The Alliance Defense Fund is appealing a federal court ruling that orders the state
of California to redefine marriage to include individuals of the same gender. U.
S District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the definition of marriage as the union
of a man and woman contained in California's state constitution violates the federal
Walker's decision effectively strikes down Proposition 8, the ballot issue in which
California voters amended their constitution to protect traditional marriage. Prop
8 was an initiative referendum launched to counter a California Supreme Court ruling.
In that case, California's high court ruled that the state's law defining marriage
as it has been known throughout history violated the California constitution.
Judge Walker states in his decision in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger that
government has no legitimate purpose in limiting marriage to a man and a woman.
He decrees that traditional marriage is "an artifact" rooted in "unfounded stereotypes
and prejudices." Walker says there is no rational basis for denying marriage licenses
to homosexuals. This is a ludicrous assertion, considering that virtually every
culture and civilization in the history of the world has believed it to be thoroughly
rational to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
"This decision is utterly unthinkable but totally predictable," says Brian Brown,
President of the National Organization for Marriage. "One man, an openly gay judge,
has wiped out the votes of 7 million Californians with one stroke of the pen. This
ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California, but the laws
in 45 other states that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman."
Brian Raum, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, says the decision is devastating
not only to marriage but to our democratic system of government.
"We cannot allow
a handful of wealthy activists to gut the core of the American democratic system,
and in so doing, force the entire country to accept a system that intentionally
denies children the mom and the dad they deserve."
Andrew Pugno, a lead counsel for Prop 8 supporters, added this: "What's at stake
here is much bigger than California. Americans in numerous states have affirmed--and
should be allowed to continue to affirm--a natural and historic public policy on
marriage like this. We are prepared to fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
Judge Walker's decision comes on the heels of another ruling by a federal judge
in Boston striking down portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA protects
states like Missouri that define marriage in traditional terms from recognizing
so-called same-sex "marriages" endorsed by other states.
Judge Joseph Tauro "concluded"
that there is no "legitimate government objective" in defending traditional marriage.
Legal scholars have called Tauro's decision one of the most illogical, contradictory,
incomprehensible, and insensible opinions they have ever read.
Many observers believe that Perry v. Schwarzenegger has the potential to be the
Roe v Wade of the homosexual rights movement. And they are right.
The very same
scenario is unfolding again according to the same game plan that was employed by
the abortion rights movement in the early 1970's.
Proponents of legalized abortion were lobbying state legislatures to liberalize
their abortion laws. While they were successful in a handful of states, they met
strong resistance in most states who retained laws safeguarding the lives of preborn
children. So abortion advocates made the decision to do an end-run around the elected
representatives of the people and seek to implement their agenda in federal court.
The abortion rights movement went venue shopping for liberal activist district court
judges who would rule in their favor in appeals court circuits comprised of liberal
Thus the Roe v. Wadecase was filed in Texas and the Doe v. Boltoncase
was filed in Georgia. When judges in each of these cases ruled in favor of abortion
rights, many observers dismissed their significance, saying they were isolated actions
by "out-of-control judges" that would never hold up on appeal.
When these challenges to abortion restrictions were then affirmed by federal appeals
courts, many in the pro-life and pro-family community felt there was little likelihood
that the Supreme Court would agree.
They felt confident there was no legal or constitutional
basis for striking down abortion laws in almost every state in the nation, and the
Supreme Court would not be so brazen as to thumb its nose at the clear majority
sentiment of the American people.
While there was no constitutional basis for the Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme
Court issued it anyway, concluding that they could force their own values on the
American people with limited long-term resistance. They guessed wrong on the latter
count, as the culture has refused to embrace their values and accept their verdict
that unborn children do not lead meaningful lives and deserve no legal protection.
The homosexual rights agenda is following the same script. They found two judges
they knew would rule in their favor in the two most liberal federal appeals court
circuits in the country.
The Perry v. Schwarzenegger case goes to the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals, which is by far the most radical appeals court in the country.
This is the circuit that ruled that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance
were unconstitutional. In the Boston case, the U.S. Justice Department must defend
the Defense of Marriage Act on appeal. The Obama Administration has vowed to repeal
DOMA, and Elena Kagan offered a lame defense of the law before Judge Tauro. The
"gay rights" movement can count on the Justice Department to roll over and play
dead as the case is heard on appeal.
So the question for pro-family Missourians and Americans is pretty simple: Are
we going to slumber through the legal shenanigans being employed by anti-marriage
activists like pro-life Americans did almost thirty years ago?
Or are we going to
rise up and declare forcefully that we will not allow derelict judges to destroy
the institution of marriage in our nation?
We will have much more on this issue in future newsletters, but for now we urge
you to enlist in the efforts of the National Organization for Marriage. They have
become the leading nationwide voice for traditional marriage, and have demonstrated
the ability to engage this issue effectively. We urge you to become a member of
their network and respond to their appeals. You can do so by visiting their website
at this link:
National Organization for Marriage
We also encourage you to commit to passionate, persistent, and focused prayer for
our nation. We challenge you to join a dedicated prayer movement. One example
is Call2Fall, which has been organized by the Family Research Council.
learn more about them at this link:
Another impressive national prayer ministry calling for spiritual awakening in our
land is TheCall. It is led by Lou Engle, who lives right here in our state in Kansas
City. He is also part of the leadership team of the International House of Prayer
in Kansas City. You can be part of TheCall by visiting their website at this link:
The foundational Scripture for TheCall is from Ezekiel 22:30: "I looked for a man
among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf
of the land so I would not have to destroy it..." Are we prepared to answer His