Defend Marriage: Newsletter

In this issue:

The Harriet Meyers “Showdown”
Governor Schwarzenegger Vetoes California Same-Sex “Marriage” Bill
Michigan Judge Rules Constitutional Amendment Does Not Affect Health Benefits
Suit Filed to Stop Salt Lake City from Granting Same-sex Partner Health Benefits
As Expected, Massachusetts Legislature Defeats Abandoned Constitutional Amendment
Study of Reparative Therapy for Homosexuals to Figure in Lawsuit Against Maryland School Board
New Hampshire Panel Recommends State Constitutional Marriage Amendment
Commentary: Bishop Comments on the “Further Betrayal of the Children” in Canada

Dear Defender of Marriage;

The battle to confirm Judge John Roberts, Jr. to be Chief Justice was not as important to liberal Democrats as is the current confirmation battle of Harriet Meirs to the US Supreme Court. Judge Roberts confirmation was made much easier because he was a conservative replacing a conservative.

However, liberals believe, as we do, that Harriet Meirs' confirmation could upset the current philosophic balance on the court. This is because Harriet Meirs, whom President Bush assures us is a conservative, would be replacing the liberal Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

If Mrs. Meirs is confirmed we believe it would make it more likely that the court would be more inclined to protect marriage and to overturn Roe v Wade, the landmark case that legalized abortion in the US.

So, can we trust President Bush’s judgment? Will Harriet Meirs uphold the rule of law, strictly follow the U.S. Constitution and help prevent the Supreme Court from overturning state marriage laws?

And most importantly for conservatives, will she help overturn Roe v. Wade?

If she truly follows the Constitution she will, because, contrary to popular opinion, the U.S. Constitution does not contain a right to abortion, even though 30 years ago liberal Supreme Court justices somehow managed to “discover” such a constitutional right that had somehow managed to elude thousands of constitutional scholars for nearly 200 years. The arrogance of that decision was astounding.

The most common reason given by the 22 Democratic senators who voted against John Roberts was their fear that he might vote to overturn Roe v Wade.

Interestingly, it is primarily conservatives, the president’s natural political base, who currently are most critical of Meirs' nomination. This is the case even though the president knows her far better than most presidents know those they nominate to the Supreme Court. And he is facing this criticism even though he has been faithful in fulfilling his campaign pledge that he would only nominate judges who understand the proper and limited role of the judiciary.

There are a variety of reasons given by these conservative critics. They range from the silly (she did not go to one of the prestigious Ivy League schools) to the largely irrelevant (she has no track record as a constitutional legal scholar). It seems to us, however, that all of them miss the essential point.

What we need first and foremost on the Supreme Court is someone who recognizes the proper role of a judge. Of course, that person must also have the requisite personal characteristics such as being highly intelligent, have a good work ethic, and be fair-minded, dedicated to public service and so on. We know that President Bush would also take all of these things into consideration before choosing his nominee and by all accounts Harriet Meirs certainly possesses them.

Barring any unforeseen problem in her background and assuming that she handles herself well in her confirmation hearings, our position is to support President Bush in this nomination and to support Harriet Meirs' confirmation.

Harriet Meirs' confirmation to the Supreme Court might be even more difficult than anyone had expected. While the opposition of liberal senators to any Bush nomination is a “given,” the opposition, or at best lukewarm support, of some prominent conservatives and conservative organizations will make her confirmation even harder and more uncertain than it should be.

We will keep you informed on developments. Her confirmation can have a major impact on Supreme Court decisions on a wide range of issues critical to the family, including defending marriage.

Sincerely,

Sharon Slater

News Items of Interest

Schwarzenegger Vetoes California Same-Sex “Marriage” Bill
As he promised, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 849 on September 29th. The bill was an attempt to legalize same-sex marriage in California even though an overwhelming majority of voters in 2000 passed Proposition 22 which defined marriage in California law as only the union of a man and a woman. The California constitution prohibits the legislature from amending or overturning a law adopted by ballot initiative and the governor cited this as the reason for his veto. The governor also said that he opposed rolling back existing partner benefits already granted to same-sex couples, something that both proposed California marriage amendments would do. Article here.
Michigan Judge Rules Constitutional Amendment Does Not Affect Health Benefits
In a decision with implications beyond the state’s borders, a Michigan judge has ruled that Michigan’s marriage amendment passed by the voters a year ago does not prevent the state and local governments or government entities, such as universities, from offering health benefits to same-sex “partners” of employees. She ruled that these benefits are related to employment and do not constitute recognition of marriage or a marriage-like relationship. The ruling overturns an opinion by the state’s attorney general and will be appealed. The question of the impact of state marriage amendments on such benefits has been a major point of debate in marriage amendment battles across the country. Article here.
Suit Filed to Stop Salt Lake City from Granting Same-sex Partner Health Benefits
Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a conservative legal group, has filed suit to stop Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson from extending health benefits to the “domestic partners” of homosexual city employees. The mayor is attempting to extend these benefits by executive order. The ADF suit cites Utah’s Defense of Marriage Act and the state marriage amendment passed last year by the voters as the grounds for challenging the mayor’s actions. Amendment supporters provided legal analysis during the election that showed that the amendment would not prohibit granting these benefits, and most continue to maintain that position. Article here.
As Expected, Massachusetts Legislature Defeats Abandoned Constitutional Amendment
By an overwhelming vote of 39 to 157, the Massachusetts legislature, sitting as a constitutional convention, defeated the constitutional amendment it narrowly passed last year. Pro-marriage supporters in Massachusetts had largely abandoned that amendment which defined marriage in the commonwealth as only between a man and a woman but also embedded same-sex civil unions in the constitution. Instead, pro-marriage supporters have started a petition drive which will put a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman on the ballot. This will require only a 25% supporting vote in two successive legislatures. The measure would go before the voters in 2008. Article here.
Study of Reparative Therapy for Homosexuals to Figure in Lawsuit Against Maryland School Board
A study by noted Columbia University researcher, Dr. Robert Spitzer, has become a central issue in a lawsuit filed against the Montgomery County, Maryland school board. Dr. Spitzer is that author of a landmark study which demonstrates the success of “reparative therapy” which can often help homosexuals with unwanted same-sex attraction to change their sexual orientation. The suit, which garnered national attention, was filed by a coalition led by Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum. Dr. Spitzer, who concludes that homosexuals “can and do change,” is none the less a supporter of same-sex “marriage” and led the effort to remove homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental disorders. Article here.
New Hampshire Panel Recommends State Constitutional Marriage Amendment
A New Hampshire commission charged with considering the issues of same-sex “marriage,” civil unions and domestic partnerships has recommended that the state adopt a constitutional amendment that will define marriage as only the union of a man and a woman. No amendment has yet been introduced in the legislature, but one is now expected. An amendment would have to be passed by at least a three fifths vote of both the House and Senate and adopted by a two thirds vote of the people. Governor John Lynch has announced he is opposed to an amendment. Articles here.

Some Thoughtful Commentary on Defending Marriage

Bishop Comments on the “Further Betrayal of the Children” in Canada

Calgary, Canada Catholic Bishop Fred Henry, in an opinion piece published in the Calgary Sun, comments on the impact that legalization of same-sex marriage and the inclusion of “sexual orientation” as a covered category in the hate speech section of the criminal code. will inevitably have on parents, children and the schools in Canada. He notes that “The impact of this social re-engineering is bound to filter down to school classrooms. Ordinary words such as 'husband' and 'wife' will be replaced by 'partner' and 'spouse.' Children will have to be taught about homosexual acts. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labelled as bigoted and openly discriminated against and dragged before Human Rights Commissions. Parents who complain will be branded as homophobes and their children will suffer.” Full commentary here.

We appreciate your generous financial support this year and ask that you continue to support us in the fight to defend marriage. 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.

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