News and Commentary: Heartburn and Homosexual ‘Marriage’     6/1/2004
By Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel

Update on the battle to preserve marriage.

Mary Bonauto, attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), represented the plaintiffs in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which resulted in the issuance of “marriage” licenses to same-sex couples in Massachusetts. According to GLAD, 1,700 of the licenses have been issued in Massachusetts since May 17.

Bonauto says her ongoing legal strategy to make same-sex “marriage” legal across the country is based on patience. At present, she says she has no plans to challenge the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The DOMA allows states to refuse to accept same-sex “marriages” from other states and limits marriage to a man and a woman for purposes of federal law.

The public needs time to digest the idea of women marrying women and men marrying men, Bonauto reportedly told The San Francisco Chronicle, May 24. The legal strategy she proposes is based on convincing the public that it’s about “fairness” rather than “sexual identity.”

Most Americans are opposed to same-sex marriage and Bonauto admits it. Savvy Americans will reject her attempt to spin attention away from the core issue of “sexual identity” to the non-issue of “fairness.” If it’s about “fairness,” then Americans will ultimately be forced to “digest” incestuous and polygamous marriages as well. There’s much more at stake than a sporting contest or a spelling bee.

Bonauto gave the Chronicle an example of how she will frame the “fairness” issue: “Should a World War II veteran who’s been with his male partner for 49 years, should that partner be thrust into poverty because when the World War II vet dies, the veterans benefits aren’t available to the survivor anymore?”

Counterpoint: Should the brother of a World War II vet be permitted to marry him in order to qualify for survivor benefits? Should his destitute sister or widowed mother be permitted to marry him? How about all of his siblings? Why not, if it’s only about “fairness”?

Meanwhile, the battle for marriage continues in several states:

Massachusetts: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit will hear oral argument on June 7 on a challenge by 11 Massachusetts legislators and a Boston resident represented by Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel. The challenge argues that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court exceeded its authority when it redefined marriage to be “the union of two persons” rather than “the union of one man and one woman.” The circuit court had previously refused to stop Massachusetts from issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) has announced that licenses issued to nonresident same-sex couples in violation of state law will not be registered by the state. According to The Washington Times, June 1, six towns that had been issuing the licenses despite the law said they would stop if Romney and Attorney General Tom Reilly asked them to. A few Massachusetts state senators have introduced a bill to repeal the statute, which dates from 1913.

California: A decision by the California Supreme Court is expected within about 80 days on whether San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom exceeded his authority when officials there issued 4,037 licenses to same-sex couples.

Arizona: Last week, the Arizona Supreme Court let stand an appeals court ruling that there is no right to same-sex marriage under the state constitution.

Other: State constitutional amendments limiting marriage to a man and a woman will be on the November ballots in Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Utah. Missouri will have one on the ballot in either August or November, and Louisiana will have one on the ballot in either September or November. Voters in Arkansas, Michigan, Montana, Ohio and Oregon will decide if marriage will be protected by a constitutional amendment if petition drives in those states are successful.

The FMA: Despite all-out drives by backers of the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), there is still no indication that it will be brought up for a vote before the November election. Backers of the FMA blame it on the lack of calls to Congress from their constituents. Others, who favor a stronger amendment that would also prohibit civil unions and other such relationships from being benefited as marriage, say that the lack of support for the FMA is because most Americans want to protect the institution of marriage and not just the name.

“The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.” James 5:16b

Printer Friendly Version

Recent Articles

Guest Commentary! Hate Crimes Legislation: The Politically Correct Way to Silence People of Faith

Threats and Violence Across the Nation Following Votes for Traditional Marriage

Marriage Wins in Three More States

Homosexual Activists Turn Angry and Violent Over Marriage Votes

Support of Traditional Marriage Continues to Grow in California

German Officials Interfere in U.S. Election

The Tale of a Mother and her Daughter

Taxpayers Fund “Gay Wedding” Field Trip for First Graders

Connecticut High Court Imposes "Gay Marriage," Threatens Religious Liberty

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Lisa Miller Case