DENVER | The Democratic candidate for Colorado attorney general says the state’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional rights of gay couples and that the law shouldn’t be defended.
Don Quick made the comments Tuesday morning, putting the issue into the spotlight in the state’s attorney general race months before voters head to the polls. Quick, the former Adams County district attorney and former deputy state attorney general, emphasized that those positions have a responsibility to defend state laws regardless of whether the officeholder agrees with them.
“But in extraordinary circumstances, extraordinary circumstances, when a Colorado law intentionally violates fundamental rights of its citizens, it’s the attorney general’s job to step up and stop that law,” Quick said.
He said that if a law is unconstitutional, “the attorney general has an obligation to say so,” and he urged current Republican Attorney General John Suthers to stop defending Colorado’s constitutional ban on gay marriage, which voters passed in 2006.
The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule whether state bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional. However, last summer the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Suthers, who is term limited, joined nine states that filed arguments in support of Utah’s gay-marriage ban. The case is pending in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Suthers said in an editorial published this month in The Washington Post that attorneys general “are elected or appointed to defend the laws, not to undermine them.”
Republican candidates Rep. Mark Waller and Cynthia Coffman, Suthers’ chief deputy, say the attorney general’s office should defend Colorado’s ban, like it defends other laws, unless they’re ruled unconstitutional.
“You don’t get to get pick and choose what laws you defend,” Waller said. He said that if Colorado’s gay marriage ban is “deemed to be unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court of America, I don’t see how you could possibly defend it.”
However, he said, without such a ruling, Colorado’s law is “constitutional and you have an obligation to defend it.”
Coffman said she looks at the issue of gay marriage in the context what she sees as the role of the attorney general.
“To me, it’s about that basic principle of what the attorney general is supposed to do — to defend the law that the people want, not the law that the attorney general wants,” she said.
She said if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a state law, then the duty of the attorney general is to follow that precedent. But unless that happens, she said it’s not the job of the attorney general “to ‘veto’ laws by refusing to defend them.”
The election for attorney general is in November, with a Republican primary in June.
___
Find Ivan Moreno on Twitter: https://twitter.com/IvanJourno
Great, another “unique individual” that thinks laws are made to be broken. Don, you don’t get to decide what is or is not constitutional, the Supreme Court does. And you don’t get to enforce only the laws you like, you have to enforce all of them.
Elected officials take an oath to the Constitution, moron.
Not to your vile bigotry.
Go take a 7th grade civics class, genius.
I think it’s you who needs to go back to 7th grade civics! Legistlatures enacts laws, whether you like them or not. They are to be upheld until such time as they are repealed or deemed unconstitutional. I don’t really care if someone marries a goat, it’s this guys take that he’ll only enforce the laws he likes and agrees with! You naturally assumed that I was a bigot because of the topic, but I said NOTHING about the law itself, just that he indicates he would only enforce those he agreed with. So why don’t you put on the dunce hat!
It is my duty as a citizen to ignore any law that I perceive to violate the constitution. Then it is up to a jury to decide my fate. They have more power than the supreme court. Jury Nullification is an even more powerful tool than the vote. That is the final check on our system.
John, I agree, as a juror. But, as attorney general, an officer of the court, you are required to uphold the laws as written as part of your duties in office.
Elected officials take an oath to the Constitution, moron.
Not to your vile bigotry.
Go take a 7th grade civics class, genius.
Agree with you in the picking and choosing. Obama has undermined the essence of our republic by catering to a special group. I was born outside USA and even went to university outside USA and never heard of a president calling people because they decided to come out as gay. How about calling ambassador Stevens wife and have her seat at an honor seat at the speech of the union?
I agree with Kevin. Officials are elected to Jo hold our laws, not to decide which of our laws they don’t like and don’t enforce. Obama’s executive branch of the federal government is setting a very bad example as they decide which of our laws to defend and which they decide not to defend!!!!! ALL LAWS SHOULD BE DEFENDED until or unless they are determined to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or congress changes the law.
As far as the term “marriage”, it should be removed from our laws. There is to be a separation of religion and government. The term “marriage”. Is a religious term. The Book of Genesis in the Bible records the beginning of marriage. God joins the first man and the first woman together as “one flesh” (2:24), blesses them, and tells them, “Be fruitful and multiply” (1:28). Marriage was part of God’s good design for this world – from the beginning.
In his letter to the Christians in Ephesus, Paul writes this about marriage: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great; BUT I AM SPEAKING WITH REFERENCE TO CHRIST AND THE CHURCH” (Eph. 5:31-32).”
All mention of marriage should be removed from our laws and a non-religious term used for the joining of two people. The term marriage should be only used by the church when one man and one woman pledges themselves to each other. All legal joining of two people perhaps should be referred to as civil or legal unions performed by state officials.