Catholic leaders praise victory for a ‘timeless institution;’ Supreme Court may be next

Detroit — A three-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a ruling issued Nov. 6 upheld traditional marriage laws in four states, including Michigan, becoming the first federal appeals court to do so.

The 2-1 ruling breaks a string of legal victories for proponents of same-sex civil marriage, and in doing so, sets up the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court might take up the issue once and for all.

The Thursday evening ruling upheld laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals is based in Cincinnati.

Judges Jeffrey Sutton and Deborah Cook voted to uphold the laws. Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey, who voiced her support of same-sex marriage during the trial, dissented.

The Michigan Catholic Conference quickly lauded the decision as a victory in the fight to protect the ancient and biblical institution of marriage, and for the democratic process.

“(This) ruling is a joyous occasion for many communities and families across the state that have sought to protect the traditional definition of marriage,” it said in the brief statement. “Those who ruled in the majority deserve applause for applying the rule of law and for recognizing voter intent to secure one man and one woman in marriage. By upholding the Michigan Marriage Amendment, the Court has ruled to protect a timeless institution.”

The Catholic Conference also praised Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette for his “tireless efforts to fulfill his oath of office” in continuing to defend the 2004 voter-approved constitutional amendment.

While praising the ruling, the conference cautioned against misreading the Catholic Church’s intent in defending traditional marriage.

“It must also be restated, because so many seek to misinterpret the teachings of the Catholic Church, that support for marriage between one man and one woman in no way diminishes the dignity and worth that must be afforded to all human persons, regardless of orientation,” it said.

In writing the majority opinion, Sutton said that regardless of whether judges may think a law is outdated, such reasoning is not a sound basis to overturn a validly passed statute.

“Rational basis review does not permit courts to invalidate laws every time a new and allegedly better way of addressing a policy emerges, even a better way supported by evidence and, in the Michigan case, by judicial fact finding,” he wrote. “It is hard to see the point of premising a ruling of unconstitutionality on factual findings made by one unelected federal judge that favor a different policy.”

Sutton’s comments were apparently directed toward U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman, who in March ruled against Michigan’s amendment at the conclusion of a nine-day trial in downtown Detroit. Friedman was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.

Friedman struck down the same-sex marriage ban after two Hazel Park women brought a lawsuit last year. The women, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, originally intended only to challenge Michigan’s ban on joint adoption for same-sex couples, but Friedman encouraged the pair to challenge the state’s ban on same-sex marriage as well, which they later did.

Thanks to a string of federal appeals court decisions elsewhere around the country in recent months, same-sex marriage is now legal in 32 states and the District of Columbia.

On Oct. 6, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear appeals in several of those cases, which had the immediate effect of keeping same-sex marriage legal in several states. With the 6th Circuit’s decision now meaning federal appeals courts are divided on the issue, the high court may yet change its mind and hear some of those cases.

Richard Thompson, president of the Ann Arbor-based Thomas More Law Center, said the 6th Circuit’s decision was the right one from a legal standpoint.

“This opinion is an historic and elegant defense of the principle of judicial restraint and deference to democracy and the voice of the people,” Thompson said. “It could well become the catalyst for the U.S. Supreme Court to finally take-up the issue as well as the basis of an ultimate Supreme Court decision to allow the individual states to decide the definition of marriage.”

The Thomas More Law Center, which originally helped craft the 2004 Michigan Marriage Amendment, also filed an amicus brief defending the law before the court.

As part of Sutton’s majority opinion, the judge acknowledged that courts should be “hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world,” and noted that the tradition of man-woman marriage “is measured in millennia, not centuries or decades.”

“Of all the ways to resolve this question, one option is not available,” Sutton wrote: “a poll of the three judges on this panel, or for that matter all federal judges, about whether gay marriage is a good idea.”