A Quick Tip by djevoke

Actually, this is not a thing to celebrate (and I'm really not talking about any position on gay marriage). You can't have the highest elected official (and any of his/her appointments) deciding what laws should and should not be enforced and/or defended in court. Arguably, that's an impeachable offense, if there ever were one, and let me give you an example to support my position. Suppose any other elected official (it doesn't have to be a President) decides defending speed limits is no longer defensible in court (yeah, yeah, don't get me going on how it may or may not be a valid comparison b/c then we could be at this for hours, and I really don't have the energy or interest in that). Every one of us knows that speed limits are the law of the land, and enforcing them saves lives (I think everyone can presume that's correct). So, if an elected official said, "Yeah, we ain't gonna defend those who break that law," would it be acceptable? We choose these people to serve in these roles PREDICATED on the requirement that they enforce the law. Other political commentators have already pointed out "How would you feel if President McCain refused to defend a woman's right to choose?" What Obama and those he's surrounded himself are doing is saying that they're ABOVE the law by choosing which ones they're going to support, despite the fact that the law may or may NOT be on the books. If anything, I'd strongly support the federal government really getting out of what should be states' rights issues, but you can't have the AG saying, "We're not going to defend that." Sorry, folks, but that's just wrong. And, yes, I agree that love shouldn't have a gender. I don't believe the fed should be involved in defining ANY type of love, but you can't have elected officials saying that they're NOT going to enforce/defend the law. That isn't any form of representative democracy I know of. That's political anarchy, and it isn't right. Just my two cents.