Supreme Court will not halt same-sex marriages in Oregon
June 06, 2014
In a one-sentence ruling, the United States Supreme Court has refused to halt same-sex marriages in Oregon.
In 2004, Oregon voters, by a 57%-43% margin, approved a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. On May 19, a federal judge struck down the amendment as unconstitutional, and state officials refused to defend it in court.
“It is a travesty of justice that marriage, as the foundation of society, received no defense in the US District Court,” the bishops of Oregon said in response. “Attorney General, Ellen Rosenblum, in an extreme dereliction of her sworn duty to uphold the law, refused to represent the interests and the people of Oregon. It is a sad day for democracy when one federally appointed judge can overturn, without any representation, the express will of the people of Oregon.”
- Court won’t block Oregon same-sex marriages (SCOTUS Blog)
- Statement of the Oregon Catholic Conference on marriage
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: ZIP5DO@aol.com -
Jun. 08, 2014 3:41 PM ET USA
Supreme Court needs to read the Constitution and not through rose colored glasses. Also thought they stated that the definition and rules on marriage was up to the States. As such these idiot, anti-Constitutional, tyrannical, one world federal judges need to be told they do not have the authority. Matter of fact, neither does the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Minnesota Mary -
Jun. 06, 2014 8:11 PM ET USA
One more state "slouching toward Gomorrah." Gay marriage is here to stay as we approach the end of the age.
Posted by: Defender -
Jun. 06, 2014 5:46 PM ET USA
Lawyers, judges, politicians - all are the same. Just as driving is a privilege, so too is marriage - its creation was given to man and woman exclusively. Even our forefathers knew this and allowed it to be separately regulated in the 10th Amendment. The people know this too, hence the voting in the states that the judiciary simply ignores in their quest to be liked and respected - which they are not.