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).

21 Comments

  1. Marty
    Posted December 4, 2012 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    No link or even direct quotes from the ruling? Just Eastman talking points? You can do better than this..

  2. Quinn
    Posted December 4, 2012 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    just the beginning of the end of the radical gay agenda. once the Supreme Court rules in favor of traditional marriage thanks to the Federal Court in Nevada.

  3. Quinn
    Posted December 4, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    can't wait to see the response by the other side when the Supreme Court finally rules for traditional marriage, it's going to be awesome to see their intolerance full force & just going to sit back and laugh at them.

  4. Tribune
    Posted December 4, 2012 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    Even homosexual advocates knows that there is no legitimate state interest and have yet to give a practical reasoning of why decent folks have to "accept' (by force) this comical arrangement. This fantasy of same sex unions are self centered indulgence and does not truly look after the best interest of the next generation and the best interest of American society.

    Now we should analyze everything they have claimed witha fine tooth comb. Leave nothing out and expose everything about the homosexual community and thier unreasonable demand to marry.

  5. leviticus
    Posted December 4, 2012 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

    This ruling provides everyone hope that God 's truth about marriage will always prevail in the end.

  6. David in Houston
    Posted December 4, 2012 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

    Judge Jones' ruling was laughable. If gay couples are allowed to marry, then it might be possible that straight couples will no longer want to get married. Seriously? Opposite-sex couples will no longer get legally married if gay couples can ALSO get married? No court in the entire country would agree with such a ludicrous statement. His ruling will get thrown out so fast, it isn't even worth talking about his ineptitude.

  7. Adam Eve Stevens
    Posted December 4, 2012 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

    Tribune wrote, "expose everything about the homosexual community and their unreasonable demand to marry."

    They can marry.

    But, since marriage is the union of a man and a woman (in 41 states), they can only marry a member of the opposite sex. This applies to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

    That's "marriage equality."

  8. Zack
    Posted December 5, 2012 at 1:16 am | Permalink

    @David

    "If gay couples are allowed to marry, then it might be possible that straight couples will no longer want to get married. Seriously?"

    Well in every country and state where Marriage has been devalued and redefined, there are less and less people tieing the knot. This is true since in Scandinavian countries and other Western nations the out of wedlock birthrate exceeds half the population. So it's not as outlandish as you make it seem.

  9. OvercameSSA
    Posted December 5, 2012 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    Took the words out of my mouth, Zack.

    I would add that one of the objectives of marriage is uniting moms and dads with their offspring, and what that really means is encouraging DADS to stay with the mother and the children (Mom is already united with the child by virtue of pregnancy and inherent maternal bonding).

    I'm no anthropologist, but men are generally less likely to want to commit to marriage than women; so much in fact, that it has become cliche in our society.

    If you want to further discourage men from getting married to women, include homosexual men as part of the institution. Straight guys do not want to be equated with gay guys. See how many straight guys you can find in a gay bar (you will find straight women). See how many straight men are lining up for the priesthood which has become a homosexual profession. Straight guys in the fashion industry? That's so gay.

    Moreover, by taking away the link between procreation and marriage, women can no longer convince men to get married for the sake of the children. We've already seen how single motherhood has increased almost exponentially since the stigma of single motherhood has been erased through encouragement of government support to single moms.

    Homosexual "marriage" destroys marriage.

  10. Randy E King
    Posted December 5, 2012 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    "I would add that one of the objectives of marriage is uniting moms and dads with their offspring"

    Biology unites mothers and fathers with their offspring. The marriage construct has always been - save for those four years under Nero; leading to the fall of Rome - civilized societies way of acknowledging the importance of, and reverence for, this self evident truth.

    The decadent elites are at war with these truths we hold to be self evident because they are standing between them and the satisfying of their wants; and right now what they want is to transfer their innate and immutable sense of guilt on to others.

    Kind of like the the purge rooms set aside for the Roman elite so they could relieve themselves of their sense of having consumed their fill.

  11. Zack
    Posted December 5, 2012 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    @Overcame

    Nicely said.

  12. Mikhail
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 5:55 am | Permalink

    My guess is the court will uphold prop 8 but strike down DOMA

  13. OvercameSSA
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    @Mikhail -

    Under what reasoning do you think the court will strike down DOMA? Equal Protection? Under what standard? And how do they reconcile that holding with this Nevada case - do they overrrule that decision?

  14. john
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    It is not much discussed, but traditional marriage offers the most beautiful and healthy form of diversity there is -- a diversity of sexes (male and female) in a loving relationship. And, it just so happens, this diversity was designed, either by millions of years of evolution or by God, depending on your beliefs, so that the two different kinds of people would fit together physically and emotionally.

  15. Son of Adam
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    Striking down DOMA would have to be under the premise that sate laws trump federal law. By that reasoning, federal law should now consider the recreational use of marijuana legal now that Washington state has and also federally legalize prostitution because Nevada has.

  16. Marc Paul
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    Sack, if you can provide anything other than correlation re: Scandavia, would love to hear it.

    Save your time, there isn't such evidence.

    The trends long long predated equal marriage.

    I read all of the judgment.... Not the most inspiring use of legalise. On the basis of something 'conceivable', he has reached a judgment.

    It just won't stand scrutiny by higher Court.

  17. OvercameSSA
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    "On the basis of something 'conceivable', he has reached a judgment"

    Precisely: if it's conceivable, it meets the rational basis standard. So-called same-sex "marriage" loses under the rational basis standard. Holding that that standard is appropriate for homosexuals is the importance of the case, not the application of the standard, which has a very low threshold.

  18. Son of Adam
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    The legalization of SS"M" is a symptom of declining family values, in which the hedonistic wants and desires of adults outweigh the needs and upbringing of children. And SS"M" reinforces such attitudes.

    It also compromises our civil rights like religious liberties in favor of a genderless ideology. Considering all the people who find themselves forced out of their jobs and business over SS"M" because of their faith, perhaps it is time for the constitutionality of marriage redefinition to be challenged in court.

  19. Zack
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

    @Marc Paul

    "Sack, if you can provide anything other than correlation re: Scandavia, would love to hear it.

    Save your time, there isn't such evidence."

    But you asked nicely so I did your homework for you:
    http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/unwedint.html
    http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/19/out-of-wedlock-birthrate-out-of-control/

    And I'll throw in a study for good measure:

    http://www.oecd.org/social/familiesandchildren/40278615.pdf

  20. MarkOH
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

    Son of Adam, your claims would also fit someone who said it was against their religious beliefs to serve blacks. Or Asians, Or Christians. Discrimination is just that, discrimination.

  21. Son of Adam
    Posted December 7, 2012 at 3:40 am | Permalink

    There are no such religious beliefs, MarkOH. That's a red herring. Religions are based on behavior, not race. And I'd like to know why it isn't discrimination to redefine marriage only for homosexual relationships while all other sexual relationships like polyamory and incest can continue to be denied the same considerations.