"Letter of the Law," Kyle Harris, September 4
John Suthers showed himself to be an awesome politician along with a terrible human. He consistently avoids answering questions of his own moral stances, hiding behind the phrase "I'm just doing my job." Maybe Suthers is as excellent at his job as he claims, and he excels at "just following orders," but I wonder at what point he sides with humanity over the law. How many human rights would he be willing to violate in the name of the law? He outwardly says that whether a law is fair is a moot point; he is going to defend it because that's "his job." So let it be known: If the law stated that black people were still considered three-fifths of a person, he would stand with that law because that is his job.
If we had fewer politicians like Mr. Suthers in office and more real humans who could use their brain and think for themselves, we wouldn't have such a giant disconnect between the average person and the people in public office in this country.
Derrick Blanton
Denver
For weeks I'd been wondering just how much of a continuous beatdown AG John Suthers was having to endure in the pages of Westword at the hands of his detractors as concerns same-sex marriage, and then along comes "Letter of the Law." Bravo! Westword has provided its readers a fine, balanced perspective by interviewing the AG and soliciting his feedback/explanations. After reading Kyle Harris's article, it should be abundantly clear that John Suthers and staff are doing their jobs within the context of the mission of the Attorney General's Office.
As a side note, the AG's office also maintains regular conversations/consultations with the governor and legislature as well as the number of myriad regulatory state agencies. From a personal standpoint, I have not always agreed with the actions — or lack of, in certain matters — by the AG (failure to confront the City and County of Denver's so-called Home Rule gun laws being one — but that's another story). Mr. Suthers had stated, as concerns the same-sex-marriage issue and discourse, that there will be same-sex marriage through either a judicial or political solution. Societal changes likely indicate his words to be prescient. He also stated that he hopes the resolution is political rather than judicial. I hope so, too. A lot of hay has been made made out of the Tenth Circuit's decision about Utah's law as unconstitutional, and with the stay in effect, the next stop would be the U.S. Supreme Court. For those activist folks who want to think the SCOTUS has a fifty-state blanket solution forthcoming, I would suggest this course is not only highly distasteful, but it is dangerous! There are plenty of laws I personally don't like, either. but in that regard, I'm not willing to abdicate/subjugate individual and local democracy, and Tenth Amendment states' rights to federal judicial activism (i.e., "legislating from the bench"). The slippery slope of depending on court decisions erodes the value of the people's involvement in their self-determination.
Dave Christy
Golden
Editor's note: Last week, John Suthers filed his request on behalf of seventeen attorneys general with the U.S. Supreme Court. Read the documents at westword.com.
