FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 18, 2012
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)
Washington, D.C.—Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released the following statement today in response to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Constitution's equal protection clause:
"This is yet another example of judicial activism and elite judges imposing their views on the American people, and further demonstrates why it is imperative for the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review in the currently pending DOMA cases as well as to the Proposition 8 case. The American people are entitled to a definitive ruling in support of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, as 32 states have determined through popular vote."
###
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President, or John Eastman, Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Jen Campbell, jcampbell@crcpublicrelations.com (x145) at 703-683-5004.
43 Comments
In order to come to its conclusion the 2nd Circus had to declare sexual depravity to be a quasi-suspect class that is politically powerless. This should come as a great surprise to Justice Scalia who noted that these miscreants are "disproportionately powerful."
The Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter declaring the Rational Basis test is the proper one in which to decide matters related to these deviants.
Activists Judges indeed!
Now we have had 10 Appellate Courts that have upheld DOMA and two East Coast Appellate Courts that have not; ten based their opinions on guiding court precedence and two have based theirs on the establishment of heighten scrutiny protection based solely on what people like to rub their reproductive organ against.
We the law starts equating what you do with who you are tyranny becomes the law of the land.
Also in the news:
Gallop has Romney +7
Good. The exhibition schedule is almost over.
Time for the real deal.
Rick, how many judges does it take to demonstrate that is a discernible, definable, definite, decisive judicial trend? How many judges are 'activist'?
You lose .....
SCOTUS, here we come!
“Judicial activists are nothing short of radicals in robes--contemptuous of the rule of law, subverting the Constitution at will, and using their public trust to impose their policy preferences on society. In fact, no radical political movement has been more effective in undermining our system of government than the judiciary. And with each Supreme Court term, we hold our collective breath hoping the justices will do no further damage, knowing full well they will disappoint. Such is the nature of judicial tyranny.”
― Mark R. Levin, Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America
Such is the blind eyes of the LGBTQ activist, who trades his true liberties for a mess of court-invented pottage. Their choices make them unworthy of the freedom won by the spilt blood of true patriots:
“There are also those who delusively if not enthusiastically surrender their liberty for the mastermind’s false promises of human and societal perfectibility. He hooks them with financial bribes in the form of ‘entitlements.’ And he makes incredible claims about indefectible health, safety, educational, and environmental policies, the success of which is to be measured not in the here and now but in the distant future.
For these reasons and more, some become fanatics for the cause. They take to the streets and, ironically, demand their own demise as they protest against their own self-determination and for ever more autocracy and authoritarianism. When they vote, they vote to enchain not only their fellow citizens but, unwittingly, themselves. Paradoxically, as the utopia metastasizes and the society ossifies, elections become less relevant. More and more decisions are made by the masterminds and their experts, who substitute their self-serving and dogmatic judgments — which are proclaimed righteous and compassionate — for the the individual’s self-interests and best interests.”
― Mark R. Levin, Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America
Paul Mc, you should know as well as I do that these courts have been selected and targeted by the left for their likelihood to rule against DOMA. Do you believe that it is just a coincidence that these rulings have taken place in liberal bastions like New York and Massachusetts?
I cannot believe that George Bush could appoint such a radical determined to destroy this great country to the bench.
well, the judge ruled in favor of corporations over international human rights laws (including slave labor), speaks at the Federalist Society, and has been known as a pretty darn conservative dude.
An activist judge is simply one that issues an opinion you don't agree with --- nothing more, nothing less.
The majority opinion was written by a G.H.W. Bush appointee.....the dissent by a Clinton appointee. Go figure.
Then please tell me, Duncan, where in the Constitution is the redefinition of marriage mentioned as a civil right?
You should know that these courts have been selected in advance and targeted by the left for their likelihood to rule against DOMA. Do you really believe that it is just a coincidence that these anti DOMA rulings have taken place in liberal bastions like New York and Massachusetts?
In any case, enjoy this "victory" while you can, because SCOTUS will issue their ruling on DOMA that is free from the regional prejudices and dogma of gay activism.
I think the time is at hand when all responsible citizens and public officials (and by that I mean all who support the normal definition of marriage) are going to have to put steel in their spines and pledge, should a court, any court, impose so-called same-sex marriage, to ignore the ruling and conduct social policy using the traditional definition of marriage. In this way, the judicial branch of government, the left's best friend, can be effectively and permanently neutered.
@Duncan
"An activist judge is simply one that issues an opinion you don't agree with --- nothing more, nothing less."
An activist judge is one who creates a law that never existed or interprets the law to mean anything they want.
The end of DOMA is an important step and aligns with what we have known all along- "rights" are not partisan. Many judges are able to step up to the plate and really think independently when they arrive in that branch of the government. To date, House Republicans have spent nearly $1.5 million in taxpayer funds to defend this unconstitutional law. Small Government? I define terrorism as purposefully using the creation of fear as a tool to advance an agenda. Could we view the radical Christian right and the hate group NOM as a terrorist organization? Seems applicable to me. A conservative, Republican, Bush appointed judge with a reputation for being just to the right of Attila the Hun has struck down DOMA. Sometimes...you can be pleasantly surprised by the strangest of people. God bless you all.
Then Zack, the judges were not activist in this case. The laws on which they ruled already existed - in the States.
You lose. Oh sweet, was the day that DOMA was so roundly sent packing into the dustbin of history.
So if a state invents the right to polygamy, Paul, does that mean that every state in the union MUST recognize polygamous marriages made outside their state? It is clearly a violation of state's rights when judges in one state declare that their state laws are supreme and MUST be forced down upon the federal government and all other states.
"Oh sweet, was the day that DOMA was so roundly sent packing into the dustbin of history."
You'll be eating those words when SCOTUS upholds DOMA.
The ruling is legally flawed at an elementary level. Definitions for the purpose of federal law are inherently a federal matter, not a state matter as the court supposes. If a state has a different definition of, say, “assault rifle” than the federal definition, the federal definition governs federal law and the state definition governs state law.
The rest of the decision has to do heightened scrutiny and rational interests. This case including the required yet absurd claim that homosexuals are politically powerless should be lumped with the other marriage cases and sent to the Supreme Court as soon as possible.
SOA, if only one or two NY county clerks are upset about SSM does that mean NY has to strike the law?
DOMA will not survive, the challenges to the law have been answered swiftly and decisively, it does not hold up to constitutional standards.
Section 3 of DOMA violates the 14th amenedment of equal protection. That's the issue. SCOTUS will either not take it and let stand the decisions or will take it and rule it unconstitutional. Can't treat lawful marriages differently- violates state's and individual rights.
@Son of Adam:
"Then please tell me, Duncan, where in the Constitution is the redefinition of marriage mentioned as a civil right?"
Where in the Constitution does it say marriage at all is a civil right?
"So if a state invents the right to polygamy, Paul, does that mean that every state in the union MUST recognize polygamous marriages made outside their state?"
This is where I think you don't understand this ruling. Section 3 of DOMA, and ONLY Section 3, was ruled unconstitutional. The other sections still stand, even the part that says states don't have to recognize the marriages in another state (this is another debate for another time over other parts of the Constitution). Just so I'm clear, Sec. 3 is the part that makes marriage "man and woman."
Why does Brain Brown and NOM HATE the Constitution????
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!
No, George. NY has to strike the law because it leads to the oppression of people of faith by the government for freely exercising their religious beliefs. And that's unconstitutional.
And Richard, when a law compromises first amendment religious liberties, like SS"M" does, it is in violation of the constitution.
DOMA was passed as a compromise to this issue, but as time goes by, it is becoming abundantly clear that there is no compromising with gung ho - all or nothing attitudes. That is why we need the Federal Marriage Amendment so that one basic definition of marriage will apply in all 50 states.
@Alan E.
And once the Federal Government acknowledges the superior authority of a single state government to dictate what federal laws should be, then the next step is to use the federal government to force marriage redefinition on all 50 states.
"And once the Federal Government acknowledges the superior authority of a single state government to dictate what federal laws should be, then the next step is to use the federal government to force marriage redefinition on all 50 states."
And you wonder why you keep losing in court.
Son of Adam - Full Faith and Credit in application to same sex marriage is unresolved. Polygamy is well resolved at State and Federal level since many many decades.
SS"M" has lost most court cases, George. And you will lose in SCOTUS - both on DOMA and Prop 8.
And Paul Mc, ever hear of Baker vs. Nelson? It established as a federal precedent that marriage is between one man and one woman. And no single state has the authority to trump a federal precedent.
Almost every federal court decision on DOMA has pushed Baker v. Nelson aside and yet the Congressional Republicans defending DOMA now keep coming back with it. It is a losing argument and the Second Circuit offered us the best explanation to date: Baker refers to state law, the legalization of marriages in the first place, not the federal laws that are triggered when a valid marriage happens at the state level. Plus, Baker is outdated: it was from a time long before gay Americans were liberated from the status of enemies of the law.
SoA, as has been pointed out to you COUNTLESS times on this blog, Baker v. Nelson was handed down in 1972, when 0 states had marriage equality and homosexuality was still considered a mental illness.
If you really think the SCOTUS is going to cite that case in the majority opinion, you're sadly mistaken. Times have drastically changed and the coming SCOTUS decision will reflect that, just as they've done before. Remember Dred Scott?
Its really about what is best for innocent children. Mitt Romney has stated countless times that children do best with a natural mother and father. We will do everything we can to prevent the adoption of gay identity politics that rip children from the opportunity to be raised by both their natural mother and father.
Baker vs. Nelson had nothing to do with homosexuality being a mental illness, Layne. It simply recognized that defining marriage as being between one man and one woman did not violate the US Constitution. SCOTUS is not going to reverse that precedent and declare that redefining marriage for a wealthy and influential special interest group is a constitutional right.
DOMA allows individual states to recognize homosexual unions as "marriages." But there is nothing in the US Constitution that states that the federal government has to.
This was a compromise that was made in good faith. But there is no compromising with gung ho all or nothing attitudes. That is why the Federal Marriage Amendment is a necessity.
Re comment nr. 19
Layne,
I know the left believes that SCOTUS decisions they don't like are written with disappearing ink, but ones they like are written in stone.
Dred Scott was overturned by the Civil War and the 14th amendment. If you want to change things, pass a constitutional amendment.
Times are still such that state after state has passed a DOMA amendment, and this conservative court will be very reluctant to overturn so many recent elections.
Remember everyone, that the U.S. Supreme Court typically does not get too far ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of states. For example, few states still had laws requiring racial segregation or outlawing interracial marriage by the time the Court struck those laws down. Most states had already struck down or repealed their own laws against same-sex intimacy when the Supreme Court finally invalidated Texas’s law in Lawrence. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the most liberal members of the court, has indicated that it is counterproductive for the Court to go "too far too fast." Although she tirelessly defends abortion rights, she has still said that "[t]he court bit off more than it could chew" when it decided Roe v. Wade.
It is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule 31 state constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between one man and one woman and 32 out of 32 referendums and force gay marriage on everyone. Any lawyers bringing such a case before the Court will need favorable votes from five of the nine justices. Yet as Constitutional law scholar Andrew Koppelman put it, "When I try to count the votes in favor of same-sex marriage on the Supreme Court, I have trouble getting to one."
Just wanted to say that I appreciate the Republican Party for stepping up to defend DOMA when this Administration scornfully decided to chuck its obligation to uphold the law.
It is supremely important to win all four marriage votes now.
That'll do it.
Every marriage supporter should read the dissent of this decision. Good stuff
Son of Adam....have you never heard that marriage is a function of the state, and only the state. No license is issued by a church. None.
Despite the innumerable times people like you are told that, you don't listen (or learn).
The United States is not a theocracy. The laws are made by and for the people, and all religions (or non-religious folks) are granted the same rights.
So, when you say that religious freedom, and the like are inhibited by 're-defining' marriage (which has been 're-defined' over the millenia, you are incorrect.
Neither NY nor any other state that allows gay marriage requires any religious group to marry same sex partners if the religion doesn't approve of that....however, several do. Now, a state authorized official (ie/ clerk) must make sure that the proper license is issued.
Now, show me in the Constitution where your religion is allowed to make rules contrary to my religion.
Go take some con law classes, along with some logic ones. You really should brush up on your education!!
M. Jones: please show us families where children have been 'ripped' from their natural mom and dad.
That would be akin to kidnapping.
Now, I can show you numerous examples where children *have* been dumped out of their homes for adoption, and gay and lesbian couples have adopted the child(ren) and given them the love, comfort, safety and care and nuture that those children deserve.
Really Duncan? Only about 20% of children in foster care are adoptable. I'd love to see your sources on all those gay adoptions. Thx!
DoE....perhaps when you can explain how kids get 'ripped' from their parents. Hmmmmm????
Well, Duncan, overlooking the hyperbole in the word "riipped" (which is not a word I generally use myself), most of the children living in a same sex household are the natural result of a heterosexual experience between at least one of their parents and a former husband or boyfriend. Then, the mother or father decide they are "gay," abandon the former hsuband or boyfriend (or vice versa in the case of a man, naturally), and the child is no longer part of a family in which mom and dad are married, or at the least, mom and dad lived together, and were together, raising their child under one roof. Now, as in cases of divorce, the child lives with one parent and a non-adoptive partner of their parent. All children are the product of a man and a woman, even in a Petri dish. In a same sex household, that child is denied the benefits of being raised by both parents. Only marriage aknowledges the direct link between marriage and procreation. Only marriage ensures children a relationship with both mom and dad. Only marriage provides the mother and child the protection of presumption of paternity. Only marriage ensures a father his paternity rights to a relationship with the children of his wife. SSM guarantees one parent is absent, and it strips women and men of maternal and paternal protections via marriage. Only marriage publicly links a person to both sides of the family tree. Only marriage integrates both sexes and simultaneously creates a kinship closer than siblings or parents. It's totally unique. Anything else that tries to mimic it is a cheap counterfeit.
And, you never shared your sources on all the gay adoptions you were touting.
Furthermore, Duncan, you would have us to believe that a sexual relationship between two men is more important than the natural biological ties between a child and both parents. In order to validate the first, you must invalidate the second. In marriage, the sexual relationship between a man and a woman supports the mother/father/child relationship.