Jackley: Divided United States Supreme Court Holds State Marriage Laws Prohibiting Same-sex Marriage Unconstitutional

jackleyheader2Divided United States Supreme Court Holds State Marriage Laws Prohibiting Same-sex Marriage Unconstitutional

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that a very divided United States Supreme Court has issued its decision in Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, et al., holding that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses between two people of the same-sex. The Court additionally held that states are required to recognize lawfully licensed out-of-state marriages between two people of the same sex.

“It has always been my position that the citizens of our state should define marriage, and not the federal government,” said Jackley. “Five members of the U.S. Supreme Court have now determined neither the States nor our citizens have the right or the ability to define marriage. Because we are a Nation of laws the State will be required to follow the Court’s order that every State must recognize and license same-sex marriage.”

In November 2006, South Dakota voters approved a Constitutional Amendment making marriage valid only between a man and a woman. South Dakota voters approved this amendment by a vote of 172,242 to 160,173. South Dakota Constitution Article XXI, Section 9 mandated that only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in South Dakota. In addition, SDCL 25-1-1 defines marriage as a personal relation between man and a woman. The U.S. Supreme Court has now held our Constitution and statutes violate U.S. Constitution.

South Dakota’s constitutional provision and laws prohibiting same-sex marriage were held unconstitutional by the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota in Rosenbrahn et al. v. Daugaard et al. in January 2015. That District Court stayed the enforcement of its judgment pending the appeal. The Eighth Circuit previously deferred its ruling pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell. The Rosenbrahn case is currently before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Significantly, today’s Obergefell decision makes clear that the law of this Circuit was previously controlled by the Bruning decision, which upheld Nebraska’s Constitution and state statutes defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Accordingly, South Dakota has been acting under controlling case precedent.

4 thoughts on “Jackley: Divided United States Supreme Court Holds State Marriage Laws Prohibiting Same-sex Marriage Unconstitutional”

  1. we can spend time arguing whether the u-s is a secular nation with no state religion OR a nation established and protected by the power and grace of the judeo-christian god. we can spend time arguing the fact of the failure rate of traditional marriages and why we’d want to stop any other pair-bonding couple who wanted to take on the rights and obligations of that social-legal construct. INSTEAD why don’t we simply celebrate what we share, which seems to be an optimistic and hopeful view of monogamous partnerships between two mature adults who have a deep affection for and deep commitment to each other. it might be better for supporters of marriage to make the institution a stronger and more beneficial state of monogamy for those who enter into it for the purposes of a shared life and raising a family (which happens as we know) and not descend into the fear-mongering of people marrying their pets, or group marriage, shariah harems or whatever else they can bring forth. go with it, build an alliance on the shared desire for happy marriages and see where it goes.

  2. I just sent this to a cousin of mine who is an attorney in Vegas and who would fit right in with the SD GOP House Caucus. This obliteration of the 14th Amendment is not making anyone who thinks long term very happy.

  3. Since when did SCOTUS and our courts have the ability to legislate and pass laws?

    There currently are no laws in SD which allow for the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples. This decision does not magically rewrite state statutes and provide statutes where there are none.

    This is what happens when RINOs vote for cloture on liberal SCOTUS and AG nominations.

  4. It would have been a lot smarter for SCOTUS to give the states some time to implement it.

    Just chaos in some of these states.

Comments are closed.