INDIANAPOLIS — Proponents of traditional marriage won victories recently as judges in Indiana and Florida dealt defeats to same-sex couples.

The federal government and almost 40 states have Defense of Marriage acts. A judge in Florida upheld the constitutionality of the federal act, while an Indiana court upheld it in the Hoosier State.

But a leading defender of marriage between a man and a woman said homosexual activists are using the courts to get what abortion activists got in Roe v. Wade — a U.S. Supreme Court victory that will back their cause.

“This is the culture of death moving upstream,” said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage. “From the devaluing of the human life (in Roe v. Wade) to the devaluing of the incubator of human life, which is the family.”

He said the only solution is to amend the U.S. Constitution with a declaration that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. It was his organization that drafted the amendment.

In the Florida and Indiana rulings, the judges made clear that marriage is beneficial for society because it offers the possibility of procreation and stable families. In Indiana, the plaintiffs — three same-sex couples — all have civil unions from Vermont. One couple — two women — has a child, conceived through in-vitro fertilization, according to court documents.

In a Jan. 20 opinion, three judges on the Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed with arguments that restricting marriage to a man and a woman was an unconstitutional denial of equal protection.

The judges voiced their disagreement with the Massachusetts court that approved homosexual “marriage” by noting, “Opposite-sex marriage is recognized and supported by law in large part to encourage ‘responsible procreation’ by opposite-sex couples, who are the only ones who can, in fact, procreate.”

David Squire, a plaintiff in the Indiana lawsuit, said he was frustrated by the ruling.

“Essentially, the decision said that our families are not real families,” said Squire, the administrator at Jesus Metropolitan Community Church in Indianapolis. “And I know that’s not true. That’s what’s frustrating to me.”

Squire added that he and his partner have been together for more than seven years, and they don’t want children.

On its website, the Metropolitan Community Church says it plays a “vital role in addressing the spiritual needs of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.” Under a section on human rights, it boasts that it introduced the “first-ever lawsuit demanding California’s recognition of a same-sex marriage” and has been working “to change the marriage laws” ever since.

‘Unique Goods’

The Indiana ruling made clear that the state has an interest in promoting traditional marriage because it “encourages opposite-sex couples to procreate responsibly and raise children within a stable environment.”

In friend-of-the-court briefs, two Catholic organizations also pointed out the importance of marriage being between a man and a woman.

Brian Bailey, an Indianapolis attorney who wrote on behalf of Catholics Allied for the Faith, referred to Scripture, noting that God has declared that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is an abomination.

“In their brief on appeal, the plaintiffs distort the institution of marriage and the right to enter into marriage because they neglected the God who created them and the institution itself,” Bailey wrote. He added that Indiana’s Defense of Marriage Act stipulates that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

Catholics Allied for the Faith favors laws that uphold Christian moral teachings, said Greg King, a co-director of the Indianapolis-based lay apostolate.

“Our position was that it was a moral issue, as well as a legal issue,” he said.

But what also was at stake, according to a brief from another Catholic organization, is the family.

“Children can never be the ‘issue’ of any same-sex act,” said Gerard Bradley, a Notre Dame University law professor, in a brief on behalf of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists. “But children of the married couple literally embody their parents’ marriage, perfecting their parents’ two-in-one-flesh communion. This procreative orientation of marriage makes possible the awesome web of valuable relationships we call the family. … Plaintiffs would uproot and cast aside the law of marriage. They would revolutionize our legal understanding of the family… (and destroy) the great and ‘unique’ goods which marriage offers our civil society.”

No Appeal

In the Florida case, two homosexuals traveled to Massachusetts to get married last summer. They decided to file suit because they are used to being activists, said the Rev. Nancy Wilson, a senior pastor at the Metropolitan Community Church in Sarasota.

She said she and her partner have been together 27 years.

“We believe in a God of justice, and justice will prevail in the long run, even when it doesn’t prevail in the courts,” she said.

U.S. District Court Judge James Moody Jr. disagreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, which says states should honor the acts of other states, applied in the case of their “marriage.”

In his Jan. 19 ruling, Moody wrote that adopting the plaintiffs’ “rigid and literal interpretation” of the clause “would create a license for a single state to create national policy.”

“Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage,” he added.

A leader in the effort to get same-sex “marriage” approved referred to the views held by the Florida and Indiana judges and “the Christian Right” as “irrational reasoning.”

Robin Tyler, executive director of the Equality Campaign, said opposition is “pure discrimination” which will eventually end in victory for homosexuals. She viewed the lawsuits as part of a “civil-rights” struggle.

The appellants in Florida, though, decided not to appeal, saying they did not want to risk a conservative appellate court setting legal precedent by rejecting their case. The Indiana plaintiffs are considering an appeal.

Daniels, of the Alliance for Marriage, said by filing lawsuit after lawsuit, homosexual activists have put the public on notice for the past 10 years that their ultimate aim is to end up with “the Roe v. Wade of gay marriage.”

“We are in a race between the courts and the American people. Every time we win in court, that’s a good thing,” Daniels said. But, he added, “We cannot back off on the final solution [the constitutional marriage amendment] to the threat remaining from the courts.”

       

Carlos Briceño writes

from Seminole, Florida.