Pressure Builds on Democratic Attorneys General to Quit Fighting Gay Marriage

[DonViejo]

David Freedlander

Virginia’s chief lawyer said he won’t defend the state’s law. Eight of his peers in other states could soon join him.

When Mark Herring, the attorney general of Virginia announced on Wednesday that the state’s ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional and that he will not defend the law in court, he was hailed by marriage equality activists as a hero.

Herring put a handful of his fellow attorneys general in a tough spot though. There are currently eight states that have some kind of law against same-sex marriage on the books and have a Democrat as the chief lawyer sworn to uphold their state’s laws and constitution.

With Herring’s decision—and he joins that of fellow Democratic attorney general Kamala Harris of California, Kathleen Kane of Pennsylvania, and Lisa Madigan of Illinois who also decided not to defend the state’s marriage law—pressure is growing on the rest to come down on what advocates for marriage equality call the right side of history.

Most of the states with gay marriage bans and Democratic attorneys general are, like Virginia, in the more conservative South where Democratic officeholders of any stripe can be rare. In one of the rare outliers, Oregon, attorney general Ellen Rosenblum seems all but certain to follow Herring’s lead, according to advocates in the state, where two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the state’s ban were consolidated into this week.

more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/24/pressure-builds-on-democratic-attorneys-general-to-quit-fighting-gay-marriage.html

[lancer78]

1. I have a problem

with State AG's refusing to defend certain laws because of their personal beliefs. How would we feel if a republican decided to do this with something like New York's gun control laws?

That being said I do believe that Anti-marriage equality laws are unconstitutional even if a "rational basis" is the test applied to them. However, it is the AG's job to defend state laws in court. No one person should be able to say "I don't like a law, so I will not defend or enforce it".

[Herself]

2. the problem

The State AG refusal to defend the law is based on A. The SCOTUS decision B.Cost to taxpayers to defend the law C. Breaking with traditional interpretation of the law, and seeing ONLY what the Constitution states the law actually is. If you have to create a law to close a door to a group of people, prior to that creation the Constitutional law provided the open door to all.

D. All the above.

[Hosnon]

3. District Attorneys have discretion regarding what to prosecute.

Due to limited resources. I'd imagine a similar rule applies to Attorneys General. Not everything can (or should) be aggressively defended. Ultimately, the AG is accountable to the people via the Governor.

[LiberalFighter]

5. Yet it is okay to enshrine and defend a law because of personal religous beliefs.

It takes away rights that are in the constitution and makes it difficult to defend.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. Admit it: you just wanted to show off that you know how to pluralise Attorney General correctly! N.T

[libdem4life]

6. Hmmm. Kamela, Kathleen, Lisa, and Ellen. Thanks, Mark, for bringing the boys up to speed

by setting an example. And best wishes for a new outbreak of "Just Married" vehicles whether in limos or noisy cans dragging along. (Just an itty bit of snark...many guys are obviously LGBT involved or friendly and we love them.) Really proud of the AGs coming out of the political closet.