Hawaii’s definition of marriage as one man and one woman has been upheld by a federal court. In effect, the ruling simply stopped the homosexual movement from ripping the state’s constitutional law and brought about the lawsuit by Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly known as Alliance Defense Fund).
The lawsuit, Jackson v. Abercrombie, sought to tear down Hawaii’s law that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Natasha N. Jackson, Janin Kleid, and Gary Bradley brought suit against the governor and the state’s health director in the case.
The AFD responded to the lawsuit.
“Society should protect and strengthen marriage, not undermine it as this lawsuit seeks to do,” said ADF Litigation Counsel Holly Carmichael, who argued before the court Monday. “Hawaii’s marriage statute and constitutional amendment uphold marriage, and we will give those protections the strongest possible defense. This lawsuit has exposed clearly that so-called ‘civil unions’ are just a Trojan Horse used by activists to undermine marriage, not protect it.”
“Hawaii should not succumb to demands that marriage be ignored as society’s time-tested way to bless as many children as possible with both a mom and a dad,” said HFF Executive Director Allen Cardines. “Marriage expresses the truth that men and women bring distinct, irreplaceable roles and gifts to family life.”
The three individuals didn’t just go after attempts to redefine marriage either. They also aimed at Hawaii’s “civil unions” law, which became effective January 1 of this year. The trio argued that nothing short of a complete redefinition of marriage would satisfy them. So much for the “tolerant” crowd.
In it’s ruling, sr. U.S. District Court Judge Alan C. Kay wrote,
“Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing…. It follows that it is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure.”
“In this situation,” the court continued, “to suddenly constitutionalize the issue of same-sex marriage ‘would short-circuit’ the legislative actions that have been taking place in Hawaii…. Accordingly, because Hawaii’s marriage laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests, they do not violate the federal Constitution.”
Legal Counsel Dale Schowengerdt was very happy with the court’s ruling and declared,
“This ruling affirms that protecting and strengthening marriage as the union of one man and one woman is legitimate, reasonable, and good for society. The people of Hawaii adopted a constitutional amendment to uphold marriage, and the court rightly concluded that the democratic process shouldn’t be short-circuited by judicial decree.”
AFD also wrote that “Gov. Neil Abercrombie stated both publicly and in the lawsuit that he would not defend the state’s marriage law. His attacks on the law’s constitutionality prompted Hawaii Family Forum through its Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys and local counsel James Hochberg to ask the court to allow it to intervene in defense of marriage in the state.”
What’s interesting is that Governor Neil Abercrombie has basically taken the same approach to this that Barack Obama has taken to immigration and that his administration has taken against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It is a hands off approach. That doesn’t mean they are neutral though They have actually attacked it and now DOMA will also be before the Supreme Court when they return from their break.
At least this is a small victory in a state that has sought to lead against the building block of society, the family unit. It’s good to see that there are still some people that have not completely lost their mind and understand what is natural and “good for society” and yet does not violate anyone’s constitutional rights.
