It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors. — George Washington, Thanksgiving Proclamation October 3, 1789

Marriage Remains Intact in South Dakota

June 26, 2013   ·   By   ·   2 Comments

marriageFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE : Wednesday, June 26, 2013
CONTACT: Sara Rabern (605)773-3215

PIERRE, S.D - Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that South Dakota’s definition of marriage, which is limited to a man and a woman, is still valid.

“After today’s U.S Supreme Court decisions, South Dakota constitution and legislative enactments defining marriage to be between a man and a woman remain in effect as a matter of law,” said Jackley. 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 defines 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.

In the first decision the United States Supreme Court handed down this morning, the Court found that private parties lack standing to defend the constitutionality of a California law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. When California state officials refused to defend a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, private parties sought to enforce its constitutional amendment. The Court held that only state officials and not private parties have standing in federal court to defend the constitutionality of the law. Based upon South Dakota voters’ decision to define marriage as between a man and a woman in South Dakota, the State of South Dakota joined numerous states as Amicus Curie or Friend of the Court, defending the constitutionality of California’s definition of marriage.

In the second decision, the U.S Supreme Court recognized the each state’s responsibility for defining and regulating marriage. When United States Attorney General Eric Holder refused to defend or enforce a federal statute that defined marriage as excluding same sex partners, the House of Representatives stepped in to defend the federal statute. As to those states that define marriage to include same sex couples, the federal statute violated basic due process and equal protection principles. The federal statute did not recognize or accept 12 states’ and the District of Columbia’s definitions of marriage. The decision did not resolve challenges to state marriage definitions affecting same sex marriages. The opinion and its holding are confined to only same sex marriages made lawful under state law.


Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.



Similar Posts:

Newswire articles originate from a variety of sources including wire services, press releases and more. Newswire pieces are written by a representative of the person or organization that is the subject or source of the article and are presented as informational statements about the subject discussed.
Newswire
View all articles by Newswire
Print Friendly
Clip to Evernote
  • thisoldspouse

    What I’d like clarification on is whether these “marriage” contrivances from other states are essentially exportable to every other state regarding federal recognition. In other words, if a same-sex couple “weds” in Massachusetts and then moves to South Dakota, do they still get the same benefits of a “married” couple from the federal government’s position, or do they have to remain a resident in a state that recognizes their “marriage” to be recognized as such by the feds?

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      That’s precisely what DOMA cleared up…and what SCOTUS has now made a mess of.

      Contrary to what some liberal liars have been saying, DOMA didn’t do a darned thing to stop a state from counterfeiting marriage if it wanted to. It only (a) prevented one state forcing counterfeit marriage on another state by forcing that other state to recognize it’s counterfeit marriages, and (2) recognized for the purposes of federal law (i.e. on federal reservations, benefits for federal employees, etc) that marriage is recognized to be between a man and a woman only.

      It really does no more, no less. It still does the first, but only technically still does the second, because their Lordships at SCOTUS have now decided the taxpayers MUST be forced to extend benefits to homosexual couples whether they like it or not.

      And while the first one still stands, it has a bullseye painted on it (i.e. it’s only a matter of time) because of situations like the one Scalia posited here: http://www.americanclarion.com/21921/2013/06/26/supreme-court-war-on-marriage/

Featured Articles

Caesar

Entertained Out of Your Freedoms

Bradlee Dean

While much of America will proclaim their love for this country by stating that they love her so much they would die for her, I would simply submit to my readers: Do you love your country enough to live for her? Julius Caesar said that if you give people a piece of bread and a spectacle, you can do whatever you want with them.

counterfeit_20

Counterfeit $20 Bills Should Be Accepted as Legal Tender

Bob Ellis

According to the Rockford Register Star, counterfeit $20 bills are being passed around in Belle Fourche, South Dakota. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, since the U.S. Supreme Court and a judge in Michigan this week have decided to push counterfeit marriage on the American people as if the counterfeit was the real thing.

cell_phone

SD Cell Phone Ban for Youth Takes Effect July 1

Newswire

A new law making it illegal for young drivers to use a cell phone while driving takes effect on Monday, July 1, South Dakota Department of Public Safety officials remind citizens. The law, passed by the 2013 Legislature, prohibits anyone who holds a learner’s permit or a restricted minor’s permit from using any handheld communication device while driving. Generally, such permits are issued to persons between the ages of 14 and 18.

wedding_rings

War on Marriage: Flashpoint in Michigan

Bob Ellis

It never takes homosexual activists and their "useful idiots" long to capitalize on their last victory over truth, justice and morality to leverage the next attack on what is right. Now corrupt judicial activists in Michigan are going after that state's domestic partner benefits prohibition, as well as the state's ban on counterfeit marriage.

gauntlet

President Throws Down the Green Gauntlet

Rick Manning

The President’s Climate Action Plan outlines Obama’s determination to push the limits of his Executive branch power through bypassing Congress and instituting policies through a series of regulations and Executive Orders. With the Environmental Protection Agency expected to be the point of the spear in this war on American energy production, the nomination of Gina McCarthy to head that agency becomes an important test of the Senate’s support for the now declared war.

Archives

Other News

Other Commentary

Featured Blogs

"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964