Home / Featured News / Gay marriages to begin today in AZ after judge strikes down ban

Gay marriages to begin today in AZ after judge strikes down ban

DGays are now legally marrying in Arizona.

The historic move came just moments after Attorney General Tom Horne said Friday he will not appeal a decision earlier that morning by U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick declaring Arizona’s ban on same-sex weddings unconstitutional and immediately ordering the state to “permanently cease enforcement of those provisions of Arizona law declared unconstitutional by this order.” That followed a similar ruling earlier this month by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voiding similar laws in Nevada and Idaho.

“The probability of the 9th Circuit reversing today’s district court decision is zero,” Horne said at a hastily called press conference just hours after Sedwick’s ruling. “The probability of the U.S. Supreme Court accepting review of the 9th Circuit decision is also zero.”

And Horne said while he believes the rulings are wrong, he is bound by rules which make it unethical – and subject to discipline – for an attorney to file legal papers solely for the purpose of delay. He said that would be the case were he to appeal, calling such a move “an exercise in futility.”

Potentially more significant, Horne directed the clerks of superior courts in the state’s 15 counties to immediately start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

“The emails have gone out,” he told reporters, noting that even before he announced his decision there already were 10 couples waiting at the clerk’s office for Maricopa County.

Horne said he personally disagrees with Sedwick’s ruling. He cited the 2008 voter-approved state constitutional amendment defining marriage in Arizona as solely between one man and one woman.

“We fought a revolution against England on the understanding that we’re smart enough to rule ourselves as a people and we didn’t need a British aristocracy ruling over us,” he said.

“I believe we’re still smart enough to rule over ourselves as a people,” Horne continued. “And this is an important decision, and it’s a policy decision that should be made by the people and not by the courts.”

But Horne conceded that right of voters to set policy is not unlimited.

For example, he said Arizona voters could not legally deny marriage between people of different races or different religions. Horne said there are constitutional provisions prohibiting such discrimination.

“There’s no provision in the Constitution protecting sexual orientation,” he said. “In my opinion, this would be a policy matter for the people to decide.”

Friday’s order means more than gays living here can marry. It also requires Arizona to recognize same-sex weddings performed in other states.

“We’re legal in Arizona, finally,” said the Rev. Debra Peevey who, with spouse Candy Cox, went to Horne’s press conference. Peevey, who in 1981 became the first openly gay person to be ordained by the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), said the pair, who have been together 30 years, went to California in 2008 to get married when it became legal for same-sex couples to wed in that state.

Peevey, who works with Why Marriage Matters, said her organization was instrumental in arranging to have ministers of various faiths available at courthouses around the state so that gay couples could wed as soon as they got their licenses.

Gov. Jan Brewer, in a prepared statement, called Friday’s ruling “not only disappointing but also deeply troubling that unelected federal judges can dictate the laws of individual states.” She said judges are creating rights “based on their own personal policy preferences.”

“Simply put, courts should not be in the business of making and changing laws based on their personal agendas,” Brewer said in her statement, saying “that power belongs to the states, and to the people.” She said such changes should be allowed only through the Legislature or at the ballot.

There was already an organization formed to put such a measure on the 2016 ballot. And the chances for approval appeared good, with a statewide poll last year of 700 adult heads of households finding that 55 percent said they would support allowing gays and lesbians to wed, with just 35 percent opposed.

But that same survey also showed a deep cultural divide along party lines: Just 36 percent of Republicans were in favor of repealing the 2008 ban.

Friday’s ruling makes that initiative drive not only unnecessary, but also makes what the majority thinks legally irrelevant.
Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, said Friday’s ruling – and even the failure of the U.S. Supreme Court to so far review similar rulings from elsewhere – does not mean the fight over same-sex marriage is over.

She pointed out that several federal appellate courts have yet to weigh in on the issue. And Herrod said that if any one of them upholds a state’s ban, that conflict between circuits could force the justices to step in.

Herrod has more than a passing interest in the issue. It was her organization that pushed the successful 2008 ballot measure defining marriage in Arizona as solely between one man and one woman.

She said the issue does not go away even if the Supreme Court does conclude there is a constitutional right of gays to wed. As proof she cited the historic 1973 ruling of Roe v. Wade which declared that women have a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.

“The pro-life movement is stronger than ever,” she said, citing a series of new restrictions on abortions that have been approved by states and upheld by courts. None of those rulings, however, have disturbed the basic premise of the 1973 decision.

Herrod has not disputed that public attitudes toward same-sex weddings have softened over the years. But she said that will change.

“We are in the midst of a social experiment,” she said. “And we don’t know the full outcome.”

Horne, however, said he cannot view the issue as a social one.

“I fought it as far as I ethically could,” he said of the challenge to the Arizona law. But Horne said his decision not to drag the case on “does not diminish my disagreement with the decision.”

Horne was a little more circumspect when asked about his feelings for gays now that they have the ability to marry.

“Obviously, I have good personal feelings for gay people that I know,” he said, saying he is involved in “the world of classical music” where he said gays are represented disproportionately. But Horne said he had the legal obligation to defend the Arizona ban as long as it was defensible.

Pressed for whether he shares in the happiness of gays who now can marry, he responded, “Without detracting from the legal position I have taken, I would say, ‘Yes.’”


  1. Grisham can’t control what the clerks do. They will be liable if they fail to follow Judge Sedwick’s order.

  2. The hedonistic guys and gals aren`t even considering the Holy Bible and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah. They have confused the fruit of the womb with the Fruit of the Loom. However, there can be no meaningful fruit with ++ & –; there can only be saliva, sperm, eggs, and fecal matter. How can humans with self respect accept sodomy? God said that “The effeminate shall not enter the Kingdom of God.” However, satan and his representatives anxious to steal souls will encourage you to commit animalistic antics as the serpent did to Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden. Acceptance of perverted behavior by your fellowman will not change God`s commandments and laws; there is a higher power to please. Beware of your heavenly future. If you cannot enter heaven then where will you go? Be concerned.

  3. Its amazing how ignorant the Republican Governor is on the separation of powers!

    “Simply put, courts should not be in the business of making and changing laws based on their personal agendas,” Brewer said. “It is not the role of the judiciary to determine that same-sex marriages should be allowed.”

    Republicanism may be distinguished from other forms of democracy as it asserts that people have unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters. Alexis de Tocqueville warned about the “tyranny of the majority” in a democracy, and advocates of the rights of minorities have warned that the courts needed to protect those rights by reversing efforts by voters to terminate the rights of an unpopular minority.

  4. Zena Mitchell you really believe that stuff? Wake up and then go back to sleep.

  5. It’s amazing how ignorant Brian Fair is of basic reality!

    The US Constitution addresses “sexual orientation” not at all (not even in any indirect way). It is ignorant and historically inconceivable that any signer of the the document would have understood anything within to mean that anyone can do anything as long as they believe it is their “right”.

    This is the very definition of judicial activism and the people for whom this government exists have been disenfranchised. “of the people, by the people, for the people” no longer exists.

  6. Wow – this is a gr8 example of why we need DARK MONEY stopped! It’s no secret that the Mormon church poured TONS of $ into defeating gay marriage. And Tom Horne rode that crest right into a PR issue for himself. So – also an example of why Tom Horne needs to go as A.G. I’m weary of elected officials using tax $$$ to wage senseless MORAL challenges in the legal arena. How much Arizona tax $ — and how much of the AG’s budget – d’ya think went into this crusade???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *




Check Also

Arizona Cardinals quarterback Kyler Murray (1) throws a pass against the San Francisco 49ers during an NFL football game, Saturday, Dec. 26, 2020, in Glendale, Ariz. A proposal from Gov. Doug Ducey would allow Arizonans to bet on professional sports. (AP Photo/Jennifer Stewart)

Ducey seeks expansion of gaming to allow sports betting

Gov. Doug Ducey wants to open the door to allowing Arizonans to bet on -- or against -- the Diamondbacks and the Cardinals. And maybe even the Wildcats and Sun Devils.

/* code for tag simpli.fi */