c. 1996 Religion News Service

WASHINGTON _ For Lutheran laywoman Judy Bond, there was”a moment of breathlessness”Wednesday (Dec. 4) when she read the newspaper headlines reporting that a court in Hawaii had opened the way for legal recognition of same-sex marriages.”It was a moment of celebration but also one of anticipation of the tidal wave this will prompt,”said Bond, a veteran activist here with Lutherans Concerned, a caucus within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America working for gay rights.

Across town, Robert Knight, director of cultural studies at the Family Research Council and an opponent of gay marriages, also reflected on the sweeping implications of the ruling.”This is no small legal matter but an assault on morality and the rule of law itself,”he said.

On Tuesday, Honolulu Circuit Court Judge Kevin S.C. Chang ordered Hawaii officials to stop denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Chang put his ruling on hold while the state appeals the decision. Though this was the first legal ruling in the nation to allow gay marriages, the issue will remain in the courts for the next several years.

Within the religious community, a broad range of groups _ including evangelicals, Mormons and Muslims _ condemned Chang’s decision. But others, including Reform Jewish leaders and several pro-gay caucuses within mainline denominations, hailed the ruling as a positive move forward for homosexual rights.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, called the decision an”outrage.”Sekulow’s group, based in Virginia Beach, Va., was founded by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson.”This issue _ and the Hawaii decision _ strikes at the core of who we are as a people in this country,”said Sekulow.”Marriage defined as a legal union between man and woman has been around for more than 6,000 years and has served all cultures well.” Forest Montgomery, counsel for the National Association of Evangelical’s office for governmental affairs, said the Hawaii decision was”symptomatic”of the increasing”proclivity of unelected judges, both state and federal, to discover ever-expanding constitutional rights”not explicitly outlined in the U.S. Constitution. “Both religious and secular tradition have confined marriage to a male-female relationship, but that self-evident truth is blithely cast aside in this age of government by judiciary,”said Montgomery.

Many groups objected to the decision on theological grounds.”Scripture teaches that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and to alter that sacred union is to lay an axe to the root of civilization’s well-being and disqualify society for the blessings, stability, and happiness promised by our Creator,”said Don LeFevre, spokesman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Islamic leaders expressed similar concerns.”In Islam, homosexuality is a major sin,”said Abdurahman Alamoudi, director of the American Muslim Council.”As a human, I feel for people individually, but I’m bound by my religion and to legislate in favor of this lifestyle is against my religion.” The Rev. Chandler David Owens, presiding bishop of the Church of God in Christ, a predominantly black Pentecostal denomination headquartered in Memphis, Tenn., said his church believed the ruling will be”a tremendous detriment to the rearing of children who traditionally have been raised according to biblical principles _ and that is a mother and a father sharing a home.” However, other religious groups argued that the ruling is in accord with biblical teachings.”The fundamental assertion of the Bible that all are created in the image of God requires this,”said Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in Washington, D.C.

Saperstein said he believes the ruling will have a positive effect on American society.”Every time the courts have asserted the fundamental rights of various groups throughout our history who have been the victims of discrimination … it always creates a pattern of tolerance,”he said.”This is about our culture valuing all committed relationships,”said the Rev. Nancy Wilson, vice-moderator of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC), the nation’s only predominantly gay Christian denomination.

MCC has been performing same-sex”holy union”ceremonies for 28 years. She said the denomination has churches in Hawaii”standing by”to perform legal weddings.

According to Wilson, there are now more than 200″legal rights”accorded to heterosexual marriages that are denied to same-sex couples, such as spousal benefits, pension transfers, property inheritance and child custody.”This is about equal rights, not special rights,”she said.

Kim Byham, former national president of Integrity, a gay and lesbian caucus within the Episcopal Church, agreed that the Hawaii decision”certainly moves along the issue of acceptance (of gays and lesbians) in our society.” In addition, Byham said he hopes the ruling will move the United States”toward the European system of separating the secular and religious aspects of marriage.” But even among progressive religionists, there was ambivalence about the ruling. As an evangelical, Ronald Sider, president of the Wynnewood, Pa.-based Evangelicals for Social Action (ESA), said he believes that homosexual acts”are sinful,”but he also insists that”Christian love of neighbor demands respect for the civil rights of homosexuals.” For example, he said, ESA supports the freedom of gays and lesbians to inherit property and grant the power of attorney to each other.

Nonetheless, Sider argued that the issue of same-sex marriage should not be framed in terms of”gay rights,”but rather in terms of what constitutes the definition of marriage. On that basis, Sider said he opposes the Hawaii decision because he believes it”defines marriage solely in terms of contractual convenience.” (BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)”Redefining marriage in this way makes the institution of marriage arbitrary, contentless and ultimately meaningless,”Sider said.

The immediate impact of the Hawaii ruling remains unclear. Hawaii officials have pledged to fight Chang’s ruling all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary.

(END OPTIONAL TRIM)

Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, states are usually required to honor the laws of other states. However, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) _ adopted by Congress earlier this year and signed into law by President Clinton in late September _ gives states the right not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Anticipating Chang’s ruling, many conservative groups had supported DOMA.

Activists on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue acknowledge that the fight is far from over.”The issue of same-sex marriage has become the championship bout of legal battles involving the family,”said Jay Sekulow.”The decision in Hawaii merely represents round one of that fight with many more rounds to come.” On this point, Nancy Wilson agrees.”We know it is still a long, long uphill battle,”she said.

MJP END LAWTON