idiot logic

Anti-Marriage Groups Want Attorneys General Defending the Law (When It’s Convenient)

891401

Maybe right-wing “conservative” hate groups should compare notes before plotting strategy to defeat marriage rights, because their tactics in going after attorneys general who choose to defend laws on the books go in complete opposite directions. Sometimes they cheer when AGs defend laws. Sometimes they hate it! Can they possible like it both ways?

When California Attorney General Jerry Brown declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in a response to Perry v. Schwarzenegger, he also announced he wasn’t going to bother defending it. The Family Research Council had a problem with this! They went so far as to call for Brown’s impeachment, because he was not doing his job and defending the law.

Fast forward to this week, when Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen (pictured) declared that even though legislators and the governor passed a law permitting a domestic partnership registry, he would not go to court to defend the law. Yet, as Good As You notes, this move was applauded by Wisconsin Family Action and the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the group in court.

Of course, WFA and ADF will point out that Hollen, while not defending the legislature’s law, is defending the constitution; Wisconsin voters approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

But this strategy will come around to bite ’em in the ass: Either anti-marriage groups want attorneys general to defend the law, or they don’t. These people are the last we expected to swing both ways.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #california #familyresearchcouncil #focusonthefamily stories and more

3 Comments

  • Rick

    CONSERVATIVE FAIL.

    Sorry, I repeated myself.

  • Emily

    The other fun aspect of this is that the constitutional amendment is currently facing a lawsuit that alleges it was illegal in the first place because it placed two issues up for one vote (by banning both gay marriage and anything “substantially similar”).

    Since Van Hollen and the likes of WFA are claiming the domestic partnership registry is “substantially similar,” it does a lot to bolster the lawsuit’s claims and expose them for the liars they are–WFA and amendment proponents spent the campaign vehemently denying that the amendment would be used to ban domestic partnerships.

    Good times!

  • Rick

    @Emily:

    Em,

    This is all to similar to the lies that Ken Starr and his hateful cronies told during the whole Prop H8 deal when they said they were not going to move to invalidate marriages that took place before the vote.

    Then they did.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.html

    Sadly, we are neither surprised or amused.

Comments are closed.