I watched with interest as Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum announced that she would not defend the 2004 amendment that Oregonians passed in which they stated that marriage consists of a union between a man and a woman. This places our Secretary of State in the positon of announcing that she will not respect, not be bound, by the oath she took when she was sworn into office.
Some will applaud her stance. "Good for her. She is standing up for what she believes in." I see it differently. When the founding fathers found that they could not serve a distant crown because their conscience would not allow them to enforce unjust laws, they resigned their positions. Rather than take the honorable step of resigning, which I could respect, our Secretary of State dishonorably chose to ignore her oath.
In a press release Ms. Rosenblum announced that "there is no rational basis for Oregon to refuse to honor the commitments made by same-sex couples." I can think of a rational basis - in fact, I can think of 1,028,546 rational reasons. That's how many Oregonians voted in favor of the amendment to our constitution, which Ms. Rosenblum swore to defend.
She stated that she also swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, but that Constitution has no amendment regarding marriage, and the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to been heard. In contrast, the Oregon amendment is clear and explicit.
I felt a similar twinge when our governor announced that he would not sign any orders for the execution of any death row inmates for as long as he is in office. Upon reflection, I realized that that's different. Our own statutes require the governor's concurrence before an execution can be carried out. That may be a good plan, or a bad one, but it is clear that it is the governor's prerogative, and there is nothing in any statute or ordinance to require his concurrence. His decision may defy the will of the people, but it is certainly honorable and lawful, and within the structures of laws that we have established.
The Secretary of State's stance is akin to to the employee who steals from his employer because he believes that he is not being paid enough. The employee's own opinion allows him to justify his action. When each of us does what we want to, and ignores the laws by which we have collectively agreed to be bound, that's lawlessness.
Some will say, "Ah, the author is anti-gay," but they are missing the point. I am not anti-gay. I am pro rule of law. If the Supreme Court of the United States rules that the states should allow gay marriage, that will be the law of the land, and it would be wrong for our Attorney General to defy that law.
And it's wrong for our Secretary of State to ignore her oath because she, in her own mind, has decided that the Oregon Constitution is not "rational."
No comments:
Post a Comment