On March 4, the California Supreme Court will hear a challenge to state law that upholds traditional marriage between a man and a woman. The Church has joined with other churches in filing a friend of the court brief asking the court to uphold the current law.
On one side are the Mormon church, the California Catholic Conference, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. They describe marriage between a man and a woman as “the lifeblood of community, society and the state” and say any attempt by the courts to change that would create “deep tensions between civil and religious understandings of that institution.”
On the other side are the Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Soka Gakkai branch of Buddhism, and dissident groups of Mormons, Catholics and Muslims. Saying their faiths and a wide range of historical traditions honor same-sex unions, they argue that the current law puts the state’s stamp of approval on “the religious orthodoxy of some sects concerning who may marry.”
The brief on behalf of the Church and its allies was written by Kenneth Starr (of Clinton impeachment fame) and argues that, regardless of religion, traditional marriage is essential for a healthy society.
“We have seen at close range the enormous benefits that traditional male-female marriage imparts,” he wrote. “We have also witnessed the substantial adverse consequences for children that often flow from alternative household arrangements.”
The “inescapable truth,” Starr said, is that “children need their mothers and fathers, and that society needs mothers and fathers to raise their children.”
His clients’ argument is not based on their religious beliefs, he said, but on “historical and sociological facts about what marriage has always been across time and cultures,” and on the doctrine that courts must let the people and their representatives decide such fundamental questions.
The brief can be found at the court’s website here [PDF]. It’s nice to see that although there were 50 some briefs files, the Church was joined by like-minded Catholics, Evangelicals, and Jews.
Also, Evergreen International, an LDS-supportive group for dealing with same-sex attraction filed a separate brief with similar organizations affiliated with other denominations [PDF].
Opponents of the California law claim that same-sex marriage has been around much longer than believed and that the law violates religious freedom. The brief for religious organizations joined in opposing the law can be found here [PDF]. Despite the SF Chronicle’s highlighting that “dissident groups of Mormons” signed on to the opposing brief, I only recognized one Mormon-affiliated group (Affirmation) among the long list of religious organizations.
The CA Supreme Court has a special page for the case, In re Marriage Cases, with all the briefs and filings.
[edited for clarity, I hope]
Tags: ecumenism, family, legal, same-gender marriage
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://www.asoftanswer.com/2008/02/19/mormon-ecumenism-on-both-sides-of-california-same-sex-marriage-debate/trackback/
15 May 2008 at 1:09 pm
Pingback from As goes California . . . | A Soft Answer
19 February 2008 at 11:33 am
Nick Literski
Thanks for posting these links! I wish that the LDS church wouldn’t have dirtied its hands by associating with the likes of Kenneth Starr.
Is there a link for the brief from these “dissident groups,” as you call them?
19 February 2008 at 11:35 am
Chris H.
As a political philosopher with Con Law interestests this issues is very interesting to me. As a member of the Church, I avoid any debate about it because I am not sure where to stand on it.
19 February 2008 at 11:40 am
David H. Sundwall
Nick,
I don’t call them “dissident groups,” the SF Chronicle did.
I used the quotes to make that clear I thought.
The last link is to the brief you are asking about. Sorry that wasn’t clear. I’ll edit that.
The CA Supreme Court has a special page for the case, In re Marriage Cases, with all the briefs and filings.
I imagine the article emphasized Starr’s participation to make that point to those who didn’t like the impeachment.
19 February 2008 at 11:42 am
Chris H.
Starr is a pretty famous and respected appellate attorney. This is the case whether we agree about impeachment or not.
19 February 2008 at 11:45 am
Nick Literski
Thanks, David. I saw afterward that the pro-marriage-equality religious groups were in the same brief as Affirmation, et al. Again, thanks for posting this!
As for Kenneth Star, the man was a pornography peddler, and his report was the biggest piece of porn ever sold by Deseret Book (yes, they did sell it).
19 February 2008 at 11:50 am
Nick Literski
You’re absolutely right, Chris. Still, I’m a bit surprised to see the LDS church associate itself with Starr on this. Note that the brief is co-authored by Starr and an attorney from Kirton & McConkie, the firm that generally represents the LDS church in litigation.
I can’t help but wonder how many thousands of dollars in tithing went to legal fees for this, all because LDS leaders wish to foist their own religious code of conduct onto members of a pluralistic society who are not in any way answerable to the LDS church.
19 February 2008 at 11:51 am
David H. Sundwall
Like Chris said, Starr does a lot of work as a con law attorney (I think he is/was at Pepperdine), but he’s obviously best known for the infamous Starr report (whatever your opinion of it is) and being thoroughly trashed by the Clinton administration.
I know you now see the link Nick, but just for anyone else, the end was edited so that the brief’s link is now the first in the second to last paragraph.