« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
10/28/2009
Deceivers, Generally target our Attorney General
Attorney General Eric Holder was in Maine recently, that much is true. And it's also accurate to say that while there, he was asked to weigh in on Question One. But the story that is most notable to gay activists is how little he said to support the NO ON 1 side. That's because he didn't say that he supports our side, instead suggesting that both he and the president feel that it's up to the states to make these decisions.
In fact, Holder raised eyebrows for this very thing earlier today, when the AG told Towleroad's Corey Johnson...
"I don't really know enough about the referendum over there to comment."
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER PRAISES HATE CRIMES LAW, LACKS FAMILIARITY WITH MAINE MARRIAGE EQUALITY BALLOT MEASURE [Towle]
So it's not like he's been decked out in his "NO ON 1" cheerleader's uniform. It's been more like a middle-ground muzzle on this particular ballot question.
But never underestimate the Family Research Council's ability to disregard fact in order to demonize gays/ Democrats / anyone who finds it difficult to walk when standing in lock step. Instead, they print outright bullsh*t like this:
Fresh off of its "hate crimes" victory, the Obama administration is taking its radical social agenda on the road. In the middle of a heated campaign in Maine, the man tasked with defending our national marriage law traveled north to discredit it. Last Friday, Attorney General Eric Holder made a strategic stop at the University of Maine where he told the audience that the Defense of Marriage Act--which is under attack in the very state he visited-- "is discriminatory and should be repealed." In other words, America's highest ranking law enforcer made a stopover in Maine to campaign for same-sex "marriage" on the eve of a vote to outlaw it.
Talk about a conflict of interest! The definition of marriage, which the Justice Department has sworn to defend, has been threatened, and his response is an active appeal to abandon DOMA altogether. Eric Holder may not care about upholding the law, but we do. Join us in giving the "Yes on Question 1" campaign a final boost before next Tuesday. Send your prayers--and your contributions--to Stand for Marriage Maine.
Holder Your Tongue! [FRC]
Uhm, yea -- Holder is against DOMA. This administration is against DOMA. Nobody's made any bones about that.
But the fact remains that the Attorney General wholly restrained himself from weighing in on this particular ballot initiative. Heck, the FRC should be thrilled that he basically said to let the Maine voters decide the matter, considering they knew he wasn't going to come out for their side. But nothing's good enough for these folks. They are spinning the Attorney General's visit to make is sound like it was a whistlestop tour of the Pine Tree State's gay bars, wherein he advised all of the local same-sex couples on why its more beneficial to register at Williams-Sonoma than at Crate and Barrel! They are turning a situation in which he avoided all conflict into a make-believe "conflict of interest." And all because their interest is to create unnecessary conflict with LGBT people and their allies!
But why should we be surprised? After all, Holder is a legal professional, and we all know that FRC has never met a member of the legal profession who they can't spin as "activist." So gross.
Your thoughts
When does the attorney general swear to defend the"definition of marriage"?
Posted by: Piper | Oct 28, 2009 10:39:43 PM
Tony Perkins has a conflict of interest, in that his paycheck is contingent on his rabid denunciation of all things LGBT and in any way progressive. But, we all know his conflict of interest, and because of that, every word coming out of his mouth gets cast with the hateful homophobe hue, so no one trusts that he is telling the truth. Thus, he (technically) can't be "corrupt" as a result. That lack of "corruption" is wholly due to the fact that it is widely known that he earns a living as a hatefilled homophobe.
The fact that a conflict of interest may exist, doesn't make it corrupt. The only "corruption" would be if Holder refused to defend the law in court, because of a conflict of interest, especially if that "conflict of interest" was kept secret. It is virtually impossible to find any political appointee who doesn't have conflicts of interest - and there is nothing wrong with that unless they conceal the conflict, and allow their personal conflict to motivate their actions.
One can have valid concerns about a law's fairness and still defend the law in court. Having concerns about a law, thinking that it is discriminatory, thinking that it should be repealed, and even campaigning to overturn a law, all (for an AG) could constitute conflicts of interest. But as long as Holder fairly defends the law in court (which could include challenging the law himself), and as long as he discloses those conflicts, then no corruption occurs. And, Holder has not, in any way, attempted to conceal those conflicts of interest.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Oct 29, 2009 2:51:04 AM
I think I prefer Maine's Attorney General.
Have you seen this?
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=292761
Excerpt:
Bolstered by the ruling, Maine's Attorney General challenged [NOM] Wednesday night to make its records public before next week's vote on Question 1.
"We are not going to give them legal advice. We trust that their legal counsel will advise them to comply fully," said Attorney General Janet Mills. "The court has ruled that it is in the public interest to do so, and the law couldn't be clearer."
"I would hope that they would file before the election," Mills said. "Why not? What is there to hide?"
My thoughts:
The initial, now outdated, reaction to the ruling is still being repeated by both the LGBT blogs and the Maine press, namely:
"The judge's decision on Wednesday will have no immediate impact on [NOM]."
Not true. Not right. Maine voters deserve an explanation and response from NOM *before* the close of this campaign.
According to Maine’s Attorney General, the ruling clearly indicates that NOM’s compliance with Maine election law is in the public interest. Maine law is clear and NOM should comply *before* polls open.
Absent comment or action by NOM, Mainers can only conclude that NOM have decided to ignore the proposition that voters have a right to know who is behind ballot issues before casting their votes -- a proposition that Maine's Attorney General has reaffirmed today.
It is now an urgent matter to correct the false assumption that the recent court decision didn’t bring an immediate impact. It did. It put the onus on NOM to either comply before ballots are cast or come up with a damn good publicly-stated reason for why they won’t.
"Why not? What is there to hide?"
Posted by: LdChino | Oct 29, 2009 6:02:24 AM
Talk to us
*Why are my comments not appearing? See the G-A-Y Comments Policy
