Courts issue trio of major pro-family rulings

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Marriage and prayer were affirmed by key court rulings in Louisiana, Florida and Washington, D.C., Jan. 19, bringing cheers from pro-family attorneys.

“It has been a very good day for the pro-family community,” said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family.

The first of two pro-marriage rulings came out of the Bayou State, with the Louisiana Supreme Court unanimously overturning a decision of a state district court judge who had thrown out the state’s marriage-protection amendment.

Justices rejected the lower court’s reasoning that the amendment had two purposes and was therefore unconstitutional, according to Alliance Defense Fund attorney Mike Johnson.

“This decision is a victory for the people of Louisiana and for justice and democracy,” Johnson said. “The court today upheld the will of the 78 percent of Louisiana voters who said ‘yes’ to the issue of defending marriage from all contemporary threats.”

Johnson defended the state amendment—which guarantees that marriage in the state “shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman”—on behalf of its authors in the Louisiana Legislature as well as the Louisiana Family Forum and the American Family Association of New Orleans.

On Oct. 5, Louisiana District Court Judge William Morvant ruled that the amendment — which prohibits both the recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions and other legal arrangements, such as civil unions—was flawed because it addressed two subjects: marriage and civil unions.

Not so, said the Louisiana Supreme Court.

“The court agreed with us that this amendment has one purpose: to protect marriage from all contemporary threats,” Johnson said.

The ruling will set something of a precedent for the rest of the country, he added, because “the approach of the amendments in eight of the 11 states in which voters approved amendments Nov. 2 is similar or identical to the approach of Louisiana’s amendment.”

But there’s no guarantee that what happened in Louisiana will be duplicated in those other states, especially with the prominence of many left-leaning judges.

“The people of Louisiana are fortunate that their Supreme Court looked to the law—and not to a liberal political agenda—in rendering this decision,” said Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family Action vice president of government and public policy. “But not all residents of all states are so fortunate—as the people of Massachusetts (where the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2003) know all too well.

“That’s why a federal marriage amendment remains the only surefire way to prevent activist judges from rewriting centuries of tradition and law governing the institution of marriage.”

DOMA upheld
A second key victory on the marriage front came when a federal district court in Tampa, Fla., upheld the constitutionality of both the federal and Florida Defense of Marriage acts .

The federal DOMA, passed by Congress in 1996, provides that one state does not have to recognize an out-of-state same-sex marriage.

Hausknecht said the plaintiffs in the Florida case asked the federal district court to use the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas to do more than just force recognition of their Massachusetts nuptials—but to create a ‘fundamental right’ to same-sex marriage. Lawrence v. Texas was a 2003 decision which declared unconstitutional state laws which outlawed consensual homosexual sex.

The court rejected that argument, becoming the first in the nation to turn down a DOMA challenge.

“Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law,” the court said in its decision, “because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage.”

Inaugural prayer OK
The third positive decision came out of the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected atheist Michael Newdow’s request for an injunction to stop clergymen from saying prayers at President George W. Bush’s Jan. 20 inauguration.

The decision came from Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who administered the oath of office to Bush. Newdow had demanded that Rehnquist remove himself from consideration of the case because the oath he will read contains the phrase “so help me, God.”

“This is an important statement by the Supreme Court in upholding inaugural prayer—a time-honored tradition that’s been a part of the history and heritage of our nation,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. “There simply is no constitutional conflict by permitting a member of the clergy to offer prayer for the president and the nation at the inaugural ceremony.”

EP News
Published, February 2005

Christian Examiner™, P.O. Box 2606 El Cajon, CA 92021 • 619-668-5100 • Fax 619-668-1115
Email: info@christianexaminer.com • Web site: www.christianexaminer.com