Defending California Marriage Laws
Society will end up with chaos if supporters of homosexual marriage have it their way, according Jordan Lorence, senior counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, one of the groups that will be defending CA marriage laws at the SF Superior Court tomorrow
Society will end up with chaos if supporters of homosexual marriage have it their way, according Jordan Lorence, senior counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, one of the groups that will be defending California marriage laws at the San Francisco Superior Court tomorrow.
Proposition 22, a California initiative passed in 2001, states marriage is only between a man and a woman. But same-sex couples have filed several challenges in the state seeking to have the statue declared unconstitutional. These challenges have been consolidated and will be heard by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer.
“They are claiming that there is a State Constitution right for any individual to define marriage any way he or she wants. That legal argument hurls a wrecking ball at the definition of marriage because it not only legalizes same-sex marriage, it legalizes any kind of marriage,” Lorence told the Christian Post, pointing to polygamy as a possibility. “We end up with chaos in the long-term.”
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Back in February, San Francisco was the site where Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed marriage licenses to be issued to nearly 4,000 same-sex couples. The Alliance Defense Fund and the California Attorney General’s office filed suit in the California Supreme Court, which issued a stay on the gay marriages on March 11. In August, the Court ruled that Newsom had overstepped his powers and declared the gay marriage licenses “invalid.”
The same-sex marriage cases in San Francisco have been closely watched by both pro-family groups and gay rights groups.
“California is a major state and it’s a leader of many trends in the nation,” said Lorence, who had argued before California Supreme Court justices.
“Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman,” he said. “It predates the constitution. It’s impossible to think that any framer of the state constitution would have intended to grant a right that allows every individual to define marriage any way they want.”
Same-sex couples argue that prohibiting gays from marrying violates their right to equal protection under the law.
Lorence said that homosexuals have the same right as anybody else.
“A man is as equally able to marry a woman as a woman is equally able to marry man. Homosexuals are not being denied the right to enter into that kind of marriage. They don’t want to,” he explained. He said if the decision of whether to allow gays to marry went before Californian voters, they would vote the same as they did in 2000.
Same-sex advocates have also been fighting hard to counter traditional marriage laws by filing lawsuits in several states around the nation. The most recent challenge was heard by the Oregon Supreme Court last week.
Conservative efforts to protect the traditional definition of marriage seem to be gaining momentum, especially after Massachusetts became the first and only state to recognize same-sex marriages. President Bush supported a Federal Marriage Amendment but it did not make it through Congress earlier this year. However, he has promised to continue pushing for the FMA during his second term. On Election Day, eleven states approved constitutional amendments defining marriage which bolstered conservatives’ hopes for the passage the FMA.
Passing the FMA is possible although it is expected take several years, according to Lorence, who noted the federal amendment is supported by ADF. Tomorrow's decision may also play a role in the federal marriage legislation.
“If we get a radical decisions out of the California and Oregon courts, it would push and encourage support for the FMA," said Lorence.
Meanwhile, the Canadian Liberal government is working toward the opposite goal—a bill legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the nation.
But it is the United States, according to Lorence, which will have the most impact on same-sex marriage legislation around the world.
“If America stays true to the definition of marriage as a man and a woman it will greatly slow the move toward same-sex marriage in the other nations.”
A decision in tomorrow's case isn't expected until next year.
