WND EXCLUSIVE
SUPREMES DEBATING 'VERY
EXISTENCE' OF AMERICA
Attorneys argue in marriage debate
'natural family' is fundamental
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/supremes-debating-very-existence-of-america/#dsvAb21BX1GexdXF.99
At stake in two cases
pending before the U.S. Supreme Court is the “very existence” of America,
according to attorneys who have filed briefs in support of the federal Defense
of Marriage Act and the California state constitutional amendment that defines marriage
as the union of one man and one woman.
“The natural family is
fundamental to our very existence,” Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty
Counsel, said as his organization filed friend-of-the-court briefs.
“Thriving societies need healthy children who grow up into
responsible citizens,” he said. “Healthy children require committed parents who
will sacrifice their own desires for the well-being of their children. This is
all created within the context of natural marriage between one man and one
woman.”
His organization filed two
briefs in U.S. v. Windsor, which challenges the federal Defense of Marriage
Act. That law says that for federal purposes, only marriage between one man and
one woman is recognized.
In February
2011, President Obama instructed his Justice
Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage
Act in court.
The other case is
Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges California’s decision by voters to
define in their state Constitution marriage as a relationship only between one
man and one woman.
The decision to overrule the
voters’ marriage definition in California came from U.S. District Judge Vaughn
Walker, who retired shortly after the case and became open about his own
homosexuality.
“We are at a pivotal point
in history,” Staver said. “Nothing will define the future of America more than
the court’s decision on marriage.”
Liberty Counsel, which was
one of many pro-family organizations filing arguments on behalf of marriage,
said the high court previously indicated in Baker v. Nelson the U.S.
Constitution does not grant a right for same-sex couples to marry.
“Common sense and a quick
read of the Constitution say there is no such right to same-sex marriage,” the
organization said.
The cases are expected to be
argued in the spring.
Others that filed arguments
include:
·
Mike Farris, founder of the Home School Legal
Defense Association. He contends the First Amendment allows state votes
such as California’s, which includes the choice to uphold traditional Western
concepts of marriage and family. He argues the nation repeatedly has enacted
laws supported by religious and moral arguments, including the Declaration of
Independence, the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights
Acts of the 1960s.
·
·
Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for
America, said the power of the homosexual lobby in America, a movement
aided by Obama, is strong. “CWA’s briefs focus on the undeniable political
power of the homosexual movement and why they should never be considered a
‘suspect class,’” she said. “Both briefs paint a very clear picture showing we
are dealing with one of the most powerful movements in history, even though it
represents a very minute section of the population. “The half-a-million members
of Concerned Women for America are fully aware that our religious liberties and
the very fabric of our nation are at stake on this issue,” she said.
·
·
CWFA’s Beverly LaHaye Institute also
submitted a brief “highlighting one of the most comprehensive studies on the
effects of homosexual parenting on children.” The study “showed that compared
to adults from married-mom-and-dad homes, those raised by lesbian mothers had
negative outcomes in 24 of 40 categories and those raised by homosexual fathers
had negative outcomes in 19 of the 40 categories.” Janice Crouse, senior fellow
of BLI said, “The study simply makes clear that the legislature has more than a
compelling interest in protecting marriage as the union between one man and one
woman. It is simply the best, most stable, most profitable environment for
children and, therefore, for our nation’s future.”
·
·
Hundreds of thousands of people also
were represented in a brief filed on behalf of supporters of the Manhattan
Declaration. Chicago attorney John Mauck said, “Natural law, the nature of the
human person, and common sense provide ample reason to preserve marriage as it
has always been understood. “He said his brief “sets out the natural law of the
family unit, constitutional authority to establish what is best for the nation,
and identifies social reasons to preserve male-female marriage. It thus shows
that the historic institution of male-female families allows American children,
families, and society to benefit from a firm foundation in the home, thus
preserving strong future growth. The brief identifies societal circumstances
around the world that have accepted homosexual marriage, resulting in a decline
in societal function and a harsh increase in religious oppression.”
Between 1998 and 2012, there
were 31 votes in 30 states on same-sex marriage, and in all but one, the voters
supported traditional marriage. The exception was Arizona, where voters later
approved a ban. In the 2012 election, however, flooded with money from pro-homosexual
interests, four states voted in favor of same-sex marriage.
Justice Marvin Baxter of the
California Supreme Court, in his dissenting opinion in the 2008 case affirming
same-sex marriage, warned of the consequences of judicially ordering a change
in the standard for marriage.
“The bans on incestuous and
polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests,
they are supported by strong considerations of social policy,” he wrote for his
court. “Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws
could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous.
“Yet here, the majority
overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally
deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex.
The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community
values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the
right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.”
His warning?
“Who can say that in 10, 15
or 20 years an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to
conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the
laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer
constitutionally justified?”
