________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________

New Developments on Stories Featured in Catholic World Report

One win, one loss
Courts ponder same-sex marriage

On December 9, the Supreme Court of Hawaii handed a long-awaited victory to American defenders of the traditional family. The court ruled that same-sex marriages are not legal in the state, following a 1998 constitutional amendment that gave the legislature authority to limit the bonds.

The Hawaii decision ended several years of court battles over the restriction of marriage licenses to male-female couples. An earlier decision, finding that such restrictions might be unconstitutional, threatened to make Hawaii the first US state to give legal recognition to same-sex marriages. Pro-family advocates responded by securing passage of an amendment to the state constitution, shoring up the legal definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. With its December ruling, the state’s highest court upheld the validity of that amendment, ending—at least for now—the drive to legalize same-sex marriage in Hawaii.

However, that drive picked up speed just 11 days later, when the Supreme Court of Vermont ruled that same-sex couples must receive the same benefits and legal protections as married couples. The Vermont decision left the state’s legislature to determine whether that goal should be achieved by allowing same-sex marriages or by passing new “domestic-partnership” legislation.

“We hold that the state is constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law,” the justices said. The ruling said that whatever course the legislature chooses in order to fulfill that requirement, the policy “must conform with the constitutional imperative to afford all Vermonters the common benefit, protection, and security of the law.”

While California and Hawaii have policies already in place that provide for legal registration of “domestic partnership,” and thus give some legal protection to unmarried couples, the Vermont decision requires complete legal equality for unmarried and same-sex couples. And because the Vermont court based its decision on the constitution of that state, rather than on federal law, there is no effective means for appeal of the court’s ruling.

Since the 1993 decision in Hawaii first roused widespread awareness of the possibility that same-sex unions could receive legal recognition, many American states have adopted “family protection” legislation, which specifically defines marriage as a male-female union. The purpose of those new laws is to protect against the possibility that same-sex couples living in one state might travel to another (Vermont, most likely), gain legal recognition for their union, and then return home to demand the legal benefits of marriage in their native state. Under the “full faith and credit” clause of the US Constitution, each state is obliged to honor the legal contracts validated by the other states, unless there is an existing state policy (such as, in this case, the “family protection” law) that weighs against the validity of those contracts.

Victory for the President
Clashes with Catholic leadership

President Hugo Chavez attacked the most prominent Catholic clergyman in Venezuela on December 12, saying that the prelate was in league with corrupt politicians. The criticism came after Cardinal Rosalio Castillo Lara charged that Chavez’s personal push for a new national constitution was immoral.

Chavez, in his single-minded drive for a new constitution, had been criticized by many elements of Venezuelan society for muzzling the country’s congress and handpicking members of the Constitutional Assembly which drafted the new document. Church leaders had criticized the proposed constitution because it downgraded the country’s commitment to protect unborn children.

Speaking on his weekly radio program just days before the national referendum vote on the new constitution, Chavez observed that Cardinal Castillo Lara had been friendly with former Presidents Rafael Caldera and Carlos Andres Perez—both of whom he characterized as corrupt symbols of Venezuela’s old political system. Chavez also accused the cardinal of failing to speak out against a host of financial scandals and human-rights abuses under the old regimes.

Cardinal Castillo, a native Venezuelan who is now living in retirement in his native land, after having served for years in the Roman Curia, had criticized the president’s all-out effort to secure adoption of the constitution. “The president’s aggressive propaganda and the unnecessary pressure put on his critics have severely undermined the equity of the democratic process,” he said. An irritated Chavez responded with characteristic hyperbole, saying that the cardinal “should undergo an exorcism, to see if the devil gets out of his cassock.” Cardinal Castillo Lara responded, “It is unfortunate the way the president reacts to his critics, but more to the point, it raises serious concerns about his democratic beliefs.”

On December 15, Venezuela’s voters gave Chavez the victory he so badly wanted, with more than 70 percent of the voters casting their ballots in favor of the new constitution. The voting took place amid torrential rains that caused flooding and mudslides that ravaged large sections of the country.

“Thank God a nefarious era is ending today,” Chavez said in a nationally televised address after results were released. “A republic of the oligarchy is ending.” But the constitution also eliminates the Senate, reduces civilian control of the military, allows Chavez to serve up to 13 years in office, and gives the president the authority to dissolve the single-house National Assembly. Critics fear that will allow Chavez, a former paratrooper who led a failed 1992 coup, to impose authoritarian rule.

Islamic militants step up a campaign
Christians under pressure in Nazareth

In December, the Israeli government warned Muslims in Nazareth to remove a prayer tent from beside the Basilica of the Annunciation or risk losing permission to build a mosque nearby.

Christians and Muslims have argued in the past year over a controversial site next to the basilica where Christians wanted to build a plaza to accommodate Jubilee Year pilgrims and Muslims wanted to construct a mosque. Israel stepped in and gave permission for construction of the mosque, angering Christians throughout the Holy Land. But after first taking down a tent that had been built on the proposed site—in what appeared to be a compromise gesture—Islamic militants put the tent up again in mid-December.

“The Public Security Ministry warned the Muslims in Nazareth to remove the tent and they have until the end of the week,” police spokesman Linda Menuhin said. “If they don’t, the ministerial committee will reconvene and reconsider its decision to allow them to build the mosque.” But Salman Abu Ahmad, a leading Islamic Movement figure, said he had not received any request to remove the prayer tent. “The tent was set up a few days ago when it rained, and it is removed when it stops raining. We were given permission to set up a tent for prayers when it rains, and it has rained,” Abu Ahmad said.

The tent was indeed removed once again, and a showdown was averted—although the Muslim group seemed to have staked its claim that the tent could be erected again. But fundamentalist Muslims stepped up their efforts to intimidate Christians in other ways. Shortly before Christmas, a leaflet began circulating in Nazareth, implicitly threatening the life of Pope John Paul II. The leaflet—which was written in Arabic and unsigned—featured harsh anti-Catholic slogans and threatens violence if the Pope “dares to make the 2000 visit.” It warned Christians living in Nazareth that if the Pope visits the town as scheduled in March, “We will burn down your homes with our own hands. The whole world will watch us and the press will write about us.”

The leaflet proclaimed that all of the religious sites of the Holy Land are rightfully the property of Islam, and “the cross must disappear, and Islam take its place.” Building on the controversy over the mosque construction project, the leaflet said: “the church of the Annunciation must be purified of the infidels who have sullied it.” The unknown authors of the leaflet proclaim that they will turn the basilica itself into a mosque.

Back to Catholic Information Center on Internet's Main Periodical Page

Back to Catholic World Report - February 2000 - Table of Contents