TUCSON, SAN FRANCISCO, JEFFERSON CITY, May 26, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Three states are in various stages of judicial deliberation to determine the status of homosexual unions.
The Arizona Supreme Court Tuesday refused to hear a case contesting the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, which disallows recognition of homosexual unions. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys argued in defense of the traditional definition of marriage. The Arizona Court of Appeals dismissed the suit on October 8, 2003, and the homosexual partners who launched the case sought Supreme Court review. “This is a fantastic victory in the defense of marriage,” said Gary McCaleb, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund. “We are extremely pleased at the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case. Arizona’s marriage laws are clear, the Arizona Court of Appeals understood that, and now the Supreme Court has agreed. The plaintiffs simply had no case.”
Meanwhile, the California Supreme Court began deliberation over whether to recognize ‘marriages’ performed illegally earlier this year in San Francisco by mayor Gavin Newsom. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys argued in defense of traditional marriage. Alliance Defense Fund chief counsel Benjamin Bull, commenting on the court proceedings Tuesday, said: “We feel extraordinarily good about how the arguments went. Two things became crystal clear; one, that the mayor and the clerk acted outside the law. Two, that the purported marriage licenses amount to nothing more than pieces of paper. The court seemed to recognize both those points. As Justice Marvin Baxter said, the city made a mess. As another justice said, if there’s any detrimental reliance on these licenses the couples have only the city to blame, and no one else.” A decision is expected in the case within 90 days. Also on Tuesday, the Missouri Supreme Court set June 1 as the date it will hear arguments over when its citizens will vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage. Democratic state representatives are agitating for an August date, whereas Republican members favor a vote in November, to coincide with the presidential election. Although Missouri already has a Defense of Marriage Act disallowing homosexual marriage, proponents of the constitutional amendment argue it will be a stronger defense against pro homosexual-“marriage” forces.