Attorney General Chris Koster has joined the Attorneys General of 16 other states in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear two cases seeking to defend state marriage laws. Koster and his peers are requesting that the High Court accept appeals from the states of Colorado and
Oklahoma, where a federal appellate court struck down
their constitutional amendments preserving traditional marriage.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that language in the Colorado and Oklahoma Constitutions defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman violates the U.S. Constitution. The Tenth Circuit decreed that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires that marriage be available to individuals of the same gender.
In recent months, three-judge panels of the 4th, 6th, and 7th Circuits have also acted to invent a constitutional right for same-sex "couples" to "marry." These decisions have defied U.S. Supreme Court precedent on this issue, which has declared that fundamental rights must be rooted in the historical traditions of the nation and its
body of law.
Last year the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed in the case of United States v. Windsor
that "the regulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States." In the opinion, the High Court stated: "By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage...has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States."
The Supreme Court majority went on to state that "the definition of marriage is the foundation of the States' broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the protection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities."
Since the Windsor
decision, a string of rulings have been issued by federal district court judges, and now federal appeals courts, ignoring the constitutional principles enunciated in Windsor
. In each of these decisions, renegade judges have invalidated constitutional amendments overwhelmingly adopted by state voters defending the institution of marriage.
These decisions mandating same-sex "marriage" have twisted and distorted a clear reading of the Windsor
decision. The opinions issued have been almost completely bankrupt of any constitutional analysis or objective jurisprudence. Instead they have read like philosophical treatises extolling the merits and virtues of the homosexual lifestyle.