SAN FRANCISCO — A landmark
federal ruling on California Proposition 8 has thrust the issue of “gay
marriage” back into the national spotlight. Following are five questions and
answers about the ruling’s significance:
Q: What did the judge rule?
A: U.S. District Judge
Vaughn Walker overturned California’s constitutional marriage amendment known
as Proposition 8, ruling it violates the due process and equal protection
rights of same-sex couples under the U.S. Constitution. Prop 8, he wrote, “does
nothing more than” discriminate and “enshrine in the California Constitution
the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.” It
marks the first time a federal judge has ruled there is a federal
constitutional right to “gay marriage.” Prop 8, passed in 2008 by a margin of
52-48 percent, reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California.”
Q: What happens next?
A: ProtectMarriage.com, the
group that sponsored the amendment, is appealing the decision to the U.S. Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, where a randomly selected three-judge panel will hear
it. From there, the case could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. All
total, the appeals process could last several years. Some conservative leaders,
including Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty
Commission, say the only solution for their side may be to pass a federal
marriage amendment.
Q: Why is this case more
significant than other “gay marriage” cases?
A: Most other cases have
involved state courts, so their impact was limited. The current case, Perry v.
Schwarzenegger, is a federal case and could impact all 50 states — and in
essence become the Roe v. Wade of “gay marriage.” If Walker’s legal reasoning
and ruling is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, then marriage would be
redefined not only in California but also nationwide, reversing statutes and
constitutional amendments in all 45 states that define marriage as between one
man and one woman. That’s been the goal of “gay marriage” supporters for years.
In 2004, after 11 states passed marriage amendments on Election Day, Matt
Foreman, then-executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force,
told the Associated Press: “This issue is going to be resolved by the U.S.
Supreme Court, and it’s not going to give a (expletive) what these state
constitutions say.”
Q: Why are some people saying
the ruling could mark a cultural shift?
A: Because Walker made
sweeping arguments about homosexuality that, collectively, have never been made
in a federal ruling. Regarding marriage, he wrote: “Gender no longer forms an
essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.” On
childrearing, he wrote, “The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a
child’s adjustment,” and, “Having both a male and a female parent does not
increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.”
Regarding
religion, he wrote, “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are
sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.” He
included in his decision Southern Baptist resolutions on “gay marriage” (2003)
and homosexuality (1999), as well as statements on homosexuality from the Roman
Catholic Church, Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Free Methodist Church,
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and the Orthodox Church of America. All of the
denominations point to Scripture in calling homosexuality sinful.
Q: What legal arguments will
Prop 8 supporters make during their appeal?
A: Attorneys for
ProtectMarriage.com and the Alliance Defense Fund argued at the lower court
that children need mothers and fathers and the state has an interest in
fostering that relationship. ProtectMarriage.com attorney Andy Pugno said in a
statement after Walker’s ruling that the government “has a strong interest in
channeling natural procreation into stable and enduring relationships between
men and women and increase the likelihood that those children will be raised by
both a mother and a father.” Opponents of “gay marriage” warn that religious
freedom will suffer if the ruling is upheld, impacting everything from what is
taught in public schools to the tax exempt status of religious organizations
and perhaps even churches. In New Jersey, a Methodist-owned beachfront property
lost part of its tax-exempt status because its leaders denied use of the
property to a lesbian couple for a commitment ceremony. Said Brian Brown,
president of the National Organization for Marriage, “The goal of this movement
is to use the law to reshape the culture so that disagreement with their views
on sex and marriage gets stigmatized and repressed like bigotry. Children will
be taught, whether parents like it or not, that traditional faith communities’
views on marriage are based on hatred and bigotry.”
(EDITOR’S NOTE — Foust is an
assistant editor of Baptist Press.)