Holder Says State Attorneys General Don’t Have to Defend Gay Marriage Bans
By MATT APUZZO
Washington — Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Monday that state attorneys general who believe that laws in their states banning same-sex marriage are discriminatory are not obligated to defend them.
Mr. Holder was careful not to encourage his state counterparts to disavow their own laws, but his position, which he described in an interview with The New York Times, injects the Obama administration into the debate over gay marriage playing out in court cases in many states.
Six state attorneys general – all Democrats – have refused to defend bans on same-sex marriage, prompting criticism from Republicans who say they have a duty to defend their state laws, not just the ones they agree with.
Mr. Holder said when laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection, an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it. He said the decision should never be political or based on policy objections.
“Engaging in that process and making that determination is something that’s appropriate for an attorney general to do,” Mr. Holder said.
As an example, Mr. Holder cited the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case that forced public school integration in 1954.
“If I were attorney general in Kansas in 1953, I would not have defended a Kansas statute that put in place separate-but-equal facilities,” Mr. Holder said.
It is highly unusual for the United States attorney general to advise his state counterparts on how and when to do refuse to defend state laws. Mr. Holder is scheduled to address the National Association of Attorneys General at a conference on Tuesday.
“It really isn’t his job to give us advice on defending our constitutions any more than it’s our role to give him advice on how to do his job,” said Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen of Wisconsin, a Republican who serves as president of that bipartisan group. “We are the ultimate defenders of our state constitutions.”
Mr. Holder’s own refusal to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 2011 helped lead to last year’s Supreme Court decision striking down the law as unconstitutional.
Despite last year’s ruling, the Supreme Court has not weighed in on whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry. The legal battleground, for now, has shifted to the states, and the collective voice of several attorneys general refusing to defend their laws could help sway those cases.
One of those cases is in Wisconsin, where four same-sex couples sued earlier this month to overturn the state’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Mr. Van Hollen said Mr. Holder’s analysis might make sense in rare cases related to state laws. In states that have passed constitutional amendments, however, attorneys general must defend them, he said.
“If there’s one clear-cut job I have,” he said, “it’s to defend my Constitution.”
In Nevada, Oregon, Virginia and Pennsylvania, state attorneys general have refused to defend bans on same-sex marriage. Attorneys general in California and Illinois once similarly refused to defend bans that have since been overturned.
“The answers to these questions are crystal clear,” said Gary Buseck, legal director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. “Attorneys general can’t close their eyes to something that’s blatantly unconstitutional. They’re not supposed to defend the laws at all costs.
By Debbie Baldwin
Everybody has a cell phone, and almost everybody texts. Texting is easy, cheap, fun, mildly illicit, and it makes you feel cool—it’s kind of like the 21st-century’s version of smoking. And not unlike smoking, it can be offensive at certain times. The good news is, after a solid decade of text capability, certain rules of order have been established; an E-tiquette, if you will. Now before you decide to forward this to the closest teenager you can find, know that I have seen as many—if not more—offenses committed by an older demographic. Texting, like chewing gum, done anywhere but in the privacy of your own room, runs the risk of offense, so here are some basic parameters.
Rule No. 1: You are not that important. Unless you are waiting for the arrival of a transplant organ or need the launch codes for a nuclear weapon, the text probably can wait. That seems simple, but it can be hard to remember when the movie is reaching its climax and your friends want to know if you’re supposed to be meeting at Bennigan’s or Applebees.
Rule No. 2: There is a difference between silent and vibrate. We can all hear that annoying little buzz-buzz as your phone dances across the table. In a weird way, it’s more irritating than a full-blown ring.
Rule No. 3: Know how your phone works. This sounds simple, but you might be surprised. Do you know how to dim your screen, where your flashlight is, how to silence a call, and how to set and control the various alerts? All useful skills.
Rule No. 4: Almost any phone-related activity is acceptable, if handled appropriately and politely. A simple,Excuse me, I need to take this, works wonders. That being said, there still are areas that are undeniably off-limits:
Forbidden at:
Funerals
She lived such a full life…But you, you’re going to hell. You may chuckle at the absurdity of this, but there’s a trend developing involving tweets and selfies at funerals.
Job Interviews
Hard to imagine a text more important than the offer.
Driving
Much like the resultant crash, this is a no-brainer.
Take off and landing
See above.
Frowned upon during:
Movies
Just make an effort—dim the screen, silence the type, be quick.
Class
If the teacher doesn’t confiscate the phone, have at it.
Meetings
Seems like this is common practice. It tells the rest of the people in the room that you have important things going on—lots of balls in the air.
Dinner Parties/Family Holiday Get-Togethers
These are presumably the most important people in your life. If you’re texting, invite that person, too.
Free-for-all places:
Malls
Airports
Grocery stores
Sports venues
West Hollywood
Bars
Salons
Public transportation
That about covers it. As for new territory, well, we’ll cross that virtual bridge when we come to it.
I was very inspired by a book club meeting where several women brought healthy, delicious soups. Hopefully, I’ll be making this delicious recipe sometime soon!
Ingredients
- Soup:
- 5 bacon slices, chopped $
- 1 1/2 cups chopped onion $
- 2 tablespoons minced fresh garlic
- 2 (4-inch) portobello mushroom caps, chopped
- 1 (3-pound) whole chicken, skinned $
- 1 thyme sprig
- 4 1/2 quarts cold water
- 8 ounces Swiss chard
- 1 cup uncooked pearl barley, rinsed and drained
- 1 cup (1/2-inch) cubed peeled butternut squash
- 1/2 cup finely chopped carrot $
- 1/2 cup finely chopped celery $
- 1/4 cup finely chopped Granny Smith apple
- 1 habanero pepper
- 3/4 teaspoon salt $
- 1/4 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
- Pesto:
- 1/4 cup walnuts, toasted
- 1/4 cup (1 ounce) freshly grated Parmigiano-Reggiano cheese
- 2 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil $
- 1 tablespoon minced fresh garlic
- 1/4 teaspoon salt $
Preparation
- 1. Cook bacon in a large skillet over medium heat until crisp. Add onion, garlic, and mushrooms to pan; cook 5 minutes, stirring frequently. Set aside.
- 2. Remove and discard giblets and neck from chicken. Place chicken and thyme in a large Dutch oven over medium heat. Cover with 4 1/2 quarts cold water; bring to a simmer. Skim fat from surface; discard. Remove stems and center ribs from Swiss chard. Coarsely chop stems and ribs; reserve leaves. Add stems, ribs, and next 5 ingredients (through apple) to pan; bring to a simmer. Pierce habanero with a fork; add to pan. Cook 35 minutes or until chicken is done.
- 3. Remove chicken from pan; cool slightly. Remove chicken from bones; chop meat. Discard bones, thyme sprig, and habanero. Strain barley mixture through a sieve over a bowl. Reserve 4 cups of broth for another use. Return remaining 6 cups broth to pan; bring to a boil. Cook 10 minutes. Return chicken and barley mixture to pan; bring to a simmer. Add mushroom mixture. Cook 2 minutes or until thoroughly heated. Stir in 3/4 teaspoon salt and black pepper.
- 4. To prepare pesto, cook Swiss chard leaves in boiling water 2 minutes. Drain and rinse under cold water; drain. Place leaves, walnuts, and remaining ingredients in a food processor; process until smooth. Serve with soup.
The title for this post is the title of a book conservative author and media personality, Phyllis Schlafly, self published in her battle over the Equal Rights Amendment. Back then, she was worried that government regulation would rob women of their choice to stay home as housewives and mothers. It is an equally forceful title today. But one that has taken on new meaning.
I just got back from Lincoln Days, the Republican Party’s convention here in Missouri. And one of the more memorable moments for me this weekend was when a woman raised her hand and said, “Republicans need to be proud to be Republicans again.” “Like Phyllis Schlafly said, we need a choice, not an echo.” The guest speaker at this luncheon was Sharon Day, who is co-chair of the Republican National Party. She talked at length about what the party is doing to recruit candidates and to open up the Party to women and minorities. Seated just down the dais from her was the Hon. Catherine Hanaway, a former U.S. Attorney and the first woman to serve as Speaker of the House. If elected, she will be Missouri’s first female Governor.
It’s shaping up to be an interesting battle. Her likely opponent is a Democrat who used to be a Republican. He left over the party’s litmus tests and hard lines. Hanaway has opened up her coalition to include suburban Republicans as well as conservatives outstate. A moderate in temperament and approach, Hanaway has consistently been a team player for the Republicans. And as a prosecutor, she has put child pornographers away and shed a spotlight on Missouri’s newest black eye, human trafficking.
I drove down to Springfield on I-44, on a stretch of highway named after Gov. Mel Carnahan, a Democrat who died in a tragic plane crash in the midst of a heated Senate race against Republican John Ashcroft. I took note of that sign as I drove on while the audio version of the book, Faith and Politics, by retired Republican Sen. John C. Danforth, played on the cd player in my car. I was listening for inspiration because I wasn’t sure what I would find in Springfield. I tried to commit certain phrases to memory like, “faith is not politics,” and “reconciliation”.
After blogging as a relatively radical moderate Republican woman for the last two and half years, I needed to psych myself up because I wasn’t sure what kind of reception I might get or what reconciliation might look like. I needed to know it would be okay to say I am pro-choice, pro-gay and pro-stem cell in a state that saw some of its top scientists leave over laws that restricted medical research or that is currently debating whether to recognize the marriages of gay couples who were legally wed in other states.
The wheel is just beginning to turn, even if Missouri Republicans are only in the most initial stages of change, at least in terms of their messaging. Sure, there is still the occasional recalcitrant who gets up and declares the Republican Party, “The Pro-Life Party.” My goodness. But overall, if there was an echo, it is that the national GOP is in the midst of some earnest, and some might say overdue, self-improvement. Yes, there are many women who are pro-life in that party, including Hanaway. But, there seems to be a growing acknowledgement that it may be time to acknowledge there are lots of other kinds of Republicans out there. Continuing to draw battle lines over women’s issues is just slowing the party down from its’ other work.
Voters will have a choice that they haven’t had in the past. Do they take the long view and get on board with the party that shut down the federal government over its’ opposition to Obamacare? Do they help usher in more female candidates and hope that these women can be more willing and flexible negotiators in reconciling the thorniest issues of our day? Will Republicans on the fringes put their differences aside over single issues, especially social issues, so they can focus on job creation? If there was a message echoing from Springfield this weeked, it is that the Missouri Republicans have realized choosing to be more inclusive is the right choice.