Two court decisions in two different nations have raised the urgency of adding a new amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first decision came from Canada. On June 10, the Court of Appeals in the province of Ontario unanimously ruled that the traditional definition of marriage being a relationship between one man and one woman violated Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it discriminated against homosexuals.
The court said in its decision that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry offends their dignity, discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and violates their equality rights.
This was not the first Canadian court to attack the country’s marriage laws. Courts in the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec earlier struck down laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman. The difference is those court decisions gave governments time to rewrite their laws. The Ontario court ordered immediate implementation of its rulings. The court even ordered Toronto’s city clerk to issue and accept marriage licenses for two gay couples who had been “married” in 2001.
Five days later, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Justice Minister Martin Cauchon announced they would not appeal the ruling. The effect of their decision was to make the Appeals Court ruling applicable to the entire nation. Chretien described the new situation redefining marriage in Canada as the “evolution of society.”
On June 26, the Supreme Court of the United States entered the fray. In a far-reaching decision that took most observers by surprise, the Supreme Court ruled by a 6–3 majority that state laws against gay sex violated the U.S. Constitution’s guaranty of privacy.
The court said gays and lesbians are “entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private conduct a crime.” The decision added there is “no legitimate state interest” to justify laws against sodomy.
Somehow the reasoning sounds similar to that used by the Canadian Court of Appeals — privacy, discrimination and equal rights. The similarity of reasoning has caused some to ask publicly if the United States will soon follow Canada’s lead and make marriage between homosexuals legal.
The process is already in place for that to happen. Vermont already recognizes gay marriages. The Massachusetts Supreme Court is expected to decide this summer on whether gays and lesbians can marry under that state’s constitution. Some legal experts say the gay plaintiffs have a good chance of winning the case. Two other similar cases are also in state courts. One of these or some other case will soon end up before the U.S. Supreme Court where a ruling would impact the entire nation.
The June 26 ruling by the Supreme Court leads many to expect that similar reasoning could be applied by the justices to mandate homosexual marriage in all 50 states.
Whether those who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle should have lifelong committed relationships is not the issue. The issue is the definition of marriage. The Bible is clear that God created marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Marriage is a foundational part of society. It is far more than a committed relationship between two people.
Marriage is the expression of love and commitment where most children are created and nurtured. Studies show that marriage continues to provide the most stable environment in which to raise a family. That is why marriage and family have been recognized by governments and societies around the world, and marriage is universally recognized as between a man and a woman.
One champion of the traditional definition of marriage observed, “We exist in two sexes and marriage is the enduring and exclusive sexual union of one man and one woman. This union provides a stable and caring environment for the expression of the physical and psychological bond between male and female.”
Because the traditional definition of marriage is under strong attack, it is important that a constitutional amendment now before Congress be adopted. As drafted, the proposal says, “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state under state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
Sentiments of the proposed amendment reflect the desires of the vast majority of American citizens. That is why voters in two states defeated recognizing gay marriages. That is why Congress, together with most state legislatures, adopted laws declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman. But all such laws could be voided by one decision of the Supreme Court. That is why the amendment is needed.
The proposed amendment is now before the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution. The recent decisions in Canada and in the United States have given the amendment new life. Still, it faces an uphill fight. The process of amending the Constitution is a difficult one under the best of circumstances. Amendments must have a two-thirds vote by both houses of Congress and be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Given the vigorous opposition homosexuals will mount against this amendment, the struggle will be even harder. But the definition of marriage is important. If the Supreme Court seems determined to justify homosexual marriage by the Constitution, then champions of traditional marriage and family must work together to make sure the Constitution is crystal clear. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
If you would like to express your feelings about this issue, you may contact your representatives by writing to them at the House Office Building, United States House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515. Senators may be addressed at the Senate Office Building, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510.
Share with others: