My Dear Friends,
Prop 8 is headed to the full Ninth Circuit, as chief legal eagle Chuck Cooper and his crack legal team announced this week.
Here's the thing I want you to notice about how this case is unfolding.
First, as the New York Times recently admitted, even Judge Reinhardt and his liberal colleagues did not bite on the big arguments endorsed by Judge Walker and the alleged dream team of California Ted Olson and David Boies.
The majority did not accept the broadest argument pressed by Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, the celebrity legal team challenging Proposition 8, the voter initiative that overturned a California Supreme Court decision recognizing a right to same-sex marriage. Mr. Olson and Mr. Boies had urged the appeals court to find that the federal Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry—a rationale that would apply in all 50 states.
Instead Judge Reinhardt went for an allegedly "smaller" argument that applies only to California and a few other states: Once a state grants civil unions, it cannot retreat from gay marriage.
The gay legal establishment applauds this decision. Why? Because they believe it makes it less likely the case will end up being reviewed by the Supreme Court.
The New York Times lets the cat out of the bag: "Many gay rights advocates breathed a sigh of relief. They had long been wary of the Proposition 8 suit, preferring a state-by-state litigation and lobbying strategy over betting the farm on a case that was likely to end up in the United States Supreme Court. Some said they hoped the justices would now decline to hear an idiosyncratic case affecting a single state."
The gay legal establishment is desperately trying to keep the Supreme Court from reviewing their work.
Why? Because they don't really think they can win.
There is no federal Constitutional right to gay marriage. Gay people in the United States are hardly a powerless minority in need of the extraordinary special protections the Court developed, under the authority of the 14th Amendment, to prevent racial discrimination.
And they know it!
Please help us protect Prop 8 in court by giving generously to defend marriage, the rights of voters, and our Constitution from judges like Reinhardt.
Marriage in New Jersey is headed back to state court, after Gov. Chris Christie followed through on his promise to veto same-sex marriage.
This week a New Jersey judge ruled that the attorney general appointed by Chris Christie had offered arguments for marriage that were just too weak—"tradition"—and reinstated the argument made by same-sex couples that New Jersey's marriage law violates the federal Constitution—because New Jersey permits civil unions!
Marriage in Washington state is headed to the voters. Joseph Backholm is heading up the Family Policy Institute of Washington, and an initial poll from a Democratic polling firm suggests that even in this blue secular state, the people are not enthusiastic about gay marriage. Right now, voters say they are roughly divided over repealing the law—better than the initial polls out of California!
Rob Schwarzwalder, a senior vice-president of the Family Research Council, just announced a personal boycott of Starbucks over the company's endorsement and promotion of gay marriage in the state of Washington:
"[CEO Howard] Schultz's decrying of divisiveness rings a bit hollow when he plunges his company feet-first into the culture wars. ...Claiming to be post-political and then allowing one's chief corporate spokesperson to say that same-sex 'marriage' is 'is core to who we are and what we value as a company' are assertions that don't quite add up.
"So, for now, at least, I will buy my overpriced flavored coffees elsewhere. I dislike boycotts for a number of reasons, but am undertaking a personal one at present. Being for marriage, as understood in the Judeo-Christian context and Western tradition, is much more to 'the core of who I am' than a Starbucks iced mocha ever will be."
In Maryland pastors are asking their flocks to think about what's really core to who they are and what they value.
The Maryland senate will probably vote today on same-sex marriage. Maryland is one of the states which permit the people to veto bills passed by the legislature.
And pastors in Maryland, especially the black church, are showing that they will not give up marriage without a fight, as even the Washington Post makes clear:
Holding a Bible and an 8-month-old baby, the Rev. Nathaniel B. Thomas stood before his congregation at Forestville New Redeemer Baptist Church on Sunday and declared that last week's vote in the Maryland House of Delegates supporting same-sex marriage will spark a new battle.
"It ain't over until God says that it is over," Thomas said. "It took one woman to take prayer out of schools. There are too many weak-knee Christians. This is bigger than same-sex marriage. It is about changing society."
"This is really a wake-up call for the faith community," agreed the Rev. Elwood Gray, pastor of the Peace in the Valley Baptist Church in Silver Spring.
Money talks in politics. Fawning media coverage also helps. But at times like these we also know: There are forces in the universe greater than money or politics; and with your help we will take the fight for marriage to the people, all across this great land, and we will win.
Thank you! I'm so grateful to the thousands of you who have fought back, spoken for marriage, sacrificed your time and your treasure in defense of something so basic, so wonderful and so good: God's vision of marriage, the natural understanding of marriage, rooted in Scripture, yes, but also in common sense, history and human nature.
In other national news this week, the Human Rights Campaign is going on TV to make the absurd argument that supporting marriage is going to hurt the GOP candidates for president. (As you know, all the remaining candidates except Ron Paul have signed NOM's Marriage Pledge, promising to fight judge-lead efforts to impose gay marriage.) Of course the media echoes that view.
In the Wall Street Journal, Bill McGurn put his finger on what he calls "the most glaring double standard" in American politics:
When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, he declared that marriage is between a man and a woman. For the most part, his position was treated as a nonissue.
Now Rick Santorum is campaigning for president. He too says that marriage is between a man and a woman. What a different reaction he gets.
In the media, he means. That glaring double standard "helps explain why candidates with social views that are fairly conventional among ordinary Americans—the citizens of 31 states including California have rejected same-sex marriage when put to a vote—find themselves depicted as extreme."
Here's NOM's co-founder Maggie Gallagher on Al-Jazeera taking on the Human Rights Campaign's communication director and his absurd arguments with her usual grace:
When people start down the path of pushing a fundamental untruth, it's hard for them to figure out when to stop fibbing!
Federally, the Obama administration announced once again that it's punting on the defense of DOMA, this time in the context of same-sex couples in the military. Bill Duncan, director of the Marriage Law Foundation, read the letter Attorney General Eric Holder sent explaining Pres. Obama's position, and just scratched his head:
"It's all just made up. There's no part of the Constitution that talks about sexual orientation, the need for the government to give benefits to people," he said. "This is really troubling because it's a pattern. We're not dealing with an administration that adheres to the basic constitutional principle that the government is supposed to do only what it's given power to do by the Constitution."
Red Alert Politics, an online hub for young conservatives sponsored by The Weekly Standard and the Washington Examiner, interviewed our own Thomas Peters on using social media to fight for marriage and other good causes.
...In addition to blogging, Peters works at the National Organization for Marriage where he is overseeing a project to identify and encourage young activists who are pro-marriage.
Marriage could be a big issue this year, with a number of states—like Washington and Maryland— considering legislation to legalize gay marriage. Other states, including Minnesota and North Carolina, are trying to add traditional marriage to the state constitution.
As part of his work for NOM, Peters travels the country speaking to young people, and teaching them how to defend their views.
"We have to work hard at understanding our own conservative principles so we are better equipped to defend and promote them," he said.
And social media is key, he noted, "It contributes to a more robust and free democracy."
We are not giving up on any state, or any court—or on the next generation.
When the going gets tough—that's when we recognize that we have to depend on faith, hope, and above all love of our country and our Creator to see us through.
It's an honor to serve as your voice for our shared values.
This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.
32 Comments
What?!
The 9th Circuit did exactly what courts are supposed to do: examine the facts, consult the Constitution, and issue a ruling with the narrowest possible consequences.
The proponents of Prop 8 had the opportunity to appeal the 9th Circuit's decision to SCOTUS, but decided to seek an en banc hearing instead.
Clearly the proponents are the people afraid of heading to SCOTUS, not equality supporters.
Yikes, these NOM reports are so dishonest and vicious! What is it about equal legal rights for gays and lesbians that makes homophobes so nasty and hate-filled?
One thing that I love about the same-sex marriage issue is that it has exposed religionists for the hate-mongers that I always suspected them of being, behind all that fake piety.
Jim,
Who are you trying to convince?
You no doubt cheered as you read Walker's ridiculous declaration of facts; yet here we are eighteen months after the fact and now you are cheering a three judge review of your hero's infamous findings that goes out of its way to avoid referencing a single opinion your yesteryear champion noted as his rational for reversing the decision of well over seven million lawful U.S. citizens.
The best your two judge majority can come up with is that we the people do not have the right to reverse the 5 to 4 decision of appointed attorneys; and then you cheer as though you just won something?
Have you no shame?
Crack legal team?
LOL
Maybe you meant smoking crack if they think they will get any better result at the full 9th let alone the Supreme Court where the ruling was written specifically to appeal to Kennedy s sweet spot.
There seems to be no mention on this site of yesterday's ruling striking down DOMA as unconstitutional, the second such ruling by a federal court. Yesterday's decision was authored by district court judge appointed by George W. Bush, no less. Better to not play up your losses I suppose. Not only is Prop 8 in very serious trouble but DOMA would appear to be on its way out as well. February has been a very good month for marriage equality.
One man and one woman equals marriage... Period
"Gay people in the United States are hardly a powerless minority in need of the extraordinary special protections the Court developed, under the authority of the 14th Amendment, to prevent racial discrimination" Maybe not powerless, but a minority nonetheless. And if Prop 8 supporters are relying on CC and his team, they should be very nervous.
@ Jim T.
The DOMA ruling you note was in San Francisco and was dependent upon strict scrutiny; every appellate court up to SCOTUS as affirmed in a dozen such cases that Rational Basis is the proper level with which to hold suits of this type.
This will be just another smack down of a District judge in San Francisco that refuses to adhere to precedence in an obvious attempt to get Justice Kennedy to approve - it will never get that far.
Translation:
You say that so much it has lost its meaning.
Jim T., it's simple. The judge is an activist judge, and he made the wrong call. He's not a god, but a very short-sighted fallible human being, and he made the wrong decision.
Great article, Brian. I'm loving the weekly newsletters
Robert,what is "dishonest and vicious" is the characterization of what is at stake as a matter of "equal legal rights for gays and lesbians".There is no basis for treating same-sex sexual relationships as if they were of as much worth to humanity as opposite-sex ones,and institutions devised specifically to reward the latter for their being opposite-sex must not be deprived of that purpose.Desire to violate a standard of conduct does not entitle you to violate that standard with impunity.
Robert,what is "dishonest and vicious" is the characterization of what is at stake as a matter of "equal legal rights for gays and lesbians".There is no basis for treating same-sex sexual relationships as if they were of as much worth to humanity as opposite-sex ones,and institutions devised specifically to reward the latter for their being opposite-sex must not be deprived of that purpose.Desire to violate a standard of conduct does not entitle you to violate that standard with impunity.
(I am not a religious person and this is not a religious issue).
Randy E. King # 3
Total win
Also in your comment #8:
This was a district court judge, no?
How can the judge ignore the rational basis rulings by the higher court? I thought they were bound by the higher courts.
Robert said, "What is it about equal legal rights for gays and lesbians that makes homophobes so nasty and hate-filled?"
With regards to marriage eligibility, can you produce proof that shows people who self-identify as "gay" are prohibited from marriage based on their sexual orientation? Can you even produce documentation that requires individual citizens to publicly declare their sexual orientation? SSM is organized around sex, not sexual orientation. Unless you're demanding equal marriage rights for non-homosexual same-sex couples, such as sisters, brothers, or a parent/child relationship, you're revealing your own bias and discrimination; indeed you run the risk of declaring your own phobia against non-homosexual same-sex relationships.
"One thing that I love about the same-sex marriage issue is that it has exposed religionists for the hate-mongers that I always suspected them of being, behind all that fake piety."
You measure others by your own yard stick and come up short.
Can you formulate a coherent argument in behalf of SSM? One that doesn't include homosexual bias?
Is NOM planning a response to yesterday's district court ruling that found DOMA unconstitutional?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/23/BA1T1NB5MR.DTL
"Although the Court finds that DOMA is subject to and fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny, it notes that numerous courts have found that the statue fails even rational basis review." (32)
"Further,, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further " (42)
Maryland becomes state #8 to approve freedom and equality. This is unstoppable!
Two points, Daughter of Eve. Marriage is one of the most fundamental rights. Nothing in that statement excluded same sex couples. Our country was founded on the principle of equality for all. Again, nothing in that excluded homosexuals. What part of either of those statements do you not understand?
The People of Maryland will overturn this circus act and remove those who voted for it in November.
People who disagree with homosexuality or same sex marriage are not homophobic, Nor are they bigot. ,By the same token heterosexuals can call homosexual people heterophobic and delusional. I don't know any body that fears a gay person. The gay community have done a very clever job in intimidating the public into backing down from being against same sex marriage. The gays ride on the backs of other groups' holocaust to shape their agenda.They use human intellect, celebrities, and the promise of money to politicians to gain ground. But those of us that believe against and stand against same sex marriage will not back down even in the face of apparent defeat. We see the train wreck up ahead for our society if homosexuality becomes the law of the land in America. In the end it will be God who will settle this issue. God said and echoed by His Son Jesus that "a man is to leave his father and mother and cleave to a wife and the twain shall be one flesh", hence the INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE. Therefore there is no such thing as 'marriage equality 'between homosexuals and heterosexuals in the sight of God. A husband and wife can produce children at any given moment through physical lovemaking. Two men or two women simply CAN'T do that. How do you follow the geneaology of gay couples? How do you follow their 'family tree'? Homosexuals cannot ever be 'fruitful and multiply' which is the backbone of the existence of the human race. And just because heterosexuals get divorces does not take away the sanctity of the institution of marriage.
To everyone, Jesus says "know the truth and the truth will make you free".
AD, you don't remember when Maine passed ssm and the people vetoed it? Trust me, the redefinition of marriage is stoppable.
clearly maggie! . . even requesting another review by the most liberal court in america to avoid it.
AD,it's NOT "freedom and equality",and it's unforgivable.
Didn't the california district court just strike down DOMA? Where can I get a copy of the ruling?
Correct, Randy.
Not only that, the anti-DOMA ruling actually misstated the holding of one of the cases on which it relied.
op. at 18, citing Witt, 527 F.3d 806 at 821 (9th Cir. 2008)
But...
Witt, 527 F.3d at 821
By holding that DADT survives an equal protection challenge because it satisfies rational basis scrutiny, Witt necessarily held that rational basis scrutiny is appropriate for deciding equal protection claims against policies that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Would those who have lived in 1868 have regarded promoting marriage as at least a legitimate government interest? Justice Thomas Stanley Matthews, who was alive when the 14th Amendment was ratified, wrote in obiter dicta that "“[C]ertainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony" Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 at 45 Matthews was quoted in the summary and analysis for DOMA. DOMA, of course, is related to this interest.
In fact, in a ruling that held that Alaska's marriage amendment does not foreclose state equal protection claims by same-sex couples, and struck down a law very much like the one used to deny Karen Golinski benefits, the Alaska Supreme Court held that held that promoting marriage is at least a legitimate government interest. Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. Alaska, 122 P.3d 781 at 792-793 (Ak. Sup. Ct. 2005)
But if DOMA, as applied in this case, is not related to the interest of promoting procreation within a monogamous, opposite-sex union nor the interest of promoting the raising of children in the optimal familial setting heading by such a union, and if promoting marriage is not in itself a legitimate government interest contrary to the Alaska Supreme Court's holding in Alaska Civil Liberties Union, then how can denying federal benefits to single persons while offering them to married persons be rationally related to the interest of promoting procreation within a monogamous, opposite-sex union or the interest of promoting the raising of children in the optimal familial setting heading by such a union? For certainly denying those benefits to unmarried persons who want to share them with roommates, or brothers or sisters, or cousins, or business partners, does not prevent procreation within a monogamous, opposite-sex union, nor does it prevent such couples from raising children.
"One man and one woman equals marriage... Period"
Wrong. I'm legally gay married. This is no longer hypothetical, it is reality. This isn't the spectre of a fantasy gay marriage off on the horizon, I've been same-sex married for FOUR years. What is the damage I've wrought? What impact has it had on any person's opposite-sex marriage? NONE.
This blog and its parent web site inspire one HUGE question in me: "What's it to ya?" Bunch of busybodies, if you ask me.
The SCOTUS will not let us down.
You are right. Those gay marriage folks are afraid of going to the Supreme Court. They just keep losing in court after court and we all know that this track record will only continue all the way to the Supreme Court.
Oh wait...
"A supposedly compelling piece of evidence: “Only a handful of states have successfully passed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, and only a few more have been required to afford equal marital rights to gay and lesbian individuals through judicial decisions.” (Slip op. at 22.) In short, gays and lesbians lack “meaningful political power” because they haven’t succeeded in broadly redefining marriage, so White will subject DOMA to heightened scrutiny in order to redefine marriage for purposes of federal law. What a farce." Ed Whelan
Treason by any other name is still treason; just as perversion does not cease being perversions just because a handful of traitors decreed it to be marriage.
Let's be VERY clear about this. We desperately need to elect a Conservative President and Senate, and retain the current majority we have in the House if not enlarge it. Only then will we be able to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. My guess is that the passage of such an amendment would leave the current fake gay "marriages" as civil unions in states where they have them.
Please be VERY careful about whom you vote for. Do you research on congressional candidates in particular. It's always a red flag to me when they refuse to talk about social issues and say stupidly that this election is just about one thing: Jobs, jobs jobs. To be clear, to me it isn't. I vote my values, not my pocketbook Be VERY leary of a candidate who will not address these issues. Confront them if you have to and ask if they will support a federal marriage amendment. And if they won't tell you unequivocally that they WILL support such an amendment, find another candidate to support with your volunteer time and donations.
I personally had anticipated working on the campaigns of two local congressional candidates, but backed off because they said that they were afraid of losing if they talked about social issues. I won't abide that kind of cowardly statement. I want men and women of courage and conviction to represent me. I hope you do as well.
Rene said, "Marriage is one of the most fundamental rights."
I agree with your statement.
Rene said, "Nothing in that statement excluded same sex couples."
For clarification, could you please identify exactly which statement to which you refer?
And, if you are correct, why do same-sex siblings, or a same-sex parent and adult child continue to be prohibited from acquiring a marriage license in states offering SSM to their citizenry? They can be considered loving pairs, too.
Rene said, "Again, nothing in that excluded homosexuals."
You are so right. Nowhere on our law books are those with same-sex attraction, or those who engage in homosexual behavior prohibited from seeking or acquiring a marriage license, based on their sexual orientation.
Rene said, "What part of either of those statements do you not understand?"
Answer: neither one
Ask yourself, "Self, why aren't opposite-sexed siblings or a father/daughter--mother/son couple allowed to acquire marriage licenses?"
Is that a slight against homosexuals, too?
Next, please consider that if a "gay" man and a "gay" woman wish to get married, they are more than legally welcome to do so.
What's "homosexual" got to do with marriage?