Attorney: courts overturning marriage laws use ‘raw judicial power’

Last updated on: June 18, 2014 at 8:04 am by CNA Daily News

Attorney: courts overturning marriage laws use ‘raw judicial power’ 2014-06-18T08:04:00+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.

Denver, Colo., Jun 18, 2014 / 02:04 am (CNA).- The judiciary would be exercising “raw judicial power” were it to overturn Colorado’s traditional marriage amendment, an attorney at a religious liberty advocacy firm said Monday.

The court at Adams County District Courthouse in Brighton heard oral arguments in Brinkman et al. v. State of Colorado June 17 – a suit against the state's marriage amendment.

“If this judge were to come to a conclusion other than to uphold the will of the people of the state of Colorado, as expressed in the constitutional amendment passed in 2006, and the laws of the state legislature that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it would be an exercise in raw judicial power,” Michael Norton, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, told CNA in an interview outside the courthouse following the hearing.

The lawsuit began last October when a lesbian couple, Rebecca Brinkman and Margaret Burd, sued the county clerk and recorder for refusing them a marriage license. Civil unions have been legal in Colorado since March of 2013, but the couple wanted a marriage license.

Marriage is recognized in the state as between one man and one woman, according to Amendment 43, which was passed by a majority of voters in 2006.

The brief by the defendants representing the state argued that “redefining marriage would likely harm marriage’s inherent connection to procreation, communicating to the community that marriage’s primary end is to affirm adult desires rather than serve children’s needs, and suppressing the importance of both mothers and fathers to children and their development.”

Attorney John McHugh, representing the plaintiffs, said the marriage amendment denied the couples the “dignity” of the recognition of “marriage,” as well as their ability to file joint tax returns and receive federal marriage benefits.

“The plaintiffs bring these claims because the marriage bans actively and significantly harm them and their children,” he said.

The two parties clashed over the interpretation of last year’s Supreme Court decision United States v. Windsor.

Michael Francisco, the assistant solicitor general for the attorney general’s office, insisted that the decision “made clear” that it wouldn’t invalidate existing state marriage laws.

“Almost the entire substance of the majority opinion in Windsor is premised upon the important historical and traditional power of states to define marriage,” he argued.

Norton echoed that reasoning: “the majority of the Supreme Court really left unresolved any issue of how, if at all, state marriage laws should be regulated. It’s up to the state to decide, and it’s up to the state elected officials to decide, and the people to decide.”

However, the plaintiffs asserted that Windsor requires state bans on same-sex marriage to be struck down.

“The sole purpose and effect of these laws is to demean and degrade same-sex couples. The Supreme Court found that that singular purpose invalidated DOMA and Justice Scalia and 14 federal court judges have reason that Windsor’s holding requires striking down state same-sex marriage bans,” McHugh stated.

McHugh also cited divorce laws to argue that marriage is not primarily about childbearing, because marriages can be ended for “any reason whatsoever.” However, Francisco insisted that was exactly the reason why marriage must not be re-defined.

“When states debated, not through the courts but through the legislative process, changing and liberalizing the divorce laws, there was an argument that this was going to change the institution of marriage,” he explained, adding that “it’s not fair to say that changing the nature of marriage by adopting liberalized divorce laws did nothing to change the institution of marriage.”

In the same way, he told district judge C. Scott Crabtree, “if you join with those 18 lower courts, you will be changing what marriage is in Colorado. It will have a real-world consequence. Or, if you’re not willing to go that far, all you have to understand is that it is quite reasonable to believe it will have real-world consequences.”

Previous Post

June 18, 2014

Supreme Court okays pro-life challenge to Ohio election speech law

Next Post

June 18, 2014 Pro-marriage culture reduces inequality, professor says

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

Who interpreted the "writing on the wall" for King Belshazzar?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Ezekiel Jeremiah Daniel Isaiah