 |
The highest state courts in New York and Georgia today ruled against homosexual activists who challenged protections for marriage.
James C. Dobson, Ph.D., chairman of Focus on the Family Action, said the courts may finally be realizing their proper role.
"These rulings represent a significant victory for America's families," he said, "and, I hope, signal an awareness by the judicial branch that the people don't want courts acting as superlegislatures. In each case, the high court affirmed existing state policy passed the way laws and constitutional amendments are supposed to be passed -- by elected officials or the people themselves."
Dobson said Americans are fed up with activist judges attempting to re-engineer the social structure of their states and the nation with a few strokes of a pen.
"Today's decisions in New York and Georgia seem to suggest that courts are beginning to acknowledge this reality," he said. "We can only hope that judges in other states where marriage-protection laws and amendments have been challenged have gotten the message, too."
New York: "We Do Not So Conclude"
New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, ruled 4-2 that the state constitution does not provide for marriage between same-sex couples.
The suit was brought by 44 gay couples who sought and were denied marriage licenses.
In its opinion, the court wrote there are at least two grounds supporting the Legislature's limits on who can be married.
"First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships," the ruling states. "There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like."
 |
Chris Stovall, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), said the decision affirmed that marriage has always been for the benefit of children.
"It signals that marriage matters to society," he said, "and the courts recognize that it is significant enough that legislatures can protect it and preserve it."
In fact, Judge Robert Smith said any change to the definition of marriage must come through the Legislature, not through the courts.
"We do not predict what people will think generations from now," he wrote, "but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives."
Stovall said while it's not for the courts to redefine marriage, the Legislature could ultimately choose to do so.
"It would be very important for New York citizens to read the decision that the court handed down," he said. "While the courts said they were not attempting to make the case against same-sex marriage, in effect they do."
One of the most profound conclusions in the ruling addressed one of the main arguments used by same-sex marriage advocates.
"It's the unspoken assertion that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is either irrational or a bigot," Stovall said. "The court said, essentially, that is not a legitimate criticism."
He pointed to this section of the ruling:
"The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."
Georgia: "Common-Sense Interpretation"
Seventy-seven percent of Georgia voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2004 that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The amendment also contained a second sentence clarifying that no other union could receive the legal benefits of marriage.
Gay activists challenged the law on a technicality. Superior Court Judge Constance Russell ruled the second sentence violated the state's "single-subject rule" for ballot measures. She declared it unconstitutional, reasoning that the additional sentence addressed the separate subject of civil unions.
The state Supreme Court expedited the case and today unanimously reversed the lower-court ruling and upheld the amendment.
The justices wrote "... it is apparent that the prohibition against recognizing same-sex unions as entitled to the benefits of marriage is not 'dissimilar and discordant' to the objective of reserving the status of marriage and its attendant benefits exclusively to unions of man and woman."
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the court followed the law and validated the will of the people.
"The Georgia Supreme Court today upheld a common-sense interpretation of that state's marriage amendment," he said, "and validated the will of Georgia's electorate who voted for it."
Anita Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, said homosexual activists tried to undermine democracy by using the courts to nullify the voice of the people.
"Aggressive use of the courts to undermine marriage has backfired on the same-sex marriage movement," she said. "The people of America are not about to idly stand by and watch marriage go up in smoke.
What's Next?
While marriage in New York and Georgia is safe for today, Stovall said the battle is far from over.
"We're heading into a period where if one or two more state high courts were to legalize same-sex marriage -- for instance possibly Washington state or New Jersey, in addition to Massachusetts having already done it -- it's going to exponentially increase these conflicts that have to be resolved."
Stovall said a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman would keep the nation intact.
"America needs to preserve marriage in order to preserve our national unity," he said. "(A marriage amendment) would preserve the common societal understanding of marriage across the county."
Dr. Dobson said that although today's rulings are a clear victory for marriage and common sense, the nation must continue to push lawmakers in Washington, D.C., to protect marriage.
"The New York Court of Appeals decision is particularly gratifying, since justices recognized the number-one threat that same-sex marriage poses to society: the effect on children of being intentionally denied a mother or a father," he said. "This is the reason we and others have fought so hard to pass a federal Marriage Protection Amendment, and why we will continue to do so between now and when the House takes up the measure the week of July 17."
TAKE ACTION:
The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the federal Marriage Protection Amendment the week of July 17. It would be the first step toward constitutionally defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Please contact your representative and let him or her know that you support the protection of marriage from activist courts.
If you are a CitizenLink Daily Update subscriber, click on the blue "Take Action" button in the e-mail to be automatically logged in to our Action Center. Otherwise, click on this link.
(Paid for by Focus on the Family Action.)
