From last week’s edition of the Rhode Island Catholic, on NOM-Rhode Island’s 2nd Annual Marriage & Family Day:
[B]ased on the turnout at this past Sunday's second annual celebration, held on the grounds of the Aldrich Mansion, it appears that the event could be a Rhode Island fixture for years to come.
"This is a wonderful opportunity to celebrate marriage," said Christopher Plante, executive director of the Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Marriage, which organized the event.
"If marriage is worth defending, it's even more worth celebrating," Plante said.
More than an estimated 1,000 people attended the daylong celebration, which featured an inflatable "bounce house," face painting and ice cream for the kids.
"The fact that we got this type of turnout suggests to me there is a place for an event like this in the culture of Rhode Island," said Scott Spear, an attorney at Blish & Cavanagh and a NOM-RI board member.
How did Mr. Federalist Society decide it’s okay to use the U.S. Constitution to require gay marriage? The New York Times is reporting that his new young Democrat wife may be a key reason: Via Ed Whelan on Bench Memos.
Meg Whitman, the GOP candidate for governor of California, has pledged to defend Prop 8 if she is elected. Jerry Brown, her opponent, has declined to defend Prop 8, although it is his legal responsibility to do so.
In Great Britain, thanks to a new ruling, the principle of nondiscrimination now trumps religious liberty and common sense. Catholic adoption agencies will be closed unless they agree to place children with gay couples on an "equal" basis. No preferences for the natural family are permissible any longer, even if it means fewer orphaned children find good homes. The sky is not falling, because the sky never does fall, but there is a large crack opening up in our civilization's foundations. Read story.
A distinguished constitutional law scholar and former dean of Chapman law school, John Eastman has emerged as a major new voice in the legal debate over Prop 8:
Two of Orange County's preeminent legal scholars are attracting considerable attention from local and national media outlets alike, from CNN to the Weekly. Mirroring the California public at large, the pair reflects the stark divides in perspective over the same-sex marriage debate.
Even on the top of Orange County's ivory towers, common ground is in short supply.
Dr. John C. Eastman, former dean of the Chapman University School of Law and director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, offers acerbic and pointed criticism of Judge Vaughn R. Walker's legal rational.
The Ruth Institute's own Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse explains why the media spin on David Blankenhorn's testimony in the Prop 8 case is just plain wrong. Read it here.
By NOM Staff|Posted in Same Sex Marriage|Comments Off on Dr. Jennifer Morse: Blankenhorn Did Not Mess Up in Prop 8 Trial
In Mexico City, Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez suggested that Mexican Supreme Court Justices may have been bribed to uphold the same-sex marriage law passed by Mexico City. The Mayor of Mexico City has filed a defamation lawsuit in response, the Cardinal has refused to retract his remarks, and his spokesperson has said he has "something specific" to back up the charge that he will reveal in court.
By NOM Staff|Posted in Same Sex Marriage|Comments Off on Mexican Cardinal Charges Supreme Court Justices Bribed in SSM Decision, Mexico City Mayor Files Defamation Lawsuit
Over at FamilyScholars.org, a researcher named Amber Lapp asked an Ohio waitress/manager "Why do we have marriage?":
“I guess in a way to keep families together. Because if you think about it, if you have a guy and a girl who spend their lives together, or who intend to spend their lives together, if they don’t get married, and have children [while unmarried], it’s too easy of a getaway. . . Maybe it’s more to keep people—or families—together, instead of everybody have a momma and poppa over here and moms here, dads there, you’ve got four step-kids, four regular kids, you know? Yeah, it’d be complicated [without marriage], there’d be kids all over the frickin’ place. Next thing you know you’re dating a third cousin and you don’t even realize it because mom went with this person and dad went with this person and they both split and went with these people. So I think maybe it will, ummm, save a little bit of chaos….I just kind of pulled that out of nowhere…”
Although she might feel as if she just pulled this thought from nowhere, I suspect that much of it comes from personal experience: her brother does shared parenting with his ex-girlfriend, she dated men with children and had to deal with their babies’ mamas, and she had custody over her 15 year old niece when she herself was just 18."
"Gay marriage advocates are now hoping for a technical knockout -- for the 9th Circuit to rule that the voters of California have no standing to challenge Walker's ruling. This may be a sign they understand how extreme and weak Walker's ruling actually is, how unable it is to withstand substantive review by higher courts. Ted Olson goes on TV claiming he has proved there's no possible case for opposing gay marriage. Now he's in court trying to block any higher court from reviewing his handiwork.
Does that sound like the behavior of people with an airtight logical case to you?
NOM President Brian Brown had this to say about the Prop 8 case in the August 17 issue of Newsweek:
"The fact that the most liberal court in the country just decided to rein in Judge Walker clearly shows how extreme his decision was," Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, tells NEWSWEEK. He says that the expedited schedule simply means the court wants to move quickly, and that he expects opponents of gay marriage to appeal to the Supreme Court if the Ninth Circuit does not rule in their favor. Once there, he expects victory: "Marriage as the union of one man and one woman will be upheld by the Supreme Court. Judge Walker's decision is so biased, and so unrooted in precedent, that it is destined to be overturned by any fair judge." In a widely circulated statement, Brown wrote: "One way or another, the people of California will get their day in court, and we expect the U.S. Supreme Court, or Congress if necessary, to defend our right to vote for marriage."
From Ed Whelan’s reflections on the 9th Circuit stay order in the Prop 8 case, over at NRO Bench Memos:
The Ninth Circuit’s grant of a stay of Judge Walker’s judgment pending appeal provides yet further compelling evidence that Walker has gone utterly bonkers in his egregious mishandling of this case. Walker’s denial of the stay threatened to dramatically alter the status quo before a higher court could even review his radical ruling. Walker must have been thoroughly intoxicated by his own bias to imagine that his denial would stand. . . .
To be sure, there’s propaganda value in the fawning media coverage that Walker’s trial and ruling have received—all the more so as the media have mindlessly parroted Walker’s and Olson’s wild distortions of allegedly (but not in fact) damning concessions by Charles Cooper, counsel for Prop 8 proponents. . . . But despite their massive advantage in resources, Olson and Boies have lost to Cooper and his team on every issue that has been decided by any court other than Walker’s.
The Prop 8 case is called "Perry v. Schwarzenegger," but Governor Schwarzenegger has flip-flopped and switched sides, potentially preventing the appeal of Judge Walker's outrageous ruling.
Professor John Eastman has an open letter today urging Gov. Schwarzenegger to defend the voters' rights in this case:
"Finally, I strongly urge you to direct counsel to mount a vigorous rather than half-hearted defense of Proposition 8 before the Court of Appeals and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States. Perhaps that initiative will be held unconstitutional at the end of that process, but if it is not given a fair shake, the more than 7 million voters who voted to retain the traditional definition of marriage will always think, with good reason, that the judicial process was manipulated to produce an outcome favored by some in government at the expense of the sovereign will of the people. That would not be good for the rule of law. It would not be good for our democratic institutions. And it would make our state even more polarized and less manageable for your successor than the one you inherited from your predecessor.
I implore you, therefore, to direct your attorneys to file, at the very least, a pro forma notice of appeal."
SF Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders on Gov. Schwarzenegger and AG Jerry Brown's failure to do their duty and uphold the law:
When 52 percent of California voters passed Proposition 8 in November 2008, Attorney General Jerry Brown said he would defend the measure during the inevitable appeals. Then, as is his fashion, Brown changed his mind.
Ditto Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who twice vetoed same-sex marriage bills passed by the Legislature in deference to California voters who passed an earlier same-sex marriage statute in 2000.
But after Prop. 8 passed, both refused to defend the measure.
. . . . The heat, however, should be on Brown, who is running for governor. As AG, it's Brown's job to represent the people in court.
As former state attorney general and now Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Gold River (Sacramento County), put it, "I defended laws that I voted against. That was my obligation. You do your best job. You try to find the best arguments that you can, irrespective of the subject matter."
If you don't want to do that, then don't run for the office.
