Posted on 02/21/2014 9:03:10 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The Oregon Attorney General has refused to defend the state's constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman.
In a federal brief submitted Thursday, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum expressed her refusal to defend the amendment, which was passed by Oregon voters in 2004.
"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 [U.S. District Court] Judge [Michael] McShane to defend the state's prohibition against marriages between two men or two women," stated Rosenblum.
"The equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution gives people the right to be treated equally by their government, unless there is a good reason for unequal treatment."
In November 2004, voters in Oregon passed a ballot initiative known as Oregon Marriage Measure 36, which added a marriage definition to the state constitution.
"It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage," read Measure 36, which passed with 56.63 percent of the vote.
Last year, four same-sex couples filed a lawsuit against the marriage amendment as part of the wave of lawsuits against various state marriage amendments across the United States.
As of February, Rosenblum is one of six attorneys general since 2012 who have refused to defend their state's marriage amendment in court.
She joins Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Mark Herring of Virginia, Kathleen Kane of Pennsylvania, Kamala D. Harris of California, and Lisa Madigan of Illinois.
Critics of these attorneys general have argued that they are not performing their sworn duties to defend their states' constitutions in court.
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, released a statement Thursday denouncing Rosenblum's decision.
"Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is shamefully abandoning her constitutional duty to defend the marriage amendment overwhelmingly enacted by the people of Oregon. She swore an oath of office that she would enforce all the laws, not just those she personally agrees with," said Brown.
"Further, Ms. Rosenblum is dead-wrong in her conclusion that the amendment cannot be supported by rational legal arguments. Just last June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that regulating marriage is the purview of the states, not the federal government."
Sixteen states and the District of Columbia legally recognize same-sex marriages. Utah and Virginia are currently appealing court decisions that declared their bans unconstitutional.
RE: Why aren’t these elected bufoons thrown out of office or at a min impeached?
See Post #12 above.
The simple answer is none. The only way anything gets done in this country is through the dumbest of the Press. The Press has shown that it is totally corrupt, ignoring the things that place negative news on things they agree with and super hyping those things with which they agree. And, they agree with liberal philosophy and disagree with conservative philosophy. So, they will do nothing in this case. Should a conservative AG say he/she would not enforce an antigun law, you would hear about it, with complete negative spin, for weeks as the big story in the country.
It’s things like this in Oregon and Virgina that makes it so troublesome when some ridiculously blast the Convention of States movement, and put out the rationale that electing more republicans or using nullification will suffice.
In this case, it is Oregon’s leftists using nullification of a perfectly fine ballot measure.
Things NEED to shake up, and a COS is the way to do it.
You hit the point correct. Even in conservative circles the discussion on this issue is it is not a serious issue - politically conservative, not socially conservative circles of course.
Tip of the iceberg here in Oregon. Governor khitzaber does exactly the same thing. Oregon is a mirror image of the corrupt lawless Obama administration.
The people of the state should move to impeach her immediately. If they do not, they deserve what they get.
And worse
By this example, shouldn’t the general public just disregard any law they believe unjust, so long as they can avoid being cited for a violation?
As mentioned in related threads, the states have never amended the federal Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights. So the states are free to make laws which discriminate against gay issues imo, gay marriage in this example, as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
What Ms Rosenblum actually needs to do is the following if she doesn't like Oregon's discriminatory constitutional amendment concerning gays. She needs to work with both state and federal lawmakers to propose a gay rights amendment to the federal Constitution to the states for ratification, and if the Article V supermajority states choose to ratify her proposed amendment, and I don't think that she's going to get the support as evidenced by her own state, then gay rights will be constitutionally protected and she will be a hero.
In America today, “he who keeps the law, is above the law”.
RE: What law school did Oregon Attorney General get indoctrinated at?
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Rosenblum
She graduated from Evanston Township High School and attended Scripps College before earning her undergraduate degree from the University of Oregon in 1971, where she also earned a law degree in 1975.
“Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum”
There’s that name “Ellen” again - the quintessential dyke name. (no offense to any conservative Ellen FReepers.)
Thank you for noting that. Note that I ask the question where so-called constitutional law experts were educuted in a tongue-and-cheek way. Maybe I need to clarify that in my posts.
BTW, have you, or any freeper that you may know about, taken the online Hillsdale Constitution course. I'm reluctant to sign up because it may be a waste of time. After all, I read the Constitution-related posts in FR. :^)
RE: BTW, have you, or any freeper that you may know about, taken the online Hillsdale Constitution course?
I have not but know of at least one conservative friend who has. He told me it was worth it. There’s really nothing to lose. It’s free.
I looked at the Oregonlive.com website and found the story there. It added that the federal judge ruling on the case is U.S. District Judge Michael McShane of Eugene. Eugene is not known as a hotbed of conservative values.
The Oregon bar is as sleazy and dishonest as she is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.