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

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.

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.

As you know, we are still in the thick of the Perry v Schwarzenegger trial.  Both sides have submitted post-trial briefs to Chief Judge Vaughn Walker for his review. Closing arguments have yet to be scheduled.

Essentially, our post-trial submissions “connect the dots” between our legal arguments and the hard evidence we put forth during the three weeks of courtroom proceedings in January.  This email will provide a snapshot of some of those arguments and evidence.  Look for more discussion of our legal defense of traditional marriage in coming emails.

A primary foundation of our case is the history of the institution of marriage itself and the central role it has played for centuries in societies all across the globe. Historic marriage has its roots in pairing a man to a woman and has served as the foundation of the family and society as a whole. In fact, across societies, marriage 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. As we have noted previously, and one of our expert witnesses spent a great deal of time addressing, the purpose of marriage through the ages has been and continues to be the “guarantee, insofar as possible, that each child is emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with the woman and the man whose sexual union brought the child into the world.”

And while it is true that the traditional model of marriage between a man and a woman has been disputed of late in the United States, a set of universal functions of marriage remains:

• Complementing nature with culture to ensure the reproductive cycle;
• Providing children with both a mother and a father whenever possible;
• Providing children with their biological parents whenever possible;
• Bringing men and women together for both practical and symbolic purposes; and,
• Providing men with a stake in family and society.

In addition, there are corresponding universal features of the institution of marriage, which include the following:

• High social and legal authority and attractive incentives supporting the institution;
• Maleness and femaleness;
• A definition of eligible partners;
• A public dimension;
• Encouragement of procreation under specific conditions;

Mutual support between men and women and duties toward children; and
An emphasis on complementary parental roles and relationships.
Simply put, to change the definition of marriage that has served California, the United States and every other country on Earth to include anything other than one man and one woman would result in such a profound change to the structure and public meaning of marriage as to severely damage society, possibly beyond repair.

As we indicate in our Findings of Fact court brief, “no society has established same-sex marriage as a cultural norm. Leading linguists, lawyers, philosophers, and social scientists have always understood marriage to be uniquely concerned with regulating naturally procreative relationships between men and women and providing for the nurture and care of the children who result from those relationships.”

This is precisely what we are fighting for, what your vote in favor of Proposition 8 was predicated upon, and what we need your support to help preserve. With your support we will continue to put our best legal minds to work throughout this arduous process.

We will continue to share with you, our partners in this epic battle, the core components of our legal case.

This is one of my favorite times of the year. From a personal perspective as a devout Christian, it’s such a joy to celebrate the resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. That single event changed the entire course of human history. It’s the source of hope for all mankind.

This is also the time of the Jewish Passover, celebrating the Exodus of the Jewish people from slavery in ancient Egypt. It’s one of the most widely observed Jewish holy days as a time to celebrate the endurance of the Jewish people throughout history.

Regardless of one’s religious views, though, this is also the time when spring is in the air! Nature all around us is beginning to come alive — wildflowers bloom, the grasses are lush with greenery, a new generation of animals are born to the flock, and the air is filled with the sounds of birds chirping and nature awakening.

Some truths are simply enduring. Spring follows winter. Rivers flow to the sea. The sun rises at dawn and sets at dusk. It takes the fruit of a man and the womb of woman to make a baby.

Marriage is an eternal and enduring truth. We find ourselves in a strange time when somehow marriage has become political, something to be redefined to suit a political agenda. But the truth is that marriage is as enduring as springtime. It’s between a man and a woman, simple as that. No judge and no advocacy group has the power to change what all of human history has known to be true.

With all the political and legal skirmishes we‘ve found ourselves fighting over the past several years, it’s easy to lose sight of this simple and enduring truth: marriage is what it always has been, the sacred bond between a man and a woman.

Thank you for all you have done to support the enduring truth of marriage. May God richly bless you and your family during this wonderful time of year.