Loading
Pro-family groups decry Prop. 8 ruling allowing same-sex 'marriage'
Andy Pugno
Andy Pugno

.- Critics are denouncing Wednesday's ruling by a U.S. district judge who struck down the voter-approved Proposition 8, a measure that defined marriage as between one man and one woman in California. One pro-family group reacted saying the decision's impact could “be devastating to marriage and the democratic process.”

In a landmark case, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8, an initiative which passed in November 2008 with the support of seven million Californians, both “unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

The constitutionality of Prop. 8 was challenged immediately after it was approved in 2008. Today's ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the Supreme Court by the pro-traditional marriage group, ProtectMarriage.com.

Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, responded to the decision saying, “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.”

Noting his confidence that the decision will be overturned, Pugno stated that reversing the 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.”

Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, said on Wednesday that should today's ruling be upheld in the Supreme Court, it “would become the 'Roe v. Wade' of same-sex 'marriage,' overturning the marriage laws of 45 states.”

“As with abortion, the Supreme Court's involvement would only make the issue more volatile,” he cautioned. “It's time for the far Left to stop insisting that judges redefine our most fundamental social institution and using liberal courts to obtain a political goal they cannot obtain at the ballot box.”

"Marriage is recognized as a public institution, rather than a purely private one, because of its role in bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeping them together to raise the children produced by their union,” Perkins underscored. “The fact that homosexuals prefer not to enter into marriages as historically defined does not give them a right to change the definition of what a 'marriage' is.”

Also reacting to the ruling on Aug. 4 were members of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) who are involved in litigating the case.

“We will certainly appeal this disappointing decision.  Its impact could be devastating to marriage and the democratic process,” ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum said. “It’s not radical for more than 7 million Californians to protect marriage as they’ve always known it.”

“What would be radical would be to allow a handful of activists to gut the core of the American democratic system and, in addition, force the entire country to accept a system that intentionally denies children the mom and the dad they deserve,” he added.

Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute (CRI) – a group that promotes pro-family policies within the California legislature – also weighed in on Wednesday's court decision.

“Today's ruling is indicative of an out-of-control judiciary willing to circumvent California's direct democracy by imposing their point of view,” England asserted. “Family values are under constant assault now more then ever.”

“We will continue to battle interest groups who wish to redefine one of our oldest institutions; the institution of marriage,” she noted. “We will continue to represent the 7 million Californians who took to the polls in favor of marriage.”


Ads by AdsLiveMedia(What's this?)

* The number of messages that can be online is limited. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages

RESOURCES »

Ads by Google (What's this?)

Featured Videos

#PAUSEforPeace Initiative
#PAUSEforPeace Initiative
Dedicating art to San Juan de la Cruz
A state without territory elects new government
The renewal of the Legionaries of Christ
Presentation of the book "The Pastor"
Synod on the Family October 2014
Preferential option for the poor
God is alive, even in sport
'A forbidden God' named Best Film at the International Catholic Film Festival
Vatican backs a 'Pause for Peace' during World Cup final
The effects of religious violence in Sarajevo 
The origin of Corpus Christi 
Corpus Christi at the Vatican 
Homage to an Indian Cardinal
Train of the Child's Light
New book explaining gestures of the Mass
Encounter between Pope Francis and the Charismatic Renewal in the Spirit Movement.
Religious tensions subside amid Balkan floods
John Paul II Center for Studies on Marriage and Family
Saint John Paul II on cartoon
Jul
28

Liturgical Calendar

July 28, 2014

Monday of the Seventeenth Week in Ordinary Time

All readings:
Today »
This year »

Catholic Daily

Gospel of the Day

Mt 13:31-35

Gospel
Date
07/28/14
07/27/14
07/26/14

Daily Readings


First Reading:: Jer 13: 1-11
Gospel:: Mt 13: 31-35

Saint of the Day

St. Victor I, Pope »

Saint
Date
07/27/14

Homily of the Day

Mt 13:31-35

Homily
Date
07/28/14
07/27/14
07/26/14

Ads by AdsLiveMedia.com

Ads by AdsLiveMedia.com
     HTML
Text only
Headlines
  

Follow us: