Federal judge in
Calif. upholds U.S. gay marriage ban
By Lisa Leff, AP from
SignOnSanDiego.com from the Web, June 16, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO -– Deciding one
of the few lawsuits arguing the case for gay marriage in federal court, a
California judge on Thursday ruled that a 1996 law recognizing only unions
between a man and a woman as valid does not violate the U.S. Constitution.
But U.S. District Judge Gary Taylor also declined to rule on whether a state ban
on same-sex marriage violates the civil rights of a gay Southern California
couple while a separate legal challenge to California's laws works its way
through the state courts.
"The question of the constitutionality of California's statutory prohibition on
same-sex marriage is novel and of sufficient importance that the California
courts ought to address it first," he wrote.
Taylor's ruling came in a case brought by Christopher Hammer and Arthur Smelt, a
Mission Viejo couple, who filed it last year as an alternative to the case
advanced in the state courts by the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex
couples. A state trial judge ruled in March that California's marriage
laws run afoul of the state Constitution and the case is now on appeal.
In upholding the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress and signed into law
by President Bill Clinton, Taylor said that even though the law "has a
disproportionate effect on homosexual individuals," the government's desire to
promote procreation is a valid reason for infringing on the rights of gay
couples.
"The Court finds it is a legitimate interest to encourage the stability and
legitimacy of what may reasonably be viewed as the optimal union for procreating
and rearing children by both biological parents," Taylor wrote, echoing the
arguments often advanced by groups opposed to same-sex marriage.
Byron Babione, a lawyer for the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, said
Taylor's statement was a victory for advocates who want to restrict marriage to
heterosexual couples.
"This court has defended the rights of voters to express what we know about
marriage: that it is, was and always will be a union between a man and a
woman," Babione said. "Marriage isn't right because it's traditional, it's
traditional because it's right."
But the judge's declaration that families headed by opposite-sex parents are the
best environment for raising children drew indignation and disbelief from gay
marriage advocates, who called it a disservice to the thousands of children
being raised in same-sex households.
"To say it would encourage procreation for heterosexual couples by denying
same-sex couples the right to marry is illogical," said Jennifer Pizer, senior
counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. "It's a mistake
to think that denying marriage to same-sex couples has any effect on whether
heterosexual couples have children and raise those children well."
In refusing to decide whether California's marriage laws run afoul of the U.S.
Constitution, Taylor noted that the Defense of Marriage Act explicitly empowers
states to set their own marriage policies, even if they conflict with the laws
of another state.
"The California state statutes touch an important and sensitive area of a social
institution, particularly within the province of a state," he said.
California recognizes only marriages between a man and a woman. The
federal Defense of Marriage Act allows states to disregard gay marriages
performed in other states and foreign countries, and holds that for federal
purposes such as Social Security, marriage is "a legal union of one man and one
woman as husband and wife."
Nearly all efforts to legalize gay marriage are being fought in state courts
around the country. Last year, a group of gay couples in Florida decided
to drop lawsuits similar to Hammer and Smelt's after a federal judge there
dismissed their claim challenging the Defense of Marriage Act.
|
