In this issue:
- A Presidential Term of Challenges and Opportunities
- Florida Judge Rules Federal DOMA is Constitutional
- Louisiana Court Upholds State Constitutional Amendment
- Supreme Court Declines Review of Florida Adoption Case
- Homosexual Advocacy Groups Form Coalition, Map Strategy to Attack Marriage
- Homosexual Group Claims Little Negative Electoral Impact on Anti-marriage Legislators
- Indiana Appeals Court Upholds State Marriage Law
- We Need Your Financial Support to Help Us Defend Marriage
A Presidential Term of Challenges and Opportunities
Dear Defender of Marriage;
Many who care
deeply about marriage and the family felt a sense of relief
as George Bush was sworn in today for a second term. His support
of marriage provides an opportunity to protect the critical
institutions of marriage and the family at a time when they
are under great assault.
But bear in mind that the new Presidential term only provides an “opportunity.” Ultimate success will take dedication, hard work and sacrifice – as well as continued leadership by the President and our elected representatives.
The importance of presidential leadership was demonstrated recently when the media reported President Bush’s candid assessment (in an interview with the Washington Post) regarding the difficulties of adopting the proposed federal marriage amendment. In response to a question about the emphasis he would put on passing a marriage amendment, the President said:
Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA (the federal Defense of Marriage Act ) is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I’d take their admonition seriously. . . . Until that changes, nothing will happen in the Senate.
The President, of course, was simply stating a political reality, one shared by leaders in the Senate fight to pass the marriage amendment. As was noted by Texas Senator John Cornyn, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, even after the election "we're going to have to see additional court cases come down" before the Senate is likely to consider the amendment seriously. Thus, the President’s statement should not cause panic among defenders of marriage.
The real significance of the media frenzy surrounding the President’s statement is that both sides of the marriage debate understand the key role President Bush has played in bringing the issue to the forefront of public attention. His continued leadership is essential.
Fortunately, the President’s commitment appears as firm as ever, media spin notwithstanding. A number of presidential spokesmen and administration officials have made it clear that President Bush is still committed to a marriage amendment and “will spend political capital” to achieve its passage. The President and Senator Cornyn are no doubt correct, however, that it will be difficult to get the Senate to focus seriously on a marriage amendment so long as the federal DOMA withstands constitutional challenge.
In this respect, the recent Florida case of Wilson v. Ake, which sustained the constitutionality of the federal DOMA, is a classic “good news/bad news” development:
- As a lawyer and legal scholar, I am heartened by the careful – and correct – reasoning of the district court. It is very good news that we now have a clear and well reasoned opinion declaring that DOMA is constitutional.
- But, as a tactical matter, the decision (as the President and Senator Cornyn have noted) will discourage serious consideration of the federal constitutional amendment. This is unfortunate because – while I support the reasoning in Wilson v. Ake – I fear it will not be the “final word.” An amendment is the only certain way to protect marriage.
I welcome clarity – as soon as possible – on the constitutionality of DOMA. The great majority of the nation’s legal scholars, including the Harvard Law Review, have repeatedly pronounced the legislation unconstitutional. We may have a definitive answer sometime during the next two years, as Wilson v. Ake wends its way to the Supreme Court.
Until then, what do we do?
While current cases work their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, citizens in states around the country must take action to amend their state constitutions to protect marriage. At the same time, marriage defenders in every state must remain aware of the very real possibility that – quite shortly – it may be absolutely clear to everyone, including the still-reluctant Senate, that only a federal constitutional amendment will do.
Whatever the scenario, however, we must be absolutely certain that our elected leaders – including the President – support the preservation of marriage.
Our children and grandchildren, not just a second presidential term, are at stake.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Wilkins
Chairman
Florida Judge Rules Federal DOMA is Constitutional
LA Florida federal district court judge has ruled the federal Defense of Marriage Act constitutional in a legal challenge brought against it by two lesbians who were married in Massachsetts. They are demanding that Florida, which has a state law specifically banning same sex marriage, recognize their Massachusetts marriage. In his decision handed down on January 19th, Judge James Moody declared that “The legislatures of individual states may decide to overturn its precedent and strike down" marriage law, "but, until then, this court is constrained to hold [the law] and the Florida statutes ... constitutionally valid." The plaintiffs declared they would appeal.
Several other suits challenging the constitutionality of the federal DOMA have been filed in Florida and others have been filed or announced in several other states.
Article here.
Louisiana Court Upholds State Constitutional Amendment
The Louisana Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that the marriage amendment to the state’s constitution, adopted by a four to one margin by voters in September, was unconstitutional. Amendment opponents charged that it violated the state constitution’s prohibition on amendments dealing with more than one issue. The Louisiana amendment defined marriage and prohibited recognition of civil unions or any other marriage-like arrangement. The Court ruled "Each provision of the amendment is germane to the single object of defense of marriage." Article here.
Supreme Court Declines Review of Florida Adoption Case
The Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the 11th Circuit of Appeals upholding Florida’s law prohibiting homosexuals from adopting children. The law, the most restrictive in the country, is one of only three nationwide that limits adoption by homosexuals. Whether or not the court agreed to review the case was being watched particularly closely because it would probably have required the Supreme Court to either expand upon or trim back the scope of its ruling on homosexual rights contained in Lawrence v Texas which overturned Texas anti-sodomy law. Article here.
Homosexual Advocacy Groups Form Coalition, Map Strategy to Attack Marriage
Seeking to recover from their defeat in the clean sweep of 13 states passing state marriage amendments in 2004, 22 homosexual advocacy groups met recently in Washington, D.C. to map strategy and form a coalition to coordinate their efforts. Said one of the leaders, "There's one national goal, and that is to make sure Congress defeats any form of constitutional amendment seeking to prohibit same-sex marriage. That's the number one national goal. After that, everything is a state-by-state strategy." Article here.
Homosexual Group Claims Little Negative Electoral Impact on Anti-marriage Legislators
The Human Rights Campaign, the largest homosexual advocacy group in the country, has released a study of the re-election success of legislators around the country who supported same sex marriage. The group claims that these legislators were re-elected at “phenomenal rates” with only 1.7% of the 640 legislators they surveyed defeated in their re-election bids. Article here.
Indiana Appeals Court Upholds State Marriage Law
By a unanimous vote, a panel of the Indiana appeals court has upheld the constitutionality that state’s law prohibiting same sex marriage. The court said that it was the role of the legislature to make any change in it. Article here.
We Need Your Financial Support 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