How Supporters of Same-Sex Marriage, Including Certain Judges and Lawyers, Have
Abused the Legal System and Thwarted
the Will of the People
to Redefine Marriage in the United States
by B. Nathaniel Sullivan
Part 1: Ignoring the Supreme Court’s Ruling
On June 26, 2013, when the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and refused to rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite sex couples, the justices also affirmed the rights of states to define marriage for themselves. The many subsequent rulings from lower courts overturning state bans on same-sex marriage fly directly in the face of the justices’ affirmations of states’ rights.
At least for now, the Supreme Court’s affirmation of states’ rights to define marriage is meaningless. On October 6, 2014, the court refused to hear appeals of lower court rulings that overturned bans on same-sex marriage. These rulings—and same-sex marriage—have thus taken effect in the five states that were directly involved, as well as in several more states under the jurisdictions of those federal appeals courts. All this has occurred against due process, against the expressed will of the people, and against the balanced system of government our ancestors founded. Stay tuned.
http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/scotus-turns-down-marriage-proposal
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/breakpoint-commentaries-archive/entry/13/26202
October 27, 2014
Part 2: Judges’ Flawed Reasoning
On October 6, 2014, the day the Supreme Court announced it would not hear appeals of cases in which bans on same-sex marriage had been overturned, Travis Weber appeared on Washington Watch, the Family Research Council’s [FRC’s] daily radio program. Weber holds a doctor of law degree and is FRC’s Director of the Center for Religious Liberty. He observed that the reasoning of lower court judges who have struck down state marriage laws “is perhaps some of the most poorly constructed. It’s just very poor analysis in many of these cases.…Thinking back to how we were trained in law school to approach a legal question,…if you were to use some of the analyses that these judges have used in striking down state marriage laws, you would be scolded in a lot of legal writing classes.…I think that’s very telling.”
Despite the judges’ flawed rationale, their rulings stand, at least for now. It’s further evidence the legal foundation for same-sex marriage is made of dust and sand.
Next time, we’ll consider what one statesman had to say about the Supreme Court’s refusal to take up marriage at this time.
http://www.frc.org/wwlivewithtonyperkins/richard-land-david-limbaugh
http://www.frc.org/biography/travis-weber-director-center-for-religious-liberty
October 28, 2014
Part 3: Ted Cruz Responds to the Supreme Court’s Decision of October 6, 2014
Here is the entire text of a press release from the office of Senator Ted Cruz, dated October 6, 2014.
WASHINGTON, DC — U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today issued the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to reject requests from five States to review state laws that prohibit same-sex marriage.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible,” said Sen. Cruz. “By refusing to rule [definitively] if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court Justices, without providing any explanation whatsoever, have permitted lower courts to strike down so many state marriage laws is astonishing.
“This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures.
“The Supreme Court is, de facto, applying an extremely broad interpretation to the 14th Amendment without saying a word— an action that is likely to have far-reaching consequences. Because of the Court’s decision today, 11 States will likely now be forced to legalize same-sex marriage: Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Utah, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. And this action paves the way for laws prohibiting same-sex marriage to be overturned in any state.
“It is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same-sex marriage, but that is what the Supreme Court is implying today. The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.
“Nothing in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the 14th Amendment or any other constitutional provision authorizes judges to redefine marriage for the Nation. It is for the elected representatives of the People to make the laws of marriage, acting on the basis of their own constitutional authority, and protecting it, if necessary, from usurpation by the courts.
“Marriage is a question for the States. That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 2024, to protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws.
“Traditional marriage is an institution whose integrity and vitality are critical to the health of any society. We should remain faithful to our moral heritage and never hesitate to defend it.”
http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1777
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/20/gary-bauer-ted-cruzs-traditional-marriage-constitu/
Part 4: Looking Back: Proactive, Pro-Marriage Californians
Anticipating that the California Supreme Court would rule same-sex marriage constitutional in 2008 (something did on May 15, 2008), defenders of traditional marriage in the Golden State gathered signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Canvassers needed 694,354 signatures—representing 8 percent of the votes cast for governor in the 2006 election. They submitted over 1.1 million! On November 4, 2008, the measure passed by nearly 600,000 votes, 52 percent to 48 percent. Over 7 million voters supported Proposition 8.
Supporters faced many uphill battles. For example, the proposed title to the amendment was itself a hurdle because of its slanted wording: “Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.” Then there was the summary of the ballot proposal, which explained what the amendment would do if adopted. It informed voters that Prop 8 “changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.” Supporters tried unsuccessfully to get the title and summary reworded to reflect a more balanced perspective. Even in liberal California the amendment passed anyway, reflecting a strong resolve among Californians to preserve traditional marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
Part 5: The Relentless Effort to Overturn Prop 8
Proposition 8 stated unambiguously, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” It echoed language from Proposition 22, which California voters passed resoundingly in 2000. Prop 22, however, was a statute, not an amendment to the constitution.
After Prop 8 took effect, advocates of same-sex marriage went to the courts to get the new constitutional amendment declared unconstitutional. Remember, a majority of California voters had adopted the measure according to due process. On May 26, 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld it, although it also ruled that same-sex weddings occurring before the amendment’s passage would continue to be recognized.
Not to be deterred, Prop 8’s opponents turned to the Federal District Court in San Francisco, where they filed a lawsuit. Judge Vaughn Walker presided over the hearings related to the case and ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional on August 4, 2010. His written opinion, which cited 80 “findings of fact,” gave proponents of same-sex marriage everything they wanted. Stay tuned to learn why Judge Walker’s ruling was, and remains, especially ominous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_Walker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Northern_District_of_California
Part 6: The Ominous Findings of Judge Vaughn Walker:
Supporters of Prop 8 Are Bigots—and Worse
In overturning Proposition 8, Judge Vaughn Walker wrote the following.
- Limiting “marriage to opposite-sex couples does not further any state interest.…Proposition 8…mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender.”
- “The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples.”
- “The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”
- “Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians.”
- “Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”
In condemning the moral judgments of Prop 8’s supporters, Judge Walker hypocritically made moral judgments of his own—but his judgments carried legal weight. Princeton professor Dr. Robert George noted that according to Walker, it is illegitimate for people to allow their faith to influence their votes. America’s founders believed otherwise.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/proposition-8-ruling-decision-excerpts.html
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/family-talk/listen/proposition-8-a-battle-we-must-win-125870.html
http://www.usachristianministries.com/us-history-quotes-about-god-and-the-bible/
http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/8-founders-advise-how-to-vote/
In the quotations above, italics have been added for emphasis.
Part 7: Despite Judge Walker’s Ruling, You Can’t Fool Mother Nature
In ruling Proposition 8 unconstitutional, Judge Walker made these statements about marriage.
- Excluding homosexuals from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and marriage. That time has passed.”
- “Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents.…Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.”
Since a same-sex relationship doesn’t fit marriage, Judge Walker sought to reshape marriage to fit a same-sex relationship—but he couldn’t reshape nature. Even so, if a law conflicts with reality, multiple problems inevitably will arise.
Inherently, marriage is what it is precisely because of the dynamics unique to an opposite-sex union! Chuck Colson once said, “The argument…is that to deny homosexuals marriage is manifestly unfair. But it’s not unfair. Gays and lesbians are not unworthy of marriage; they are incapable of marriage.” The Declaration of Independence affirms “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Judge Walker rejected them entirely.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/proposition-8-ruling-decision-excerpts.html
http://www.breakpoint.org/commentaries/4245-oh-canada
http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/the-declaration-of-independence
In the quotations from Judge Walker’s opinion above, italics have been added for emphasis.
Part 8: The Ominous Findings of Judge Walker: The Causes of Homosexuality
In his ruling overturning Prop 8, Judge Walker also “found” some very interesting “facts” about sexual orientation. He wrote, “Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.”
Do people choose their sexual orientation? Homosexuality is complicated. An article that addresses the question of the causes of homosexuality states:
At best, the evidence for a genetic and/or biological basis to homosexual orientation is inconclusive. In fact, since the early 1990s, numerous studies attempting to establish a genetic cause for homosexuality have not proven to be valid or repeatable – two important requirements for study results to become accepted as fact in the scientific community.
Because of this, the current thinking in the scientific community is that homosexuality is likely caused by a complex interaction of psychosocial, environmental and possible biological factors.
The acknowledgement that biological factors may be involved does not mean researchers have discovered a “gay gene” that determines a homosexual orientation. In fact, no such gene ever has been found. Also, while a person may not choose whether or not he or she has same- or opposite-sex attractions, the individual clearly chooses what he or she will do with those leanings.
Can change occur? We’ll consider this question next time.
Part 9: The Ominous Findings of Judge Vaughn Walker:
Can Homosexuality Be Overcome?
We noted last time that when he found Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional, Judge Vaughn Walker said this about sexual orientation: “Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.”
Last time we briefly examined the causes of homosexuality. Here we will consider whether an individual can choose to change his or her sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Judge Walker “found” that “no credible evidence” exists for change. It’s true that may be difficult for most, if not all, who seek to change. Difficult though it may be, does change occur? Has it occurred? Just ask people associated with Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays—PFOX. Visit http://www.pfox.org and learn of real people who have experienced change. The PFOX website states,
Ex-gays are everywhere, yet too often this community is excluded from the conversation about same-sex attraction in pop culture and the public square. Ex-gays are mocked, excluded from public forums, or simply told they don’t exist!
People deserve to know the truth about the many men, women, and children who have made a decision to change their lives. And PFOX offers a place for help, a place for truth and a voice in the conversation.
Respecting the lives of real people who have made a decision to change – and including them in the conversation – is part of building a tolerant society.
Clearly some—even many—homosexuals have changed their sexual orientation—despite Judge Walker’s “finding.” Moreover, while it’s true that some homosexuals who seek change find that they cannot overcome same-sex attraction, they do not have to continue living a homosexual lifestyle. Why are they not bound? Because people are not animals who are destined to live by their base urges. They can make informed, intelligent choices; and those choices should be respected.
These concepts, which reflect true tolerance, are nowhere to be found in Judge Walker’s ruling.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/proposition-8-ruling-decision-excerpts.html
Part 10: Vaughn Walker: Activist Judge
Judge Vaughn Walker’s bias against Prop 8 was evident throughout the trial.
- Violating federal guidelines, Walker decided to broadcast the trial. The Supreme Court overruled him, but by the time they did, fearing for their safety, two-thirds of the expert witnesses lined up to testify in support of natural marriage already had changed their minds.
- Matt Barber states that Walker “allowed plaintiffs a parade of ‘expert’ witnesses who viciously maligned Christians and other observers of natural and historic sexual morality as ‘prejudiced,’ ‘bigoted’ and ‘homophobic.’” Writes Brian Brown of the National Organization of Marriage, “Witness after witness was allowed to testify…that homosexuals have been discriminated against, that they feel badly when society does not validate their relationships, and that the passage of Prop 8 was simply an echo of historic prejudice and bigotry foisted on society by religious zealots.”
- Brian Brown also notes that Walker allowed a homosexual man who never had resided in California—and who thus had not been directly affected by Prop 8—“to testify that his parents’ efforts to change his sexual orientation failed.”
- Walker directed Prop 8 supporters to turn over private communications about campaign strategies to plaintiffs while letting plaintiffs keep parallel documents secret.
Later it would come to light that at some point between the Prop 8 hearings that took place before Judge Walker and the oral arguments that were heard before the Supreme Court in March of 2013, Judge Walker corresponded with Ted Olson and asked him if he could attend the hearings at the Supreme Court. Olson was one of the lawyers who argued for the overthrow of Prop 8 in Walker’s courtroom; eventually he would present arguments for the same side at the Supreme Court. The emails pertinent to this correspondence “indicate a friendly relationship between retired judge Vaughn Walker and…Olson.”
Even more significantly, after the Prop 8 trial was over, Walker admitted that he himself was a homosexual.
http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2010/02/11/is_the_gay_fix_in_on_prop_8/page/full
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Vaughn-Walker-retired-judge-reflects-on-Prop-8-2375925.php
Part 11: Judge Walker Is Gay
Judge Vaughn Walker was randomly assigned the federal case challenging Prop 8 in California, and he presided over the hearings. The 12-day trial began on January 11 and concluded on January 27, 2010. Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4. In February of 2011, he retired. Shortly thereafter, Walker admitted that he is a homosexual. During the trial, rumors spread about his sexual orientation, but he did not confirm them until many months later, when his ruling had been challenged and was before the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, affirmed by ballotpedia.org as “generally considered the most liberal in the nation.” In early April of 2011, Walker told reporters he never thought of stepping down from the case because of his sexual orientation: “If you thought a judge’s sexuality, ethnicity, national origin (or) gender would prevent the judge from handling a case, that’s a very slippery slope, I don’t think it’s relevant.”
While Walker’s perspective may sound noble to many in our politically correct age, there is a profound difference between a trait such as skin color, national origin, and ethnicity, all of which are inherent traits, and sexual orientation, which is tied to behavior. Moreover, is it really all that hard to see a conflict of interest in a scenario in which a homosexual judge is determining the constitutionality of a statewide ban on same-sex marriage? Judge Walker and a doctor had reportedly been in a relationship together for 10 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_Walker
http://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/26/local/la-me-ln-prop-8-judge-vaughn-walker-20130326
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/us/politics/15prop8.html?_r=0
Part 12: Judge Vaughn Walker and the Prop 8 Trial: A Conflict of Interest
In February of 2010, soon after the Proposition 8 trial had ended, Matt Barber, who holds a doctorate in law, wrote about Judge Vaughn Walker’s bias during the trial. Walker’s favoritism for the plaintiffs was blatant; previously, we’ve discussed some of Walker’s actions. At the time Barber wrote his article (titled “Is the Gay ‘Fix’ In On Prop 8?”) it had been rumored that Walker was a homosexual. The San Francisco Chronicle had stated, “The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.”
Here’s how Barber concluded his article.
At worst, Judge Walker’s continued involvement with this case presents a textbook conflict of interest. At best, it objectively illustrates the unseemly appearance of a conflict.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution – who referred to homosexuality as “the sin that dare not speak its name” – could not have even conceptualized the ridiculous and oxy moronic notion of “gay marriage,” much less considered it a constitutional right. Still, if Judge Walker miraculously divines from thin air that Patrick Henry had a fundamental “right” to marry Henry Patrick, then who among us will be surprised?
Yes, he could stun the world and place constitutionalism – which he’s sworn to observe – above personal ideology; but, based on his actions throughout this trial, I’m betting the fix is in.
This much is for sure: Any decision favoring plaintiffs in this case will be permanently marred and universally viewed as stemming from Judge Walker’s personal biases and alleged lifestyle choices.
For these reasons, and in the interest of justice, he should now do the honorable thing and recuse himself.
Fourteen months later, in April of 2011— two months after his retirement—Judge Walker confirmed the rumors about his sexual orientation.
It’s evident that Walker’s presiding over the Prop 8 trial didn’t offer merely the appearance of a conflict of interest, but a clear and undeniable conflict of interest. The law has something to say about such a scenario. Stay tuned!
http://www.liberty.edu/law/?PID=17261
http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2010/02/11/is_the_gay_fix_in_on_prop_8/page/full
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Judge-being-gay-a-nonissue-during-Prop-8-trial-3201345.php
Part 13: Why Judge Vaughn Walker Should Have Recused Himself
After Judge Vaughn Walker confirmed rumors that he was homosexual and had been in a relationship with a physician for ten years, supporters of Proposition 8 were justifiably angry. The judge’s bias against the voter-approved constitutional amendment had been clear throughout the trial. Moreover, in his decision overruling Prop 8, Judge Walker gave the plaintiffs everything they wanted. He should have recused himself, not because he was a homosexual, but because he stood to gain personally from striking down the constitutional amendment. Legal expert Matt Barber declared:
Federal law is clear. The code of judicial conduct requires that a judge step down from a case if “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” or when he “has a financial…or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.”…
Furthermore, the U.S. Code, Section 455 (a) states: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” U.S.C. Section 455 (b) (1) also states that a judge must be disqualified if he “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.”
No reasonable person can deny that Judge Walker held a “personal bias” as his decision directly affected him on a very personal level.…
His was the textbook example of a conflict requiring recusal. It’s now the textbook example of judicial activism. This outrageous decision must be vacated and attorneys defending Prop 8 should immediately file a motion to that effect.
John C. Eastman was equally concerned. Eastman, a former dean at Chapman University School of Law and the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, wrote that Walker’s sexual orientation alone was not reason enough for the judge to recuse himself. Rather, it was “the possibility that he could directly benefit from his ruling [that] raised the prospect that recusal may have been warranted.…If the relationship was such that it gave Walker a financial or other interest in the outcome of the proceeding—and the ability to marry would certainly qualify—recusal would be mandatory and non-waivable.”
Jack Marshall, a legal ethicist and a supporter of same-sex marriage, affirmed that “a straightforward application of the judicial ethics rules compels the conclusion that Walker should have recused himself from taking part in the [Perry v. Schwarznegger] case.”
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/110415
http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/287077/
http://www.citizenlink.com/2011/06/13/back-in-court-judge-should-have-stepped-down/
Part 14: A Fair Hearing Proves Elusive
On Monday, April 25, 2011, lawyers for ProtectMarriage, the organization that spearheaded the ballot initiative that became known as Prop 8, filed a motion asking a district court judge to vacate Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision overturning the constitutional amendment. Representing ProtectMarriage, Andy Pugno said, “Judge Walker’s ten-year-long same-sex relationship creates the unavoidable impression that he was not the impartial judge the law requires. He was obligated to either recuse himself or provide full disclosure of this relationship at the outset of the case. These circumstances demand setting aside his decision.”
Citing the basis for a conflict of interest on the part of Judge Walker, Pugno declared, “Under governing California law, Judge Walker currently cannot marry his partner. But his ruling in this case, if ultimately upheld, would give him a right to do so.”
U.S. District Court Judge James Ware, who had replaced Walker since he had retired, was the judge being asked to make the decision to vacate.
What were the prospects that supporters of Proposition 8 would prevail in their effort? A day after the hearing, Ed Whelan, writing in National Review Online, assessed the situation. “By all accounts, it was clear from yesterday’s hearing that Chief Judge James Ware will deny Prop 8 proponents’ motion to vacate former district Judge Vaughn Walker’s anti-Prop 8 judgment on account of Walker’s failure to recuse. Notwithstanding what I believe to be the compelling merits of the motion, that result will be no surprise. It would take a judge of clarity and courage to do the right thing, and it would be especially uncomfortable for a longtime colleague of Walker’s to vacate the signature ruling of Walker’s career. No one familiar with Ware would have expected him to grant the motion.” Whelan went on to explain his reasoning in greater detail, but the bottom line is that the handwriting was on the wall.
Bruce Hausknecht, a legal analyst for Focus on the Family’s policy arm, CitizenLink, observed, “Defending marriage in San Francisco is a lot like defending the Christians in early Rome.” Yet Hausknecht also felt that the attorneys for Protect Marriage were establishing a legal record that could serve them well in future appeals.
On June 14, 2011, the same day that Ed Whelan predicted that Judge Ware would rule against ProtectMarriage, Ware did that very thing.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/25/local/la-me-gay-judge-20110426
http://www.citizenlink.com/2011/06/13/back-in-court-judge-should-have-stepped-down/
Part 15: Iowa: Same-Sex Marriage Imposed by Court Order,
and the People Have Little Recourse
In state after state after state, homosexual rights activists have pushed through same-sex marriage through the courts, or in some cases through state legislatures, without letting the people vote on the issue. Why? If same-sex marriage is so wonderful and so right, let the people vote! But the open secret is that in state after state after state, same-sex marriage would have been rejected by the people, just as it has been rejected in nearly every state where the people have been allowed to vote.
Let’s consider Iowa as an example. On April 3, 2009, Iowa became the third state, after Massachusetts and Connecticut, to have same-sex marriage imposed by court order. A similar scenario had unfolded in California, but defenders of natural marriage there were able to gather enough signatures to place a constitutional amendment protecting marriage on the ballot. The decision from the justices on the Iowa Supreme Court was unanimous. Licenses to “marry” became available to same-sex couples on April 27. Iowans cannot collect signatures to place proposed laws on the ballot, but on November 2, 2010, when three of the seven justices on the Iowa Supreme Court were up for retention votes, all three were removed from office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Iowa
related article:
http://www.wnd.com/2008/06/68404/
Part 16: New York, Part 1: A Classic Case of Refusing to Let the People Vote
In New York, in late 2009, the New York State Assembly passed a bill authorizing same-sex marriage in the state. This was not the first time the Assembly had passed this kind of legislation. The New York Senate, despite being controlled by Democrats, defeated the bill. In June of 2011, the Assembly again passed a bill authorizing same-sex marriage. This was the fourth time it had done so. Several Republican Senators caved and voted for the bill when it was considered in the Senate, and the bill passed and was signed by Governor Andrew Coumo.
As the state legislature was debating and considering the measure, pro-marriage rallies were held across the state of New York as the people sought to tell their representatives in Albany to let them vote on the measure—to no avail. In the elections that followed the legislature’s vote, several supporters of same-sex marriage met defeat or were caught in close races.
While legislation authorizing same-sex marriage passed in New York, many felt that the legislature did not follow due process. Consequently, a lawsuit was filed. Keep reading to learn what happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_York
http://www.letthepeoplevote.com
Part 17: New York, Part 2: The Court Sides with the Out-of-Control Legislature
On July 25, 2011, one day after the first same-sex weddings took place in New York, a lawsuit was filed challenging the legitimacy of the law. Among other things, the lawsuit stated that members of the legislature and other public officials did not follow New York’s Open Meetings Law, which demands that “public business be performed in an open and public manner.” The Rev. Jason McGuire of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms declared, “We are contending that when the 32 Republicans met with Governor Andrew Coumo and Mayor Michael Bloomberg and perhaps some others, it was a flagrant disregard for the intention of the law.” He also stated, “If truly the legislation can stand on its own merits then it should be able to withstand being deliberated publicly.” The point was that it hadn’t been deliberated publicly as the law required. The National Organization for Marriage noted that debate on the legislation “on the night of the vote on June 24 was severely restricted in a manner unprecedented in recent years. The senate’s Republican majority allowed unlimited time for supporters of the bill to speak, including Democratic Sen. Thomas Duane who sponsored it and Republican Sen. Stephen Saland who provided the pivotal vote. But Lieutenant Gov. Robert Duffy, presiding [over] the Senate, repeatedly cut off Democratic Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr., a minister who led the opposition to the bill. Diaz sought to persuade his colleagues to vote ‘no.’ The lawsuit also claims that promises of campaign contributions were made to Republican senators who voted for the bill.”
Robert B. Wiggins, Acting Supreme Court Justice, permitted the portion of the lawsuit relating to the Open Meetings Law to proceed, even as he dismissed the other aspects of the litigation. He rendered his decision on November 18, 2011. Several months later, on July 6, 2012, a panel of five judges from the Appellate Division unanimously ruled that the Open Meetings Law hadn’t been violated, and they dismissed the suit. Justice Eugene M. Fahey wrote the opinion of the panel of justices. According to a New York Times article, Fahey explained why he believed the law had not been violated but also “added that even if the court had believed the meetings with Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Cuomo violated the Open Meetings Law, such violations would not have warranted striking down the Marriage Equality Act or invalidating the same-sex marriages performed since it took effect last July.” Are lawmakers and other governmental officials then not obligated to follow the law when enacting weighty legislation such as that which would change the definition of a bedrock institution like marriage?
On October 23, 2012, the highest court in the state, the New York Court of Appeals, turned down a request to hear an appeal in the case—leaving the plaintiffs with no other recourse, and leaving the people of New York with a policy on marriage they had not been allowed to approve or disapprove at the voting booth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_York
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yorkers_for_Constitutional_Freedoms
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lawsuit-against-new-yorks-homosexual-marriage-law-moves-forward/
Part 18: Thwarting the Will of the People
According to a Newsmax article posted Thursday, October 20, 2014,
South Carolina is poised to become the 35th state where gay couples can legally marry, after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a last-ditch bid by state officials for a halt.
Days after receiving a set of appeals that seek a nationwide ruling, the justices today allowed a lower court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in South Carolina to take effect today. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
The order, which came with no explanation, is consistent with the Supreme Court’s recent pattern on the issue. The justices have let decisions by four federal appeals courts backing gay marriage take effect in the states under the jurisdiction of those panels.…
Yesterday a federal judge made Montana the 34th state with gay marriage, striking down its ban as unconstitutional and saying the order would take effect immediately.
On November 7, 2006, South Carolinians passed a state constitutional amendment protecting natural marriage 78 percent to 22 percent. Montana residents passed a pro-marriage state constitutional amendment in 2004—67 percent to 33 percent. These were ballot measures that were preceded by campaigns and public debate. They involved time, effort, and financial resources from supporters on both sides of the issue. In state after state, with few exceptions, voters decided to protect natural marriage by lopsided margins. Now, with these rulings by federal courts, including the Supreme Court, it is evident that the will of the people doesn’t matter.
Next time we will look at the history of state constitutional amendments, including some important statistics.
http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/608588
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions
Part 19: The Adoption of State Constitutional Amendments Protecting Marriage
Alaska November 3, 1998
yes: 152,965 (68%)
no: 71,631 (32%)
Hawaii November 3, 1998
yes: 285,384 (71%)
no: 117,827 (29%)
Nebraska November 7, 2000
yes: 477,571 (70%)
no: 203,667 (30%)
Nevada November 7, 2000
yes: 412,688 (70%)
no: 180,077 (30%)
Nevada November 5, 2002
yes: 337,197 (67%)
no: 164,573 (33%)
To become a part of Nevada’s constitution, citizen initiated ballot initiatives must pass in two separate ballot votes.
Missouri August 3, 2004
yes: 1,055,771 (71%)
no: 439,529 (29%)
Louisiana September 18, 2004
yes: 618,928 (78%)
no: 177,103 (22%)
Arkansas November 2, 2004
yes: 753,770 (75%)
no: 251,914 (25%)
Georgia November 2, 2004
yes: 2,454,930 (76%)
no: 768,716 (24%)
Kentucky November 2, 2004
yes: 1,222,125 (75%)
no: 417,097 (25%)
Michigan November 2, 2004
yes: 2,698,077 (59%)
no: 1,904,319 (41%)
Mississippi November 2, 2004
yes: 957,104 (86%)
no: 155,648 (14%)
Montana November 2, 2004
yes: 295,070 (67%)
no: 148,263 (33%)
North Dakota November 2, 2004
yes: 223,572 (73%)
no: 81,716 (27%)
Oregon November 2, 2004
yes: 1,028,546 (57%)
no: 787,556 (43%)
Oklahoma November 2, 2004
yes: 1,075,216 (76%)
no: 347,303 (24%)
Ohio November 2, 2004
yes: 3,329,335 (62%)
no: 2,065,462 (38%)
Utah November 2, 2004
yes: 593,297 (66%)
no: 307,488 (34%)
Kansas April 5, 2005
yes: 417,675 (70%)
no: 179,432 (30%)
Texas November 8, 2005
yes: 1,723,782 (76%)
no: 536,913 (24%)
Alabama June 6, 2006
yes: 697,591 (81%)
no: 161,694 (19%)
Arizona November 7, 2006
yes: 721,489 (48%)
no: 775,498 (52%)
While this proposed constitutional amendment was defeated, another, less restrictive amendment was subsequently proposed in Arizona and put before the voters. The latter proposal did not explicitly prohibit recognition of civil unions. Voters approved it on November 4, 2008 (see below).
Colorado November 7, 2006
yes: 855,126 (55%)
no: 699,030 (45%)
Idaho November 7, 2006
yes: 282,386 (63%)
no: 163,384 (37%)
South Carolina November 7, 2006
yes: 829,360 (78%)
no: 234,316 (22%)
South Dakota November 7, 2006
yes: 172,305 (52%)
no: 160,152 (48%)
Tennessee November 7, 2006
yes: 1,419,434 (81%)
no: 327,536 (19%)
Virginia November 7, 2006
yes: 1,328,537 (57%)
no: 999,687 (43%)
Wisconsin November 7, 2006
yes: 1,264,310 (59%)
no: 862,924 (41%)
Arizona November 4, 2008
yes: 1,258,355 (56%)
no: 980,753 (44%)
California November 4, 2008
yes: 7,001,084 (52%)
no: 6,401,482 (48%)
Florida November 4, 2008
yes: 4,890,883 (62%)
no: 3,008,026 (38%)
North Carolina May 8, 2012
yes: 1,317,178 (61%)
no: 840,802 (39%)
Minnesota November 6, 2012
yes: 1,399,916 (47%)
no: 1,550,434 (53%)
This list represents the 32 states where state constitutional amendments have been voted on by the people. With Arizona in 2006 and Minnesota the only states where voters rejected amendments, this table underscores overwhelming support for natural marriage nationwide. Moreover, we should keep in mind that when same-sex marriage has been deemed unconstitutional by the courts in any of these states (except Minnesota, where the voters failed to adopt an amendment), voters’ successful efforts to amend their state constitutions have been overruled by judges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions
http://ballotpedia.org/Marriage_and_family_on_the_ballot
http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/08/26-states-have-been-forced-by-courts-to-allow-gay-marriages/
Don’t Silence the 50 Million Who Voted for One Man-One Woman Marriage
http://goo.gl/JJN1vy
Part 20: The Voters Have Lacked Representation in Court
“Imagine for a moment that someone sues you,” began John Stonestreet in his BreakPoint radio commentary for February 25, 2014. BreakPoint is a ministry of Prison Fellowship and the Colson Center for Biblical Worldview. Stonestreet continued:
You arrive in court, expecting your lawyer to defend your interests, only to hear him say that he disagrees with you and will now assist your adversary.
There would be pandemonium. Your attorney would be relieved of his duties, and in all likelihood, face professional censure.
Yet, something akin to this happened to the people of Virginia last week. It’s part of a trend that should trouble people regardless of their position on certain “hot-button” issues.
On February 13, a federal district court judge in Norfolk struck down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage. Judge Arrenda Wright Allen ruled that the voter-approved amendment to the Virginia constitution violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Allen wrote that “Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country’s cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family.”
Astounding.
Sadly, there’s nothing new in this easy dismissal of millennia of tradition. What is new is the role played by Virginia’s new Attorney General, Mark Herring. Instead of defending the law, which is what as the Commonwealth’s lawyer you expect him to do, he joined the plaintiffs in seeking to overturn it.
Herring, who was elected by a tiny margin of 907 votes, also believes the ban violates the 14th Amendment. His solicitor general, Stuart Raphael, compared the ban on same-sex marriage to Virginia’s infamous ban on interracial marriage back in the 1960s.
Herring isn’t the first state attorney general to decline to defend the voters’ wishes on this issue: attorneys general in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Nevada, and California have also taken what USA Today called “an unusually supportive role” in the movement to overturn democratically-enacted laws.
While declining to defend a state law is not unheard of, it is unusual. As Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center put it, this trend represents “a complete collapse of the line between law and politics . . . [T]he defense of these laws is not being litigated the way it ought to be, and defenders of marriage laws will have ample reason to believe the process is rigged against them.”
“Rigged” is not too strong a word. Once a lawyer agrees to represent a client, his ethical duty is to defend the client’s interests to the best of his or her abilities, even if he disagrees with the client.
This should go double or triple for state attorneys general. If you aren’t willing to defend the democratically-enacted laws of your state, you really shouldn’t run for the job.
When criminal convictions are overturned on account of inadequate legal representation, people agree that an injustice has been done. When the will of the people and millennia of tradition are overturned for much the same reason, it’s suddenly hailed as a victory for the “principles of equality upon which this nation was founded.”
This last phrase quoted by John Stonestreet was uttered by Ted Olson, lead co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the Virginia case and one of the lawyers who argued before the Supreme Court that California’s Proposition 8 should be overturned. Olson said, “Through its decision today, the court has upheld the principles of equality upon which this nation was founded.”
This is the convoluted logic that is apparently prevailing in the courts of America today. In a country where no individual is denied the right to legal counsel and the right to a fair trial, and in a country where free legal assistance for undocumented immigrants is not unheard of, shouldn’t voters be among the first have representation in court?
Even Judge Vaughn Walker saw the blatant unfairness of such a scenario. Bob Egelko interviewed Judge Walker as the Prop 8 case was winding its way to the Supreme Court. First summarizing and then quoting Walker, Egelko wrote, “If Prop. 8 is invalidated because no one has the standing to defend it, he [Walker] said, it will leave ‘a sense of the issue not having been resolved.’”
While the Supreme Court didn’t officially invalidate Prop 8 in its ruling on June 26, 2013, it did rule that the people (the voters) did not have standing to appeal in federal court. In effect, Prop 8 and many other state laws protecting marriage, including constitutional amendments, have been invalidated because of this ruling, along with the Supreme Court’s ruling that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional.
Paving the way for this onslaught against the will of the people in state after state, the nation’s top lawyer, Attorney General Eric Holder, advised state attorneys general to refuse to defend state laws protecting traditional marriage. According to a CNSNews article posted February 25, 2014 (the date for the BreakPoint article we just cited),
State attorneys-general who refuse to defend state laws banning same-sex marriage won’t face any objection from the nation’s top law enforcement official. In fact, Attorney General Eric Holder will applaud them.
According to Holder, “decisions at any level not to defend individual laws must be exceedingly rare. They must be reserved only for exceptional—truly exceptional—circumstances.’
Then Holder went on to encourage the very scenario he said should be rare!
He said that state laws banning same-sex marriage rise to that “truly exceptional” standard—because they do not “advance the values that once led our forebears to declare unequivocally that all are created equal and entitled to equal opportunity.”
Never mind that our forebears would never have approved of so called “same-sex marriage.”
Holder told a gathering of state attorneys-general at the Justice Department that they are sworn, not just to win cases, “but to see that justice is done” and to “seize the opportunities that are before us.”
Activist judges are certainly bad enough, but now we also have hyper-activist lawyers—attorneys who, as John Stonestreet pointed out, have a specific responsibility to defend clients they are abandoning.
The legal system exists, he [Holder] said, not just to settle disputes and punish wrong-doers, “but to answer the really fundamental questions about fairness and about equality that have always determined who we are and who we aspire to be, both as a nation and as a people.”
In other words, the legal system exists not to fairly interpret the law, but to promote an agenda espoused by one side of a legal dispute, and to abandon the concerns of those on the other side. And significantly, Holder’s rhetoric sounds eerily similar to that of Ted Olson when Olson said the Virginia decision “upheld the principles of equality upon which this nation was founded.” You can almost hear patriotic music in the background!
Holder explained that those “really fundamental questions’ prompted him and President Obama to decide in early 2011 that Justice Department attorneys would no longer defend the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Holder said he and Obama were “motivated by the strong belief that all measures that distinguish among people based on their sexual orientation must be subjected to a heightened standard of scrutiny…and therefore this measure (DOMA) was unconstitutional discrimination.”
Doesn’t a judge rather than a lawyer have the job of interpreting a law and determining it’s constitutionality? (Actually, it’s a modern myth that even the Supreme Court has absolute authority to interpret the Constitution, but certainly a lawyer doesn’t!) Here we have the very lawyer who should be championing the voters’ cause declaring that laws passed by due process are unconstitutional!
Last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court “marked a critical step forward” when it stuck down the federal government’s ban on recognizing same-sex marriages performed in states where such marriages are allowed, Holder said.
“More recently, and partly in response to the Windsor decision, a number of state attorneys-general—including those in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Virginia and just last week in Oregon, have reached similar determinations after applying heightened scrutiny to laws in their states concerning same-sex marriage.
“Now, any decisions at any level not to defend individual laws must be exceedingly rare. They must be reserved only for exceptional—truly exceptional—circumstances. And they must never stem merely from policy or political disagreements, hinging instead only on firm constitutional grounds.
Pretending to be objective, Holder instead demonstrated extreme bias and favoritism—not for the majorities who have voted to uphold marriage, but for the minority whose position was defeated time and time again at the ballot box.
“But in general, I believe we must be suspicious of legal classifications based solely on sexual orientation. And we must endeavor in all of our efforts to uphold and advance the values that once led our forebears to declare unequivocally that all are created equal and entitled to equal opportunity.”
So we see that in his statements, Attorney General Eric Holder turned the system of values espoused by our forebears on its head, using it to promote a policy and a “right” our ancestors would have considered abhorrent.
Finally, consider this. Ironically, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is often cited as a rationale to promote same-sex marriage. Yet this is the very amendment being violated by lawyers and judges seeking to promote the gay-rights agenda. Consider carefully what Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
All these elements underscore the fact that the people who have played by the rules and who have sought to protect marriage according to due process have been violated. They have not even gotten fair representation in court!
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/virginias-attorney-general-leaves-marriage-defenseless original link: http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/24623 (quoted extensively)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Vaughn-Walker-retired-judge-reflects-on-Prop-8-2375925.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/holder-invites-state-ags-do-he-did-refuse-defend-laws-banning-same-sex (quoted in its entirety)
http://humanevents.com/2014/02/25/attorney-general-holder-declares-an-end-to-the-rule-of-law/
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
Part 21: The Background: Proposition 8 Still Officially Remains a Part of the California Constitution, but It’s Enforcement Is Being Lawlessly Blocked
As of this writing in December of 2014, Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment California voters approved on November 4, 2008, remains a part of the California Constitution. When the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 26, 2013, Proposition 8 was not overturned—yet the courts allowed same-sex “marriages” to resume in the state. Writing for the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Andy Pugno, Prop 8 General Counsel, explained the situation in a letter to supporters. The letter is quoted here in its entirety.
Where does [California] Proposition 8 stand now?
Dear Friend,
Thank you for your patience since our last update. The recent months have been very hectic in the multi-front struggle to defend traditional marriage. At times our path has been cloudy, and the way forward difficult to see.
Today I’d like to review where Proposition 8 currently stands, how we got here, and what the future holds for marriage in California.
In a nutshell, the current status is this:
1.) To this day, Proposition 8 remains in place as Article I, Section 7.5 of the State Constitution, stating: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
2.) But, its enforcement is being blocked lawlessly due to the unethical collusion of state politicians and one corrupt federal judge.
At the outset, when the homosexual activists filed their lawsuit against Prop 8, they deliberately named only the Governor, the State Attorney General, and two hand-picked county clerks as defendants. The reason for that immediately became clear: Each of them promptly refused to defend Prop 8, clearing the way for Prop 8 to be struck down without opposition.
But that strategy was foiled by our appearance as Prop 8’s Official Proponents, stepping in to provide a legal defense for Prop 8. Our official role was later unanimously confirmed by California’s State Supreme Court, which designated us to formally represent the voters and defend Prop 8, in lieu of the Attorney General who refused to do so.
For the next four years, we fought tirelessly for Proposition 8’s legal defense. About this time last year, we reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The key question for the nation’s highest court was this: “Is there a federal constitutional right to same-sex ‘marriage’ that prevents states from adhering to the man-woman definition of marriage?”
Yet the Supreme Court did not provide an answer. Instead, the Court dodged the question entirely, by dismissing the case on a technicality, for “lack of jurisdiction.”
That is, a narrow 5-to-4 majority of the Court said that a voter-passed initiative can be defended only by government officials and—since the Governor and Attorney General refused to do so—the Court would not consider Proposition 8’s validity.
This left Proposition 8 in a kind of “legal limbo.”
So, with the nation’s highest court refusing to get involved and the voters frozen out of the process, the Governor and Attorney General moved swiftly to block Prop 8’s enforcement. By executive fiat, they threatened all of California’s 58 county clerks, commanding them to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses.
Initially, a handful of county clerks put up some resistance to these bully tactics. They correctly argued that the Supreme Court had not declared Prop 8 unconstitutional, and that each clerk has an independent obligation to obey the State Constitution, including Prop 8.
But the crushing force of the Attorney General’s legal threats, and the intense political pressure applied by militant homosexuals, were too much for them to bear. Eventually all 58 county clerks surrendered.
Then we made a long-shot attempt to convince California’s State Supreme Court to jump back into the fray. But, since the Court was not required to consider it, they also opted not to wade into this thorny issue.
So, as you can see, the votes of over seven million Californians have been suspended indefinitely, thanks to a lawless scheme by the Governor, the Attorney General, and a corrupt federal judge to silence the voice of the People.
Now, with government officials unilaterally blocking Prop 8’s enforcement, we are in exactly the kind of situation that the initiative and referendum power was designed to avoid: elevating politicians above the sovereign authority of the people.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out this absurd result in his dissenting opinion:
“The [Court majority’s] reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials—the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied…
“The very object of the initiative system is to establish a law-making process that does not depend upon state officials. In California, the popular initiative is necessary to implement “the theory that all power of government ultimately resides in the people.” … The California Supreme Court has determined that this purpose is undermined if the very officials the initiative process seeks to circumvent are the only parties who can defend an enacted initiative when it is challenged in a legal proceeding. Giving the Governor and attorney general this de facto veto will erode one of the cornerstones of the State’s governmental structure.”
Aside from the harmful impact of the Court’s ruling on future initiatives, a big question remains: How long can Proposition 8’s non-enforcement continue?
Many legal observers thought that Prop 8’s non-enforcement would be permanent, and viewed the Supreme Court’s inaction as evidence that the Court will avoid the issue for many years to come.
But recent developments could change all that…
We’ve now seen an outbreak of liberal federal judges all over the nation, striking down other states’ traditional marriage laws. The more aggressive they get, the more likely it is that the US Supreme Court will be forced to get involved sooner rather than later.
In particular, there are a couple of cases that seem on a fast track to the U.S. Supreme Court. In one case, in the State of Utah, the Supreme Court has already ordered a stop to the hasty issuance of same-sex marriage licenses while that case goes through its appeals.
It is possible one or more of these cases could reach the Supreme Court soon, possibly even later this year. And more importantly, those cases may offer a glimmer of hope for resurrecting Proposition 8.
You see, we think it is a mistake to interpret the Supreme Court’s disappointing choice to avoid Prop 8 as meaning they believe in a “constitutional right” to state-recognized same-sex marriage. In fact, after years of research and litigation, I still firmly believe that the Court—when forced to finally answer that question—will uphold the rights of states to decide for themselves.
And if the Supreme Court rules that there is no nationwide right to same-sex “marriage” (that is, rejecting the conclusion of Judge Walker in the Prop 8 case) the current scheme blocking Prop 8’s enforcement in California will become unsustainable.
In light of this possibility, our pro-marriage coalition has decided to remain engaged in this battle. We will closely monitor cases as they advance toward the Supreme Court, and prepare for opportunities to resurrect Proposition 8’s enforcement. And, equally important, we’ll continue to promote traditional marriage in the hearts and minds of our children and generations yet to come.
If you would like to continue supporting our work, we welcome your tax-deductible and confidential contribution of any size.
On behalf of the Defense Fund’s board of directors, thank you for standing with us throughout this difficult, but important, fight for truth. We consider it an honor to represent you.
Very truly yours,
Andy Pugno
Prop 8 General Counsel
P.S. It defies reason that a voter-passed law, still on the books, can be blocked by the collusion of a handful of politicians. Please help us seek justice today with a donation of any size. Thank you!
Donations are tax-deductible and confidential. Your personal information will not be publicly disclosed. The Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund (Tax ID #26-3689861) is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. If you prefer to donate via a check or money order, please send your donation via U.S. Mail to: Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund, PO Box 162849, Sacramento, CA 95816-2849.
Since this letter was written, the Supreme Court has refused to hear requests for appeals from several states where marriage protection amendments had been ruled unconstitutional by judges in lower courts, thus bringing same-sex marriage to even more states than ever before, despite constitutional amendments passed by voters in overwhelming numbers. This does not portend well for traditional marriage, but the background information Mr. Pugno provides is vitally important to understand.
Following the Prop 8 ruling by the Supreme Court in June of 2013, same-sex marriage was lawlessly reinstated in California, court approval notwithstanding. In fact, the courts became a party to the lawlessness. This started a chain reaction that has reverberated from coast to coast. Florida is a prime example. Resistance in Alabama met with some success, but the scenario in Alabama has been the exception. Same-sex “marriages” may be taking place in all but a few states in America, but the legal underpinnings of marriage policies where it is occurring lacks strength, substance, and legitimacy.
When lawlessness is enshrined into the fabric of life in the courts of a nation, the people need to resist—constructively, but forcefully.
How? Keep reading.
http://flfamily.org/press-releases/florida-marriage-amendment-overturned/
http://flfamily.org/press-releases/ffa-lawsuits-against-local-officials/
http://flfamily.org/marriage/update-attack-florida-marriage-laws/
Part 22: Where Do We Go from Here?
In this work, I have endeavored to document some of the egregious actions on the part of certain men and women in the legal profession as they have sought to impose, unfairly and unlawfully, same-sex marriage on the people of the United States. Much has been written about the overzealous Supreme Court that, in 1973, found a right to abortion in the US Constitution. Even supporters of legal abortion have criticized that decision. Even so, it is clear that if the path we are on remains unaltered, a parallel decision redefining marriage will likely be made by the High Court. If the court so rules and “piggy-backs” its decision on the flawed renderings of lower court judges (see “Part 2: Judges’ Flawed Reasoning”), as it looks like it will, it will have followed a course that is perhaps even more egregious than if it had “found” a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in its decision of June 26, 2013. At least with that scenario it would have taken ownership of the decision rather than trying to make it look like a tsunami of support to for redefining marriage has arisen within in a one-to-two-year-period.
Actually, public support for same-sex marriage has dropped in the past year, with less than a majority now favoring it. Why? Perhaps it is because people are beginning to wake up to the fact that same-sex marriage isn’t really about tolerance, but coercion. Just ask the bakers, photographers, florists, and bed and breakfast owners who have been targeted by gay rights groups. Ask magistrates in North Carolina who have resigned rather than perform weddings for same-sex couples. You also can ask Phil Robertson, David and Jason Benham, and Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar.
People need to be aware not only that homosexual activists and their allies are seeking to redefine marriage, but also that their efforts to redefine marriage are a means to an end. Actually, they want to destroy marriage altogether. This conflict is not about tolerance, but about whether or not the nature and fabric of society will be completely transformed.
We need to stand with the brave individuals who are refusing to compromise regarding marriage. Traditional marriage needs articulate defenders now more than ever! Now is not the time to back down, but to regroup, retool, and reassert our case to the American people. We must never do this in a vindictive or angry way, but in ways that uphold the truth in love. This analysis of the legal journey that had brought us to this place is offered as a means to this end.
Therefore, this report is not sour grapes, but the raising of very valid concerns. And to be clear, this report is not directed against homosexuals themselves, but against the lawless process that is imposing same-sex marriage on this nation. Laws are not to be recognized, respected, and obeyed arbitrarily. Two quotes from Martin Luther King apply here.
- “The church…is not the master or servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool.”
- “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
While in most situations we are not talking about direct civil disobedience just yet, it is not inconceivable that a day will come when pastors and churches are told they must perform and host same-sex weddings as well as traditional weddings—or none at all. Moreover, as we have noted, Christian businessmen and businesswomen are under pressure to violate their consciences as never before. Their being forced to do so is a clear violation of their First Amendment rights.
One of the reasons the civil rights movement succeeded was that, despite all it had going against it, the leaders of this movement appealed to an authority higher than the nation’s government, including its courts. Supporters of natural marriage need to do the same. Judges should never be allowed to rule arbitrarily, but must rule lawfully. Moreover, judges and lawyers must be held accountable to and by the people they serve.
We must call our nation back to the recognition of marriage as an institution of one man and one woman, even if we have to do so in an environment in which marriage has been redefined. This is exactly the kind of thing pro-lifers have done with regard to Roe v. Wade, and slowly but surely, their efforts have paid off.
As a part of this effort, we must inform people about the unlawful actions that have been taken to impose same-sex marriage on this nation. This dissemination of information must take place in written form as well as spoken, and when expressed verbally it must be through both personal conversations such as over the dinner table and the water cooler, and in corporate talks such as in sermons and in Sunday school lessons. While pastors should never depart from preaching the Bible and while Bible study leaders must never depart from teaching it, pastors and other spiritual leaders will have ample opportunities (and they have the responsibility) to inform those in their spheres of influence about these legal issues.
Christians, especially, should never be ashamed to uphold natural marriage as the social design best for society at large, especially children. The question is not whether or not homosexuals can be good and loving parents. Clearly they can. The question is, “In and with what structure do adults, society, and especially children benefit most?” The answer is clear: in and with family units where one man and one woman are committed to each other for life. From a child’s perspective, the answer is even more personal. A child benefits most when he or she grows up with his or her married, biological mom and dad.
If same-sex marriage were as benign or even as helpful as proponents say, why would they need to rely on the raw power of the judiciary to bring us to nationwide recognition of same-sex marriage? In pointing out the legal flaws and the abuses of power that have occurred on this journey, we can and should—indeed we must—redirect our people to a better understanding of marriage—the one that served us well at this nation’s founding and for more than two centuries thereafter.
May God give us the grace and the strength to make our case winsomely and effectively.
_________________________________________________
If you love God’s law, you fight for it tooth and nail.
—Proverbs 28:4b, The Message—
_________________________________________________
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/12/20/even-abortion-backers-admit-roe-vs-wade-was-a-terrible-decision/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388896/gay-marriage-support-falling-maggie-gallagher
http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/christian-vendors-locked-out-of-wedding-business/
http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/phil-robertson-is-my-1st-amendment-blood-brother/
_________________________________________________
On April 22 and 23 of 2015, Dr. James Dobson used his Family Talk radio broadcast to interview Brian Brown of the National Organization of Marriage, Dr. Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Church in La Mesa, California, a suburb of SanDiego, and conservative commentator Maggie Gallagher on the subject of the Supreme Court’s decision on marriage. How can we prepare? How should we respond? You can access these two programs here and here. For your convenience, you also can listen here:
Part 1
Part 2
_________________________________________________
Copyright © 2015 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All Rights Reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture has been taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Be First to Comment