Oregon says will not defend state ban on gay marriage


#1

(Reuters) - Oregon will not defend a ban on gay marriage in the state, which was sued by four same-sex couples who argue the prohibition violates equality guarantees enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, the state’s top law enforcement official said on Thursday.

reuters.com/article/2014/02/21/us-usa-oregon-gaymarriage-idUSBREA1K02O20140221


#2

Of course not! What is it with people being so willing to just give in to “gay marriage”?? :mad:


#3

I wonder if James Madison, the father of the Constitution, would have seen it that way.

:shrug:


#4

Maybe this always happened and I am just now noticing it, but I am noticing more and more instances recently of the courts and politicians declaring, “Eh, we’re not going to really defend that law anymore”.

What’s the point of voting on these things if the courts and politicians can just pick and choose what they feel like defending? :confused:


#5

Complete lawlessness.

Welcome to the leftist paradise.


#6

My thoughts exactly. We are falling into rule by power, not law.:frowning:


#7

Just more of the elite politicians who think they know better than the voters who elected them.:mad:


#8

:shrug: Most polls show that more people in Oregon support gay marriage than oppose it. Just like the rest of the country. They are doing what the voters wanted…

s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/opb-news-static/surveys2013/043013_OregonMediaSurvey.pdf

Statistics on the attitudes of Oregon voters on a lot of issues. The margin of error is 4.4%, and that’s less than the difference between the percent of people who support it and oppose it.

I thought that gay rights had moved quickly before, but this last year was a whirlwind. If you want to roll this back, you’ll have to change the hearts and minds of the public, because the courts and legislatures seems to be more open to gay marriage every year.


#9

We may not be polling on the right issue. Suppose we ask voters,

a) Should elected officials enforce existing laws

b) Change laws by extra-legal means

c) Change laws according to constitutional process.


#10

So should ed do away with elections and be ruled by opinion polls?


#11

I think a more applicable (and far less biased) question, since this isn’t an “extra-legal” or unconstitutional means of changing laws, would be: “Do you think that the state should defend the gay marriage ban in court?” Or, if you want to be more general: “Should the state defend laws in court that the majority of the public opposes?”


#12

Washington Post theorised, and I paraphrase, that support for homosexual marriage may be oversold in polling because opponents of homosexual marriage might feel more strongly than supporters and are more likely to vote and there may be a percentage of people who do not say their true feelings on the issue of homosexual marriage to pollsters, because they do not want to come across as intolerant

washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/25/is-support-for-gay-marriage-over-sold

Last stae that voted in support of a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage was North Carolina in 2012. Over 30 states have voted in favour of these bans, relatively few in comprison have voted to legalise homosexual marriage.

The real test of support for homosexual marriage, is not a poll that has no direct impact into homosexual marriage legalisation, the real test is more when the issue is on the ballot.

The institution of marriage is rooted in natural law itself, a design written on our hearts by our Creator. No religion, government or individual has the right or legitimate authority to alter the fundamental meaning and structure of marriage that has existed from the beginning of humankind. And certainly, no court decision, either in Virginia or elsewhere, can change that meaning.

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=11704588&highlight=virginia#post11704588


#13

Washington Post theorised, and I paraphrase, that support for homosexual marriage may be oversold in polling because opponents of homosexual marriage might feel more strongly than supporters and are more likely to vote and there may be a percentage of people who do not say their true feelings on the issue of homosexual marriage to pollsters, because they do not want to come across as intolerant

washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/25/is-support-for-gay-marriage-over-sold

Last state that voted in support of a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage was North Carolina in 2012. Over 30 states have voted in favour of these bans, relatively few in comparison have voted to legalise homosexual marriage when the issue is on the ballot. Although it is a good thing that over 30 states voted to have constitutional amendments banning homosexual marriage, people don’t have authority to change marriage identification.

The institution of marriage is rooted in natural law itself, a design written on our hearts by our Creator. No religion, government or individual has the right or legitimate authority to alter the fundamental meaning and structure of marriage that has existed from the beginning of humankind. And certainly, no court decision, either in Virginia or elsewhere, can change that meaning.

votervoice.net/VACC/Campaigns/34657/Respond?unregistered=N8MBrizp5m-Q5GlVX5rhwA


#14

How about we decide laws by a vote and the Govt defend laws passed by a vote?


#15

Excellent question.

The American form of governance is **not **democracy, therefore whether the majority of the public supports or opposes a law is irrelevant. What matters is the rule of law. In our constitutional representative republic, the executive branch is charged with enforcing the laws duly passed by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive (or by a veto override). When an executive (president or governor) chooses to not enforce the laws duly passed, they are violating their oath of office. The Gallup poll means nothing.

Our form of governance is not democracy, and we should pray and work against it ever becoming one.

Jon


#16

The Executive takes an oath to uphold the Constitution not to defend whatever law the legislature pumps out.


#17

So that’s the trump card for anyone now? It is one thing for judges to strike down laws they don’t like, but in some cases that is how the government was designed to work, with checks and balances on each branch from the others. But that power is not vested in the Executive Branch. Here’s a little more of the Constitution for you to chew on (Federal, applies to Office of the President)

Article 2 of the US Constitution

The President must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”[19] This clause in the Constitution imposes a duty on the President to take due care while executing laws and is called the Take Care Clause,[20] also known as the Faithful Execution Clause[21] or Faithfully Executed Clause.[22] This clause is meant to ensure that a law is faithfully executed by the President,[20] even if he disagrees with the purpose of that law.[23] By virtue of his executive power, the President may execute the law and control the law execution of others. Under the Take Care Clause, however, the President must exercise his law-execution power to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”[21] Addressing the North Carolina ratifying convention, William Maclaine declared that the Faithful Execution Clause was “one of the [Constitution’s] best provisions.”[21] If the President “takes care to see the laws faithfully executed, it will be more than is done in any government on the continent; for I will venture to say that our government, and those of the other states, are, with respect to the execution of the laws, in many respects mere ciphers.”[21] President George Washington interpreted this clause as imposing on him a unique duty to ensure the execution of federal law. Discussing a tax rebellion, Washington observed, “it is my duty to see the Laws executed: to permit them to be trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to” that duty.[21]


#18

Guaranteed money and popularity for jumping on the bandwagon.


#19

When a law is declared unconstitutional, then they don’t enforce it. The executive branch doesn’t have the power to decide what laws are and are not constitutional. That’s the job of the judicial branch.

Jon


#20

The constitution is a minor inconvenience, a mere “suggestion” to the current regime. Apparently that is the case with the governor of Oregon, too. :shrug:

Jon


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.