NOM BLOG

NOM Commends California Supreme Court Decision Granting Standing of Proposition 8 Proponents to Defend Measure in Higher Courts

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 17, 2011
Contact: Mary Beth Hutchins (615-337-3710)


NOM Logo

Ruling Clears Way for Prop 8 to Eventually Head to the US Supreme Court

Washington — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today praised the unanimous decision of the California Supreme Court recognizing that California law gives initiative proponents the right to defend their own initiative, and predicted the ruling would speed the case to the US Supreme Court where NOM expects a victory. NOM was the largest contributor to qualifying Prop 8 to the ballot and has invested substantial funds in the defense of the initiative in court.

“It has been nothing short of shameful to see Governor Jerry Brown, his predecessor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Kamala Harris abdicate their constitutional responsibility to defend Proposition 8 in Court,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “Although today’s ruling from the California Supreme Court confirms that the proponents of Prop 8 have the right to defend their initiative when the state officials refuse to fulfill their sworn duty, it is gratifying to know that the over 7 million Californians who supported the initiative will have a vigorous defense of their decision in our federal courts.”

The decision of the California Supreme Court today now will be considered by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which must ultimately decide whether the right of Initiative proponents recognized under state law meets the requirement for legal standing in the federal court. While the decision of the California Supreme Court is not binding on the Ninth Circuit, it seems certain that the Ninth Circuit would not ignore the advice, having asked the California Supreme Court to address this legal question.

“With this victory in hand, it is time for the Ninth Circuit to move the Prop 8 litigation forward to its eventual decision by the US Supreme Court,” Brown said. “We fully expect the Ninth Circuit, the most overturned court in America, to invalidate Prop 8, finding some phony right to same-sex marriage in the US constitution. However, once this case gets out of San Francisco and reaches the US Supreme Court, we fully expect to be victorious.”

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, or John Eastman, Chairman of the Board, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, or Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.

###

12 Comments

  1. NormanF
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 4:53 am | Permalink

    Protecting marriage is the first and foremost responsibility of society.

    California's corrupt elite would not attend to it so the voters of that state had to set them straight.

    I do understand liberals don't like their decision. But in a society based on definitive principles we must maintain clarity about marriage and the family.

    This is about that - it has always been about that and never about gays rights to live together.

    Every one has freedom of association irrespective of sexual orientation but no one has the right to redefine the meaning of the family unit for society.

    This is only way we can protect every one's rights and make it clear to our children the values we believe in, that our ancestors taught us are necessary for the well-being of those now alive as well as of their posterity.

  2. NormanF
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 5:02 am | Permalink

    Gays and unmarried persons have all the rights and benefits of marriage apart from the name in California.

    They are not satisfied with the fact that true equality is impossible.

    That has never existed in any relationship in history. Liberals are trying to foist on us a spurious "right" that has no legitimate precedent.

    There has never been until now in history any controversy over what is meant by marriage.

  3. NormanF
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 5:10 am | Permalink

    Proposition 22 was a initiative law passed by the voters to protect marriage as being only between a man and a woman.

    California's State Supreme Court jumped the gun before voters could decide to give it constitutional backing.

    And yes, the people of the state in passing Proposition 8 as an amendment to their state Constitution, affirmed the court decided it wrongly and they always retain the sovereign power to overrule it for the common good.

    Liberalism has lost sight of the common good in our country in pushing the special interest agenda of the homosexual lobby.

    The rights of a civilized society prevails over the injured pride of at best a minority of individuals in it. That is, the right of society to define and defend the fundamental basis of its very existence.

  4. Son of Adam
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 5:45 am | Permalink

    "The Argument against marriage equality is ridiculous and doesn't hold up under scrutiny in a courtroom."

    The arguments for natural marriage has indeed held up in a vast majority of courtrooms, Brian.

    http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.Jan2011-2-american-courts.pdf

  5. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    "The Argument against marriage equality is ridiculous and doesn't hold up under scrutiny in a courtroom."

    I guess it depends on how you define marriage equality. Not all voluntary relationships are equally the same. A same-sex relationship, whether between of whatever combination of sexual orientations, is inherently different than an opposite-sexed one for obvious reasons.

    Equal treatment of individual citizens is not affected by defining marriage by gender. Bringing sexual orientation into a gender-issue is mixing apples and oranges.

    We can designate different voluntary relationships with different titles, even though they might share a few common denominator characteristics. Business partners might be same-sexed or opposite-sexed, but we don't issue them a marriage license when they go into business together. We issue them a business license. Marriage has a different meaning altogether.

    If we don't allow for gender segregation in other public institutions, why would we allow it in the public institution of marriage?

    Marriage between a man and a woman already demonstrates equality. The two individuals involved can enjoy whatever sexual orientation they want to declare. And each sex is equally represented in each and every union.

    So, making this an issue about gay "rights"--rights they have but refuse to acknowledge, is a classic red herring argument.

  6. Posted November 18, 2011 at 11:01 pm | Permalink

    The states should call for a constitutional convention to consider, and consider only, the Marriage Amendment. We could pressure the Supreme Court not to rule in favor on SSM, pressure Congress to go ahead and pass the Amendment and send it to the states, or even go through with the Amendment Convention. For the feasibility of a one amendment and one amendment only convention , see "The National Spectator' 10/10 issue. Different issue, same process.

  7. Louis E.
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

    The Constitution was the creation of a convention called to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation.Its language on Constitutional Conventions makes NO provision for their agenda to be limited.The movement to get a balanced-budget amendment passed by convention came within two states when it finally became clear to enough people that the attempt to limit a Convention's agenda would be invalidated.The Constitution gives two options,you call a Convention that can propose anything it likes including replacing the whole Constitution from scratch,or you don't call a Convention!

  8. Little man
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

    Rover Serton: You would say, of course, 'equality' is your only motivation to support same-sex civil marriage. What does motivation have to do with anything? How about reason?

  9. WeTheSheeple
    Posted November 21, 2011 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    Gay men had the right to marry each other prior to Prop 8 passing.
    Lesbians had the right to marry each other prior to Prop 8 passing.

    It doesn't matter how that right came to be, but the simple fact is they had that right. That's why the 9th circuit will overturn Prop 8- it took away an existing right.

  10. Louis E.
    Posted November 22, 2011 at 2:20 am | Permalink

    You're saying that how wrong and harmful a "right" can be,it can never be taken away?
    We got rid of the "right" to own slaves,didn't we?

    California allows too many rights to same-sex relationships as it is,the general welfare requires that their status be permanently and unambiguously inferior to opposite-sex relationships.The greater importance of the latter to human society can not be sanely treated as subject to the slightest doubt.

  11. Brian O.
    Posted November 25, 2011 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    The fact that NOM has contributed so much money to uphold Proposition 8 is clearly evidence of its constitutionality! Thanks, NOM!

  12. ChuckGG
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    NOM should be careful what it wishes for. Based upon reading the arguments in the case presided over by Judge Walker, it is very clear Prop-8 stands no chance of prevailing in the Supreme Court, if the court decides to hear it, and that still is up for grabs. The logic against Prop-8 are very logical and clear. Those for retaining Prop-8, at best, are grabbing at straws. If this does get to SCOTUS, I predict an easy win for Marriage Equality.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.