Holder to state AG's: Don't bother defending anti-gay marriage laws

By Rick Moran
February 25, 2014


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.

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.

"If I were attorney general in Kansas in 1953, I would not have defended a Kansas statute that put in place separate-but-equal facilities," Holder said in an interview published on Monday.

Gay couples and rights supporters have launched a series of legal challenges to bans in federal and state courts in recent months following two key decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court last year.

Attorneys general should base their decision on whether to defend their states in such cases, not on politics, but on questions of guarantees under the U.S. Constitution, such as equal protection of the law, Holder added.

"Engaging in that process and making that determination is something that's appropriate for an attorney general to do," Holder told the New York Times.

A decade ago, only one state was preparing to allow same-sex marriages.

Now around 17 states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex nuptials in a movement that has gained momentum since the nation's top court ruled in June that legally married same-sex couples were eligible for federal benefits.

Attorneys general in states such as Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Virginia, have said they would not defend gay marriage bans.

Their refusals have not led to the automatic overturning of the bans. In Oregon, for example, the ban stood as it was enshrined in the constitution.​

Ordinarily, if a state AG fails to enforce or defend a law in court, he could be brought up on impeachment charges for derliction of duty. I guess gay marriage is a matter beyond the law - or so we're led to believe.

[Excerpt]

Read more:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._bother_defending_anti-gay_marriage_laws.html

Hmm..., isn't this great.. Progressives have been doing it all along. Look at the sanctuary cities and states ruled by Democrats that have ignored Federal laws. High crime, near or total economic state and municipal failures, and High unemployment. Yet according to Holder it's okay to avoid the law if Democrats care to ignore or pick and choose what laws they will follow. So why should gay marriage be any different.