NOM BLOG

Cheating Marriage: A Tragedy in Three Acts

 

NOM Chairman John Eastman, one of our nation’s most distinguished constitutional law scholars, has watched the marriage litigation of the last several years unfold from a front row seat. Dr. Eastman is a former US Supreme Court clerk, former Dean and current Professor of Law at the Fowler School of Law at Chapman University and Founding Director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. He knows how the legal system is supposed to perform, which is why it has been so disheartening and disillusioning to see how it was manipulated by the left to advance the cause of redefining marriage.

Dr. Eastman has written a brilliant article, Cheating Marriage: A Tragedy in Three Acts, which documents the unbelievable collusion between elected officials, litigants and judges in the cases that invalidated Proposition 8 in California and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which served as the foundation to redefine marriage for the entire nation. The article has recently been published in the Ave Maria Law Review, and is also available for download on SSRN.

We encourage all NOM supporters to download and read this articulate, carefully researched and highly enlightened article. Below is a small abstract from SSRN:

ThinkstockPhotos-87160932In his dissenting opinion in United States v. Windsor, Justice Scalia accused the Court of “cheating,” because it decided an issue that properly belonged to the voters. But the cheating that went on in the case, and the parallel case involving Proposition 8 in California, was also of the vintage variety. This article tells the largely untold story about the many machinations by elected officials and judges to produce the end result in favor of same-sex marriage, from conflicts of interest, to collusion by nominally “opposing” counsel, and finally to an aggressive refusal by high-ranking government lawyers (including one who would then cast the deciding vote in the case) to defend laws for which there were perfectly reasonable defenses well-rooted in then-existing precedent.