• The Supreme Court dismisses Proposition 8 appeal, rules on "standing."

  • The Supreme Court Announces It Will Take Up the Prop 8 Case on March 26

  • The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Hears the Case on Prop 8

  • The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Prop 8 is Unconstitutional

  • Prop 8 Supporters Appeal to Supreme Court

National Organization for Marriage Denounces California Supreme Court Decision Not to Consider Viabi

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 15, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)


"Same-sex marriage in California is illegitimate, imposed by judicial activists in opposition to the expressed will of the people. The nation, and the rule of law, are worse for it." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today denounced the California Supreme Court's refusal to consider whether a single federal judge can invalidate a statewide vote enacting Proposition 8, which was adopted by over 7 million Californians.

"The ruling is very disappointing but not unexpected. Unfortunately, a million Californians, redefining marriage in direct contravention of the expressed will of the people. Same-sex marriage in California is illegitimate, imposed by judicial activists in direct opposition to the expressed will of the people. California, the nation, and the rule of law are worse for it," declared Brian Brown, NOM's president.

Proposition 8, amending California's State Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, was passed in 2008 with over 7 million votes. It marked the second time Californians had voted to preserve the true definition of marriage. (In 2000, voters enacted Proposition 22, a statute.) Despite this, a homosexual federal judge engaged in a long-term gay relationship declared that the measure was unconstitutional. Because the state officials responsible for defending Proposition 8 abandoned their oath of office and refused to do so, it fell to the proponents of the measure to defend the initiative through the federal court system. However, the US Supreme Court decided that the proponents did not have legal standing to appeal the trail court ruling invalidating Prop 8. Yesterday the state Supreme Court declined to consider whether state law allows a single trail judge to invalidate the measure.

"The way that activist judges have dealt with Proposition 8 is a travesty of justice and undermines the rule of law and the democratic process itself," Brown said. "The legitimate votes of 7 million Californians, and their fair-minded, reasonable position that marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman, have been trampled underfoot by derelict politicians and activist judges. However, this is not the end of the debate. No judge or politician can redefine what God has created. NOM and our allies will work to make sure the people of California, and other states where marriage has been redefined have a voice speaking for true marriage. So-called same-sex 'marriage' is a political creation; it doesn't exist in reality. Eventually it will fall, and we will restore natural marriage in California."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Jen Campbell (x145), jcampbell@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

on Thursday, August 15, 2013 at 1:51 pm | NOM Staff

Continue Reading


Cheated: How the Courts’ Treatment of Prop 8 Robbed America of its Democratic Process

Frank Schubert, NOM’s national political director, published a commentary yesterday at The Witherspoon Institute’s Public Discourse blog, reflecting on the course of court events that led to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions and the consequences those decisions have engendered.

BB PROP 8 RALLY 056 Frank SchubertSchubert points out that the "legal circus" has not only effectively disenfranchised more than seven million California voters, and that this should upset all of us: “Regardless of whether you see voters defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman as the ‘good guy’ or the ‘bad guy’ in this political drama, the process that killed marriage in California should greatly concern anyone who cares even remotely about democracy and the rule of law.

Schubert goes on to answer an oft-asked question in the wake of the recent SCOTUS decision: “How do you feel?”

I feel like we were cheated. Just like I felt as a kid watching the bad guy put a sleeper hold on his opponent, or hitting him below the belt or with the brass knuckles while the referee had his back turned, so have the legal system and politicians cold-cocked the people of California—seven million of whom went to the polls to lawfully enact Prop 8. Only this time, I realize there’s not likely to be a rematch. The cheaters won.

I feel like the rule of law has been shredded, and conniving politicians have been rewarded for ignoring their sworn oath of office. Public confidence in the judicial system has been dealt a severe blow. Supporters of same-sex “marriage” may be happy with the result today, but hold on until the tables are turned and a conservative governor and attorney general refuse to defend a law they don’t personally support, and there’s nobody left with standing to defend it. …

I feel like a broadside has ripped a great hole in the initiative and referendum process itself. I have managed nearly 40 statewide ballot initiative campaigns in my career. The initiative process is one of the few viable ways to get a recalcitrant government to respond to legitimate issues that are not being addressed by the legislature or the state administration. By its nature, citizens are often pushing a law that is opposed by those in power.

Now those very people in power—the governor and attorney general—have been given a pocket veto over the initiative process itself. They can invalidate any measure they don’t personally support simply by refusing to defend it in federal court. Such power was never contemplated by the framers of the constitution, or by the people of California, but that is the practical result of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Prop 8. Again—it is marriage today, but tomorrow it could be any other issue on the political spectrum.

You can read the rest of Schubert’s insights here.

on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 9:30 am | NOM Staff

Continue Reading



Peters: PA AG’s Refusal to Defend Law is Result of Bad Prop 8 Ruling

Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post:

Pennsylvania attorney general Kathleen Kane announced Thursday afternoon she will not defend the state in a federal lawsuit filed this week challenging the constitutionality of the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, calling the prohibition “wholly unconstitutional.”

...Thomas Peters, spokesman for the National Organization for Marriage, said Kane’s refusal to defend the ban represented a sort of “pocket veto” of the law.

“This is just one more example of how the Supreme Court set a bad precedent [last month] in allowing elected officials to not represent the will of the people when they find it expedient,” he said an in interview.

... Pennsylvania General Counsel James D. Schultz said in a statement he and his colleagues “are surprised that the Attorney General, contrary to her constitutional duty under the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, has decided not to defend a Pennsylvania statute lawfully enacted by the General Assembly, merely because of her personal beliefs.”

... the state GOP chairman Rob Gleason released a statement calling it “unacceptable for Attorney General Kathleen Kane to put her personal politics ahead of her taxpayer-funded job by abdicating her responsibilities.”

on Friday, July 12, 2013 at 12:00 pm | NOM Staff

Continue Reading