GOSHEN —
“Why does the Indiana Attorney General have to be involved in the definition-of-marriage cases before the U.S. Supreme Court?” It’s a fair question I have been asked since the Supreme Court announced December 7 it would hear two marriage-definition cases, potentially setting the stage for a landmark ruling next June.
Simply put, my legal obligation as attorney for my client, the Indiana Legislature, is to defend state laws legislators have passed. Indiana has a statute defining marriage as between a man and a woman. If the Supreme Court were to strike down a similar California law, Proposition 8, as unconstitutional, then it would put Indiana’s statute at risk.
Under our system of justice, both sides in a case must be zealously represented. Although Indiana is not a plaintiff or defendant in either of the cases the Supreme Court will hear, our state and other states have an undeniable interest in asserting each state’s legal authority to define marriage as it sees fit within its borders. That’s why my office, representing Indiana, jointly filed a friend-of-the-court brief along with 14 other states that urged the Supreme Court to keep the marriage-definition legal authority at the state level.
Filing such legal briefs, called amicus briefs, is how states present a united front in making their legal positions known to the Supreme Court when they are not directly litigating the case at hand. Drafting and joining amicus briefs in support of other states is a routine but essential duty of the Indiana Attorney General’s Office, assigned to our Solicitor General and funded in advance through our existing budget at no additional expense to taxpayers.
In the two Supreme Court cases, we are not arguing to strike down the legal authority of other states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex partners, if those states so choose. Instead we defend the authority of each state to pass and enact its own traditional marriage-definition laws at the state level — either through its legislature or directly by voters if it has a referendum process.
As an officeholder who listens to constituents, I recognize that people on all sides of the marriage-definition debate hold strong, sincere views. Many Hoosiers favor keeping our state’s current marriage definition and strengthening it by adding it to the Indiana Constitution; others oppose such an amendment but would keep the status quo; still others would favor changing the traditional marriage definition.
Someone has to draw the line somewhere, and that authority belongs to the people’s elected representatives in the Legislature. Defining marriage as between one man and one woman is where Indiana’s legislators have chosen to draw that line in statute. Only the Supreme Court is able to speak with finality on the constitutionality of the significant issues raised; but both sides must be represented by legal advocates — and my clients in the Legislature have clearly chosen the side on which I will serve.
Defining marriage is an intrinsic function of state government that ought not be stripped from states as happened to California in one of the cases now being appealed. This is an important question of our time and therefore we asked the U.S. Supreme Court to exercise its role in our constitutional process to provide answers. Representing Indiana’s case is my responsibility as Attorney General, an obligation that I will do to the best of my skill and ability.
Greg Zoeller is attorney general of Indiana.
Letters to the Editor
Involvement in gay marriage case based on duty of office
- Letters to the Editor
-
-
Cyclists should respect road rules
During the annual (Pumpkinvine) bike ride (from Goshen to Shipshewana on Saturday) there were hundreds of people riding around on back roads.
-
Nazi flag is no laughing matter
An article in the The Elkhart Truth (June 13) appeared with this headline, “What would you do if your neighbor flew a Nazi flag?”
-
God with U.S. since the beginning
It’s no coincidence that virtually every state constitution honors God in their preambles and mentions God in sections that refer to religious freedom. Several of the religious freedom sections mention Christianity specifically.
-
Will be glad when President Obama ‘has went’
I once heard of a little boy who had a habit of saying, “I have went.”
One day the teacher made him stay after school and write, “I have gone” 500 times on the blackboard. -
‘Thank you’ doesn’t say enough
It weighs heavy on my heart to read about the recent transportation budget cuts for the Goshen High School music and athletic departments. I certainly understand that difficulties arise and appropriate cuts have to be made. This is not a letter of argument, but of encouragement.
-
Businesses step up for Chamberlain
The Chamberlain Elementary School PTO is so proud of and thankful for the support of Goshen businesses. Because of their help, Chamberlain was able to provide a successful Fun Night for the students and patrons of their school.
-
An open letter to Joe Donnelly and Dan Coats
I am writing to encourage you to support the bipartisan immigration bill crafted by the so-called “Gang of Eight” senators: four Republicans, four Democrats.
-
Be proud of the Goshen Redskins
We can become riled up about various things and the Redskins idea for change is really one that I believe should be very low on the totem pole of problems or suggestions to take issue with.
-
Nickname issue is not dead yet
With the Chief statue being returned to the gym at Goshen High School, most would feel that the battle was won. But this fight over Goshen’s mascot and nickname is far from over. The fact of the matter is, had it not been for social media the administration might not have received the backlash that it did from the public. But if this plays out like many issues in our society do, within a few weeks or months this issue will lose public interest. I would like to offer encouragement against that.
-
Country is headed for a big loss
I am a conservative, liberty-minded individual who works politically through the Republican Party. Over the years the party that claims to hold up leaders like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan has slowly morphed into an ever so slightly lighter version of the Democratic Party.
- More Letters to the Editor Headlines
-
Cyclists should respect road rules
Ex-Hit Man's Past Is a Shock to Some Neighbors
Fans: Gandofini 'Put New Jersey on the Map'
Does Future of Human Race Depend on Kansas Mine?
Reining in 'Bad News' Sports Parents
James Gandolfini Dies at Age 51
Fmr. TWA Flight 800 Investigators Want New Probe
Raw: Heat, Spurs Back on Court Ahead of Game 7
Dolce and Gabbana Convicted of Tax Evasion
Paris, Prince Depositions Used in Jackson Trial
Coiffed Cattle Get Their Close-up
In Berlin, Obama Channels Cold War Activism
Police at Patriots Tight End's Home for 2nd Day
Fed Suggests Bond Purchases Could Slow
AP: DOJ Broke Own Rules Seizing Phone Records
Raw: Baby White Rhino Debuts at Australian Zoo
Time Lapse: Rebuilding Bridge Post-collapse
Ohio Woman Accuses 3 of Holding Her Captive
Hunt for Ex-Teamster Boss Hoffa's Remains Ends
