View the Sword Sermon Archives

Marriage Under Full-Scale Attack
By Alan Sears

The marriage battle continues to rage across the country, and ADF [Alliance Defense Fund] is in the thick of it.…[N]ew challenges constantly arise.…

In Wisconsin, ADF worked with the Wisconsin Family Council to file a friend-of-the-court brief in early November in the case McConkey v. Doyle. Last year, 59 percent of Wisconsin residents voted to enact a state amendment protecting marriage. Now one man is attempting to thwart the will of this majority by arguing the amendment is “unconstitutional,” and, as we argue in our brief, the plaintiff clearly does not have grounds to sue.

In Oklahoma, the case of O’Darling v. O’Darling continues. As I told you in a previous update, advocates of same-sex “marriage” are demanding that Oklahoma ignore a state amendment passed by three-fourths of its voters—not to mention the commonly accepted definition of marriage that goes back thousands of years—by redefining marriage (through the avenue of “divorce”) to fit the advocates’ political and cultural agendas. ADF is representing Oklahoma’s Speaker of the House, Lance Cargill, on behalf of the Oklahoma House of Representatives and has filed a friend-of-the-court brief.…

In Rhode Island, activists are also attempting to legitimize same-sex “marriage” through the avenue of “divorce.” Two women, Margaret Chambers and Cassandra Ormiston, both residents of Rhode Island, obtained a “marriage” license in Massachusetts in May 2004. They are now seeking a “divorce” in Rhode Island. If the court gives in to their demands, the definition of marriage in Rhode Island could be radically altered—without legislative or voter input. ADF has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Chambers v. Ormiston,…and coordinated an amicus effort that resulted in eight other amicus briefs being filed in support of marriage.

In California, the state Supreme Court is reviewing a set of significant consolidated marriage cases that have been making their way through the court system for almost four years. ADF attorneys, intensely involved from the outset, are representing the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund in these cases and have submitted a brief arguing that the court should not redefine marriage because the constitutional rights and obligations extended by law to people who marry do not apply to same-sex relationships.

In Maryland, ADF helped win a significant victory when the Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) upheld marriage as a union between one man and one woman in the case Conaway v. Deane. In this case, nine same-sex couples—represented by the ACLU—filed a lawsuit claiming that Maryland law defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman was unconstitutional.

In September, the court firmly rejected this argument, writing “…in light of Maryland’s history of limiting marriage to those unions between members of the opposite sex, coupled with the policy choices of nearly every other state in the Nation, we do not find that same-sex marriage is so deeply rooted in this State or the country as a whole that it should be regarded at this time as a fundamental right.”

In Iowa, a district court judge declared that a law protecting marriage was “unconstitutional.” At least one same-sex couple was “married” before a temporary stay was issued, which stopped additional “marriages” from taking place while the case moves up through the courts. ADF is coordinating amicus filings from numerous groups in support of the Polk County Clerk’s appeal.

In Connecticut, ADF has filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the state Supreme Court on behalf of the Family Research Council. Even though state laws clearly define marriage as the union of [one] man and one woman, the ACLU and the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders filed a lawsuit in 2004 demanding marriage licenses for seven same-sex couples. In 2006, a judge ruled that a state law providing marriage only for opposite-sex couples does not violate the state’s constitution, but the ACLU and its allies continue to disregard the best interest of children and families and have appealed to the state Supreme Court.

In New York, ADF is involved in two marriage cases. Godfrey et. al. v. Spano is a taxpayer challenge to Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano’s executive order which purports to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed in jurisdictions outside New York State. ADF challenged the County Executive’s authority to issue this order, and the case is currently on appeal.

In Lewis, et. al. v. New York State Department of Civil Service et. al., the Commissioner of the Department of Civil Service has issued a policy that defines “spouse” in such a way as to include same-sex “spouses” from other jurisdictions for the purpose of distributing spousal health benefits. Much like the Spano case, this is a thinly veiled attempt to treat same-sex couples as though they were married, something the Commissioner does not have the legal authority to do.

In Puerto Rico, ADF has been working closely with our extraordinary allies who are using their legal skills and pro bono commitment to assist efforts to pass an amendment protecting marriage. The proposed amendment recently passed the Commonwealth’s Senate and is now before the House. The House will reconvene to consider the amendment in January 2008, and if it passes the House, it will be placed on the ballot for a decision.

The threats to marriage are many, and the stakes are high. Marriage is the most basic unit of any society or nation. It must be protected, because a culture simply cannot survive without healthy, functioning families. Please continue to pray for these cases and others, that God would grant us success in our efforts to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

—alliancedefensefund.org