Why same-sex marriage proponents worry

Prop 8 foes may win victory for only two couples

The following comes from a February 19 posting on the American Family News website.

Even if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that supporters of traditional marriage don’t have the right to defend Proposition 8, one attorney says homosexual activists will still not be celebrating.

Supporters of same-sex “marriage” argue that California’s Proposition 8 proponents do not have the right to defend their measure in court. The initiative, which voters passed in November 2008, defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear the case in March, it has asked both sides to present their arguments on legal standing. The San Francisco Chronicle notes that if homosexual activists win on the issue of standing, they may not have much to celebrate, as U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision that overturned Prop. 8 would be set aside. The ruling would only apply to the two couples who filed the suit, leaving Prop. 8 in effect for the rest of the state.

Ken Klukowski, a senior legal analyst for The American Civil Rights Union (ACRU), explains how that would happen.

“The argument that’s being raised there is if there is no standing at the Supreme Court, then there was no standing at the Ninth Circuit, and, in fact, there was no standing in U.S. District Court — that the whole case has to be stricken entirely off the books,” he details.

Klukowski believes that the high court is unlikely to rule that proponents of Prop. 8 do not have legal standing to defend the initiative.

When Judge Walker overturned Prop. 8 in 2010, prohibiting┬áCalifornia from enforcing it, the state’s governor and attorney general refused to defend the state law. So Protect Marriage took a stand for their initiative and has continued to defend it.

Court orders have kept Prop. 8 in effect while the case is on appeal, as traditional marriage maintains widespread support (see earlier story).

See more here.


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.


  1. Standing is critically important, but unfortunately -
    According to the equality principle if one homo-sexual couple is allowed to marry, all under the exact same State laws will be allowed to marry.
    (This is how Roe v Wade spread nation-wide.)

    With their friend of sodomy in the White House, he will continue to write his “Executive Orders” to change any laws he personally does not want. And his Democratic Senate will allow him to get away with it.

  2. St. Christopher says:

    Judge Walker is corrupt and gives a perfect example as to why homosexual activists can never be trusted to limit their agenda (including with the Boy Scouts of America). He is nothing more than a mole for the advancement of homosexual sexual activity, as are virtually all homosexuals in other positions of responsibility (e.g., priests, teachers and the like). In that homosexuals define themselves in terms of their sexuality, all activities must reflect this, or be changed until they do (according to them). Thinking of “neutral” homosexuals is simply a contradiction, one that may seem unfair, or even cruel, at times, but that is nonetheless accurate. Judge Walker perverted the very system of laws and the constitution that he was sworn to uphold. It is likely, given the political and social outcry that would surely follow, that the Supreme Court will ultimately yield on homosexual rights (although not necessarily on this particular case). Yet, these “rights” are the death knell of our social contract, including the functioning of religious liberty.

    • St. Christopher, it might happen as you say, but it will lead to the collapse of the nations that practice it, and already has to a certain extent, and then there will be a turn around in the other direction that might go so far to the right that these people will regret ever discusing such things as “marriage” between two people of the same sex.

      Civilizations and nations have risen and fallen down through the ages over such things as this, and then a more Godly nation comes in and takes over the immoral tyrannical one, and ours is becoming tyrannical if we do not fight it by living more virtuous lives.

      On the other hand, the nation might not fall, but the people involved in the corruption will destroy themselves. We saw that in the 1970s in many of our cities. Our Lady said that war is a punishment for sin.

      “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people,” as the Holy Bible says.

  3. Have you read Father Dariusz Oko’s article “With the Pope against the Homoheresy”? Let’s remember Father’s statement: “Any discussion should have as its starting point the basic, axiomatic assumption that any one of us can know with certainty only a part, and that part is likely to be partially wrong. That should result in any opinions being presented with humility, and the arguments of partners or opponents being listened to with attention. That way we may best benefit from the parts of knowledge each of us has, and correct them. They will always remain only parts, but they will be bigger and purified from errors to a greater extent. This is the spirit of an honest dialogue and it is in this spirit that I want to proceed.” Since the article is so long, it will be helpful if you could refer to the subsection and paragraph when discussing. I have read that there is more than one translation of it. The English translation I have seen is on the Rorate Caeli website.

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.