Speaking to over 500
married couples, the Archbishop of
Westminster, the Most Revd Vincent Nichols (pictured),
said: “We know that the context of a marriage is the best place for
children to be reared, providing them with a framework of love, within which
they are sure of their biological heritage and not deprived, without grave
reason, of the experience of being loved and raised by their natural mother and
father.”

He said: “Today
marriage is sometimes thought of, and presented, without any reference to
children at all. Today sexual activity is often approved and even promoted
separated entirely from marriage.

“Today marriage is
proposed by some without any reference to the sexual complementarity of the
genders. Today children are created outside the key enduring relationship of
father and mother and then live without a link with their natural father and
mother and their natural siblings.”

By contrast, he said,
Church teaching “holds together marriage, sexual relationships and the
generation and raising of children”.

He added: “When
separated from the bonds of this interconnectedness, these three powerful
aspects of human living are driven further apart from each other, with damaging
consequences. The teaching of the Church, and of other great religions, is a
lasting insight and proclamation of what is best and true about humanity and of
what is best for our society.”

Marriage, he said
provided “the framework for stability in relations between men and women” adding
that marriage was the correct place for the “sexual complementarity of male and
female”.

Referring to the
words of Pope John Paul II, he urged public authorities to support families in
their laws and policies and to protect the rights of
families.

Meanwhile, in the US,
a key federal court has said that the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), which
refuses federal benefits to same-sex marriages, even when a given state
recognises those marriages, is unconstitutional.

However, it upheld the more important provision of the law when means a state does not
have to recognise a same-sex marriage entered into in another
state.

This
protects the right of a state to make its own marriage law and not have it
effectively dictated by what happens in another state.

The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit said that the US Congress did not provide an
“adequate rationale” for denying federal benefits to same-sex couples who are
recognised as married under their state law.

It wrote: “Several of
the reasons given do not match the statute and several others are diminished by
specific holdings in Supreme Court decisions more or less directly on point. If
we are right in thinking that disparate impact on minority interests and
federalism concerns both require somewhat more in this case than almost
automatic deference to Congress’ will, this statute fails that
test.”

Dale Schowengerdt,
legal counsel for the Alliance Defence Fund, which opposed the ruling, said the
court went too far in its rationale.

“In allowing one
state to hold the federal government, and potentially other states, hostage to
redefine marriage, the 1st Circuit attempts a bridge too far. Under this
rationale, if just one state decided to accept polygamy, the federal government
and perhaps other states would be forced to accept it, too,” he
contended.

DOMA became law in
1996 before any state allowed same-sex couples to get married. The law has two
main parts. First, states would not have to recognise same-sex marriages from
other states if they deny same-sex marriage to their own residents. Second,
same-sex marriages would not be recognised under federal law.

The appeals court
noted that the law had strong bipartisan support when it was passed, and that
courts should generally show deference to Congress.

“Invalidating a
federal statute is an unwelcome responsibility for federal judges; the elected
Congress speaks for the entire nation, its judgment and good faith being
entitled to utmost respect.”

But, the court said,
it “must follow its best understanding of governing precedent,” and rely upon
the Supreme Court to “correct misreadings.”

The appeals court
noted a strong deference to maintaining tradition in previous Supreme Court
decisions, but also greater scrutiny of laws impacting the interests of minority
groups.