|Make a tax-deductible donation to support CCGI's marriage advocacy education project, Stand with Children.
Get updates on this
Equal Protection Federal Court Challenge
Trial Set for January/ Interveners Denied
SAN FRANCISCO, August 19, 2009 -- The ProtectMarriage.com legal team won another victory today in its latest defense of Prop 8. Efforts by other players to intervene in the case were turned down by Judge Vaughn Walker in Federal District Court in San Francisco.
An equal protection suit was filed on behalf of two same-sex couples, one from Berkeley and one from Burbank. They are represented by two high-profile attorneys, Theodore Olson and David Boies -- famous for representing George Bush and Al Gore, respectively, in the post election lawsuit that decided the 2000 Presidential election.
Olson and Boies are challenging Prop 8 using a precedent from a Colorado case where it was determined that the vote was motivated by discrimination and hatred. It is a preposterous claim but fundamental to the argument of gay rights advocates. If this case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, it would have national ramifications.
The dispute over the definition of marriage actually comes down to two competing views:
- "Redefined Marriage" – the public committed relationship between two loving adults for their own benefit (as seen by the activist Supreme Court justices of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and California), or,
- Traditional Marriage – the institution that joins a man and a woman who engage in reproductive acts and that establishes public accountability to the children that result from that relationship.
California voters and voters across the country do not want their children taught "redefined marriage" in schools or anywhere because of the impact it will have on their children's view of marriage and family. Today, the idea of marriage has become so separated from children and family that 4 out of 10 children are born out of wedlock.
The battle over the definitions of marriage, family and human sexuality has created serious problems that can only be resolved by your personal involvement.
Please encourage friends and family members to join the CCGI marriage advocate team to "Stand with Children" and their common interest in the marriage of their parents.
I have posted a statement on today's court proceedings below.
For the Common Good,
Chairman, Catholics for the Common Good
415 651 4171
415 738 0421 (Fax)
US DISTRICT COURT HEARS ARGUMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL
PLAINTIFFS, SETS TRIAL FOR PROPOSITION 8 CHALLENGE
SACRAMENTO – Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, released the following statement today on behalf of the official proponents of Prop. 8, in response to today’s hearing of Perry v Schwarzenegger et al in United States District Court, Northern District of California:
“As the only party to Perry v Schwarzenegger that has consistently fought to preserve Prop.8, we are pleased with Judge Walker’s decision to deny intervenor status to Campaign for California Families, the Our Family Coalition, Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. The motions for intervenor status clearly demonstrate the discord and disagreement that exists among gay activists as they continue to run roughshod in their efforts to overturn the will of the people in regards to upholding traditional marriage in California.
“While the City and County of San Francisco was granted its request to intervene over the objections of the plaintiffs in the case, their participation will be limited to demonstrating any governmental impact of Prop. 8.
“However we are concerned that this case could result in the plaintiffs attempting to put the voters who supported Prop 8 on trial.
“We will vigorously resist the plaintiffs being allowed to conduct a fishing expedition into the motives of those who support traditional marriage. We were pleased that opposing counsel promised the court that they would attempt no discovery that violates the First Amendment rights of the proponents and the voters. It is preposterous to think that the 7 million California voters who supported Proposition 8 were motivated out of bigotry and discrimination. That is essentially the claim by the plaintiffs in this case. Prop 8 was always about restoring and reclaiming the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a women and upholding the will of the people who had already overwhelmingly voted in favor of traditional marriage
“As this case proceeds to an expected trial in January we will work diligently and faithfully to defend the rights of the people to put the traditional definition of marriage into our state constitution.