Redefining marriage creates conflict, bishops warn Supreme Court

Last updated on: January 31, 2013 at 12:08 am by CNA Daily News

Redefining marriage creates conflict, bishops warn Supreme Court 2013-01-31T00:08:00+00:00 CNA Daily News

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Washington D.C., Jan 30, 2013 / 05:08 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In recent legal briefs filed with the Supreme Court, the U.S. bishops warned that a redefinition of marriage would create an “engine of conflict” that threatens freedom of religion, speech and other liberties.

“Marriage, understood as the union of one man and one woman, is not a historical relic, but a vital and foundational institution of civil society today,” said the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in a Jan. 29 amicus brief supporting the California ballot initiative, Proposition 8.

“The government interests in continuing to encourage and support it are not merely legitimate, but compelling,” the brief explained.

California voters passed Prop. 8 in 2008, reversing a court decision that imposed “gay marriage” on the state.

However, that effort was overturned by a California federal judge in August 2010, claiming that there is a “fundamental right to marry.” His decision was upheld in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in February 2012.

That decision is now being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The bishops’ brief for the case observed that the ballot measure “encourages and supports the union of one man and one woman.”

This is a legitimate state interest because these unions are the only ones capable of creating new life, the document argued, adding that it is reasonable to believe that a home with a mother and a father is “the optimal environment for raising children.”

The brief said the Ninth Circuit’s definition of marriage as simply “a committed lifelong relationship” is “incoherent,” “wildly over-inclusive,” and “leads to absurd results” because it would not exclude parent-child relationships, unions between two lifelong friends or relationships between more than two people.

In addition, the bishops’ conference warned, the redefinition of marriage would adversely affect constitutional rights like the freedoms of religion, conscience, speech and association.

It pointed to instances where businesses were forced to host “gay weddings” or close, as well as cases where public officials such as town clerks were forced to give up their positions over their objections to same-sex relationships. It also referenced religiously affiliated nonprofits that are facing the prospect of lawsuits for following their beliefs and declining to recognize same-sex “spouses” in benefits policies.

Another brief from the bishops’ conference supported the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. The act was passed in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

That law – which the Supreme Court will also rule on this summer – is being challenged by a New York woman who contracted a same-sex “marriage” in Canada. She argues that she was unconstitutionally required to pay more than $350,000 in federal estate taxes upon the death of her partner, while a spouse in a federally recognized marriage would have been exempt.

The bishops’ brief rejected the notion of a “fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex.”

Civil recognition of same-sex relationships is “not deeply rooted” in U.S. history, it said, and previous court decisions about the right to marry “plainly contemplate the union of one man and one woman.”

The brief also rejected the claim that the plaintiff is part of “a politically powerless group needing protection against majoritarian impulses.”

“To the contrary, the last two decades have witnessed far-reaching changes in how the law treats persons in same-sex relationships, changes that belie any claim of political powerlessness,” it explained.

Previous Post

January 30, 2013

Our Lady of Czestochowa icon touring Spain

Next Post

January 31, 2013 Catholic thinkers debate government's role in helping poor

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Americas Asia - Pacific Europe Middle East - Africa Uncategorized US Vatican

Select a Month November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was the name of the field bought with Judas' betrayal money?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Potter's Field Field of Blood Golgotha Aceldama