Grant Woods

AZ I See It

Today is the first anniversary of the Supreme Court decision declaring a federal ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional

Former Attorney General Grant Woods says he would argue against Arizona's ban if he were still in office

Woods%3A There is no legal justification to have one set of rules for straight couples and a different set of rules for gay couples

One year ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in U.S. vs. Windsor, ruling the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, unconstitutional.

At the time of the decision, only 11 states and the District of Columbia allowed same-sex couples to legally marry. Today, that number is 19.

Since Windsor, 17 out of 17 federal judges to rule on this issue have ruled in favor of the freedom to marry. And here in Arizona, two court cases are pending challenging our state's ban on same-sex marriage.

I had the honor of serving as Arizona's attorney general from 1991 to 1999. If I were serving in that role today, I would make the case that our state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

As Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the Windsor decision, DOMA's ban on same-sex marriage "violates basic due process and equal protection principles." I agree with the Supreme Court ruling and believe the same law and principles apply to Arizona's ban.

Also in agreement are the judges who have struck down marriage bans in other states. For example, Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican appointed by President George W. Bush, wrote in his decision striking down Pennsylvania's ban, "Some of our citizens are made deeply uncomfortable by the notion of same-sex marriage. However, that same-sex marriage causes discomfort in some does not make its prohibition constitutional. Nor can past tradition trump the bedrock constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection."

Equality is not only our founding principle, but also the core of the political and legal convictions of Americans across the political spectrum. Throughout our history, Americans, both famous and forgotten, have fought to ensure that we live up to our ideals.

As we have moved forward as a nation, laws and courts have clarified that equal protection and due process apply to all Americans, regardless of race, religion, place of origin or disability status. I believe these principles apply to people regardless of sexual orientation, as well.

There is no legal justification to have one set of rules for straight couples and a different set of rules for gay couples. That's not how we do things in America. This is nothing but discrimination.

One of the most important core values we share as Americans is our belief in the Golden Rule — treating others as we want to be treated.

To single out a class of Americans because of a trait fundamental to who they are is unfair, unlawful and violates the basic principles of equality that are so important to who we are as a nation.

For government to intrude into an area as personal as saying you can't marry the one you love not only takes away a person's dignity, it is also just plain wrong. I would allow others to defend the law, as I think that is only fair.

But as attorney general I often argued that Arizona's actions were unconstitutional when I thought it was appropriate. That's the case here. If I was still Arizona's attorney general, I would fight against Arizona's law and make the argument for equal protection under the law.

Grant Woods served as attorney general of Arizona throughout the 1990s. He is now a trial attorney based in Phoenix.