to the people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom