The Ninth Circuit ruling, nullifying Proposition 8, is scheduled to take effect on September 3, 2012, unless the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Team can bring an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Please support the traditional definition of marriage. Contribute to the funding of this legal procedure, for it is essential. This is the last legal resource to counter the nonsensical declarations that California judges have made in condemning the majority of California voters. This wrongful condemnation of the motivations of millions of Californians must not be allowed to continue.
Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund
Criticism of Judge Walker’s ruling on Proposition 8 is not limited to supporters of that proposition:
Both sides of the same-sex marriage debate reacted strongly to Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger to overturn Prop 8 in California. What has been most surprising is the developing consensus from prominent legal experts and analysts, including many who support the redefinition of marriage, who find Judge Walker’s opinion unpersuasive.
Any opinions about the defender’s case in favor of Proposition 8? How well did they make their case? According to the Salt Lake City Weekly:
If the tables were turned, and for various reasons the gay-rights movement’s most qualified experts were kept from testifying in Perry v. Schwarzenegegger, the federal challenge to California’s Proposition 8, many would be crying their eyes out about injustice in the legal system.
How did this happen? Well, the plaintiffs (those in favor of gay marriage) chose to sue only agencies from gay-friendly Los Angeles and San Francisco counties, none of whom wanted to defend Prop 8. The California Attorney General likewise declined to defend it and also did not appoint any other body to defend the law either.
The Salt Lake City Weekly went on to criticize the legal defense offered in support of Prop. 8: “We as a nation–since this impacts more than just California–were left with substandard experts to defend Prop. 8. . . . David Blankenhorn, a self-proclaimed “expert” on marriage. U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, very correctly in my view, ruled that Blankenhorn has no verifiable expertise in marriage, despite having written books on the subject, and thus his testimony regarding it was unreliable.”
I suggest that the defense of Proposition 8 include witnesses like historians who will make it clear how important the husband-wife relationship has been to the progress of our American society.
How simple the concept of maintaining a word specific to the husband-wife relationship! What is wrong with keeping the word “marriage” for its traditional use? In California, most voters approved that preservation of meaning. So what is the common response from opponents? Not reasoning but accusations: Supporters have been accused of being hateful and unfair. Common phrases in the news media, when referring to supporters of traditional marriage, include “anti-gay marriage.” Common comments on Proposition 8 include the idea that it excludes “gays” from marriage. Common assumptions include the idea of cultural progress. Let’s look deeper.
Marriage between a man and a woman has been the bedrock foundation of human society. Recognize and appreciate the great contributions this institution has given to us for countless generations, remembering that all of us are alive because of it. Recognize what would have happened if this husband-wife tradition had been abandoned three centuries ago: We would not now be alive; there would be no California, no Los Angeles, no San Francisco, no Sacramento, no human society anywhere in the United States worthy to speak of.
The Constitution of the United States of America, when properly understood, does not guarantee any particular social status or business success or political office to any individual. It includes provisions to protect basic human rights, indeed. But the American Bill of Rights is only part of the Constitution. How much of that document provides for the organization of the national government! Think not on your personal opinion about your personal rights when the existence of your country is at stake.
Our society was founded on the bedrock of marriage between a man and a woman. Forcing the redefinition of “marriage” is detrimental to that fabric of society that helped cause our country to grow into a mighty nation. Our country needs no such redefinition, for it would be worse than worthless.