• 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

Was the Constitution amended or something? Where does it grant the president the power to pick and choose which laws to uphold?

Not to uphold, but whether or not to defend the constitutionality in court.
 
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?

See, and I thought it was up to the courts to decide if a law was constitutional or not. I did not know that the attorney general had that kind of power, to decide without any debate or presentation from either side if a law is constitutional.
 
See, and I thought it was up to the courts to decide if a law was constitutional or not. I did not know that the attorney general had that kind of power, to decide without any debate or presentation from either side if a law is constitutional.

It is up to the courts and the AG still has enforce the law.
 
Was the Constitution amended or something? Where does it grant the president the power to pick and choose which laws to uphold?

Article II Section I

Presidents have chosen to not enforce laws they felt unconstitutional going back to the earliest days of the republic and court opinions going back to at least the mid 1800s support the idea that the President has not only a right but an obligation to do so under the constitution.
 
See, and I thought it was up to the courts to decide if a law was constitutional or not. I did not know that the attorney general had that kind of power, to decide without any debate or presentation from either side if a law is constitutional.

Under the laws of her state she does.
 
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.

Irrelevant. The first marriage contracts were exchanging property. By property, I mean the wife.


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.

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:

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


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.

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

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?
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


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.

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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

Government should get out of marriage since marriage is now pointless

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.
 
Article II Section I

Presidents have chosen to not enforce laws they felt unconstitutional going back to the earliest days of the republic and court opinions going back to at least the mid 1800s support the idea that the President has not only a right but an obligation to do so under the constitution.

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.
 
1.)She took an oath of office to defend the law and the state constitution. This woman is a fraud who should be thrown out of office.

2.)There is nothing principled or moral about gay marriage. Gay marriage is a sham and an abomination.

1.) sorry law, facts, and her oath all disagree with you and prove you wrong
2.) your opinion on this is meaningless and funny
 
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?

this might be on of the most nonsensical, inane, illogical thing i have ever read on here. Its makes ZERO sense. I thought your other post was funny, THIS is funny.
 
1.)My point went completely over your head. Par for the course.
2.)If gays have the special right to start making demands that institutions change their meanings
3.), if they can force their morality onto others
4.) than why can't groups/individuals force the gay agenda to change their institutions and beliefs as well?
5.) 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.

1.) par for the course is your angry, we are laughing and your post completely failed because its not true
2.) this isnt happening and you making it up doesnt make it true. Gays dont have special rights and they arent making any institution change their definitions, this is a lie
3.) this is another lie, nobody is forcing morality on you
4.) see above, because you posted some lies and are making it up
5.) i agree thats way you are losing and gays are slowly being granted equal and civil rights and discrimination is ending
 
1.)Of course they are. Marriage has never meant anything other than man + woman in the entire history of the human race.
2.) 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?
3.)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?
4.) Gays don't want to create their own institution of marriage.
5.) They want to change the existing institution of marriage to fit their emotional needs.



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

1.) this is another lie you just posted and is factually not true
2.) because its not happening you made it up, nobody falls for it
3.) again t not happening, no institution is being changed, you fail again
4.) correct they want equality and they are getting it
5.) nothing is changing
 
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.

the law, her job duties and her oath all factually support her, so your thoughts arent based on anything logical
 
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.



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

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



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:



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

another post and more fallacies, are you ever honest or do you just get mad start punching stuff and make stuff up

within the context of this topic everything bolded is factually not true :shrug:
its funny that you think honest and educated posters will fall for this
 
1.)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.

the bolded
1.) 100% false
2.) again 100% false

the LAW, rules of her office and her oath all disagree with you
 
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.

factually not happening, try reading this thread or any of the articles and educated yourself on ythis topic before your make dishonest, partisan, kneejerk failed assumptions
 
1.)What an ass. She refuses to defend the law because she disagrees.
2.)What about the voters and people of the state she's essentially refusing to legally protect?
3.) What an unjust action.
4.) 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.
5.) If she can't handle that she needs to resign.

1.)more kneejerk, biased reactioins
2.) they will be fine if anybody cares to actually read the articles or this thread
3.) per the law, her oath and her rules of office theres nothing unjust about it
4.) she is and thats NOT what she is doing
5.) she handled it perfectly with in the rules of the law, job duties and her oath


does anybody who is bothered by this actually reading the articles or knows what is actually going on or even knows the laws, her duties and her oath? certainly doesnt seem like it, seems like people want to just ignore the facts.
 
I see this as nothing more than prosecutorial discretion. I'm not the biggest fan of prosecutorial discretion and how I've seen it used, but it's a long-standing tradition.

I'd be okay with any resident of the state who can clearly demonstrate how the absence of the ban causes them actual harm -- not emotional distress, not offense, but real measurable harm -- being allowed to get together to defend the law.
 
One more time for the people that choose to ingore the facts from this thread and the articles.

the law says
attorney general may 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.
the oath says:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity."
she says:
"I cannot ethically defend the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's version of DOMA, (law banning same-sex marriage), where I believe it to be wholly unconstitutional," Kathleen Kane told reporters at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia on Thursday

NOW what is ACTUALLY happening:
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the first known legal challenge to Pennsylvania’s Defense of Marriage Act in Harrisburg earlier this week, naming Corbett, Kane and three other state officials as defendants. The suit argues that Pennsylvania’s law violates a fundamental right to marry and also goes against the Constitution’s equal protection clause.
Since Kane has declined to defend the law, the responsibility falls to Tom Corbett(former AG) to decide what to do. Pennsylvania General Counsel stated Thursday afternoon that Corbett’s office or a legal team of his staff “will continue to review the lawsuit"

you can disagree with her position all day long but she broke no laws nor did she violate her oath and she has totally fulfilled her job duties, there is zero logical support to think otherwise.
 
Last edited:
It's the leftist way. Don't follow laws you don't like.

I can't even count the number of times I've heard right-leaning people bitch and moan about legislators who don't abide by, much less defend, the Constitution. Now we've got a prosecutor refusing to, in her opinion, violate her oath to defend the Constitution, and she isn't doing her job or is obeying the leftist path?

Could you guys make up your freaking minds, please?
 
the bolded
1.) 100% false
2.) again 100% false

the LAW, rules of her office and her oath all disagree with you

Help me out with what part is false.

1) She was hired to do a job. TRUE
2) Her job is to uphold an defend the laws of the state, being that she is the state attourney. TRUE
3) She isn't upholding the law because she has choosen not to defend the state in the law suit. TRUE
4) She should step down. This is my opinion. People who aren't doing their jobs shouldn't have that job. Opinion, neither true or false.
5) She is doing the right thing by not defending the state. Opinion again...neither true or false.
 
Help me out with what part is false.

1) She was hired to do a job. TRUE
2) Her job is to uphold an defend the laws of the state, being that she is the state attourney. TRUE
3)A She isn't upholding the law because she has choosen not to defend the state in the law suit. TRUE
4) She should step down. This is my opinion. People who aren't doing their jobs shouldn't have that job. Opinion, neither true or false.
5) She is doing the right thing by not defending the state. Opinion again...neither true or false.


i will gladly help you out. I would have thought me saying "the bolded" and then bolding parts of your post would have helped you ans saved you from trying to refram and using starwmen but i guess not.
first ill re-post exactly what i already posted so you can see where you need the help at and got lost.
Then ill respond to your post eventhough most of it doesnt apply

ok here we go let me know if you are still confused after (ill even COLOR the bolded parts so you can see how they relate and dont get lost.)

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.

the bolded
1.) 100% false
2.) again 100% false

the LAW, rules of her office and her oath all disagree with you

now on to your post/numbers

1.) yes this is a fact, but nobody argued it so its meaningless to the discussion
2.) see 1 and also see the facts its not that black and white. there are LAWS that clearly say she doesnt have to defend them or she doesnt have to defend them herself. You dont get to pick and choose her rules for her, they are already defined by LAW and OATH.
3.) yes SHE is not and the is part of her job so to imply she isnt doing her job which you did in your OP is 100% false.
WHY? because by the DUTIES, REQUIREMENTS, LAWS and OATH that define her job she is 100% fulling her job. Her job has definitions and rules and she is following them.
4.) You are free to have this opinion, its not supported by any rational logic with in the context of this discussion but you are free to have it. As i said in my first post LAW, rules of her office and her oath all disagree with your opinion.
5.) yes this is your opinion

also to be clear, it may come off this way but theres HONESTLY no sarcasm in this post, just sharing info
hopefully you understand now, let me know if i can help further
 
1.)more kneejerk, biased reactioins
2.) they will be fine if anybody cares to actually read the articles or this thread
3.) per the law, her oath and her rules of office theres nothing unjust about it
4.) she is and thats NOT what she is doing
5.) she handled it perfectly with in the rules of the law, job duties and her oath


does anybody who is bothered by this actually reading the articles or knows what is actually going on or even knows the laws, her duties and her oath? certainly doesnt seem like it, seems like people want to just ignore the facts.

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

1.) by whos judgement is its bias? thats your opinion supported by nothing
as a matter of fact if i want to use that logic against her since the LAW says this:
attorney general may 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.
i could say she is actually performing her job perfectly and passing it on to someone who will do it in an unbiased fashion. But theres no way to factually determine her bias.
2.) she doing it perfectly per the rules, laws and oath of her office though, so theres no need to resign
3.) again not unjust according to the rules, laws and oath of her office
4.) what factually makes the law good? thats just more opinion backed up by nothing
5.) following the LAWS, RULES and OATH of her office is never a disservice to the people of PA, if the people of PA dont like the LAWS, RULES and OATH of that office then they need to change that because she is honoring them perfectly by following them.

SOrry digs as i keep repeating because you dont seem to get it, she has the total support of the rules, laws and oath of her office on her side and the is following them. You are free not to like because of your possible bias but shes not breaking any rules or laws or oaths.
 
Back
Top Bottom