AG: Federal Court Rules SD Constitution and Statutory Provisions on Same-Sex Marriage to be in Violation of the US Constitution but Stays Order

Federal Court Rules SD Constitution and Statutory Provisions on Same-Sex Marriage to be in Violation of the US Constitution but Stays Order

Marty JackleyPIERRE, S.D – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that South Dakota District Court has granted the plaintiffs and denied the State’s motion for summary judgment in the South Dakota case of Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard.

“It remains the State’s position that the institution of marriage should be defined by the voters of South Dakota and not the federal courts. Because this case presents substantial legal questions and substantial public interest the Federal Court has stayed its judgment allowing South Dakota law to remain in effect pending the appeal,” said Attorney General Jackley.

The Federal Court ruled that a same sex couple has a fundamental right to marry. Therefore, South Dakota law deprives the plaintiffs of that right without sufficient justification in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The Federal Court ruled that because the case presents substantial legal questions, and because of the substantial public interest in uniformity and stability of the law, the Court stays its judgment pending appeal. In addition, the effects of this judgment are stayed until the judgment is final.

The Dakota Territory law that marriage was authorized only between a male and a female was reaffirmed in November 2006 when a Constitutional Amendment was approved by South Dakota voters.

-30-

19 Replies to “AG: Federal Court Rules SD Constitution and Statutory Provisions on Same-Sex Marriage to be in Violation of the US Constitution but Stays Order”

  1. Jimmy LaSalvia

    Marty,

    In America, no class of people is entitled to special rights, that includes straight people. Every American has the constitutional right to be treated the same under the law, that includes gay Americans.

    While states should determine marriage and family law, the states may not violate the US Constitution in doing so.

    You should stop spending South Dakota’s resources in defending an unconstitutional, discriminatory law.

    Do the right thing and stop your efforts in defiance of the US Constitution, Marty.

    -Jimmy

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      This is about the rights of children to a mother and father. That’s what marriage is for and why the state supports it. Marriage is not about about the state sanctioning the sexual desires of adults

      Reply
  2. Jimmy LaSalvia

    One more thing. “The way we’ve always done it,” isn’t an argument. “We’ve always unconstitutionally discriminated against gay South Dakotan, even way back in Dakota Territory days,” isn’t an argument to continuing to do it, Mr. Attorney General.

    Reply
  3. Anonymous

    the higher courts had already struck down a legislative act imposing term limits on us-senators and us-congresspersons eleven years before voters retained the language in law in a 2006 referendum. voter referendums aren’t the empowerment they’re cracked up to be. we’ll see this with the minimum wage vote in this legislative session.

    Reply
  4. Anne Beal

    The AG is required to enforce all the laws, even the stupid ones.

    Nobody cares what the AG personally thinks about a law.

    Reply
  5. Troy Jones

    Jimmy,

    First, he is obligated to uphold the Constitution as clearly defined. As AG, he is also obligated to support and advocate state laws until determined in violation of the Constitution. Until all appeals are exhausted, the former isn’t done (not only because of appeal rights but also the stay) and the latter still applies.

    Second, you, Schrieir and Jackley are not the final definitive voice on what the Constitution says.

    Reply
  6. Jimmy LaSalvia

    The bottom line is clear. The outcome of this issue is determined at this point. Public opinion has gone beyond the tipping point in support of civil marriage for gay couples.

    Now, the legal process is basically a formality. A formality that will likely conclude later this year at the US Supreme Court with the Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and/or Michigan cases.

    The political and societal reality is that history will cast judgment on how everyone behaved and actions taken in this process. (Yes, even including the votes of individuals will be judged by history.) You see, there comes a point with cultural issues when right versus left becomes right versus wrong.

    JL

    Reply
    1. Steve Hickey

      Jimmy, the same goes for abortion– history will cast judgment. The day is coming that Roe v Wade falls, society has shifted against abortion as back up birth control, science is on the side of the humanity of the unborn and one day there will be a memorial to the 56 million unborn in DC. We’ll get to explain to our grandchildren why we thought some humans were more human than other humans and how we could tolerate dismembering living human beings without anesthesia.

      For those of us who’ve voted for traditional marriage we can sleep at night because we know there is only One who really matters to whom we must give account.

      Reply
  7. Jimmy LaSalvia

    The cost to South Dakota….read this from the National Law Journal –

    States that unsuccessfully ­defended same-sex marriage bans in federal courts are on the hook to pay more than $800,000 in legal fees to the challengers, and requests for millions of dollars more are pending.

    Federal district judges across the country have issued nearly three dozen rulings since late 2013 declaring state same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. Attorney fee petitions haven’t been filed yet in the majority of those cases as they go before circuit courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. The fee awards, agreements and requests to date offer an early snapshot of what these landmark civil rights cases could cost taxpayers.

    Reply
  8. been there

    Karen Schrier is, and always has been, a political hack. Like Spencer said above, she is in the pocket of Planned Barrenhood , and also now the radical queers. Despite what Jimmy Saliva says, the majority of South Dakotans are opposed to gay marriage. This is one of the big reasons the Dem party of SD is what it is today, it stands for nothing but radical liberalism.
    A friend of mine was arrested for a white collar crime several years ago. Since it occurred across state lines, it went to federal court. Schrier was his “judge”. Behind closed doors she belittled him, asking questions like: did he go to church, what church did he go to, was he opposed to abortion, etc. (questions that had nothing to do with the crimes or the case). He was found guilty and she sentenced him to about 3 years in federal prison for a relatively minor crime. She wanted to make an example of him and sent federal agents to the homes of his friends and family to ask them personal questions and search for any of his property so it could be confiscated and sold. TRUE STORY

    Reply
      1. been there

        why would I make it up ? The friend is out now and a productive member of society. But his wife got tired of waiting and took the kids and left him. Sad story, but oh so true. I’m certainly not going to give out real names so you anarchists can harass us further.

        Reply
  9. Spencer

    I’m pretty sure homosexuals already have special rights. Who dares to cringe in the face of such brazen sexuality? That is basically what homosexuality is all about: shock value mores. I wonder if homosexuality will be as appealing to Jimmy once society is so depraved that the shock value altogether wears off. I guess that is when we become more acquainted with the rest of the GLBT agenda. Pretty soon homosexual “kiss in” protests will be so mundane that the state will need to extend hospital visitation rights to all transgendered dominance and submission “families” before anyone as much as bats an eye.

    Reply
    1. Dicta

      “Small government” we will cry, until we need to be rescued from those “brazen” homosexuals. Then, bring on the government to recognize that tradition must be saved. At no point will our inconsistency make us as uncomfortable as the gays do. And we’ll pat ourselves on the back for protecting morals and cry out against big government again while raking in another ag subsidy. Yay South Dakota. Go us.

      Reply
  10. Wayne

    State Missive to Right Wing Extremists and Religious Right……”HELP! Can any of you think of a reason we passed this marriage ban stuff, besides what your fairy books say?”

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.