You’re not a judge. Do your job!

Though I agree that what is good for the goose is good for the gander:

As John Moll pointed at at the end of his comment, we can discriminate between the actions of Brown and Van Hollen on the basis of the resulting effects on society. That’s not hypocrisy. The real world often requires finely drawn judgments to be made.

We do not typically refer to black civil rights protesters of the MLK era as criminals even though they often were by the books. We do refer to those who sought to stop the protests (or civil rights progress) as at least anti-American even though they were often acting legally by the law books of the time.

Process is not the only thing. Outcomes matter as well.

But I think I agree that what we should be decrying is not the process here (unless one wants to make the argument that though currently unrecognized the US constitution both guarantees equality and tops this state constitution [and/or find a clause in that constitution which acts similarly]), but why can’t we name this for the chicken-hearted pandering and bigotry it is?

So if Brown and Van Hollen both held reasonable, good faith beliefs that defending a law passed by the legislature or by popular initiative violated their state constitution, they would NOT have a legal duty to defend it.

If the votes agree or disagree with that decision of the AG, it is up to them to either re-elect or boot out of office that AG, as they see fit.

The Obama Administration, through US AG Holder, reluctantly agreed to defend DOMA – because although they disagree with this policy, they do not find it rises to the level of unconstitutionality.

There is nothing inconsistent with the actions of of AGs Holder, Brown, and Van Hollen on the underlying legal rationale for either defending or not defending existing laws.

Of course, on the topical legal issues presented, only AG Brown took a stance that reflects enlightened legal thinking and understands that the law must recognize LGBT people as full and equal citizens under the law.

So how come Obama feels obligated to defend DOMA, when he clearly is not?

True an AG like or not, is supposed defend a manure pile of a law no matter how rotten and vile it might “smell”. It is not up to an AG to change or to make up law as he or she goes along. It’s up to the legislature to do the law changing and the AG is supposed to defend that too. That is his job and that is what his powers are: to defend even the vilest, smelliest dung-heap of a law that passed. But however, that doesn’t mean that a law isn’t immoral and reprehensible just because it passed into law. Reprehensible simply because it denies the dignity that is the birthright of every human being. And that doesn’t mean I won’t shake his hand (because I would shake his hand if I could) for putting the dignity, value and worth of human beings over a law that should broken a million times each second.

The time will come when a young generation coast to coast will come of age and say what the hell were these blighted state governments thinking of when they passed worthless trash for legislation that needs to thrown into and buried deep in a landfill as soon as possible.

I won’t argue over the rights and wrong of what Jerry Brown did or didn’t do, but he is hero in my book for not putting up with discriminatory and oppressive legal filth and rubbish and for putting the right to equality for all California citizens first over a vile, wretched and dehumanizing law.

Oh my, the people of Wisconsin voted to deny LGBTQ people the basic rights that any heterosexual couple takes for granted.

You can bet that this man has a right-wing agenda above and beyond his role as AG.

I don’t give a damn what those yahoos in Wisconsin think: NO ONE should be able to determine the civil rights of others!

If it wasn’t for theeeem thar cowwwz cheewin’ thaat cuud, yuu miiight neever haaav sum milllk!! Miiiilk doon’t cuum fram a caartun, it cuums fram a cowwww!

Now when the AG of another state makes the same decision – concerning a law with the opposite viewpoint – he is being pilloried.

So, which is it? Does a state attorney general have a right to refuse to defend legislation he or she believes is unconstitutional or not?