Good News For Biblical Marriage!

Even the very liberal CA Supreme Court could not deny the defenders of Proposition 8 (where the rights of voters who voted to keep the definition of marriage as "The Union of One Man and One Woman") standing in the CA Proposition 8 lawsuit!  Here is a blog post and several emailed articles about this development:

California Sup. Ct.: Prop 8 defenders have standing to defend marriage law

posted by William A. Jacobson at Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion - 19 hours ago

The California Supreme Court has just resolved a major procedural issue as to Prop. 8, which codified the “one man, one woman” definition of marriage into the California Constitution after the California S...

Here is a portion of an email I received from Brian Brown of Nation For Marriage:

Thursday, November 17th, 2011

Dear Chris,

In a huge victory for NOM and supporters of Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the proponents of the initiative have the legal right to defend the initiative in court.

This is a major victory for the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund and the lead Prop 8 attorney, Chuck Cooper.

Had the Supreme Court not agreed with the backers of Prop 8 that the Proponents have the legal standing to defend the initiative, it is very likely that the ruling of a rogue judge that overturned Prop 8 would have gone unchallenged. This is because Governor Jerry Brown, his predecessor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Kamala Harris have shamefully refused to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to defend the marriage initiative in court, despite it being passed with the support of over 7 million California voters.

In an email from Karen England of Capitol Resource Institute, she writes:

Earlier today the California State Supreme Court ruled that Protect Marriage, the official sponsors of Proposition 8, have legal standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision to overturn California's marriage amendment.



In their ruling the state's highest court concluded that:



"...because the official proponents of an initiative are the most obvious and logical persons to assert the state's interest in the initiative's validity on behalf of the voters who enacted the measure, we conclude that California law authorizes the official proponents, under such circumstances, to appear in the proceeding to assert the state's interest in the initiative's validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure."



"The State Supreme Court ruled to uphold the integrity and validity of our initiative process," stated Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. "Elected officials do not have the constitutional right to essentially let a people-enacted law, or in this case constitutional amendment, be deemed null simply because it was not given a fair treatment in the courts."



In an article defending Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), John Eastman wrote, "we should all be able to agree that a collusive suit, involving questionable conduct by the Attorney General of a state, is not the appropriate way to resolve monumentally important policy or even constitutional questions." Dr. Eastman was right in his assessment and our state's highest court agrees.



The ruling answers the question posed to the CA Supreme Court by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals can take the legal opinion of the state court and allow the official proponents of Prop. 8 to defend the law in federal court.



The ruling, although important and a victory, does not settle the constitutionality of California's marriage amendment; it simply states that proponents have legal standing.

The following is a portion of an email from Andy Pugno, who is the General Counsel of the Protect Marriage initiative:

Dear Friend,

Today the California Supreme Court ruled UNANIMOUSLY to uphold our right, as the official proponents of Proposition 8, to defend the vote of over seven million Californians to restore traditional marriage in 2008! This victory is an ENORMOUS boost for traditional marriage, as well as the integrity of the initiative process itself!

The Court held:

“[W]e conclude that when public officials decline to defend a voter-approved initiative or assert the state’s interest in the initiative’s validity, under California law the official proponents of an initiative measure are authorized to assert the state’s interest in the validity of the initiative and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure.”

The Court also exposed the obvious flaw in our opponents’ arguments, observing that denying us legal standing to defend Prop 8 would give politicians an illegal “veto” over the people’s initiative power:

“Neither the Governor, the Attorney General, nor any other executive or legislative official has the authority to veto or invalidate an initiative measure that has been approved by the voters. It would exalt form over substance to interpret California law in a manner that would permit these public officials to indirectly achieve such a result by denying the official initiative proponents the authority to step in to assert the state’s interest in the validity of the measure or to appeal a lower court judgment invalidating the measure...”

Meanwhile, this ruling is a HUGE disaster for the homosexual marriage extremists. The Supreme Court completely rejected our opponents’ demands that their lawsuit against Proposition 8 should proceed without any legal defense, and thus win by default! This is devastating for them because their entire legal strategy relied on finding a biased judge to rule in their favor, and then winning on appeal by keeping the voters completely unrepresented. Today that all crumbled before their eyes.

Today’s decision is a critical milestone in our three-year battle to uphold marriage between a man and a woman in California after the passage of Proposition 8. Now we can return our focus to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and our appeal to reverse the lower court’s decision declaring Proposition 8 and traditional marriage itself “unconstitutional.”

Of course, this fight is not finished. But as Mr. Pugno states in his email, this ruling is a HUGE victory for traditional marriage!

I thank God for all of the individuals who have spent so much treasure and in some cases, endured ridicule, physical assaults, death threats, and rabidly hateful rhetoric while stepping out and defending the Proposition 8 decision by the voters of California!

*******

I think that this commentator over at Legal Insurrection has a good point:

retire05 | November 17, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Perhaps all this is based on the belief of Antonio Gramsci, a committed Marxist, who believed that in order to create a society that was loyal to the state, the family unit, based heavily on religious doctrine, must be destroyed, or at least have its importance reduced. A person loyal to family and faith, would not be loyal to the Marxist state.

Gramsci also wrote that in order to indoctrinate someone to the Marxist view, it was important to complete that indoctrination by the age of 12, otherwise children would start to form their own opinions and be reluctant to accept Marxist doctrine.

So we see traditional marriage being challenged, and courts ruling that schools, not parents, have control over children and what they are taught.

'Gay' Judge Who Overturned Prop 8 Quitting

Good news here in California regarding the ongoing battle to keep marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman! 'Gay' judge who overturned Prop 8 quitting
Vaughn Walker's decision reversed votes of more than 7 million

Excerpt:

The homosexual federal judge in California who said that gender "no longer forms an essential part of marriage" when he ruled that voters in the state were constitutionally prohibited from defining marriage as being between one man and one woman is quitting.

The announcement regarding U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker comes from Rich Wieking, clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The announcement, released late yesterday, said Walker will step down as chief judge Dec. 31 and leave the court entirely in February 2011.

The change could create huge new possibilities should the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the Prop 8 case now is pending, return any or all of the case to the lower court for further action, which is not unusual for the much-overturned appellate district.

Matthew McReynolds, counsel for the Pacific Justice Institute, one of the many pro-family organizations that have worked on the Prop 8 case, said it's about time.

"The retirement of Judge Walker is significant because of the possibility the Prop 8 case will be sent back to the district court at some point," he said. "Judge Walker's exit from the federal bench can't come soon enough for the people of California, who are still reeling from his pronouncement that the majority of voters are irrational."

Walker, whose homosexual lifestyle has been documented locally, wrote in his opinion that overturned the votes of millions of California residents to amend the state constitution to include the traditional definition of marriage, that:


* "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians."


* "Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed."


* "The gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment."


* "The evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes."


* "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals."


* "Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples."

Continue reading HERE

Hat Tip:

WorldNetDaily

Re: Marriage Controversy - What Can The Righteous Do?

Received a great email today from Andy Comiskey of Desert Stream Ministries:

August 9th, 2010

'When the foundations [of marriage] are being destroyed, what can the righteous do'? (PS 11:5)

Prayerfully fight, with our minds, hearts and spirits fully engaged for the battle ahead. Will Proposition 8 become the Roe vs. Wade of marriage? Or the Magna Carte that allows US citizens to define marriage according to conscience?

As most of you know, on Wed. August 4th, in the Federal District Court of San Francisco, Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop. 8 on the basis that denying gays the right to marry denied them equality under the US Constitution.

What disturbs you more: Walker, a homosexual judge, who kicked off the case's closing arguments two months ago with a twinkle in his eye and a lilt in his voice as he demurred: 'Well, June is the month of weddings', to the delight of the 'married' lesbian plaintiffs who fawned and giggled over their judicial advocate?
Or the tragic truth that Walker is the mouthpiece for America in the 21st century, a nation no longer certain that marriage was designed to create, protect, and raise children in order that they might emulate their parents' example?

Not only was Walker's decision an abuse of power (one biased man defied the majority of CA voters who through Prop. 8 waged and won the biggest political battle ever for a proposition in CA's history), it reveals the fault lines on which we stand as a nation concerning our views of marriage, equality, and personal rights.

Consider this: Walker struck down Prop. 8 on the grounds that CA citizens who were unwilling to redefine marriage to include gays were motivated by prejudice, an irrational anti-gay bias that compelled them 'to believe that same-sex couples are not as good as opposite-sex couples.'

He missed our point entirely. Prop.8 was simply the will of CA citizens to affirm the rationality of marriage. We also affirmed that marriage is not a 'right' given to any two people who want to privately contract a life together but rather, in the words of Robert George, 'an institution that serves the interest of children and society as a whole by uniting men and women in a relationship whose meaning is shaped by its unique aptness for the begetting and rearing of children.'

That definition, which has always been the fundamental meaning of marriage across religious and cultural lines, always will be the meaning of marriage.

We must prayerfully fight for that definition to be upheld by the law of our land. We thought we had fought and won in CA. Judge Walker just picked a fight.

To ensure that the Walkers of this world do not prevail, please pray:

For the hold placed on Walker's decision that does not permit gays to marry in CA until further consideration from the Court. Pray that this 'stay' endures until the case is heard by a higher court.

For the Prop. 8 defense team as they seek consideration from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Pray for a smooth pathway in this process.

For the case to move swiftly to the Federal Supreme Court, where the fate of marriage will ultimately be decided by one-Justice Kennedy-who appears to be the swing vote in a Court divided right down the middle.

Pray for Kennedy, that he and the Court will hold fast to the true definition of marriage, or at least the people's right to define it according to their conscience.

Will Walker's decision be the earthquake that devastates marriage in the USA? Or the decision that provokes its true declaration: Roe vs. Wade, or Magna Carte?

Let us prayerfully fight together, that CA's Prop. 8 will become a national victory-upholding the true meaning of marriage as well as democracy.

Please join us in our 40-day prayer/fast for marriage, Oct. 16th-Nov. 24th. We know what to do when the foundations are being destroyed.


© 2010 by Desert Stream Ministries

Based on the biblical foundation of compassion, integrity, and dependence on God, Desert Stream Ministries proclaims to the world the transforming power of Jesus Christ. We equip the body of Christ to minister healing to the sexually and relationally broken through healing groups and leadership training for the local church.We invite you to visit our website at: Desert Stream.org

*******

There is a good reason to have hope that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of traditional marriage! Read what law professor and Legal Insurrection blogger, William A. Jacobsen writes:

Ted Olson May Be Too Smart By Half

Ted Olson obviously is a very good lawyer. In the past, that very good lawyer -- and his allegiance to conservative values -- has been viewed by liberals as the devil incarnate because of his role in winning Bush v. Gore.

Now that very good lawyer, along with David Boies, has pulled off a major coup in obtaining a ruling from a Judge who did not need much convincing, that there is a federal constitutional right to gay marriage, thereby invalidating California Prop. 8.

The video of Olson being interviewed by Chris Wallace (embedded below) has brought cheers for Olson because of lines such as "Well, would you like your right to free speech -- would you like Fox's right to free press put up to a vote ...."

There is a logical flaw, however, in Olson's primary legal argument that the Judge merely followed Supreme Court precedent on the issue of marriage (emphasis mine):

As a matter of fact, since 1888 the United States Supreme Court has 14 times decided and articulated that the right to marriage is a fundamental right. We're not talking about a new right here.

We're talking about whether a fundamental right, something that the Supreme Court has characterized as the most fundamental relationship we have in this country, can be deprived of certain individuals because of the color of their skin or because of their sexual orientation.

The problem with this argument is that the marriages the Supreme Court has addressed in the past were marriages between one man and one woman, which the Court -- in Olson's characterization -- has deemed "the most fundamental relationship we have in this country...."

On that, the supporters of Prop. 8 could agree. The traditional marriage has been recognized as being of fundamental importance to society, unlike other relationships, such as polygamy, which also have a historical and religious basis, but as to which society has made a value judgment.

By focusing on the fundamental right to marry, but ignoring that that right arose on the basis of the Supreme Court recognizing the fundamental role in society of traditional marriage, I think the legal team opposing Prop. 8 has set itself up for failure.

Olson's argument is something of a circular firing squad. In order to prove that society has no constitutionally rational basis for making a value judgment in favor of traditional marriage, Olson needs to prove that traditional marriage is not the most fundamental relationship in society. But, according to Olson, on 14 occasions the Supreme Court has said otherwise.

Hat Tips:

Desert Stream.org

Legal Insurrection

The Spiritual Problem of the Homosexual Agenda

One homosexual judge overturned the votes of 7 million California voters! What could be more unfair, undemocratic, unconstitutional and outrageously biased against the state of California, biased against the majority of voters in our state, and radically disparaging against our Constitutional Republic than that?

Christian News Wire:

Chief Judge of Federal District Court in San Francisco Vaughn R. Walker Overturns Proposition 8
Contact: Karen England, Capitol Resource Institute, 916-212-5607

MEDIA ADVISORY, Aug. 4 /Christian Newswire/ -- Proposition 8, the 2008 California Constitutional amendment defining and recognizing marriage between a man and a woman, suffered a severe blow. Judge Walker ruled against the voters who approved Proposition 8 by 52 percent of the vote.

After California's Supreme Court overturned proposition 22, the statute approved by voters defining marriage, the voters took to the polls in reaction to the court's judicial activism.

"Today's ruling is indicative of an out-of-control judiciary willing to circumvent California's direct democracy by imposing their point of view," said Karen England Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute (CRI). "Family values are under constant assault now more then ever. CRI was instrumental in passing proposition 22 in 2000 and we fought to get proposition 8 on the ballot and subsequently in California's Constitution. We will continue to battle interest groups who wish to redefine one of our oldest institutions; the institution of marriage. We will continue to represent the 7 million Californians who took to the polls in favor of marriage."

The case will head to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a court popularly known for its left-of-center rulings.

Homosexuality isn't just a behavioral problem. It isn't just a "rights" problem. It isn't just a legal problem. It isn't just an emotional problem. It is a spiritual problem.

Even though the following essay was written years ago, Pastor DL Foster's Gay Christian Movement Watch: Gay Marriage - the Days of Noah Return post is one of the best I've ever read on the topic.

As you read the post at GCMWatch, you will notice a link between the "Days of Noah" and the "Days of Lot." This was an awesome discovery! Jesus himself likened the "signs of the times" of his return as being "as in the days of Lot" and "as in the days of Noah."

Excerpt:

Folger recounts how what we are seeing happen now before our very eyes is the beginning fulfillment of what Jesus said would happen before his return. Moreover, the people had sunken into such a perpetually degenerative moral condition these things were celebrated and viewed as normal.

As I wrote about in my book, “The Criminalization of Christianity,” Jeffrey Satinover, who holds an M.D. from Princeton and doctorates from Yale, MIT and Harvard, was on my radio program one day and I asked him about where we are in history. He explained that according to the “Babylonian Talmud” – the book of rabbis’ interpretation of the scriptures 1,000 years before Christ, there was only one time in history that reflects where we are right now. There was only one time in history, according to these writings, where men were given in marriage to men, and women given in marriage to women.

Want to venture a guess as to when? No, it wasn’t in Sodom and Gomorrah, although that was my guess. Homosexuality was rampant there, of course, but according to the Talmud, not homosexual “marriage.” What about ancient Greece? Rome? No. Babylon? No again. The one time in history when homosexual “marriage” was practiced was … during the days of Noah. And according to Satinover, that’s what the “Babylonian Talmud” attributes as the final straw that led to the Flood.

Folger’s article also contains astonishing commentary by Rabbi Aryeh Spero on what the Talmud reveals about homosexuality, state sanctioned homosexual weddings and the coming judgment of God.

25But first must He [Christ] suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. 26And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man:
27They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28“Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30“Even thus shall it be in the Day when the Son of Man is revealed.

Notice that Jesus compared Noah’s day to Sodom and Gomorrah and then linked it to the time of his return.

Because the inhabitants of the earth had become so evil, God anointed Noah to preach righteousness and repentance right up until the time the door of the ark closed shut. He preached the same message for over 100 years. This was the mercy of God in action, a window of opportunity to repent. Some listened at first, but then overcome by the sin around them, eventually ignored Noah. Noah was openly vilified, mocked and called a liar. Why? Because the people saw no rain and they did not want to believe their activities were wrong.

Read the entire essay HERE.


In June of 2008, I linked to Pastor Foster's post and wrote an essay here at Talk Wisdom:

The Days of Noah Are Here.


Hat Tips:

Christian News Wire

Gay Christian Movement Watch

*******
Cross posted at Talk Wisdom

Prop. 8 Lawsuit is Attack Against Natural Marriage & Our Republic

SAVECALIFORNIA.COM NEWS RELEASE
June 16, 2010 -- For Immediate Release

Randy Thomasson’s comment on Prop. 8 Closing Arguments
“The lawsuit against Prop. 8 by Ted Olson and David Boies is more than an attack against natural marriage, it’s an attack against our republic and our democracy.”

WATCH: Randy Thomasson's comments on News10 Sacramento 6/16/10

Sacramento, California – California pro-family leader Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, issued the following statement about closing arguments in San Francisco today in the federal lawsuit against Proposition 8, the California Marriage Amendment that reserved marriage licenses for “a man and a woman”:

“The lawsuit against Prop. 8 by Ted Olson and David Boies is more than an attack against natural marriage, it’s an attack against our republic and our democracy. Our republic, because a judge took this case and made a circus out of it, despite the word ‘marriage’ not being in the U.S. Constitution and the Tenth Amendment protecting states’ rights to define marriage. Our democracy, because the voters of California have twice passed ballot measures defining marriage, even defining marriage in the California Constitution. If the federal courts strike down Prop. 8, they will have declared war on the voters in 30 states that have defined marriage in their state constitutions.

"What will be the outcome of this case? Judge Walker, a homosexual himself, has been demanding answers to questions about issues that are not in the written federal or state constitutions, but are designed to set up the federal courts to unscientifically declare homosexuality an 'immutable' class, like race or sex. Doing this dirty judicial deed would trample religious freedom and free speech, which is specifically enshrined in the First Amendment.

“This kangaroo court is a public relations coup for homosexual-marriage advocates, who want to keep their ‘gay marriage’ drum beating loudly in hopes of stirring up donors and volunteers to reverse Prop. 8 on the ballot in 2012 or 2014. But it won’t work, because the natural, beautiful relationship of a man and a woman, united in marriage, is a standard indelibly etched on the human heart.”

-- end --

Randy Thomasson and SaveCalifornia.com are not party to the Prop. 8 case. Randy Thomasson has been defending marriage licenses and marriage rights for one man and one woman throughout California since 1994.

SaveCalifornia.com is a leading West Coast nonprofit, nonpartisan organization representing children and families. We stand for marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education.

Hat Tip:

Save California.com

Gay Activists Politically Powerless?

I couldn't believe my eyes when I read the headline in an email I recently received from Ron Prentice. It read: "Political Powerlessness in Action." And, as you will read in the first paragraph, the homosexual-affirming plaintiffs' lawyers want Californians to believe that "in their bid to overturn Prop 8, asserted during the Perry v Schwarzenegger federal trial that homosexuals are “politically powerless.” They tried to make the case that this alleged political disadvantage is so extreme that it must be corrected by providing homosexuals special protection under the United States Constitution."

WHAT???? Have you ever read anything as ludicrous as that? The power that homosexual activists and their supporters have here in California (and the millions of money that is collected and spent for their causes) is astronomical compared to what Prop. 8 supporters ever had!

Let's face it. The gay lobby lost - and lost big in the 2008 election concerning Prop. 8's desire to keep marriage as the "union of one man and one woman." The gays need to get over it and call their unions something else!

Here is the entire email:

Dear Friends,

You may recall from one of my earlier e-mails that the plaintiffs’ lawyers, in their bid to overturn Prop 8, asserted during the Perry v Schwarzenegger federal trial that homosexuals are “politically powerless.” They tried to make the case that this alleged political disadvantage is so extreme that it must be corrected by providing homosexuals special protection under the United States Constitution.
When our team of able legal experts questioned the plaintiffs’ witnesses on this matter, they were forced to acknowledge that the “gay agenda” has a bevy of esteemed and active elected officials in their stable of support, including both California U.S. Senators, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Governor, the current, openly homosexual California Assembly Speaker, several openly homosexual state senators and/or assembly members, the current mayors of California’s largest cities and the state’s Attorney General.

By that measure alone, it is difficult to accept the notion that homosexuals are a politically powerless lot. Let’s not be naïve, the homosexual lobby holds powerful sway over what goes on in the halls of our state Capitol.

Further, last Friday was the final day lawmakers could introduce legislation in the current session. And guess what? California’s largest homosexual advocacy group, Equality California, sponsored three bills to further advance their agenda, one of which would eliminate what they consider a barrier to legalizing same-sex marriage.

Senate Bill 906 was introduced by openly-gay Senator Mark Leno, who has carried the gay lobby’s water since he was elected. It removes from current law any obligation by clergy to “marry” same-sex partners and prevents their refusal from having any negative implications on a synagogue or church’s tax-exempt status.

While “divorcing” religious marriage from civil marriage, this bill further exemplifies just how cunning the homosexual lobby can be. In fact, much can be read into Senator Leno’s comment in the Bay Area Reporter when he said religious entities “have no business interfering with the fundamental right of everyone's access to marriage."

Equality California may promote this bill as nothing more than a way to clarify the issue for people who are “confused about the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage,” but what they are really after is a way – any way – to invalidate the votes of 7 million Californians who voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

Parsing words the way they are with SB 906 is just another clear example of how powerful the homosexual lobby is in exerting its political influence on the rest of society.

On another note, Friday was a big day for our legal team in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case. After weeks of work following the conclusion of the evidentiary portion of the trial, our team submitted our post-trial briefings to Judge Vaughn Walker.

We appreciate all of your prayers and financial support throughout these trial proceedings. This is just the first step in a long legal battle to preserve traditional marriage. We are now waiting for Judge Vaughn Walker to announce the date for closing arguments and we will have much work to do for that step in the journey as well. We ask for your continued support through both prayer and financial sacrifice during this time as we move closer toward the completion of the district court trial and then on to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

We will keep you informed as we learn more from Judge Walker.

God Bless you,

Ron Prentice, Executive Director

Monogamy Not Central Feature of Gay Unions

How homosexual “marriage” is intended to change traditional marriage

We heard consistently from our opponents during the Prop 8 campaign that “love is love” and that legalizing same-sex marriage would have no impact on traditional marriage. However, recent research reveals that most homosexual relationships do not share one of the most fundamental elements of marriage – a commitment to fidelity and monogamy. Paradoxically, according to a recent article in the New York Times, some “experts” are now advocating that traditional marriage must evolve to incorporate the values of homosexual marriage, “for the very survival of the institution.”


A study due out this month from San Francisco State University is, according to the Times article, set to reveal that monogamy is simply not a central feature of homosexual relationships. The study reportedly finds that most gays engage in an “open” relationship where sex outside the relationship is accepted as the norm. To illustrate the point the Times interviews two couples: one married lesbian couple spoke of how they have redefined their marriage to include “play” with other women, and a married male couple spoke of “transparency” rules they follow as part of having sex with other men.


According to the Times article, “none of this is new to the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it…They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.” The Times acknowledged that opponents of same-sex marriage have argued that legalizing same-sex “marriage” is an effort to rewrite societal norms. And in a rare example of journalistic honesty, the paper went on to say, “Quietly, outside of the news media and courtroom spotlight, many gay couples are doing just that, according to groundbreaking new research.”


One so-called expert who believes that sex outside marriage makes relationships stronger told the Times that homosexual couples bring a “fresh perspective” to matrimony. The Times noted that these relationships “defy the traditional definition of marriage” yet presented the view of “experts” who say “boundary changing gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage – one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.” Indeed, Joe Quirk, author of the best-selling book “It’s Not You, It’s Biology,” said, “If innovation is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages.”


Not once during the many testimonies by plaintiffs’ “experts” in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case did a single person proactively make the case that marriage should be redefined to eliminate sexual exclusiveness and fidelity in order to accommodate homosexual promiscuity. Instead, they argued that same-sex marriage would have no impact on society’s definition of marriage.


But this New York Times article, and the coming study, make it crystal clear that changing society’s understanding of marriage to downplay (if not eliminate) the notion of fidelity as a central element is exactly what many gay leaders have in mind.


I don’t have enough space to discuss all the possible ramifications of eliminating fidelity as a societal norm of marriage. The implications for family stability for children, as adults hop from married partner to play partners, and then back again, are staggering. What is important, however, from the perspective of upholding Proposition 8 is that the people, not the courts, have the constitutional right to decide the meaning of marriage, and whether or not to change it. By passing Prop 8 the voters made a perfectly reasonable and rational choice to restore the traditional definition of marriage in California as it has been understood since the beginning of statehood.


As we continue to fight to uphold Prop 8 and traditional marriage, we ask for your support. Our attorneys are working hard to prepare our final legal briefs and closing arguments. We’ve exhausted our available financial resources and we are counting on you and other supporters to make a contribution to sustain our efforts.


Thank you for your support.


Sincerely,

Ron Prentice, Executive Director

Protect Marriage.com

© 2009 ProtectMarriage.com Action Fund. All Rights Reserved.

Received via email.

Prop 8 Defense Team Scores Major Points on Day 2 of Trial

Our stellar team of defense lawyers had another strong day undercutting the arguments of the plaintiffs’ experts in the federal court challenge to Proposition 8 (Perry v Schwarzenegger). As our General Counsel Andy Pugno reported earlier in the day the cross examination of Harvard Professor Nancy Cott was “a disaster” for the plaintiffs’ case.

Under cross examination by David Thompson, one of our defense litigators, Professor Cott first had to concede that she is not a neutral, independent expert as she had been presented for people to believe. In fact, Thompson got her to admit that she is an advocate for gay marriage and has testified in favor of same-sex marriage before legislatures, contributed to groups advocating for gay marriage and signed onto legal briefs in court cases seeking to legalize gay marriage. One of the groups that she has financially supported has openly encouraged polyamory as an alternative to traditional marriage. Polyamorous relationships are those involving three or more people who have a sexual relationship within a ‘group marriage.’

From a legal perspective, Cott made a particularly damaging concession that the public interest in promoting the raising of children by both a mother and father is a purpose that is promoted by traditional marriage. She also undermined the plaintiff’s characterization of marriage as a purely private decision when she conceded marriage is a highly public relationship in which society has great interest.

Professor George Chauncey of Yale University was the next plaintiff expert. He delivered interesting testimony about the history of discrimination that homosexuals have felt in America. His testimony included examples of gays and lesbians being jailed for engaging in homosexual sex, losing their jobs and being denied access to public accommodations because of their homosexuality. What Professor Chauncey didn’t explain, however, was what relevance past discrimination has to do with the constitutionality of Proposition 8. As the day was coming to a close, David Thompson began his cross examination and elicited an admission that, like Professor Cott, Chauncey is a gay marriage supporter who has contributed to several groups advocating the legalization of same-sex marriage. Tomorrow, Thompson is expected to question Professor Chauncey over his views that the messaging of the ProtectMarriage.com campaign is simply a continuation of past discrimination against homosexuals.

We have many days to go in the trial over traditional marriage. Today was a very good day. Several of our supporters in the courtroom asked our attorneys to dinner, in order to thank them for their efforts! Unfortunately, each of them declined because they needed to return to their temporary offices in San Francisco to immerse themselves in preparation for tomorrow’s hearing.

I hope that our communications over the past two days have given you a sense of the monumental effort being put forth to defend your vote and preserve traditional marriage. Please continue to support us with your prayers and financial sacrifice.

Sincerely,

Ron Prentice, Executive Director

Also see:

Protect Marriage Blog