Oregon AG Won’t Defend State Marriage Amendment

Marriage, ,

Oregon’s attorney general announced this week her office will not defend the state’s marriage amendment in court.

Like Arkansas, Oregon’s voters approved a state marriage amendment in 2004 defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That amendment has come under attack by gay activists and is now the subject of a lawsuit. Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum wrote yesterday,

“State Defendants will not defend the Oregon ban on same-sex marriage in this litigation. Rather, they will take the position in their summary judgment briefing that the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review. In the meantime, as the State Defendants are legally obligated to enforce the Oregon Constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage, they will continue to do so unless and until this Court grants the relief sought by the plaintiffs.”

Rosenblum is the latest in a string of state officials around the country who have shirked their responsibility to defend marriage laws voters in their states have passed.

If you read the quote carefully, you see Rosenblum notes that her office will continue to enforce the ban on same-sex marriage, because they are obligated to do so as long as it is in the state’s constitution. The irony is defending state laws in court is a fundamental obligation of every attorney general in America. Rosenblum admits her office is required to enforce the law; she should also acknowledge her office is required to defend the law. She can’t cherry-pick which obligations she follows and which she ignores.

No attorney general has the power to declare a law unconstitutional. That power rests solely with the Judicial Branch. We have three separate, co-equal branches of government specifically to prevent this kind of lawlessness, where state officials unilaterally decide a democratically-enacted law is worthless.

A Democratic attorney general doesn’t get to decide a state ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional any more than a Republican attorney general gets to decide a new tax or minimum-wage increase is unconstitutional. Their job is to defend the law in court. Some liberals are hailing Rosenblum’s decision right now; they should consider how they will feel sometime down the road, when a conservative attorney general follows this precedent by ignoring a law liberals support.

READ MORE

Arkansas’ Marriage Amendment Still Stands Despite Oklahoma Ruling

Marriage, ,

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, January 15, 2014

On Tuesday, a federal judge in Oklahoma struck Oklahoma’s marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, calling the ban “arbitrary.”

On Wednesday Family Council President Jerry Cox issued a statement, saying, “This ruling does not affect Arkansas’ marriage amendment. Arkansas’ ban on same-sex marriage still stands.”

Cox said while the ruling is disappointing, it is not entirely surprising. “Activists have filed over a dozen lawsuits across the country challenging state marriage amendments in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s DOMA decision last summer. It is not surprising out of that many lawsuits they would find one or two federal judges willing to strike down a state marriage amendment. It’s also likely many judges will uphold these amendments as constitutional. Either way, this issue will not be settled until it makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Cox said contrary to what many are saying, same-sex marriage is not a forgone conclusion. “The U.S. Supreme Court signaled that state marriage laws ought to be respected when it put a stay on a federal judge’s ruling that struck Utah’s same-sex marriage ban last month. When the court struck part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act last summer, the court said states—not the federal government—define marriage. If the U.S. Supreme Court were to go a step farther and say these state marriage amendments are unconstitutional, it would effectively be saying that neither the state nor the federal government has the right to define marriage. That just wouldn’t make sense.”

Cox said he expects more rulings on state marriage amendments in the coming weeks. “Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court will address this issue. There’s no doubt about that. It will be a sad day if the Supreme Court disenfranchises millions of voters in over thirty states by striking their state marriage amendments.”

###

READ MORE

Obama Admin. “Shows Contempt” for States, Federal Courts, Congress

Marriage,

Today, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the federal government would recognize any same-sex marriage licenses that have been issued in Utah.

As you may be aware, a federal judge declared same-sex marriage legal in Utah last month, and the state was forced to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in spite of the states ban on gay marriage. This week, however, the U.S. Supreme Court put a stay on the judge’s ruling until the matter can be appealed and decided by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In keeping with the decision, the State of Utah has said it will not recognize the same-sex marriage licenses issued between the initial judge’s ruling and the Supreme Court decision. The Obama Administration, however, has unilaterally decided to ignore the Supreme Court, saying it will recognize the marriage licenses even though those licenses are not currently valid.

Family Research Council released a statement about the decision, which says in part,

“The Obama administration’s decision today is an effort to make law in the breach and shows contempt for the states, the federal courts, and Congress. It only adds to the administrative chaos by flouting Utah’s marriage law and is in contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court’s cautious approach in granting a stay in the case. The Department of Justice’s announcement is doing the very thing which the Supreme Court condemned in the U.S. vs. Windsor decision – ‘creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State.'”

Here’s the problem: There is no federal marriage license. Marriage licenses are issued by states, and the federal government defers to states in determining whether or not someone is lawfully married. That was actually a point the U.S. Supreme Court touched on last summer when it struck part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

If the U.S. Supreme Court says the State of Utah does not have to recognize same-sex marriage, and if the State of Utah says these couples are not lawfully married, then the federal government really has very little grounds for saying otherwise.

READ MORE