Eric Holder is lawless. He admitted it. He told state attorneys general that they do not have to enforce state laws that prohibit same-sex marriage:

“U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told the New York Times that if a state has a gay marriage ban in place and that state’s Attorney General doesn’t agree with it, he or she does not have to defend it.

“Byron York of the Washington Examiner is stunned by Holder encouraging AGs to ignore their oaths of office if they have a personal problem with a particular law.”

The Times article, always beholden to the Obama administration, spun the lawless nature of Holder’s comments with this:

“Mr. Holder was careful not to encourage his state counterparts to disavow their own laws, but said that officials who have carefully studied bans on gay marriage could refuse to defend them.”

Are we to assume that this new way at looking at state laws applies to all laws? If an attorney general of a state carefully studied laws allowing abortions and found them morally and legally abhorrent, are we to assume that the AG could then refuse to defend them?

So in addition to federal judges overruling state laws, we now have the nation’s top law officer clearing the legal hurdles and sanctions for state law offices to ignore an established law.

Such authority is not given to an attorney general. Such laws must come for the legislative branch of state government.

The Times article goes on:

“Six state attorneys general — all Democrats — have refused to defend bans on same-sex marriage, prompting criticism from Republicans who say they have a duty to stand behind their state laws, even if they do not agree with them.

“It is highly unusual for the United States attorney general to advise his state counterparts on how and when to refuse to defend state laws. But Mr. Holder said when laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection, an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it. He said the decision should never be political or based on policy objections.”

Holder’s reasoning begs the question. He is assuming what must be proved. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples (and down the road polygamy) was done by judicial fiat. Just because Mr. Holder and five unelected Supreme Court justices have determined that same-sex marriage is an “equal protection” issue does not make it so.

Seven Supreme Court justices in 1973, also by judicial fiat, declared that unborn babies are not afforded equal protection under the law. 55 million unborn babies paid for this miscarriage of justice with their lives. Redefining when life begins and what constitutes a marriage have grave moral and social consequences.

Holder likes to compare racial discrimination to same-sex relationships. Being black is not a behavior; it’s not a sex act. What an insult to his own race.

Black Christian rapper Bizzle explains it like this:

So quit comparing the two it ain’t the same fight
You can play straight. We can never play white.
“Using black people as pawns for your agenda. . .”

 Bizzle is right. Holder is a “sellout,” so much so that “members of the Coalition of African American Pastors have  launched a petition drive calling for the impeachment of  . . .Eric Holder. The Rev. Bill Owens, president and founder of the Coalition, told the National Press Club in a speech Tuesday that Holder had violated his oath of office by trying to ‘coerce states to fall in line with the same-sex marriage agenda.'”