‘Bill banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional’

The Attorney General’s Office raised constitutional issues on the proposed same-sex marriage initiative, noting that the measure would impede several constitutional rights under Commonwealth law.

Acting attorney general Clyde Lemons said the issue of proposed House Legislative Initiative 14-3 embraces more than one article of the CNMI Constitution and does not merely amend Article II directly.

Lemons stressed that the measure also aims to amend rights allowed under Article I by denying equal protection of the law to certain persons in the area of marriage, prevent the Legislature from enacting laws that would outlaw discrimination based on sex in the area of marriage and by creating a constitutional public policy in favor of sex-based classifications in the area of marriage.

Also, the AGO said the measure would violate the right to privacy in the personal decision to marry and the liberty interests of individuals by intruding into the private realm of decision whether to marry a person of one’s choice.

“This opinion in no way limits the rights of individuals to refuse to marry persons of the same sex for religious or any other reasons. This opinion does not seek to limit the personal freedom of individuals to disapprove of, or to encourage others to disapprove of same-sex marriage, “ Lemons said in his testimony submitted to the House of Representatives.

The House Committee on Judiciary and Governmental Operations would hold a public hearing today at 1:30pm at the House chamber to hear statements and comments on HLI 14-3.

The initiative, introduced by House Speaker Benigno R. Fitial, aims to restrict the conduct of marriage to between people of opposite sexes only by amending Section 5 of Article II of the CNMI Constitution, adding a new subsection that would limit legislative authority in enacting laws relating to marriage..

Fitial earlier said that, since the CNMI is predominantly Catholic, there would hardly be any opposition to the proposal. Some individuals, however, have already expressed opposition to the measure.

The proposed section reads: “It is the public policy of the Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage and that only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in the CNMI and the Legislature may enact no law inconsistent with the public policy on marriage.”

The issue has become a political hot button in the U.S. mainland, where some states and cities have started recognizing gay marriages even as its validity continue to be debated and challenged. San Francisco in California and Boston started sanctioning marriage unions between same-sex partners since February. Since then until March 9, 2004, more than 3,700 same-sex couples have reportedly gotten married in the Bay Area. The marriage ceremonies have been intended to force the State of California to act on legalizing gay marriage.