Photographer Jim wrote:
For the sake of clarity, this is NOT at all what the Attorney General said. He did not tell the state Attorneys General to ignore any state laws. Holder did weigh in on a controversial discussion that has been going on for some time; were state Attorneys General obligated to defend their state's gay marriage bans when challenged in the courts, or as has been the case in a number of states (California for one, recently Oregon, and Virginia), could they decide to not defend the law? He stated that it is his opinion that they are not obligated to defend such laws if after thorough review they feel the law discriminates in a way that would be in violation of the Constitution. it is also important to note that Holder did not urge the state Attorneys General to refuse to defend such laws, and did suggest that the failure to defend a law should be a rare occurrence, and the decision to do so should be based solely on constitutional arguments, not personal or political policy. Given that a number of state AGs have already taken that position, it seems totally appropriate for the fed AG to comment, but he in no way urged, ordered, or suggested a policy for the state AGs to follow.
So, I have no reason to feel outraged, in that what was posted is simply factually wrong.
For the sake of clarity, this is NOT at all what t... (
show quote)
This is only a part of where the outrage of the people comes from.
The basis of the rage is when the libs change the definition of our language to mean what they choose to do an end run around the Constitution and at times Congress to pass laws that are blatantly violations against the Constitution and the people.
The saddest part is that the majority of the people (who know little to nothing about the Constitution because it hasn't been taught in schools for years) do not question what the regime puts out.