Recent same-sex marriages in Massachusetts have resulted in a flurry of activity in both the judicial and legislative branches of state and federal government. The action by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to sanction gay marriages, in the first state in the nation to legalize them, has prompted renewed interest in constitutional amendments at both the federal and state levels as well as legal, challenges to such a proposal.
In July, the Federal Marriage Amendment failed to clear the U.S. Senate. While disappointed with the vote, supporters of the measure vowed to press on. Focus on the Family founder and Chairman Dr. James Dobson noted, “This is only the opening salvo in a long battle to preserve the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman–a battle we are determined to win. The Civil War, another great struggle in the history of the American people, was not won in a day–and, like that great cultural clash, we are certain morality will prevail. We will continue to fight for the vast majority of the American people, who are overwhelmingly in favor of protecting traditional marriage. How marriage is defined must be a matter that the people–not tyrannical judges or rogue public officials–decide. That’s why we will continue to bring the issue of marriage back to Capitol Hill until the voters’ will is heeded, and why we will continue to fight in individual states for the right of citizens to define their own social policy through the legislative process. And the amendment process is the only way to ensure each state, and its people, are involved in such a monumental decision.”
The defeat of the FMA in the Senate prompted the House to approve the Marriage Protection Act by a 39-vote margin. The main intent of the legislation is to protect state bans on same-sex marriage from federal judges who might rule that gay marriages that took place in Massachusetts must be recognized by other states. More specifically, it would strip U.S. district courts of their jurisdiction to rule on challenges to state bans on gay marriages under a provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Rep. John Hostettler, (R-Ind.) author of the bill, said, “Simply put, if federal courts don’t have jurisdiction over marriage issues, they can’t hear them. And if they can’t hear cases regarding marriage policy, they can’t redefine this sacred institution.”
Measure opponents said it is unconstitutional. “Today, it’s gay marriage. Tomorrow, it could be something else. It’s very dangerous for any Congress to move down this road,” said Rep. John Lewis. (D-Ga.) Michael Schwartz, Concerned Women for America’s vice president for government relations, praised the House’s action. “The House has done its part to build a wall of defense around the institution of marriage. Congress will not allow federal judges to use the Full Faith and Credit clause as an excuse to overturn the governing bodies of states that choose to defend marriage from the wildfire that activists have started in Massachusetts.”
Ron Schlittler, executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, called it a “dark day for American justice.” Schlittler continued, “This dangerous precedent should offend and alarm all who believe the courts exist to ensure fairness, provide an impartial hearing, and to protect any disfavored minority from the abuses of the majority. The guarantee that all Americans can expect their day in court is gone.”
On the state level, the California Supreme Court, in a recent 5-2 decision, nullified the roughly 4,000 same-sex marriages that were performed in San Francisco in February and March in violation of state law. Mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples following the state supreme court decision in Massachusetts. The court ruled that Newsom overstepped his authority in granting the licenses. The decision did not resolve the question of whether the California Constitution would permit same-sex marriages.
Family Research Council called the ruling “a sweeping defeat for all those seeking to use the courts to redefine marriage.” FRC President Tony Perkins, added, “The California Supreme Court fulfilled their duty by enforcing the law and nullifying the illegitimate marriage licenses handed out to thousands of same-sex couples. The ruling reinforces once again that when one rogue mayor or any other elected official ignores the rule of law, they will be held accountable. The court upheld the law as it is written and has set a shining example for courts across the nation.”
Traditional Values Coalition Chairman, Rev. Louis Sheldon, called the decision a “victory for the institution of marriage.” “The court has come down on the side of the rule of law. And the court has effectively rebuked San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom for his violation of the laws of the state of California in performing these bogus homosexual weddings. The California Supreme Court is to be commended for not legislating from the bench, but upholding state law as it pertains to the God-oriented institution of marriage. I believe this will send a strong message to other rebellious city officials who think they can freely flaunt state law whenever they feel like it,” Sheldon said.
Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the ruling “painful and difficult for the thousands of couples whose love, commitment and desire to protect their families were placed on hold.” Kendell added, “While their families are not yet treated equally, their courageous public declarations have shown the world the harm caused by marriage discrimination and will result in our ultimately obtaining the freedom to marry.”
Likewise, Rev. William Sinkford, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, said, “Although the road ahead may be a long one, I have complete faith that it will ultimately lead to justice for same sex couples.”
Also in the courts, a homosexual couple married in Massachusetts who subsequently moved to Florida, recently filed a federal lawsuit to force Florida to recognize their marriage. And in Washington state, a King County Superior Court judge struck down a state law that limited marriage to heterosexual couples. His ruling was immediately stayed, pending a decision by the state supreme court.
In August, Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The proposal cleared by a 71-29 percent margin. The Campaign for Working Families chairman, Gary Bauer, called it a “great day for pro-family Americans.” “Democrats and Republicans saw through the ‘big lie’ so often repeated by liberal politicians who say it is bigotry to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman through the amendment process. It also repudiates the extremists of the pro same-sex marriage movement. It is not bigotry to support that union which is at the foundation of every civilization throughout world history. And it is a great unkindness to all children to ignore their needs for both a mother and a father, who provide unique and invaluable support to the next generation,” Bauer said.
The FRC’s Perkins said, the Missouri vote “reveals once again the overwhelming opposition to same-sex marriage” among Americans. “Legislators in Missouri, where a Defense of Marriage Act is already on the books, saw a need to protect marriage against unelected judges, and in a refreshing move, these state lawmakers placed a constitutional amendment on the ballot and gave the people a voice in this important debate. Citizens from the all across the Show Me State have shown once again that when the people’s voice is not muted by unelected judges, they speak out soundly in support of marriage as it has always been traditionally defined,” Perkins said.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay political organization, condemned the vote. HRC President Cheryl Jacques said, “The Missouri Constitution is now a tool for discrimination. This was motivated by politics, pure and simple. We recognize that many Missourians were opposed to this mistaken use of their constitution.” Seth Kilbourn, the HRC’s national field director, added, “We were out-organized by the competition, which was able to do a lot of organizing with very little resources. They activated the churches in a way that was very successful.”
Four other states already have constitutional provisions banning same-sex marriage or giving their legislatures the right to do so. At least eight states–Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah, have placed marriage amendments on the November ballot. Matthew Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel says, San Francisco’s mayor should be credited, in large part, for the number of states that will be considering same-sex marriage bans this fall. “We should thank Mayor Gavin Newsom for jolting the majority of Americans out of their apathy and energizing the pro-traditional marriage movement. Mayor Newsom revealed the radical nature of the same-sex marriage agenda. Newsom’s action escalated the time frame of the same-sex marriage agenda, causing it to move too fast, too soon. The majority of Americans support traditional marriage. The pro-marriage movement is determined to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, and is resolved to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Instead of helping his cause, Mayor Newsom has set back the same-sex marriage agenda, and laid the foundation for the pro-marriage movement to once-and-for-all win this battle to preserve traditional marriage,” Staver said.
[Home] [Introducing UNI] [News Coverage] [Features Page][Publications]