BREAKING NEWS! Prop 8 Proponents Have Standing To Defend Initiative in Federal Court


Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

In a huge victory for NOM and supporters of Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the proponents of the initiative have the legal right to defend the initiative in court.

This is a major victory for the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund and the lead Prop 8 attorney, Chuck Cooper.

Had the Supreme Court not agreed with the backers of Prop 8 that the Proponents have the legal standing to defend the initiative, it is very likely that the ruling of a rogue judge that overturned Prop 8 would have gone unchallenged. This is because Governor Jerry Brown, his predecessor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Kamala Harris have shamefully refused to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to defend the marriage initiative in court, despite it being passed with the support of over 7 million California voters.

NOM was the largest contributor to putting Prop 8 on the ballot and has given $300,000 to help defend it in court.

Now the hard work begins. The constitutionality of Prop 8 has already been argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which requested the California Supreme Court to determine if state law gave the proponents the right to defend the measure on appeal. Presuming the Ninth Circuit accepts the answer it got today that the proponents DO have standing, they will issue their ruling determining whether the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman violates the US Constitution.

It's almost crazy to say this out loud — that somehow the core institution of society, marriage as the union of a man and a woman, violates our federal constitution. Yet that is what the lower court judge, Vaughn Walker, determined. Walker is the rogue San Francisco federal justice who has been in a long term homosexual relationship.

We'll be candid — we don't hold out a lot of hope of upholding Prop 8 in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Remember, this court is noted for their extreme liberalism and is the most overturned court in America. But whatever ruling the Ninth Circuit issues will speed this case to the US Supreme Court, where we can finally get a ruling on the merits.

NOM is confident that we will win this case when it gets to the United States Supreme Court. But there is a huge challenge we must help meet first – money.

The good news is that supporters of Proposition 8 have secured the right to defend the intiative. The bad news is that this will cost millions of dollars—money that we don't have. We urgently need your help.


We are already fighting on so many fronts—trying to defeat efforts in Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, fighting to get the people of Iowa and New York the right to vote on an amendment, and working in countless state legislatures, like New Hampshire, Maryland, Rhode Island and New Jersey.

But defending one of our greatest accomplishments, the passage of Proposition 8 in California, cannot take a back seat to our current challenges. Somehow, we must do both.

This is the case that could become the Roe v. Wade of marriage. Imagine the damage to the gay marriage movement when the US Supreme Court rules definitively that the US Constitution does NOT contain a right to same-sex marriage! This case could become the pivotal moment in the entire battle.

NOM is only one part of the coalition working to fund the legal defense of the initiative in court. But we have an important part to play. We've already given $300,000 to the defense effort, but that is just a small fraction of the overall cost. Our opponents have unlimited resources from billionaires in Hollywood and on Wall Street. We must rely on the generosity of donors like you.

Would you please make a sacrificial gift today to help defend Proposition 8 in court? Everything you give will be used to support the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund. Every penny. We hope to be able to free up other resources to add to what you can give.

Chuck Cooper and his legal team have won a major victory for marriage. Now it is up to us to make sure that we take advantage of the opportunity we've won. Please, help us preserve marriage by contributing today.



Brian Brown

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
NOM Education Fund


  1. Louis E.
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

    Rob,your denial doesn't change the facts.Couples being of opposite sexes (regardless of whether they happen to call themselves "straight" or "gay") is something the good of the human race requires everyone be taught to see as the only kind that makes sense.Dissent from this offers no exemption from it whatsoever.

  2. Rob
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 11:36 pm | Permalink

    Well, ok, Louis, your "because I said so!" reasoning is persuasive! Again, how does the state benefit by denying marriage rights to gay couples but not to straight couples?

  3. Rob
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 11:39 pm | Permalink

    Little man, I highly recommend the transcripts of the Prop 8 trial, as well as the amicus briefs. I think you'll understand better the faulty constitutional footing the discriminatory marriage statutes are on.

    "How can due process compare two partnerships that are not the same type, and call them equal?"

    But they are the same type, that's the point: committed relationships, shared resources, often raising children, etc. How can the state favor straight couples in a committed relationship, sharing resources and raising children but not gay couples in a committed relationship, sharing resources and raising children, especially when it offers both the exact same rights? Why call the same thing by different names?

  4. Louis E.
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 12:10 am | Permalink

    Rob,your "it's not true!" reasoning gets you nowhere.
    Once more,the issue is OPPOSITE-SEX,versus SAME-SEX,not "straight" or "gay" which have no relevance at all.
    The state benefits when persons of opposite sexes commit to each other and is hurt by persons of the same sex committing to each other.Thus,it needs to make it easier to share resources and obtain/retain custody of children if one commits to an opposite rather than a same-sex partner.

  5. j. fox
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 12:56 am | Permalink

    You want to read something really illogical and nutty, go read prop 8 by activist judge Walker or in iowa, varnum versus Iowa.

  6. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 1:01 am | Permalink

    "there is no public purpose in granting special rights, like marriage, for straight people. There is no compelling interest in favoring straight couples' relationships over gay couples' relationships."

    How is the state supposed to clearly define "straight couple" vs. "gay couple?"

    For instance, if a gay man marries a gay woman, are they a gay couple? If two straight men get married, are they a straight couple? Sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic. Couples don't have rights--people do.

    The state has an interest in opposite-sexed couples for the very fact that only they can naturally procreate. You'll notice that states don't give marriage licenses to a brother and sister, even though they love each other, and share similar characteristics to other couples. The state doesn't want them to procreate, so it doesn't license them to marry and do so. Marriage is a sexual relationship, but the state (which means your fellow citizens) doesn't have any need to regulate non-fertile relationships because they can't procreate, ever. And the state doesn't have an interest in incentivizing the creation of children that will automatically be denied a mother or father, because their mom or dad has a same-sex partner.

  7. bman
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 2:25 am | Permalink

    bman->There is no fundamental right to have an alternative form of marriage publicly recognized

    Rob->There is, however, a constitutional right to due process and equal treatment under the law.

    Of course there is a constitutional right to due process and equal treatment under the law.

    However, the Supreme Court has already examined if that applies to same sex marriage and it rejected the argument in Baker v. Nelson.

    The majority of high courts to consider the issue since 2003 have also rejected it.

    There is no Constitutional right to have same sex marriage publicly recognized or any alternative form of marriage.

  8. bman
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 2:37 am | Permalink

    Molly->All I will say is this....

    If that is all you will say then you are simply asserting your viewpoint.

    What about your statement that marriage is a private and not social matter?

    Are you still asserting that, or do you accept you need to modify that?

    Did you come here to simply assert your view or to challenge your view by engaging the arguments?

  9. bman
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 3:23 am | Permalink

    Jack Galvin->People are born gay...."

    Why, then, does the APA say differently?

    There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...

    from the APA brochure, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality."

    The fact is various theories exist about orientation.

    Your comment tries to define law based on an unproved theory.

  10. Bruce
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    I'm glad you see that the APA as a reliable source of information, bman, but I wonder why do you stop the quote at that particular point?

    "Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; MOST PEOPLE EXPERIENCE LITTLE OR NO SENSE OF CHOICE ABOUT THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION." (emphasis mine)

  11. Louis E.
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    Bruce,that's really unimportant,because actually engaging in same-sex sexual activity IS a choice,an intrinsically WRONG choice,and sexual orientation can not absolve anyone of blame for it any more than a drunk driver can get off for being an alcoholic.

  12. ResistSSA
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    I think it's funny that people who have given up their right to form a procreative relationship in exchange for a self-gratifying, non-procreative one think that that the rest of the world should share in their conclusion that procreation is unimportant. Maybe they wish that they were never born.

    So, instead of promoting relationships that lead to happy, healthy, stable environments for children, the government should instead throw thousands of taxpayers' dollars toward research for HIV/AIDS, the hallmark of the homosexual community's preferred form of "sexual" behavior.

  13. bman
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Bruce->...I wonder why do you stop the quote at that particular point? "Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; MOST PEOPLE EXPERIENCE LITTLE OR NO SENSE OF CHOICE ABOUT THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION." (emphasis mine)

    My purpose was to show Jack Galvin was only offering a theory.

    As for, "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation" why did you stop there?

    If you think its important you should draw some conclusion from it, such as, "Therefore this means [fill in the blank]..."

    As it stands, your post offers a premise but no conclusion.

  14. Bruce
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    You're right, bman, I didn't offer a conclusion based on the premises that had been presented. And congratulations for understanding a proper argument includes at least one premise and a conclusion. I didn't offer my conclusion because I thought it was obvious.

    But you avoided my question. Why end the quote in mid-sentence? It's true that there's good evidence that genetics plays a role but doesn't completely deteremine sexual orientation, but it's also true that it isn't chosen. I can't speak for Jack Galvin, but I think "born gay" is often used metaphorically to mean not chosen. I have a hunch that you truncated the quote because doing so better served your purpose; hence, my still unanswered question to you.

  15. Little man
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Hey Rob: No you can't. If same-sex civil marriage activists want their partnerships recognized, they must start by declaring themselves without that right, and seeks that right through their State Legislature, and or US Congress. I would accept that process (and its result) as rational. Piggy-back on the Institution of Marriage (still extant in most States, and growing) isn't rational. I will let the Supreme Court decide about Prop8, because neither you nor i are the experts in charge. But you writing that same-sex committed partnerships (which i assume you mean are of homosexual persuasion) are of the same type (just for being committed and raising children) belies your skills of observation - first, most same-sex partnerships are not of homosexual persuasion (most are blood-related) - second, most partnerships of homosexual persuasion don't want committed relationships - third, no same-sex partnerships can reproduce on their own, - fourth, they are self-regulating (the governments have little public interest in supporting same-sex partnerships of homosexual persuasion, compared to the public interest related to opposite-sex couples to be regulated). Most important, same-sex partnerships do not engender children, they only adopt. Oh! You must have forgotten to mention that.... what a little oversight. Genetic mothers and fathers spend 9 months toiling and worrying about a fetus, providing for its health, the woman coming as close to death perhaps as any other time in her life, her body changes into that of a woman forever, then they pay the hospital bills perhaps through insurance, and then rear their own genetic son or daughter. And you have the nerve to equate it to a 'committed' same sex partnership. There is no equality. Your argument is based on a false premise.

  16. bman
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

    Bruce->You're right, bman, I didn't offer a conclusion based on the premises that had been presented. ...because I thought it was obvious.

    You still need to apply it to something to have a conclusion.

    Since you can't say it proves they were born that way, as that contradicts the previous section, what conclusion are you driving at?

    But you avoided my question. Why end the quote in mid-sentence?

    I answered it implicitly when I stated my purpose was to show "born that way" is only a theory.

    To be more specific,

    (1) the previous section established the key point, (2) the last section was logically different from the first section and did not contradict the first section.
    (3) I expected Jack would be distracted from the first section if I included the last section
    (4) the last section is not about what causes SSA. (5) the last section describes "a perception" which may be explained by the development of a "second nature," distinct from the primary nature one is born with.
    (6) the "no choice" language has connotations that need to avoided. Instead of saying "no choice" it should be said that SSA is perceived as being spontaneous. This avoids the suggestion that the person has "no choice" in how they respond to it. The average man will perceive a spontaneous attraction to multiple women, for example, but that is no excuse for promiscuity.

    As to why SSA is perceived to be spontaneous, new research is emerging on Neuroplasticity that may hold the answer.

    It seems brain anatomy changes based on how the brain is trained to respond to environmental conditions.

    Dr.Neil Whitehead has a chapter in his online book that explains neuroplasticity titled, " Are brains gay?"

    You can download it from at

  17. bman
    Posted November 21, 2011 at 1:50 am | Permalink

    Bruce->I'm glad you see that the APA as a reliable source of information...

    By default, I don't view it as such.

    But when it posts something contrary to its political interests then its probably true.

  18. leehawks
    Posted November 21, 2011 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    Bman: That Jane Galt blog posting was wonderful. Thanks for sharing. Everyone should read it.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.