Ill. prosecutors refuse to defend gay...

Ill. prosecutors refuse to defend gay marriage ban

There are 54 comments on the Connecticut Post story from Jun 21, 2012, titled Ill. prosecutors refuse to defend gay marriage ban. In it, Connecticut Post reports that:

Twenty-five Illinois couples were prepared for a long legal fight when they joined lawsuits challenging the state's ban on gay marriage.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Connecticut Post.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

FaFoxy

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#1 Jun 21, 2012
The Roman Catholic Church is an Evil AND Un-American institution because it seeks to impose, thru cvil law, IT'S OWN RELIGIOUS VIEWS AND RELIGIOUS LAWS on people who CHOOSE TO BE non-Roman Catholics !

Where is the OUTRAGE at this Un-American bigoted group ?!
Anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#2 Jun 21, 2012
Never the less, vigilantism is unacceptable. Fire the prosecutors. Done.

If you want to make better laws, do it in the legislature. Can't get a party without a private agenda? Get off your duffs and make your own party.

Too bad if you can't get the public to agree with you. It's part of being in a democracy.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#3 Jun 21, 2012
Anonymous wrote:
Never the less, vigilantism is unacceptable. Fire the prosecutors. Done.
If you want to make better laws, do it in the legislature. Can't get a party without a private agenda? Get off your duffs and make your own party.
Too bad if you can't get the public to agree with you. It's part of being in a democracy.
You can't blame the prosecutors. How can anyone possibly defend something like that? There are NO logical arguments to use, NO verifiable evidence to present. No statistics or studies that support such bans. The witnesses you can bring are illogical and easily torn apart by the opposition. Not a single thing to grasp onto.

Look at the debacle in California.

Do you really think anyone want's to waste government funding on a charade like California did?

Ill prosecutors don't want to look ridiculous, and waste money doing it. Why should they be fired for that?

It's just common sense.

FaFoxy

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#4 Jun 21, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't blame the prosecutors. How can anyone possibly defend something like that? There are NO logical arguments to use, NO verifiable evidence to present. No statistics or studies that support such bans. The witnesses you can bring are illogical and easily torn apart by the opposition. Not a single thing to grasp onto.
Look at the debacle in California.
Do you really think anyone want's to waste government funding on a charade like California did?
Ill prosecutors don't want to look ridiculous, and waste money doing it. Why should they be fired for that?
It's just common sense.
Then why did The Obamaniac defend DOMA ?

“KONA, baby!”

Since: Jul 08

Jacksonville, FL

#5 Jun 21, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't blame the prosecutors. How can anyone possibly defend something like that? There are NO logical arguments to use, NO verifiable evidence to present. No statistics or studies that support such bans. The witnesses you can bring are illogical and easily torn apart by the opposition. Not a single thing to grasp onto.
Look at the debacle in California.
Do you really think anyone want's to waste government funding on a charade like California did?
Ill prosecutors don't want to look ridiculous, and waste money doing it. Why should they be fired for that?
It's just common sense.
It't their job. If they can't or won't do it, they should be fired.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#6 Jun 21, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did The Obamaniac defend DOMA ?
For the same reason that Bush trotted out the "marriage amendment".

Politics.
You know as well as I do that EVERY person in politics who wants to be elected will, at some time, throw one group under the bus to woo another group.

But, the question is, which President is the very first to come out in support of same-sex marriage?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#7 Jun 21, 2012
Pappa wrote:
<quoted text>
It't their job. If they can't or won't do it, they should be fired.
Are they legally required to defend every law?

Really?

“KONA, baby!”

Since: Jul 08

Jacksonville, FL

#8 Jun 21, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Are they legally required to defend every law?
Really?
Uhh, yeah. That is their job.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

#9 Jun 21, 2012
When we have a rogue prosecutor obstructing justice at the highest level of government, it sends the wrong signal to attorneys throughout the country. Yet, this use of anarchy is what tyranny has always used and promoted to gain power.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#10 Jun 21, 2012
"Peter Breen, executive director of the Thomas More Society, a private bar association that represents the Catholic Church, said the group "will be seeking relief from the court," though he didn't say exactly what that would be."

Legal relief from what. The Catholic Church is not now, or ever has been, required to participate in any state's civil marriage laws.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11 Jun 21, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
When we have a rogue prosecutor obstructing justice at the highest level of government, it sends the wrong signal to attorneys throughout the country. Yet, this use of anarchy is what tyranny has always used and promoted to gain power.
I am sure the AG's oath says something about defending the state's constitution as well as the state's laws. When the AG sees a conflict between the two, the constitution should always trump the mere laws of a state. I support and applaud the AG for doing their job as they see it.
Truth

United States

#12 Jun 21, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did The Obamaniac defend DOMA ?
He never has, your just a loony idiot, or an outright liar.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#14 Jun 24, 2012
Another discriminatory law will soon bite the dust.
Anne Ominous

Buffalo, NY

#15 Jun 25, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
Where is the OUTRAGE at this Un-American bigoted group ?!
morons with no argument scream "bigot"
Anne Ominous

Buffalo, NY

#16 Jun 25, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't blame the prosecutors. How can anyone possibly defend something like that? There are NO logical arguments to use, NO verifiable evidence to present. No statistics or studies that support such bans. The witnesses you can bring are illogical and easily torn apart by the opposition. Not a single thing to grasp onto.
Look at the debacle in California.
Do you really think anyone want's to waste government funding on a charade like California did?
Ill prosecutors don't want to look ridiculous, and waste money doing it. Why should they be fired for that?
It's just common sense.
scatterbrained homobabble.

It's not up to a prosecutor to decide what is and what isn't constitutional.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#17 Jun 25, 2012
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
scatterbrained homobabble.
It's not up to a prosecutor to decide what is and what isn't constitutional.
So, they are required by law to take ANY case presented, regardless of how indefensible?
Truth

United States

#18 Jun 25, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
When we have a rogue prosecutor obstructing justice at the highest level of government, it sends the wrong signal to attorneys throughout the country. Yet, this use of anarchy is what tyranny has always used and promoted to gain power.
Tyranny through unjust and unconstitutional laws which go against freedom in all its forms is illegal, and by not prosecuting and enforcing doma, the prosecuters are actuall upholding the laws and spirit of this country. Go to unganda where they are like you and stop your religious tyranny. You freaking xtain terrorist.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#19 Jun 25, 2012
You know, you really gotta appreciate the way the anti-Gay mind works. Let's force the Attorney General and the County State's Attorney to defend a law that they are on record as saying is unconstitutional.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Ought to work out real well when the plaintiffs call them to the stand to testify what they actually believe.

It'll achieve the exact same results as a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, but you gotta admit, their plan is far more entertaining.

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#20 Jun 25, 2012
Pappa wrote:
<quoted text>
It't their job. If they can't or won't do it, they should be fired.
it's their job to defend the constitution... not laws that they know are against that constitution. grow up.

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#21 Jun 25, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
When we have a rogue prosecutor obstructing justice at the highest level of government, it sends the wrong signal to attorneys throughout the country. Yet, this use of anarchy is what tyranny has always used and promoted to gain power.
um... you didn't read the article, did you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Illinois Government Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Fox's Gretchen Carlson said "connotation" of Ob... (Mar '08) 17 hr Geriatric pride 3
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) Nov 1 CDC 52,052
News Ill. state employee union calls on Legislature ... (Jan '10) Oct '17 C Kersey 2
News Morning Spin: How Rauner signing abortion bill ... Oct '17 Le Jimbo 1
News Illinois governor agrees to allow Medicaid for ... Sep '17 Choicerocks 2
News Private school tax credit surprises, riles some... Sep '17 Retribution 24
News Illinois conservative group's cartoon sparks ra... Aug '17 Red Crosse 9
More from around the web