Statement From Maggie


"Chuck Cooper is a heckuva lawyer. At stake in this case is the future of marriage in all 50 states, and he's right that this attempt to shut down the debate by constitutionalizing gay marriage will backfire. Americans have a right to vote for marriage. Ted Olson doesn't seem to understand the argument, and judging from today's exchanges neither does Judge Walker. I expect Judge Walker will overrule Prop 8.   But millions of Americans do understand why marriage is the union of husband and wife and I believe the majority of the Supreme Court will as well."


  1. LMB
    Posted June 16, 2010 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

    Sodom and Gehmorah rerun!

  2. Brad
    Posted June 17, 2010 at 12:07 am | Permalink

    Chuck Cooper was amazing, disproving every single argument for gay marriage that supposed "A" team brought up. So educational, the American public can see their arguments have absolutely no merit. Traditional marriage will prevail. Thank you Cooper for such compelling arguments and expert testimony,.

  3. Michael Ejercito
    Posted June 17, 2010 at 1:25 am | Permalink

    Baker v. Nelson.

  4. JonInVA
    Posted June 17, 2010 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    You believe Cooper is a "heckuva" Lawyer? From what I understand he fumbled the most routine questions about "why" traditional marriage needs to be protected, as well as the deterimental effects on marriage by overturning its fundamental and long-standing definition. If you can't answer logically and succinctly the myriad negative societal effects, the impact on a an already reeling institution (brought about by the very types of social changes they endorse), the reaons why the State does restrict types of marriage, all of the slippery slope arguments about multiple-marriage, sibling marriage, and why childless or barren couples can still get married, and the fact that you may be able to separate church and state in government but not in people's hearts and minds, you shouldn't be arguing this case. And you sure aren't a heckuva lawyer. The Prop 8 side should have had hundreds of "expert witnesses" on constitutional law, sociology, history, child psychology, etc. If this ends up at SCOTUS, I hope those who charged themselves with the protection of this sacred institution will be much better prepared.

  5. Posted June 17, 2010 at 11:27 am | Permalink


    While it's true that the Constitution doesn't define "marriage," the federal government has complicated the issue by taking a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of tax law and Social Security (among the 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are automatically bestowed on couples once they marry). Therefore this is not an issue that can be left up to the states to decide individually, since it wouldn't do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa, for instance, to become automatically UN-married once they decide to move somewhere else.

    Religious beliefs are irrelevant, because (1) the United States is not theocracy, and (2) churches will continue to be free to conduct or deny ceremonies to whomever they want.

    Procreation and parenting are irrelevant, since couples do not have to marry to have children, and the ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for getting a marriage license.

    This is simply a matter of equal treatment under the law.

    The quest for marriage equality by Gay couples has absolutely nothing to do with Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples. Nothing is changing for them. Nothing is happening to “traditional marriage.” Most people are Straight, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that will change by allowing Gay couples to do the same. This is really not any sort of a “sea change” for marriage, since the only difference between Gay and Straight couples is the gender of the two persons in the relationship.

    Ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States will have to address this issue, as reluctant as I'm sure they are to do so. And I suspect that they will decided that there is simply no Constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

  6. TC Matthews
    Posted June 17, 2010 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    Jon, did you actually listen to, or even read the arguments? The burden is on Olson & Co. to prove their case, not the other way around.

  7. ConservativeNY
    Posted June 17, 2010 at 9:54 pm | Permalink


    Every individual can marry a member of the opposite sex. That rule applies to everyone regardless of race or sexual preference. So gay activists are not seeking the right to marry. They are seeking the right to have marriage redifined to suit their sexual desires. Big difference. This is a right that they would deny to other sexual preferences i.e. incest, polygamy, etc. Doesn't sound like "marriage equality" to me.

    Children need a stable environment to be raised in with a male and female role model. That is why marriage had been established in the first place and what the government is in the process of dismanteling. Redifining marriage places the sexual and romantic fulfillment of adults above the procreation and needs of children, our future. Most people do not want the government to consider the role children play in marriage to be secondary or irrelevant to the wants and fulfillment of adults. Our children deserve more than that.

    The Supreme Court is unlikely to discover a right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution. The Court normally runs along the tracks of public opinion in Constitutional cases. 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." She has said that "[t]he court bit off more than it could chew" when it decided Roe v. Wade.

    As long as the states and the public oppose same-sex marriage, it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will force it on everyone. Any lawyers bringing such a case before the Court will need favorable votes from five of the nine justices. Yet as Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law at Northwestern University Constitutional law scholar 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."

  8. JonInVA
    Posted June 17, 2010 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

    TC, yes I did. And you're right. The burden is on Olsen to prove their case. However, when dealing with a liberal judge, who may even be gay, and who has already voiced tacit support for their side, combined with the all of the noise and emotion generated by this tiny minority, I would just hope that those who are defending marriage, as well as the constitutional right of the people of the state to decide such things, would have better answers when confronted with the oft-used mantras regarding "who does this affect you or your marriage", or "why are couples who choose not to have children or are infertile, allowed to marry", and so forth?
    They should focus on knocking down their erroneous linkage to the black civil rights struggle, as well as any previous marriage cases related to inter-racial couples or past norms. And I'm not certain that they did that. I'll re-read the arguments and perhaps I simply didn't see what I expected to see, and therefore made a rash judgement. I'll post back if my original thoughts were ill-informed. Thanks.

  9. JonInVA
    Posted June 17, 2010 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

    P.S. - why would they have only "one" expert witness during the final 17 days of arguments, while the pro-gay side brought in the tear-jerkers professing how horrible it is to not be married, etc. Why allow oneself to get mired in issues of procreation, or emotional hyperbole from the other side, rather than asking the reverse question - "how does gay marriage benefit the state's interests"? What does it promote or provide that civil unions do not"? "How can two hundred years of marriage definition be turned on it's head for a small minority whose sexual practices - learned, chosen, genetic or otherwise, is to any rational mind, not part of natural law, as evidenced by the biological complimentary of man and woman, etc.

    I just don't feel the arguments were convincing and therefore we're going to lose and be forced to SCOTUS, which could be a toss-up.

  10. TC Matthews
    Posted June 18, 2010 at 5:49 am | Permalink

    Jon, if you play the game the opposition lawyers were trying to get marriage supporters to play, they'll end up skeptically poking holes in your arguments, begging you to prove this or that or the other in order to obscure the fact that no evidence whatsoever shows that SSM is a benefit to society. The reality is historically clear; no long lasting stable society has embraced homosexuality and remained stable. Gay activists are effectively asking society to unhitch the time tested mores on sheer faith, and go surfing on waves of their opinion. The best they can do, and have done multiple times over on these threads is mince some data around to compare the creme-de-la-creme, self-reporting stable homosexual couples, with broken and battered heterosexual homes. That's not apples to apples, and it does no one any good. They can't prove their case, and miring ourselves trying to prove ours when they have the stage is foolish. The onus is on them, and theatrics aside, the points of law they brought were fairly weak. I'll give them points for down-home bar-fight style, but style is to appease the peanut gallery, not courts of law.

  11. TC Matthews
    Posted June 18, 2010 at 6:05 am | Permalink

    I might add that the "homo v. hetero" approach to the marriage question is deeply flawed and tends to play to the strengths of gay activists who relish victim status and the politics of implied guilt. The issue has so many more interesting facets and is much broader than that narrow interpretation. Gay activists would love to paint the fight as us vs. them, but in reality, sexual orientation has very little to do with the issue at hand. Religious freedom, judicial review, the right of the people to decide the laws that govern them.... there are many issues at stake, far beyond the media-hyped activist "us vs. them" view.

    These are big issues in the arena of ideas. They ought to be vetted by merit thoroughly before society adopts these untested, unproven theories wholesale.

  12. Matthew
    Posted June 18, 2010 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    This is the prime example of man made religion being the root off most hate in this country.

  13. Tyler
    Posted June 18, 2010 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

    Marriage is a dying institution. It's been that way for decades now, so it really doesn't matter who marries who. No one takes it seriously anymore and the majority of people really don't care either way. Marriage was created eons ago so that men could control women, it's altered significantly since then. Most people can't stay married anyway. People don't get married to procreate so that's statement that will have to be trashed and nothing will really assist in preserving marriage the way you want it. I would just let it go. Enjoy whatever time you have left on this planet and move on to something else.

  14. ConservativeNY
    Posted June 18, 2010 at 7:43 pm | Permalink


    Your post only proves the point I have made before. It is apathy for family values that opens the door for the legalization of gay marriage and eventually leads to the destruction of the institution itself. For more evidence, just type "abolish marriage" in Google or Bing and you will find all these articles endorsing the abolition of marriage by those who advocate gay matrimony.

    Far from being an institution fashioned to "control" women, it actually protects women from being abandoned and harmed economically by uncommitted men. And mothers who have never been married are more than twice as likely to suffer from violent crime as married mothers.

    Natural marriage is the foundation of a civilized society in that it encourages an adequate replacement birth rate. The birth rate in the US is 2.1 per couple. Any lower and the nation will not be able to sustain itself.

    That is why the work NOM does is so crucial, not just in stopping the redefinition of marriage, but in reversing the trend of apathy so many people have about the family values that keep this nation strong.

  15. Tyler
    Posted June 29, 2010 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

    I can see your point and understand your concern that it would diminish the marriage institution by legalizing Same Sex Marriage. I, for one, am for a strong family home base and not many share that view anymore, but unfortunately regardless of whether or not same sex marriage is legalized, marriages are still falling apart by the numbers. I’m not happy about that, but it’s also nothing new. It’s been like that for decades and continues to increase. If Same Sex Marriage is banned in every state and country around the world, Marriages are still going to go down hill. It just has nothing to do with gays marrying or not. It has to do with the fact that people no longer value relationships with one person for life anymore. That concept doesn’t exist. The focus shouldn't be on same sex marriages as being an enemy and a problem, but the focus should be on creating solid relationships and families that last. This is what should be promoted and explained to the masses.

    Too much wasted energy is being directed on something that is so minimal to be an issue. It's just made an issue by the media and those who are disgusted by it happening at all. I'll admit even I was a bit thrown off when it began happening, but I thought 'okay if that's what's next, then so be it.' I don’t see many gays or straights marrying to begin with anyway. It never crossed my mind that it would ruin marriage altogether, and I don't believe that it will. That's the least of our worries when it comes to marriage.

    I can see how the idea of gays marrying would scare the hell out of some who live in more isolated cities. To say that that's the downfall of marriage just isn't accurate. There are people who are fully against same sex marriage and still have apathy for not only marriage, but relationships in general. They’re two completely separate issues. To spend so much time, money and energy on something like same sex marriage is so counterproductive, when everyone should be going towards the promotion of a stronger family base. Forget about same sex marriage. All the fighting and arguing isn’t going to stop it or change it, all it’s done was divide the country, families and people in general up. It’s all ugliness and has nothing to do with family.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.