Share This Article with a Friend!


Only You Can Ensure SCOTUS Ruling Does Not Affect Other State Marriage Laws

Many conservative activists and supporters of the Biblical definition of marriage breathed a sigh of relief when they read the Supreme Court decision on California’s Proposition 8 (Hollingsworth v. Perry) and found it was fairly narrow and confined to the issue of what parties had standing to defend the California constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Supreme Court
As our friend John Stemberger, President and General Counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, said in a statement released after the Prop 8 decision was released:

“Fortunately, in the California Proposition 8 case, the U.S. Supreme Court did not overturn Florida’s Marriage Protection Act enacted by 62% of Floridians in 2008.  Nor did it overturn the 32 other states that have defined marriage through an act of direct democracy by amending their state constitutions.  The court also did not force one standard upon all the states and instead respected states’ rights to define marriage. The court did not create a new sweeping right of same sex marriage and force that upon the rest of the country as many thought they might.”

And that was indeed good news. The bad news is what the Court did give homosexual activists and secular liberal politicians was a roadmap to overturn other states’ marriage laws.

While it is true that in Hollingsworth v. Perry the Supreme Court said nothing about the validity of the same sex marriage bans in California and roughly three dozen other states, what they said was that defenders of California's same sex marriage ban did not have the right to appeal lower court rulings striking down the ban.

In their analysis of the majority and dissenting opinions, the writers at Huffpost Politics hit the key points conservatives must keep top of mind going forward in light of this decision.

We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “We decline to do so for the first time here.” (Emphasis added by CHQ.)

In his dissent, Justice Kennedy, a California native, wrote that the majority "does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California," which, like 26 other states, "uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials—the same officials who would not defend the initiative."

Because the court "insists upon litigation conducted by state officials whose preference is to lose the case," Kennedy continued, the majority's decision "means that a single district court can make a decision with far-reaching effects that cannot be reviewed."

Thus, officials who refused to carry out their duty to defend the constitutional amendment the people of California passed – in the case of Prop 8, that would be the Governor, Attorney General and Secretary of State of California – were able to thwart the will of the people.

Following the Court’s logic, this means that the top elected officials of a state can void the result of a referendum vote on a constitutional amendment simply by refusing to defend it in court – and the court won’t recognize the right of anyone except state elected officials to defend the will of the people.

It is hard to imagine a more anti-democratic view of governance than that expressed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry.

We can think of a host of voter initiated constitutional amendments that have been passed over the opposition of state elected officials.

Does the Supreme Court now say that a state’s top elected officials can collude with liberal interest groups to, for example, overturn tax limitation initiatives simply by not defending them against federal lawsuits, no matter how frivolous?

Or in the case of state constitutional amendments defining marriage, does this mean that if a secular liberal Governor were to be elected in Florida, such a Governor could overturn the will of the 62% of Floridians who passed Florida’s Marriage Protection Act simply by refusing to defend it if it is challenged, as it surely will be, by homosexual activists?

We say again – if Congress can’t define marriage, as the Supreme Court found today in United States v. Windsor (the Defense of Marriage Act case) and the voters of California can’t define marriage because their elected officials don’t agree with the voters’ decision, the only way to bring the debate over the definition of marriage to a conclusion satisfactory to conservatives is to step up the culture war to ensure that we elect only those who will stand for traditional marriage as Governors, state Attorneys General and President of the United States.

Share this

Only You Can Ensure SCOTUS Ruling Does Not Affect Other State

I have to start by quoting Psalms 119:157, Revelation 2:10 and Timothy 3:1-7. I have never been so frightened. We are fighting an uphill battle of our own making. We allowed a sense of entitlement and establishment rino republicans to convince us to nominate John McCain and Mitt Romney because they were next in line. We social conservatives trusted and depended on government and politicians and man's laws and morality to protect marriage, freedom of speech and religion instead of fighting for it with god's law as hard as the left fights against it with false and misleading cries of "equality for all" and "all we want is the right to marry who we love" and "No H8". Now we know we must depend on ourselves and our allies to ensure that marriage is not lost forever and to change the discussion as to why marriage is important and must not be redefined, just as we have changed the discussion on abortion only in a much shorter time period. I believe we can do that once we get the truth out about what marriage is and the consequences of redefining it as a genderless institution for the enjoyment of adults instead of as a way to procreate and raise children who deserve a mom and a dad as God intended. As a black woman I know first hand the devastation that government and a lack of morality and strong families can do to a people and I would hate for all of America to become what we have become. 2nd we must find and elect TRUSTED conservatives and make sure they can sanely articulate conservative morals, values and beliefs and show the low information voters and average Americans who don't keep up with politics just who the real radicals are and why they must be stopped. 3rd We must try to keep strong against the sheer unadulterated power of Obama and his radical followers i.e. the DNC, Rino's, Hollywood & the MSM (the likes of which I've never seen) for we are fighting for the very heart and soul of our country, our constitution, our values and beliefs, our people, our society and our way of life.