Should the CA Attorney General Defend Prop?
By bobmnu
@bobmnu (8157)
United States
December 21, 2008 10:20pm CST
The people of California have spoken on the definition of Marriage. Now there is a group challenging the issue in court. The Attorney General, who works for the State of California and there fore the people, has come out saying that he supports the courts overturning the voters of California. Should the Attorney General be working against the people of California? If he supports the overturning of the voters should he resign from his post?
2 responses
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
25 Dec 08
I'm going to play devil's advocate here; part of me doesn't understand why something like this was even put to a vote before the people. I mean, if it's something that's going to affect everyone, like a tax increase or a new law, then the people should have a say in it but why should I get to say who you can marry or vice versa? It wouldn't change my life in the least bit but the ban hurts many people. What will be the next thing somebody decides to "redefine" that will interfere with people's private lives? What if somebody decided everyone has to get sterilized to keep the population down and the majority voted for it? What if only those who wanted and were able to have children were allowed to marry? What will be next?
Annie
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
28 Dec 08
Technically, the CA AG should defend Prop 8 since it is the law but I feel it should take more than a percentage or two to amend the state constitution. I'm sorry, I know that's off-topic, too, but I do find it disturbing that some people are so concerned with the personal matters of others when there are so many pressing problems to worry about. I have no personal stake in this since I'm not gay and have no family members who are, but I do have some gay friends and some of them have been together longer and are more faithful and devoted to each other than many of my straight friends. I don't think the Religious Right will be happy until everyone conforms to their standards.
Annie
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
31 Dec 08
Why should one judge or a panel of judges have more say than the people who are folloing what their Consitiution says? I beleive that the orginal ruling was that the Consitiution was mute on the subject so the judges decided that gay marriage was legal. The issue was pointed out that polomigy was only forbidden by law and not the Consitiution so was that not legal also? The people voted to define marriage as one man and one woman and a majority of the voters agreed, as is the legal manner. If they want it changed then the proper way is to change the consititution not have a judge say I don't think it is right.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
29 Dec 08
So people who don't have kids should have no say about laws concerning kids? People who aren't in the military shouldn't have a say about military matters? Atheists shouldn't have a say about matters of religion?
We don't live in vacuums where our decisions and choices don't effect anyone else. Changing the definition of marriage does affect everyone in the culture...even if we want to think it doesn't.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
22 Dec 08
The only way he could support the court overturning a Constitutional Ammendment from the bench would be to violate his oath of office.
He has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the State of California. So has the California Supreme Court. They are duty bound to uphold the Constitution.
What the Attorney General is saying is he doesn't care about his oath or anything else, he only cares about his political agenda and doesn't care how it it fulfilled.
This is how tyrants work, not elected officials.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
23 Dec 08
It seems that we are getting more and more tyrants elected to public office. In Minnesota the Sectary of State, who oversees the recount of the Senate Race is a supporter of Obama, and supports ACORN. He will help to decide who represents Minnesota in the Senate. Teh Sect of State in Ohio refused to check out voters saying that it would be too much work to check to see if they were legal to vote. We have elected Tyrants.
