Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your right to your religion can't be infringed upon. So if a gay couple wants to get married who is going to marry them? If you force a priest to marry them, than his religious rights are being infringed upon. So gay couples can't get married in the church that upholds God's word. You see marriage is an oath you take with God. Not something that people just made up.
I don't think you know what a Civil Marriage is, it has nothing to do with your god.
That's fine, I don't mind being a hypocrite when fighting against something that is unconstitutional. I am sure you would support someone ignoring gun bans as well.
You're something else. Even if you want to dance around the refusal to defend the SSM ban, you can make no such distinction in the refusal to enforce the gun laws of PA, as the state AG did. Is the gun law unconstitutional? Let's face it. You don't have a problem with officials disobeying the laws, just with officials disobeying/refusing to enforce laws that you disagree with.
What you are failing to understand is it was the law at the time, it's the courts job to decide the constitutionality and that was not decided yet. It was the AG's duty to defend it, that's the law. That was her job just like it's the clerks job to issue a marriage license.
The law is the law, government employees and elected officials should be strictly held to them.
Its not worth it arguing with someone who cannot properly reason. I responded to that poster before seeing the continuing, nonsensical back and forth.
I would vote against any AG defending such laws, as I do not want them wasting taxpayer $. I want them to have common sense.
Apart from the fact that the AG you'd want in office would be abdicating his/her responsibilities and constitutional duties (you're really OK with that?), I hope you realize the precedent such a position sets. What is "common sense" to you isn't necessarily common sense to someone else. When you have AG's deciding which laws to defend and which laws not to defend based on "common sense," the legal system is gravely threatened. Not to mention that I'm sure you'll eventually get an AG who, based on those principles, failed to defend a law that you aggressively support because the AG believes that it is "common sense" not to defend the laws. But, thankfully, this AG is likely on her way out and into jail.
You're something else. Even if you want to dance around the refusal to defend the SSM ban, you can make no such distinction in the refusal to enforce the gun laws of PA, as the state AG did. Is the gun law unconstitutional? Let's face it. You don't have a problem with officials disobeying the laws, just with officials disobeying/refusing to enforce laws that you disagree with.
I am also not talking about gun laws, nor am I familiar with what the AG in PA is or has done regarding gun laws in that state. Though this topic that the tread is about, this state employee needs to either do their job or be fired and replaced by someone else who can do that job.
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania is also sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States. When the attorney general determines that a state law is in conflict with the Constitution, it is certainly within their discretion to refuse to defend that state law.
The oath of office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm*) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity."
You're missing THE point. Such a determination isn't for the AG to make (the AG is not a judge charged with stating what the law means), but for the courts to make. And, until there is finality on a decision, an AG is bound to continue fighting for the law. This is whether we're talking about SSM bans or gun laws (in PA's cases).
I am also not talking about gun laws, nor am I familiar with what the AG in PA is or has done regarding gun laws in that state. Though this topic that the tread is about, this state employee needs to either do their job or be fired and replaced by someone else who can do that job.
Yes, this topic essentially deals with whether state employees need to do their jobs or be fired and replaced by someone else who can do that job. That applies to state attorneys general who refuse to defend their states' laws. This is regardless of whether the law deals with marriage, gun rights/control, etc. Its one thing if the courts have spoken to an issue and the legislature has, defiantly, passed a law anyway (in that case, the AG could simply cite to binding precedent and say that the law has already been ruled illegal/unconstitutional). But that was not the case in PA when the AG first decided to not defend the marriage laws (and, note, I support SSM, not that it should matter for the purposes of this debate) and is not the case now with the gun law. If you cannot understand this point, there is nothing more to be said.
The state employees aren't priests nor preachers, they are clerks who issue the marriage licenses for the state. Apples and oranges as the gays aren't asking churches to marry them.
Except the Hobby Lobby decision would seem to blur the lines between such a distinction. Still, this isn't Hobby Lobby as the underlying issue in that case wasn't the denial of a constitutional right (i.e. there is no constitutional right for employees to provide contraception), but a true infringement on the right of private citizens to not have a government mandate, not required by them, forced upon them.
Yes, this topic essentially deals with whether state employees need to do their jobs or be fired and replaced by someone else who can do that job. That applies to state attorneys general who refuse to defend their states' laws. This is regardless of whether the law deals with marriage, gun rights/control, etc. Its one thing if the courts have spoken to an issue and the legislature has, defiantly, passed a law anyway (in that case, the AG could simply cite to binding precedent and say that the law has already been ruled illegal/unconstitutional). But that was not the case in PA when the AG first decided to not defend the marriage laws (and, note, I support SSM, not that it should matter for the purposes of this debate) and is not the case now with the gun law. If you cannot understand this point, there is nothing more to be said.
And? So you think this employee and the AG in PA should be fired for not doing their job?
Your right to your religion can't be infringed upon. So if a gay couple wants to get married who is going to marry them? If you force a priest to marry them, than his religious rights are being infringed upon. So gay couples can't get married in the church that upholds God's word. You see marriage is an oath you take with God. Not something that people just made up.
True, you can't force someone to marry others against their will. But that's not the issue. The issue is what action the government can take against public officers who refuse to issue licenses in contravention of the law/Constitution. If the government forced the clerk in this case to issue the marriage license against her will, then we'd have a 1st Amendment issue. That said, this is different than the government firing the clerk and replacing the clerk (and issuing an order that clerks may not lawfully deny such licenses if they hope to remain clerks) with someone else who wants to do the work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's face it. You don't have a problem with officials disobeying the laws, just with officials disobeying/refusing to enforce laws that you disagree with.
You're missing THE point. Such a determination isn't for the AG to make (the AG is not a judge charged with stating what the law means), but for the courts to make. And, until there is finality on a decision, an AG is bound to continue fighting for the law. This is whether we're talking about SSM bans or gun laws (in PA's cases).
