FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 22, 2012
Contact: Anath Hartmann or Elizabeth Ray (703-683-5004)
Washington, D.C.—The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today said that the decision of the proponents of Proposition 8 to seek review of the panel’s split decision to overturn Prop 8 gives the Ninth Circuit the opportunity to correct a grievous error and reverse the panel’s decision.
“Even though we were looking forward to the US Supreme Court finally getting this case right away -- because we fully expect them to uphold Proposition 8 and traditional marriage -- we understand the desire of the proponents of Prop 8 to have the grievous error made by the panel reversed at the soonest possible moment,” said Brian Brown. “We wouldn’t normally have a lot of confidence in the Ninth Circuit, but the decision to invalidate Prop 8 is so outlandish that perhaps even the remaining justices of the Ninth Circuit itself won’t be able to stomach it. We can support this decision to seek en banc review.”
In a hotly-divided 2-1 opinion, a panel of the Ninth Circuit led by uber-liberal Justice Stephen Reinhardt ruled that Proposition 8 violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to US Constitution and is thus invalid. Reinhardt, the most overturned appellate court justice in America, wrote an opinion that ignored Supreme Court precedent and conflicts with every state and federal appellate court opinion that have upheld traditional marriage laws like Proposition 8.
“NOM will continue to support the efforts of the proponents of Propsoition 8 to defend the initiative and traditional marriage itself,” Brown said. “We look forward to the higher courts recognizing that marriage between one man and one woman not only is not unconstitutional, it is profoundly in the public good.”
###
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Anath Hartmann,ahartmann@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.
Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).
10 Comments
I like this decision. By going en banc prop 8 proponents provides the 9th with the opportunity to either correct the missteps of notoriously rouge jurists, or offer an even broader decision for SCOTUS review.
In exhausting all avenues of appeal prop 8 proponents could find themselves in the proverbial catbird seat; setting the marriage corruption movement back at least ten years.
"Hotly divided"??? The one dissenter is a Morman that ruled with his biblical moral view, and NOTHING based on the testimony of the trial.
None of the judges relied on the trial testimony any more than the Supreme Court in United States v. Virginia , or the Sixth Circuit in Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati v. City of Cincinnati , relied on the trial testimony of their respective cases.
Douglas,it's not as if the trial judge's "findings of fact" had anything to do with the truth,and the appellate panel knew that relying on them would make their ruling a laughingstock.It was hard enough to ignore the standing case law requiring the complaint to be dismissed.
I don't like this decision....I hope you guys know what you're doing.
Zack: It was either that or allow Prop8 to be reversed by activists judges and resuming SSM in the state.
@John Noe
I guess...well...just hopin it gets to the Supreme Court
Zack,
If the 9th curcuit upholds this decision, it will go to the USSC.
Requesting en blanc to the full 9th circuit doesn't hurt the pro-8 cause and may actually help.
@AM
Still iffy about it....but I'll accept it.
AM, how would losing full en banc help at the supreme court?
It will not. It would hurt.
They are looking for a broader ruling in hopes that the supreme court will even take the case, because otherwise they will very likely refuse and same sex marriages will resume in california.
It is a dangerous game they are playing however. Because if the supreme court were to uphold a broader ruling same sex marriage would become a reality in the entire ninth circuit, and a nationwide precedent would also be set.