A federal U.S. court has ruled that a Hawaiian law
which defines marriage as between a man and a woman does not violate the U.S.
Constitution.

The ruling by Judge Alan. C. Kay on Wednesday
broke a string of court losses by advocates for traditional marriage on the
subject of same-sex marriage.

It comes before the Supreme Court is expected to
hear a case on California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage in the same
way before it was struck down by the Ninth Circuit Court which ruled that it was
unconstitutional.

It is believed that Wednesday’s ruling is set to
be appealed to the same court, generally considered one of the most liberal
courts in the nation.

At issue in Hawaii was a constitutional amendment
passed by voters in 1998 giving the legislature the power to define marriage in
the traditional sense, which legislators subsequently did.

A lesbian couple and a gay man filed suit in
federal court last year against Hawaii officials, arguing the amendment and law
violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
But Judge Kay ruled the legislature had a rational interest defining marriage as
between a man and a woman.

“Throughout history and societies, marriage has
been connected with procreation and childrearing,” he wrote in his 117-page
decision. “… The legislature could rationally conclude that on a societal
level, the institution of marriage acts to reinforce ‘the important legal and
normative link between heterosexual intercourse and procreation on the one hand
and family responsibilities on the other.'”

The legislature, Judge Kay wrote, could “also
rationally conclude that other things being equal, it is best for children to be
raised by a parent of each sex.”

“Both sides presented evidence on this issue and
both sides pointed out flaws in their opponents’ evidence,” he wrote of
parenting. “Thus, the Court concludes this rationale is at least debatable and
therefore sufficient.”

The issue, he added, is up to the legislature.

“In this situation, to suddenly constitutionalise
the issue of same-sex marriage ‘would short-circuit’ the legislative actions
that have been taking place in Hawaii,” he wrote.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which assists
groups taking legal cases defending the family and religious freedom,
represented the Hawaii Family Forum in defending the law. Hawaii Family Forum
was allowed to intervene after Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat, refused
to defend the law in court.

“This ruling affirms that protecting and
strengthening marriage as the union of one man and one woman is legitimate,
reasonable, and good for society,” ADF attorney Dale Schowengerdt said in a
statement. “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.”

The case eventually could have a major impact on
the nation because 30 states have amended their constitutions to define marriage
as between one man and one woman.