F

irst, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples.

Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples.

Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples
are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated
differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex
couples.

Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

With these words, California’s Supreme Court declared the state’s Defense of Marriage Act (Proposition 22) unconstitutional, thus allowing same-sex marriages to take place in California.

alifornia’s Bishops and the California Catholic Conference issued the following statement in response:

The California Catholic Conference of Bishops must express its disappointment in the California Supreme Court decision to declare Proposition 22 unconstitutional.

Proposition 22, which states, “Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid and recognized in California,” passed eight years ago by a vote of 61.2 to 38.8 percent. That statute reflected the wisdom of the voters of California in retaining the traditional definition of marriage as a biological reality and a societal good. Unfortunately, today, the Court saw fit to disregard the will of the majority of people of California.

Catholic teaching maintains that marriage is a faithful, exclusive, and lifelong union between one man and one woman joined in an intimate partnership of life and love — a union instituted by God for the mutual fulfillment of the husband and wife, as well as for the procreation and education of children.

Partnerships of committed same-sex individuals are already legal in California. Our state has also granted domestic partners spousal-type rights and responsibilities which facilitate their relationships with each other and any children they bring to the partnership. Every person involved in teh family of domestic partners is a child of God and deserves respect in the eyes of the law and their community. However, those partnerships are not marriage — and can never be marriage — as it has been understood since the founding of the United States. Today’s decision of California’s high court opens the door for policymakers to deconstruct traditional marriage and create another institution under the guise of equal protection.

Although we strongly disagree with the ruling, we ask our Catholic people, as well as all the people of California, to continue to uphold the dignity of every person, to acknowledge individual rights and responsibilities, [but at the same time] to maintain support for the unique and irreplaceable role of traditional marriage as an institution which is fundamental to society.

Father George Rutler, of the Church of Our Saviour in New York City, added the following:

The recent 4-3 decision of the California Supreme Court allowing same-sex unions to be defined as marriages was not only a species of judicial activism, like the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, it was an exercise of Gnostic pessimism which rejected the will of 61% of the California electorate and discarded what has been the sense of civilized societies for at least six thousand years. The same contempt for natural law has promoted artificial contraception which, while decreasing populations to dangerous levels, has also helped to double the national divorce rate in just twenty years. A similar Gnosticism separated conjugal union from marriage. Research conducted by Yale and Catholic universities and published in the American Sociological Review indicates that people who live together before marriage are 80% more likely eventually to end up divorced.

The Catholic Bishops Conference of California has said that the decision of California’s high court “opens the door for policymakers to deconstruct traditional marriage and create another institution under the guise of equal protection.” Simultaneously, the White House stated that “President Bush has always believed marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. It’s unfortunate when activist judges continue to seek to redefine marriage by court order — without regard for the will of the people.” On the feast of Corpus Christi, we should also give thanks to Pope Paul VI, who struggled against his own distaste for confrontation, boldly to warn that the Gnostic fever would lead to the moral absurdities now threatening civilization.