State attorneys general are switching sides on gay marriage; 'The right side of history'

  • Article by: BROCK VERGAKIS , Associated Press
  • Updated: February 14, 2014 - 3:10 PM

NORFOLK, Va. — The day after a federal judge struck down Virginia's gay-marriage ban, state Attorney General Mark Herring wasn't vowing to appeal or insisting his state's law was sound.

  • 3
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 3 of 3
mn2niceFeb. 14, 14 6:48 PM

The job of an attorney is not just to represent the client, but it is primarily to uphold, defend, and support the Constitution of the United States of America, and when it becomes apparent to an attorney, whether that attorney is representing a private client or a government entity, that the law being used to form a defense is unconstitutional, that attorney had a duty to first and foremost protect the Constitution. And in this case it is laws in states that violate the Constitution.

4
0
bigticketFeb. 15, 14 7:36 AM

Funny that the article fails to mention that this guy is not only a democrat but that Clinton lap dog and DNC leader Terry McAuliffe is the states governor and almost assuredly never would have supported or allowed a challenge anyway. This guy won election to office which he initially lost but somehow during a recount over 2000 more votes for him were found. Amazing how that always seems to happen.

0
0
jjsbrwFeb. 15, 1412:21 PM

The legal arguments banning gay marriage are falling one after another. The problem states with bans face is that the majority of states will recognize gay marriage within just the next few years. The federal gov't recognizes it. How will they possibly hold out in the face of this? Let me use another example. Say a Catholic hospital in the South, such as St. Dominic in Jackson, MS, admits an acute trauma patient who is comatose who was married legally to a same sex partner in another state (maybe they are travelling in MS). Should St. Dominic be allowed to discriminate against that patient's spouse based on the Catholic Church's doctrine? Should they be allowed to refuse the spouse's input on medical treatment? Refuse admittance to the spouse because in the church's eyes, they are not "really" married? There is no possible way the hospital would do this to other married couples. What's happening is that the arguments are just not holding up.

0
0
  • 1 - 3 of 3

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT