GOVERNOR: Give Me More Time to Review Gay Marriage Laws


Governor Eddie Calvo says he doesn’t want to rush to a decision, he wants to make an informed decision.

Guam – After a flood of inquiries on the topic of same-sex marriage, Governor Eddie Calvo issued a statement today. You can read his statement below.


(Adelup) – Although the question of same sex marriage has been legally reviewed by several courts in the states for several years, it is something that arose very recently on Guam. It was just Tuesday afternoon when my office received the lawsuit. It was Wednesday when the Attorney General sent her memo, which was based on the Ninth Circuit’s decision on Latta vs Otter. Unfortunately, on that same day I was heading to meetings with federal officials in California.

I’ve instructed my legal team to research the issue taking into consideration all of the decisions of the Ninth Circuit Court — which now it appears includes more than just the Latta case. In the Ninth Circuit, there are also cases reviewing same-sex marriage laws in Montana and Alaska, which the Ninth Circuit has stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in several Sixth Circuit Court cases it is hearing next week.


I have the utmost respect for the Attorney General, her staff and their research, but it is not clear to me to what extent the Ninth Circuit’s stay of the cases in Alaska and Montana were included in her review. Recent statements from the lawyers representing the plaintiffs and others on the side of ignoring existing Guam law also only acknowledge the Latta case in the Ninth Circuit. If that decision were truly the binding law on Guam, one would have to ask then why even the Ninth Circuit has not continued applying that decision throughout other states under its jurisdiction. This is why I have my legal team also reviewing the issue.


But to the extent I am being called on by any individual or groups to act immediately on an issue that has been brought before the courts of Guam only this week, my response is that I need all of this information, so that I, as governor of Guam can fulfill my duty and my responsibility of making an informed decision for the island. This isn’t an issue that can or should be decided in a few days. Other jurisdictions have been grappling with this issue for years; Guam has only been grappling with it for days.


If the decision were so obvious on its face, the Supreme Court would have made the decision for the entire nation already. And the Ninth Circuit would not have stayed its decision in the Alaska or Montana cases.


To be clear, I understand the call for equal treatment. I oppose discrimination in every form and fashion. The issue being debated in the courts, as far as I currently understand it, is whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be restricted by any state (or territorial) government, or whether the states have the right to have the issue determined locally by their state legislatures.  As important as the preservation of individual rights are in our democracy, many would argue that the preservation of states rights are also essential. This is what the U.S. Supreme Court needs to resolve.


I know you all want an answer. But if the Ninth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court feel they need the time to review and resolve the question, is there any reason why I shouldn’t also be provided the same consideration? Contrary to statements based on unconfirmed reports that my mind is made up, it isn’t. I know some people want a quick answer, but for a question of this complexity and magnitude, I owe the people of Guam more than a quick answer. I owe them a well-informed decision.


I thank you all for your questions. God bless you.





  1. Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses. The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementary in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children. Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

  2. Gay Marriage always denies a child either a father or a mother It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent. The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model. Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

  3. Same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants. Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

Comments are closed.