Did John Suthers Flip Flop on the Same-Sex Marriage Issue?

Nope.

(Not anymore than the law did, anyway.)

Attorney General John Suthers has been viewed pretty harshly these days. To put it nicely, let’s just say he’s been called “the roadblock in the path to same-sex marriage in Colorado.”

Whether that’s an accurate depiction of the man is up to you. In fairness, I couldn’t find any info on the guy’s personal stance on same-sex marriage.

I mean … is he for?

Is he against?

Does he give a damn?

So I gave his office a quick ring, knowing it was a longshot (insert chicken/head-cut-off analogy here), but to my astonishment someone actually answered. It was Carolyn Tyler, the communications director for Camp Suthers.

Right outta the gate, she reminded me of his official statement — “We will file motions to expedite the lifting of the stays in the federal and state courts and will advise the clerks when to issue licenses.” — and didn’t balk when I asked: “But c’mon: Is he for or against same-sex marriage personally?”

She tells me Suthers has never been publicly for or against same-sex marriage. In two words, he’s been: intentionally mum.

Carolyn says: “He sees that as irrelevant. His job is simply to uphold the law.”

My knee-jerk reaction as an often skeptical butthead is something like, “Right. How convenient.” But as it turns out, Suthers has upheld the law in matters that conflicted with his personal views, because the law is the law. A quick example?

Writing for The Washington Post, he opines:

“I have been attorney general of Colorado for nine years, during which time the state has enacted laws that span the philosophical and political spectrum. I personally oppose a number of Colorado’s laws as a matter of public policy, and a few are contrary to my religious beliefs. But as my state’s attorney general, I have defended them all — and will continue to.”

He cites, for example, defending the First Amendment even when it meant that children in Colorado would have visual access to marijuana-themed content. Though it posed moral and internal strife for Suthers, he kept to his duty as Attorney General and stood by the law. To be in opposition to the rule of law, he says, would “undermine many important principles of our democracy.” He applied the same principle to the ban on same-sex marriage. (Read the whole column here.)

So now that the Supreme Court of the United States has refused to hear the same-sex marriage argument within its halls, the law has been deferred to the 10th Circuit’s decision which declares a ban on gay marriage “unconstitutional.”

And now we’re seeing Attorney General John Suthers do what he’s been doing all along, whether it hurts or not: He’s getting behind the law.

Yes, it’s a new look for the man to act swiftly in same-sex marriage’s corner. That’s because the law is brand new. And it’s binding. And it’s about to change our world here in Colorado.

The only downside Suthers has expressed is a disappointment in SCOTUS’ decision not to decide, as it creates a “patchwork” of law across our country, rather than a national uniformity on the issue of same-sex marriage. I think we can all agree that giving same-sex marriage the greenlight across the country would pose so fewer legal headaches and hangups. But here we are, 10th Circuit denizens … and we’re all set to one-up the (mostly) second-class citizenry of same-sex civil unions.

But there’s an odd twist to all this, Carolyn admits.

“It’s conceivable to think that a federal stay would be lifted before one at the state level,” she says, adding that there are stays in Denver, Boulder, and Adams County specifically, and to issue licenses before the stay is lifted is to be in contempt of court. “The marriage licenses that have been issued prior to today — the ones issued in Pueblo, for instance — they’re invalid.”

Her advice? Start making plans for marriage, but save yourself some time and money and wait until the stays are lifted before heading down to the courthouse.

“That way, your marriage will be valid and legal. [You] deserve certainty that your marriages are valid.”

Ok. So when, then? I ask her: “If past is precedent, when can we expect the Supreme Court of Colorado to give us an answer?”

“I wish I had a crystal ball to look at that court docket,” she responds with a laugh. “We’ve been working as quickly as possible, joining with plaintiffs in filing a motion to lift both the federal and state stays.” She says everyone there hopes the Supreme Court of Colorado will release the determinations soon.

“I think we can expect an answer within a few days,” she says.

Commence breath-holding in 5 … 4  … 3

  [opinion]