Ruth Institute Blog

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2011

Tomorrow afternoon beginning at 2:30 pm PT / 5:30 pm ET, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit will be hearing oral arguments on California’s Proposition 8.

The three-judge panel, while continuing to deliberate on the constitutionality of Prop 8, will additionally be hearing oral arguments on whether Judge Walker broke the law when he allowed the public release of videotapes of the original Prop 8 trial and whether Judge Walker’s decision to overturn Prop 8 should be reversed because he was involved in a same-sex relationship at the time. Read more…

by johnpauliiismyhero

… In the first one from the Washington Post, he lays out the basic argument.  The public discourse on gay marriage has reached the point where there is no rational discourse.  In the eyes of our culture, to oppose gay marriage is tantamount to ignorance, bigotry, or hate.  Ironically, the replies he received in the Post simply served to prove his point.  The summary of the brief article is that the public square has embraced the following game-plan: 1) first, contend that there is no such thing as a rational argument for traditional marriage, 2) then reaffirm the mistaken position that faith—as a purely personal exercise—has nothing to do with reason, and 3) finally, espouse both positions in court rulings. Read more…

by Becky Yeh

One pro-family leader is calling for Christians to be courageous in their stance for biblical values in light of a ruling that exposes supporters of a California marriage law. Read more…

by Jennifer Roback Morse

This article was first published at Mercatornet.com September 16, 2011.

Last week’s hearing in the California Supreme Court on whether the proponents of Prop 8 have standing to defend the measure in court seemed to go well for the defenders of natural marriage. But another issue lies beneath the surface of the court arguments. The issue is what kind of people are the marriage redefiners: Ted Olsen, Rob Reiner, and the American Foundation for Equal Rights? Read more…

Proposition 8′s sponsors will be in court Monday morning to argue whether Judge Walker’s decision to overturn Prop 8 should be vacated on the basis that the long term same-sex relationship he is involved in (and was involved in at the time of the Prop 8 trial, but failed to disclose) constitutes a conflict of interest.

If you want to follow the hearing, and don’t mind going to the website of one of Prop 8′s opponents to do so, then you can find live updates at http://www.afer.org/june13 starting at 9:00am.

by Carolyn Moynihan

Special note: Prof. Brad Wilcox will be a speaker at this summer’s “It Takes a Family” Conference sponsored by the Ruth Institute.

In the realm of parenthood today nothing can be taken for granted — not even that a mother and father are the best thing for children, at least according to certain elites. Read more…

Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow -

Pressure from homosexual activist groups has compelled the head of the 2012 U.S. Olympic gymnastics team to quit.

Two-time gymnastics gold medal winner Peter Vidmar has resigned upon receiving harsh criticism from homosexual and lesbian athletes and activists, who complained that he had donated $2,000 to promote California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Read more…

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The sponsors of California’s same-sex marriage ban said Monday that the recent disclosure by the federal judge who struck down Proposition 8 that he is in a long-term relationship with another man has given them new grounds to have his historic ruling overturned.

Lawyers for the ban’s backers filed a motion in San Francisco’s U.S. District Court, arguing that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker should have removed himself from the case or at least disclosed his relationship status because his “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Read more…

WASHINGTON – The 9th Circuit Court today announced it would not lift its stay on Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision overturning Proposition 8. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) applauded the decision.

“This is good news for the people of California–and congratulations to the Dream Team of David Boies and Ted Olson for continuing their impressive streak of losses in actions not in Judge Walker’s courtroom,” said Brian Brown, president of NOM. Read more…

WASHINGTON—The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued the following from its Office of General Counsel:

“Marriage has been understood for millennia and across cultures as the union of one man and one woman. Today, the President has instructed the Department of Justice to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law reiterating that definition of marriage, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democratic President just fifteen years ago. The principal basis for today’s decision is that the President considers the law a form of impermissible sexual orientation discrimination. Read more…

One of my earlier observations has dropped out of the conversation: the pro-marriage effort is an inter-faith, multi-racial coalition. If you think of Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition, he was trying to emphasize the ethnic diversity of his followers. We supporters of Prop 8 can make the same claim: we had the overwhelming support of African Americans and Hispanics as well as traditional believers from all the major religious groups.

This was the point I made to a group of citizens at a church meeting in Northern California the evening of the Prop 8 trial. This was a meeting of people concerned about some of the activities and decisions of their local school board. When I looked out into the audience, I saw Hispanics and Asians and Anglos gathered at an African American church to take responsibility for what was happening in their community. I pointed out that we were the largest grassroots effort in history. We had over 70,000 individual donors and 100,000 volunteers. When we went to file our donor reports with the CA Secretary of State, our report crashed their computer! My new friends in Northern California appreciated the reminder that the Prop 8 coalition was and continues to be a winning coalition.

I think a lot of the same sex marriage advocates are Leftists who resent the fact that they can no longer count on the Rainbow Coalition that has worked well for them in the past. You might have better luck if you actually listened to them, instead of finding reasons to dismiss them and their views.

Just a thought.

Apparently Apple Computers “got the memo” that it is “OK” to discriminate against Christians. Leading that charge is their Chairman/CEO Steve Jobs. Despite one of the highest positive ratings available (4+), Apple pulled an app developed by the Manhattan Declaration—a group of 500,000 Christians who have publicly declared their support for traditional marriage, life and religious liberty—from their iTunes store.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE AD Read more…

Dr J was up in San Francisco earlier this week for the Prop 8 trial in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  In addition to the interviews we’ve already posted, she also spoke with Austin Nimocks and Jordan Lorence (both of these are available on our podcast page under Prop 8).  There’s also a pre-trial interview with Todd Wilken of Issues, Etc; more are on the way.

Dr J was up in San Francisco earlier this week for the Prop 8 trial in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  While she was there, she interviewed Bill May, Bruce Hausknecht, and Ron Prentice (all of these are available on our podcast page under Prop 8).  She was also interviewed by KTVU; that video is currently up on their website.

by Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D.

I hear this question all the time when I travel. I heard it this fall in Michigan and New Jersey and North Carolina.   The Prop 8 case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, will be in court again on December 6^th. I will be live-blogging from the courtroom.  I expect the posts will be at www.prop8case.com and at www.ruthblog.org. This case is extremely important, no matter where you live.  Perry v. Schwarzenegger is a federal case. The court is being asked to rule on the question of whether the requirement that marriage consist of one man and one woman violates the U.S. Constitution. If the courts find that there is a federal right to same sex marriage, there will be same sex marriage all over the country, immediately.  End of story. You care about this case. Read more…

by Sheila Liaugminas

Again and again, California voters have had their voice and their vote on Proposition 8 rejected. Mostly by powerful homosexual marriage activists, judges and sympathizers. But the people who want their constitutionally expressed will to be legally established have tolerated the repeated necessity of fighting for it in court. The appeal is court again, and sympathizers of the voters have joined in. Read more…

From Brian Brown, Executive Director of National Organization for Marriage (NOM)

The Prop 8 legal defense team has filed their opening brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case, and it is a tour de force.

Authored by chief Prop 8 litigator Chuck Cooper, the 100+ page brief shreds the decision of federal district court Judge Vaughn Walker, and lays bare all the legal, logical, and factual errors that Walker made in his ruling. Read it here. Read more…

There are a few more podcasts up for your listening pleasure–one from our recent “It Takes a Family” conference, and the other two are interviews of Dr J on Issues, Etc.

Dr J gave the opening talk at ITAF 2010; entitled Marriage and Freedom in Society, it discusses what marriage does for society and some of the consequences (especially those relating to children) if we choose to dissolve or weaken it.  Some of the areas she covers include divorce law, state intervention, and parenthood.

The two Issues, Etc interviews discuss the response to Judge Walker’s attitude about the Prop 8 case (Shot in the Arm…or the Foot?) and another group of Mama Grizzlies, this one opposed to Sarah Palin (Sarah Palin vs. Mama Grizzlies).  Dr J’s exposition on the arrogance of both subjects is excellent.

More news sent to me by Leo:

Originally I dismissed the idea of recusal by Judge Walker, but this piece makes a strong legal case.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-08-11/opinion/22213940_1_parties-judge-walker-new-trial
It reads in part

The political philosopher John Locke noted in his Second Treatise on Civil Government that “it is unreasonable for men to be judges in their own cases (because) self-love will make men partial to themselves and their friends.” That sentiment, undoubtedly true, is actually codified in federal law. A judge is required to disqualify himself in any proceeding “in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which: (a) the judge has … personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; [or] … (c) the judge knows that the judge … has a financial … or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.” Read more…