/PRNewswire/ -- Family Research Council condemned the decision today by President Obama that the U.S. Justice Department will abdicate its responsibility and no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. The Defense of Marriage Act, (DOMA) enacted overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, is currently under attack in the courts.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments regarding the decision:
"This decision by President Obama and the Department of Justice is appalling. The President's failure to defend DOMA is also a failure to fulfill his oath to 'faithfully execute the office of President of the United States.' What will be the next law that he will choose not to enforce or uphold?
"Marriage as a male-female union has been easily defended in court and overwhelmingly supported by the American people. There is absolutely no excuse beyond pandering to his liberal political base for President Obama's decision to abandon his constitutional role to defend a federal law enacted overwhelmingly by Congress.
"With this decision the President has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Congress. It is incumbent upon the Republican leadership to respond by intervening to defend DOMA, or they will become complicit in the President's neglect of duty," concluded Perkins.
For more information on the Defense of Marriage Act, read the Family Research Council's pamphlet on the Act here: http://www.frc.org/doma
Read the Family Research Council's amicus brief in the Massachusetts Defense of Marriage Act case here: http://www.frc.org/legalbrief/commonwealth-of-massachusetts-v-us-department-of-health-and-human-services
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Federal Defense of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional
/24-7/ -- In a recent landmark decision, Judge Joseph L. Tauro (of the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts), declared that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (commonly known as DOMA) violates the United States Constitution. Judge Tauro's legal opinion centers around equal protection as well as the concept of states' rights. This lawsuit arose in the year 2009, when the Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) challenged the law on behalf of seven same-sex couples (who were legally married under Massachusetts law). GLAD argued that the DOMA violated same-sex couples' right to equal protection under the law, discriminating against them on the basis of their sexual orientation. A subsequent, nearly identical suit was brought by the Massachusetts Attorney General's office, arguing that the states themselves should possess the ultimate right to define the legality or illegality of a marriage. Historically states have enjoyed - since the country was founded - the right to establish their own rules about marriage.
What Does This Mean?
In spite of this recent Massachusetts decision, North Carolina (and 40 other states around the nation) continue to support the sanctity of heterosexual marriage and have passed legislation similar to the federal DOMA. Of those, 30 even have Constitutional amendments specifically barring same-sex marriages. North Carolina has repeatedly proposed such an amendment, but a bill favoring it has yet to make it past the North Carolina House Rules Committee.
It is unlikely that this decision, though widely heralded by gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy groups as a huge victory, will have any effect on marital-status laws enforced by North Carolina or any other state. While it may have persuasive value, courts ultimately must follow and respect the concept of state's rights.
Opponents of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and around the country (as well as representatives of states that currently have a state-level version of the DOMA) claim the contemptuous verdict is a case of judicial law making. Some have even gone so far as to opine that the United States Justice Department - who defended the DOMA on behalf of the federal government - failed to mount a case because of President Obama's open desire to have the DOMA repealed. They also doubt that the DOJ will bring an effective appeal, even though the federal government obviously has a duty to stand behind its laws.
Article provided by Breeden Law
What Does This Mean?
In spite of this recent Massachusetts decision, North Carolina (and 40 other states around the nation) continue to support the sanctity of heterosexual marriage and have passed legislation similar to the federal DOMA. Of those, 30 even have Constitutional amendments specifically barring same-sex marriages. North Carolina has repeatedly proposed such an amendment, but a bill favoring it has yet to make it past the North Carolina House Rules Committee.
It is unlikely that this decision, though widely heralded by gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy groups as a huge victory, will have any effect on marital-status laws enforced by North Carolina or any other state. While it may have persuasive value, courts ultimately must follow and respect the concept of state's rights.
Opponents of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and around the country (as well as representatives of states that currently have a state-level version of the DOMA) claim the contemptuous verdict is a case of judicial law making. Some have even gone so far as to opine that the United States Justice Department - who defended the DOMA on behalf of the federal government - failed to mount a case because of President Obama's open desire to have the DOMA repealed. They also doubt that the DOJ will bring an effective appeal, even though the federal government obviously has a duty to stand behind its laws.
Article provided by Breeden Law
Monday, August 9, 2010
FRC Praises House Resolution Condemning Judge Walker's Proposition 8 Decision on Same-Sex 'Marriage'
/PRNewswire/ -- Family Research Council today praised House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) for his resolution condemning Judge Vaughn Walker's decision that declares the U.S. Constitution includes a right to same-sex "marriage."
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following statement regarding the resolution:
"I applaud Rep. Smith for introducing a resolution that condemns Judge Walker's flawed decision and urges its appeal. As the resolution points out, Judge Walker is a single judge who thinks he knows better than seven million Californians and voters in more than 30 states who have approved marriage amendments.
"This is an activist decision by a district-level court judge. Judge Walker is forcing his view on not only the millions of Americans who have voted on this issue, but the history of marriage itself.
"Judge Walker showed disregard for both the Constitution and the will of the significant majority of the American people. What happened last week in California only fuels America's disillusionment with government by the judiciary, not their elected representatives or their own direct votes.
"The judge's opinion ignored the social science, which shows that policies such as no-fault divorce have devalued marriage and truly impacted children.
"I thank Congressman Lamar Smith and his colleagues for introducing this resolution that counters Judge Walker's notion that a child doesn't deserve a mother and a father. This case is far from over, and we hope that common sense will reign when the case makes its way to the United States Supreme Court," concluded Perkins.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following statement regarding the resolution:
"I applaud Rep. Smith for introducing a resolution that condemns Judge Walker's flawed decision and urges its appeal. As the resolution points out, Judge Walker is a single judge who thinks he knows better than seven million Californians and voters in more than 30 states who have approved marriage amendments.
"This is an activist decision by a district-level court judge. Judge Walker is forcing his view on not only the millions of Americans who have voted on this issue, but the history of marriage itself.
"Judge Walker showed disregard for both the Constitution and the will of the significant majority of the American people. What happened last week in California only fuels America's disillusionment with government by the judiciary, not their elected representatives or their own direct votes.
"The judge's opinion ignored the social science, which shows that policies such as no-fault divorce have devalued marriage and truly impacted children.
"I thank Congressman Lamar Smith and his colleagues for introducing this resolution that counters Judge Walker's notion that a child doesn't deserve a mother and a father. This case is far from over, and we hope that common sense will reign when the case makes its way to the United States Supreme Court," concluded Perkins.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Prop 8 Ruling Represents Significant Legal, Social Developments
The ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, striking down California's ban on same-sex marriage, represents the intersection of significant legal and social developments, says Emory University's Robert Schapiro, professor of constitutional law, in an analysis of the federal court decision Aug. 4.
"With regard to constitutional law doctrine, the decision demonstrates the importance of the federal courts' new, higher level of scrutiny of laws resting on traditional moral assumptions," Schapiro says. "For most of the 20th century, the court divided equal protection claims into two boxes. If the claim fit into the narrow category of 'strict scrutiny,' generally limited to issues of race and gender, then unequal treatment was presumptively unconstitutional.
"Otherwise, the federal courts generally allowed all kinds of differential treatment, on the theory that the legislature might possibly have some basis for distinguishing between the young and the old, or opticians and optometrists, or all kinds of other groups. Basically, the courts did not require any justification for unequal treatment, outside of matters of race and gender," Schapiro says.
However, the federal courts have shown signs of dissatisfaction with the rigid, two-box doctrine in recent cases, especially when it comes to issues relating to sexual orientation, he says.
"Recent legal developments have required more than traditional moral disapproval to justify laws that deny equality. Judge Walker concluded that social experimentation and psychological reseach have not offered scientific support for bans on same-sex marriage," he says, noting that the judgecited psychological research that had conclusively established that children ‘raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted.'
"Law and society came together in Judge Vaughn Walker's courtroom to invalidate California's ban on same-sex marriage. The ruling marks the beginning of the federal stage of this debate," Schapiro says.
-----
"With regard to constitutional law doctrine, the decision demonstrates the importance of the federal courts' new, higher level of scrutiny of laws resting on traditional moral assumptions," Schapiro says. "For most of the 20th century, the court divided equal protection claims into two boxes. If the claim fit into the narrow category of 'strict scrutiny,' generally limited to issues of race and gender, then unequal treatment was presumptively unconstitutional.
"Otherwise, the federal courts generally allowed all kinds of differential treatment, on the theory that the legislature might possibly have some basis for distinguishing between the young and the old, or opticians and optometrists, or all kinds of other groups. Basically, the courts did not require any justification for unequal treatment, outside of matters of race and gender," Schapiro says.
However, the federal courts have shown signs of dissatisfaction with the rigid, two-box doctrine in recent cases, especially when it comes to issues relating to sexual orientation, he says.
"Recent legal developments have required more than traditional moral disapproval to justify laws that deny equality. Judge Walker concluded that social experimentation and psychological reseach have not offered scientific support for bans on same-sex marriage," he says, noting that the judgecited psychological research that had conclusively established that children ‘raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted.'
"Law and society came together in Judge Vaughn Walker's courtroom to invalidate California's ban on same-sex marriage. The ruling marks the beginning of the federal stage of this debate," Schapiro says.
-----
Friday, December 11, 2009
Medicare Report Confirms Health Care Takeover Plan is a Fiscal Disaster
/PRNewswire/ -- A new report released by the Medicare Chief Actuary, Richard Foster, and the Center for Medicaid Services, the federal agency that oversees Medicaid, says that the proposed health care overhaul plan will dramatically increase health care costs and senior citizens will suffer from Medicare cuts.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
"The Medicare number crunchers are admitting what we've known all along - that this $2.5 trillion bill is a fiscal disaster that will dramatically raise costs and likely cut health care access for senior citizens.
"A spending spree of this magnitude will have consequences because our country doesn't have an unlimited supply of money. This sobering report alone should be enough to convince every Senator and Congressman to oppose this bill. In addition, this health care takeover will increase taxes by almost $500 billion, and further hurt job growth by imposing $28 billion in new taxes on employers.
"The Senate plan also takes a slap at married couples by imposing a marriage penalty on couples making more than $250,000 a year. Cohabiting couples, on the other hand, are free to make $200,000 each before getting slammed by the same tax. The marriage penalty strikes at the core strength of our country - the married family unit which is the greatest generator of human goods and social benefits to our nation."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
"The Medicare number crunchers are admitting what we've known all along - that this $2.5 trillion bill is a fiscal disaster that will dramatically raise costs and likely cut health care access for senior citizens.
"A spending spree of this magnitude will have consequences because our country doesn't have an unlimited supply of money. This sobering report alone should be enough to convince every Senator and Congressman to oppose this bill. In addition, this health care takeover will increase taxes by almost $500 billion, and further hurt job growth by imposing $28 billion in new taxes on employers.
"The Senate plan also takes a slap at married couples by imposing a marriage penalty on couples making more than $250,000 a year. Cohabiting couples, on the other hand, are free to make $200,000 each before getting slammed by the same tax. The marriage penalty strikes at the core strength of our country - the married family unit which is the greatest generator of human goods and social benefits to our nation."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
FRC: No Federal Constitutional 'Right' to Same-sex 'Marriage'
/PRNewswire/ -- Family Research Council President Tony Perkins today criticized a lawsuit which claims that same-sex "marriage" is a right guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution. The suit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, was filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
"It is outrageous that the right of the people of California to govern themselves, which was just upheld yesterday by the California Supreme Court, is now being challenged again at the federal level," said FRC President Tony Perkins. "This demonstrates an insistent contempt for the will of a free people who are fully capable of governing themselves without any judicial dictate."
"The claim that defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment is absurd on its face. The members of Congress who wrote that Amendment in 1866, and the state legislators who ratified it, could not possibly have envisioned or intended such an application, nor can anything in the Amendment be construed to imply such a 'right.'
"Every individual has an equal right to marry in this country, but no one has an unlimited right to marry 'the person of their choice.' No one can marry a child, a close blood relative, or a person who is already married, and in the vast majority of states, no one can 'marry' a person of the same sex."
"Ironically, the very first sentence of the complaint filed by two homosexual couples contains the explanation of why marriage is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman. Quoting Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case that established a right to interracial marriage, it says that 'marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival. But marriage can only be called 'fundamental to our very existence and survival' because of its role in encouraging and protecting the only type of relationship which can result in the natural reproduction of the human race - namely, a male-female union.
"The 36 year-old Roe v. Wade decision did not resolve the abortion debate. Similarly, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturns 29 state marriage amendments and denies the American people the right to be heard will do nothing to bring resolution.
"It is time for homosexual activists to stop asking judges to redefine our most fundamental social institution. This lawsuit illustrates yet again why we need a Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - to provide a uniform definition of marriage as the union of a man and woman, and to stop this endless litigation once and for all."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"It is outrageous that the right of the people of California to govern themselves, which was just upheld yesterday by the California Supreme Court, is now being challenged again at the federal level," said FRC President Tony Perkins. "This demonstrates an insistent contempt for the will of a free people who are fully capable of governing themselves without any judicial dictate."
"The claim that defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment is absurd on its face. The members of Congress who wrote that Amendment in 1866, and the state legislators who ratified it, could not possibly have envisioned or intended such an application, nor can anything in the Amendment be construed to imply such a 'right.'
"Every individual has an equal right to marry in this country, but no one has an unlimited right to marry 'the person of their choice.' No one can marry a child, a close blood relative, or a person who is already married, and in the vast majority of states, no one can 'marry' a person of the same sex."
"Ironically, the very first sentence of the complaint filed by two homosexual couples contains the explanation of why marriage is, by definition, the union of a man and a woman. Quoting Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case that established a right to interracial marriage, it says that 'marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival. But marriage can only be called 'fundamental to our very existence and survival' because of its role in encouraging and protecting the only type of relationship which can result in the natural reproduction of the human race - namely, a male-female union.
"The 36 year-old Roe v. Wade decision did not resolve the abortion debate. Similarly, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturns 29 state marriage amendments and denies the American people the right to be heard will do nothing to bring resolution.
"It is time for homosexual activists to stop asking judges to redefine our most fundamental social institution. This lawsuit illustrates yet again why we need a Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - to provide a uniform definition of marriage as the union of a man and woman, and to stop this endless litigation once and for all."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
FRC: CA Supreme Court Upholds the People's Right to Amend Constitution
/PRNewswire / -- Family Research Council President Tony Perkins (FRC) today praised the California Supreme Court's decision to uphold democracy and reject efforts to strip the right of the people to amend the state's Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
"Over one million Californians signed petitions to place Proposition 8 on the ballot and over seven million voters approved the measure on Election Day. California's Constitution gives its citizens the right of self-governance and we are pleased that the court resisted demands to strip the right of the people to amend the state constitution. Even this widely-recognized liberal court understands that overturning Proposition 8 would represent a repudiation of the state Constitution it is sworn to uphold.
"Unfortunately, the Court chose to ignore the plain meaning of Proposition 8 and will force state recognition of same-sex 'marriage' licenses issued last year. The Court's recognition of these 'marriages' clearly seeds the ground for a possible legal battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.
"At every opportunity, the people of California have voted to protect marriage because they recognize the far reaching consequences that redefining marriage will have for children, the family, religious liberties, businesses and every facet of American society. Today's decision should encourage pro-family activists not only in California but across the country. Marriage redefinition is not inevitable unless advocates of the family stand aside and allow it to happen."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"Over one million Californians signed petitions to place Proposition 8 on the ballot and over seven million voters approved the measure on Election Day. California's Constitution gives its citizens the right of self-governance and we are pleased that the court resisted demands to strip the right of the people to amend the state constitution. Even this widely-recognized liberal court understands that overturning Proposition 8 would represent a repudiation of the state Constitution it is sworn to uphold.
"Unfortunately, the Court chose to ignore the plain meaning of Proposition 8 and will force state recognition of same-sex 'marriage' licenses issued last year. The Court's recognition of these 'marriages' clearly seeds the ground for a possible legal battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.
"At every opportunity, the people of California have voted to protect marriage because they recognize the far reaching consequences that redefining marriage will have for children, the family, religious liberties, businesses and every facet of American society. Today's decision should encourage pro-family activists not only in California but across the country. Marriage redefinition is not inevitable unless advocates of the family stand aside and allow it to happen."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)