NOM BLOG

Federal Court in Nevada Upholds State's Definition of Marriage as One Man and One Woman

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 4, 2012

Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)


National Organization for Marriage calls on U.S. Supreme Court to Review California Case Declaring that Proposition 8 is Unconstitutional

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C.—The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) ) today praised a federal judge's finding upholding Nevada's definition of marriage as being only one man and one woman, and called on the United States Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the California case that invalidated Proposition 8. Last week in the case of Sevcik v. Sandoval, a federal district judge upheld true marriage and rejected claims that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, instead finding, "the protection of the traditional institution of marriage…is a legitimate state interest."

"In stark contrast to the findings of a rogue judge in California who himself was engaged in a long-term homosexual relationship, the federal court in Nevada has quite properly found that true marriage serves an important public purpose and is entitled to protection," said John Eastman, Chairman of NOM. "This important ruling shows how far out of the mainstream the decision in the Proposition 8 case was, and totally undercuts the legal conclusions that the San Francisco court used to invalidate Proposition 8. We hope that the decision will help the U.S. Supreme Court to see the importance of granting certiorari in the case so that the good of marriage will be maintained across the country, just as it was in Nevada."

The federal court in Nevada specifically rejected legal conclusions in the challenge to Nevada's constitutional amendment preserving true marriage that were accepted by the federal Court in the Proposition 8 case. These include:

  • That a review of constitutional amendments or statues regarding the definition of marriage is entitled to heightened legal scrutiny—a higher standard of review than is required of other cases asserting constitutional claims.
  • That homosexuals are politically powerless, a finding that supported the California court's ruling that sexual orientation should be considered a suspect class entitled to enhanced legal protection.
  • That there is no rational basis for a state to preserve marriage as one man and one woman.

"The federal court in Nevada properly found that the decision of the policy to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman is up to the Legislature or the People," said Eastman. "Unfortunately, a judge in San Francisco who is engaged in a long-term same-sex relationship—a relationship that warranted his recusal because it appears to make him a beneficiary of his own ruling-- decided to substitute his values for those of the people of California who twice voted in favor of true marriage. This is the height of judicial activism and we urge the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review of the Proposition 8 case so that the policy judgment of the more than 7 million Californians who voted to preserve marriage is given effect, just as the judgment of Nevada voters was upheld last week by the federal court there."

The Proposition 8 case is Hollingsworth v. Perry (formerly known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger).

###

To schedule an interview with John Eastman, Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], 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).