California Family Minute
July 23, 2010
Update on Marriage
Adding to speculation of Walker’s looming decision was the ruling two weeks ago by a federal district judge in Massachusetts that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. Placed into law in 1996 during the Clinton presidency, DOMA defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and provides that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex. However, Judge Joseph Tauro found the arguments put forward in DOMA’s passage 14 years ago – including encouraging responsible procreation and child-bearing and defending traditional notions of morality – to be insubstantial rationale for protecting traditional marriage in federal law.
Fortunately, the Massachusetts decision can actually be seen to strengthen the position of Proposition 8 in California law, as part of Judge Tauro’s ruling reinforced the rights of states to independently define marriage. It is expected that this judge’s decision will also be taken to higher courts of appeal.
If people haven’t yet come to recognize that judicial activism is a very real and growing problem, then Tauro’s decision, and Walker’s potential overturning of Prop 8, should leave no doubt in their minds. In the Massachusetts case, Judge Tauro has ruled according to his subjective, low value of biological parents and deeply held morals. In California, we will soon see whether Judge Walker will disregard arguments for procreation, child-rearing, social order and the proven fluidity of an individual’s sexual orientation, not to mention many other strong arguments to protect the institution of traditional marriage.
In other news, the secular media has made the most out of a new Field Poll released this week, although it shows no change since 2008 in its survey results. The Field Poll has been historically inaccurate regarding the measurement of California citizens’ opinion on marriage, and it continues to state that 51% of those surveyed prefer legalizing homosexual marriage.
However, the Field Poll is not completely meaningless, as it reminds us of the urgent work before us: to educate the population on the meaning of marriage and its purpose as an institution. The historic institution of marriage fosters committed relationships, responsible procreation, developmental benefits to children, and generational benefits to society.
Thankfully,
Ron Prentice
Chief Executive Officer
Update on Marriage
The closing oral arguments in Perry v Schwarzenegger took place in May, and everyone awaits a decision from Chief Judge Vaughan Walker. Recent media coverage anticipates a decision from Walker on Prop 8’s constitutionality to take place within days.
The media coalition and the plaintiffs’ attorneys have requested 48 hours notice from Judge Walker before his decision is made public, and regardless of the decision, we can expect a significant public response from pro-homosexual activists to include protests or celebrations. Many are already planned.
Meanwhile, the team of attorneys tasked with defending the will of the voters and the definition of marriage in California’s constitution are working diligently to prepare any critical requests to the Court, dependent upon Judge Walker’s decision. Keep in mind that any decision from the federal district court will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and many believe the United States Supreme Court will ultimately hear the case.Adding to speculation of Walker’s looming decision was the ruling two weeks ago by a federal district judge in Massachusetts that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. Placed into law in 1996 during the Clinton presidency, DOMA defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and provides that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex. However, Judge Joseph Tauro found the arguments put forward in DOMA’s passage 14 years ago – including encouraging responsible procreation and child-bearing and defending traditional notions of morality – to be insubstantial rationale for protecting traditional marriage in federal law.
Fortunately, the Massachusetts decision can actually be seen to strengthen the position of Proposition 8 in California law, as part of Judge Tauro’s ruling reinforced the rights of states to independently define marriage. It is expected that this judge’s decision will also be taken to higher courts of appeal.
If people haven’t yet come to recognize that judicial activism is a very real and growing problem, then Tauro’s decision, and Walker’s potential overturning of Prop 8, should leave no doubt in their minds. In the Massachusetts case, Judge Tauro has ruled according to his subjective, low value of biological parents and deeply held morals. In California, we will soon see whether Judge Walker will disregard arguments for procreation, child-rearing, social order and the proven fluidity of an individual’s sexual orientation, not to mention many other strong arguments to protect the institution of traditional marriage.
In other news, the secular media has made the most out of a new Field Poll released this week, although it shows no change since 2008 in its survey results. The Field Poll has been historically inaccurate regarding the measurement of California citizens’ opinion on marriage, and it continues to state that 51% of those surveyed prefer legalizing homosexual marriage.
However, the Field Poll is not completely meaningless, as it reminds us of the urgent work before us: to educate the population on the meaning of marriage and its purpose as an institution. The historic institution of marriage fosters committed relationships, responsible procreation, developmental benefits to children, and generational benefits to society.
Thankfully,
Ron Prentice
Chief Executive Officer
