Posted on 06/26/2013 9:52:25 AM PDT by mbarker12474
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 26, 2013 CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Darin Miller, (866) FRC-NEWS or (866) 372-6397
Supreme Court's Refusal to Redefine Marriage Nationwide Allows American People to Consider Consequences of Redefinition
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement in response to today's U.S. Supreme Court rulings on marriage:
"While we are disappointed in the Supreme Court's decision to strike down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the court today did not impose the sweeping nationwide redefinition of natural marriage that was sought. Time is not on the side of those seeking to create same-sex 'marriage.' As the American people are given time to experience the actual consequences of redefining marriage, the public debate and opposition to the redefinition of natural marriage will undoubtedly intensify.
"We are encouraged that the court learned from the disaster of Roe v. Wade and refrained from redefining marriage for the entire country. However, by striking down the federal definition of marriage in DOMA, the Court is asserting that Congress does not have the power to define the meaning of words in statutes Congress itself has enacted. This is absurd. The Defense of Marriage Act imposes no uniform definition of marriage upon the individual states. However, the states should not be able to impose varying definitions of marriage upon the federal government. The ruling that the federal government must recognize same-sex 'marriages' in states that recognize them raises as many questions as it answers. For example, what is the status of such couples under federal law if they move to another state that does not recognize their 'marriage?' This decision throws open the doors for whole new rounds of litigation.
"We are disturbed that the court refused to acknowledge that the proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to defend Proposition 8. This distorts the balance of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. The Court's decision allows the executive branch to effectively veto any duly enacted law, simply by refusing to defend it against a constitutional challenge. Ironically, by refusing to defend the law, California's executive branch has also denied the nation any definitive ruling on the constitutionality of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
"What is inevitable is that the male and female relationship will continue to be uniquely important to the future of society. The reality is that society needs children, and children need a mom and a dad. We will continue to work to restore and promote a healthy marriage culture, which will maximize the chances of a child being raised by a married mother and father," Perkins concluded.
Perkins will discuss the Court's decision today on his daily radio show, Washington Watch, heard daily from 5-6 p.m. Eastern on the American Family Radio network and online at www.TonyPerkins.com.
FRC's Ken Klukowski, J.D. attended oral arguments. He co-authored a legal brief in the marriage litigation. FRC's Chris Gacek, J.D., Ph.D., worked with Paul B. Linton, J.D. of the Thomas More Society on FRC's amicus briefs in the DOMA and Prop 8 cases.
FRC's Defense of Marriage Act amicus brief: http://www.frc.org/legalbrief/amicus-brief-us-v-windsor
FRC's Proposition 8 amicus brief: http://www.frc.org/legalbrief/amicus-brief-hollingsworth-v-perry
A gilded turd is still a turd.
Truth to that.
The homos were pushing hard for a sweeping mandate by the SCOTUS that all states recognize homo “marriage.”
It didn’t happen.
bttt
Good points made by Perkins.
The bottom line is America is in need of a revival...a Third Great Awakening...and if it doesn’t come, we are looking at the same fate as Judah in 586 BC....
Yes, it was bad, but it could’ve been worse. At least the right of states to define marriage was affirmed, for now. We know how Kennedy will vote should another case come before SCOTUS so this makes delaying until another strict constructionalist can get on the Supreme Court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.