The Colorado Attorney General followed through on his threat Thursday to sue a county clerk for continuing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after being ordered to stop.
The Associated Press reported Republican attorney general John Suthers filed the suit against Boulder County Clerk Hillary Hall. A federal judge confirmed the overturning of Utah’s gay marriage, which Hall interpreted as extending the ruling to Colorado, which also falls under the federal court’s jurisdiction.
Suthers argued that the state’s ban is still in effect and ordered Hall to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, but Hall continued.
“Regretfully, our office was forced to take action against Boulder County Clerk Hillary Hall due to her refusal to follow state law,” Suthers said in a statement, per the AP. “While we would prefer not to sue a government official, Ms. Hall’s actions are creating a legal limbo for both the state and the couples whose relationships she wants to champion.”
Hall countered in her own statement that Suthers’s order would “force me to violate the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples who apply for a marriage license.”
This post has been updated to clarify the legal situation.
She should stop issuing marriage license if a higher court stayed the ruling. We all know this is just delaying the final outcome. But the law is the law and we have to follow it whether we like it or not.
I wonder what it’s like living life on the wrong side of history. Oh, wait. No I don’t.
This AG must love tossing some public funds down the toilet for no reason.
No, you don’t understand the law or what the court did.
The court found that the Colorado law was unconstitutional. That is a finding of law. A finding of law is a statement of fact and can’t be stayed. A higher court could find otherwise but this is highly unlikely.
Having found the law to be unconstitutional the court issued an injunction that requires the state to issue licenses. It was only the injunction that was stayed.
The county clerk is thus in the position of being required to follow a state law that has been found to be unconstitutional and invalid under state law. The district court stayed the order that compels the state to issue licenses but did not make any order prohibiting the issue of licenses.
So what we have is a situation where the state AG is applying to a court to obtain an order requiring the county clerk to enforce a law that is unconstitutional under the federal constitution. So there are two possibilities.
First would be that he goes to the federal courts to obtain an injunction. But that is likely to fail because the federal courts are never interested in ordering one part of a state government to follow the regulations made by another part of that state government. It is a purely internal state matter that should be decided by state courts. The fact that the law has been found to be unconstitutional only makes that response more likely.
The second possibility is that the AG goes to the state courts. But they are bound by the federal court precedent.
Colorado does not currently have any law that prohibits same sex marriage. All those laws became invalid as soon as the federal court made its ruling.
Suthers is eager to earn his place in history as the George Wallace of the anti-gay marriage battle.
Sad, but true. Regardless of same-sex marriages’ legal “win streak”, we can’t afford any question marks.