Panelists predict widespread impact of marriage rulings

Last updated on: July 3, 2013 at 11:13 pm by CNA Daily News

Panelists predict widespread impact of marriage rulings 2013-07-03T23:13:00+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., Jul 3, 2013 / 05:13 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Although the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on marriage were narrowly constructed, legal experts say they will likely have far-reaching consequences for society.

Hadley Arkes, professor of Jurisprudence and American Institutions at Amherst College, warned that the decisions “will have wide-reaching effects” within states because they make an “underlying moral judgment” that “sets off a dynamic of its own.”

Arkes spoke at a July 1 panel at the Catholic Information Center in downtown Washington, D.C., on the effects of the Supreme Court’s June decisions on two cases concerning same-sex “marriage.”

Also on the panel were Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and former Department of Justice official, and Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director to the Judicial Crisis Network.

The panelists responded to the Supreme Court’s June 26 ruling striking down a key section of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes.

The majority opinion stated that the 1996 law – also known as DOMA – violates Constitutional principles of due process and equal protection under the law, adding that supporters of DOMA intended “to disparage and to injure” gay individuals with the legislation.

In a separate ruling on the same day, the Supreme Court dismissed a case attempting to uphold California’s Proposition 8, which had defined marriage within the state as existing between one man and one woman.

The court did not rule on the merits of the case but instead pointed to the fact that state officials declined to support the law when it was challenged. The court said that the law's proponents, who took up the burden of defending it in court, did not have the legal standing, or right, to do so.

Panelists criticized the rulings. Arkes observed that the majority opinion, penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, asserts that those who oppose a redefinition of marriage are motivated by irrational “animus” and said that this will lead to state definitions of marriage as the union of one man and one woman being labeled as irrational and bigoted.

Whelan pointed out that marriage has traditionally reflected “the biological reality that only opposite-sex unions generate children.”

The Constitution “doesn’t speak to how the states allocate their authority” in regards to social institutions such as marriage, and the public could potentially change its mind about such institutions through a democratic process, he suggested. However, the court cases have damaged that democratic process, enabling the federal government to override the people’s understanding of marriage within a state.

Severino said that the rulings will lead to an incremental advance of same-sex “marriage” throughout the states. “It builds complacency, it builds cultural acceptance,” she explained.

In addition, she noted, the dismissal of the Proposition 8 case on “standing” grounds has established a precedent for a governor to exercise “veto power over any law” he or she does not like by simply refusing to defend it, disregarding the will of the people as expressed through their elected officials.

Severino also warned that these rulings pose a religious liberty threat to individuals and institutions that do not recognize same-sex partnerships as marriages.

Recent lawsuits have made it difficult to be involved in the marriage industry – along with other industries such as adoption and foster care – “unless you’re willing to cooperate in same-sex ‘marriages,’” she said.

She suggested that under the new understanding of marriage, colleges accepting federal funding “would be branded as having animus if they don’t, say, extend married dorms” to same-sex partners.

Such a policy could result in religious schools being forced to give up federal funding or even shut down, similar to Catholic adoption agencies that have been forced to shut down in states where “gay marriage” is recognized, she said.

Severino voiced doubt that the current administration would provide sufficient religious freedom protections to guard against such a situation.

“This administration has been very troubling in everything they have ever said on religious freedom,” she stated.

Previous Post

July 3, 2013

Cardinal Dolan recalls conclave experience in new book

Next Post

July 4, 2013 Artist's faith grows through Benedict XVI portrait

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 did Job maintain throughout his speeches?

Select your answer to see how you score.

His guilt His silence His wealth His innocence