California's Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' date='05 August 2010 - 11:08 AM' timestamp='1281020904' post='2152601']
Case in point, the Government should have never had gotten involved with marriage. Most religions consider marriage to be sacred (of course). So, when we find say the homosexuals distorting what we hold near and dear of course we shall fight it. The thing is that given the government rhetoric of Civil Unions, Marriages etc. we have lost in the term shuffle what is really going on.

Let the homosexuals receive their rights through whatever, because that is their Constitutional right, but please leave the 'Marriage' term out of the law. It is the Government's own fault forgetting stuck in the middle of this. I see nothing wrong with homosexuals receiving tax cuts or whatever else that other couples receive, it is the fact that 'Marriage' has to describe it, when Civil Unions can do just that.
[/quote]

I agree partially. I think that whatever is decided on the matter should be decided by states themselves. The US Constitution nowhere defines marriage. I think that whatever the US Constitution doesn't address should be able to be decided on by the states...and this issue was. This is why I'm unhappy with the judge's decision. Prop 8 was a citizen-initiated referendum that was voted on by the people of California.

Personally, I think that if the law (which I haven't bothered to read) allows for some type of civil union, then they should at least try for that. Having a gay judge overturn a legal ban on gay marriage isn't going through the political process. More ideally, I wish that the government would get out of marriage altogether and just give everyone civil unions. Marriage is, by nature, sacred, so if you want to get married, you should be going to your place of worship anyway. Anyway, that's my spiel.

Edited August 5, 2010 by iheartjp2

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Hassan' date='05 August 2010 - 11:51 AM' timestamp='1281023517' post='2152624']

I'm sorry, but this is why your side is losing on this issue.
[/quote]
By what standard are we losing?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='04 August 2010 - 08:48 PM' timestamp='1280972917' post='2152388']
I love that the phrase "against the will of the people" is being thrown around. What if the people of California decided to vote that Atheism be the official stance of the state? Would a court strike it down as unconstitutional? I mean, it would be against the will of the people, right… that makes it wrong to do, according to your logic.
[/quote]

A logical point.

~Sternhauser

Edited August 5, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Hassan' date='04 August 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1280976892' post='2152429']
One thing that both sides of the political spectrum have in common is their rhetoric regarding the court. Findings that are in line with their political goals highlight the need for the judiciary. A disinterested, apolitical body to objectively assess the constitutionality of a particular law. Findings opposed to their political goals show the danger of a small, subversively political collection of unaccountable oligarchs.
[/quote]

"A disinterested, apolitical body to objectively assess the constitutionality of a particular law." By the very [i]nature [/i]of his position, a judge, who is paid by the State, and whether or not he yields to the base pleasure of possessing power, is not disinterested, not apolitical, and not objective.

Have you seen many apolitical judges? I do remember that a few Supreme Court judges in the 1930's, who were calling many of F.D.R.'s actions unconstitutional, very [i]quickly[/i] fell in line when F.D.R. threatened to stack the court with his own cronies. Rather than do the right thing, the judges, recognizing who buttered their bread, instantly rolled over, wagged their tails and wet themselves.

In other words, they became F.D.R.'s political cronies. "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no hope." Don't have anything to do with "Men of blood, in whose hands are crimes, whose right hands are full of bribes."

~Sternhauser

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Hassan' date='05 August 2010 - 11:51 AM' timestamp='1281023517' post='2152624']
Reread. You missed my point.[/quote]
I tried to make something out of your broken Engrish.

[quote]What?[/quote]
You quoted the article. I assumed you read it. I read the Time magazine version to get the ultra-left version.

[quote][url="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html"]That is a very valid objection[/url][/quote]
What's the rationale behind a lawyer asking for a change of venue? Ad-hominem attack?

[quote]I'm sorry, but this is why your side is losing on this issue. You are grasping at straws and it is obvious. This one court issue doesn't matter. I'm happy it happened but it was not necessary. Popular trends are shifting on a national, aggregate level.

http://www.pollingreport.com/penp0908.htm
[/quote]
Why are you pointing to polls of what the people think? In California, they had two polls called [i]elections[/i] which expressed their opinion on this issue. This judgment proves polls or elections or any other measure of the opinion of the people does not matter. This is legislating from the bench.

This judgment is dangerous on multiple levels; approving immoral behavior is only one.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='04 August 2010 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1280972917' post='2152388']
I love that the phrase "against the will of the people" is being thrown around. What if the people of California decided to vote that Atheism be the official stance of the state? Would a court strike it down as unconstitutional? I mean, it would be against the will of the people, right… that makes it wrong to do, according to your logic.
[/quote]
ACLU is already working on this.

[Socrates]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' date='05 August 2010 - 11:08 AM' timestamp='1281020904' post='2152601']
Case in point, the Government should have never had gotten involved with marriage. Most religions consider marriage to be sacred (of course). So, when we find say the homosexuals distorting what we hold near and dear of course we shall fight it. The thing is that given the government rhetoric of Civil Unions, Marriages etc. we have lost in the term shuffle what is really going on.

Let the homosexuals receive their rights through whatever, because that is their Constitutional right, but please leave the 'Marriage' term out of the law. It is the Government's own fault forgetting stuck in the middle of this. I see nothing wrong with homosexuals receiving tax cuts or whatever else that other couples receive, it is the fact that 'Marriage' has to describe it, when Civil Unions can do just that.
[/quote]
While you may see nothing wrong with homosexual couples being awarded special tax cuts or other benefits for their sodomy, the Church most certainly does.

Since you list your religion here as "Catholic," you just might be interested in what our current Holy Father has to say on this topic:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH: CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/url]

I strongly suggest reading the entire document, but here are few key points:
[quote]From the order of right reason

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) [b]Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.[/b][/quote]

[quote]From the biological and anthropological order

7. [b]Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race.[/b] The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.[/quote]
[quote]From the social order

8.[b] Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children.[/b] If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.[/quote]
[quote]From the legal order

9. [b]Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.[/b][/quote]

[quote]CONCLUSION

11. [b]The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.[/b][/quote]

Marriage between man and woman is the basis of the family, and of human society itself, and it is for this reason that marriage is awarded benefits by the state. A same-sex sodomitic couple does not deserve any legal recognition or benefits not given to single persons.

I realize, unfortunately, that this will likely fall on deaf ears, as most so-called "Catholics" today prefer various current amoral politically-correct ideologies to Catholic moral and social teaching.

[Socrates]

[quote name='iheartjp2' date='05 August 2010 - 12:10 PM' timestamp='1281024637' post='2152635']
I agree partially. I think that whatever is decided on the matter should be decided by states themselves. The US Constitution nowhere defines marriage. I think that whatever the US Constitution doesn't address should be able to be decided on by the states...and this issue was. This is why I'm unhappy with the judge's decision. Prop 8 was a citizen-initiated referendum that was voted on by the people of California.[/quote]
I agree too, as would the founding fathers.
Such activist rulings are in blatant contradiction to the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution:
[i][b]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/b][/i]

The U.S. Constitution nowhere grants the federal government the power to redefine marriage, nor to force this re-definition of marriage on the States respectively.

But, unfortunately, federal judges have abandoned actually interpreting the Constitution long ago, in favor of simply ruling in accord with their own personal ideologies - to hell with what's actually written in the Constitution.

The idea of the Constitution is to limit the power of the government, but federal judges blithely rule however they like, making them a tyranny.

The pro-homosexual bleeding hearts on here may think that's a wonderful thing, but if federal courts decided (while continuing to disregard the Constitution) to rule in ways opposed to their leftist ideologies, they'd be singing a different tune.


[quote]Personally, I think that if the law (which I haven't bothered to read) allows for some type of civil union, then they should at least try for that. Having a gay judge overturn a legal ban on gay marriage isn't going through the political process. More ideally, I wish that the government would get out of marriage altogether and just give everyone civil unions. Marriage is, by nature, sacred, so if you want to get married, you should be going to your place of worship anyway. Anyway, that's my spiel.
[/quote]
If you "heart" JPII, you might want to consider the Church's "spiel" on homosexual "civil unions." See my reply to Pencil-guy above.

[Semper Catholic]

Californians are largely idiots. It's generally a good idea to rule against the majority of them.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Socrates' date='05 August 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1281029061' post='2152709']
If you "heart" JPII, you might want to consider the Church's "spiel" on homosexual "civil unions." See my reply to Pencil-guy above.
[/quote]

Yes, I did see it. As I said before, doing away with marriage by the state altogether would be fine with me. I know it wouldn't be fine with you and a lot of other people, and [i]probably[/i] not the Church, then again, it's completely fine with the Church (particularly in the US) that the US doesn't enforce control of its borders (particularly the southern one). That, however, is a completely different can of worms that I'm not willing to open. Just something to think about.

Y'know, actually, on second thought, I'll get into it a little bit. For centuries, the Church and a multitude of states in Europe were intertwined. Since the rise of democracy (which I'm sure you're a fan of), the Church has lost a lot of the influence and power that it once enjoyed. Marriage, a largely social and cultural sacrament, was built into the fabric of society due to this. Marriage is a long-standing tradition, often cited to be older than the state itself. What I'm getting at is the idea of defending a tradition, especially one as good and as old as marriage, is definitely noble. However, to avoid things like this (events in California and other states so far), I think it would be best if the US just got rid of marriage by the state altogether, give civil unions (which the state itself can morally define) and leave marriage to those with the power invested in them from God to recognize.

If the Church in the US and elsewhere, however, continues to recognize this responsibility of the state to promote marriage, yet fails miserably to recognize the sovereignty of an independent state to make its own laws and to regulate who comes in and goes out, that's a bit lopsided, don't you think? I know this is slightly off-topic, but I think it's a point worth examining. And by examining, I don't mean ticking off snarky point after point. *coughsocratescough*

Edited August 5, 2010 by iheartjp2

[dairygirl4u2c]

i dont think marriage is a right. so i dont think one could use the 'equal protection of the laws' argument.
on the other hand, if the courts were to ban 'whites and blacks' from marrying, im sure there'd be an uproar, as constitutiolnally this has been held to be an invalid restriction, racially. not sure what the basis for this disctionis, per race though, cause it surely couldn't be equal protection, per se.

would you all agree that a law should be valid if it said, 'blacks and whites cannot marry'?

not trying to support the gay 'rights' arguments here, just pointing it out.


they did use the equal protection argument, per race:

"The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:

“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. ”

The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:

“ There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. ”

Despite this Supreme Court ruling, such laws remained on the books, although unenforceable, in several states until 2000, when Alabama became the last state to repeal its law against mixed-race marriage
"

Edited August 5, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Socrates' date='05 August 2010 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1281028339' post='2152697']
While you may see nothing wrong with homosexual couples being awarded special tax cuts or other benefits for their sodomy, the Church most certainly does.
[/quote]

It isn't a question of "benefits because they're sodomites," it's a question of the fact that no one has the right to prevent me from making a contract with a friend or even my [i]brother or sister[/i] to receive certain contractual benefits, in case of illness or death. But what's more? No one has the right to [i]force[/i] you to provide me with any benefits through the detriment (taking money) of others, married or not. There is a problem with [i]anyone[/i] getting special favors to the detriment of others, for [i]any[/i] reason, whether that "reason" is that two people are married or a sodomite couple.

Do the sodomites have a right to engage in sodomy? No. Do you have the right to lie? No. Does a law being passed to [i]not[/i] use violence against you for telling a lie an act of "supporting lying?" No! Just because something is immoral does not necessarily mean one may use violence in order to put an end to it. Or, in your estimation, [i]is[/i] there a right to use violence to prevent others from making mutually voluntary contracts?

~Sternhauser

[Jesus_lol]

I would like someone to rationally explain to me why lifelong partners of any kind (sibling, spouse, friend, gay partner) should be prevented from such things like having visitation rights to each other's deathbed, or act as their medical proxies, etc.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='05 August 2010 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1281037757' post='2152814']
i dont think marriage is a right. so i dont think one could use the 'equal protection of the laws' argument.
on the other hand, if the courts were to ban 'whites and blacks' from marrying, im sure there'd be an uproar, as constitutiolnally this has been held to be an invalid restriction, racially. not sure what the basis for this disctionis, per race though, cause it surely couldn't be equal protection, per se.

would you all agree that a law should be valid if it said, 'blacks and whites cannot marry'?

not trying to support the gay 'rights' arguments here, just pointing it out.


they did use the equal protection argument, per race:

"The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:

“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. ”

The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:

“ There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. ”

Despite this Supreme Court ruling, such laws remained on the books, although unenforceable, in several states until 2000, when Alabama became the last state to repeal its law against mixed-race marriage
"
[/quote]

The issue that's sort of the elephant in the room with most politicians when discussing whether two people of the same gender marrying falls under equal protection is whether sexual orientation is malleable or not (which it is). A lot of LGBT people identify with their sexuality almost the same way that some minorities identify with their race. LGBT groups often use the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s as an example of the struggles that they face (completely incorrectly, however). Race isn't something that's malleable. It stays with you for the rest of your life. It doesn't define who you are, but it's definitely an integral part of you. Sexual orientation, however, can change and it does. No matter how many celebrity televangelists and politicians who rail against gay marriage and homosexual acts but are caught soliciting sex or sitting in gay bars, there's a wealth of evidence to prove that people can change sexual orientations going one way or the other. Sexual orientation also doesn't have nearly the same level of an identity factor among just about everyone buy LGBT people. It's pretty much the lens through which they see the world and themselves. The problem for them is getting other people to see their orientation that way, which, frankly, no one else does.

Allowing interracial marriage and allowing same-sex marriage don't equate because, simply put, they're not the same thing.

[Brother Adam]

Dear Adam,

It actually happened. One man, one judge, one guy based in San Francisco just wiped out the votes of 7 million Californians. It was at one and the same time utterly unthinkable and yet thoroughly predictable.

Hundreds of thousands of Californians braved insults, threats, petty harassment and even threats to their persons and livelihoods to stand up for their marriage views. With the stroke of one pen, all our work, all our loving efforts, all our brave exercise of our Constitutional rights, was taken away from us.
We warned you that judges were out of control in this country. And boy, has Judge Vaughn Walker proved us right.

Anyone who watched this trial closely knew that Judge Walker would strike down Prop 8. He displayed his bias from day one, his desire to preside over a "historic" trial (preferably on TV!).What I could not have predicted was the extreme nature of Judge Walker's ruling itself.

A friend who is a top litigator (he shall remain nameless, as he may have to litigate cases in front of Judge Walker) shot us this email after reading Walker's opinion: "His grandiosity will be his undoing."

In Judge Walker's mind this is not a close case; to him there is no case at all for disagreement. Only irrational hatred or "private moral views" explains why anyone cares about defining marriage as the union of husband and wife. Marriage, in Judge Walker's imaginary constitution, fails the rational basis test. That is to say that in this judge's distorted view, there is no possible argument, no possible reason, why marriage is the union of male and female. The fact that virtually every human society has defined marriage in this way? Doesn't count as evidence. Why then have so many state supreme courts rejected a constitutional right to gay marriage? A majority of judges in Maryland, New York, Washington state--not to mention the EU Court of Human Rights--looked at the same arguments Judge Walker did, and found the people have a right to vote for marriage. Walker cannot explain it. He just knows he's right, they are wrong, and nobody but the trial judge and a handful of expert witnesses should get to weigh in on these questions.

Ed Whelan, a former Justice department official who writes for Bench Memos, sarcastically explained Walker's reasoning this way: "Short version: Everything that plaintiffs' 'experts' say is beyond dispute."

Bill Duncan of the Marriage Law Foundation called it "an opinion unanchored in reality."

Amid the public celebrations and the high-fiving of the high-flying egos of the tag team of superlawyers, Ted Olson and David Boies, some pro-gay-marriage legal experts are beginning to worry.

University of Minnesota law prof Dale Carpenter, over at The Volokh Conspiracy blog, called Walker's opinion a "maximalist" and "aggressive" approach. Carpenter doubts the success of Judge Walker's attempt to confine the facts to a few expert witnesses presented at trial. "By my count, [Judge Walker] uses the word 'evidence' 54 times in the 'Conclusions of Law' section alone. . . . But I have never been convinced that the issue of gay marriage would be decided, in courts at least, by a battle of expert witnesses in the way we might decide whether a Pinto is unreasonably dangerous," warns Carpenter.

Another gay-marriage supporter, Professor Doug NeJaime at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles agreed, telling the New York Times: "I don't see five justices on the Supreme Court taking Judge Walker's findings of fact to the place that he takes them."

Carpenter concludes:

"[M]y concerns about this decision outweigh what I see as its merits. In reading so far, I think a notable feature of Judge Walker’s decision is its judicial maximalism -- a willingness to reach out and decide fundamental constitutional questions not strictly necessary to reach the result. It is also, in maximalist style, filled with broad pronouncements about the essential characteristics of marriage and confident conclusions about social science. This maximalism will make the decision an even bigger target for either the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court. . . . Gay-rights groups, you may recall, initially opposed the Prop 8 litigation on the grounds that it was too much, too soon. Though they are publicly celebrating this ruling, I imagine in the background there is considerable unease about what happens next."

Here's the bottom line: Judge Walker's opinion is one large slur against the majority of the American people. Some things apparently are undreamt of in his philosophy. Americans' desire to keep marriage as we have received it is rooted in a profound recognition that unions of husband and wife really are special. These are the unions we all depend on, whether we are married or not, and these are the unions through which we transmit our civilization into the future.

Gay marriage is not necessary for the common good, and it cannot serve the same purpose as traditional marriage. And nothing in the U.S. Constitution requires us to treat different relationships as if they were all the same.

The final slur in Judge Walker's opinion, "unanchored in reality," is that somehow the defense of marriage presented in court is different from the campaign to pass Prop 8. In the minds of gay-marriage advocates, the pro-Prop 8 ads were somehow viciously homophobic lies, playing on unfounded fears of parents. A new report acknowledging the effectiveness of the Prop 8 campaign repeats this slur.

Here's how the anti-Prop 8 forces view it:

"The most effective decision made by either campaign--the one with the biggest impact on the outcome--was Yes on 8's decision to air the 'Newsom' and 'Princes' ads back-to-back. 'Newsom' caused a spike in voters refusing to say how they were going to vote; 'Princes' then drove voters in the direction of yes. The combination of the two put Yes on 8 in the lead.

"'Princes' had the greater impact. Its fear-mongering message about children drove Yes on 8 over the 50% threshold. It affected many types of voters, particularly those it most directly targeted: parents with kids under 18 living at home."

The report points out that in the course of the campaign, 600,000 people who originally thought they would support gay marriage ended up voting against it. (And an additional 400,000 Californian mistakenly voted "no" because they thought that would mean "no gay marriage"--meaning gay-marriage supporters start out a million votes behind if they are so foolish as to attempt to repeal Prop 8.) Two ads were demonstrably effective. The first, featuring Gavin Newsom, said that gay marriage would have consequences. Apparently seeing the smug San Francisco mayor repeat that gay marriage was coming "whether you like it or not" was enough to drive even a big chunk of white Democrats from "yes" to "undecided." The second ad, fearing a young Latino girl coming home and saying "Guess what I learned in school? A prince can marry a prince and I can marry a princess!" to her surprised mom, moved these undecideds into the no vote.

This is the ad which, in the fantasy of Judge Walker and his supporters, is somehow false and homophobic.

This was the ad's message: Gay marriage would be taught in the schools, whether parents like it or not. Is this true or not true?

The point of this ad was not to suggest that gay people are a personal threat to children. It was to remind voters that gay marriage would change the meaning of marriage for every person in the state of California, whether parents liked it or not.

This was and is true, and parents recognized it and did not like it. Why did so many parents in the greater Bay Area, for example, abandon their support for gay marriage during the campaign? Could it have something to do with the fact that a San Francisco teacher decided to bring grade school children to a gay wedding, urging that now that gay marriage was legal this would be a great "teachable moment"?

What the "princess" ad did is puncture one of the truly Big Lies of the anti-Prop 8: that gay marriage will not affect you, so why should you care? The ad alerted parents to the fact that marriage would change for everyone in the state, and that their children would be educated by their own government in this new marriage view.

One of the most peculiar things is watching Ted Olson, David Boies and Judge Walker conspire together to rewrite history. My vote for the most bogus claim in this trial is the claim that somehow we have "switched tactics" midstream, that our concern for bringing men and women together to make and raise the next generation is just suddenly-manufactured cover for real animus and hatred towards gay people.

As Maggie told Evan Wolfson this week on Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN, "Evan, you are entitled to your own views, but you don't get to make up mine!"

I spoke at hundreds of events over the course of the campaign, as did Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Maggie Gallagher and others. At every stop I told people that marriage matters because children need a mom and dad, that gay marriage would change the meaning of marriage for everyone, and that the people who disagreed with gay marriage would be treated like bigots, homophobes, and quasi-racists if we did not win this fight.

We were right then, and we are right now: Out-of-control judges are threatening to take away our core civil right to defend and promote marriage as the union of husband and wife.

They may be dancing in the streets of San Francisco right now, but Judge Walker will not have the last word. A political regime that is rooted in lies about human nature cannot last. Walker's grandiosity, his evident bias, and his overreach will help us win this fight in court, as we continue to win it in the court of public opinion. As Maggie said to the San Francisco Chronicle, "Judge Walker's bias will be overruled." We believe he will be overruled by the Supreme Court, but if not then Congress will have to step in with an amendment to protect our right to vote for marriage.

Not all the news from courts is bad: PolitickerNJ called Garden State Equality the "loser of the week" in New Jersey, when a divided New Jersey high court refused to fast-track a decision on same-sex marriage. "This is the second major setback for same-sex couples this year following the legislature's nixing of a law that would have allowed gay couples to marry." Kudos to Len Deo and the NJ Family Policy council. But the biggest kudos go to one of the nation's gutsiest governors, Gov. Chris Christie, who refused to routinely reappoint a justice and who may have tipped the balance on that court.

There is good news too from Illinois, where the University of Illinois has at least temporarily backtracked from its new policy of "No Catholics Need Apply." Dr. Ken Howell, who was fired for teaching Catholic thought about sex and morality, was reinstated, his full salary paid by the University of Illinois. A review committee is still considering his case, so we’ll keep you informed.

This is not the end of the story by any means. The University has yet to admit wrongdoing or offer an apology, and reserves the right to monitor and review Dr. Howell's work (which may yet turn out to be code words for "we'll try to find some excuse to fire him more quietly down the road").

But today, celebrate! The great Purge of Christian thought in our universities has been halted in its tracks! Congratulations! You fought back and you won!

I'm in St. Louis today for another great rally in our Summer for Marriage bus tour. If you can't be there with us, join us for the online tour at marriagetour2010.com.

Semper fi!
Brian Brown

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage
2029 K Street, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
bbrown@nationformarriage.org
P.S. Judge Walker’s arrogance makes it clear that we must act now to defend marriage. If you had a chance in 1972 to act to stop a reckless Supreme Court on abortion--to block Roe v. Wade--would you have acted? Act now to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain by donating $28 for marriage. Let us be your voice for your values against powerful elites who believe that you and I don’t count--fight back by donating $28 to NOM.

NOM Featured News

Statements by Bishop Harry Jackson and Bishop George McKinney--two major black church leaders-- in response to Prop 8 ruling
Church of God in Christ Bishop George McKinney: "Seven million Californians went to the polls on November 2008 to vote to protect marriage. This federal judge in San Francisco has taken away our right to vote for marriage as one man and one woman, using specious and outrageous comparisons between same-sex unions and interracial marriage. Support for marriage is not at all like support for racism. I pray that the higher courts and/or the Congress will overcome this unjust action on the part of Judge Walker, and that in the end truth and justice for marriage will prevail."

Bishop Harry Jackson: “This is a travesty of justice. The majority of Californians — and two-thirds of black voters in California -- have just had their core civil right to vote for marriage stripped from them by an openly gay federal judge who has misread history and the Constitution to impose his San Francisco views on the American people. The implicit comparison Judge Walker made between racism and marriage is particularly offensive to me and to all of us who remember the reality of Jim Crow. It is not bigotry, it is biology that discriminates between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. To make a marriage requires a husband and a wife, because these unions are necessary to make new life and connect children to their mother and father. Judge Walker’s slur will not stand the test of time and history, we demand that Congress and the Supreme Court act to protect all Americans’ right to vote for marriage.”