Ruth Institute Blog

By Thomas Burke

This morning roughly 2500 people gathered on the National Mall for the March For Marriage, a demonstration supporting traditional marriage between a man and a woman. The participants hope to influence the Supreme Court hearings underway this week regarding two issues:

• California’s Proposition 8, a referendum that amended the state’s constitution to define marriage as strictly between one man and one woman in that state; and,
• the Defense of Marriage Act, known to politicos as DOMA, which defines marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman, and leaves states the right to decide the same within their own borders. Read more…

by Richard Wolf

‘To legalize marriage between two people of the same sex would enshrine in the law the principle that mothers and fathers are interchangeable or irrelevant.’

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone chairs the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage. Here are his views on the subject in response to questions from USA TODAY: Read more…

by Eric Teetsel

Government has a vital interest in the institution that creates and nurtures the next generation.

This week, the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of two laws: Proposition 8, passed by the citizens of California in 2008; and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by the House (342-67) and Senate (85-14) and signed by President Clinton in 1996. The court has an opportunity to affirm the meaning and purpose of marriage and the American democratic process. Read more…

Dr Jennifer Roback Morse, founder and president of the Ruth Institute,

a project of the National Organization for Marriage

February 26, 2013     Springfield, Illinois

I am Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, founder and president of the Ruth Institute, a project of the National Organization for Marriage.  I am the mother of an adopted child, a birth child, and have been a foster parent.

I am honored to be able to address this committee, here in Springfield Illinois, the land of Abraham Lincoln.  I can almost hear his voice and the voices of all the great orators of the American plains, echoing across the ages, their debates on the great issue of their day, the trafficking and enslavement of human beings. I am here to speak about the great issue of our day, the meaning and purpose of marriage, and our obligations to the children of the future. Read more…

I’ve got a secret to tell you. It’s about Proposition 8 – the ballot initiative that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman in California, November 2008. I call it “my little prop 8 secret” because I have only told three people, until now.

My secret is this: I did’t vote on that measure. I voted that day; I voted on all the other issues and candidates. But for Prop 8 I did not cast a vote one way or the other.

I knew that I didn’t have enough information to vote in either direction. The “equality” arguments were starting to be persuasive, yet in many ways I am and always have been rather traditional. I knew what the Bible had to say about marriage, but I was starting to wonder what the harm would really be if gays could marry. I was sincerely worried about voting wrongly then regretting it later. And by “wrongly” I mean voting for something harmful regardless of whether it won or not. I take voting that seriously and I worry that someday I will have to give an accounting of the votes I have cast. Intuiting that this was a critical issue and that I lacked information, I refrained. Read more…

by ProtectMarriage.com on February 7th, 2012

Court is Deeply Divided in its Opinion

The following statement can be attributed to Andy Pugno, general counsel for the ProtectMarriage.com coalition, the official proponents of Proposition 8, in response to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to uphold the US District Court’s ruling that declared Prop 8 unconstitutional: Read more…

THE JAMES R. BROWNING COURTHOUSE, SAN FRANCISCO, CA – “The decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold Judge Walker’s radical decision overturning Prop 8 comes as no surprise,” said Catholics for the Common Good President William B. May. Read more…

I’m happy to report that our Prop 8 Legal Defense Team has won yet another important legal victory for supporters of traditional marriage in California!

Today a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 24-page opinion REVERSING the lower court’s earlier decision to illegally release courtroom trial recordings of the Proposition 8 trial for public broadcast. Read more…

Cooper’s rebuttal:

If the judge has an interest in the outcome, he has an obligation to reveal it.

It was the plaintiffs who continually put forth evidence that 64% of gays in CA, in committed long-term relationships, would want to get married.  Hence, it is the fact that Walker was in a relationship, not the fact that he is gay, that merits disclosure at least, and possible recusal. Read more…

Therese Stewart:

A seal order doesn’t preclude the parties from revisiting the question of whether the seal should be opened.  She seems to think that the Proponents shouldn’t have relied on this promise so seriously.

Rhinehart: the potential for broadcast has been eliminated.

Stewart seems to say that rule only pertains to media coverage immediately of the court proceedings, basing this only on the letter by Judge Kozinski. Read more…