In this issue:
- “Missouri, Washington State, California: Weathervanes Pointing to Our Future?”
- California Court Upholds the Rule of Law
- Washington Judge Rules For Same-Sex “Marriage”
- Marriage Wins In A Landslide in Missouri
- Australia Bans Same Sex Marriage
- Other News Items of Interest
- Your contributions help us defend marriage!
“Missouri, Washington State, California:
Weathervanes Pointing to Our Future?”
Dear Reader,
In the past couple of weeks, events in California, Washington
and Missouri give us glimpses of two alternative futures for
marriage in the United States. In one, we protect the
vital institution of marriage. In the other, activist judges
redefine marriage against the clear will of the people to the
detriment of all future generations. Which of these
two glimpses will become our reality depends very much on what
each of us does in the months ahead.
As expected, California’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the mayor and City of San Francisco acted illegally in “marrying” some 4,000 same sex couples last spring. The court considered only the narrow question whether the mayor had authority to issue marriage licenses contrary to state law – and the court hardly could have ruled otherwise. To have endorsed the action of the mayor and city would have resulted in legal and political chaos.
The decision of the California Supreme Court merely establishes that a city officer who has taken an oath to uphold and defend the law can’t contravene the law. The broader issue, whether same sex marriage violates the California Constitution, will undoubtedly work its way up to the Supreme Court within the next year or two. What the California Supreme Court will say on that issue is unclear.
Meanwhile, in the State of Washington, an activist Superior Court judge in King County (Seattle) ruled on August 4 that the state’s prohibition of “same sex marriage” violated the state constitution. But, while invoking the state constitution, the court cited only decisions from the United States Supreme Court – most notably the Court’s decision last year in Lawrence v. Texas (striking down Texas’ sodomy statute). The Washington court, like Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge, adopted point-for-point the reasoning set out in Lawrence. As I have explained before, the unfounded “constitutional” rule created by the Supreme Court in Lawrence will inevitably redefine marriage for the entire United States.
The developments in Massachusetts – and now Washington – demonstrate why the people of America must act to preserve marriage and the very idea of a written constitution.
In Massachusetts, as in the State of Washington, the law defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. There was nothing in the clear terms of the constitutions of either state that justified the state courts in upsetting this longstanding definition. Nevertheless, with powerful assistance of the faulty constitutional rule established in Lawrence, state courts are now rewriting marital codes from the bench.
But the people of American are making their voices heard.
In Missouri on August 3rd, the citizens of the “Show Me State” showed us all how a democratic system should work. By an overwhelming 71% majority, the voters amended the Missouri constitution to define marriage as exclusively the union of a man and a woman. In doing so, the people served notice to their elected representatives and to any activist state judges that the people have the ultimate power -- and that they are willing to exert that power.
The victory in Missouri was all the more remarkable because defenders of marriage there were outspent by the opponents of marriage by at least 20 to 1.
If we are to save marriage in the United States, we must follow the example Missouri has set. The American people must similarly exercise their power to reign in activist federal judges by adopting a federal constitutional amendment. Unless such an amendment is adopted, we will soon watch as the Supreme Court “discovers” a right to same-sex marriage that (for all intents and purposes) the Court has already announced in Lawrence.
In the gathering storm over defending marriage, the weathervane pointing to our future is oscillating wildly. Our destiny as a society will depend on whether we can protect our most fundamental social institution: marriage and the family. As citizens of a democratic republic, we need not be at the mercy of judicial winds. We can control our destiny.
The only question to be answered is, will we?
Sincerely,
Richard G. Wilkins
Chairman
California Court Upholds the Rule of Law
The California Supreme Court in a unanimous decision ruled that the mayor and City of San Francisco violated California law when they “married” about 4,000 same sex couples. The court ruled only on that narrow point of law, and not on the constitutionality of the ban on same sex “marriage.” The ruling was widely expected. In a related decision, the judges ruled 5 to 2 that the marriage licenses issued were void, nullifying the “marriages.”
Washington Judge Rules For Same Sex “Marriage”
A Superior Court Judge in King County ruled August 4th the prohibiting same sex couples from marrying violates Washington’s Constitution. His ruling struck down as unconstitutional the state’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act which specifically defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In his ruling, the judge found that “the exclusion of same-sex partners from civil marriage and the privileges attendant thereto is not rationally related to any legitimate or compelling state interest and is certainly not narrowly tailored toward such an interest.” The judge stayed his ruling until the state Supreme Court could rule on the constitutionality of the state law.
Marriage Wins In A Landslide in Missouri
Voters in the “Show Me State” showed the rest of the nation and the world on August 3rd that they are strongly committed to defending marriage by voting overwhelmingly to amend their state constitution to define marriage as exclusively the union of a man and a woman. The amendment passed by a landslide 71% even though amendment supporters were outspent by amendment opponents by at least a 20 to 1 margin. This was the first test of voter sentiment since Massachusetts legalized same sex marriage in May. Political observers were amazed at both the margin of victory and the high turn out in the primary election and are debating what it might mean in the fall, when at least 10 other states will have similar measures on their ballots.
Australia Bans Same Sex Marriage
On August 13th, the Australian Senate passed on a 39 to 7 vote an amendment to that country’s marriage law which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman and prohibits the recognition of same sex marriages performed in another country. The law was amended to state that "Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life." It also provides that "Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnized in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognized as a marriage in Australia." The government called it an “historic milestone for Australian values” but homosexual activists vowed to test the constitutionality of the bill in the courts.
Other News Items of Interest
- “In Utah court, lawyers argue that polygamy is legal” reports on the legal argument being made that if Texas cannot outlaw sodomy, Utah cannot outlaw polygamy. Article here.
- The Washington Times reports on the various appeals and activities toward lesbians and homosexuals during the Democratic Convention in Boston in “Gays to gain in Kerry White House.” Article here.
Your contributions help us defend marriage!
Now that the fight to defend marriage and the family has entered a new and critical stage, we especially need your financial support. Just one of the homosexual activist groups has now launched the second phase of a multimillion dollar advertising campaign to sway public opinion nationally against a constitutional amendment. All of these groups understand that this is the showdown battle for them and they are pouring money into the fight.
Please consider making as generous a contribution as you can to defend marriage and the family. Defend Marriage is a project of United Families International (UFI), a 501 (c )(3) organization, so your contribution is tax deductible to the extent allowed by law.
If you would like to designate your contribution to UFI to go entirely to the Defend Marriage Project, you can easily do so by making a contribution that ends with 4 cents, i.e. $25.04, $173.04, $1,000,000.04 and so on. That will automatically flag it to be applied entirely to Defend Marriage. You can easily and securely make a contribution online or print out a form to mail in a contribution.
Thank you in advance for your generous support!
Want to help even more?
Please forward this on to others who may be willing to help defend marriage and the family.
To unsubscribe, click
here.
United Families International PO Box 2630 Gilbert, AZ 85299-2630
Phone: (480) 632-5450 • FAX: (480) 892-4417