Amended complaint filed in challenge of Arkansas gay marriage ban

Jul 23, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Arkansas Times

AN EXAMPLE FOR MCDANIEL: Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane has declined to defend her state's ban on same-sex marriage.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of34
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jul 23, 2013
 
ďIf there is a law that I feel that does not conform with the Pennsylvania state constitution and the U.S. Constitution, then I ethically cannot do that [defend it] as a lawyer,Ē

As an American citizen I wouldn't either. And as a Gay Christian I can't.
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

As an elected official representing all of the people of the state, the Attorney General has a duty and responsibility to defend the duly enacted laws of the state whether nor not he agrees with them. If he's not willing to do that, he should immediately resign.

In Arkansas, this is not merely a statute passed by the Legislature, it's part of the Arkansas Constitution. The Attorney General of this state swore an oath to defend the Arkansas Constitution. What kind of man violates his oath of office?

I say, get the hell out if you're unwilling to do the job.

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

guest wrote:
As an elected official representing all of the people of the state, the Attorney General has a duty and responsibility to defend the duly enacted laws of the state whether nor not he agrees with them. If he's not willing to do that, he should immediately resign.
In Arkansas, this is not merely a statute passed by the Legislature, it's part of the Arkansas Constitution. The Attorney General of this state swore an oath to defend the Arkansas Constitution. What kind of man violates his oath of office?
I say, get the hell out if you're unwilling to do the job.
Nice spin. But what you are actually saying is you don't care how much money your bigotry costs the taxpayers and children of your State; that if SCOTUS Ruled a law unconstitutional you don't care. You want it defended.

Strange but none of you cared if the AG of Mississippi enforced the slavery laws they only repealed last year!

You are also saying you agree with clerks refusing to obey the law of CA and issue licenses to SSC's.

You are holding AG's to a standard you won't hold yourself or your own anti gay christians to.
Huh

Owatonna, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Bans on same sex marriage or same sex anything is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and SCOTUS should crush these Nazi bans.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

guest wrote:
As an elected official representing all of the people of the state, the Attorney General has a duty and responsibility to defend the duly enacted laws of the state whether nor not he agrees with them. If he's not willing to do that, he should immediately resign.
In Arkansas, this is not merely a statute passed by the Legislature, it's part of the Arkansas Constitution. The Attorney General of this state swore an oath to defend the Arkansas Constitution. What kind of man violates his oath of office?
I say, get the hell out if you're unwilling to do the job.
Any state's Attorney General's first duty is to the Constitution of the United States, which holds primacy over that of their state. Unless specifically stated in the law that they are required to defend the state constitution against all suits, if they believe the law and/or amendment to be unconstitutional according to the US Constitution, they have an ethical obligation NOT to defend it. This isn't exactly a new idea, it's been going on for ages. Just so you know, even amendments to state constitutions can be invalidated by the guarantees in the US Constitution. The famous case of Loving v Virginia, took out amendments passed in 6 states with a footnote.
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DNF wrote:
Nice spin. But what you are actually saying is you don't care how much money your bigotry costs the taxpayers and children of your State; that if SCOTUS Ruled a law unconstitutional you don't care.
No spin, just facts. The AG of Arkansas swore to "support the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, and faithfully discharge the duties of the office" of which he holds. If he's not man enough to honor his oath and perform the duties of his office, he should be thrown out on his ear.

And the SCOTUS has not ruled Amendment 83 of the Arkansas Constitution invalid. It therefore remains the law of the land in our state. BTW, the Amendment passed with an overwhelming 75% majority vote of the people.
Strange but none of you cared if the AG of Mississippi enforced the slavery laws they only repealed last year!
Name one person in MS was held in slavery. You can't. What a dipshit remark.
You are also saying you agree with clerks refusing to obey the law of CA and issue licenses to SSC's.
I don't live in CA, and until the recent decision, disallowing homosexual marriages was the law. Sounds to me like they were merely doing their jobs, unlike their gutless AG who refused to defend the law in court as is his sworn duty.

What good is an oath of office if it's not honored?
You are holding AG's to a standard you won't hold yourself or your own anti gay christians to.
Nope. I just expect my elected leaders to honor their oaths of office and fulfill the duties of the offices to which they were elected. No one forced our AG to run for office. He volunteered. If he is unwilling to do his damn job, he should be man enough to resign.
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:
Any state's Attorney General's first duty is to the Constitution of the United States, which holds primacy over that of their state.
His first duty is to the people of Arkansas, then to upholding and defending the laws of this state. The U.S. Constitution does not define marriage, and therefore doesn't conflict with Amendment 83 of the Arkansas Constitution. Furthermore, the SCOTUS has never ruled Amendment 83 invalid, which means it remains the law of the land in Arkansas, in full force and effect.
Unless specifically stated in the law that they are required to defend the state constitution against all suits, if they believe the law and/or amendment to be unconstitutional according to the US Constitution, they have an ethical obligation NOT to defend it.
Bullshit. The AG is charged with the duty to defend the laws of our state whether he likes them or not. If he has ethical concerns that prevent him from performing his duties he should immediately resign.
Just so you know, even amendments to state constitutions can be invalidated by the guarantees in the US Constitution.
There isn't a single word in the U.S. Constitution that defines marriage nor guarantees homosexual marriage to anyone. It's a state issue, and in Arkansas, the people have spoken. They've spoken in your state too Rich. Why don't you focus your attention there and keep your nose out of our business?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

guest wrote:
No spin, just facts. The AG of Arkansas swore to "support the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, and faithfully discharge the duties of the office" of which he holds. If he's not man enough to honor his oath and perform the duties of his office, he should be thrown out on his ear.
And the SCOTUS has not ruled Amendment 83 of the Arkansas Constitution invalid. It therefore remains the law of the land in our state. BTW, the Amendment passed with an overwhelming 75% majority vote of the people.
One more time for someone who must have slept through their 8th grade civics class. If the Attorney General is of the belief that the law/amendment under challenge as unconstitutional, is unconstitutional, he is faithfully discharging the duties of his office by NOT defending it. It does not matter how many people voted in favor of it, if he believes they violated either the state or US Constitution as a result, he is under no legal obligation to offer a defense for it when it is challenged.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

guest wrote:
His first duty is to the people of Arkansas, then to upholding and defending the laws of this state.
No his first duty is to the US Constitution and the agreement by the state that they abide by it, then to the Constitution of the state. Sorry, but if he is of the belief that Amendment 83 is violating the US Constitution, his first duty is to that Constitution, not the state.
guest wrote:
The U.S. Constitution does not define marriage, and therefore doesn't conflict with Amendment 83 of the Arkansas Constitution.
The US Constitution does not define marriage, but it does guarantee equal protection under the law and on that basis, Amendment 83 is in serious conflict with the Constitution. the right of the individual to marry is fundamental to us and he state may only limit that right if there is a compelling interest served in the narrowest possible way by doing so. Singling out only same sex marriages to constitutionally deny the right to marry serves no compelling state interest.
guest wrote:
Furthermore, the SCOTUS has never ruled Amendment 83 invalid, which means it remains the law of the land in Arkansas, in full force and effect.
Yes, the AG must enforce the amendment, in spite of his belief that it is unconstitutional.
guest wrote:
Bullshit. The AG is charged with the duty to defend the laws of our state whether he likes them or not. If he has ethical concerns that prevent him from performing his duties he should immediately resign.
Hon, unless you can show me a specific statute where it says that he is required to defend the state in all actions against it in the courts, you will be sadly mistaken. You elected him to be the chief legal authority of the state, well that authority is now telling something you don't want to hear, that 75% of the voters violated the rights of others under the US Constitution and unless the law specifically states that he has to defend it, he isn't required to. Sorry.
guest wrote:
There isn't a single word in the U.S. Constitution that defines marriage nor guarantees homosexual marriage to anyone. It's a state issue, and in Arkansas, the people have spoken. They've spoken in your state too Rich. Why don't you focus your attention there and keep your nose out of our business?
Sweetie, although our right to be married hasn't been spelled out for us by the Constitution, don't think for a moment that means that it doesn't exist. Based on previous Court decisions, our right to marry can only be limited to us if it serves a compelling state interest to do so. There is no interest of the state that is served by denying us the right to marry the legally qualified person of our choice simply because they are of an unapproved for us sex. Do you realize that our right to marry has been guaranteed as far as pretty much any convicted felon of our dreams, while they are guests of the state? Can you tell me where the state's interest in telling us that they are of the wrong sex for us?
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:
One more time for someone who must have slept through their 8th grade civics class. If the Attorney General is of the belief that the law/amendment under challenge as unconstitutional, is unconstitutional, he is faithfully discharging the duties of his office by NOT defending it.
Bullshit. The AG is required, in fact has a sworn duty to defend the laws of this state. His opinion as to whether some future court ruling may invalid them is immaterial.

You obviously know jack shit about the law and the duties of the Arkansas AG. You probably don't know jack shit about the law in your own state either. Idiot.
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:
No his first duty is to the US Constitution
No, it's not. He was elected to represent the people of the state of Arkansas. That's his first duty

Besides, as I told you before, there isn't a single word in the U.S. Constitution defining marriage. It has always been a state issue, and the AG is bound by the Arkansas Constitution. It's obvious that you don't like it, but too fucking bad. Keep your ass in Kansas and mind your own damn business.
The US Constitution does not define marriage, but it does guarantee equal protection under the law and on that basis, Amendment 83 is in serious conflict with the Constitution.
According to you, but your opinion doesn't mean jack shit. The SCOTUS had the opportunity to strike down CA's law based on the equal protection clause, but they didn't do it. Instead, they ruled that the ones making the appeal lacked standing to do so.

So, the issue remains open. And unless and until the SCOTUS strikes down Amendment 83 of the Arkansas Constitution, it remains the law of the land in our state. That means the AG is bound thereby, and he is obligated by duty and oath to defend it. End of story.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

guest wrote:
Bullshit. The AG is required, in fact has a sworn duty to defend the laws of this state. His opinion as to whether some future court ruling may invalid them is immaterial.
You obviously know jack shit about the law and the duties of the Arkansas AG. You probably don't know jack shit about the law in your own state either. Idiot.
Buttercup, this, according to Article 19, Section 20 of your Constitution is the oath of his and every other state and local official's office: "I,________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ________, upon which I am now about to enter."

You hired him as your state's chief legal authority, just because you don't like what that authority is now telling you about the amendment doesn't mean he isn't doing his job. Besides, do you really want someone who believes out loud that the amendment is indefensibly unconstitutional as the one defending its alleged constitutionality? That should go just as you should expect. Snicker.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

guest wrote:
No, it's not. He was elected to represent the people of the state of Arkansas. That's his first duty
And you would still be wrong, see previous post for proof of this.
guest wrote:
Besides, as I told you before, there isn't a single word in the U.S. Constitution defining marriage.[/QUOTE}Sorry dear, the Constitution has guaranteed that we have a right to enter into state recognized marriages for several decades now. It is a right so fundamental to us as individuals that in order for the state to deny it to us, a compelling interest of the state has to be served by doing so. The states still have control over their laws which lay out who may and may not be married, however, they may not deny the individual's right without a damn good reason for doing so. Limits on number of spouses, marriage to minors, marrying your kin or farm animals, all serve very important interests of the state. Tell me what interest of the state is served by telling me that I can marry a woman, but not a man?[QUOTE who="guest"] It has always been a state issue, and the AG is bound by the Arkansas Constitution.
The federally recognized right of the individual to marry has been around for decades now, try and keep up. As I told you above, his first duty is to the US Constitution, it's in his oath of office that way.
guest wrote:
It's obvious that you don't like it, but too fucking bad. Keep your ass in Kansas and mind your own damn business.
I'm a citizen of the United States dear, which means my business is where I want it to be and if my business takes me to ruffling a few razorbacks, such is my right as an American. Would you like to whine some more?
guest wrote:
According to you, but your opinion doesn't mean jack shit. The SCOTUS had the opportunity to strike down CA's law based on the equal protection clause, but they didn't do it. Instead, they ruled that the ones making the appeal lacked standing to do so.
So, the issue remains open. And unless and until the SCOTUS strikes down Amendment 83 of the Arkansas Constitution, it remains the law of the land in our state. That means the AG is bound thereby, and he is obligated by duty and oath to defend it. End of story.
They had the opportunity to solve the problem once and for all, they could have ruled that not only was California's amendment an unconstitutional exercise by the tyranny of the majority, but pulled the plug on the rest of them as well. They were handed the perfect excuse to delay the inevitable and they pounced. You do realize, if ANY of these amendments get overturned, every other state's amendment is toast right along with it don't you?
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Has Amendment 83 of the Arkansas Constitution been struck down the SCOTUS? Nope. Therefore it remains valid and in full force and effect in our state.

As I said, the AG has a sworn duty to defend our laws, and particularly our own Constitution. If he is unwilling to do so for any reason, he should immediately resign.

The people of this state have every right to have office holders who will honor their oaths of office and perform the duties for which they were elected.

End of story.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jul 25, 2013
 
guest wrote:
....
As I said, the AG has a sworn duty to defend our laws, and particularly our own Constitution. If he is unwilling to do so for any reason, he should immediately resign.
........
How the heck is he supposed to "defend" a clearly unconstitutional law? He would just look like an idiot.

No other state has ever been able to make a rational argument for banning same sex marriage.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jul 25, 2013
 
guest wrote:
Has Amendment 83 of the Arkansas Constitution been struck down the SCOTUS? Nope. Therefore it remains valid and in full force and effect in our state.
I realize that dear, even said so myself. Despite the AG's opinion that the Amendment is unconstitutional, he's still required to enforce it. Enforce it, not defend it.
guest wrote:
As I said, the AG has a sworn duty to defend our laws, and particularly our own Constitution. If he is unwilling to do so for any reason, he should immediately resign.
As I said, his FIRST duty is to the US Constitution and if he believes the Amendment violates that Constitution, guess which is more important? You elected him to be the state's chief legal authority, by that authority you have provided him, he determined the amendment to be unconstitutional, he's doing his job by not defending the already indefensible.
guest wrote:
The people of this state have every right to have office holders who will honor their oaths of office and perform the duties for which they were elected.
End of story.
Sweetie, I provided you a word for word quote of his oath of office, he's not violating it and there is NO statutory requirement that he defend against every legal challenge to the state, particularly when he believes the state has no chance of winning.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jul 25, 2013
 
Quest wrote:
How the heck is he supposed to "defend" a clearly unconstitutional law? He would just look like an idiot.
No other state has ever been able to make a rational argument for banning same sex marriage.
I already questioned the sanity of his insisting that someone who has said the amendment is, in no uncertain terms, a whole lot unconstitutional, be the one to come up with the arguments defending its alleged constitutionality, but he ignored it.
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jul 25, 2013
 
Quest wrote:
How the heck is he supposed to "defend" a clearly unconstitutional law? He would just look like an idiot.
No other state has ever been able to make a rational argument for banning same sex marriage.
First of all, it's not just a law, it's part of our state Constitution. Second, it may be YOUR opinion that it is unconstitutional, but no court, state or federal, has ruled it so. You opinion doesn't mean jack shit.

The AG is required to defend the law in court against any and all challenges. That is his sworn duty.

As far as other states go, there are many situated exactly as is Arkansas, with constitutional prohibitions against homosexual relationships being viewed as marriages.

Too bad you don't like it, but that's the way it is.
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:
Despite the AG's opinion that the Amendment is unconstitutional, he's still required to enforce it. Enforce it, not defend it.
He is required to defend it. You can deny the facts all you want, but that wonít change them. And again, itís really none of your damn business. You should keep your nose in Kansas and try to overturn your own Constitution which also denies recognizing homosexual relationships as marriage.
You elected him to be the state's chief legal authority, by that authority you have provided him, he determined the amendment to be unconstitutional, he's doing his job by not defending the already indefensible.
Bullshit. He is NOT the stateís chief legal authority, and he has no power whatsoever to deem any law unconstitutional. In fact, heís not even part of the Judicial branch of our state government. He is an Executive branch officer who holds no legal authority whatsoever. He can give opinions, but they have no force of law.

As Iíve told you many times, you donít know jack shit about our state government. That being said, if the AG chooses not to defend challenges to our state's Constitution, he is not doing his job nor is he honoring his oath of office. End of story.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

guest wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, it's not just a law, it's part of our state Constitution. Second, it may be YOUR opinion that it is unconstitutional, but no court, state or federal, has ruled it so. You opinion doesn't mean jack shit.
The AG is required to defend the law in court against any and all challenges. That is his sworn duty.
As far as other states go, there are many situated exactly as is Arkansas, with constitutional prohibitions against homosexual relationships being viewed as marriages.
Too bad you don't like it, but that's the way it is.
Dear, you really should refrain from lying after it has already been proved that you are in fact lying. The AG's oath of office does NOT require him to defend the amendment and there is NO statute requiring him to do so. It really is that simple.

One more time, the Attorney General has been elected as the highest legal authority in the state and under that authority, has concluded that the state's amendment will not survive constitutional challenge. His legal and ethical obligation is not to defend the indefensible.

You still haven't addressed the wisdom of forcing someone who believes the amendment to be unconstitutional to defend its constitutionality. As its first and likely only witness, the plaintiffs call the state's Attorney General. The first question, is the amendment constitutional? The last, why is it unconstitutional?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of34
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••