In this issue:
- A Momentous Year Past and a Challenging One Ahead
- Views Mixed on Timing of Congressional Amendment Vote
- As Expected, U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal Over Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruling
- California Court Hears Arguments on Constitutionality of Banning Same Sex Marriages
- Cases Being Filed Challenging State Marriage Amendments
- California Will Be Scene of Marriage Showdown
- Canadian Court Gives Green Light to Same Sex Marriage Legislation
- Second New York Court Upholds Marriage
- “Values Issues” Sharpening Debate on Judicial Nominations
- Your Contributions Are Even More Essential to Help Us Defend Marriage
A Momentous Year Past and a Challenging One Ahead
Dear Defender of Marriage;
This is the
season when many of us both look back at the year just past
and ahead at the year to come. For those of us committed
to defending marriage, the past twelve months have been momentous.
The flurry of activities at the state level proved to be especially useful in educating millions of Americans to the threat posed by efforts to legalize same-sex “marriage.”
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court set the stage by mandating same sex “marriage” for the Commonwealth. Thereafter, rogue officials in San Francisco, California; Portland, Oregon and other states -- who performed thousands of same sex ceremonies in clear violation of state law -- focused Americans on the question of same sex “marriage” in an understandable and personal way.
These actions were the prelude to an impressive 13-state constitutional amendment sweep in 2004. Americans were determined to preserve marriage. And they made their voices heard. The reverberations will continue into 2005, when marriage supporters in as many as 12 additional states will introduce new constitutional initiatives.
But perhaps the most significant impact of all this state-level activity was on the congressional and presidential election. What pundits previously dismissed as “the marriage question” may have been responsible for the re-election of President Bush. In key “battleground states,” such as Ohio, marriage may have played a significant role in motivating the voter base and re-electing the President. Marriage also may have played a part in the consolidation of Republican gains in the House and Senate.
So, what of the year ahead?
Just as few of us could have imagined a year ago how protecting marriage would emerge as a major political issue of 2004, none of us can predict with much certainty how the issue will develop in 2005. We can identify several factors that will be significant, however.
Almost certainly, the battle over same sex “marriage” will be driven by court action. Lawsuits have been filed in a number of states challenging some of the recently passed state amendments. Other suits challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act either have been filed or are likely.
A particularly significant legal battle is shaping up in the State of Washington, where two lower courts have ruled that the state’s constitution requires the legalization of same sex “marriage,” despite the provisions of that state’s defense of marriage law. The stage clearly is set for activist judges to continue to deconstruct society’s most basic legal relationship.
While state ballot amendment activity will continue to receive publicity during the year, most of the amendments will be put on the ballot for a vote in 2006. The one state level action that will certainly gain national attention is the effort -- announced by homosexual activists in California -- to push through legislation legalizing same sex “marriage.” The state’s Supreme Court may also consider the constitutionality of California’s ban on same sex marriage as well.
I can make one observation with complete confidence, however. The coming year will not be boring for those committed to defending marriage. There will continue to be major challenges, as well as major opportunities, on the path toward achieving our goals.
I look forward to working with you the year ahead.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Wilkins
Chairman
Views Mixed on Timing of Congressional Amendment Vote
Leaders in Congress and supporters of a federal marriage amendment hold a range of views over how soon Congress may deal with a federal marriage amendment. While the leaders of some pro-family groups are pushing for early consideration, some of the congressional leaders on this issue, such as Texas Senator John Cornyn, have said they believe that some additional action by the courts threatening traditional marriage may be required to seriously focus Congress on passing a federal amendment. Article here.
As Expected, U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal Over Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruling
As was widely expected, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by Massachusetts Catholic Action League and 11 state legislators of their lawsuit charging that the action of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to legalize same-sex marriage in the Commonwealth violated the U.S. Constitution. The issue was not same-sex marriage but the contention of the plaintiffs that the state court action violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government. Article here.
California Court Hears Arguments on Constitutionality of Banning Same Sex Marriages
A California Superior Court Judge has heard oral arguments on the contention of the City of San Francisco that California law limiting marriage to a man and a woman is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. The lawsuit stems from the “marriage” of thousands of same sex individuals by the city last spring and, no matter how the judge rules, will go all the way to the state Supreme Court. Pro-family groups are vigorously supporting the existing law. Article here.
Cases Being Filed Challenging State Marriage Amendments
In addition to cases filed in a number of states challenging existing state law or the federal Defense of Marriage Act, lawsuits have either been filed or are likely to be filed in the near future in a number of the states that have recently passed state constitutional amendments. Two good articles provide a useful overview. One is from the Christian Science Monitor and one from the Washington Times.
California Will Be Scene of Marriage Showdown
Two bills slated for introduction in the upcoming California legislative session underscore the likelihood that California will be a major battleground next year in the fight to protect marriage. One bill would seek to legalize same sex marriage legislatively, something that has not been done in any English speaking country. The other would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot with the identical language of Proposition 22, the measure passed overwhelmingly by California voters in 2000 that declares that marriage in California is only the union of a man and a woman. Article here.
Canadian Court Gives Green Light to Same Sex Marriage Legislation
Canada’s Supreme Court handed down its decision on a referral by the Government of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in that country. The Court said that Parliament could pass the legislation but, in a somewhat surprising move, did not rule specifically on the question of whether the Charter of Rights and Freedoms required the legalization of same-sex marriage. Currently, courts in eight Canadian provinces and territories have ruled to legalize same-sex marriage. The Government is expected to try to move its bill soon after Parliament reconvenes in the end of January. Article here.
Second New York Court Upholds Marriage
A second county court in New York has upheld the constitutionality of New York’s law limiting marriage to a man and a woman. The decisions will be appealed and both sides expect that the issue will be ultimately decided by the state supreme court. Article here.
“Values Issues” Sharpening Debate on Judicial Nominations
The recent emphasis on “value issues” has sharpened many facets of the debate over future policy in these areas but nowhere more so than over filling judicial vacancies. The Christian Science Monitor provides a good overview of the stakes, the issues and the maneuvering over filling upcoming vacancies at all levels of the federal judiciary. Article here.
Your Contributions Are Even More Essential to Help Us Defend Marriage
We appreciate your generous financial support this year and ask that you continue to support us in the fight to defend marriage. To take advantage of the recent election victories and the opportunities we have to set the country back on the right track will take even more commitment from all of us in the period ahead. Please consider making a contribution of at least $25 if you can, but any amount you can afford will be helpful. If enough people contribute at least a little, together it makes a huge difference.
You can easily and securely make a contribution online or print out a form to mail in a contribution.
Your contribution will be made to United Families International (UFI), a 501 (c )(3) organization, so it is tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Defend Marriage is a project of UFI.
To specifically designate your contribution
If you would like to designate your contribution 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.
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