PHOENIX — An Arizona appellate court rejected an argument that the state's law restricting marriage to one man and one woman is unconstitutional.

A three-judge panel of the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled unanimously Oct. 8 that the fundamental right to marry “does not encompass the right to marry a same-sex partner.”

Two homosexual men challenged Arizona's ban against same-sex marriage after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas struck down state bans against sodomy earlier this year.

In the Arizona decision, Judge Ann Scott Timmer wrote: “Although many traditional views of homosexuality have been recast over time in our state and nation, the choice to marry a same-sex partner has not taken sufficient root to achieve constitutional protection as a fundamental right.”

Arizona's prohibition against same-sex marriage “rationally furthers a legitimate state interest,” she wrote.

Timmer said it is for the people of Arizona, through their elected representatives or by using the initiative process, to decide whether to permit same-sex marriages.

The decision was hailed by people such as Tony Perkins, who became president this year of the Family Research Council as the debate over same-sex marriage got ratcheted up by seeming homosex-ualist victories in Canada and the Episcopalian Church.

Arizona's decision is “completely in line with both the historical and legal definitions of marriage,” Perkins said in a statement. “Arizona is only the beginning, and we are ready to take the fight to protect marriage to any state in which this vital institution is endangered.”

Indeed, as the Arizona State Court of Appeals issued its decision, those keeping an eye on the debate wondered what a Massachusetts court would do and how courts in other states will decide.

A ruling on whether homosexual couples have a right to marry was expected from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court this summer but has been delayed.

The issue is so critical that the Family Research Council announced plans Oct. 2 to make protecting marriage its main issue in presidential election year 2004.

Perkins and others spoke to the Register about what life would be like in a United States where homosexual marriage were considered, at least legally, normal.

Marriage ‘Worthless’

Speaking from his Washington, D.C., office, Perkins was blunt: The American family would be destroyed, he predicted; society's most central institution would become worthless; millions more children would be deprived of a healthy upbringing and popular culture would be brimming with images of homosexuals as heroes.

Those who support homosexual marriage contend it will leave heterosexual people's lives unscathed. “Ending discrimination in marriage and allowing gay people civil marriage would allow huge protections and security for our families but really not change anyone else's life at all,” said Evan Wolfson, executive director of the New York-based Freedom to Marry organization.

But Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, author of Homosexuality & The Politics of Truth, believes allowing same-sex marriage would “further erode the idea that marriage is a public institution.” Homosexual-rights activists “think that getting married is an act that has no impact on anybody else,” said Satinover, a Westport, Conn.-based psychoanalyst.

In Vermont, which three years ago became the first state in the nation to recognize same-sex relationships, state Rep. William Lippert said the legislation has enhanced life.

“Vermonters are going about their daily lives, getting their wood in in the winter and enjoying the lake in the summer,” the Democrat who helped author the legislation said. “It just happens to be a much friendlier place in a legal way for gay and lesbian couples.”

Don't tell that to California Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy, whose vote against a domestic partner bill there in early September couldn't keep it from passing.

The bill grants same-sex couples nearly all the same rights as heterosexual couples, though it falls short of allowing homosexual marriage.

“It's an aberration in front of God,” said Mountjoy, a Republican. “What is going to be the value of marriage anymore?”

Father John Harvey, director of Courage, an apostolate that helps Catholics with same-sex attraction remain faithful to Church teaching on chastity, had similar words.

“It's so scary because it opens the floodwaters,” Father Harvey said from his New York office. “What you're really doing is destroying the institution of marriage that's been present since the beginning of culture.”

“Who's going to say it stops with just two men and two women?” Perkins added. “Where do you draw the line?”

But sweeping predictions of the effects of same-sex marriage seem incomprehensible to homosexual couples who say such recognition would grant them simple yet fundamental human rights. The say allowing same-sex unions would ease many problems homosexual couples face, from access to health care to collecting benefits to avoiding immigration scuffles.

For Bill Schuyler, who “wed” Ron Rinaldi, his partner of 28 years, in Vancouver, Canada, July 19, the change has already been noticeable.

In the past, 55-year-old Schuyler was refused entry into the emergency room when his 63-year-old partner suffered heart attacks, because he was not related. After they exchanged vows, the Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, couple had no problems staying together at a hospital when Rinaldi had a kidney problem.

Permanent Sign

Meanwhile, many of those who oppose homosexual marriage say such unions would hurt children, whom they predict would be surrounded by reminders of nontraditional families.

“It's going to have a detrimental effect on children,” said Perkins, a former Louisiana state representative. “They see marriage as the one institution that is unchanging in an ever-changing culture.”

For children of heterosexual couples, Perkins said, same-sex marriage would mean homosexuality would become an unavoidable element of each day. It could spur social change, he said, that results in pervasive public displays of affection by same-sex couples, infiltration of positive homosexual imagery on the airwaves and the probability of attending a school play filled with pairs of two mommies or two daddies.

Satinover said the increasing number of children raised by same-sex couples will see their development stunted intellectually and emotionally so seriously that the effects will ripple down to their own children.

Lippert said he's seen no such negative impact from Vermont's civil unions.

“It's allowed families to come together,” he said. “My hope is that children will have a picture of a more diverse world and have a greater level of tolerance.”

But Perkins said allowing homosexual marriage would mean traditional family values are given a curtain call.

“If marriage is lost,” he said, “the family will fall and there is no base to operate from.”

Matt Sedensky is based in Honolulu.