Concept that marriage is between one man, one woman grounded in nature
Children deserve to be raised by their biological parents
Public good demands that unique nature of marriage be respected by law

WASHINGTON — In response to a decision on October 18 by a divided federal appeals court panel to strike down part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, issued the following comment expressing disappointment over the ruling.

“The recognition that marriage is and can only be the union of one man and one woman is grounded in our nature, being clear from the very way our bodies are designed. This recognition obliges our consciences and laws. It is a matter of basic rights – the right of every child to be welcomed and raised, as far as possible, by his or her mother and father together in a stable home,” Archbishop Cordileone said. “Marriage is the only institution whereby a man and a woman unite for life and are united to any child born from their union. The public good demands that the unique meaning and purpose of marriage be respected in law and society, not rejected as beyond the constitutional pale. Redefining marriage never upholds the equal dignity of individuals because it contradicts basic human rights. The ruling yesterday is unjust and a great disappointment.”

On October 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, by a 2-1 vote, a U.S. District Court decision striking down section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional. Section 3 defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for purposes of federal law.

DOMA was approved by a broad, bi-partisan majority of Congress in 1996, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. DOMA recognizes for purposes of federal law that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and it also protects the rights of states to uphold this definition of marriage in the face of laws from other states that might be adverse to such definition.

Original USCCB page is here.