After the state Supreme Court’s June 5 decision to discard the requests of attorneys general from some ten states to stay the May 15 ruling allowing gay marriage within the state, thousands of homosexual couples are expected to tie the knot in California as soon as the new legislation takes effect.
But many people are seeing confusion in the horizon as questions are beginning to arise about how long the state’s new court ruling will be in place.This uncertainty began with the June 2 ruling in which the California Supreme Court voted to include a ballot measure in California’s Nov. 4 election that will allow citizens of the state to define marriage as either “a union between a man and a woman” or continue with the state’s latest marriage law.
However, some policy and legal authorities are saying California’s new legislation won’t just cause confusion for the Golden state, but the entire country as well.
At a press conference held at the National Press Club on May 29, the Family Research Council (FRC) sponsored a panel discussion in which national implications of the new California law were the main topics.
Tony Perkins, FRC president, led panelists Ken Blackwell, Glen Lavy and Mat Staver in a discussion on the possible ramifications of the court’s ruling if California’s court overruled the stay request (as it did on June 5).
Blackwell said that while marriage licenses can be obtained in California, the fact that California does not have a residency requirement makes citizens from all 50 states eligible for marriage licenses.
“Starting next month, members of the same sex from across the nation will be able to get to California, get married and return immediately to their home state [and] once back home, file a legal lawsuit in federal court demanding that their home state give full recognition to their marriage,” Blackwell said.
“The California ruling will spawn lawsuits all over the country creating an intense and passionate national debate over marriage,” he added.
It is for this reason all the panelists said they believed the new California same-sex marriage law would create problems dealing with other human rights for Americans throughout the nation.
Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said he believes the court’s ruling creates certain legal loopholes within the marital system that Americans should be aware of.
Lavy, the Alliance Defense Fund’s Senior Counsel, told those present at the briefing that one of his concerns about the new California marriage law is it that is geared toward the sexuality of a person.
“The arguments for redefining marriage to include same sex couples are the exact same arguments being made to legalize polygamy, to legalize incestuous marriages,” Lavy said.
“The court’s footnotes citing old case law is not going to have any weight whatsoever when polygamists come to that court or another court making the same arguments claiming my sexual orientation is to have multiple spouses. For example, how do you tell a bisexual who wants to marry a man and a woman that that person’s sexual orientation is deserving of less consideration than the sexual orientation of a same sex couple? What is the difference? Legally, I don’t think there is any difference,” Lavy added.
According to Lavy, there is one point all academics agree on when it comes to the redefinition of marriage.
“If marriage is redefined to include same-sex couples, it will conflict with religious liberty,” Lavy said.
“A couple of the immediate problems that are going to arise out of this decision have to do with [the] clerks in California who issue marriage licenses,” Lavy said.
Lavy said many religions do not, and will not, conduct homosexual marriages due to religious beliefs and personal convictions.
“There are clerks that have those kinds of objections. We’ve been hearing from them. What is going to happen to their religious liberty in this situation?” he asked.
“Another likely problem is for churches who allow their facilities be used for weddings,” Lavy added.
According to Lavy, churches have had their tax exemptions taken away in the past for refusing to be affiliated with homosexual wedding ceremonies.
However, according to the panel, positions within the church will not be the only professions to be affected by marriage rulings such as California’s.
“I know ADF also represents someone in New Mexico who is a wedding photographer, I believe, and that case is still going on appeal,” Staver said.
“[The state has] a sexual orientation non-discrimination policy. Someone wanted to have him do a lesbian commitment ceremony in New Mexico. He said no. He had a complaint filed against him and he’s lost and thus far, he’s had to pay $6,000 pending the results of this appeal,” Staver added.
Lavy said cases such as these, which are not only affiliated with religious organizations, but with personal preferences of business owners, go against the federal liberty defense and right to conscience the Constitution promises all Americans.
“I don’t think there are countervailing rights in the constitution. The constitution says that there is a right to religious liberty,” Lavy said.
“When a court creates a right that is not in the constitution that conflicts with a constitutional right, it has far overstepped its bounds.”
Emily Ham is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.
