If you are having trouble viewing this newsletter, click here or copy and paste this address in your web browser address bar: http://www.defendmarriage.org/defendmarriage/newsletters/0053.html

  
 
         
   

Defend Marriage Newsletter
August 9, 2005

In this issue:

The “Nine-Ginsbergs/Nine-Scalias Test”
and the Future of Our Democracy

Dear Defender of Marriage;

Sharon Slater, President As I speak with pro-family supporters around the country, I have been somewhat surprised that many do not fully realize how much is at stake in the pending fight over confirming Judge John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Too many do not understand that confirming a person like Judge Roberts is critical to preserving our democratic system of government.

To put it in perspective you can apply what I call the “nine Ginsbergs/nine Scalias test”. Ponder how different this country would be today if, for the past 20 years, we had nine justices on the court all with the judicial philosophy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg compared to how the county would be if we had nine justices like Anton Scalia.

Justice Ginsberg is one of the most liberal justices on the court. She was an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union and is a leading proponent of the “living constitution” concept. This view holds that the Constitution can and must “grow” to allow the court to deal with issues and problems that the Founding Fathers did not anticipate.

Ginsberg is also a leading proponent of using international law and customs in deciding on the constitutionality of domestic cases. For example, such international policies and attitudes towards homosexuals were one of the justifications she and the majority on the court cited in overturning Texas’ anti-sodomy law in the Lawrence case.

Justice Scalia, on the other hand, is considered one of the most conservative justices, largely because he is an “originalist” or “strict constructionist” who believes in a narrow interpretation of the Constitution. The role of the courts, he believes, is to narrowly interpret the law and the clear language and intent of our fundamental governing document in the context of the history, customs and traditions of the American people. If there are major social issues that should be addressed but are not clearly covered by the Constitution, his philosophy is that they should be dealt with by the elected representatives of the people, not unelected and unaccountable judges.

Over twenty years, a nine-Ginsberg court certainly would have stretched the Constitution even more than the activist majority has already done. Even with only a working majority of activist judges, over the past several decades the Supreme Court has simply been fabricating a “constitutional” basis to justify a wide range of decisions on family-related issues ranging from abortion to sodomy.

This majority is becoming increasingly blatant in “growing” the application of the Constitution and some of the reasoning in their decisions borders on the bizarre. The problem is becoming so serious that some respected legal scholars are questioning whether we any longer have a written Constitution in this country.

That should be a very troubling concern for all of us. What is clear, however, is that we do have a group of judges who increasingly are charting a course on social policy and other issues that they believe is “best” for the country according to their personal beliefs, ideology and value systems and using the Constitution to impose it on us. A nine-Ginsberg court, for example, would almost certainly find a “constitutional right” to same-sex marriage because it would be “best” for the country. A nine-Scalia court just as certainly would not.

But, whether or not one agrees with what the activist majority on the court thinks is “best” for the country, everyone concerned about preserving a democratic system of government should be gravely concerned by this development. When federal judges usurp this authority to make public policy which in any democratic system must reside in the legislative branch and not the judicial, they are corroding the very underpinnings of our form of government.

Yet, liberals either do not understand the danger or are more interested in the policy results that these activist judges are delivering for them. This is understandable because they have had to depend largely on such activist judges at the state and federal level to advance their social policy agenda. They know that they cannot achieve such goals as legalizing same-sex marriage democratically in the face of the opposition by a majority of the American people.

So, the fight over the Roberts confirmation is certainly about how he will vote to decide cases setting social policy that will be coming before the Court. He appears to be more in the mold of the strict constructionists like Justices Scalia and Rehnquist than Justice O’Connor who he will replace. He certainly will nudge the court more in a direction of nine-Scalias, which is why the liberals are opposing him so strenuously.

But it is also essential that those of us who will welcome this change on social policy must also understand that the future of our democratic system of government is also at stake here.

This makes us at United Families even more committed to doing everything we can to support his confirmation by the Senate by the largest possible margin.

I hope you will actively join us in this effort!

Sincerely,

Sharon Slater
President, United Families International

P.S. You can help defend marriage even more by forwarding this e-mail on to others who might be interested.

We Urgently Need Your Financial Contribution
to Support Judge Roberts’ Confirmation!

Successfully placing a conservative like Judge John Roberts on the Supreme Court to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor will be one of the most important accomplishments of the Bush Administration. Moving the court in a more responsible direction, one more in keeping with the limited role given the judiciary under our Constitution, will have a profound and positive affect on our future. Confirming Judge Roberts will help to accomplish that.

Liberals and others who support the growing tendency of unelected activist judges usurping the proper policy role of the elected representatives of the people certainly understand what is at stake. They have already amassed tens of millions of dollars to fund their campaign to block the Roberts’ nomination and are raising millions more.

Pro-family and other conservative groups must be able to fight back and support his nomination. That takes money. We literally cannot afford to lose this fight simply because we are outspent.

Please consider making a contribution to the Defend Marriage Project 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 in what we will be able to do.

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 to the Defend Marriage Project, simply make 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.

Until the confirmation hearings begin in early September, all contributions to the Defend Marriage Project will be specifically earmarked to to support the Judge Roberts’ confirmation.

Thank you in advance for your generous support!

News Items of Interest

  • California Senate Committee Revives Same-Sex Marriage Bill

    Using a parliamentary maneuver known as “gut and amend” same-sex marriage supporters in the California legislature resurrected bill AB 19 which would legalize same sex marriage in California. The maneuver involves gutting a bill that passed one or the other house of the legislature before the deadline for moving legislation this session which was June 3 of this year. In this case, a marine research bill, AB 849, which had passed the Assembly and was pending in the Senate, was gutted and amended to include the language of AB 19, which failed to pass the Assembly by four votes. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed AB 849 on a 4-1 party vote. It is expected to go before the full Senate during the week of August 15 and is expected to pass that body. It will then go back to the Assembly where the major showdown will occur once again.
    Article here:

  • Battle Over California Marriage Amendment Heats Up

    VoteYesMarriage.com, the pro-family coalition supporting one of two proposed marriage amendments to the California state constitution, has filed a law suit protesting Attorney General Bill Lockyear’s wording of the title and summary of their amendment. Randy Thomasson, coordinator of the group, said “True to his liberal bias, but untrue to his constitutional duty, Bill Lockyer has dumped on us an inaccurate and prejudicial paragraph that is anything but impartial and fair as the law requires, “ Lockyear also certified for circulation two other petitions submitted by the Protect Marriage Coalition, one of which the group will actually circulate for signatures. Nearly 600,000 valid signatures will be required to put either of the amendments on the ballot in the Spring of 2006.
    Articles here and here.

  • Pew Poll Finds Small Changes in Support for Marriage

    A recent poll conducted in mid-July for the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found small changes in opinion on same-sex marriage related issues. The new poll found that opinion on same-sex marriage was 36% favorable to53% opposed compared to 32%-61% six months ago. Support for civil unions rose to 53% favorable to 40% opposed compared to 48%-45% six months ago. Among those opposed to same-sex marriage, support for a federal constitutional amendment dropped to 53% compared to 60% in a poll taken a year ago. The poll results have a margin of error of at least 3%. Pew summary here.

  • Maine Voters to Weigh in on Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Law for Third Time

    For the third time in less than a decade, Maine voters will decide whether to nullify a law passed by the legislature to add “sexual orientation” to the states non-discrimination law. Pro-family groups have certified more than enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot this fall. In both previous occasions, the voters have rejected similar legislation enacted by the legislature and governor in a “peoples’ veto.”
    Article here.

  • Homosexual Activists Go To Court to Force Same-Sex Marriage in Connecticut

    Connecticut’s civil union law, only the second to be enacted by a state, has not gone into force yet but homosexual activists are already going to court to force same-sex marriage on the state. In a legal memorandum filed on July 28th, the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders group (GLAD), argued that the fact that the state passed a civil union law setting up a separate mechanism for granting some rights to same-sex couples is discriminatory under the state’s constitution. The recently enacted civil union law specifically states that marriage in the state is the union of a man and a woman. GLAD is the group that brought the Good ridge case in Massachusetts that led to the imposition of same-sex marriage in that state and the Connecticut case definitely will go all the way to the state supreme court. Article here.

  • Michigan Lesbian Couple Drop Suit Challenging Michigan Marriage Amendment

    A lesbian attorney and her partner have dropped their federal lawsuit challenging the state constitutional marriage amendment adopted by voters last fall. The plaintiffs had claimed that the amendment violated the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
    Article here.

  • Criticism Mounts to American Psychiatric Association’s Endorsement of Same Sex Marriage

    A number of researchers are stepping up their criticism of the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) recent call for the legalization of same-sex marriage. Critics charge that the APA ignored the science and other evidence that supports the position that homosexuality is abnormal and the potential negative impact on children who might be raised in same-sex households. Criticism is also coming from within the APA as some members criticize the group for engaging in social issues advocacy rather than focusing on its long held mission.
    Article here.

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

    
         
United Families International Sign the United States Petition to Defend Marriage!