stats for wordpress
 







Are you on Facebook?

Would you please click "like" in the box to your right, or

Visit us on Facebook!


ADF On Prop 8: Marriage ‘Shouldn’t Be Overthrown’ By ‘Hollywood Activists’

by David Badash on June 5, 2012

in Bigotry Watch,Discrimination,Marriage,News,Politics

Post image for ADF On Prop 8: Marriage ‘Shouldn’t Be Overthrown’ By ‘Hollywood Activists’

The Alliance Defense Fund, part of a team of anti-gay lawyers defending Prop 8, today released a statement decrying “Hollywood activists” and claiming that all the rulings to date — now three, which have all found prop 8 unconstitutional, “were little more than an attack on the character and judgment of millions of Californians.”

READ: UPDATED: Prop 8 Case Will Not Be Re-Heard By The Ninth Circuit — What’s Next

Apparently, in the mind of anti-gay bigot attorneys, the law doesn’t matter, only the “judgment of millions of Californians.” In other words, mob rule!

Amusingly, the ADF statement calls marriage “a universal good,” but essentially states that gays and lesbians are not good enough for marriage.

Below is their press release:

SAN FRANCISCO — Defenders of marriage in California will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit against the state’s marriage amendment. Tuesday, the full 9th Circuit declined to review a 2-1 decision by a three-judge panel that struck down the constitutional amendment, which 7 million California voters approved through Proposition 8 in 2008 to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Alliance Defense Fund attorneys are part of the legal defense team for ProtectMarriage.com, the banner organization for the official proponents and campaign committee of Proposition 8. The ProtectMarriage.com legal team appealed to the full 9th Circuit in February.

Marriage is a universal good that has been honored by diverse cultures and faiths for the entire history of Western Civilization,” said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum. “The Protectmarriage.com legal team looks forward to standing before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the people’s right to preserve the fundamental building block of civilization, especially since the dissent accompanying today’s decision strongly supports our arguments. The democratic process and the most important human institution–marriage–shouldn’t be overthrown based on the demands of Hollywood activists.”

On Feb. 7, two judges on a three-judge 9th Circuit panel in Perry v. Brown agreed with a federal district judge’s decision that California’s marriage amendment–Article I, Section 7.5 of the state constitution–is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.

“The Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear that marriage is constitutional as a matter of state public policy,” explained lead counsel Charles J. Cooper with the Cooper & Kirk law firm. “We’re pleased to petition the Court to hear this case. The lower court opinions were little more than an attack on the character and judgment of millions of Californians, and those decisions essentially ignored all relevant Supreme Court and appellate court precedent. We are hopeful and confident that the Supreme Court will review the 9th Circuit’s decision.”

A strong dissent accompanied the full 9th Circuit’s decision not to review the case. It states, “Based on a two-judge majority’s gross misapplication of Romer v. Evans…, we have now declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia…. Even worse, we have overruled the will of seven million California Proposition 8 voters based on a reading of Romer that would be unrecognizable to the Justices who joined it, to those who dissented from it, and to the judges from sister circuits who have since interpreted it. We should not have so roundly trumped California’s democratic process without at least discussing this unparalleled decision as an en banc court.”

The 9th Circuit’s decision is on hold until the U.S. Supreme Court has a chance to weigh in on whether to review the case.

Related:

Prop 8 Lawyers Push To Remove IRS Rules Prohibiting Churches From Campaigning

 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Friends:

We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.

Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!

{ 4 comments }

Mykelbarber June 5, 2012 at 3:54 pm

If something irks the ADF, I'm all for it.

CastleRockBear June 5, 2012 at 4:20 pm

PROP 8 is a bigoted law, aimed at HATE for and the disallowing of EQUAL RIGHTS for all, in the State of California. It isn't a MARRIAGE law, it is a LAW taking away marriage from some people!! The pursuit of happiness is guaranteed under the U.S Constitution, anything to obstruct these inalienably rights, is in essence an act of discrimination! The ADF are perpetrators of discrimination!

Scott_Rose June 5, 2012 at 8:42 pm

Actually, Supreme Court Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion on Romer, and that's why the Alliance Defense Fund is in a panic; a Reagan-appointee who has *already* found in favor of gay-rights-related matters, on a constitutional basis, and who wrote the majority decision in the very same precedent case on which the 9th Circuit decision was based. The ADF should have red rubber noses, with clown horns honked in their faces. Their announcement says that the 0th circuit ignored Supreme Court precedent; it did not! Romer is that precedent. And I can't wait for their attorneys to tell Kennedy that Romer is not a Supreme Court precedent case. I want to see how they write that idea into their Supreme Court filing.

Scott_Rose June 5, 2012 at 8:42 pm

Actually, Supreme Court Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion on Romer, and that's why the Alliance Defense Fund is in a panic; a Reagan-appointee who has *already* found in favor of gay-rights-related matters, on a constitutional basis, and who wrote the majority decision in the very same precedent case on which the 9th Circuit decision was based. The ADF should have red rubber noses, with clown horns honked in their faces. Their announcement says that the 9th circuit ignored Supreme Court precedent; it did not! Romer is that precedent. And I can't wait for their attorneys to tell Kennedy that Romer is not a Supreme Court precedent case. I want to see how they write that idea into their Supreme Court filing.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: