Oregon won't defend gay-marriage ban in lawsuit

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Dr. Thom Long Beach, CA
    Feb. 25, 2014 8:49 p.m.

    So much for the validity of citizens voting on key issues concerning their state. Imagine if the AG decided not to prosecute hate crimes for the same reason or any other laws voted in by its citizens? Time to persecute these AG for not upholding the laws if their states.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Feb. 23, 2014 2:18 p.m.

    "She swore an oath of office that she would enforce all the laws, not just those she personally agrees with," said Brian Brown, NOM president."

    What the president of NOM fails to grasp, willfully or otherwise, is that the Oregon AG *will* continue to enforce this law. That is *different* from refusing to defend it in a court of law. When it comes up for ligation in Oregon, the state AG won't defend it because it has no basis of merit. These exclusionary bans can no longer be successfully defended in any court of law.

    "Ms. Rosenblum is dead-wrong in her conclusion that the amendment cannot be supported by rational legal arguments."

    The following fact should tell the NOM president otherwise: since the Windsor decision last summer, every single time this marriage equality issue has come before a federal court, SSM bans have been struck down as discrimination for no valid reason.

    Every. Single. Time.

  • Tators Richfield, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 12:05 p.m.

    @ Ranch:

    No, that's not what I meant at all. Some people are good at skewing the words and meanings of other people.
    I clearly referred to the value and importance of what traditional marriage and families have always had and meant as the backbone of civilized society for centuries. Comparing SSM to traditional marriage is making an absolute mockery and sham of it.
    Enjoy all the civil unions you want, but leave traditional marriage alone.

    It's rather sad that pursuing liberal perceived “political correctness” has blinded some people to the importance of other more meaningful and pressing issues facing us today.
    Pursuing this particular issue is already extracting a societal cost in terms of compromising our important and established religious freedoms.
    But since you've made it abundantly clear on multiple occasions that you think religion is bogus, then this issue probably means nothing to you. But it truly does to many of us.

    @ A Quaker:

    Since you profess a belief in the Bible, why not also read and understand the importance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13... and also Romans 1:26-27. They're very clear in their meaning.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 8:21 a.m.

    ""Because we cannot identify a valid reason for the state to prevent the couples who have filed these lawsuits from marrying in Oregon, we find ourselves unable to stand before (the federal judge) to defend the state's prohibition against marriages between two men or two women," "

    --- That really says it all.


    You mean worthwhile principles and values like equality and justice? "Voter approved" bigotry and discrimination ARE STILL bigotry and discrimination.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 8:20 a.m.

    It's unfortunate the Utahns don't understand the constitution and equality as well as our friends in Oregon, California, Virgina, etc......

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 7:00 a.m.

    Nevertheless, these suits need to go on until the ultimate ruling is made by the Supreme Court. This SSM stuff needs to have a Roe/Wade type result so that every state knows where they stand. Otherwise, it will still be a state by state issue and a lot of wasted time one way or the other. Come on Supreme Court, take up the case of SSM and settle it once and for all. Then we can all move on and get on to more important matters that really threaten this country.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Feb. 21, 2014 5:50 a.m.

    "Oregon's attorney general will not defend the state's ban on gay marriage, arguing it cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge."

    There you have it. Enough said. Legalize SSM nationally so the country can focus on other pressing issues.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Feb. 21, 2014 2:04 a.m.

    There is a difference between being able to define marriage, in terms of rights, responsibilities, and individual eligibility, and being able to restrict otherwise eligible individuals from marrying each other, based merely on prejudice. It not only doesn't matter if that prejudice derives from interpretation of religious teachings, but that adds another reason to reject prejudicial laws, in that they impermissibly violate the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.

    And lest anyone think that this is a case of religious versus secular "Liberal" thought, it's not. Quaker religious thought and heritage, from the earliest days of the Protestant Reformation, has centered around Equality of all men and women, respect for all individuals, and the personal integrity to live an honest and forthright life. As such, we disagree with those denominations which choose to cherry-pick discriminatory passages from Leviticus, ignoring the rest, in order to marginalize that minority of our brothers and sisters whose hearts only find love amongst their own. Genesis 1:27 says that we are all in God's image, male and female. That's too important a passage to ignore. Many of our Meetings witness and bless SSM.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    Feb. 21, 2014 12:17 a.m.

    Democrats say the redefining of marriage can't survive a constitutional challenge. Republicans say it will and it must. Which means the issue is completely political and will never get the healthy Constitutional review it must get to avoid turning into the abortion issue.

    Of course until the issue was picked up by the Democratic party they had no problem taking it to Court.

  • Tators Richfield, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 11:59 p.m.

    Because Hutterite, it means something to stand up for worthwhile principles, even when the odds are becoming stacked against you. Only a coward would not defend their own voter mandated laws and back down against perceived political correctness. A sad day for decency and for the state of Oregon.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 10:56 p.m.

    Why embark on a fools' errand if you know how it will end?