Reasoning behind ruling decried
SAN FRANCISCO -- The Aug. 4 court ruling striking down California’s voter-approved definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as having no rational basis is drawing a rising chorus of criticism from Catholic bishops and others who believe the societal case for traditional marriage is inherently reasonable.
Chicago Cardinal Francis E. George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, denounced the ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. “The misuse of law to change the nature of marriage undermines the common good," Cardinal George said.
“It is tragic that a federal judge would overturn the clear and expressed will of the people in their support for the institution of marriage,” he said. “No court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined.”
In his ruling, Judge Walker said the November 2008 initiative was hard-fought and was supported by a majority of voters but concluded that California’s obligation to treat its citizens equally overrides a popular vote to enforce what he called a moral principle.
He called marriage a fundamental right and said the state can’t allow motives such as religious belief and tradition to get in the way of extending the right to all couples.
He said Prop 8, which revised the state Constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman, is not only unequal but also “creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”
“What’s really irrational is the judge’s dismissal of marriage between a man and a woman -- the basic bedrock of our society -- as if it were some kookie idea,” Sister Mary Ann Walsh, director of media relations for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote in a commentary in the Washington Post Aug. 7.
“What’s really irrational is his ignoring the will of the people with real-life experience of marriage, who have voted down gay marriage not only in California but throughout the United States whenever legalization of gay marriage has been put to a vote,” she wrote.
Yet more irrational, Sister Mary Ann wrote, are the judge’s “damning words” against freedom of religion.
“Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians,” Walker concluded.
Walker rejected arguments that proponents gave in support of Prop 8: Preserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman and excluding any other relationship from marriage; proceeding with caution when implementing social changes; promoting opposite-sex parenting over same-sex parenting; protecting the freedom of those who oppose marriage for same-sex couples; and treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples.
The judge wrote that the testimony of the main witness presented in defense of marriage as an institution founded in the bond between a man and a woman so lacked credibility as to carry no weight with the court.
The “rule of opposites” has been a virtually unwavering principle of marriage throughout human history, witness David Blankenhorn testified. “There are no or almost no exceptions to this principle that marriage is between a man and a woman,” said Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values.
Walker, in his ruling, said that such reasons “are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples.”
Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, said the ruling does a “great injustice” to the institution of marriage and will accelerate the disintegration of mother-father families.
Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis said it is “a sad and almost incomprehensible event for the court to deny both the Judeo-Christian and natural law definition of one-man one-woman marriage, particularly after the people of the State of California had voted as free and responsible citizens to support it.”
Walker wrongly focused on individual testimony, Cardinal Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles, wrote in a blog post.
“There is only one issue before each of us Californians: Is Marriage of Divine or Human Origin?” he wrote. “Those of us who support Prop 8 and worked for its passage did so for one reasons: We truly believe that Marriage was instituted by God for the specific purpose of carrying out God’s plan for the world and human society. Period.”
Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, chair of the U.S. bishops' Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage, said the nation's voters have uniformly upheld the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman whenever the issue has been on the ballot.
“This understanding is neither irrational nor unlawful,” he said. “Marriage is more fundamental and essential to the well-being of society than perhaps any other institution. It is simply unimaginable that the court could now claim a conflict between marriage and the Constitution.”
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said the decision regrettably overturns California voters' definition of marriage as between a man and a woman and harms an institution that is “the bedrock of society.”
“We recognize that this decision represents only the opening of a vigorous debate in the courts over the rights of the people to define and protect this most fundamental institution -- marriage,” the LDS church said in a statement.
The question of the constitutionality of same-sex marriage is expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Prop 8 proponents have filed a notice of appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and a review of Walker’s legal analysis by the appellate court is considered one possible route to the high court.
Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponents of Prop 8, said “The judge’s invalidation of the votes of over seven million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process.”
Pugno said it is disturbing that the trial court “has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop 8.”
But he said the reality is that Prop 8 “was simply about restoring and strengthening the traditional definition of marriage as the unique relationship of a man and a woman, for the benefit of children, families and society.”
Pugno added that a reversal of the decision “will also serve as a reminder that the role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law only as enacted by the people and their elected representatives, not to impose new social policies.”
Appearing on Fox News Sunday, former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, one of the lawyers who represented the same-sex couples, called Walker’s ruling “judicial responsibility in the classic sense.”
“So, society doesn’t get to say marriage is between a man and a woman?” host Chris Wallace asked.
Olson replied: “We can’t wait for the voters to decide that that immeasurable harm that is unconstitutional must finally be eliminated.”
Any appellate panel will be obligated to defer to the trial court on the facts but will review the legal questions anew.
“The exact line between legal and factual questions is not always a clean one,” said Ash Bhagwat, a constitutional law professor at the University of California’s Hastings College of Law. “These are all unresolved legal issues. There are plenty of arguments they (Prop 8 proponents) can make.”
Read more: Stay lifted after judge's ruling. Same-sex weddings to resume next week.
By Rick DelVecchio
CSF August 11th, 2010
