The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled today in a two-to-one decision that Virginia’s marriage law is unconstitutional.
Bishop Paul S. Loverde and Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo released a statement about the ruling, saying, “We will continue to affirm the truth about marriage, the lifelong union of one man and one woman, as well as the importance of marriage to the common good. As pastors, teachers, and faith leaders, we can do nothing less. We will continue to fight this unjust ruling.”
Check out the press release from the USCCB about the recent rulings on marriage in federal courts. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, Archbishop Cordileone reminds us, “Recent court decisions on marriage in no way deter our efforts to promote the truth about marriage – a truth that no court decision can ever undo.”
A federal appeals court in Denver struck down Oklahoma’s marriage amendment today. This is the same court responsible for striking Utah’s amendment down. They argue that the U.S. Constitution protects same-sex marriage.
Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin released a statement, reaffirming her commitment to natural marriage. She said: “In 2004, voters had an opportunity to decide whether or not to allow same-sex marriage in Oklahoma. Seventy-six percent voted not to, and to instead define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. I was one of the many voters who cast my ballot in favor of traditional marriage.”
On July 16th, 2014 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that not extending the right to marry to same-sex couples does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.
The petitioner to the court in this case was a man in Finland who had gone through a sex change and wanted to change his identity. He was told that if he was to do so, he would no longer be recognized as married to his wife: that marriage could be dissolved or transformed into a civil partnership.
The court explained that the European Convention “enshrines the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman.” Therefore it does not require acceptance of same-sex unions.The majority of the countries in the European Union maintain the true meaning of marriage as a bond between one man and one woman.
There’s an article about this ruling and its possible implications for American at Aleteia.
Yesterday a Circuit Judge in the Florida Keys ruled that Florida’s ban on same-sex “marriage” is unconstitutional.
The judge noted, “The court is aware that the majority of voters oppose same-sex marriage, but it is our country’s proud history to protect the rights of the individual, the rights of the unpopular and the rights of the powerless, even at the cost of offending the majority.” In fact, in Florida, 62% of the voters approved a marriage amendment to recognize the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Instead of asking the question of whether those voters had a rational basis for their belief about marriage– which is distinct from a belief about the rights of individuals– the judge in this case dismissed those beliefs as just another kind of prejudice.
There is a great need to educate people about the crucial distinction the Church and others make between the person and their sexual expression. The person is always respected; certain sexual activity may not be.
Archbishop Wenski released a statement about the decision. He reaffirmed the importance of marriage to society and the right of a child to be raised by his or her mother and father.
A state judge in Colorado’s Adams County district court struck down the ban on gay “marriage” on July 9th. Judge Crabtree wrote that, “The Court rejects the State’s attempt to too narrowly describe the marital right at issue to the right to marry a person of the same sex.” He immediately stayed his ruling, reaffirming that this issue will largely be up to the Supreme Court to determine.
A federal judge struck down Kentucky’s restriction of marriage to man and woman. The decision is on hold for appeal.
In a split decision (2-1), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling striking down Utah’s marriage amendment as unconstitutional.
After responding to the bad legal reasoning of the Court, the dissenting judge admonished his judicial colleagues by concluding: “We should resist the temptation to become philosopher-kings, imposing our views under the guise of constitutional interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The Utah Attorney General has announced that he intends to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
Let us pray for our federal judges – that they uphold the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman!
Yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled that Indiana’s definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is unconstitutional and that the state’s non-recognition of out-of-state same-sex “marriages” is unconstitutional. Indiana will be appealing the decision.
The bishops of Indiana issued a statement about the decision, noting that it, “ignores this fundamental and natural truth of marriage and opens its definition to the whims of public opinion.”
A number of officials from San Francisco and a number of other groups wrote to Archbishop Cordileone last week to urge him not to join the March for Marriage on June 19. They argued that the March for Marriage was a platform for hate.
Archbishop Cordileone responded yesterday to the Lt. Governor Newsom and Mayor Ed Lee, pointing out that the March for Marriage, “is not ‘anti-LGBT’ (as some have described it); it is not anti-anyone or anti-anything. Rather, it is a pro-marriage March… Rest assured that if the point of this event were to single out a group of individuals and target them for hatred, I most certainly would not be there.”
He goes on to encourage his correspondents not to take hearsay for truth and corrects a number of assertions about the organizers of the event. He states his willingness and interest in meeting the letter signers in person, not only to talk about the issue, but simply to get to know them, writing, “It is the personal encounter that changes the vision of the other and softens the heart.”
The Archbishop ends his letter with a plea of his own: “When all is said and done, then, there is only one thing that I would ask of you more than anything else: before you judge us, get to know us.”