Let the court decide
Published August 3, 2014
Editorial by Greensboro News-Record, August 3, 2014.
Make no mistake. State Attorney General Roy Cooper never liked North Carolina’s constitutional amendment that opposes gay marriage.
Passed in 2012 by nearly 61 percent of voters, the amendment, popularly called Amendment One, defines marriage as between one man and one woman only and affirms that it is the only domestic legal union “that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” Since a state law on the books already banned gay marriage, this meant North Carolina has said no not once, but twice, to same-sex unions.
As a private citizen, Cooper has admitted, he didn’t agree. In 2013, the attorney general said that he personally supports “marriage equality” but would uphold his duty to defend the state laws in court. Until now.
Citing a federal court ruling last week, Cooper said he would no longer seek to defend North Carolina’s ban because there was no point in it. The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, which also covers North Carolina, ruled 2-1 that Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional.
The case involves a gay couple that was denied a marriage license in Norfolk. Two federal appeals courts have now overturned such bans and every court challenge thus far to state anti-gay marriage laws has been successful.
Cooper said on the day of the ruling: “Our attorneys have vigorously defended North Carolina’s marriage law, which is their job. But today we know our law surely will be overturned as well. Simply put, it is time to stop making arguments that we will lose and instead move forward, knowing that the ultimate resolution will come from the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Supporters of gay marriage were heartened. Opponents, not so much. Voters who passed the marriage amendment at the polls “expect our AG to uphold his oath by defending it,” state Senate leader Phil Berger tweeted.
Given the attorney general’s announcement, the legislature could hire outside attorneys to defend the marriage amendment instead of Cooper and his staff, but to little effect. Despite some initial bluster, lawmakers seemed to realize that. Both Berger and House Speaker Thom Tillis said the legislature did not expect to intervene on the issue. “We don’t have any plans at this point to do anything,” Tillis said.
That’s because, from a purely practical standpoint, Cooper is right. Politics aside, nothing is likely to change anytime soon. The defendants in the Virginia case are expected to ask for a stay, pending an appeal of the court’s decision, placing the ruling on hold. They then could seek a hearing before a full appellate court instead of a three-judge panel, or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In either scenario, the case almost certainly will go to the Supreme Court, where it was destined to land all along. The high court would take up the issue no earlier than next summer. In the interim, Cooper rightly sees further defending Amendment One in court for what it would be: a purely symbolic, futile and expensive exercise.
Better to let this case play out in the Supreme Court, where it will be resolved, once and for all.
August 4, 2014 at 7:48 pm
Norm Kelly says:
'Since a state law on the books already banned gay marriage'. So, if there was already a law on the books that banned gay marriage, why did the state bother to pass a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Simple. The handwriting was on the wall. Other states had passed laws banning gay marriage. Then along came gay activists and activist judges who decided that laws passed, even by a majority, were illegal and were invalidated even if they were not taken off the books. The state laws were essentially null and void.
So, with only a measly law on the books, NC was vulnerable. What could the solution possibly be? The obvious answer was to amend the state constitution. This is MUCH harder to overturn than a mere law. And when the amendment passed by over 60% of the voters, it seemed that the argument was over. Until the Attorney General decided he wouldn't do his job, that is. Oh, and until gay activists decided that the majority could no longer be allowed to make law. The majority MUST be subjected to the will of the minority.
And, let's not forget that every argument in favor of gay marriage is based solely on money. Someone who marries a person of the same sex is not eligible for financial benefits from government or employers. So, it's a money grab. Just like most things lib.
So, while we wait for SCOTUS to make a decision that actually belongs at the state level, will our state now be forced to issue marriage licenses to gay couples? When it comes to benefits, will our state be forced to recognize gay marriages performed in other states? Is that the plan? Why is it that the majority should be ignored so easily? Why does the majority no longer have a majority say? When the money starts pouring out to gay couples, will they then be satisfied? Or will gay activists continue to push for special treatment? I don't expect them to simply roll over. Nothing in their past indicates this will be the outcome. When victorious in one effort, the push just gets harder and goes further.
