Yes on 8, Protect Marriage - Restoring Marriage and Protecting California Children

SACRAMENTO—Today, the ProtectMarriage.com coalition, the official proponents of Proposition 8 who were designated by the California Supreme Court to represent the State’s interest in upholding Prop 8, asked the entire Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to review a smaller panel’s 2-1 ruling invalidating California’s state constitutional amendment protecting marriage as between a man and a woman.

“After careful consideration, we determined that asking for reconsideration by the full Ninth Circuit is in the best interests of defending Prop 8.  This gives the entire Ninth Circuit a chance to correct this anomalous decision by just two judges overturning the vote of seven million Californians,” said Andy Pugno, general counsel for Proposition 8’s official proponents.

“The majority opinion by the smaller panel conflicts with every state and federal appellate court decision — including binding decisions of the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit itself — that has upheld the traditional marriage laws under the federal Constitution as rationally related to the state’s interest in responsible procreation and child-rearing,” he added.

“On behalf of the seven million Californians who voted to restore marriage as between a man and a woman, we think it’s important that the full Ninth Circuit has an opportunity to consider our appeal and maintain uniformity of the court’s legal precedents,” Pugno said.

Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Brian Raum, a member of the legal defense team for Prop 8, added:

“The people of Californians deserve to have their vote on marriage defended before the full appeals court.  The panel’s ruling mischaracterized the purpose of marriage, failed to faithfully and fairly interpret the Constitution, and disregarded every relevant appellate and Supreme Court precedent in American history.”

SACRAMENTO — This afternoon, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request by Prop 8 proponents to stay U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling, thereby upholding the vote of 7 million Californians while the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is heard on appeal. The arguments will occur in San Francisco the week of December 6, 2010.

“California voters spoke clearly on Prop 8, and we’re glad to see their votes will remain valid while the legal challenges work their way up through the courts. Invalidating the people’s vote based on just one judge’s opinion would not have been appropriate, and would have shaken the people’s confidence in our elections and the right to vote itself,” said Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the defendants in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case.

SACRAMENTO: The following statement can be attributed to Charles J. Cooper, lead counsel for the official proponents of Proposition 8, in response to U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker’s refusal to permanently stay his August 4, 2010 decision in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case.

“We are gratified that Judge Walker has continued until August 18^th the temporary stay of his decision.  We will promptly seek from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals a stay pending the final resolution of the case. On appeal, we look forward with confidence to a decision vindicating the democratic process and the basic constitutional authority of the 7 million Californians who voted to retain the traditional definition of marriage. The decision whether to redefine the institution of marriage is for the people themselves to make, not a single district court judge, especially without appellate scrutiny.”

The following statement was released to the press corps following the conclusion of the closing oral arguments:

“Today marked the end of the Perry v Schwarzenegger trial to protect and preserve the constitutionality of marriage between a man and a woman. Since the lawsuit was filed more than one year ago and the trial began in January, we now await Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling, fully aware that we are still early in the process, as most legal experts expect that the issue will eventually land at the Unites States Supreme Court.

“Regardless of the outcome of the trial held in San Francisco, we are very pleased with the fullness of the record we have created to support the longstanding policy favoring traditional marriage, and we think that record will serve us well on appeal.

“What is ultimately at stake in this case is the notion that legislative decisions on policy such as government’s recognition of marriage belong to the people and their elected representatives; it is not for the courts to legislate from the bench.

“Very simply put, the public has a strong interest in channeling natural procreation into stable and enduring relationships between men and women and increase the likelihood that those children will be raised by both a mother and a father, and those interests justify the unique and special status of traditional marriage.

“For our opponents to say, as they have repeatedly, that there is no rational reason for limiting marriage to a man and a woman except for animus and bigotry is to spurn 7 million Californian voters, 70 of 108 judges, the vast majority of state legislatures and electorate after electorate who support marriage between a man and woman.”

Andrew Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com

We informed you a few days ago that Judge Walker submitted questions that he expected attorneys for both sides to answer at the closing arguments today. You can view them on our website by clicking on the Perry v Schwartenegger link. You can also follow our posts live from the courtroom on Twitter @protectmarriage.

PROP 8 PROPONENTS TO APPEAL NINTH CIRCUIT
RULING AGAINST TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

Court is Deeply Divided in its Opinion

The following statement can be attributed to Andy Pugno, general counsel for the ProtectMarriage.com coalition, the official proponents of Proposition 8, in response to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to uphold the US District Court’s ruling that declared Prop 8 unconstitutional:

“It’s no surprise that the 9th Circuit’s decision is completely out of step with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision in American history on the subject of marriage. Ever since the beginning of this case, we’ve known that the battle to preserve traditional marriage will ultimately be won or lost not here, but rather in the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We will immediately appeal this misguided decision that disregards the will of more than 7 million Californians who voted to restore marriage as the unique union of only a man and woman. We are confident that the rights of California voters will finally win out.

“With the sponsorship of the Hollywood elite, this lawsuit has been pushed forward as an assault on traditional marriage, with the help of a judge who failed to disclose his own long-term homosexual relationship while presiding over a case seeking the legalization of same-sex marriage.

“Although the court was deeply divided in its ruling against Proposition 8, the court also confirmed what the California Supreme Court has already concluded: that we have legal standing as representatives of the voters to assert California’s interests in the validity of Prop 8.  Our path to the U.S. Supreme Court is now very clear.  We are confident that the law, history, and the repeatedly expressed will of the American people will eventually gain a fair hearing, and traditional marriage will be upheld and protected.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 17, 2011

CONTACT: Carla Hass 916-834-9969

SACRAMENTO – ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponent in the Perry v. Brown case to uphold Prop 8, released the following statement which can be attributed to general counsel Andy Pugno:

“We are delighted that the Supreme Court has clearly reaffirmed our right, as the official proponents of Prop 8, to defend over seven million Californians who amended their own State Constitution to restore traditional marriage. This victory is an enormous boost for Proposition 8 as well as the integrity of the initiative process itself.

“This ruling is a huge disaster for the homosexual marriage extremists. The Court totally rejected their demands that their lawsuit to invalidate Proposition 8 should win by default with no defense. Their entire strategy relied on finding a biased judge and keeping the voters completely unrepresented. Today that all crumbled before their eyes.

“Today’s decision is a critical step in our three-year battle to uphold marriage between a man and a woman. Now we can return our focus to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and our appeal to reverse the lower court’s decision declaring Proposition 8 and traditional marriage itself ‘unconstitutional.’ ”

NOTE TO EDITOR:

The following are key portions of the decision, which can be found at the links below:

“In a postelection challenge to a voter-approved initiative measure, the official proponents of the initiative are authorized under California law to appear and assert the state’s interest in the initiative’s validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure when the public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or appeal such a judgment decline to do so.” (page 5.)

“[W]e conclude that when public officials decline to defend a voter-approved initiative or assert the state’s interest in the initiative’s validity, under California law the official proponents of an initiative measure are authorized to assert the state’s interest in the validity of the initiative and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure.” (page 23.)

The Court’s decision is available here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S189476.PDF or http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S189476.PDF

“Today, a single federal judge has negated the will of the people of California. The central premise of the court’s ruling is that it is irrational for the citizenry to decide to retain the traditional definition of marriage. The court holds that the ubiquitous definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is a historical curiosity that serves no purpose whatsoever, but rather is based solely on anti-gay biases. Indeed, the court went so far as to brand as “irrational” all supporters of traditional marriage, which is the vast majority of all people, in American and throughout the world. As New York’s high court recently recognized, until very recently it “was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex.”  [Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d at 8 (N.Y. 2006)].  The historical record reveals that the traditional definition of marriage is grounded in society’s interest in channeling potentially procreative sexual relationships between men and women into enduring, stable family units to increase the likelihood that children will be raised by the man and woman whose union brought them into the world.

“Judge Walker’s ruling sweeps aside this historical understanding of marriage. In its place, he has announced that “Marriage is the state recognition of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependants.” His opinion thus treats children as a mere afterthought when it comes to marriage. The Court’s disregard for the historical purposes of marriage would require California to embark on a novel experiment with the fundamental institution of marriage.  In doing so, it threatens to harm the vital interests historically served by marriage.  The United States Constitution provides no warrant for this result, as demonstrated by the all-but-unanimous judgment of other federal courts that have addressed the issue.

“In addition to dismissing the traditional definition of marriage, the judge incredibly found that children don’t need fathers. Or mothers. To state this proposition is to refute it. And the court also found that there is no benefit whatsoever for a child to be raised by its own biological parents. Fortunately, the Constitution does not require the people to substitute the social science musings of gay rights activists for common sense. This decision will not stand.

“Fortunately, the case is not over. Judge Walker acknowledged from the outset that “this case is only touching down in this Court, … it will have a life after this Court, and what happens here, in many ways, is only a prelude to what is going to happen later.”  July 2, 2009 Tr. of Hr’g at 12.  About that he was right. We have already filed a notice of appeal and look forward to the next stage of this litigation.”

SACRAMENTO - Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponents of Proposition 8, released the following statement today in response to the ruling of U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case:

“Today’s ruling is clearly a disappointment. The judge’s invalidation of the votes of over seven million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process. But this is not the end of our fight to uphold the will of the people for traditional marriage, as we now begin an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“It is disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down Prop 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop 8.

“But the reality is that Prop 8 was simply about restoring and strengthening the traditional definition of marriage as the unique relationship of a man and a woman, for the benefit of children, families and society.

“At trial we built a solid record to show that marriage has served as the foundation of the family and society as a whole, has universal functions and features attributable only to unions between a man and woman, has been defined in both law and language as a union between a man and a woman, and acts as the predominate relationship in which to create and support children.

“We are confident that the trial court record we built will help us ultimately prevail on appeal and reverse today’s ruling.

“Reversing today’s decision will also serve as a reminder that the role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law only as enacted by the people and their elected representatives, not to impose new social policies.

“And federal precedent is clear that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. To prevail in the end, our opponents have a very difficult task of convincing the U.S. Supreme Court to abandon precedent and invent a new constitutional right.”

As promised, this is another in a series of emails to update you about our legal advocacy in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial to preserve traditional marriage.

Perhaps the most critical feature of traditional marriage is the impact the institution has on the creation and raising of children. Simple biology proves that relationships only between a man and woman can result in the creation of a child.  It just can’t happen between two men or two women. Further, experts around the globe agree that the ideal family structure for a child is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Logically, it only makes sense that society would want to encourage marriage between a child’s biological mother and father, and that is exactly what California (and virtually every other state) has always done. But more than logic supports the public policy adopted by the voters when they enacted Proposition 8.

The contention that there is no discernable difference in the impact on the cognitive, emotional and social well-being of a child between opposite-sex married couples and homosexual couples just isn’t borne out by social science.  It is at the core of why Prop 8 was placed on the ballot and why more than seven million Californians supported it.

Like everything else in life, there are exceptions to the rule, but social science research indicates that children who grow up in a family setting other than with their two biological parents are at greater risk for a host of negative challenges, including health problems, premature mortality, suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, criminal behavior, and incarceration.

If that’s not enough, children who do not live with their married, biological parents are at heightened risk for intergenerational poverty, early sexual activity and pregnancy, and are far more likely to face problems in school and the labor force as they enter adulthood.

As we noted in our Findings of Facts document submitted to the court, “many of the negative outcomes associated with not being raised by married, biological parents become more pronounced (or at least more measurable) in adolescence or early adulthood.” In other words, if the challenges that can be brought about by living outside the traditional two-parent family aren’t immediately revealed, it is quite likely, according to social science, that they will become apparent later in life. That is not the kind of environment any parent or any society should intentionally choose for a child.

These are impacts that have been carefully studied and the results are solidly supported. On the other hand, the rarity and novelty of same-sex parenting means social scientists are currently unable to draw meaningful conclusions about its impact on children. That is why there is such uproar over legislators and judges foisting same-sex marriage as a social experiment upon children.

Yet we are being asked by same-sex marriage advocates to put aside what we know for sure for a “cross your fingers and hope for the best” approach because it suits the political agenda and desire of adults.

To be sure, raising children today is infinitely more difficult than in past generations. Many single moms and dads do heroic work every day to raise their children in a loving, secure and safe environment. They have earned our respect and admiration. But laws and public policies are supposed to promote the ideal – the “common good” – for society, especially when it comes to our children. A child who is left fatherless through divorce or abandonment can certainly be lovingly raised by her mother, just as a single dad can lovingly raise his child without a mother. But to promote the idea of purposefully depriving children of a mother or a father simply because a miniscule portion of the population wants to experiment with homosexual marriage is not an acceptable risk.

As always, we thank you for your continued financial support during the continuing legal battle to protect marriage between a man and a woman. Through the month of April, all donations will be matched thanks to a generous benefactor. Every dollar you give will mean two dollars for the effort. We will continue to keep you apprised of the next steps in the San Francisco court case as it unfolds.