NOMblog: The Official Blog of the National Organization for Marriage

NOM BLOG

Category Archives: California

Undaunted and Resolute

June 26, 2013 – 4:45 pm

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Today, the US Supreme Court did what many of us hoped would never happen — they have invalidated Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and refused to consider the lower court decision invalidating Proposition 8.

But make no mistake, we avoided a Roe v. Wade for marriage and for that we should be grateful!

That said, I am furious about what the Court has done. We at NOM and tens of millions of other Americans will never accept it. It's wrong, plain and simple. There's a stench to these decisions that has stained the Supreme Court.

Will you show your outrage at the Court and make a special contribution to allow NOM to coalesce Americans behind a national movement to preserve marriage? Please make an urgent, emergency financial contribution to our Win More States fund — today. The work that NOM does has never been more urgently needed than it is right now, and we are totally dependent on you, our faithful supporters, to help us continue the fight.

In my view, the worse of the two decisions is the Proposition 8 case. For six long years, NOM and our allies have fought with everything we had to preserve what God Himself created — marriage, the foundation of society itself. NOM was the largest contributor to putting Proposition 8 on the ballot. I personally uprooted my family and lived for several months in California to help campaign for its successful passage. And we've contributed several hundred thousand dollars to help preserve it through many legal challenges.

I've got a message for the Supreme Court: We're not going to take their wrong decisions sitting down. The decision refusing to hear the Proposition 8 appeal has rewarded the utter dereliction of duty by California's Governor and Attorney General, whose legal obligation was to defend initiatives adopted by the people. That leaves in place the erroneous decision of a single San Francisco federal court judge, who made an illegitimate attempt to legislate from the bench.

Will you join us in expressing your outrage? Please make an emergency contribution right now so that we can immediately launch a nationwide grassroots effort to protest the decisions, and preserve marriage in the 38 states that have laws in place defending marriage.

Back to what happened today: the Supreme Court chose to reward corrupt public officials and judges and disrespect the right of the people of California to define marriage in the way that marriage has actually existed throughout human history — the union of one man and one woman.

First off, over 7 million Californians voted in favor of Proposition 8. It was the second time that California voters had decided to preserve the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman.

Not content to let voters have their say, gay marriage activists from Hollywood and New York hired celebrity lawyers Ted Olsen and David Boies to sue and the case now known as Hollingsworth v. Perry began. Frankly, I've never seen such corruption in the judicial system as I have seen in this case. First, a homosexual judge in a long-term gay relationship was assigned the case, and refused to disclose his relationship before declaring that marriage is unconstitutional. Then we had to turn to the most liberal appeals court in the nation, the Ninth Circuit, whose senior judge — Stephen Reinhardt — agreed that marriage must be redefined. Reinhardt wrote the appeals court opinion invalidating Proposition 8, despite the fact that his own wife advised the lawyers challenging the initiative. Incredibly, Reinhardt, like the corrupt trial judge, refused to remove himself over his conflict of interest.

To make matters worse, the elected officials responsible for defending the vote of the people and who swore an oath to do so — Arnold Schwarzenegger, then — Attorney General (now Governor) Jerry Brown, and current Attorney General Kamala Harris — abandoned their duty and left marriage defenseless. And all the evidence suggests they will continue in this vein unless we fight back.

The Supreme Court then rewarded this cronyism and corruption by effectively giving negligent public officials a pocket veto over ballot measures they don't like. All they have to do now thanks to the Supreme Court is refuse to defend a law passed by the people, and it will crash and burn in the courts.

It's an outrage. But I am not going to sit by and take it without fighting back.

Will you join with me now to continue to fight for marriage? Let's organize millions of American who believe in the truth of marriage as given us by the Creator, and go make sure that no other state loses its protections for marriage. It's wrong that California voters lost their right to defend true marriage (for now), but it has to stop with this decision.

The US Supreme Court has taken pains to limit the impact of their decision to California by basing their ruling on a narrow legal issue. It does not apply to anyone else except the two same-sex couples named in the lawsuit — at least for now.

In that regard, we owe a big debt of gratitude to those defending Proposition 8, especially Chuck Cooper and his firm, along with the attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom, and Andy Pugno of the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund. They succeeded in convincing the Court NOT to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, as celebrity lawyers David Boies and Ted Olsen had been urging throughout the case and promised to do. For that, we are grateful.

But you can bet that gay marriage activists and their rapacious lawyers won't let it rest at that. And that brings me to the DOMA ruling.

In a separate case the Court invalidated Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The ruling will force the federal government to recognize same-sex relationships as "marriages" in the few deep-blue states that have bought into the lie and rejected thousands of years of history and common sense. And it will create chaos as same-sex couples move to other states that have held true, and demand the same recognition from and in those states. The Supreme Court clearly got that case wrong, but the ruling is not nearly as important as the Prop 8 ruling for the future of our cause.

Still, it will further burden taxpayers by forcing them to subsidize gay couples whose relationships do not meet the historic understanding of marriages or provide the benefits to society that flow from the traditional understanding of marriage. That said, the impact is limited only to certain federal benefits and does not require any state to accept gay 'marriages' performed elsewhere. That section of DOMA was not challenged and remains fully in effect — for now. You can count on the powerful gay marriage lobby to mount a full frontal assault in Congress to try to repeal every element of DOMA. We will need your financial help to make sure that Congress continues to protect the right of states to reject having to recognize faux marriage.

We will have more on the Supreme Court rulings in the coming days. Our extraordinary chairman, Prof. John Eastman, will shortly be writing a series of articles to break down the Supreme Court decisions. A former Supreme Court clerk, law school dean and one of the nation's foremost constitutional scholars, Prof. Eastman will provide valuable insights and commentary on what the various justices had to say, and what it portends for the future. We will be sure that you are among the first to receive his insights.

This much we already know: marriage is hanging by a thread in America. It suffered a setback today at the Supreme Court, and those responsible for these attacks will be coming after every remaining state that refuses to abandon the truth of marriage. We must have their back. We must go on offense.

Our opponents are going to be more determined than ever after today. We need to match their determination, and resolve to never again let this type of thing happen to any other state or jurisdiction in our beloved country.

If you believe in the truth of marriage, now is the time to stand up. The survival of true marriage depends on us.

For my part, I am undaunted and resolute.

By Brian Brown | Posted in Alerts, California, DOMA, Featured, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (6)

NOM Sharply Condemns US Supreme Court Over Illegitimate Rulings Legislating From The Bench on Marriage and Rewarding Corrupt Politicians and Federal Judges on Prop 8 and DOMA

June 26, 2013 – 11:30 am

[For ongoing coverage of today's news please scroll down. -Ed.]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 26, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)

"There's a stench coming from these cases that has now stained the Supreme Court. It's imperative that Congress continue to protect the right of states to not recognize faux marriages in their state." — Brian Brown

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, DC — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today expressed dismay and outrage at the US Supreme Court's actions to dismiss Proposition 8 on procedural grounds, and for invalidating a key element of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The group called the decision "illegitimate" and that it will be rejected by tens of millions of Americans, and demanded that Congress continue to protect the right of states to reject same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

"In a miscarriage of justice the US Supreme Court has refused to consider the decision of a single federal court judge to overturn the perfectly legal action of over 7 million California voters who passed Proposition 8 defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "The Supreme Court's holding that proponents of an initiative had no legal right to appeal ignores California law and rewards corrupt politicians for abandoning their duty to defend traditional marriage laws. It's imperative that Congress continue to preserve the right of states to protect true marriage and refuse to recognize faux marriages performed in other states or countries."

Proposition 8 was passed with over 52% of the vote, capturing the support of over 7 million California voters. Because they opposed the measure and receive political support from homosexual groups and activists, both then-Attorney General (now Governor) Jerry Brown and his successor, Attorney General Kamala Harris, refused to defend Proposition 8. The case was heard by a homosexual judge in San Francisco who himself was engaged in a long-term same-sex relationship. To nobody's surprise, the judge invalidated Proposition 8. This decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in an opinion written by liberal judge Stephen Reinhardt, despite the fact that Reinhardt's wife advised the plaintiff lawyers in this very case. Reinhardt refused to recuse himself from the case.

"There is a stench coming from this case that has now stained the Supreme Court. They've allowed corrupt politicians and judges to betray the voters, rewarding them for their betrayal. It's an illegitimate decision. We and millions of other Americans will refuse to accept this rogue decision rewarding corruption. " Brown said.

The Supreme Court invalidated Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage under federal law as the union of one man and one woman. Section 2 of DOMA, which codified the long-standing right of states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, remains in effect and was not challenged. "We also urge Congress to reject the inevitable attempts to dismantle remaining elements of DOMA, including the right of states to refuse to recognize so-called gay marriages performed elsewhere. The vast majority of American voters have expressed with their votes their desire to maintain marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That decision should be respected and left undisturbed."

Despite the ruling on Proposition 8, the decision leaves intact the marriage amendments adopted by thirty other states as the Court refused to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, as celebrity lawyers David Boies and Ted Olsen had been urging throughout the case. More importantly, the DOMA ruling, which turns on the primacy of the states in setting marriage policy, calls into serious question the correctness of Judge Vaughn Walker's initial decision invalidating Proposition 8.

"The only other saving grace of the Supreme Court's decisions today is that they refused to go along with the urgings of Ted Olsen and David Boies to find a constitutional right to same-sex ‘marriage,'" Brown said. "The plaintiffs failed in their primary objective, which is a major victory for those defending Proposition 8, especially Chuck Cooper and his firm, along with the attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom, and Andy Pugno of the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund."

NOM was the biggest contributor to putting Proposition 8 on the ballot. The case was Hollingsworth v. Perry. The DOMA case was Windsor v. United States.

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Alerts, California, DOMA, Featured, Press Releases, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (12)

California Considers Mandated Insurance for "Gay Infertility"

April 23, 2013 – 9:00 am

Ben Shapiro writes at TownHall:

This week, Wesley Smith of the Weekly Standard reported that California would be considering AB 460, a bill that would mandate group insurance coverage for so-called gay and lesbian "infertility." What in the world does that bizarre phrase mean? It doesn't mean situations in which two members of a lesbian couple are both infertile and incapable of conception using some third party's sperm. It doesn't mean situations in which two gay men are both infertile and incapable of impregnating a surrogate mother. It means situations in which gay or lesbian couples can't make a baby by having sex with each other.

In other words, every single gay and lesbian couple on the planet.

The way the law works, gay and lesbian couples would simply have to testify that they have been having sex for a year without producing a child to be considered "infertile," which is idiotic, since baby-making requires necessary components missing in homosexual activity. But nature is irrelevant here. Even though both men and women were, to borrow Lady Gaga's phrase, "born this way," political correctness trumps nature.

By NOM Staff | Posted in California, Children, Law, Marriage, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (16)

LATimes Defends the Boy Scouts

April 17, 2013 – 9:00 am

The Los Angeles Times is obviously no fan of the Boy Scouts of America's policy -- but they are even less a fan of punitive laws meant to single out one organization for views that politicians dislike:

"The Boy Scouts' long-standing refusal to admit gay members is deplorable and offensive. But it's also legal. Just because we — or California legislators — might disagree with the discriminatory path the Boy Scouts has taken doesn't mean the organization should be singled out from other nonprofits to lose its tax-exempt status.

... If legislators can go after the Scouts for engaging in legal (though offensive) behavior, what group will they go after next?"

By NOM Staff | Posted in California, Culture, Law, Marriage, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (13)

Schubert in The Blaze: What to Really Expect from the Supreme Court

April 9, 2013 – 9:30 am

Mission Public Affairs President Frank Schubert, who ran the successful Proposition 8 campaign, argues in The Blaze that the Supreme Court will issue a ruling on Prop 8 and will ultimately choose to uphold it:

The United States Supreme Court held oral arguments two weeks ago concerning California’s Proposition 8 and, predictably, the media pack have all come to the same conclusion. Their meme is that the Court will decline to rule on the merits as to whether Proposition 8 unconstitutionally defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Most base their conclusion on the comment by Justice Anthony Kennedy wondering if the case was properly granted. I believe the media pack has it wrong, failing to appreciate the box that Justice Kennedy likely finds himself in once the Court decided to grant review.

It may very well be that Justice Kennedy would prefer not to decide the Proposition 8 case on the merits. Kennedy is widely viewed as the potential swing vote on the constitutionality of marriage. Despite his lament about having to arbitrate the issue, Justice Kennedy effectively has little choice but to decide whether marriage as it has always been defined somehow violates the constitution.

Once the Court decided to grant review (Certiorari) in the Prop 8 case, Justice Kennedy’s hand was effectively forced. This is true for four key reasons.

[...]

For all these reasons, I believe that Justice Kennedy will ultimately agree with Justice Scalia that they have “already crossed that river” and now must reach the merits of the constitutionality of Proposition 8. So then what?

There was nothing in the oral argument to suggest that anything approaching a majority of the court is prepared to find a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. That being the case, I feel very good about the status of Prop 8 when the Court issues their ruling in the coming months. I also suspect that the media pack is likely never to admit their reporting of oral arguments were off target. More than likely they will immediately pivot, saying winning the most important victory for marriage ever achieved doesn’t really matter because – as they’ve been claiming for years — same-sex marriage is somehow “inevitable.” That’s another false meme, but we’ll deal with that one later, with the wind of a Supreme Court victory at our backs.

By NOM Staff | Posted in California, Law, Marriage, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (31)

Video: Brian Brown Defends Marriage on Meet the Press

April 2, 2013 – 3:00 pm

This weekend our President Brian Brown appeared on Meet the Press to defend marriage and counter the lie that redefining marriage is inevitable:

On the question of marriage and the Supreme Court he said:

"The truth is the truth. The truth is marriage is based upon the distinction between men and women, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers. Marriage is the one institution that brings together the great halves of humanity male and female in one institution to connect husbands and wives together and to any children they may bear. The question before the court is not only on this issue of what is marriage, marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman and apart from all this inevitability talk, 31 states have voted to say that is the truth, they've embedded it in their state constitutions, only 4 have voted against it. There's a myth that somehow this is inevitable, look, North Carolina passed its constitutional amendment 8 months ago by 61%. The polls in California had us at 36% support for traditional marriage but when people came out they voted to support traditional marriage so the real issue is, is the court going to launch another culture war by trumping the votes of these states and of the duly-elected members of Congress who passed DOMA."

On the question of whether the Supreme Court will rule on Prop 8:

"I don't think the court is going to punt, the court is going to answer the question, the question is simple: 'do the people of the state of California, do the people of the states of this country have the right to votes and voices heard, or is the court going to trash over 50 million votes.' The lower court ruling wasn't just about Proposition 8 and what is being brought forward is this myth that somehow embedded in our Constitution something the founders didn't see and we haven't seen up until now 'there is a right to redefine the very nature of marriage'."

By NOM Staff | Posted in California, DOMA, Law, Marriage, Politics, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (4)

Video: Brian Brown on FoxNews Previewing Supreme Court Showdown

March 26, 2013 – 12:00 pm

Today our President Brian Brown is leading the March for Marriage on the national mall in Washington, D.C. but this weekend he was on FoxNews defending marriage in front of a national audience:

By NOM Staff | Posted in California, DOMA, Marriage, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments Off

Breitbart: Judge Who Threw Out Prop 8 Wanted to Attend Supreme Court to Support Gay Marriage Side

March 25, 2013 – 9:00 am

Emails obtained and posted online highlight the cozy relationship between anti-Prop 8 Judge Walker and lead anti-Prop 8 attorney Ted Olson:

Vaughn R. Walker, retired judge who overturned California's Proposition 8 in 2010, asked attorneys who will be defending same-sex marriage in the Supreme Court next week if he could attend oral arguments, as revealed Friday morning in a series of emails posted by conservative blogger Patrick Frey aka Pattterico.

The emails indicate a friendly relationship between retired judge Vaughn Walker and Ted Olsen, one of the attorneys who argued to overturn Prop 8 in front of Walker.

At the time, there was controversy over whether Walker, who is gay, ought to have recused himself from the case. A federal court ruled in 2011 that he did not have to do so.

The emails were obtained exclusively by Patterico in an unredacted form. Patterico confirmed that the email addresses appeared to be those of Walker and Ted Olsen's law firm but as of his publication, Patterico had not received replies to his requests for comment or confirmation.

... Patterico--who personally supports same-sex marriage but opposes using the courts as a means to that end--believes that the emails give credence to the belief that Walker was not an impartial jurist for Proposition 8. (Breitbart)

By NOM Staff | Posted in California, Law, Marriage, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (10)

NOM's Peters: March for Marriage "an opportunity to show the positive face of the pro-marriage movement"

March 20, 2013 – 12:30 pm

Catholic San Francisco:

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone will speak on the importance of marriage, particularly to children, at the March for Marriage in Washington, D.C., March 26, the date of the U.S. Supreme Court hearing on California’s Proposition 8.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sent letters to all American dioceses asking them to promote participation in the March for Marriage. The event is organized by the National Organization for Marriage, and is supported by a coalition of 30 organizations including Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, said Thomas Peters, one of the organizers.

“It’s an opportunity to show the positive face of the pro-marriage movement and to call on the Supreme Court to respect the seven million Californians who voted to enact Prop. 8 in 2008,” Peters said.

By NOM Staff | Posted in California, Catholic Church, March for Marriage, Marriage, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (18)

Video: NOM's Peters: Obama Has No Credibility on Marriage

March 6, 2013 – 12:00 pm

NOM's Thomas Peters appeared on the Christian Broadcasting Network to discuss President Obama's recent decision to get involved in the Proposition 8 case -- and also got a chance to spread the word about the March for Marriage!

When asked about the impact of Obama's choice to weigh in, he responded:

"I think if it has any impact it will actually have a negative one in terms of getting the result that the President wants. I think he has politicized the issue and frankly he has no credibility on it either because, as that montage you just showed points out, he's flipped his position several times now. And at this stage, the question at the Supreme Court is whether we're going to respect the rights of the seven million Californian voters who voted to protect marriage, or if the Supreme Court is going to by fiat erase their democratic vote."

Watch the video of the segment here:

By NOM Staff | Posted in California, Marriage, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (7)

Ruth Institute President Responds to Mischaracterization of Her Remarks to Catholic Student Retreat

March 6, 2013 – 10:45 am

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 6, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)

"I would be happy to meet with Tyler Clementi's mom and dad to try to move forward and go beyond the highly charged rhetoric that doesn't help anyone." — Dr. Morse, Ruth Institute —

National Organization for Marriage

San Diego, CA — Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, President of the Ruth Institute issued the following statement today: "The media and activists groups are mischaracterizing my remarks, in which I urged students to befriend gay students, and also urged them all to adhere to the traditional standards of sexual morality. I believe that engaging in uncommitted sex hurts people of both genders and all sexual orientations. I would be happy to meet with Tyler Clementi's mom and dad to try to move forward and go beyond the highly charged rhetoric that doesn't help anyone. I don't think the Clementis know me or what I believe or think or said. Reaching out across lines of moral difference in a spirit of love is my mission. In the meantime, I would invite anyone to come to the Ruth Institute website and listen to the entire podcast for themselves."

The entire audio of Dr. Morse's remarks and the subsequent Q & A can be heard here.

###

To schedule an interview with Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, contact please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

By NOM Staff | Posted in California, Press Releases | Comments (12)

Video: NOM's Peters on CNN: Supreme Court Must Respect Votes of 7 Million Californians to Protect Marriage

March 4, 2013 – 3:00 pm

NOM's Communications Director Thomas Peters engaged in a spirited debate on a wide range of issues surrounding marriage, corporate fairness, and the Supreme Court on CNN this weekend:

CNN has posted a transcript -- including this part about the so-called economic argument for redefining marriage:

[CNN HOST] KEILAR: But the point that I'm getting at is that when we talk about this as a business imperative, let's take a look at what this filing says. It says, recognizing the rights of same-sex couples to marry is more than a constitutional issue. It is a business imperative. So what do you think about that? Do you agree with that? Do you disagree with that? Is it about more than that? Is that not enough?

PETERS: I strongly disagree with it, because, first of all, the top 10 states for growth right now in this country, nine of them have marriage protection amendments. And so, you know, where this argument comes from is the left wing, UCLA Williams Institute, which has been peddling this argument for years, that gay marriage is an economic stimulus. The very states that are currently trying to [...] legalize gay marriage, like New York and California, are not exactly in an economic picture of well-being. So, look, strong states like Indiana are moving towards marriage protection amendments. North Carolina recently passed its marriage protection amendment by 61 percent. The fact of the matter is that protecting marriage protects children and it helps businesses.

KEILAR: But, Thomas, let me ask you this. Because you have businesses now that are saying, it's costing us money. They say and this obviously gets a little complicated, but they say, same-sex couples are required to pay a Federal income tax on health benefits provided to a spouse through an employer-sponsored health insurance plan. Some employers reimburse employees for the extra tax paid. That requires extra time and money. They say it's costing them money. Do you disagree with that?

PETERS: Well, let's look at -- you used the adjective complicated and you're right, it is complicated. But here's one complicating factor that I think is being ignored in this broader debate. You know, the president is arguing in the Supreme Court that gays and lesbians are politically powerless class. And now you've been telling me time and time again that all these corporations support redefining marriage.

So I would actually ask Brian [of the Human Rights Campaign], which is it? Are gays and lesbians actually a politically powerless class or do all these corporations, the vast majority of people support redefining marriage because you can't have it both ways -- I believe the majority of Americans believe in protecting marriage and I believe that gays and lesbians are an incredibly powerful political class that are trying to redefine marriage for all of us.

By NOM Staff | Posted in California, Culture, Economics, Law, Marriage, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (12)

NOM's Peters: "We Expect the Supreme Court to Exonerate the Votes of Over 7 million Californians to Protect Marriage."

March 1, 2013 – 1:30 pm

Our Communications Director Thomas Peters released a brief statement to the media as the news broke yesterday that President Obama has reversed himself once again on marriage by urging the Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8:

"We expect the Supreme Court to exonerate the votes of over 7 million Californians to protect marriage. The President is clearly fulfilling a campaign promise to wealthy gay marriage donors. There is no right to redefine marriage in our Constitution.”

His statement was picked up by the Associated Press, the Drudge Report, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, ABC News, Foxnews.com, NPR, and dozens of other media outlets.

Peters will be on CNN tomorrow morning at 8:15AM to add more comments.

We continue to urge all supporters of marriage at this critical time to make plans now to come to Washington, D.C. for the March for Marriage on March 26, the day the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Proposition 8 case.

By NOM Staff | Posted in California, Marriage, Politics, President Obama, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (36)

Coalition of Churches Including LDS Church File SCOTUS Brief Supporting Prop 8, DOMA

February 6, 2013 – 11:30 am

Fox13:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has filed a pair of briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to uphold California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The briefs were drafted by lawyers for the LDS Church here in Utah and filed Jan. 29 before the nation’s top court on behalf of the National Association of Evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church-MIssouri Synod, the Romanian-American Evangelical Alliance of North America, Truth in Action Ministries, and the Mormon Church.

“Our theological perspectives, though often differing, converge to support the proposition that the traditional, opposite-sex definition of marriage in the civil law is not only constitutional but essential to the welfare of families, children, and society,” Von Keetch of the Utah-based firm Kirton McConkie, wrote in the DOMA brief.

... “The people of California violated no one’s civil rights when they adopted Proposition 8. Their twice-expressed preference for the traditional definition of marriage over an untested rival conception was thoroughly rational. It is therefore thoroughly constitutional,” Keetch wrote in the Prop. 8 brief.

By NOM Staff | Posted in California, DOMA, Marriage, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (3)

Prop 8 Proponents File 83-Page Brief in Support of Marriage and the People

January 24, 2013 – 2:00 pm

The Mercury News:

Supporters of California's Proposition 8 on Tuesday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve the state's ban on same-sex marriage, firing the first legal volley of many to come before the justices hear arguments in the historic case in late March.

In an 83-page brief, Proposition 8's defenders decried a federal appeals court's ruling last year declaring the 2008 gay marriage ban unconstitutional. California voters had a right to define "the vital social institution of marriage" as being between a man and a woman, the Proposition 8 legal team wrote.

"In short, there is no warrant in precedent or precept for invalidating marriage as it has existed in California for virtually all of its history, as it was universally understood throughout this nation (and the world) until just the last decade, and as it continues to be defined in the overwhelming majority of states and nations," they declared.