Same-Sex Marriage Bans Involved in Legislative and Judicial Frays
Feature Story by civilrights.org staff - 3/23/2005
A constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in the United States was re-introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this month, just days after a California Superior Court judge held that same-sex couples should not be denied the right to marry under a statutory ban.The California judge said there appears to be "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to same-sex couples. That ruling is being appealed.
On the federal level, the measure (H. J. Res. 39) was introduced by Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., who served as California's attorney general from 1991 to 1999.
The proposed amendment reads: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of a legal union of a man and a woman." The language also states that no courts - federal or state - should have jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage. The proposed amendment also would prevent states from having to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere.
An identical measure (S. J. Res. 1) was introduced in the Senate in January.
Civil rights groups, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), strongly opposed similar language when it was introduced in the last session of Congress. The groups said that such proposals "wrote discrimination" into the U.S. Constitution and stripped courts of their role in the federal system.
"The proposed amendment is antithetical to one of the Constitution's most fundamental guiding principles, that of the guarantee of equal protection for all," said Wade Henderson, executive director of LCCR, last year. "For the first time in history, it would use the Constitution as a tool of exclusion, restricting the rights of a group of Americans."
LCCR also protested the amendment's supporters' attacks on an independent judiciary, stating, "Supporters of the Marriage Protection Amendment cite 'judicial activism' as a reason to enact it. Terms like 'judicial activism' are alarming to LCCR and the civil rights community because such labels have routinely been used in the past to attack judges who made courageous decisions on civil rights matters."
The Human Rights Campaign also expressed its disappointment at the introduction of the "Marriage Protection Amendment."
"Plain and simple, discrimination doesn't belong in the Constitution," said HRC Vice President of Policy David M. Smith. "Congress can't dress up discrimination. By any name, this amendment would still hurt American families. Not only would this amendment trample the rights of millions of same-sex couples and their children, but it would also deny any state the ability to ensure its families are protected under state law."
