NOM BLOG

Category Archives: California

NOM Applauds Higher Court Decision Overruling Prop 8's Rogue Judge

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 2, 2012
Contact: Anath Hartmann or Elizabeth Ray (703-683-5004)


"This is yet another example where the higher courts have had to reign in the rogue judge, Vaughn Walker."— Brian Brown

NOM Logo

Washington, DC—The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today applauded the unanimous decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overrule a lower court decision that would have allowed the public broadcast of the Proposition 8 trial even though former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker promised he would only use the recording for his own use in chambers. The court ordered the recording to be sealed and prohibited the lower courts from returning a copy to Walker.

"This is yet another example where the higher courts have had to reign in the rogue judge, Vaughn Walker," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "Walker's bias in the Proposition 8 case was so pervasive that it infected his rulings throughout the trial. This is at least the third time that higher courts have had to overrule him on critical decisions. We applaud the Ninth Circuit for doing so."

In violation of court rules, Judge Walker ordered the Proposition 8 trial to be recorded for world-wide broadcast over the objections of the proponents of the initiative, who told the court many of their witnesses would refuse to testify. On the morning of trial, the US Supreme Court stepped in to block the broadcast of the trial. His broadcast plans dashed, Walker continued recording the trial but pledged that the recording would only be used by him in chambers to help prepare his decision. However, after he issued his decision and announced his retirement, Walker began using the recording as a prop in speaking engagements, and those challenging the initiative demanded that the recording be publicly released for broadcast. Walker also announced that he has been in a ten-year same-sex relationship.

"You know a federal judge like Vaughn Walker is way out of line when even the Ninth Circuit, the most liberal court in the country, is forced to step in to prevent a miscarriage of justice," said Brown. "The only time those who are challenging Prop 8 have won a decision is when it was before the rogue judge Walker. Once higher authorities have examined the facts, they have reversed Walker time and again. We are confident that we will eventually win on the merits of Prop 8 as well and that it will be upheld as a validly enacted and appropriate constitutional amendment."

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Anath Hartmann,ahartmann@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.

###

Victory: Even 9th Circuit Decides Lawless Judge Walker Can't Violate His Promise and Release Trial Tapes

The Los Angeles Times on the breaking news:

A federal appeals court refused Thursday to make public the video of the Proposition 8 same-sex marriage trial, a victory for opponents of gay marriage.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the video from the 2010 federal trial in San Francisco should remain sealed because the trial judge promised the defenders of the proposition that it would be used for internal court purposes only.

“The trial judge on several occasions unequivocally promised that the recording of the trial would be used only in chambers and not publicly broadcast,” the panel said.

The 9th Circuit ruling overturned a lower court decision in favor of making the video public, a position favored by the news media and gay rights groups.

... The court also decided that retired Chief Judge U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who presided over the Proposition 8 trial and ruled the measure unconstitutional, is not entitled to keep a copy of the recordings. After his retirement, Walker used a snippet from the testimony in a lecture about cameras in the court.

Read the 9th Circuit's decision here (PDF).

Gay Marriage Legal In California? Not If We Work Together!

Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

As you know, the NOM Education Fund fights to protect marriage in all 50 states.

But California is one of the states on the front lines and of critical importance—more so than most others.

The same-sex marriage lobbyists have been focusing on the Golden State for a long time, pouring millions of dollars into their campaigns: first to permanently legalize gay marriage, and second (when their original plans failed) to reverse a vote of the people through the courts!

That is why California is such a key part of NOM's 2012 strategic battle plan to protect marriage, and why I am writing you today.

Our fight to uphold Prop 8—which Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris refuse to defend—is going all the way to the Supreme Court in 2012.

NOM has already contributed almost half a million dollars to the legal defense of Prop 8, but more is urgently needed for this all-important battle.

Will you help fund the legal defense of Prop 8 by making one special gift to NOM right now?

Donate Now

Your financial help is critical, because on the other side, Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights are spending a ton of money to overturn the will of over 7 million Californians and force gay marriage down your throat (in the words of Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom) "whether you like it or not!"

Anything you can afford to donate is important, because with so many fights all over America, our resources will be stretched thin all year.

Marriage and religious liberty are under immediate and urgent threat in over a dozen states. Several large, new, urgent and very expensive fights have arisen in just the past few weeks.

The bottom line: 2012 will either be the year when traditional marriage makes a comeback...

...or it will be the year when the same-sex marriage lobbyists knock the doors down and begin their assault on marriage in all 50 states.

As always, our success depends on you, marriage supporter.

Donate Now

So please, to protect marriage in California, and to support our ability to fight against same-sex marriage throughout 2012, make one urgent financial gift today.

Thank you in advance and God bless you.

Sincerely

Brian Brown

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
NOM Education Fund

P.S. We know the anti-marriage bullies will outspend us in California. They will also use much nastier tactics. But, as Prop 8 showed, the people are on our side. So as long as we have the resources necessary to spread the truth and fight back against the smear campaigns, we will win. So please make the most generous financial gift you can afford at this time. Thanks again.

Donate Now

New CA Bill Allows Boys and Girls to Share "Facilities" Based on "Gender Identity"

The Pacific Justice Institute:

Less than a week after California’s gay history mandate went into effect, a new pro-LGBT bill introduced last week promises to stir even more controversy.

AB 266, sponsored by Assemblyman and comedian Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), would require schools to allow students to participate on sports teams according to their “gender identity,” not their biological sex. This is no joke. That means that a boy who claims that he identifies as female would have the right to try out for the girls’ basketball team, potentially taking away an opportunity from a girl who might otherwise make the team. “This bill will potentially turn long established federal law that provides equal opportunities for boys and girls to participate in school athletics on its head,” said chief counsel Kevin Snider. But that’s not all. The bill also mandates access to opposite-sex “facilities,” apparently including locker rooms.

Tom Farr On Prop 8 and the "Effort to Expel Religious Arguments from Democratic Deliberation"

Tom Farr is the director of the Religious Freedom Project at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs at Georgetown University. He writes with Tim Shah in the New York Times:

In 2010, the U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker invalidated a California ballot initiative for which millions of religiously motivated blacks and Latinos, among others, had voted on the same day they cast ballots for Barack Obama. The measure was Proposition 8, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The presence of religious arguments in the campaign led Judge Walker to assert that the "moral and religious views" underpinning the vote were not “rational,” rendering the measure unconstitutional.

Walker's ruling, like Obama's assertion, represents a results-oriented effort to expel religious arguments from democratic deliberation. This has been a tempting device for partisans of all stripes. To silence religiously motivated civil rights advocates like Martin Luther King Jr., Jerry Falwell once asserted that “Preachers are not called to be politicians, but soul winners.” Whatever its source, any effort to confine religious people and their ideas to an innocuous spirituality or a merely ceremonial role in public life is a threat to religious liberty and to American democracy.

Fred Karger Called-Out for One-Man Campaign of Vicious Anti-Mormon Bigotry

Fred Karger typifies the extremist gay marriage activist who pushes for gay marriage by demonizing and attacking pro-marriage supporters (including NOM and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). His most recent stunt, launching a website targeting Mormons for hate, is earning him condemnation from op-ed writers across the country, as it should.

Karin Klein of the Los Angeles Times Opinion Staff:

Funny that Fred Karger, gay rights advocate, founded the group Californians Against Hate, since his most recent campaign seems to be about spreading bigotry.

Negative campaigns and ugly smears might be the stuff of politics these days, but within this category, Karger gets a special space all his own after launching an attack website against Mormonism that purportedly reveals the 10 "craziest beliefs" of Mormons, lest voters consider voting for Mormon candidate Mitt Romney. The site doesn't actually have such a list; it's more a place where anyone can anonymously post any sort of canard about Mormonism. Perhaps rational people could also try inserting some truths, if those are actually allowed.

The blogger "Piranhamous" for the Fishbowl DC political blog:

Karger’s hatred of Mormons seems to stem from his “organization Californians Against Hate (now Rights Equal Rights) to investigate the LDS Church and the National Organization for Marriage in their campaigns against marriage equality in California and Maine.” So it’s not political, it’s personal.

Unfortunately for Fred, his Facebook announcement of his new website seems to have cost him quite a few potential voters, and it didn’t have any to spare.

All comments, with one exception, were negative with the most common word used being “shame.” One poster wrote, “Run on your platform and stop slamming the Mormons.” But then again, when you create a website like Fred did, slamming Mormons seems to be his platform.

File this under “stupid” and try to forget you ever heard the name Fred Karger. It shouldn’t be too hard to do.

"Is Traditional Marriage Unconstitutional?" -- Professor of Law Responds

George W. Dent, Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University Law School writes at-length in the Federalist Society's Engage publication on the legal status of Prop 8 and concludes:

The Constitution confers no right to legal validation of same-sex marriage. As Judge Richard Posner has said, “If there is such a right, it will have to be manufactured by the justices out of whole cloth.” For the Supreme Court to do so would gravely damage its legitimacy and invite efforts to change the composition of the Court. However justified the public anger at the obliteration of traditional marriage, such moves would create a dangerous precedent. It is hoped that the Court will not provoke such action.

California Nonpartisan Agency Says Economic Effects of SSM "Negligible"

Gay activists often try to point to the Williams Institute's claims that redefining marriage will stimulate state economies. We recently pointed out a small business owner in Washington, DC showing how these claims turned out to be false.

Last week the Associated Press noted that California's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office and Department of Finance found that "the potential financial effect [re-legalizing same-sex marriage in California] on state and local governments would be negligible over the long run." You can see a PDF of their report here.

Interestingly enough, they said the same thing about passing Prop 8 back in 2008.

Bottom line: over the long run, legalizing same-sex marriage won't create an economic boom for states. And there's plenty of evidence that it will cause real harm. That much at least is clear.

FDA Intervenes After Man Gives Away 328 Free Sperm Donations

A snapshot into the unregulated world of sperm donation:

It's costly to give away your sperm for free -- just ask Trent Arsenault. The 36-year-old Northern California man has "fathered" 14 children since 2006, and has 4 more on the way. But they may be his last.

The FDA got wind of his one-man sperm donor operation last year and has ordered him to shut it down. Though he charges nothing for his services, the agency has labeled him a "manufacturer of human cells."

He's fighting the order, but could ultimately face a $100,000 fine if things don't work out.

Trent Arsenault connects with local couples on his website, trentdonor.org. It includes his resume, medical history, STD tests and pictures of babies born of his seed. His efforts have resulted in at least 328 donations to 46 unique recipients, according to the FDA's cease and desist letter. -- Legally Weird

Young America's Foundation Calls on Hamline U. to Come Clean

Ron Meyer writing for the Young America's Foundation Quad blog writes about the situation at Hamline U.:

Hamline’s unexplained decision seems to link pretty closely with these faculty complaints—based solely on Emmer’s conservative beliefs. Bonilla’s complaints falsely presumed that because of Emmer’s stance on marriage (held my millions of Americans), Emmer would discriminate against certain students.

The grand irony here is that Bonilla and Hamline University discriminated against Emmer for his beliefs. Liberals consistently preach tolerance, but then are never tolerant to conservative ideas.

Young America’s Foundation calls for Hamline University to come clean with their discriminatory hiring practices. If higher education is about being open-minded, prove it. Hamline ought to renew the offer to hire Emmer and fulfill their obligations.

Group Receives Approval for Prop 8 Repeal Signature Gathering

In October, Equality California chose to abandon an attempt to repeal Prop 8 at the ballot because they believed they would lose.

Another group however still intends to give it a shot:

A gay rights group that wants to repeal the state constitutional amendment that stripped same-sex couples in California of the right to get married received clearance Friday to start gathering signatures for a measure that would rescind the gay marriage ban known as Proposition 8.

Los Angeles-based Love Honor Cherish has until May 14 to collect the 807,615 voter signatures required to qualify its initiative for the November 2012 ballot, the secretary of state's office said.

... The repeal initiative submitted by Love Honor Cherish would strike Proposition 8 and state instead "that marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion," according to a summary prepared by the California Attorney General's office. -- The Mercury News

Video: Legal Eagle Chuck Cooper's Passionate Closing Statement in Prop 8 Hearing

ProtectMarriage.com's brilliant lead attorney Chuck Cooper delivered an impassioned closing statement at last Thursday's Prop 8 Hearing at the 9th Circuit of Appeals.

In this video, he's arguing that Judge Walker ought not have hidden the fact that he was in a long-term relationship with a man and that by not doing so Walker in effect decided his own case when he ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional:

Video: Leading, Contradictory Arguments from San Francisco Attorney in Prop 8 Hearing

In this video, Therese Stewart, chief deputy attorney of San Francisco, speaking for the opponents of Prop 8, delivers a series of leading, contradictory arguments for why Judge Walker did not have to disclose the fact that he was in a long-term relationship before deciding to hear and rule on Prop 8.

At first, she accuses supporters of prop 8 of being guilty of "stereotyping ... that gay people in relationships are likely to want to get married" and then, seconds later, in response to a question from the judge's panel, she says "every gay person wants to get married". We suspect that if the panel finds in favor of the opponents of Prop 8, in won't be because they were persuaded by these arguments:

Prop 8 Update: 6th Circuit v. 9th Circuit on the Meaning of Lawrence v. Texas

CitizenLink brings up a case recently decided on the 6th circuit where a man, citing Lawrence V. Texas challenged an Ohio law that criminalized a sexual relationship with his adult stepdaughter. Bruce Hausknecht writes:

The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (covering Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee) this week affirmed the conviction of an Ohio man under that state’s criminal incest statute, rejecting the argument that the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas invalidated all criminal statutes involving adult consensual sex. The consensual sex at issue in the Ohio case involved the man’s 22-year old stepdaughter.

...If the impact of Lawrence doesn’t even reach all criminal laws involving intimate relationships, as the 6th Circuit holds, then state civil laws – especially those involving a public institution like marriage – ought to be far beyond Lawrence‘s reach.

And yet, in the California federal courts, Lawrence played heavily in the 2010 trial court’s decision to strike down that state’s marriage amendment, Prop 8. The 9th Circuit, currently hearing the appeal, differs substantially from the 6th Circuit on the meaning of Lawrence.

I suspect that if and when the Prop 8 case hits the Supreme Court, there will be much discussion at oral argument about Lawrence v. Texas, and all eyes (and ears) will be focused on Justices Kennedy and Scalia.

What will Justice Kennedy do?

We don't know. But Justice Scalia's "excoriating dissent" in Lawrence v. Texas asserted that this decision would lead directly to a Constitutional right to gay marriage. We suspect Justice Kennedy will not want to be the vote that proves Justice Scalia was right about that.

Stay tuned.

Courthouse News Service Predicts Partial Victory for Prop 8 Proponents After Oral Arguments

Courthouse News Service:

After lengthy oral argument, the 9th Circuit appeared poised to rule that a video from the trial on the constitutionality of California's same-sex marriage ban, Proposition 8, was improperly broadcast to the public.

The court seemed less likely to accept the Prop. 8 proponents' argument that the district judge who struck down the measure should have recused himself because of his long-term relationship with another man.