Gay Marriage | News | North Dakota

North Dakota Officials File Motion To Dismiss Gay Marriage Lawsuit

The motion to dismiss the challenge to that state's ban on gay marriage (filed last month) was introduced late Tuesday by the state attorney general's office.

BahrNorth Dakota Solicitor General Doug Bahr wrote in his 50-page proposal:

"Nothing in the United States Constitution prevents the people of North Dakota from defining marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman...The people of North Dakota, through the deliberative political process, retain the traditional understanding of marriage as the union between a man and a woman....The fact North Dakota's marriage laws are different from the marriage laws of some other states does not establish a viable claim that the challenged provisions violate the right to interstate travel."

Additionally, according to Forum News ServiceBahr argues the state needs more data on gay marriage before it considers making it legal.

"No society has yet had a generation's worth of experience permitting same-sex marriage. Other states' experience with same-sex marriage could provide valuable practical data about the effects of same-sex marriage," Bahr wrote. "North Dakota could rationally decide to wait until it obtains more information about the effects of same-sex marriage before deciding to permit it in North Dakota."

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. No society had a generations worth of experience permitting women to vote at the time when a woman's right to vote was acknowledged, but that seems to have worked out alright - despite the lack of information on what would happen.

    Posted by: Chadd | Jul 3, 2014 7:23:34 AM

  2. "North Dakota could rationally decide to wait until it obtains more information"

    The old "wait and see" argument.... Well, while they are waiting for their law to be overturned, maybe they should review the Michigan ruling by Justice Bernard Friedman. Friedman wrote that argument is "fundamentally altered when constitutional rights are implicated because “any deprivation of constitutional rights calls for prompt rectification.” Watson v. Memphis,(1963)."

    Posted by: AdamTh | Jul 3, 2014 7:58:19 AM

  3. And there is nothing in the four corners of the Constitution to prevent North Dakota from defining marriage as a union of two people of the same race. Sorry, but that "logic" is crap.

    Posted by: Caleb in SC | Jul 3, 2014 8:00:14 AM

  4. Agree with the posters here.
    That submission of the Att. Gen. is total nonsense.
    "There is nothing in the US Constitution to prevent the people of North Dakota from defining marriage as between one man and one woman."

    Yes, there is !.....It's the equality clause.

    Gee, sounds like the Marx Brothers....the sanity clause; obviously the Att. Gen. hasn't read the sanity clause .

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jul 3, 2014 8:13:31 AM

  5. Does a State Attorney General really file this kind of stupidity in a court of law ?

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jul 3, 2014 8:20:17 AM

  6. In other words, the state also needs more data on ipads and iphones before it considers making it legal. Something similar seems to have been said by a Supreme Court justice.

    Posted by: simon | Jul 3, 2014 8:41:03 AM

  7. @JACKFKNTWIST these days its more and more apparent there is NO Sanity Clause! (apologies to Chico Marx)

    Posted by: Princely | Jul 3, 2014 9:11:03 AM

  8. AG Bahr seems to have copied and pasted his brief from one filed by the AG Jim Crow of Mississippi IN 1960!
    Love the reference to interstate travel! Exactly the same arguments used against segregation in the 20th C.
    These dogs didn't fight in 1960 and certainly don't stand now--23 courts have rejected them this year alone!
    Yes, states have the right to define marriage, but they still have to allow competent adults the franchise.

    Posted by: verbocity | Jul 3, 2014 9:35:07 AM

  9. They need more time to study the issue. Just like global warming. They just want a few more decades or until they find a study that agrees with their position. We've heard it all before.

    Posted by: Terry | Jul 3, 2014 9:53:58 AM

  10. It took Mississippi 148 years to ratify the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery...Will North Dakota need that amount of time to decide in Same sex marriage will work in their state?

    Posted by: imsixftsix | Jul 3, 2014 10:06:34 AM

  11. It's viable because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to vote on a civil right, you bufoon!

    Posted by: ToThePoint | Jul 3, 2014 10:39:37 AM

  12. No, Mr. Bahr, you don't need any more data. You just need to follow the Constitution and treat people equally.

    Posted by: jason MacBride | Jul 3, 2014 11:09:34 AM

  13. This has to be the first time a satirical brief has been filed in a federal court; I mean, it couldn't be serious, could it? The basis for claiming that the same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional is the right to interstate travel? North Dakota has to wait for a few generations to pass until it can determine what the effects of same-sex marriage might be? Ha, ha, ha! Doug, you slay me!

    Posted by: ajax28 | Jul 3, 2014 3:58:59 PM

Post a comment


« «DIRECTV Previewing 'To Be Takei' Through August 6: VIDEO« «