The court has thus respected the eminently reasonable decision of the California electorate to retain the perennial definition of marriage.
We endorse the intent of law to provide equal protection for all. However, such purpose does not have to trump the natural and traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Zenit) - The U.S. bishops' conference lauded the California Supreme Court's decision to uphold the voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage.
In a statement released Wednesday, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage, reported the bishops' satisfaction with the decision.
He stated, "The court has thus respected the eminently reasonable decision of the California electorate to retain the perennial definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman."
The archbishop explained: "This respects the uniqueness of the marital relationship and its service to the common good by respecting the value of procreation and the good of children as well as the unique complementarity of man and woman.
"Advancing the truth and beauty of marriage enhances, rather than diminishes, the intrinsic dignity of every human person."
In 2000, Californians voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman. But last May, the state's high court overturned that vote and approved same-sex marriage. Some 18,000 gay couples were quick to take advantage of the new prerogative.
California's citizens rallied to put the issue to vote again in November. With slightly more than a 52% majority, same-sex marriage was again made illegal in California, this time with a constitutional amendment.
That measure was known as Proposition 8 and it added to the California Constitution the following clause: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
However, activists succeeded in taking the issue back to the California Supreme Court, contending that the ban needed legislature approval before being added to the constitution.
The court's decision Tuesday upholds the ban, but does not "un-marry" the 18,000 gay couples who wed between May and November.
The bishops' statement expressed concern that the court failed to apply the marriage definition to these same-sex unions.
Truth
Archbishop Kurtz affirmed, "Attempts to change the legal definition of marriage or to create simulations of marriage, often under the guise of 'equality,' 'civil rights,' and 'anti-discrimination,' do not serve the truth."
"Such attempts," he said, "undermine the very nature of marriage and overlook the essential place of marriage and family life in society."
The prelate continued, "The state has a responsibility to protect and promote marriage as the union of one man and one woman as well as to protect and promote the intrinsic dignity of every human person, including homosexual persons."
He added that there are many ways to accomplish this, but "sacrificing marriage is not one of them."
The California bishops' conference released an additional statement in which Bishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton echoed the words of Archbishop Kurtz.
Quoting the natural law scholar and Princeton professor, Robert George, the prelate affirmed: "No matter what, the law will teach. It will either teach that marriage exists as a natural institution with public purposes and meanings, centered around bridging the gender divide, and bringing together one man and one woman to share their lives as husband and wife and to become father and mother to their children, or it will teach that marriage is a mere creation of the state, recognizing and condoning the private sexual choices of adults."
Dignity
"As Catholic bishops," the statement continued, "we are strongly committed to protecting the dignity and worth of every human person."
It affirmed: "We endorse the intent of law to provide equal protection for all. However, such purpose does not have to trump the natural and traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman.
"The law has found other ways to regulate civil unions without destroying the traditional understanding of marriage.
"We believe -- as do the majority of Californians -- that marriage between a man and a woman is foundational to our culture and crucial for human perpetuity."
Ron Prentice, executive committee chairman of the coalition ProtectMarriage.com, explained that although this court decision is a victory for all supporters of Proposition 8, the work is not done.
He stated, "We will now turn our attention to public education and outreach so that citizens come to better understand and appreciate the many benefits that traditional marriage provides for society and our families."
"The institution of marriage as we have always understood it has served California and our broader society since the nation was founded," Prentice affirmed.
He added, "We look forward to working with young people, churches, ethnic communities and all of California with an ongoing discussion about the benefits of traditional marriage."
Comments
Marriage is a committment between man and woman. It is not a civil right. A person does not have a right to marry anyone they please. To allow a redefinition for one group would have to allow any group the option they believe best suits them to avoid bringing about a discrimination lawsuit. Case in point as is happening in Canada where a man with 20 wives is suing for the right to marriage based upon the legal redefintion of marriage brought upon by the approval of gay marriage. The lawyer sees this as a win for the client because of said redefinition. The reason behind marriage of opposite sex couples has always been to provide for continued generational growth of society naturally. A simple definition would be consider Liberace...he was a result of opposite sex parents who they were a result of opposite sex parents. Our geneology depends upon this. God made man to be able to plant the seed of life and woman to carry the unborn child. Our society would not be here today had it relied on a homosexual existance. Therefore gay marriage can never be about equality because true equality demands the ability to reproduce naturally which homosexual couples cannot due. Would you approve of heterosexual polygomy, incest or underage/adult marriages..the answer is no due to these forms being looked down upon due to moral standards we have; yet 20 years ago we had similar standards of morallity which have been cleverly been mislead into being fed as discrimination or forms of bigotry by the liberal mainstream media. If you think gay activists will be happy with marriage laws, they will not stop their. An attempt to remove pedofilia as a protected class from current Hate crimes bill was shot down on straight Democratic party lines. This will be the next attempt at affirming pedofilia as a normal behavior which gay activists are trying to have removed as a mental disorder from the American Phychiatric Assocations Diagnostic and statistical manual of medical disorders. Current legistlation in California to set up Harvey Milk Day in Public Schools thru yearly recognition with gay pride days signed by Pres. Obama. Obama Admin just picked Gay activists to join as education safety director to all national public schools to set up gay safe programs starting with kindergarden thru grade 5 to include teachings with gay readers, and promotion of gay teachers coming out.
jim | 5/30/2009
To clarify my point, I'll say that I support giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. I would just omit the word "marriage" to avoid conflict with relgious groups.
Bulbajer | 5/30/2009
Well, this is one of the better statements by the Bishops that I've heard. I have supported gay marriage because I felt that, by not adding "marriage" to the definition, gays were being discriminated against and would be exposed to further discrimination by their fellow citizens. I think now I support civil unions instead, because marriage has always been a relgious name. I will continue to support anti-discrimination laws and groups.
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, antisocial behavior such as "spamming" and "trolling," or other inappropriate comments or material will not be posted on Catholic Online. Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. We will take steps to block users who violate any of our terms of service. While Catholic Online invites robust discussion, we maintain the right to not print material that is patently false in its claims concerning the teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, overtly anti-Catholic or which, in the opinion of the moderator, are intended to mislead readers as to what the Catholic Church teaches. Comments DO NOT necessarily reflect the opinion or views of Catholic Online.