PROTECT MARRIAGE - Updated Apr. 17, 16


When the North Carolina government passed legislation that would require people to use the bathroom of their birth gender, they didn’t expect to see the backlash they are seeing now.

Companies like American Airlines and Apple are threatening to pull their business from the state. PayPal won’t build its new business center in the state, and even Bruce Springsteen decided to cancel a show there this weekend.

This is all over trying to make people with male genitals go into a male bathroom in public facilities, and vice versa for women.

Corporations are threatening to pull millions of dollars out of North Carolina because of this obscure law that affects a tiny portion of a small minority of the population.

The question is why now? Why would the NBA do this to North Carolina but still do business in other states and even other countries. The NBA visits China and has business partnerships with them but doesn’t require the same from them.

PayPal works in and transfers money from some of the worst places on Earth like Saudi Arabia when it comes to gender discrimination, and yet NC is not worthy of their business.

Many of the companies themselves do not even allow their own employees and customers the ability to use the bathroom of their chosen identity in their stores and buildings, but will pull out of a state that doesn’t allow it in public facilities.

This is corporate hypocrisy at its worst.

Most people in North Carolina don’t want to have a grown man who identifies as a woman (yet may look nothing like a woman) to go to the women’s bathroom with their children in a public playground or elementary school. Nobody is saying that people can’t be who they want to be, but why should that interfere with the privacy of everyone else, particularly women and children?

Big, international companies are using North Carolina as a battleground but some people are standing up to them. The Faith & Freedom Coalition has organized a major push to send letters to the companies singling out North Carolina to tell them the radical gay lobby doesn’t speak for them and they support this privacy legislation.
You can sign the letter here.


The Gay Bill of Special Rights (H.R. 3185 & S. 1858) has been introduced in the congress. The Gay Bill of Special Rights passed the Senate for the first time ever last session. If this bill is approved by the House of Representatives, a privileged status would be granted to every homosexual, bisexual and "transgendered" in the nation.

The Supreme Court ruling against Real Marriage has set the stage for an all-out showdown in Congress. And this is the perfect time for the Homosexual Lobby to twist arms in Congress using momentum from their recent Supreme Court victory.

The pro-Homosexual Lobby Rep. Paul Ryan is the new Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. And his past vote for the Gay Bill of Special Rights is just the opportunity the radical Homosexual Lobby is hoping for.

The vote now goes before the House of Representatives. Please demand that your Representatives in Congress defeat the Gay Bill of Special Rights. We must prove to Congress the overwhelming majority of Americans will not tolerate this attempt to force homosexuality into every aspect of our lives. Please sign THE PETITION TO DEFEAT H.R. 3185 immediately.

President, Public Advocate of the United States

Dear Friend,

The news is bad.

Today, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court of the United States announced a new constitutional right that requires all 50 states to license and recognize same-sex marriage.

The decision does grave injury to the basic concept that the people—not the courts—make the law. The Court has abruptly cut off this ongoing debate, unilaterally imposing its view of what’s good for society by suddenly discovering a new constitutional right that almost no one would have imagined just a few years ago. The ‘separation of powers’ they taught us in grade school is now dangerously out of balance, and it’s time to remind the government that all constitutional power ultimately resides in the consent of the governed—not in kings, dictators or judges.

You can read the majority decision, and the four separate dissenting opinions, here.

Here are some excerpts from the dissenting justices, which show you the level of alarm raised by this astonishing judicial act:

Chief Justice Roberts: "But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening....The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial 'caution' and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own 'new insight' into the 'nature of injustice.'"

Justice Scalia: "The [majority's] opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so...The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis."

Justice Thomas: "Our Constitution—like the Declaration of Independence before it—was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded from—not provided by—the State. Today’s decision casts that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the majority misapplies a clause focused on “due process” to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of the “liberty” protected by that clause, and distorts the principles on which this Nation was founded. Its decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society."

Justice Alito: "Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences.It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion,the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent."

As you can see, there is no way to put a positive spin on today's ruling. It is just about as bad as it can get. The Court has plunged our nation into a world where, as Justice Scalia put it, "the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court."

We should take no solace in any assurances that our religious liberties will remain safe. They will not. Just as they assured us that expanding rights for gays and lesbians would not affect the institution of marriage, we fool ourselves if we rest in the belief that we are safe from those who wish to outlaw the sincerely-held views of millions of Americans who know the truth about marriage.

But I am glad we fought this battle. It was the right thing to do from the beginning. And it may not be over. As we see today, it really DOES matter who we elect to office, especially those who appoint judges!

And, regardless of today’s ruling, our coalition remains committed to strengthening and promoting the union of a man and a woman in a view of marriage that recognizes the higher purpose of serving the needs of children, not the personal desires of adults. We will continue to work toward a society that values the inherent right of every child to have both a mother and a father. No matter what 5 members of the Supreme Court say.

Finally, please allow us to express our greatest appreciation for your hard work and sacrifice, standing with us throughout this lengthy and exhausting battle. The strong level of support and dedication you have shown all these years is humbling, and we worked at all times to honor your sacrifices by doing everything within our power to succeed. We are grateful for you. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Andy Pugno
Prop 8 General Counsel

SB 296 was adopted as law by the Utah legislature on March 12, 2015. This law prohibits discrimination in employment and housing for LGBT persons, and protects religious privilege. Therefore, based on religious preference, no person shall be required to provide services that promote or facilitate gay-marriage. This topic was discussed at length by Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

LDS leaders say they hope SB 296 will become a model for the rest of the country.

THE REAL THREAT TO MARRIAGE (361320) from Anne Reed, AFA Journal staff writer.

Marriage: It’s in the news. Whether it’s judicial overreaches redefining it, breakups, nasty divorces, or lawsuits, the news is bad wherever you turn – including the pulpit and the counseling office.

Some believe marriage is on its way out – a dying institution, a global failure. But is it really? Have we been bamboozled by easy-release figures that support pessimistic attitudes about God’s design for human relationships?

With more than half of marriages ending in divorce in and out of the church, we can only expect an escalating trend to continue, right? The 50% divorce rate stat has spread far and wide. And it has wielded a heavy dose of disillusionment along the way.

However, according to author Shaunti Feldhahn, a Harvard University trained Wall Street analyst and social researcher, the truth about marriage and divorce presents an altogether fresh and surprisingly hopeful picture.

In her book "The Good News about Marriage: Debunking Discouraging Myths about Marriage and Divorce", she contends, “Divorce is not the biggest threat to marriage. Discouragement is.” She believes the widespread sense of hopelessness is brought on, at least in part, by false information.

But how can this be? Where did the 50% number come from? It has streamed from every outlet. The question rattled through Feldhahn’s thoughts as she struggled to complete an article. What started as a simple task to source the commonly accepted stat turned into exasperation and an eight year research project that she describes as “a rigorous, fair, and accurate attempt to reclaim a whole other side of the truth about marriage.”


She has finally discovered the divorce rate in America is nowhere close to 50%. And it never has been. As a matter of fact, the rate has been steadily declining since 1980. In reality, 71% of women are still married to their first spouse. And widowhood reduces the remaining 29%, bringing us to an approximate 25% divorce rate for first marriages.

Additionally, Feldhahn told AFA Journal, the rate of divorce is not the same among Christians. Previously reported numbers were based solely on belief systems (stated religion) and not whether those beliefs were actually being practiced in their lives. With the help of Barna Group’s comprehensive research from 2008, Feldhahn and her staff were able to incorporate participants’ answers about church attendance. The results revealed a 27% decrease in the number of divorces among those who had been to church in the last seven days.

Landmark findings by the National Survey of Families and Households between 1987 and 1994 revealed a 50% lesser occasion of divorce among those who share the same faith and attend church. A Family Life Family Needs Survey among more than 50 churches in 2012-2013 found that only 22% of those ever married had been divorced. Numbers vary, but no matter which way you cut it, divorce in the church is lower. And divorce overall is much lower than the numbers pushed by secular media and others.


Divorce has declined and found a steady, straight road. But according to a Pew Research poll, barely half of Americans are currently married – only 51% of adults age 18 and older compared to 72% reported in 1960. So, are the decreasing numbers of divorce due to corresponding lower numbers of those participating in marriage in the first place?

It is difficult to argue otherwise. However, a number of other considerations at work in society are turning the idea on its ear. For instance, the age at which marriage occurs is increasingly reaching higher numbers. Because young-age marriage correlates strongly with a high divorce rate, the deferral of marriage serves to further reduce the divorce rate.

In addition, cohabitation has seen a significant rise over the last 20 years. Live-in situations create and further a noncommittal, easy-out attitude that spills into marital relationships. This increase brings to the surface a higher likelihood of divorce for those who live together before marriage.
Pew research found in 2010 that 61% of people who have never been married have a desire for marriage in the future. And with good news about marriage bursting from the ranks of American households, it is no wonder it remains a sought-after establishment.


Marriages are happy. It is true. About 80% of marriages overall are happy, and more than a third go beyond the “happy” mark, overflowing into the “very happy” category.
Of those currently in struggling marriages, 80% will still be married five years later. And solid, hopeful encouragement exists within those stats. “A landmark study found that if you wait five years, eight in ten people say they are very happy five years later,” said Feldhahn.

“Most couples don’t mind the idea of working hard at marriage,” she said. “What discourages them is the idea that marriage itself is inherently hard and complicated, or that working hard won’t pay off.”

When one spouse is less than happy, 82% of the time the other spouse is simply unaware of it. The culprit is typically a stockpile of misunderstandings, conflict, and hurt feelings that materialize over time and cause a rift between the two. It is rarely intentional. More than 99% of married people care deeply about their spouse, and 93% would marry their spouse again. In most cases, having a good marriage or improving a struggling marriage doesn’t require couples to “solve deep, systemic issues,” explained Feldhahn. “Instead, small changes can and do make a big difference.”

Feldhahn took a look at remarriage as well. Any search on the internet turns up 60% and 73% divorce rates, respectively, for second and third marriages. An exhaustive search found no such evidence, leaving Feldhahn to conclude the numbers are nothing more than “urban legend.” According to the Census Bureau, 65% of women in second marriages are still married to their second spouse. And because second and third marriages tend to occur later in life, the percentage of those marriages ended by death is expected to be higher than first marriages, resulting in a second marriage divorce rate of 30% or less.
Hope, enormous implications

Now that the dark compilation of deceptive figures has been dismantled, it is easier to see the beautiful and imperfect gem on which Feldhahn based her statement, “Divorce is not the biggest threat to marriage. Discouragement is.”
So, in Christian marriage, be encouraged. It is Christ who created all things and who designed marriage for His good purpose. In this world, we will have trouble. But He sent encouragement: “[T]ake heart! I have overcome the world.”

IN THE END, Feldhahn’s research pronounces with clarity, “You can believe in marriage.”

SUMMARY: Contrary to conventional thinking …
▶ The actual divorce rate has never gotten close to 50%.
▶ Those who attend church regularly have a significantly lower divorce rate than those who don’t.
▶ Most marriages are happy.
▶ Simple changes make a big difference in most marriage problems.
▶ Most remarriages succeed.

"The Good News about Marriage: Debunking Discouraging Myths about Marriage and Divorce" by Shaunti Feldhahn with Tally Whitehead

Friday, January 16, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to decide the constitutionality of traditional marriage in our nation!

Finally, the outrageous rulings of activist judges around the nation--that nullified the will of millions of citizens who voted to preserve traditional marriage--will come under Supreme Court scrutiny.

We could be on the cusp of a huge "comeback" for true marriage!

In earlier cases, lower courts were able to get away with imposing a redefinition of marriage while the Supreme Court avoided the issue. Now, with various appellate courts reaching opposite conclusions in different parts of the country, the Supreme Court has a chance to settle the issue--nationwide--once and for all.

I remain confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the states’ rights to define marriage. Even as Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 2013, he did so because it infringed upon the states’ authority over marriage. He relied on the states’ “essential authority to define the marital relation,” and our nation’s “history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage.” As a key swing vote on the Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy’s viewpoint could very well determine the outcome here.

Now it's time to pull out all the stops for this final battle for marriage in the legal system. Will you help?

In December, I wrote to you and said that the greatest victories often emerge from the darkest of times. I told you that I believe the battle is not yet lost. Now, the Supreme Court has set the stage for the ultimate redemptive battle for marriage.

The hearing in the Supreme Court is expected in April, with a final decision rendered by June.

Thank you for your continued support!
Very truly yours,
Andy Pugno
Prop 8 General Counsel

Friday, October 10, 2014, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the Idaho and Nevada gay marriage cases Friday. Idaho got 30 minutes per side, Nevada got 20 minutes per side. Since Hawaii approved gay-marriage, they withdrew their appeal.

The 9th Circuit Court upheld lower courts decisions, which overturned the ban on gay marriage in both states. Once again the will of the voters was overturned by courts acting under opinions of assumed jurisdiction not verified as constitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court. Idaho and Nevada are now complying with the 9th Circuit Court ruling, but Idaho is preparing an appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court.

As part of Idaho's argument against gay marriage, Idaho is siting the "Windsor" case for California where the U. S. Supreme Court referred the matter back to California as a state's right. Therefore, only the state should have the right to make this decision, and all states should be extended this privilege.

Also as part of Idaho's argument, same-gender marriages discriminate against people of the opposite gender - as a class of people. In traditional marriages, both genders are included.

On Wednesday, October 8, 2014, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy temporarily stayed an appeals court ruling that declared gay marriage legal in Idaho and Nevada, but later the full U. S. Supreme Court overturned the stay.

Kennedy's order came a little more than an hour after Idaho filed an emergency request for an immediate stay and about 10 minutes before the state said that state and county officials would otherwise have been required to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The order also applies to Nevada, where marriage licenses to same-sex couples were going to start to be issued later Wednesday.

The delay could last just a few days. Kennedy's order requested a response from the plaintiffs involved in Idaho's gay marriage lawsuit by the end of day Thursday.

The full court almost certainly would weigh in to extend the delay much beyond the weekend. That has been the justices' practice in other cases in which a single justice initially blocked a ruling from taking effect.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco declared gay marriage legal in Idaho and Nevada on Tuesday. A day earlier, the Supreme Court let similar rulings from three other appeals courts become final and effectively raised to 30 the number of states where same-sex couples can marry, or soon will be able to do so.

Having allowed those other rulings to take effect without a full review by the Supreme Court, it would be surprising if the justices were to put the 9th circuit ruling on hold for any length of time.

The high court's action Monday suggested that only an appellate ruling upholding a gay marriage ban would prompt the court to step in.

On Monday, October 6, 2014, the U.S Supreme Court refused to hear Utah's defense to the challenge from the 10th Circuit court that Utah's marriage laws were unconstitutional. This was a shocking response from the highest court in the country. It affects not only Utah, but also Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Virginia. Upon the Supreme Court's response, all stays of execution were lifted and gay marriages were beginning in those states, thus denying the will of the voters.

The Supreme Court has still not answered the question whether marriage defined in this way is a right under the U. S. Constitution. This lack of ruling is a travesty in American history, as the Court has essentially denied the states their authority to make and to administer their laws.

It is speculated that this matter will again come to the U.S. Supreme Court as soon as 2015, but if they rule against such marriages, greater frustration would result for thus who had entered into such marriages, which may deter the court from ruling against it, regardless of how they view the constitution. The U. S. Supreme Court has not served the people of the United States.

Utah will take its same-sex marriage fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Gov. Gary Herbert vowed Wednesday, steadfast in his belief in the right of states to define marriage.

"People on all sides of the issue will want to get this to the Supreme Court as soon as possible to get some finality," he said at an afternoon press conference. "It’s like stopping a game in the middle of the contest. This was a 2-1 decision. ...You can’t stop in the middle. You’ve got to play to the final buzzer."

Utah’s case has been a precedent setter.

It was the first nationally in which a federal judge struck down a state’s same-sex marriage ban, clearing the way for federal court rulings in other states. Wednesday’s 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision was the first time an appeals court has ruled on the issue, since the Supreme Court struck down parts of the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act a year ago.

The appellate court declared voter-approved gay marriage prohibitions to be in violation of couples’ constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.

"We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union," the court said.

The 10th Circuit clearly wants the Supreme Court to weigh in; it put an immediate stay on the decision pending a decision from the highest court.

But experts differ on the likelihood of the Supreme Court picking Utah to settle a legal debate bubbling in more than half the nation’s states. Thirty states have constitutional or statutory gay marriage bans under challenge in the courts.

The attorney general’s office said it will petition the nation’s highest court for a decision, and has 90 days to do so. It has not decided whether to take the intermediary step of asking the 10th Circuit Court for an en banc [full court] review.

If the 10th Circuit agreed to re-hear the case, which some say is unlikely given the comprehensiveness of Wednesday’s ruling, Utah could prevail.

With the make-up of the court, "there’s a chance they could win before an en banc of the 10th Circuit," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond who has been tracking gay marriage decisions. "It would be close."

But equally pivotal is whether the high court has reason to take up the issue. It typically looks for opportunities to reconcile conflicting lower court opinions and, since the Windsor challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act,every district court has ruled against same-sex marriage bans.

"I think justices will want to wait for a couple of [appeals] court decisions and see whether there’s a split," Tobias said.

University of Utah law professor Clifford Rosky, chairman of Equality Utah’s board, said, "technically speaking the circuits are split." In 2006 the 8th Circuit upheld Nebraska’s same-sex marriage ban.

But he admits that was before the Windsor case, making it "ancient history."

A decision from a reportedly sharply divided 4th Circuit Court on Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban is expected soon. The case was argued on May 13. The 6th Circuit Court is also scheduled to hear a similar case in early August.

Calculating its odds at losing or prevailing, Utah could decide to wait to file its Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

But it’s a legal strategy that could cut both ways.

"Composition of the court could change in a while, but it’s hard to say how it could change," said Will Baude, a former clerk to Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who teaches law at the University of Chicago.

Baude, a constitutional law expert, is more inclined to think the Supreme Court will weigh in without waiting for division from lower courts. The court could agree to take the case as soon as this fall and rule by this time next year.

They tackled the Windsor challenge "and there was no split there," Baude said. "They also heard arguments on California’s Prop 8, though on procedural grounds."

Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Not only has California been challenged by opponents to Proposition 8. But Oklahoma, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Kentucky, Virginia, Texas, Utah, Idaho, and Oregon marriage laws have also been charged as unconstitutional by some federal and state judges, and others who support same-sex marriage. In most cases appeals and stays have been filed, and it appears that the United States Supreme Court will eventually decide this matter of constitutionality.

Where does [California] Proposition 8 stand now?

Dear Friend,

Thank you for your patience since our last update. The recent months have been very hectic in the multi-front struggle to defend traditional marriage. At times our path has been cloudy, and the way forward difficult to see.

Today I’d like to review where Proposition 8 currently stands, how we got here, and what the future holds for marriage in California.

In a nutshell, the current status is this:

1.) To this day, Proposition 8 remains in place as Article I, Section 7.5 of the State Constitution, stating: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

2.) But, its enforcement is being blocked lawlessly due to the unethical collusion of state politicians and one corrupt federal judge.

At the outset, when the homosexual activists filed their lawsuit against Prop 8, they deliberately named only the Governor, the State Attorney General, and two hand-picked county clerks as defendants. The reason for that immediately became clear: Each of them promptly refused to defend Prop 8, clearing the way for Prop 8 to be struck down without opposition.

But that strategy was foiled by our appearance as Prop 8’s Official Proponents, stepping in to provide a legal defense for Prop 8. Our official role was later unanimously confirmed by California’s State Supreme Court, which designated us to formally represent the voters and defend Prop 8, in lieu of the Attorney General who refused to do so.

For the next four years, we fought tirelessly for Proposition 8’s legal defense. About this time last year, we reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The key question for the nation’s highest court was this: “Is there a federal constitutional right to same-sex ‘marriage’ that prevents states from adhering to the man-woman definition of marriage?”

Yet the Supreme Court did not provide an answer. Instead, the Court dodged the question entirely, by dismissing the case on a technicality, for “lack of jurisdiction.”

That is, a narrow 5-to-4 majority of the Court said that a voter-passed initiative can be defended only by government officials and—since the Governor and Attorney General refused to do so—the Court would not consider Proposition 8’s validity.

This left Proposition 8 in a kind of “legal limbo.”

So, with the nation’s highest court refusing to get involved and the voters frozen out of the process, the Governor and Attorney General moved swiftly to block Prop 8’s enforcement. By executive fiat, they threatened all of California’s 58 county clerks, commanding them to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

Initially, a handful of county clerks put up some resistance to these bully tactics. They correctly argued that the Supreme Court had not declared Prop 8 unconstitutional, and that each clerk has an independent obligation to obey the State Constitution, including Prop 8.

But the crushing force of the Attorney General’s legal threats, and the intense political pressure applied by militant homosexuals, were too much for them to bear. Eventually all 58 county clerks surrendered.

Then we made a long-shot attempt to convince California’s State Supreme Court to jump back into the fray. But, since the Court was not required to consider it, they also opted not to wade into this thorny issue.

So, as you can see, the votes of over seven million Californians have been suspended indefinitely, thanks to a lawless scheme by the Governor, the Attorney General, and a corrupt federal judge to silence the voice of the People.

Now, with government officials unilaterally blocking Prop 8’s enforcement, we are in exactly the kind of situation that the initiative and referendum power was designed to avoid: elevating politicians above the sovereign authority of the people.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out this absurd result in his dissenting opinion:

“The [Court majority’s] reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials — the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied…

“The very object of the initiative system is to establish a law-making process that does not depend upon state officials. In California, the popular initiative is necessary to implement “the theory that all power of government ultimately resides in the people.” … The California Supreme Court has determined that this purpose is undermined if the very officials the initiative process seeks to circumvent are the only parties who can defend an enacted initiative when it is challenged in a legal proceeding. Giving the Governor and attorney general this de facto veto will erode one of the cornerstones of the State’s governmental structure.”

Aside from the harmful impact of the Court’s ruling on future initiatives, a big question remains: How long can Proposition 8’s non-enforcement continue?

Many legal observers thought that Prop 8’s non-enforcement would be permanent, and viewed the Supreme Court’s inaction as evidence that the Court will avoid the issue for many years to come.

But recent developments could change all that…

We’ve now seen an outbreak of liberal federal judges all over the nation, striking down other states' traditional marriage laws. The more aggressive they get, the more likely it is that the US Supreme Court will be forced to get involved sooner rather than later.

In particular, there are a couple of cases that seem on a fast track to the U.S. Supreme Court. In one case, in the State of Utah, the Supreme Court has already ordered a stop to the hasty issuance of same-sex marriage licenses while that case goes through its appeals.

It is possible one or more of these cases could reach the Supreme Court soon, possibly even later this year. And more importantly, those cases may offer a glimmer of hope for resurrecting Proposition 8.

You see, we think it is a mistake to interpret the Supreme Court’s disappointing choice to avoid Prop 8 as meaning they believe in a “constitutional right” to state-recognized same-sex marriage. In fact, after years of research and litigation, I still firmly believe that the Court—when forced to finally answer that question—will uphold the rights of states to decide for themselves.

And if the Supreme Court rules that there is no nationwide right to same-sex “marriage” (that is, rejecting the conclusion of Judge Walker in the Prop 8 case) the current scheme blocking Prop 8’s enforcement in California will become unsustainable.

In light of this possibility, our pro-marriage coalition has decided to remain engaged in this battle. We will closely monitor cases as they advance toward the Supreme Court, and prepare for opportunities to resurrect Proposition 8’s enforcement. And, equally important, we’ll continue to promote traditional marriage in the hearts and minds of our children and generations yet to come.

If you would like to continue supporting our work, we welcome your tax-deductible and confidential contribution of any size.

On behalf of the Defense Fund’s board of directors, thank you for standing with us throughout this difficult, but important, fight for truth. We consider it an honor to represent you.

Very truly yours,

Andy Pugno
Prop 8 General Counsel

P.S. It defies reason that a voter-passed law, still on the books, can be blocked by the collusion of a handful of politicians. Please help us seek justice today with a donation of any size. Thank you!

Donations are tax-deductible and confidential. Your personal information will not be publicly disclosed. The Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund (Tax ID #26-3689861) is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. If you prefer to donate via a check or money order, please send your donation via U.S. Mail to: Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund, PO Box 162849, Sacramento, CA 95816-2849.

Five religious organizations, filed an amicus (“friend-of-the-court”) brief on February 10, 2014 with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The brief addresses two cases before the court that seek to redefine traditional marriage.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Association of Evangelicals, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod filed the brief collectively.

An amicus brief (or amicus curiae brief) is filed by individuals or organizations who, while not a party to a lawsuit, have a strong interest in or knowledge of the subject matter. The intent is to provide the court with information about the effects of a decision beyond the parties involved in the case.

“Our faith communities bear no ill will toward same-sex couples, but rather have marriage-affirming religious beliefs that merge with both practical experience and sociological fact to convince us that retaining the husband-wife marriage definition is essential,” the brief explains.

From the perspective of each faith’s tradition individually, as well as collectively, the brief outlines why “marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned by God as the right and best setting for bearing and raising children.”

The brief also explains why the support of religious organizations and believers for traditional marriage laws “by no stretch undermines their constitutionality” under the federal Establishment Clause.

And the brief concludes that laws protecting traditional marriage “are entitled to be judged on their merits based on settled rules of law—not on a more demanding standard born of suspicion toward religion, religious believers, or their values.”

Following recent court actions regarding same-sex marriage, on January 10, 2014 the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sent the following instructions and guidance to congregational leaders throughout the United States. Leaders were asked to share this information with their members in appropriate settings.

On December 20, 2013, a federal district judge in Salt Lake City issued an order legalizing same-sex marriage in Utah, striking down century-old state laws and a state constitutional amendment that defined marriage exclusively as between a man and a woman. The United States Supreme Court has put that ruling on hold pending consideration of the issue by an appellate court. During the interval between the district court ruling and the Supreme Court stay, numerous same-sex marriages were performed in Utah. Legal proceedings and legislative action in some other states and countries have given civil recognition to same-sex marriage relationships.

As we face this and other issues of our time, we encourage all to bear in mind our Heavenly Father’s purposes in creating the earth and providing for our mortal birth and experience here as His children. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:27–28). “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God and is central to His plan for His children and for the well-being of society. Strong families, guided by a loving mother and father, serve as the fundamental institution for nurturing children, instilling faith, and transmitting to future generations the moral strengths and values that are important to civilization and crucial to eternal salvation.

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review and teach Church members the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

Just as those who promote same-sex marriage are entitled to civility, the same is true for those who oppose it. The Church insists on its leaders’ and members’ constitutionally protected right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution. The Church is also entitled to maintain its standards of moral conduct and good standing for members.

Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same-sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there.

While these matters will continue to evolve, we affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same-sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully. The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility—even when we disagree.

As members of the Church, we are responsible to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to illuminate the great blessings that flow from heeding God’s commandments as well as the inevitable consequences of ignoring them. We invite you to pray that people everywhere will have their hearts softened to the truths of the gospel, and that wisdom will be granted to those who are called upon to decide issues critical to society’s future.

A new report from the CDC found that in 2011 over 94% of new AIDS cases in 13 to 24 year-old males were the result homosexual activity. It is reasonable to conclude that homosexuality is a public health risk.
On Friday, July 12, 2013 we filed a new petition in the California Supreme Court against all of California’s 58 county clerks, and state officials, seeking to restore the enforcement of Proposition 8, the state’s constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

The undeniable fact is, the man-woman definition of marriage, as passed by a majority the voters, is still a valid part of our state constitution.

Yet county clerks statewide are lawlessly defying that law by issuing gender-neutral marriage licenses. We are asking California’s Supreme Court to restore the rule of law and the public’s confidence in the integrity of the initiative process.

The action we filed today contends that at least 56 of the 58 county clerks must continue to follow Proposition 8 because they were not parties to the recent federal lawsuit against Prop 8, and that the state’s governor and attorney general have no legal authority to order local county clerks to disregard the state constitution.

Our petition also reminds the justices that our opponents, the attorneys for the plaintiffs who challenged Prop 8, have repeatedly admitted that the 56 county clerks not involved in their case “are not directly bound by the injunction” issued by a single San Francisco judge against Prop 8. In fact, "super-lawyer" David Boies told the courts that “the scope of the injunction is quite limited”, and at least the 56 county clerks would remain free to “refuse a marriage license to a same-sex couple…without violating the injunction.”

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s determination that we, as Prop 8’s official proponents, lacked standing to defend the measure in federal court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling against Prop 8 was vacated, leaving no legal precedent — in either state or federal courts — declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional statewide. California’s constitution requires public officials to enforce any voter-passed initiative until an appellate court declares it to be unconstitutional statewide.

In my opinion, today's case is remarkably similar to former San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s unsuccessful attempt to order the county clerk to disregard the man-woman legal definition of marriage in 2004. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Mayor Newsom had no authority to instruct the county clerk to defy state law, and today we contend that the governor and attorney general don’t have that authority either.

That is because, under California Law, county clerks are independent local officials with the exclusive responsibility and authority to issue marriage licenses. The governor and attorney general are not the county clerks' "bosses."

As you can see, this has become more than just a fight over marriage. The authority of local government officials, and the future of the initiative process itself, is put at grave risk if state officials are allowed to nullify a proposition by executive order, backed by no binding legal precedent. Now it is up to California’s highest court to breathe life back into the people’s power of initiative.

And, unlike in federal court, we unquestionably have legal standing to bring today's request to the State Supreme Court. In 2011, the California Supreme Court unanimously designated us, as the Official Proponents, to defend Prop 8 in lieu of government officials who refused to do so.

And that is exactly what we are doing today! Please join us by making a tax-deductible and confidential donation of whatever you can afford today to support our case before California's Supreme Court.

Very truly yours,
Andy Pugno
Prop 8 General Counsel

People's Vote for Prop 8

On June 26, 2013, the United State Supreme Court announced its decision in the Proposition case.

It is widely being mis-reported that the Court ruled against Proposition 8. IT DID NOT!

Rather, the Court said it could not reach a decision because California government officials refused to defend the law. So it did not rule on Proposition 8's validity.

In doing so, the Court also nullified the Ninth Circuit's ruling against Proposition 8, which is a great victory in itself!

So, the voter-passed Constitutional Amendment to protect man-woman marriage remains the law of the land in California, because only an appellate court can strike down a voter proposition statewide.

But it remains to be seen what California officials will do now.

Andy Pugno
Proposition 8 General Counsel

June 26, 2013:

Here are some key facts about the two rulings in the Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases.

1 - By a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down a narrow portion of DOMA that deals only with federal recognition of marriages in those states that have adopted gender-neutral marriage. The majority opinion specifically said it was NOT requiring states to adopt same-sex "marriage."

2 - Also by a narrow, 5-4 decision, the Court chose to AVOID ruling on Proposition 8's validity. They held that, since California's government officials refused to defend Proposition 8, there was no "case" for the Court to decide. The minority opinion (by four judges) dissented, agreeing with out California Supreme Court that we - as the official proponents - should be allowed to give Proposition 8 a defense.

3 - The Supreme Court did NOT accept our opponent's pleas to change the definition of marriage, not did it declare a constitutional right to same-sex narriage."

4 - The Supreme Court "vacated" (erased) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's previous ruling against Proposition 8, which means that terrible decision provides NO legal precedent for same-sex "marriage."

5 - California's Constitution says that only an appellate court, not a single trial court judge, can stop a proposition's enforcement statewide. As of today, there is no such ruling. Nevertheless, the Governor and Attorney General (June 26, 2013) rushed forward with plans to make same-sex "marriage" licenses available throughout California in the next three to four weeks.

Andy Pugno
Proposition 8 General Counsel

June 28, 2013:

We just received word that the Ninth Circuit without waiting for the Supreme Court's decision to become final and depriving us of our right to ask for reconsideration, has rushed forward to order same-sex marriage licenses.

This outrageous act of judicial tyranny tops off a chronic pattern of lawlessness, throughout this case, by judges and politicians hell-bent on thwarting the vote of the people to redefine marriage by any means, even outright corruption.

Homosexual marriage is not happening because the people changed their mind. It isn't happening because the appellate courts declared a new constitutional right. It's happening because enemies of the people have abused their power to manipulate the system and render the people voiceless.

The resumption of same-sex marriage this day has been obtained by illegitimate means. If our opponents rejoice in achieving their goal in a dishonorable fashion, they should be ashamed.

It remains to be seen whether the fight can go on, but either way, it is a disgraceful day for California.

Andy Pugno
Proposition 8 General Counsel

June 29, 2013:

Today our Proposition 8 Legal Defense Team filed an emergency petition to U.S. Supreme Court to stop the Ninth Circuit's premature move requiring same-sex "marriage" licenses in California. The petition, prepared overnight by our good friends at Alliance Defending Freedom was submitted Saturday to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the associate justice who decides such motions pertaining to the Ninth Circuit. On Wednesday, Justice Kennedy had agreed with our view that the voice of the voters must [be] heard in a case like this challenging an initiative proposition.

When the Ninth Circuit originally put in place its stay to prevent same-sex marriage pending Supreme Court action, it stated clearly that "the stay shall continue until final disposition by the Supreme Court." Under Supreme Court procedural rules, "final disposition" comes when the Supreme Court issues a "mandate" to the Ninth Circuit, at least 25 days after announcing its opinion in the case. The 25-day waiting period is provided to allow parties like us to petition the Supreme Court for a re-hearing of the case.

Today's petition (June 29, 2013) asks the Supreme Court to find that the Ninth Circuit had no jurisdiction to order same-sex marriages on Friday, since the case had not yet come back down from the nation's highest court.

Suspioiously, the Ninth Circuit's announcement late Friday ordering same-sex marriages came as a surprise, without any warning or notice to Proposition 8's official proponents. However, the same-sex couple plaintiffs in the case, their media teams, San Francisco City Hall, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the California Attorney General all happened to be in position to perform same-sex marriages just minutes after the Ninth Circuit's "unexpected" announcement.


Our emergency petition also reminds the Supreme Court that just last year the Ninth Circuit itself, in stopping a lower court from unsealing illegal video tapes of the Proposition 8 trial, said that the "integrity of our judicial system depends in no small part on the ability of litigants and members of the public to rely on a judge's word." That same principle, we argue today, applies equally to assurances given by Ninth Circuit judges as well.

People on both sides of this debate should at least agree that the courts must follow their own rules. This kind of lawlessness just further weakens the public's confidence in the legitimacy of our legal system. We hope the Supreme Court will step in and restore some order here.

In fidelity to the more than seven million Californians who voted for Proposition 8, and the tens of thousands of friends like you who have worked so hard to enact and protect it, we remain committed to pursuing every responsible option available to us to vindicate the People's interest in seeing Proposition 8 upheld and enforced.

Thank you for your continued support.

Andy Pugno
Proposition 8 General Council

There is a political component toward promoting a gay lifestyle. Since smoking is not a supported lifestyle, the health department has candidly published warnings on the effects of cigarette smoking. It's no secret that smoking shortens the average life span by 7 to 10 years. Why are there no warnings about the gay lifestyle when it reduces lifespan by up to 30 years? To verify this, simply search for "homosexual lifespan" on bing or google. Here's a good place to start:

From the Los Angeles Times on March 27, 2013: "I think we are going to win this case," [said] Andy Pugno, lawyer for Proposition 8 campaign. "We definitely represented the winning case today and the justices asked good thoughtful questions and we were able to say everything that we wanted to get in front of the court today."

Pugno, counsel for, said he was unimpressed by the arguments in favor of lifting the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages in California.

"What makes me optimistic is the court's questions showed that the court was well tuned in to what exactly our arguments are, and also exposed the weakness of many of the arguments of the challengers of Prop. 8," he said.

"One justice noted that this is something newer than cellphones and the Internet and questioned whether that is something the court should be rushing to decide," he added.

Pugno described the Supreme Court proceedings as "the best hearing that we have had throughout the entire process of this case in nearly four years .... This is the first time we feel we have a fair shot in front of a fair tribunal."

An interview of Andy Pugno previous to the Supreme Court hearing:

As if we needed more proof that former Judge Vaughn Walker was dead-set against Proposition 8 from the outset of this case, today's amazing news leaves no doubt.

In a revealing exchange of emails, former judge Walker, who struck down Proposition 8 in San Francisco, is found to have been in close communication with the attorneys challenging it... even coordinating the media strategy for Tuesday's high-profile hearing in the United States Supreme Court.

Walker topped off his comments with a brief statement that says it all, Referring to lead anti-Prop 8 attorney Ted Olson, Walker declares: "Ted’s argument will be spectacular, I’m sure.”

The series of emails show a cozy relationship between Walker and our opponents, casting even more doubt on the legitimacy of Walker's one-sided and unprecedented handling of the 2010 trial against Prop 8.

Andy Pugno
Prop 8 General Counsel

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints joined with other religious organizations in filing two briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court last week [late January], one defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act, commonly known as DOMA, and the other defending Proposition 8, a California state law restricting the definition of marriage.

On the challenge to Proposition 8, which the LDS Church supported in 2008, the brief defended the law against the charge that it reflects an irrational public policy or that it was motivated by animus toward gays.

"On the contrary, our members supported Proposition 8 based on sincere beliefs in the value of traditional marriage for children, families, society, and our republican form of government. Only a demeaning view of religion and religious believers could dismiss our advocacy of Proposition 8 as ignorance, prejudice, or animus."

The briefs were both filed by Von G. Keetch for the firm Kirton McKonkie, based in Salt Lake City, but the briefs were also signed by the National Association of Evangelicals, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, among others. - Deseret News, February 5, 2013

An “ex-gay” group has filed a brief urging the Supreme Court not to rule in favor of gay marriage because being gay is a choice.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases related to marriage equality in March. One case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California's 2008 voter-approved constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. In Windsor v. United States, a lesbian widow is challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prevents the federal government from recognizing her marriage to another woman.

In its friend of the court brief filed on Friday, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) asserts that being gay is not an immutable characteristic.

“PFOX appears as amicus to address the purported immutability of homosexuality, which is relevant to whether this Court should declare that sexual orientation is a new suspect class,” the group wrote.

“The issue is important because a finding that sexual orientation is immutable could lead this Court to declare it a 'suspect class' for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause, which is unwarranted. Such a declaration could improperly subject state laws or state Constitutional provisions like Proposition 8 and Congressional Statutes like DOMA to 'strict scrutiny' rather than the existing legally appropriate, 'rational basis' review.”

To support its argument, PFOX included the personal stories of 4 people who decided to no longer be gay: Richard Cohen, the founder of the “ex-gay” group International Healing Foundation; Alan Medinger, the deceased founder of the “ex-gay” ministry Regeneration; Kristin Johnson Tremba, the author of Sexual Wholeness in a Broken World; and Brenna Kate Simonds worship leader of the Boston-based “ex-gay” ministry Alive in Christ.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the cases in June.

A 65-page opening brief in the U.S. Supreme Court was filed in defense of California's vote for Proposition 8 to restore traditional marriage as only between a man and a woman!

Here's a short quote from the brief, summarizing one of our key arguments: "The Equal Protection Clause does not require California to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. The age-old definition of marriage distinguishes between relationships of a man and a woman and all other types of relationships, including same-sex relationships. This distinction is rooted in a basic biological fact that goes to the heart of the State’s interest in regulating marriage: the unique capacity of intimate relationships between men and women to create new life. This indisputable difference between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships demonstrates that Proposition 8 is constitutional, for the Constitution requires only that a State “treat similarly situated persons similarly, not that it engage in gestures of superficial equality.” Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 79 (1981)."

Now, the opponents will prepare their rebuttal arguments in the next few weeks. Then, proponents will have the opportunity to have the last word by filing a closing brief in response to our opponents' arguments. The U.S. Supreme Court has announced that the closing arguments over Proposition 8's validity will be held on Tuesday, March 26th. This is truly coming down to the wire!

Our legal workload has recently been DOUBLED. Now we have not one, but TWO pivotal legal issues we must argue and win in the Supreme Court for traditional marriage to stand. You already know that the government officials who are legally obligated to defend the People’s passage of Proposition 8 are refusing to do so. In fact, they joined the other side! That is why the California Supreme Court specially designated us, as the Official Proponents of Prop 8, to fill the gap and formally represent the state's interests in upholding Prop 8’s validity.

In other words, the entire burden of defending traditional marriage in California, and possibly for the entire
nation, weighs solely upon our shoulders. But still, our opponents continue to challenge our “legal standing” to defend Prop 8 in lieu of government officials, and have renewed their plea to the Supreme Court to have us thrown out of the case — leaving Prop 8 totally undefended so they can win the case unopposed!

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has agreed to examine this issue raised by our opponents. So we will once again have to ramp up our case and secure the People’s right to have their voices heard and their votes counted, even when public officials abandon their duties.

We actually won this argument over “legal standing” on three prior occasions in this case: in the U.S. District Court, the California Supreme Court, and even in the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But now we must also convince the U.S. Supreme Court that the more than 7 million voters who passed Proposition 8 into law deserve to be represented!

One year ago, we set out to raise the last $2 million of funding needed to ensure the People are well-represented in the courtroom, and that traditional marriage is given the most vigorous defense possible in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yet, we have raised only 65% of this goal, and time is running out! We must raise the remaining 35% of the Prop 8 defense budget right away, but we have only a short time left. So please, without delay, help us finish the legal battle to uphold Proposition 8 with your tax-deductible and confidential donation of $1000, $500, $150, $50 or even just $25, or whatever you can afford today.

Thank you,

Andy Pugno, General Counsel

P.S. The Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, so your donation is tax-deductible, and it will not be publicly disclosed. If you prefer to donate via a check or money order, please send your donation via U.S. Mail to:
Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund
PO Box 162849
Sacramento, CA 95816-2849
People's Vote for Prop 8

April 6, 2013
Freedom Outpost contributor Evalyn Bennett recently sent an open letter to the United States Supreme Court over the issue now before them to redefine marriage as something other than what it is; between a man and a woman. She pointed out not only that is a ruling to redefine marriage against the moral law of God, but it strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. We present this letter for your consideration.

Dear Supreme Court Justices:
The DOMA and Proposition 8 cases you heard last week are unprecedented in the history of this nation. I urge you to make a ruling to affirm traditional marriage in both cases. The reason you are having difficulty reviewing the cases is because the premise for their consideration is found in God's moral law (natural law), not the Constitution. Your interpretation of DOMA and Proposition 8 must be based on the cultural and moral context of the United States at the time the Constitution was written and ratified.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not define or assert traditional marriage as an inalienable right because it was inconceivable to the Framers of the Constitution that any other type of relationship would be considered marriage! That view, which is based on the Old and New Testament teachings of our Judeo-Christian heritage, has prevailed in our nation until very recently. Until 1973 homosexual conduct was considered deviant behavior by the American Psychiatric Association. Sodomy was also banned in many states until your court inappropriately applied to American law a decision by the European Court of Human Rights!

The institution of marriage between one man and one woman is defined by God, and it is not man's prerogative to change God's moral law. His law is codified in the numerous statutes recorded in the Old Testament. The Constitution does not grant homosexuals a fundamental "right" to marriage, because no such right exists. Same-sex unions are not marriage, no matter how you might want to redefine the term "marriage." (A skunk does not stop being a skunk just because you might call it a black and white house cat!) Marriage can never be truthfully defined in any way other than as a legal union between one man and one woman. "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked" (Galatians 6:7). What God has unequivocally deemed wrong, man's law can never make right.

In a recent Newsmax article, Justice Kennedy is quoted as follows: "Prior to expressing his doubts about whether the court should decide the case, Kennedy pressed Cooper on the "imminent legal injury" facing almost 40,000 California children being raised by gay and lesbian couples." It is tragic that 40,000 children are in this situation. But it could have been prevented if either the "parents" or the legislatures of the states they live in had been obedient to God's commands and not insisted on allowing homosexuals to marry and adopt children! Through Proposition 8, California's citizens have rightly sought to correct the wrong done by their legislature and governor. Should the Supreme Court fail to rule in favor of upholding God's definition of traditional marriage, millions of children in decades to come will succumb to the social experimentation of California and other states that have allowed same-sex marriage and adoption. If you fail to assert the traditional definition of marriage, you leave our society wide open to ALL sexual immorality expressly condemned by God in His Word: adultery, fornication, bestiality, incest, and homosexuality.

Ruling against DOMA would also violate an inalienable right that is stated in the Constitution: the First Amendment right of religious freedom. Bible-believing Christians would be forced to pay taxes to provide benefits to same-sex "marriage" partners of federal employees. Like the Affordable Care Act's tax on abortion services and mandate to provide abortifacient drugs, redefining homosexual unions as "marriage" would force millions of Americans to violate the teachings of their faith. Christian pastors would also be forced to choose between performing same-sex "marriage" ceremonies in direct violation of their deeply held religious convictions and the (as yet undefined) consequences for refusing to do so.

These violations of our Constitutional right to religious freedom are just two examples of the drastic implications for our nation if you fail to uphold traditional marriage. If you do not defend traditional marriage, you have normalized aberrant sexual behavior. If homosexuals want the "right" to marry, they can conduct themselves in a manner that accords them the right to marry! What DOMA, Proposition 8, and the marriage amendments enacted by a large majority of the states affirm is that only one standard of relational conduct is marriage and that standard is God's standard.

Really, God's moral law does not need the defense of DOMA, Proposition 8, or the states' amendments, for despite our nation's wandering in the field of moral relativism, God's standards are true and absolute (Psalm 33:4; 119:142, 160). He will furthermore always have the "last word." I don't think we want to oppose His statutes against sexual immorality and reap the consequences of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:16-19:25) or the Midianite nation (Numbers 25 and 31).

As leaders of our nation, God will hold each of you accountable for your decision, so choose carefully. Nine Supreme Court justices went against God's moral law forty years ago, condemning millions of unborn American citizens to death by abortion. Please do not repeat their mistake by fabricating a fundamental "right" to immoral behavior (in that case, murder), when no such right exists. End our country's "season" of social experimentation with marriage and affirm both Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. In so doing you will affirm the commandments of the Lord God Almighty, earn His commendation, and set our nation back on a path of righteousness.
Evalyn P. Bennett


The Ninth Circuit Court in Calfornia has issued a ruling that invalidates Proposition 8 and legalizes homosexual “marriage” in California. And that ruling was scheduled to take effect on September 3, 2012 until the Prop 8 Legal Defense Team brought an appeal to the United States Supreme Court! On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court GRANTED the petition seeking the Court’s review of the Ninth Circuit’s erroneous decision. This is a great victory for the legal defense of Propostion 8 and other cases preserving the traditional definition of marriage. Oral arguments in the Supreme Court are expected in the spring of 2013, with a final Supreme Court decision on the definition of marriage in the summer of 2013. We need your prayers and fiancial contributions to help the continued fight to preserve the tradicational definition of marriage.

On February 7, 2012, by a 2-to-1 vote, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals narrowly held in a 128-page ruling that Proposition 8 violates a constitutional “right” to government recognition of homosexual “marriage.” The 9th Circuit’s decision is completely out of step with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision in American history on the subject of marriage, but it really doesn’t come as a surprise, given the history of the Ninth Circuit, which is often overturned. As you know, the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision that was set to invalidate Proposition 8, declaring it to be “irrational” while breaking away from binding legal precedent and attacking the character of millions of Californians as mean-spirited bigots. Pursuant to their ruling, homosexual “marriage” was scheduled to be legalized in California on September 3, 2012.

But thanks to the work of our Prop 8 Legal Defense Team, that did not happen. Instead, our Legal Team brought a special appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, thereby suspending the Ninth Circuit’s erroneous ruling. As a result, the Ninth Circuit’s outrageous act of tyranny remains on hold at this moment as we continue fighting this case to a final conclusion in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Given the nationwide implications of our legal appeal, as well as the clearly erroneous conclusions of the Ninth Circuit striking down the will of the voters, we are very confident that the Supreme Court will grant our petition and then overturn the lower courts' decisions.

In fact, we just received notice that the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will take up our pending petition for consideration within the next two weeks!

So this is a crucial time! When the nine justices are finished deliberating, it is expected that the Court will next schedule our case for oral argument, thereby kicking off the final stage of this case. When that happens, we must be ready to prepare the final round of legal briefing and oral arguments according to whatever schedule of deadlines the Court may set.

Our Prop 8 Legal Team is standing by at the ready, eager to work diligently and passionately to put forth the strongest defense possible for Proposition 8. As you know, our team of pro-family attorneys (representing the coalition, the official proponents of Proposition 8) has been formally designated by the California Supreme Court to represent the voters and assert the State of California’s interests in the validity of Prop 8.

But for our team to perform at the highest level of excellence, we must be able to supply them with the resources needed to go up against the biggest, most powerful law firms in the country. Yet California's Governor and Attorney General, who have sided with our opposition against Proposition 8, have put us at a disadvantage by refusing to allow taxpayer funding for Prop 8's defense.

That’s why we have no other option but to rely 100% on the voluntary financial support of friends like you in order to prevail.

But here's the harsh reality: Unless friends like you jump in right away to help financially, tragically we will not have enough resources to give Proposition 8 a full defense in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Nine months ago I confided in you that it will take a final $2 million of additional funding to mount a full-fledged defense for traditional marriage through the Ninth Circuit and then on to victory in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since then, many friends like you have responded very generously. So far we've raised a sum of $907,806 toward the $2 million goal. That's just under one-half.

We are grateful for those incredibly generous sacrifices to date, but as you can see we still have a long way to go. To bridge the remaining $1.1 million gap and ensure that traditional marriage is given the vigorous defense that California voters (and the entire nation) deserve, I am appealing to you for help.

If you already donated earlier this year, please accept our greatest thanks. If you can maintain your steadfast support for this case with continued financial backing, we promise to honor your sacrifice by putting forward every ounce of effort we can toward victory.

So please, without delay, stand with us at this crucial moment by making a special, sacrificial contribution to help defray the legal expenses of defending Proposition 8 in the Supreme Court.

Thank you,

Andy Pugno, General Counsel

P.S. The Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, so your donation is tax-deductible, and it will not be publicly disclosed. If you prefer to donate via a check or money order, please send your donation via U.S. Mail to:
Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund
PO Box 162849
Sacramento, CA 95816-2849
People's Vote for Prop 8

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it..." - Genesis 1:27-28

Thanks to those who passed California Proposition 8, Arizona Proposition 102, and Florida Amendment 2 on November 5, 2008, which define 'marriage' under state law as the traditional union of a man and woman exclusively. Several lawsuits were filed before the California Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, but on May 26, 2009, the court upheld the will of the California voters. While Proposition 8 passed by a margin of 52 to 48 percent, a 2009 national Gallop poll found that Americans oppose legalizing same-sex marriage by a margin of 57 to 40 percent.

However, on August 4, 2010 United States district court judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8 despite the will of California voters, and issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8, and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal.

It appears we are now avoiding the wrath of God: "Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law - to do your business by the voice of the people. And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land." Mosiah 29:26-27.

We all know of those who are tempted by homosexuality - as others are tempted by alcohol, gambling, or adultery. Each of us is uniquely tempted in different ways to break God's commandments. Our love and encouragement are extended to all who are so tempted. Nevertheless, it is by our obedience to God that we are blessed, not by attempting to justify sin, or by attempting to redefine the laws of morality to our liking. There is no sin in temptation, only in playing out immoral acts. Therefore, in God's wisdom, we should make great efforts to avoid temptation in whatever form it comes to us.

Our Savior was a role model for common sense when He prayed unto the Father, "...lead us not into temptation,..." (Matthew 6:13) Therefore, alcoholics would be wise to avoid all taverns, compulsive gamblers would be wise to avoid all casinos, married men would be wise to avoid being alone inappropriately with another women, and those who are tempted by homosexuality would be wise to avoid all circumstances that subject them to this kind of temptation. It would be foolish for a man to drive his beautiful new car close to the edge of a cliff. Therefore, how much more foolish it is for someone to risk his eternal salvation by treading on the edge of the pit of sin. God's morality is not relative; it is unchangeable; it is eternal.

We commend Miss California Carrie Prejean for courageously endorsing traditional marriage at the recent Miss USA pageant. She and many others believe her response to the related question cost her the crown, making her the first runner-up. She was also later fired as Miss California by an officiator who was offended by her answer.

Carrie's detractors have also attempted to discredit her character by publicizing the indiscretions of her younger days. But as a repentant Christian, she acknowledges her mistakes, and she apologizes. It's sad that so many continue to malign her character by publishing trashy articles about her, even after her apologies. Nevertheless, Carrie feels privileged to serve God by proclaiming her belief in Jesus Christ and her unwavering support of God's declarations endorsing traditional marriage.

“Am I anti-gay? No,” she told Radar On Line. “My message is that I love everyone. But the bible is pretty black and white about homosexuality [being] a sin. As a Christian, that’s what I believe.”

See the television spot from the National Organization for Marriage.

We find it distasteful and dishonest that some who support homosexual-marriage deem the non-supporters as hateful in what appears to be coercion to change their views. It appears that they are hateful of anyone who does not agree with them.

We congratulate Carrie on her wedding to Kyle Boller, NFL quarterback for the St. Louis Rams. They were married Saturday, July 2, 2010 in San Diego, California.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
- Genesis 2:24

The family is clearly under attack today. We must find every opportunity to protect it with traditional values, and show appreciation to all who give support to the family, regardless of their political views. President Obama was recently interviewed by Bill O'Reilly

"...The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ ... We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets..." - The Family: A Proclamation to the World
- Gordon B. Hinckley


Ninth Circuit rules 2-to-1 against Prop 8... Help us appeal!

On February 7, 2012, by a 2-to-1 vote, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals narrowly held in a 128-page ruling that Proposition 8 violates a constitutional “right” to government recognition of homosexual “marriage.”

The 9th Circuit’s decision is completely out of step with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision in American history on the subject of marriage, but it really doesn’t come as a surprise, given the history of the Ninth Circuit, which is often overturned. Ever since the beginning of this case, we’ve known that the battle to preserve traditional marriage will ultimately be won or lost not here, but rather in the U.S. Supreme Court.

That is why we will immediately appeal this misguided decision that disregards the will of more than 7 million Californians who voted to restore marriage as the unique union of only a man and woman. We are confident that the rights of California voters will finally win out.

Although the court was deeply divided in its ruling against Proposition 8, the court unanimously confirmed what the California Supreme Court has already concluded: that we have legal standing as representatives of the voters to assert California’s interests in the validity of Prop 8. This, of course, has been a major issue as the Governor and Attorney General refuse to defend Prop 8, and our opponents have sought to prevent anyone from defending Prop 8 in court.

Our path to the U.S. Supreme Court is now very clear. We are confident that the law, history, and the repeatedly expressed will of the American people will eventually gain a fair hearing, and traditional marriage will be upheld and protected.

Unfortunately, this decision came earlier than we anticipated. Our legal defense team immediately started preparing the next stage of the appeals process, but after a contentious and hard-fought year in 2011, our resources are dangerously low.

That is why we need an immediate burst of funding to propel our legal appeal forward. Will you help right now with a contribution directly toward the cost of appealing the Ninth Circuit’s outrageous decision?

After incurring expenses of over $10 million to fight this case during the past three years, we estimate that it will take $2 million of additional funding to fight this case the remainder of the way through the U.S. Supreme Court.

If every person receiving this email contributed just $63.00, our appeal to the Supreme Court would be fully funded---instantly!

So please consider taking a moment right now to make a secure, online donation using a credit card. Your donation of $63, or whatever amount you can afford — big or small — will be pooled together with the gifts of thousands of other concerned citizens like you to ensure that the People’s vote for Prop 8 and traditional marriage is given a full and vigorous defense. People's Vote for Prop 8

Thank you again for continuing to follow this case, and for joining with us in standing up for traditional marriage in California and across the nation. We are at a crucial turning point, and only with your financial support can we challenge the Ninth Circuit’s bad decision and vindicate the special role of traditional marriage in our culture.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you,

Andy Pugno, General Counsel

P.S. The Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, so your donation is tax-deductible, and it will not be publicly disclosed. If you prefer to donate via a check or money order, please send your donation via U.S. Mail to:
Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund
PO Box 162849
Sacramento, CA 95816-2849
People's Vote for Prop 8