In advance of a scheduled vote in early June in the U.S. Senate on the Marriage Protection Amendment, legal challenges surrounding traditional marriage will be taken up in at least two states.
New York's Court of Appeal, the state's highest court, will hear oral arguments in late May on the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage. The case involves five homosexual and lesbian couples from Manhattan who were denied marriage licenses in New York City. Last December, an appeals court overturned a lower court ruling that found the state's ban on gay marriage was illegal. The lawsuit filed on behalf of the gay couples by Lambda Legal seeks marriage for same-sex couples in New York, and argues that denying those couples marriage violates the state constitution's guarantees of equality, liberty and privacy for all New Yorkers.
Lambda's written brief to the high court stated, "This appeal is about far more than abstract legal principles. At heart, it concerns real New York families who share the same love and day-to-day journey together through life that binds married couples."
However, the Alliance Defense Fund hailed the intermediate appellate court ruling that found gay marriage is not a legal right and does not provide the same benefits to society.
Glen Lavy, senior vice president of ADF's Marriage Litigation Center, said, "By focusing on the long-standing legal aspects of marriage, rather than the divisive political aspects of marriage, the court's ruling reaffirmed that the real reason for marriage is for the protection of children. We are pleased the court recognized that marriage is about the well-being of children and society rather than adult needs for recognition and support."
Likewise, on the same week the Senate is scheduled to take up a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution protecting traditional marriage, the Tennessee Supreme Court will hear arguments as to whether to pull from the November ballot, a proposed amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage.
The fray over gay marriage started two years ago when first-in-the-nation legalized same-sex marriages began being performed in Massachusetts after the state supreme court ruled that homosexuals and lesbians were entitled to marry under the state constitution.
Later that year, eleven states approved their own constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. The number of states which have approved constitutional amendments protecting marriage as the "union of a man and a woman" has since grown to 19.
Besides Tennessee, other states where traditional marriage amendments are scheduled to be on the ballot this year are South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Alabama, Idaho and Wisconsin.
In addition, Focus on the Family Action recently launched ad campaigns to get similar amendments on the state ballot in Iowa and Minnesota.
Both campaigns were similar. In one ad, Peter Brandt, senior director of government and public policy for Focus on the Family Action, was quoted as saying, "Iowans deserve the same right to vote on how marriage will be defined as the citizens of the 19 other states who overwhelmingly protected traditional marriage in their state constitutions. The citizens of Iraq have the right to vote, and yet Iowans do not."
The flurry of legislative activity comes as legal challenges have been filed in some of the 19 states where voters have overwhelmingly approved constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage, including Nebraska. Last April, a federal judge struck down Nebraska's state marriage amendment, which received over 70-percent voter support.
Senate GOP Leader Bill Frist mentioned the Nebraska case in deciding to bring the Marriage Protection Amendment up for a vote in June.
"After voters overwhelmingly passed a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, an activist federal judge stepped in to strike it down. --As if to say to the people, 'I know what's best for America, not you.' When the whims of a few activist judges are free to override the common sense of the American people, we need to act. When Americans are told that their voices and votes no longer matter, we need to act. When America's values are under attack, we need to act! And this June, when I bring the Marriage Protection Amendment to the Senate floor, we will act," Frist said.
Last year, a similar amendment failed to clear the Senate. This year, Family Research Council has launched a petition aimed at getting "vulnerable" senators to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment.
FRC Vice President for Governmental Affairs, Tom McClusky, says that the petition is just one part of an "all-out effort" planned, before the vote. "We will be holding conferences, debates, rallies, seminars and even another simulcast. This is an issue that our supporters are passionate about, and we want as many people to sign the petition as possible. The Senate and House don't seem like they got the message yet. We will be sending these petitions out to senators in red states, blue states, blue Republicans and red Democrats, and of course those senators who are in vulnerable positions facing tough races this year."
The petition urges lawmakers to "use the considerable power and influence" of their office and "preserve our nation's Judeo-Christian values and heritage for future generations of Americans."
FRC added, "Without this amendment, liberal courts are likely to mandate homosexual marriage. When that occurs, every institution in American society will be pressured to change and to accept, even honor, this new civil right. Churches will be harassed. Schools will be infused with literature and history textbooks that praise homosexuality and insist it is normative. Our already eroding culture will accelerate its decline. Marriage will ultimately be abolished."
FRC plans to deliver the petitions to senators in late May. Also, the Administrative Committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops voted recently to reaffirm its previous statement supporting efforts for a federal marriage amendment.
"It is our duty as pastors and teachers - a responsibility we share with the Christian faithful and with all persons of good will - to promote, preserve and protect marriage as it is willed by God, as generations have understood and lived it, and as it has served the common good of society. Our defense of marriage must focus primarily on the importance of marriage, not on homosexuality or other matters. The Church's teaching about the dignity of the homosexual person is clear. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Our respect for them means we condemn all forms of unjust discrimination, harassment or abuse. Equally clear is the Church's teaching about the meaning of sexual relations and their place only within married life. What are called 'homosexual unions,' because they do not express full human complementarily and because they are inherently non-procreative, cannot be given the status of marriage. We call on Catholics and other persons of good will to join with us in advancing this positive view of the importance of marriage for children and for society, and to defend these principles and the institution of marriage. This is especially important when popular culture, media and entertainment often undermine or ignore the essential role of marriage and promote equivalence between marriage and homosexual relationships," the committee stated.
Alliance for Marriage, which drafted the Marriage Protection Amendment, applauded the committee's statement.
AFM President, Matt Daniels, said, "Their endorsement on behalf of over 60 million American Catholics is a sign of the growing support for our cause in the face of a rising tide of lawsuits designed to strike down marriage in courts across the nation. Most Americans believe that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose. But they don't believe they have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society. The constitutional problem created by activist lawsuits to destroy our marriage laws demands a constitutional fix. AFM's Marriage Protection Amendment will protect marriage while leaving all issues of benefits to the democratic process in the states. AFM believes this centrist approach embodied in our amendment offers hope of a democratic resolution to a debate that has been forced on the American people by the courts," Daniels said.
However, Americans United for Separation of Church and State questioned the timing of the planned vote in the Senate this summer.
"The issue is expected to arise this year because any congressional action on the FMA always excites the GOP's far-right base. It can also serve as a distraction from other issues," AU stated.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, recently weighed in on the matter during a speech to New England School of Law students and faculty. Scalia criticized the era of the "judge-moralist," saying jurists are no better qualified than "Joe Sixpack" to decide moral questions such as same-sex marriage. "Anyone who thinks the country's most prominent lawyers reflect the views of the people needs a reality check."
Scalia added that the public, through elected legislatures and not the courts, should decide such questions.
[Home] [Introducing UNI] [News Coverage] [Features Page][Publications]