Speaking to the National Association of Attorneys General, Attorney General Eric Holder said that any decision not to defend individual laws in court must be “exceedingly rare” and reserved for “exceptional circumstances.” He indicated that legal challenges to gay marriage bans would qualify as such a circumstance.
I hate the term “slippery slope” but who’s to say what circumstance is worthy of not enforcing the law? Who has the authority to decide? This is a law, are we ok with the AG freelancing his personal beliefs over his oath? His reasoning, this time, is because he feels its discriminatory; I totally agree, but it’s still a law.
IMHO Holder’s job is to enforce the law.
Who’s to say what the NEXT reason not to enforce a law will be? Once you establish the precedence that law enforcement is optional if you feel it’s an “exceptional circumstance” whats exceptional next time around.
A few years back, Holder placed his hands on a Bible and repeated the words, as all those who came before him have; “I, Eric Holder, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So
help me God”
Conservative writer Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and outspoken critic of gay marriage, says “State Attorneys General are obligated to defend state marriage laws,” adding “It’s unfortunate and outrageous that Attorney General Holder doesn’t understand that, but it’s hardly surprising.”
Speaking out on behalf of the court striking down Virginia’s gay marriage band, Adam Umhoefer, executive director of the American Foundation for Equal Rights said: “Loving gay and lesbian couples and their families should not have to live one more day as second-class citizens under unjust laws,” he said in a statement.
Then on the heels of Holder’s speech the Coalition of African American Pastors – already more than a little testy over this being treated as a “civil rights” issue – which disagreed strongly. Rev. Bill Owens went on to say the White House use of the civil rights movement to press for same-sex marriage laws was indefensible.
“It’s a disgrace that Obama has stood on the shoulders of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr.,” Owens said, “I detest them calling this a civil rights movement. It’s not a civil rights movement. It’s a civil wrongs movement.”
The CAAP claims the Obama administration are Uncle Tom sellouts, bowing to pink pressure on the issue.
“If Obama was a white man, he would be impeached,” said Owens. “Obama has been given a free pass to do what he pleases, but I don’t give him a pass. I’m very black, been black all my life. He doesn’t get a pass. I don’t give him a pass.”
A Clay Chastain style petition is floating around, seeking Holder’s impeachment.
“He will go down in history as the worst attorney general,” said Owens told The Hill.
To date, fewer than 100 have signed on to the petition.
Look, we may disagree with gay marriage ban laws – I disagree with them – but what flood gates do we open when the United States AG can give a pass on enforcing local laws on a random basis.
Today, we don’t really care, it’s just them that gays.
Tomorrow, it may be you.