The U.S. Supreme Court recently sidestepped a dispute over first-in-the-nation legalized same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, while the Canadian Supreme Court paved the way for gay marriages nationwide.
The U.S. Supreme Court, without comment, declined to hear a challenge to a 2003 ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court which struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. The challenge was filed by Liberty Counsel on behalf of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts and eleven state lawmakers. Liberty Counsel President and General Counsel, Mathew Staver, stated, “This decision highlights the need for an amendment to the United States Constitution protecting marriage and defining it as the union of one man and one woman. Marriage will be defined by someone. I would rather have it defined by the people of the United States instead of the judiciary.” Staver added, “This battle is far from over. The Constitution should protect the citizens of Massachusetts from their own state Supreme Court’s usurpation of power.”
Likewise, C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, said, the court’s decision not to take the case “underscores the need for Supreme Court justices committed to a strict construction of the Constitution.” In addition, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the state’s Roman Catholic bishops, said, the court’s move was disappointing but not surprising.
Focus on the Family founder and chairman, Dr. James Dobson, lamented the high court’s decision. “The courts have long proven themselves to be no friend of the traditional family or traditional values. As long as the fate of marriage and morality in America rests with the judiciary, the nation’s families remain vulnerable. America cannot afford a patchwork definition of marriage, with the courts and local officials redefining it at will. This nation must have a clear and unified standard of its foundational institution–the amendment process is the only foolproof method of protecting marriage for all Americans,” Dobson said.
In the wake of the Massachusetts court ruling, more than three thousand same-sex couples in the state have been married since May 17. That prompted 13 states to approve gay marriage bans, including eleven states in the November general election. That point was underscored by Peter Sprigg, senior director of Policy Studies at Family Research Council. “It is increasingly clear that the ultimate solution to the problem of judicial tyranny will not come from other judges, but from the people themselves. That is why the electorates of 13 states have amended their state constitutions in recent months to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Marriage is about more than tax credits and other financial benefits. It is about preserving the best environment for raising children, and the safest, healthiest living situation for adults. Without strong marriages as our bedrock, our nation will suffer a devastating blow. Massachusetts has already begun the lengthy process of amending its state constitution to overturn the Supreme Judicial Court’s usurpation of power in the Goodridge decision. We urge the newly elected legislature and the people to continue and complete this process in defense of both marriage and democracy,” Sprigg said.
Gay rights activists hailed the U.S. Supreme Court’s action. Outgoing Human Rights Campaign President, Cheryl Jacques, stated, “Massachusetts can continue to treat all of its citizens equally. Since May, same-sex couples now have access to all the same rights and responsibilities as other couples. It makes sense the court wouldn’t take away rights from hard-working, tax-paying American families.” David Buckel, director of the legal marriage project of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, summed up the decision this way: “The bottom line is, nobody is being harmed by the Massachusetts state law treating all couples equally.”
As for the future of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, state lawmakers will decide whether to put the issue of a constitutional amendment banning the practice to state voters in November, 2006. Just days after the November election, the first federal lawsuit challenging a newly-approved ban on same-sex marriage was filed in Oklahoma. The lawsuit also urges the court to declare the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, impacting all 50 states. Approved by Congress in 1996, DOMA defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Alliance for Marriage President Matt Daniels called the lawsuit, “just the beginning.” Daniels continued: “We fully expect a tsunami of litigation designed to strike down marriage in different states across the country.” In 2001, the AFM drafted the Federal Marriage Amendment, which has yet to clear both chambers of Congress. Daniels said; the challenges to the state bans on gay marriage underscore the need for approval of the FMA. “Ultimately, only our Federal Marriage Amendment will protect marriage– while leaving all issues of benefits to the democratic process in the states,” Daniels concluded.
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said, the U.S. Supreme Court decision has not changed President Bush’s mind about the FMA. “The president continues to emphasize the importance of moving forward on a constitutional amendment that would allow the people’s voice to be heard and not allow this issue to be decided by activist judges or local officials,” McClellan said.
While challenges have been filed in states that recently approved constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, a second New York court has upheld that state’s longstanding laws that exclude same-sex couples from marriage. In the latest decision, issued in December, Albany County Justice Joseph Teresi rejected arguments by 13 same-sex couples that the laws violated constitutional guarantees of due process, equal protection and free speech.
The Liberty Counsel’s Staver called it a “great victory” for traditional marriage. “Within a few months, two New York courts have upheld the state’s marriage laws. Marriage between one man and one woman is common sense. The state has an obvious interest in preserving traditional marriage. The state clearly has the right to prefer the best family arrangement for children and society,” Staver said.
While gay marriage remains limited in the U.S. to Massachusetts, a recent Canadian Supreme Court decision has paved the way for legalized same-sex marriages nationwide. The court’s opinion, in a clarification sought by Prime Minister Paul Martin’s government, said a proposed law to allow gay marriages was constitutional. The measure before parliament would allow same-sex marriages to be performed in city halls, courthouses and religious institutions that opt to support them.
However, the court also ruled that Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects religious groups from being forced to perform same-sex marriages against their beliefs. The decision by the high court came 18 months after then-Prime Minister Jean Chretian’s government abandoned the fight against gay marriage when courts in three provinces declared traditional marriage laws unconstitutional.
Martin said of the ruling, “For many Canadians and many parliamentarians, this is a difficult issue involving personal and religious convictions, and it represents a very significant change to a long-standing institution.”
Gay rights advocates hailed the decision. Alex Munter of Canadians for Equal Marriage called it a “victory for Canadian values.” Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, noted, “I think it’s a tremendously historic day that will help not just families in Canada, but people across the border who are wrestling with this question, of how the denial of marriage harms gay people and their loved ones.”
However, several conservative groups in Canada are calling for the question to be put to a national referendum. Rolston continued, “A national referendum provides the best opportunity of ensuring that all Canadians have an opportunity to speak on this critical issue. It is crucial that, when the federal government introduces legislation to redefine marriage, Canadians across the country are very clear in their support for traditional marriage.”
Others, like Canada Christian College President Charles McVety, warned that lawmakers, could face reprisals at the polls if they support an end to the traditional definition of marriage. “When you redefine a term as fundamental as marriage, you have redefined the foundation of society and the foundation of faith. I think that is catastrophic for society,” McVety said.
[Home] [Introducing UNI] [News Coverage] [Features Page][Publications]