Marriage lawsuit is still on

Marriage lawsuit is still on

Court-appointed lawyers will replace two prominent no-shows in the lawsuit over same-sex marriage.

Two prominent state officials — Attorney Gen. Lisa Madigan and Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez — have successfully weasled their way out of doing their statutory duty.

But a lawsuit seeking a judicial order mandating same-sex marriage in Illinois will proceed anyway following a decision by a Cook County judge to allow additional defendants into the case and lawyers from the Thomas More Society to defend state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

The new defendants in the case are two downstate county clerks — Effingham County Clerk Kerry Hirtzel and Tazewell County Clerk Christie Webb. They volunteered to participate in the litigation after Alvarez, representing Cook County Clerk David Orr, refused to defend state law because she supports homosexual marriage. Madigan also refused to represent the state of Illinois in the litigation because she, too, supports same-sex marriage.

Illinois currently allows civil unions for same-sex couples, a decision state legislators made to balance the competing interests in the marriage issue. Now same-sex couples, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal, are asking the Illinois courts to override the General Assembly's decision and legalize same-sex marriage by judicial order.

Frankly, this is not an issue in which the courts should intervene. This kind of public policy question is best left to the public's elected representatives.

But if it is to be litigated — and anyone can file a lawsuit asking for anything — it has to be legitimately contested.

Madigan and Alvarez, both Chicago Democrats, know that. But for a patently political reason — the fear of alienating party activists who support same-sex marriage — they repudiated the oath they swore to carry out their duties and were prepared to simply concede the case to the plaintiffs.

Cook County Circuit Judge Sophia Hall this week appointed replacement lawyers from the Thomas More Society, a public interest law firm, to carry out the work that Madigan and Alvarez refused to do.

Had the judge not made the appointment, the possibility existed that the judge simply could have accepted Madigan's and Alvarez's acquiescence and changed state law. That's why their decision not to do their jobs is so obnoxious.

In taking the action they did, both these veteran lawyers demonstrated that they can be persuaded by ambition not to do their jobs.

That they so blithely backed away from a fundamental responsibility of office is an indictment of both their judgment and character.

Some may suggest that their decisions are no big deal. After all, supporters might say, another lawyer will take up the cause, and the lawsuit will proceed in an orderly fashion.

That is not the issue.

Illinois is in a sorry state of affairs. It's bankrupt and mired in corruption and political self-interest, to the point that it's hard to imagine it ever being any different. That serious problem is compounded when two powerful elected officials decide they will carry out some duties of the office and not carry out others.

Their actions are not only a personal disgrace, but another indictment of the way politics is practiced in this state.

Sections (2):Editorials, Opinion
Categories (2):Editorials, Opinions

Comments embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

jthartke wrote on July 08, 2012 at 8:07 am

I'm sorry, but this is exactly the area where the courts SHOULD get involved.  When majority assemblies pass laws that remove human rights, it is the responsibility of the courts (and elected officials with conscience) to fight those laws.  Of course, since Democrats are involved, the NG has to use extreme words like "weaseled" and "personal disgrace".

Now I also have the feeling that if Republican governors or states attorneys refuse to implement parts of the Affordable Care Act, they will be praised by the NG as fighters for freedom, rather than refer to them as disgraces.  Even though that law will help sick and poor people, and the defense of marriage act strips people of their rights, the NG will not see their own hypocrisy, nor their partisanship veiled by a thin mask of supposed objectivity.

narciblog wrote on July 08, 2012 at 9:07 am

" Alvarez ... refused to defend state law because she supports homosexual marriage."

No, as Madigan and Alvarez have clearly said, they believe the law to be unconstitutional. Defending the constitution is the oath they took when they took office.

And, frankly, it is inappropriate for the News-Gazette to say that they are doing this based soley on a personal preference, ignoring their own public statements on the matter.