The Logic Behind the “Perceived” Madness
A recent news article proclaimed the ti
tle “Idaho Supports California’s Ban On Gay Marriage: Sends Amicus Brief To California.” Before we react, let’s look at the facts.
An amicus brief is a document which is filed in a court by person(s) not directly related to the case under consideration. The tradition of accepting amicus briefs comes from a larger concept, the amicus curiae, or “friend of the court.” The “friend” may be interested in a case for a variety of reasons.
Amici curiae can do a variety of things in addition to filing an amicus brief. Many advocacy groups act as amici curiae, as do some concerned individuals. States and governments also step in with amicus briefs if they believe that a case may impact them.
The latter is the reason for the amicus brief filed on September 25, 2010 with the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming filed a gay marriage OPPOSITION brief in support of upholding California’s Proposition 8.
The 39-page brief essentially states:
- The Constitution does not require marriage to include same-sex couples.
- The states, not the federal courts, have final say in whether to allow same-sex marriages.
The brief is in response to the ruling last month by a federal judge, Vaughn Walker, who ruled Proposition 8, a voter-passed ban on same-sex marriage, was unconstitutional. Judge Walker also stated the states have “no legitimate interest in preventing same-sex marriages and the ‘moral disapproval’ alone wasn’t sufficient reason to justify banning it.” — Really?
The voters of California spoke and that should be honored. Judges cannot be allowed to continue to overrule the will of the people. The majority of people in America believe “marriage” is between one man and one woman.
The states should step up to legislatively define marriage because it is one step in revitalizing the recognition of the true meaning of states rights and the 10th Amendment – calling power back to the people.
As the brief also aptly states, “If public affirmation of anyone and everyone’s personal love and commitment is the single purpose of marriage, a limitless number of rights claims could be set up that evacuate the term marriage of any meaning.”
Now is the time to call all judges and legislators back to the real meaning of words, especially as stated in the Constitution of the United States. Without equivocation, America’s Founding Fathers said what they meant, and meant what they said — regardless of the opinion of Judge Vaughn Walker.
Ten states took the initiative to speak the truth and we stand with them.
