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

Are You a CIS Male or CIS Female?

Homosexuality, ,

The title may be confusing, but you are one or the other–or maybe one of the 56 other “gender identities.”

If you have a Facebook account, and are uncertain of your gender, you can now choose from one of 58 gender identities–another check mark for gay activists, as far as their movement is concerned.

Of course, the issue is much larger than recognizing 58 different types of “gender.” Tying gender to anything other than biology complicates society and carries a number of unintended consequences, as we’ve written about in the past.

Click here to read more.

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