NOM BLOG

National Organization for Marriage Praises U.S. Supreme Court for Reviewing Proposition 8 Case Group Predicts that Prop 8 Will Be Upheld

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 7, 2012

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


"We believe it is a strong signal that the Court will reverse the lower courts and uphold Proposition 8. That is the right outcome based on the law and based on the principle that voters hold the ultimate power over basic policy judgments and their decisions are entitled to respect."—John Eastman, NOM chairman—

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C.— The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today praised the U.S. Supreme Court for agreeing to grant certiorari in the case determining the validity of Proposition 8:

"We believe that it is significant that the Supreme Court has taken the Prop 8 case," said John Eastman, NOM's chairman and former Dean (and current professor) at Chapman University School of Law. "We believe it is a strong signal that the Court will reverse the lower courts and uphold Proposition 8. That is the right outcome based on the law and based on the principle that voters hold the ultimate power over basic policy judgments and their decisions are entitled to respect."

NOM was the largest contributor to qualifying Proposition 8 to the ballot and has been a major supporter of legal efforts to uphold it. The trial court in San Francisco—in a trial presided over by a homosexual judge involved in a long-term same-sex relationship—invalidated Prop 8, finding for the first time in American history a right to same-sex marriage under the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision written by Justice Stephen Reinhart, largely ignored the trial court's reasoning and fashioned a ruling devoid of precedent, claiming that once a state has "approved" same-sex marriage, it cannot take it away. But California voters never approved gay marriage. Instead, a sharply divided state Supreme Court, in a 4-3 ruling, imposed gay marriage. Voters overruled it with the passage of Proposition 8 several months later.

"Had the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts' decisions invalidating Proposition 8, it could simply have declined to grant certiorari in the case," Eastman said. "It's a strong signal that the justices are concerned with the rogue rulings that have come out of San Francisco at both the trial court and appellate levels. It's worth noting that Judge Reinhart is the most overruled judge in America. I think this case will add to his record."

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court also announced they will review the Windsor case that attempts to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed by a bipartisan majority in Congress in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton, defining marriage for the purpose of federal law as the union of one man and one woman.

"We are pleased that the Supreme Court will review lower-court decisions that invalidate the judgment of the U.S. Congress to define marriage as one man and one woman," Eastman said. "It's not the job of federal judges to substitute their views for the policy judgments of the people's duly elected representatives. We believe the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn this exercise in judicial activism and stop federal judges from legislating from the bench on the definition of marriage. We're confident the Court will uphold DOMA."

The Prop 8 case is Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144.
The DOMA case is Windsor v. United States, No. 12-307.

###

To schedule an interview with John Eastman, Chairman, or Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Jen Campbell (x145), jcampbell@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).

33 Comments

  1. MarkOH
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    @Randy E King Not quite sure what you are asking. I know that sexual orientation is an innate part a person, unchangeable, like handedness or eye color. I know that homosexuality is a normal expression of sexual orientation. Because I believe in science, not myth.

  2. Marc Paul
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 6:32 am | Permalink

    Fitz, "What makes gay relationships more entitled to special privilages that mutual caregiving amoung siblings dont get."

    So why are you not fighting for all siblings and close relations to gain some of the privileges of marriage? You aren't because they already family which is one of the reasons why LbgT couples should be allowed. They can form a new family where there is none. Thats exactly what opposite sex couples do. It's not all about tax you know.

    You can,t extrapolate what I said to say that I don't care about other issues in society. Your answer to everything is 'get married'. Real world much more complicated and your simple world views are inadequate and punish minorities.

  3. Son of Adam
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 6:32 am | Permalink

    There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that homosexuality is either innate or genetic, MarkOH. Not even the American Psychological Association makes such a contention anymore. There are too many thousands of ex-gays who testify to their change for that urban myth to be taken seriously. Not to mention hundreds of identical twins in which one is gay and the other is straight.

    http://www.voices-of-change.org/

    http://www.peoplecanchange.com/

    http://www.pfox.org

  4. Marc Paul
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 6:41 am | Permalink

    Randy, "I guess I should not be all that surprised; don't you insist people do not choose to do the things they do while simultaneously demanding people be equated with what they do?".

    No we don't. Never have. It's a deliberate mis-statement on your part of course.

    We insist that that we do not choose who we are and we simultaneously demand that we are treated equally for what we are.

  5. Randy E King
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    @Marc Paul,

    Your using semantics. Claiming that people are what they do is the tell-tale sign of your a-typical elitist mentality; the first step towards institutionalized tyranny.

  6. Randy E King
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    Correction:

    ***You're***

  7. Publius
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    Baker v. Nelson came after the Loving decision. The SCOTUS rejected the obvious analogy and refused to equate race with sexual preferences. The Court will soon have an opportunity to reject the analogy again. (See also the lucid comment nr. 44 above.)

    Anyone can cohabit and call themselves a family. They can own property jointly, sign wills, etc. The SCOTUS, however, in Murphy v. Ramsey legally privileged a particular type of family “as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.” The SCOTUS will soon have the opportunity to allow the states and the political branches to reaffirm what the Court stated emphatically and unanimously.

  8. MarkOH
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    Publius, keep holding on to that rainbow. DOMA WILL be found to be unconstitutional. The couple in question were legally married in Canada. If they had been an opposite sex couple, there would have been no problem. But, since DOMA was in place, the surviving spouse was charged over $300,000 in taxes that NO spouse should have to pay. This is clearly a violation of the US Constitution.

  9. Publius
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    Re. comments 44 and 45

    Fitz argues that
    “the intention of marriage law is to bring the two sexes together.”

    And MarkOH misses the point.

    The point of marriage law should be to promote the harmonious and just relationship between the two essential halves of humanity, male and female. The state has obvious and rational grounds for promoting a stable and just framework for the integration of the sexes. In doing so the law can promote responsible procreation and protect women in their vulnerable and asymmetric relationships with men. For the law to treat “women” as fungible with “persons” and “mother” as fungible with “parent” is unjust to women and works to their disadvantage.

  10. Posted December 9, 2012 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    I, personally, am uncertain as to whether or not we will win or lose.

    However, I think that Proposition 8 will be upheld 7-2, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan in the majority, with Ginsburg and Sotomayor in dissent.

    I think that DOMA will be upheld 6-3, with the same majority minus... Kennedy.

  11. Randy E King
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    "Nothing can withstand the man who can defeat himself"

    A man who can break himself of his own tendencies is unbreakable. Marriage corruption supporters hold firmly to the belief that they are incapable of breaking away from their own tendencies; this makes them very beatable.

    This is why they will lose; what they believe to be their greatest strength is, in actuality, the weakest chink in the armor.

  12. MarkOH
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    Publius, so you are sexist as well. What you say doesn't change the fact that it is unequal treatment to deny same sex couples the same rights as opposite sex couples.

  13. Randy E King
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    At Mark,

    Treating differently things differently is rational; treating different things equally is bigotry.

    Your refusal to acknowledge the complimentary nature of opposite pairings speaks more to your depravity then it does to your professed disgust for all that which shows you in the proper light.

    The Emperor has no clothes!

  14. Publius
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    Mark,

    To say "women and children first" on a sinking ship does not make one a sexist. Rather, it recognizes the unique value and vulnerabilities of women and children. It is something that is "noble in our civilization" to borrow a phrase from the Supreme Court.

    I suspect that you cannot conceive and carry a child and have never lived with a pregnant wife, so it is hard for you to conceive of the burdens of pregnancy and childbirth. To ignore those burdens in the name of a spurious equality is callous, unjust, and irrational and ignores the rising feminization of poverty and decline of birthrates below replacement levels in many countries.

  15. Publius
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    Re comment 56.

    By Mark’s reasoning, a polygamous family married in Saudi Arabia can by virtue of moving to America claim an absolute exemption from the laws prohibiting bigamy and polygamy, a claim which the state cannot question. I doubt the court will buy that. The couple in question moved from one sovereign country to another and cannot reasonably claim that they should continue to be governed by the laws of Canada, just as a Saudi who immigrates to America cannot expect to continue to be governed by the laws of Saudi Arabia. The couple had plenty of money and ample opportunity to draft will, a task that is both easy and inexpensive, but they didn’t.

  16. MarkOH
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    Publius: " protect women in their vulnerable and asymmetric relationships with men"
    Sounds pretty sexist to me.

  17. MarkOH
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    Publius, comment 62. without the strawman of polygamy, a marriage in another country, such as Saudi Arabia, would be recognized in this country.

    And they did have a will. The issue is the extra tax burden placed on this couple that would not be placed on another couple because DOMA prevents recognition of their legal marriage. Please, know what you are talking about before commenting.

  18. Publius
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    I suspect every gay man has noticed women are different than men.

    The asymmetry is obvious and the need for protection is obvious. Men can impregnate women. Women cannot impregnate men. Women have inherently different biological clocks than men. This is not sexism, it is biology, and it has undeniable economic and demographic implications that society ignores at its peril. Treating women like men in the military has resulted in horrendous levels of rape in the military. Mark also ignores the feminization of poverty and declining birthrates.

    Polygamy is not a straw man, but a real issue with a billion Muslims in the world. It is also an issue where women are potentially vulnerable.

    A good will and trust can avoid all sorts of taxes. You should look into trusts. It just takes a little more effort than a simple will. Then again, we could decide that Sharia law should govern wills if the couple was married in an Islamic country.

  19. MarkOH
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    Publius, separate but equal? Why should same sex couples shell out thousands of dollars to secure the same rights that opposite sex couples get automatically? You see, this is why Prop 8 will go down - it is nothing but animus against same sex couples. Allowing same sex couples to marry does NOTHING to opposite sex marriage. There are thousands of laws from local up to Federal that specifically mention "marriage". No amount of "good will and trust" will help avoid this fact.

  20. MarkOH
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    And, frankly, denying women the right to serve in the military because some good old boys were never taught that rape is a CRIME is a sexist attitude.

  21. MarkOH
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    And to use your example, I guess we should BAN Saudis from getting married in this country because they MIGHT want to marry multiple women.

  22. Posted December 9, 2012 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH:

    I am a heterosexual male. If, for economic purposes, my best friend and I decide to room together, should we get the same legal benefits?

  23. MarkOH
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    Dovie E. I am sure that there are plenty of opposite sex couples out there who are "married" for the benefits. Think of some older relatives or neighbors who may only be together because of the legal and financial benefits.

    But, let me ask you Dovie E.. How do you evaluate opposite sex couples who marry today that are just friends who decide to room together? Is there a test to exclude them from legally marrying?

  24. Ash
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    Great posts, Publius. And you made a good point by using the example of polygamous Saudi marriages. I was thinking about that when reading the anti-DOMA comments of SSMers on another forum.

  25. Ash
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    *in another forum.

  26. Publius
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

    The law must inevitably make distinctions in taxes unless we go to a single, flat tax levied equally on everyone, i.e., an equal percentage of their income or net worth. Even that would be considered unjust by most Americans. Consider two poor siblings living together, who support each other, and who might also want to avoid taxes. Why should the law not give them a break, too? Consider a second and not legally recognized wife of a bigamous or polygamous couple, who objects to the legal wife getting the wife’s portion of the family inheritance. The law does not give her equal consideration, even if the marriage took place in a country where polygamy was legal.

    Federal courts have traditionally allowed Congress and the states wide latitude in tax and family law and pay little heed to what foreign law might say on these subjects. The court may well have picked this case because of its optics. The plaintiff, a well-to-do person trying to avoid taxes, is not a good poster child for such a radical change in family and tax law. Most married Americans, many of whom worry about leaving an inheritance to their children, will never amass the wealth the plaintiff has.

    This case and the Prop 8 case seem particularly weak ones on which to overthrow the laws of over forty states including over thirty constitutional amendments. In Prop 8 the question is whether the citizens of the state are even allowed to define the word marriage in the way it existed in legal dictionaries for centuries even if the state gives gay couples all the rights of marriage but the use of the word marriage.

  27. Posted December 9, 2012 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

    The test is whether they are, in the natural order of things, capable of FORMING a family with no help from scientific advances or the adoption agency. Infertile and post-fertile couples fall under that rubric because they are man and woman.

    Unless you'd like me to check in each household. But that would be "invading the bedroom," which you guys hate.

    Oh, and my best friend is a guy.

  28. MarkOH
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

    Dovie E., well, if you are using those strict standards, then I guess my sister and brother in law are not a real family because they only conceived using in vitro.

    But, you prove my point as how weak the whole procreation argument is. If it is TRULY a test of what is marriage, then it needs to be proven. If it is not, as I believe, then it doesn't matter.

  29. Publius
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 1:29 am | Permalink

    Re comment 69

    The law must inevitably make distinctions in taxes unless we go to a single, flat tax levied equally on everyone, i.e., an equal percentage of their income or net worth. Most Americans would consider even that unjust. Consider two poor siblings living together, who support each other, and who might also want to avoid taxes. Why should the law not give them a break, too? Consider a second and not legally recognized wife of a bigamous or polygamous couple, who objects to the legal wife getting the wife’s portion of the family inheritance. The law does not give her equal consideration, even if the marriage took place in a country where polygamy was legal. This is not animus, it is merely drawing rational distinctions.

    Federal courts have traditionally allowed Congress and the states wide latitude in tax and family law and pay little heed to what foreign law might say on these subjects. The court may well have picked this case because of its optics. The plaintiff, a well-to-do person trying to avoid taxes, is not a good poster child for such a radical change in family and tax law. Most married Americans, many of whom worry about leaving an inheritance to their children, will never amass the wealth the plaintiff has.

    This case and the Prop 8 case seem particularly weak ones on which to overthrow the laws of over forty states including over thirty constitutional amendments. In Prop 8 the question is whether the citizens of the state are even allowed to define the word marriage in the way it existed in legal dictionaries for centuries even if the state gives gay couples all the rights of marriage but the use of the word marriage.

  30. Publius
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 1:54 am | Permalink

    Re comment 70. I am not denying the right of women to serve in the military, only pointing out that to not recognize their particular vulnerabilities results in horrendous conditions. From the dawn of history, captured women, but not men, faced a high danger of rape. Every commander in and member of the military knows that rape is a crime. The integration of women into male units has been a scandalous disaster. Military women were more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq. A commander who puts his troops at needless risk is responsible. The whole system is now rotten and dangerous. I could not recommend the current PC military to my daughters or granddaughters. I speak as a veteran who remembers when women served honorably in separate units. To pretend women don’t suffer when they are treated as fungible with men does them a grave injustice. It is willful blindness.

    And this is not especially due to ignorant good old boys, as Mark would style it. Imagine a small southern town or a religious cult where a fifth of the women were raped. It would be a headline grabbing scandal. Imagine that no one in the cult was ever excommunicated for rape-ever. That would be scandalous as well. Where does such a rape culture exist? It exists on American college campuses including some considered the most “progressive.”

    Statistically, college students are at a higher risk of sexual assault than the general population.
    http://www.womensmediacenter.com/feature/entry/date-rape-revisited

    20% of college women and 6% of college men will be victims of sexual assault. Less than 5% of those assaults will be reported to campus authorities or the police.
    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2065849,00.html

    Liberal, gay-friendly, and politically correct Yale has never expelled anyone for the crime of rape - ever.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500172_162-20050348.html

    Google rape culture and Yale and see what eye-opening articles you find! This is a real war on women. The law needs to protect women, not pretend they are fungible with men.

  31. Publius
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 2:01 am | Permalink

    “Same-sex marriage” leads to the exploitation of women. It leads to the buying and selling of eggs and the renting of wombs. Women are reduced to easy bake ovens with no rights to the cupcake. See http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_link_between_rented_wombs_and_gay_marriage

  32. Posted December 10, 2012 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    MarkOH,

    No, because in the NATURAL ORDER they are capable of bearing young.

  33. Posted December 10, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    Fitz:

    Also...If Scalia, Thomas Alito & Roberts (or any number of them) don't take this approach and sign up for the idea that the States decide this on their own... not only do our fundamental constitutional rights go "down the memory hole" BUT (and this is very important) that leaves room for a dissent fro the left claiming that same-sex "marriage" should be forced on the entire nation through the 14th amendment equal protection analysis.

    On this point I cannot agree. Marriage is a domestic institution. For the Supreme Court to force New York, Maryland, etc. to reinstate a single definition of marriage would be nearly as great an act of judicial fiat than imposing same-sex marriage.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.