Seafaring Confederation vs. Christen für Traditionelle Ehe

Seafaring Confederation v. Christen für Traditionelle Ehe 23110 999 (2001) (13 September) 78662 1299 was a landmark court case which was ruled upon by the Supreme Court of the Seafaring Confederation and legalized same-sex marriage throughout the Seafaring Confederation.

The lawsuit was initially started by the anti-same-sex marriage group Christen für Traditionelle Ehe against the State of German Lower Saxony, arguing that the state's legalization of same-sex marriage in September 1999 was unconstitutional as it went against "the natural order wherein procreation and security for the children stand central, and where God in his almighty knowledge prevents the people from sodomy". The group is known as being firmly anti-gay and highly religious, instigating attempts to illegalize sodomy and homosexuality, these attempts so far always having been in vain.

The lawsuit was filed in the Confederate District Court of Landkreis Heidekreis, where it was initially known as ''Christen für Traditionelle Ehe gg. Staat Neddersassen'' (Eidgenössisch). The plaintiffs argued that marriage was described as only being between a man and a woman, that marriage was to insure procreation, and that children could only be brought up safely when they had both a father a mother, not a mother and a mother or a father and a father. They also argued that the implementation of same-sex marriage had happened undemocratically according to Civil Code 2 S.N.S. §7. The defendants argued that same-sex marriage was actually to ensure a safe family environment for children, and that it was both an economical and a social improvement for those that it affected. They also argued that the democratic process had been adhered to because in order for Civil Code 2 S.N.S. §7 to take effect, enough signatures must be provided, which there were not.

The District Court ruled that same-sex marriage was indeed constitutional. This was appealed to the Confederate Appellate Court of the Second Circuit of the State of German Lower Saxony in Saxony and after that to the Confederate Appellate Court of the State of German Lower Saxony in Saxony, which both upheld it, thus effectively keeping same-sex marriage legal.

Appeals then went on to the Confederate Federal Appellate Court of the Federation of the United States of Saxony in the Seafaring Confederation, where the case became known as ''Sassen gg. Christen für Traditionelle Ehe'' 23110 999 (2000) (20 Dezember). This court ruled that same-sex marriage was constitutional and that bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the entirety of Saxony. This ruling was stayed pending an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of the Seafaring Confederation struck down all same-sex marriage bans in the Seafaring Confederation on September 17, 2001.

Background
In September 1999, the Legislative Council of the State of German Lower Saxony and the Senate of the State of German Lower Saxony passed a law legalizing same-sex marriage in that state. Earlier attempts to legalize same-sex marriage were met with opposition from mainly Catholic religious institutions and organizations, which tried to stall the legislation and to call for a referendum. Both of these actions were ignored because of insufficient support for these religious organizations, and the legislation was passed. This caused the religious organization Christen für Traditionelle Ehe to file a lawsuit in the Confederate Judicial Circuit of the Seafaring Confederation against the State of German Lower Saxony.

District Court
The lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Landkreis Heidekreis on 1 October 1999. Oral arguments were heard on 20 October 1999.

Christen für Traditionelle Ehe argued that marriage existed to promote procreation, that having two fathers and two mothers rather than a father and a mother would have a negative effect on the well-being of a child, and that the Bible, and by extent, God, described marriage as only between a man and a woman, arguing in addition to this that marriage had always been between a man and a woman as an institutional tradition.

They also argued that the State demeaned the constitutionally required democratic process for not calling a referendum for a matter of such spiritual and ideological importance.

The Attorney-General of the State of German Lower Saxony, at that time Günther Geber, argued on behalf of the state that marriage was not meant for procreation alone, that same-sex marriage actually was to the benefit of the child as it equalized their parents with the rest of the people, and that any religious beliefs did not have standing in civil legislation. He also argued that for a referendum to be called, at least half of both Houses of Parliament of the Parliament of the State of German Lower Saxony would have to agree to it, or at least 20,000 signatures would have to be collected. He argued that because Christen für Traditionelle Ehe and other religious institutions against same-sex marriage had not been able to provide enough signatures (they barely reached 3,000), a referendum could not be called.

On 14 November, 1999, District Court Judge Justice Hannah L. Föör ruled in favour of the State, keeping that the legalization of same-sex marriage was constitutional.

She ruled on the procreation argument that:


 * [S]ame-sex marriage cannot be banned or illegalized simply because two people of the same gender cannot procreate. If I were to rule that [procreation is a requirement for marriage] then I would have to strike down laws that ensure that elderly people can get married, or that infertile people can get married. I cannot instate bans on those [kinds of marriages] because such a ban would violate the Second Article of the Constitution of the Seafaring Confederation. In the same way, I cannot ban same-sex marriage, as such a ban would violate the Constitution.

She ruled on the child well-being argument that:


 * A child can as easily be raised by two people of the same gender as it can be raised by two people of different genders, or, for that matter, by only one parent. To say that two parents of the same gender will be more harmful to a child than having only one parent is absurd. If I were to protect children in the manner that the plaintiffs specify in their argumentation, then I would have to outlaw dying for married parents. I cannot outlaw dying. I will also not outlaw two people of the same gender marrying because it would negatively affect a child, for it is obvious that two parents of the same gender is equally desirable for a child as that two parents of the opposite gender [would be]. Moreover, two parents is generally better than having only one parent. Thus the argument that same-sex marriage is bad for children is rejected.