Posted on 07/10/2006 7:11:39 AM PDT by dukeman
San Francisco, CA - Today, Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mathew D. Staver will present oral argument before the California Court of Appeals in San Francisco in defense of the state's marriage laws. Liberty Counsel represents Campaign for California Families, a public policy group that supports marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The Campaign was involved in the passage of a statewide legislative initiative known as Proposition 22, which passed in 2000 by a vote of 61.4%, and declared that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. Proposition 22 is a legislative rather than a constitutional voter initiative.
In March 2005, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer struck down California's marriage laws. Contrary to precedent, Kramer said "It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners."
Liberty Counsel argues that California's marriage laws promote the state's interests in responsible procreation and child rearing. Marriage is not merely a private commitment. Since children are born from the union of one man and one woman, the state has a strong interest in encouraging stable families through marriage. Unlike heterosexual couples who procreate, and who sometimes accidentally do so, same-sex couples cannot procreate. To bring a child into the relationship, same-sex couples must intentionally involve a third party, through adoption or artificial insemination. Heterosexual couples need no third party, and sometime give birth unintentionally. Thus, to encourage responsible procreation and to provide parents to children, the state has a strong interest in opposite sex relationships that are not present in same-sex relationships. Moreover, the state's interest in marriage also promotes the common sense proposition that children fare best when raised by a mom and a dad.
Regarding the case, Staver commented: "The state of California did not create marriage and judges should not redefine it. Marriage is distinct from other personal relationships. The marital union of a man and a woman uniquely fosters responsible procreation, contributes to the continuing well-being of men and women, to society, to children and to the state. Same-sex relationships by definition and nature can not constitute marriage. To redefine marriage to include same-sex couples would abolish marriage and make gender irrelevant. The result would be nonsensical and would have devastating effects on children and society."
Last week, New York's highest court ruled in favor of traditional marriage, rejecting all the same argument raised in the California cases by those who advocate same-sex marriage. Liberty Counsel filed briefs in the New York litigation.
The oral arguments will be televised and streamed on the internet. Go to www.LC.org for more information. Court begins at 9:00 a.m. PT. Staver's argument begins sometime after 1:30 p.m. PT (4:30 p.m. ET).
PROP 22
They are just finishing up (an hour or so to go). Staver did a good job.
If it's not on your local channel, you can see it online:
http://www.calchannel.com/webcast.htm
Here's a direct link to the webcast (the quality is not so good):
http://www.calchannel.com/MEDIA/encode_1.asx
The lead justice, J. Anthony Kline, does not seem too sympathetic.
This is the same guy who argued that a gun manufacturer can be held liable for the criminal use of it's products.
I take that back--they finished just now.
I found this these links to work:
http://www.calchannel.com/search.php?date=071006&source=All&type=All&title=&Search=Submit
Thanks, I had it on local cable TV so I gave up on the webcast.
I wish I had been able to watch this morning. From early news reports, it sounds like the State's position was pretty weak.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/10/MNGBGJSNIR4.DTL
Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger, the state's lawyer, argued at today's hearing that California should be allowed to maintain the historic definition of marriage while granting registered domestic partners, most of them gay and lesbian couples, nearly all the benefits available to spouses under state law.
"California is committed to providing equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples,'' Krueger said.
If that is the case, asked Presiding Justice William McGuiness, "what . . . is the rational basis for not extending (those rights) to the right of marriage itself?''
The rationales, Krueger replied, were the voters' approval of Prop. 22 in 2000 and the fact that "marriage has always, through time, been recognized as a man and a woman.''
Justice J. Anthony Kline seemed unpersuaded, noting that the California Supreme Court had refused to perpetuate tradition in 1948 when it issued the nation's first ruling striking down a ban on interracial marriage.
Kline said courts have recognized values inherent in marriage -- a "public expression of emotional commitment,'' with elements of self-definition and spirituality. "Why don't those apply to same-sex couples?'' he asked.
Those values can be realized in domestic partnerships, Krueger replied. He said the fundamental right to marry, declared by the California court in 1948 and by the U.S. Supreme Court in later rulings, "is not a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.''
I'll be sure to let the infertile married heterosexuals couples I know in on this great revelation.
Still promoting the GLBT agenda, I see.
Base on the logic argued, it also seems like infertile couples should be denied a marriage license since they *do* require a third-party in order to achieve parenthood.
There was no logic.
Krueger/Lockyer are trying to lose.
As it happens, I have a sibling in an infertile heterosexual marriage, thus the point was immediately bogus to me since the couple has adopted children (after infertility treatments failed) thus made use of a third-party.
The woman of the couple had been violently raped as a young child which caused serious and permanent damage.
They're "trying to lose?" *That* may actually be true.
You have a long and consistent history here, NJ.
FYI: Liberty Counsel Presents Oral Argument Today in CA Defending Traditional Marriage
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.