Citizens who support Prop. 8 must defend Constitution because attorney general refuses

Why anyone is surprised about Jerry Brown is a mystery.

An attorney general of a state refusing to defend his own constitution?

Here is a man who refuses to defend a father's or a mother's rights to equal or joint custody of their own children in compliance with the California constitution is playing politics with children's futures. Single-parent homes are the single greatest breeding grounds for crime in every state, so why is this Chief Law Enforcement Officer more concerned about gay-marriage and not heterosexual marriage?

Jerry Brown is pretty gutless,and is pandering for a future run at the governor's office again, or maybe a California Senator's job?

QUEERLY BELOVED

Elected officials bail on U.S. marriage law

Citizens who support Prop. 8 must defend Constitution because attorney general refuses

---

Posted: January 09, 2010
10:15 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

California Attorney General Jerry Brown

In a case with implications for the entire country, California's Proposition 8 defining marriage as between one man and one woman goes on trial Monday with only private citizens speaking up for the voter-passed constitutional amendment – because state officials have refused to defend it.

Much is riding on the case of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, for the lawsuit is petitioning a federal court to overturn not just a law, but a constitutional amendment passed by the people and affirmed by the state's Supreme Court. A victory for same-sex marriage advocates in the case could set a precedent for federal courts to overturn every law and amendment in the country currently protecting the traditional definition of marriage.

And yet, though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Attorney General Jerry Brown are named as defendants in the suit, both have refused to act in defense of the amendment, leaving it up to the people of California to take a stand for their constitution on their own.

In June, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California verified Brown's abandonment of the case and therefore permitted quick-acting attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com, the group that sponsored the amendment campaign, to intervene in the case and take up defense where Brown refused.

At the time, ADF-allied attorney Andrew Pugno stated, "This ruling designating us to defend Proposition 8 reflects the unfortunate fact that, if left up to state officials, the will of the people would not be defended at all."

"This case is as much about whether our government is of, by, and for the people as it is about marriage," ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum said in a statement released this week. "Just imagine how it would change our democracy if every state constitutional amendment could be eliminated by small groups of wealthy activists. It would no longer be America, but a tyranny of elitists."

ADF points out that the lawsuit, originally brought by two men and two women in same-sex relationships, has been backed by Hollywood-area public relations firm that frequently represents celebrities and their causes.

"In America, we should respect and uphold the right of a free people to make social policy choices through the democratic process," added Raum. "If a handful of activists can void a constitutional amendment adopted by 7 million Californians, we have forfeited the very core of the American democratic system – especially in this case, where the people of California affirmed something that predates America itself."

The case has now reached its trial date and will be heard beginning Monday, Jan. 11, at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco. The trial is reportedly expected to last two to three weeks.

"Monday, the people of California go on trial," Pugno added. "Our legal team is working as hard as possible to win this trial, but we are prepared to fight with every ounce of energy all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary."

YouTube coverage – openness or intimidation?

Complicating the case is a decision by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker approving the trial to be videotaped and broadcast over the Internet on the popular YouTube site.

Though many state courts allow trials to be taped with a judge's consent, the cameras have been historically prohibited during federal trials. But on Dec. 17, the Judicial Council of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals approved the nation's first pilot program for broadcasting nonjury civil trials, paving the way for Walker's decision.

"This certainly is a case that has sparked widespread interest," Walker reasoned. "I think it's worth attempting in a case of this nature and of this public interest."

The judge added, "I've always thought that if the public could see how the judicial process works, they would take a somewhat different view of it."

Defenders of Proposition 8, however, have blasted the decision, concerned that witnesses may be intimidated from honest testimony if they know their faces and words will be distributed widely to the public, where some homosexual activists have already engaged in public harassment, vandalism and even violence toward Proposition 8 proponents.

"The knowledge that you're testifying to untold thousands or millions ... can cause some witnesses to become more timid," said Michael Kirk, attorney for the sponsors of Proposition 8. "The risk is just unacceptable."

The Bay City News Service reports Judge Walker did, however, turn down requests to televise the proceedings live, preferring instead to broadcast over the Internet after a delay, in order for "the process to be completely under the court's control."

Buz Rico, the court's technical advisor, told the San Francisco Chronicle the videotape will be posted on a special YouTube channel set up for the court as soon as possible, which might be later the same day or the next morning.

---

Related offers:

"The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"

"The Gay Agenda: It's Dividing the Family, the Church, and a Nation"

"See how Americans and their Constitution have been betrayed by judge-made law"

---

Previous stories:

Federal judge tosses lawsuit against Prop 8

Private lawyers to defend California Constitution

Battle over 'gay' weddings far from over

Iowa, Vermont 'marriage' decisions 'aberrations'

Traditional-marriage supporters buoyed by arguments

Lawmakers: Court should reject voters' decision

Allies rally behind Prop 8 in judicial battle

California AG attacks own constitution

Supremes to review 'gay' lawsuits against Prop. 8

Watch sparks fly as 'gay' activist mob swarms Christians

'Gays' demand endorsement of lifestyle

School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners

School takes 1st-graders to see lesbian teacher wed

'Gay' marriage battle goes to kindergarten

'Bride,' 'groom' can't marry in California

County surrenders in same-sex marriage war

Counties to Supreme Court on 'gay' marriage: Drop dead

'Gay' rights group to Supremes: Don't let people vote

It's voters vs. black robes in November

County clerks urged to ignore same-sex marriage ruling

'Gay' marriage ruling to spark lawsuits nationwide

Whoa! Marriage laws aren't changed – yet

Supremes asked to give voters a chance

City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'

California battle over same-sex marriage not over

Black robes trash traditional marriage

California's 'judicial fiat' condemned – by judge

Plan pushes for last step in eliminating marriage

Court asked to protect 1-man, 1-woman marriage

Pro-marriage groups: 'Don't trust courts!'

Gov. Arnold 'terminates' man-and-woman marriage plan

Gov. Arnold says 'marriage' can be terminated

California handing out marriage privileges

'Marriage' to become museum piece

Homosexual marriage minces west to California

Court will decide if California voters were right

Vote or pay us damages, group tells lawmakers

7 more states say no to 'gay marriage'

Same-sex rulings will 'echo' across U.S.

Senate rejects 'gay marriage' ban

California Senate OKs 'gay' marriage

Mayor faces trial for same-sex marriages

60% of polled Americans: No homosexual marriage

It's 'gay' marriage in Massachusetts

Poll: Massachusetts opposes 'gay' marriage

'Gay' marriage ruling's consequences 'dire'

'Gay' marriage ban struck down in Massachusetts

Bush to block 'gay' marriage

Poll suggests backlash on 'gay' issues

Court strikes down Texas sodomy law

Supreme Court hears 'right to sodomy' case

High court to give 'gays' their own 'Roe'?

---

Drew Zahn is a news editor for WorldNetDaily.

---

Marriage Protection Amendments

It has become increasingly important to recognize the threat to Family Values and the roles that mothers and fathers play in raising their children both as an intact family and broken family following divorce, which is implied by same-sex unions and marriage.

A study done by the The Traditional Values Coalition:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450

gives a breakdown of marriage values in all fifty states:

SPECIAL REPORT: 50-State Survey Of Marriage Protection Amendments
UPDATED REPORT, November 2008

At this writing, 30 states have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Forty-one states have laws banning same-sex marriage either by statute or by amendment.

TVC supports constitutional amendments that ban both homosexual marriage and homosexual civil unions—which provide the same legal benefits to homosexuals as married couples under the law. It is clear that much work needs to be done to defend marriage not only at the state level but at the national level through a constitutional amendment. A federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state homosexual marriages.


Alabama: A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was approved in June, 2006.

Alaska: Defense of Marriage Act is law and part of the state constitution. ACLU is suing to force the state to grant marriage benefits to unmarried couples.

Arizona: Voters passed a marriage amendment on November 4, 2008

Arkansas: On Nov. 2, 2004, voters passed a constitutional amendment that bans homosexual marriage and forbids any civil unions or other unmarried arrangements synonymous to homosexual marriage. Vote was 75% to 25%.

California: Voters passed Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008 that defines marriage as a one-man, one-woman union in the California state constitution.

Colorado: Voters approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2006.

Connecticut: The Connecticut Supreme Court mandated homosexual marriage in October 2008.

Delaware: DOMA as state law; no constitutional amendment.

Florida: Voters passed a marriage amendment to the Florida constitution on November 4, 2008.

Georgia: On Nov. 2, 2004, voters passed a marriage amendment by a 76% margin and bans civil unions. It is being challenged by homosexuals.

Hawaii: Constitutional amendment bans same-sex marriage but state grants limited benefits to same-sex partners.

Idaho: Voters approved a marriage amendment in 2006.

Illinois: DOMA enacted but constitutional amendment failed.

Indiana: State law prohibits same-sex marriage.

Iowa: DOMA as state law. Senate voted down constitutional amendment protecting marriage. A new marriage amendment has been submitted.

Kansas: Voters on April 5, 2005 passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a one man, one woman union. It passed by a 70% margin.

Kentucky: Voters on Nov. 2, 2004 passed a marriage amendment by a 75% margin. It bans homosexual marriage and civil unions.

Louisiana: DOMA as state law. Voters approved constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions by 4-to-1 margin. Vote overturned by liberal judge on Oct. 5, 2004. The case is in now in court awaiting a decision.

Maine: DOMA as state law. Constitutional amendment failed in House and Senate.

Maryland: State law prohibits same-sex marriage.

Massachusetts: In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the legislature to enact a law granting marriage to homosexuals. In July, 2008, the Massachusetts legislature voted to remove residency requirement for out-of-state homosexual marriages.

Michigan: On Nov. 2, 2004, voters passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions by a 59% margin.

Minnesota: DOMA as state law but constitutional amendment failed when legislature ad- journed in May without voting on it. A marriage amendment is under consideration in 2005.

Mississippi: On Nov. 2, 2004, voters passed an amendment by an 86% margin. It bans same-sex marriage and does not recognize homosexual marriages from other states. Does not ban civil unions.

Missouri: DOMA as state law and written into the state constitution.

Montana: On Nov. 2, 2004, voters passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage by a 67% margin. ACLU is suing for spousal benefits for homosexuals. Does not ban civil unions.

Nebraska: DOMA is in the state constitution. ACLU sued to overturn amendment. In May, 2005, a federal judge declared DOMA unconstitutional. He was overruled in 2006 and the amendment was reinstituted.

Nevada: DOMA written into the state constitution.

New Hampshire: State law bans same-sex marriage.

New Jersey: In 2006, Gov. Jon Corzine signed a bill permitting homosexuals to enter into civil unions.

New Mexico: Legislature killed marriage amendment in 2005.

New York: No DOMA. Bills recognizing or banning same-sex marriage have been intro- duced but none have passed yet. ACLU and Lambda Legal are suing for “right” to marry homosexuals.

North Carolina: An amendment was submitted in 2005.

North Dakota: 73% of the voters on Nov. 2, 2004 chose to amend the constitution to ban homosexual marriage and any other counterfeit of marriage, including civil unions.

Ohio: 62% of the voters on Nov. 2, 2004, voted to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions.

Oklahoma: 76% of the voters on Nov. 2, 2004, voted to protect marriage. The amend- ment bans any homosexual marriage/civil unions. Homosexuals are suing to overturn federal DOMA.

Oregon: 57% of the voters on Nov. 2, 2004, passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Does not ban civil unions.

Pennsylvania: DOMA as state law; constitutional amendment to be introduced.

Rhode Island: No DOMA. State Attorney General says state constitution mandates ho- mosexual marriage.

South Carolina: Voters passed marriage amendment in 2006.

South Dakota: Voters passed a marriage amendment in 2006.

Tennessee: Voters passed a marriage amendment in 2006.

Texas: Voters passed an amendment protecting traditional marriage in November 2005.

Utah: 66% of the voters on Nov. 2, 2004, voted to protect marriage by banning homosexual marriage and civil unions.

Vermont: Homosexual civil unions are legal in this state. No DOMA has passed.

Virginia: Marriage amendment was passed in 2006.

Washington: DOMA as state law.

West Virginia: DOMA as state law. Law challenged by ACLU but it is upheld by state Supreme Court.

Wisconsin: Voters passed a marriage amendment in 2006.

Wyoming: Wyoming has a statute protecting marriage. The legislature killed an amendment effort in 2005.