September
2007
MPV Joins 400 Religious Organizations and Clergy Members in Support of Same-Sex Marriage Rights
Today Muslims for Progressive Values joined more than 400 religious organizations and clergy members to file an interfaith brief arguing that the constitutional principles of religious freedom and separation of church and state require that same-sex couples have equal access to civil marriage.
Note: MPV’s amicus brief statement appears at the bottom of this post, after the newspaper article excerpt.
Diverse groups file legal briefs endorsing same-sex marriage
By RACHEL KONRAD, Associated Press writer
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
(09-26) 16:21 PDT San Francisco (AP) –
Hundreds of national civil rights groups, lawmakers, academics and cities submitted legal briefs to the California Supreme Court Wednesday in support of gay couples who are seeking to overturn state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage.
Nearly 100 groups representing racial minorities with their own histories of disparate treatment submitted “friend of the court” briefs in the case, which makes California one of three states in the nation where marriage laws are facing a legal challenge.
They included the California chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association.
“We are not treating all Californians equally if some can marry and others cannot,” Alice Huffman, president of the California Conference of the NAACP, said in a statement. “The law should protect all people equally, and all Californians should have the choice to marry.”
The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments early next year in the lawsuit attempting to make California the first state outside Massachusetts to sanction same-sex marriage. A Superior Court overturned the ban in March 2005, ruling that it violated the constitutional rights of gay men and lesbians.
But a midlevel appeals court reversed that ruling last October, saying that same-sex couples already enjoy the nearly all legal benefits of marriage through the state’s domestic partner laws.
The plaintiffs in the case include 15 same-sex couples, the city and county of San Francisco and two gay advocacy groups, Equality California and Our Family Coalition. They sued the state after the Supreme Court halted San Francisco’s short-lived 2004 attempt to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in violation of the law.
The Campaign for Children and Families and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund have joined the state in defense of the same-sex marriage ban. Conservative groups say a 2000 voter initiative that prevented California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere reflects prevailing public opinion on the marriage issue.
Those that endorsed making gay unions legal in at least 30 amicus briefs filed before Wednesday’s 5 p.m. deadline included a former state Supreme Court justice and more than a dozen state lawmakers.
Nineteen cities and counties filed briefs, including the cities of Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, Long Beach and Oakland. The Los Angeles County Bar Association, Bar Association of San Francisco, Santa Clara County Bar Association, Beverly Hills Bar Association and California Women Lawyers also signed on to those documents.
More than 400 religious organizations and clergy members filed an interfaith brief arguing that the constitutional principles of religious freedom and separation of church and state require that same-sex couples have equal access to civil marriage.
Groups included Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, Muslims for Progressive Values, General Synod of the United Church of Christ, Union for Reform Judaism and California Council of Churches.
The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and National Association of Social Workers wrote a brief explaining that decades of research has “consistently found that same-sex couples are just as capable of being good parents as different-sex couples and that their children are just as well adjusted.”
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/26/state/n162101D61.DTL
MPV’s amicus brief statement was as follows:
“Sexuality is a core component of human nature, and sexual activity is an essential aspect of human lives. In the Qur’an, God sanctions sexual activity only in the context of publically acknowledged, commited relationships. Denying that to the queer community is tantamount to demanding they commit a major sin, or remain celibate their entire lives, neither of which is acceptable.
Furthermore, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and the right to pursue happiness are basic human rights. Each individual is free to navigate their own life path, so long as their choices do not harm other individuals. No matter what one person’s view on marriage or homosexuality may be, what is important is the view of the two individuals desiring to be married.
Aside from the moral ramifications of denying marriage to the queer community, there are also legal and financial repercussions in American society that cannot be overlooked. From visitation rights in hospitals, to tax and insurance benefits, denying marriage to the queer community puts one segment of our society at a financial and social disadvantage compared to other American citizens.”