CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 24, 2014 10:21 AM UTC
33 Comments
I wonder if he feels that divorce and remarriage redefines marriage or belittles it. The arrogance and ignorance in that statement alone makes him unfit for any office. If gay marriage discourages opposite-sex couples from staying together, then they have deeper problems that they need to discuss.
My wife and I married 24 years ago with no intention of having kids, so I guess Suthers would similarly condemn us for belittling marriage.
My mom remarried in her early 70s. Obviously no possibility of kids. Should senior marriage be banned?
Endlessly defending the indefensible? …hmmm, where have we seen this behavior before? Hey, Elliot….maybe you can explain Suthers' behavior….
Coffman is way out in front in the AG's race according to the recent Dem PPP poll.
Why would someone cruising to win an election throw in the towel?
Throw in the towel on defending a ban on same-sex marriage, not on the election altogether.
I am pretty sure that call is made by Suthers, the AG, not his deputy, but I suspect you know that.
If Coffman gets elected it will have ended well for her.
It's early for the downballot races. No-one has really taken time to know these candidates yet, and we're in the summer political doldrums right now where no-one is going to take that time.
There is no way that Wayne Williams is going to wind up with an 8 point lead on election day, for example. At this point the numbers more accurately reflect name recognition and partisan interest than they do the voters' understanding of the options.
The poll isn't necessarily "wrong" – it's what the respondents said. But I wouldn't go betting your family fortune and future earnings on the outcomes of these races based on a poll at this time of year.
http://americasvoice.org/blog/americas-voice-runs-obituary-ad-colorado-republican-party/ Cruising to win an election – are you sure?
Because it's a issue that's very hot and a very losing subject.
Go on with your continued self-delusion that *ANY* of the Republicans here in Colorado (with a few exceptions to maybe Lamborn and Tipton) are going to be cruising to victory come November.
Once your glorious grand old party cleans up the ashes after getting immolated repeatedly in the actual election, it's going to stay a permanent regional minority.
They are in a bind. Strident anti-gay stands turn off general election voters. But hard-core GOP base loves that stuff. How do you dial it back without turning off your base?
Like any other lawyer does whose client wants them to go to the mat but recognizes they have a weak case. Blame the system.
AG's role is to uphold state law. Court's role is to decide if law is constituional. The legal system, like the legislative process is messy, but it is the best we have.
The AG's role is to uphold the Federal and State Constitutions and only after that to enforce the law. So says his oath of office.
It's been ruled unconstitutional several times. There is nothing left to defend in terms of the same sex marriage ban. The federal DOMA was overturned, thus there is nothing to defend.
It's permanent. Say hello to equality, asshole. Women are next.
Windsor, the Supreme Court DOMA case, only said that the federal government had to recognize same-sex marriages. It did not, by itself, invalidate any state laws regarding same-sex marriage. Further, Windsor only held that a part of DOMA (federal recognition) was unconstitutional; Part 2 of DOMA, which states that a state does not have to recognize same-sex marriages, was not at issue in Windsor.
GLAAD has a good summary of the DOMA law, Sec 2 & 3.
So am I right that this is the first time that Colorado's 2006 Amendment 43 defining marriage as "one man + one woman" has been seriously legally challenged?
And Suthers appealing the Federal judge's decision keeps the clerks from issuing licenses at least until the appeal is decided on August 25 or thereabouts?
I'm just trying to keep it all straight, you should excuse the expression. I could use a timeline.
No but now that Federal enforcemnt is dead and with Windsor as precedent the state mini-DOMAs are falling like dominos on straight 14th Amendment grounds. I'm tracking the issue very closely and I ive the mini-DOMAs two years (tops) before SCOTUS strikes them all down.
Someone should keep track of the number of Law Department attorney hours being wasted on this fool's errand, multiply that by $200 and then bill the Republican State Committee and Focus on the Family for the expense.
Vote for Don Quick.
Who?
Is that the AG candidate that says he will decide which state laws to defend?
Kind of like the picking and choosing of which laws to enforce going on in DC.
Thanks, but no thanks.
You mean like how all of your brave Sheriffs were going to pick and choose which gun laws to enforce?
Don't worry, no one expects a cowardly, unpatriotic troll to answer.
Or how Congressional candidate Buck decides which sexual assault cases are not "buyer's remorse" and opts to prosecute?
So the AG's office does its job and defends a law and that is a scandal to some people here?
Just because an attorney defends a law does not mean he thinks it is good policy.
He is spending MY money on a useless, dead-end, political play with no hope of success. I have the same problem with Gessler. It is OK with you if they continue to throw good money after bad?
I'm going to agree, reluctantly and to a point, with EF — elections have consequences, and a majority of the voters in Colorado at the time our mini-DOMA was passed did vote for it. It should be defended until either the voter's recant (come to their senses) or until the law is overturned at the highest levels.
Where Suthers is clearly wasting money is in filing amici outside of Colorado, in further support of this nonsense. That's an inexcusable waste of Colorado resources, as well as a breech of decency.
Being an attorney does not mean you get to choose whether you agree with your client or hold its values. It means you zealously represent your client's interests, within realm of what is ethically permissible, even when you disagree with philosophy behind actions. If you refuse to do that and as a result prejudice your client's interests then you have done your client a grave misservice and not met your obligations as an attorney.
I'll have to agree with Elliot on this one. When my daughter was in high school, she had an opportunity to serve as an "attorney" in Teen Court. Her client was a kid who had been accused of being a bully. She gave him a vigorous defense, but in the end, the teen jury came back with an even harsher sentence than what the prosecution asked for.
She was pretty disheartened, but the judge, a former public defender, took her aside and told her, "As a criminal defense attorney, you rarely get to defend NICE people."
So here is question for all of you: if Don Quick is elected does he continue cert petition to Supreme Court on tabor case?
Or if the GOP wins next election should new AG simply concede, where possible, that Obamacare is invalid?
Phoenix rising is usually correct on these things – PR said that the CO AG's job (per oath taken) is first to defend Fed and State Constitutions, then state law.
So yes, that probably does mean at least a minimal defense of TABOR, including continuing cert petition (whatever that is).
As far as "vigorously defend", I think that the quantity and quality of resources marshalled for any one legal mission should reflect the priorities of the AG. Elections do have consequences. If nothing else, Suthers is teaching us what his priorities are, and they don't align with the modern Colorado electorate.
I really don't have heartburn over this, because I think Suthers is making a reasonable call about what he thinks his role is. However, that doesn't mean it's the only possible call. Defense of the constitutions can equally as reasonably be interpreted as refusing to undertake actions to defend a law, or an amendment, which the AG believes is self evidently in opposition to other constitutional protections.
Suthers is not the people's elected chief law officer. His powers, and obligations,are determined by the legislature. Even that is open to interpretation, though. CRS 24-31-101(1)(a) says that
That doesn't require him to initiate appeals, however, when rulings are against him.
If there's one thing Elliot is liberal about, it's giving bigots the benefit of the doubt. He's a helluva guy that way.
You mean, kind of like when Amendment 2 passed, and Gov. Roy Romer felt compelled to support AG Gale Norton's defense of the anti-gay law? I see that.
Or when the medical marijuana law, Amendment 20, passed, and Gov. BIll Owens and AG Ken Salazar asked the feds to step in and arrest doctors and patients. Er…