Prop. 8 defenders: Uphold marriage, let public debate

ProtectMarriage.com legal team files opening brief with U.S. Supreme Court
Attorney Cooper

Attorney Cooper

The following comes from a January 22 press release from Alliance Defending Freedom.

Defenders of California’s marriage amendment filed their opening brief with the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday. The brief argues that the high court should affirm the validity and rational basis of the amendment and refuse demands for a judicially-imposed end to the robust, ongoing public debate about marriage.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys are part of the legal team for ProtectMarriage.com, the banner organization for the official proponents and campaign committee of Proposition 8, which California voters approved in 2008. Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to review Hollingsworth v. Perry,  the federal lawsuit attacking the amendment.

“Marriage between a man and a woman is a universal good that diverse cultures and faiths have honored throughout the history of Western Civilization,” said senior counsel Austin Nimocks. “Marriage isn’t merely a matter of personal preferences. How we treat marriage has societal consequences. The wisest course is for the court to resist demands to prematurely end the national debate over the future of marriage. Californians voted for marriage twice, and the court should respect the people’s freedom to affirm society’s fundamental building block.”

In February 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit declared the California marriage amendment unconstitutional. Voters submitted signed petitions to place the marriage protection amendment on the 2008 ballot prior to a California Supreme Court decision that redefined marriage in the state to include same-sex couples. More Californians voted on the amendment than for president of the United States.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is constitutional as a matter of public policy,” explained ProtectMarriage.com lead counsel Charles Cooper with the Cooper & Kirk law firm. “The lower courts rejected all relevant Supreme Court and appellate court precedent. We are confident that the Supreme Court will uphold its precedent and affirm California’s freedom to protect marriage.”

The opening brief in defense of the marriage amendment explains, “…if it was reasonable for California to [uphold marriage] for 158 years before the California Supreme Court’s ruling in the Marriage Cases, it is also reasonable for California to draw the same line, for the same reasons, after the 142-day hiatus caused by that short-lived decision. And if it is rational for Congress and 40 other States to distinguish between opposite-sex couples and other types of relationships for purposes of marriage, surely it is rational for California to do so as well.”

 

To read original release, click here.

Buffer
To add a comment, click on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ icons OR go further down to the bottom of comments to the Post your comment box.

Comments

  1. Larry from RI says:

    Alliance Defending Freedom are right in the trenches fighting for our freedom and liberty.
    They are our grunts doing our legal work to defend our freedoms.
    Support them in any way you can.

  2. California marriage law became a bigger problem when Gov. Arnold started allowing gay marriages before the whole court issue was resolved. He did not have to do that, especially since his main voter base voted for prop 8. When gays rushed to the courthouse in numbers to tie the knot it caused a legal and moral mess.

    • Your Fellow Catholic says:

      Dear Lisag- I think you’ve got the timeline wrong. The CA Supreme Court overturned Prop 22, and ordered marriage licenses… before Prop 8 was passed, thus ending the court dispute known as the “in re marriage cases”. That’s why in 2008, 18,000 same sex couples got married, and those marriages are still valid today. The whole court issue WAS resolved, and that’s why marriages began.

      Once prop 8 took away the right under the CA constitution for same sex couples to obtain marriage licenses, then the federal prop 8 case started. Alliance Defending Freedom lost in the federal district court, lost again in the federal ninth circuit, lost again in its request to have a larger review by a fuller panel of ninth circuit judges, and is now seeking to have all those decisions overturned.

      • Anonymous says:

        Not a trick question.

      • Sorry about that. The fact remains that California voters voted down same sex marriage two times. The court overturned it two times and now we are waiting for the SC. Politicians Gavin Newsom and Arnold gave the go ahead on gay marriage going against the voters of California causing the situation to worsen before the SC decides on the whole thing. You may feel that the courts were right to overturn the props, but the issue was not resolved in the majority of California voters.

      • False claim by YFC: “That’s why in 2008, 18,000 same sex couples got married, and those marriages are still valid today”. YFC’s claim here is sheer fantasy. Not possible for same sex to marry … it’s all a sham regardles of what some depraved and perverse set of politicians and judges claim to the contrary.

      • Governments and constitutions cannot grant rights, YFC. Only God can do that. There is no right to abortion, and there is no right to commit sodomy or even to think or imagine committing sodomy.

  3. OneoftheSheep says:

    And what is next? If so-called same sex marriages become law, then we must overturn or amend adultery laws to equalize divorce proceedings.

    “Whoever observes the whole Law but trips up on a single point is held guilty of breaking all of it.” James 2:10

  4. Alliance Defending Freedom has shown themselves to be fairly incompetent thus far. I do not think they will win before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    • Rick DeLano says:

      Dave N:

      The incompetence has been shown by the hysterically over-the-top circus trial orchestrated by interested party Vaughn Walker and his friendly co-conspirators of the Ninth Circuit.

      I expect you are going to be highly disappointed in your prediction — SCOTUS is preparing a long-overdue and much-needed smackdown for the radical Reinhardt and his Ninth Circuit — the most reversed judge in the entire US Circuit Court system. :-)

  5. What is there to debate. Marriage is between one man and one woman period. Anything else is unbalanced in more ways than one and opens the door to just about anything, including incestuous marriages.

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 250 words, and should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Post your comment

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 250 words, and should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.