“Since the beginning of time, love has been the source of both the highest bliss and the heaviest burdens. At the heart of misery from the days of Adam until today, you will find the love of wrong things. And at the heart of joy, you will find the love of good things. And the greatest of all good things is God.”
I’ve been watching this trial in the news over proposition 8. It’s outrageous the things Judge Vaughn Walker is trying to do in overturning this law. The judiciary is not meant to be a legislative branch. Half of this questioning has nothing to do with the subject at hand. It’s no wonder the U.S. Supreme Court is now the second court to reprimand Judge Walker for straying from his job as an impartial judge.
See this from Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage:
This is an exciting week for marriage!
I’m excited by the Senate race in Massachusetts, for example–more on that in a second.
But first, a great victory: Once again the Supreme Court has stepped in to protect marriage supporters from potential harassment and intimidation, this time by squashing the effort by Judge Vaughn Walker to break all the rules in order to televise this trial.
That’s two strikes against Judge Walker, by the way; even the liberal Ninth Circuit couldn’t stomach Judge Walker’s earlier ruling allowing an unlimited fishing expedition into the private campaign strategy communications of Protect Marriage.
And it also makes the second time that Justice Anthony Kennedy has stepped forward to try to protect at least the process, to create a more even playing field for supporters of marriage. You will remember it was Justice Kennedy who granted an emergency stay that prevented the release of the names of thousands of Washingtonians who signed a petition overturning an “all-but-marriage” bill, after some gay-marriage advocates said they would try to replicate the effort in California to post these names on the internet.
Justice Kennedy joined four other justices to keep Judge Walker from hastily lifting the TV ban in order to televise the Prop 8 trial: “The balance of equities favors applicants. While applicants have demonstrated the threat of harm they face if the trial is broadcast, respondents have not alleged any harm if the trial is not broadcast.”
I want to include some lengthy quotes from the opinion. If legalese is not your thing, skip over them. But I think those of us who went through the experience of Prop 8 will appreciate that at least five of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court recognize that the wave of intimidation and harassment was quite simply wrong.
The Supreme Court said this week: “Proposition 8 was passed by California voters in November 2008. …Its advocates claim that they have been subject to harassment as a result of public disclosure of their support. See, e.g., Reply Brief for Appellant 28-29 in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, No. 08-205, now pending before this Court. For example, donors to groups supporting Proposition 8 ‘have received death threats and envelopes containing a powdery white substance.’ Stone, Prop 8 Donor Web Site Shows Disclosure is a 2-Edged Sword, N. Y. Times, Feb. 8, 2009. Some advocates claim that they have received confrontational phone calls and e-mail messages from opponents of Proposition 8, ibid., and others have been forced to resign their jobs after it became public that they had donated to groups supporting the amendment, see Brief for Center for Competitive Politics as Amicus Curiae 13-14, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, No. 08–205, now pending before this Court. Opponents of Proposition 8 also are alleged to have compiled ‘Internet blacklists’ of pro-Proposition 8 businesses and urged others to boycott those businesses in retaliation for supporting the ballot measure. Carlton, Gay Activists Boycott Backers of Prop 8, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 27, 2008, A3. And numerous instances of vandalism and physical violence have been reported against those who have been identified as Proposition 8 supporters. See Exhs. B, I, and L to Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion for Protective Order in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. 3:09–cv–02292 (ND Cal.)(hereinafter Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion).”
The trial, which gay marriage advocates had hoped would be some kind of cultural zeitgeist-shifting moment, is turning out to be a bit of a dud from their point of view. Maggie told me a New York Times reporter asked her about how the pro-gay-marriage arguments summoned by hotshot dynamic duo of lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies was different. Any new argument? “Not really,” Maggie told the reporter. “I mean these are basically the same stuff we’ve seen rejected even by many liberal state courts, like the state of New York, Maryland and Washington.” The hotshot team of Olson and Boies, misled by their own intellectual arrogance, which includes a profound lack of respect for the views of those Americans (including 7 million Californians who voted for Prop 8), appears off to a not-so-hot start. Harvard Prof. Nancy Cott says procreation–the creation of new life in the only kind of union where that child can reliably know and be known by, love and be loved by her own mom and dad–is no longer really a purpose of marriage (although she has to admit that it once was, at least sort of). Marriage is now about adults and our relationships. Once again, gay-marriage advocates are only reinforcing what we’ve been telling you: You can’t support both the idea that “children need a mom and dad” and “gay marriage.” Gay marriage ends one marriage tradition and irrevocably marks the beginning of using the law to reinforce a radically different idea about marriage.
You get a sense of how intellectually incoherent these advocates’ views are in watching Ted Olson respond when the judge asks whether the government could just abolish marriage for everyone. Yes, he said, that would be constitutional. How can there be a fundamental right to gay marriage if the government can have the constitutional right to abolish gay marriage? It makes no sense. It’s irrational. Nothing about marriage makes sense if you take the reality of the natural family out of the equation.
The obvious truth, repeated over and over again in the legal history of marriage in the U.S., is that the government thought marriage mattered because marital unions produce and protect children. They do this in two ways: First, by creating faithful, exclusive, enduring sexual unions that create the best context fo conceiving children. And second, by preventing (if the man and woman are faithful) the default harms of unregulated opposite-sex union: many fatherless children, many overburdened mothers, many men disconnected from family life.
This is the argument that Ted Olson told Newsweek “cannot be taken seriously.” Good luck with that, Ted. Seven million Californians took it very seriously, and so do the majority of state courts that have considered it, several international human rights courts, and of course every major faith tradition.
On Christianity and marriage, San Francisco attorney Therese Stewart worked hard to establish that Catholics’ and Baptists’ views on marriage and sex are illegitimate bigotry. She actually had Yale Prof. George Chauncey read into the record official statements by the Vatican and by the Southern Baptist Convention. I had to laugh to keep from crying. This is the city that in an official resolution condemned the Catholic Church and urged a sitting Catholic archbishop to “defy” his own faith and side with the City Council’s on gay adoption. Could gay-marriage advocates try any harder to fuel the perception that a victory for gay marriage requires the defeat of religious liberty, tolerance, and civility for Christianity and other traditional faiths?
I don’t really think this is the way to win Justice Kennedy’s heart. We’ll see.
The most amusing thing is watching the San Francisco expert’s case on how gay marriage is going to economically benefit the government fall apart under questioning. Really, is that the best you can do? Overturn the people’s right to amend their own constitution to protect marriage–so San Francisco can collect some sales tax revenue from wedding ceremonies?
This has been a long letter, so let me close by pointing out that the Massachusetts senate race is a marriage battle: Scott Brown, who suddenly finds himself neck and neck in a senate race with Martha Coakley, was one of the stalwart legislators who resisted efforts to bribe and intimidate them, and supported the people’s right to vote for marriage in Massachusetts. As state attorney general, Martha Coakley spearheaded a lawsuit that is asking the Supreme Court to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
The election Is Tuesday. If you live in Massachusetts, or know anyone who does, be sure to get out and vote.
Thank you again for your support, your prayers, your financial sacrifices, and your friendship.
God’s blessings on you,
Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
Congratulations to the NY DNAers!
The ripples from marriage fights in California and Maine are extending now into New York! With the two pro-marriage conservative governors that were elected in blue states and the write-in pro-marriage candidate Doug Hoffman’s amazing upset in NY-23’s Senate race, the people are making their voices heard. They do not support gay marriage, and they do not support the politicians who push it!
Thank you for your prayers, dollars, comments and many varied efforts in protecting marriage in whatever state you stand. This fight has quickly become national in nature. Each win rolls into the next, and continues to make waves long after it’s over. The next state to watch is New Jersey where the legislature has been making noises about ramming through their gay marriage legislation over the Christmas holiday.
The fight continues!
If you’d like to take a more active roll in the DNA, we’re looking for a few additional writers and volunteers. Drop me an email if you’re interested.
Keep up the good work! Together we make the difference.
— DNA Team Captain
DNA podcasts every Thursday on “Voice of the Nation”
Dear Yes on 1 Supporters,
Our victory on November 3rd to restore traditional marriage in Maine was as gratifying for us as it was devastating for our opponents and the media is still covering its fallout.
From the very start of our campaign, we focused on the consequences that have befallen other states where same-sex marriage is legal. In clear and concise terms, we presented the facts for all Mainers to consider before casting their ballot.
Our campaign was one based on truth; our opponents fueled their efforts with self-designed fiction, responding to us with vitriol, invective and intolerance of our position. It is precisely the response we expected during the campaign and exactly the relationship we hoped to avoid moving forward.
As we said on election night when we declared victory, there were fences that need mending as a result of what, for many, was a polarizing issue. We remain hopeful that we can reach such an accord, but it is disappointing to see that some supporters’ of homosexual marriage continue a drumbeat of bigotry and intolerance.
One need only look at the response to Wednesday’s Boston Globe column by Jeff Jacoby as Exhibit A of this intolerance and respect for a diversity of viewpoints on this issue.
Jacoby’s general message is that the time has come to put name-calling aside and learn to respect and tolerate the opinions of those who disagree on this issue. Click here to read the column: Jacoby writes,
“It may be emotionally satisfying to despise as moral cripples the majorities who oppose gay marriage…. Wouldn’t it make more sense to concede that thoughtful voters can have reasonable concerns about gay marriage…?”
There is nothing in this column that could be construed as hateful or bigoted, and certainly neither ignorant nor misinformed. Yet as of this writing, the piece has elicited nearly 600 responses from readers, an alarming number of them variations on the theme of “how dare you allow such a hateful, bigoted column to be printed.”
As you know, the mainstream media was not on our side of this issue, but 53 percent of Mainers voted to preserve marriage as between one man and one woman last week. Please thank this courageous journalist and his employer by writing a letter to the editor in praise of Mr. Jacoby’s thoughtful, decent approach to moving forward in a civilized manner, no matter our differences.
Marc Mutty, Chairman Bob Emrich, Co-Chairman Brian Brown, Co-Chairman
Hattip to Beetle Blogger :
Mike Heath, of the Maine Family Policy Council, has led two successful statewide drives to turn back “sexual orientation” (homosexuality) laws in Maine, in 1998 and 2001, and most recently was involved in the Question 1 effort to support marriage between a man and a woman.
Reprinted from the Christian Civic League of Maine website:
Nov 6, 2009
The normal routine of the League was interrupted Friday afternoon, when an anonymous caller called to say he owned guns and his next target was the former director of the League, Mike Heath (above). The death threat was apparently related to the recent win on Question 1, which revoked the right of homosexuals to be married in Maine.
The caller said the following:
“I am calling about Mr. Mike Heath, the Executive of your Christian Civic League of Maine. He thinks that gay people should have our rights revoked that we already have. Well I can tell him this – I’m a gay guy who owns guns, and he’s my next target.”
In a second round of threats,
Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel’s Director of Cultural Affairs, issued a statement shortly after Maine’s marriage victory (posted with additional commentary at AmericansForTruth.com). In reaction to that statement, blog poster “ColdCountry” wrote: “Will someone please give me a gun?” Poster “Fritz” warned: “What I fear is that once gay and lesbian people give up hope of achieving equality through nonviolent means, there will be radicals who will begin to hunt down haters… All it will take is a small group of radical zealots who are willing to kill for their cause.”
In reply to Fritz, “tex” posted: “Fritz….you say this like it’s a bad thing? Maybe a bit of well organized terrorism is just what we need.”
“This happens in all cases where people are oppressed and lack representation,” continued Fritz. “We will have gay and lesbian people strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up churches. All it will take is one or two more losses like this. If marriage equality is taken away in one of the landmark states, we will see domestic terrorism arise very quickly. … In 1991, I witnessed gay and lesbian activists setting fire to buildings and beating people with baseball bats in Los Angeles.”
“tex” reiterated: “Still not seeing this as a bad thing Fritz … [African gay activists] didn’t gain their civil rights through being passive.”
In addition to Barber, pro-family leaders Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth and Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage were specifically named targets. (source)
Everyone is free to believe as they wish, and to act upon those beliefs, even to promote them. That is all guaranteed under the freedoms of the Constitution. What is not guaranteed is the right to impose those beliefs on others. Threats, intimidation, slander, libel and licentious tyranny have become the new standard for the activist gay movement. Where’s the tolerance? Better yet, where is the condemnation by the leaders of the activist gay movement of these types of tactics? What? Don’t hear anything? Maybe it’s because their leaders feel the same way.
See No on 1 leader, Jesse Connolly’s tolerance on parade here:
“In a defiant speech to several hundred lingering supporters, No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side “will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives.” —Bangor Daily News
How many instances will it take before the activist gay movement reigns in their supporters?
Victory in Maine!
REJECT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAW
Yes 289235 52.79%
No 258633 47.21%
With 94% reporting
After so much hard work, this was indeed a sweet victory. Thanks so much everyone for all your hard work and prayers! We were out spent, out manned, and many times out maneuvered, but never faithless!
Despite a very significant financial advantage and overwhelming liberal media bias for radical homosexual agenda, faith in marriage and traditional family prevailed.
As someone said last night “You Can’t Buy Maine!”
Amen to that.