Difference between revisions of "Mormons and the Supreme Court Ruling on DOMA and Prop 8"

Revision as of 20:34, 25 November 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down two landmark rulings June 26, 2013, on the issue of same-sex marriage. The stand of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, often inadvertently called the Mormon Church, is against gay marriage, but for other gay rights.

By Lisa Montague

Although many say that these rulings pave the way for same-sex marriage in the United States, is this really the case? Certainly, the rhetoric on the Internet and in the news would have us believe so. But the truth is, the rulings — and the justices themselves — indicate that this debate is far from over. Regarding the Defense of Marriage Act, the justices — in a far-from-unanimous 5-4 decision — struck down the language in the federal regulations that defines marriage as “between a man and a woman” for purposes of federal law. Left wholly intact was the provision allowing the states to decide whether to recognize same-sex marriages — and so far only 12 have elected to do so. In the case of California’s Prop 8 — also a divided 5-4 decision — the justices ruled that the petitioners did not have standing to bring the case to the nation’s highest court.

Justices Divided on the Defense of Marriage Act

In U.S. v. Windsor, a lesbian widow was fighting a $363,000 inheritance tax bill she had to pay when her spouse died because the federal government would not recognize the union due to the provision in the Defense of Marriage Act. In the opinion, the justices wrote:

By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect, DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution’s guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group. [1]

However, in a scathing dissent, Justice Scalia pointed out that the widow had already been told that the IRS would refund her money — her injury had already been cured. He wrote:

This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America. [2]

California’s Prop 8 Petitioners ‘Lacked Standing’

The high court overstepped its bounds in the Windsor case, according to Justice Scalia, and sidestepped the issue in Hollingsworth v. Perry — the case involving California’s Prop 8. Justice Kennedy, in his dissenting opinion, wrote:

Under California law, a proponent has the authority to appear in court and assert the State’s interest in defending an enacted initiative when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so. The State deems such an appearance essential to the integrity of its initiative process. Yet the Court today concludes that this state-defined status and this state-conferred right fall short of meeting federal requirements because the proponents cannot point to a formal delegation of authority that tracks the requirements of the Restatement of Agency. But the State Supreme Court’s definition of proponents’ powers is binding on this Court. And that definition is fully sufficient to establish the standing and adversity that are requisites for justiciability under Article III of the United States Constitution. [3]

Thus, according to Justice Kennedy,

The Court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials — the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied. …The Article III requirement for a justiciable case or controversy does not prevent proponents from having their day in court. [4]

What Does This Mean?

Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — sometimes inadvertently called the Mormon Church — issued this statement following the court decisions:

By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates. Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens.

In addition, the effect of the ruling is to raise further complex jurisdictional issues that will need to be resolved. [5]

The real issue is who has the right to make laws governing our country? Voters approved California’s Prop 8, and both houses of Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act — by large majorities — before it was signed by President Clinton. Does the U.S. Supreme Court really have the power to overturn laws that were enacted by representatives of the people of the United States — and the residents of the state of California? Those are among the troubling questions highlighted by these rulings. For a democratic process to be truly democratic, the courts must uphold the laws of the land enacted by the people and the representatives they elected. Justice Scalia called the Supreme Court’s reason for weighing in on the Windsor case, even though the dispute had been resolved, “jaw-dropping.” He wrote:

It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere “primary” in its role. This image of the Court would have been unrecognizable to those who wrote and ratified our national charter. They knew well the dangers of “primary” power, and so created branches of government that would be “perfectly coordinate by the terms of their common commission,” none of which branches could “pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.” [6]

Moving Forward with Faith

Even though the debate is not over, religious leaders around the country are increasing efforts to strengthen families. The statement from The Church of Jesus Christ said:

Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children. Notably, the court decision does not change the definition of marriage in nearly three-fourths of the states. [7]

The words of Elder Boyd K. Packer, an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, spoken nearly two decades ago ring true today:

This crisis of the family is no surprise to the Church. We have certainly known what was coming. I know of no better testimony that we are led by prophets than our preparation for this present emergency. …Thirty-three years ago the Brethren warned us of the disintegration of the family and told us to prepare….

We can only imagine where we would be if we were just now reacting to this terrible redefinition of the family. But that is not the case. We are not casting frantically about trying to decide what to do. We know what to do and what to teach. The family is very much alive and well in the Church. Hundreds of thousands of happy families face life with an unwavering faith in the future. The course we follow is not of our own making. The plan of salvation, the great plan of happiness, was revealed to us, and the prophets and Apostles continue to receive revelation as the Church and its members stand in need of more. …

The family is safe within the Church. We are not in doubt as to the course we must follow. It was given in the beginning, and guidance from on high is renewed as need may be. [8]