The Need for Constitutional Protection
1 / 47

I. Introduction: Perspective & Context - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'I. Introduction: Perspective & Context' - virgo

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
I introduction perspective context

The Need for Constitutional Protection For MarriageBy Lynn D. WardleBruce C. Hafen Professor of LawJ. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University*Presented at the Panel Discussion on Prop 102: Implications for Marriage, Family and State Co-sponsored by the J. Reuben Clark Law Society (Phoenix Chapter), the Alliance Defense Fund, the Christian Legal Society, and the Center for Arizona Policy Phoenix History Museum, Thursday, October 23, 2008, 12:00 noon. * Professional Views of Author; not speaking for any institution.

I introduction perspective context
I. Introduction: Perspective & Context

A. Lest We Take Ourselves Too Seriously –

Bumper Sticker on Wife’s car:

  • “Sometimes in the morning I wake up grumpy, but usually I just let him sleep!”

Seven preliminary points
Seven Preliminary Points

1) Thank You. Thank You! THANK YOU!!

2) The issue is about Marriage!

Don’t get distracted!; its only about marriage!

3) Advocates of same-sex marriage seek to change marriage, not marriage. Calling a same-sex union a marriage does not make it so.

4) Protection of Marriage is a Civil Rights Cause.

5) The claim for Same-Sex Marriage is Not a Claim for Tolerance

6) All Relationships are NOT Equal .

7) We did not choose, but cannot avoid, this battle.

Arizona proposition 102
Arizona Proposition 102

Prop 102 adds twenty simple words to the Constitution of Arizona:

“Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”

It does not change Arizona marriage law (Standhardt).

It does provides constitutional protection for marriage to prevent judicial legalization or interstate recognition of same-sex marriage (see Goodrich, Marriage Cases, Kerrigan) in Arizona.

Need for prop 102 1 global movement to legalize ssm
NEED for PROP 102:#1) Global movement to legalize SSM.

  • Same-Sex Marriage Legal: Six* Nations and Three USA States: The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, South Africa,* and Norway (2009); and 3 US states (MA & CA & CN)

  • Same-Sex Unions Equivalent to Marriage Legal in Thirteen Nations and Six US States: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Slovenia, South Africa*, Andorra, Switzerland, UK, New Zealand; subord jxns (Aus. Cap. Terr.); and some US (CA, CN, NH, NJ, OR, VT).

  • Same-Sex Unions Registry & Some Benefits in Seven Nations and Five US states: Argentina, Columbia, Croatia, Czech Rep., Hungary, Israel, Portugal; subord jxns (South Aus, Tasmania, Victoria, recent Fed laws.); & some US (AK, DC, HI, ME & WA).

I introduction perspective context
Global (US) Progress of Same-Sex Marriage, and Marriage Equivalent Civil Unions or Partnerships, 1985-2007


2 it can t happen here in az
#2) It Can’t Happen Here in AZ? Equivalent Civil Unions or Partnerships, 1985-2007

Proponents of SSM and your Governor would have you believe that it can’t happen here in AZ.

Ask the people of HI, AK, MA, CA, and now CN!!

Eleven court rulings mandating same sex marriage
Eleven Court Rulings Mandating Same-Sex Marriage Equivalent Civil Unions or Partnerships, 1985-2007

Hawaii:; Baehr v. Miicke, 196 WL 694235 (Haw. Cir. Ct. 1996), on remand from Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 67 (Haw. 1993), rev’d by constitutional amendment (1998).

Alaska:Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, No. 3AN-95-6562, 1998 WL 88743 at 6 (Alaska. Super. Ct., Feb. 27, 1998) reversed by constitutional amendment (1998).

Massachusetts:Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 943, 959 Mass. 2003); In re Opinion of the Justices to the Senate, 802 N.E.2d 565, 569-71 (Mass. 2004).

Oregon: Li v. State, 2004 WL 1258167 (Or. Cir. April 20, 2004), rev’d, 110 P.3d 91 (Ore. 2005).

Washington: Castle v. State, 2004 WL 1985215, *11 (Wash.Super. Sep 07, 2004), and

Andersen v. King County, 2004 WL 1738447 *3,4,11 (Wash. Super. 2004) rev’d 138 P.3d963 (Wn. 2006).

Maryland: Deane v. Conway, Case No. 24-C-04-005390 (Cir. Crt. Balt. City, Md. Jan. 20, 2006), available at , rev’d Conaway v. Deane 932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007).

New York: Hernandez v. Robles, 794 N.Y.S.2d 579 (N.Y.Sup., Feb. 4, 2005) rev’d855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006).

California:In re Coordination Proceeding, Special Title [Rule 1550(c)] Marriage Cases, No. 4365, 2005 WL 583129 (Cal. Super. Crt. San. Fran., Mar. 14, 2005), aff’dIn re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Calif. 2008).

Connecticut: Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, SC 17716 (October 16, 2008) – JUST LAST WEEK!

Two court rulings mandating legalization of same sex unions equal to marriage
Two Court Rulings Mandating Legalization of Same-Sex Unions Equal to Marriage

Vermont: Baker v. State, 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999) (marr-equiv SSUs).

New Jersey: Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.wd 196 (N.J. 2006) (marr-equiv SSUs).

Eleven constitutional doctrines invoked to mandate same sex marriage strike smas and domas etc
Eleven Constitutional Doctrines Invoked to Mandate Same-Sex Marriage, Strike SMAs and DOMAs, etc.

-Equal Protection

-Substantive Due Process Privacy

-Substantive Due Process Right to Marry

-Substantive Due Process Right of Association

-Substantive Due Process Right to Expression

-Privileges & Immunities

-Full Faith & Credit

-Bill of Attainder

-Establishment of Religion

-Freedom of Religion

-Arbitrary and Irrational

3 constitutional protection of marriage is radical and marginal and rare
#3) Constitutional Protection of Marriage is Radical and Marginal and Rare!

Protection of Marriage & Family is the Global Norm

Explicit constitutional protection for family and marriage is the global norm in international and comparative constitutional law today.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted 1946, recognizes that “[t]he family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”

I introduction perspective context

33 International Treaties, Charters, Conventions and other Legal Documents with Provisions Concerning Marriage and/or Families(Research originally compiled by Scott Borrowman, J.D., 2005)

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees

Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery

International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination

Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages

Recommendation on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

Convention on the Rights of the Child

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

American Convention on Human Rights

American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man

Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, Final Act (Helsinki Accord)

African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Banjul Charter)

African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child

Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa

Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1914

United Nations General Assembly Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Declaration of the Rights of the Child

Proclamation of Teheran

Declaration on Social Progress and Development

Declaration on Social Progress and Development

Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons

Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict

Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons

Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief

International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families

Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam

Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women

Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, Fourth World Conference on Women

See also Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

I introduction perspective context
Most national constitutions adopted in the past 60 years also have included express constitutional protection for marriage and/or family.

I introduction perspective context
145 Nations (/191) with Constitutional also have included express constitutional protection for marriage and/or familyProvisions onFamily and Marriage(Including 83 Nations with Substantive Protections of Marriage)


Albania *


Andorra *

Angola *

Antigua & Barbuda


Armenia *

Australia *

Austria *

Bahrain *


Belarus *


Belgium *


Bolivia *

Bosnia-Herzegovina *

Brazil *

Bulgaria *

Burkina-Faso *

Cambodia *


Canada *

Cape Verde

Central African Republic



China *

Columbia *

Congo *

Costa Rica *

Croatia *

Cuba *

Cyprus *

Czech Republic


Dominican Republic

East Timor *

Ecuador *


El Salvador *

Equatorial Guinea *

Eritrea *


Ethiopia *



Gabon *


Georgia *

Germany *


Greece *


Haiti *

Honduras *

Hungary *





Ireland *



Japan *

Kazakhstan *




Latvia *



Libya *


Lithuania *

Luxembourg *

Macedonia *


Malawi *






Mongolia *

Montenegro *

Mozambique *

Namibia *


Nicaragua *

Niger *

Nigeria *

North Korea *


Pakistan *

Panama *

Papua New Guinea

Paraguay *

Peru *

Philippines *

Poland *

Portugal *


Romania *

Russian Federation

Rwanda *

Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent

Saudi Arabia

Senegal *

Serbia *

Sierra Leone

Slovakia *

Slovenia *

Somalia *

South Africa

South Korea *


Sri Lanka

Sudan *

Suriname *

Swaziland *

Sweden *

Switzerland *

Syria *

Tajikistan *


Togo *

Trinidad and Tobago



Turkmenistan *


Uganda *

Ukraine *

United Arab Emirates

Uruguay *

Uzbekistan *

Venezuela *

Vietnam *



See also:


Hong Kong

Puerto Rico


*= protects both marriage & family

No * = protects family only

I introduction perspective context
Thirty-Seven of 191 Sovereign Nations Have Constitutional Provisions/Amendments Protecting Conjugal Marriage

Armenia (art. 32)

Azerbaijan (art. 34)

Belarus (art. 32)

Brazil (art. 226)

Bulgaria (art. 46)

Burkina Faso (art. 23)

Cambodia (art. 45)

Cameroon (art. 16)

China (art. 49)

Columbia(art. 42)

Cuba (art. 43)

Ecuador (art. 33)

Eritrea (art. 22)

Ethiopia (art. 34)

Gambia (art. 27)

Honduras (art. 112)

Japan (art. 24)

Latvia (art. 110)*

Lithuania (art. 31)

Malawi (art. 22)

Moldova (art. 48)

Montenegro (art. 71)

Namibia (art. 14)

Nicaragua (art. 72)

Paraguay (arts. 49,51,52)

Peru (art. 5)

Poland (art. 18)

Serbia (art. 62)

Somalia (art. 2.7)

Suriname (art. 35)

Swaziland (art. 27)

Tajikistan (art. 33)

Turkmenistan (art. 25)

Uganda (art. 31)

Ukraine (art. 51)

Venezuela (art. 77)

Vietnam (art. 64)

See also Mongolia, Romania, Hong Kong

Examples of constitutional texts
Examples of Constitutional Texts: Provisions/Amendments Protecting Conjugal Marriage

Article 45 of the Cambodian Constitution: “(4) Marriage shall be conducted according to conditions determined by law based on the principle of mutual consent between one husband and one wife.”

Article 42 of the Constitution of Columbia: the family “is formed . . . by the free decision of a man and woman to contract matrimony . . . .”

Article 24 of the Constitution of Japan: “Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis.”

Article 110 of the Constitution of Latvia reads: “The State shall protect and support marriage—a union between a man and a woman,…”

4 it is un american to ban ssm
#4) It is Un-American to ban SSM! Provisions/Amendments Protecting Conjugal Marriage

Same-Sex Marriage is explicitly prohibited by written law in 45 states (all states except Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Rhode Island*).

I introduction perspective context
Most States Already Have Adopted Constitutional Amendments Protecting Conjugal Marriage and 3 More States Have Pending Votes on SMAs

















North Dakota




South Carolina

South Dakota









27 States with marriage amendments:

3 States with pending votes (Nov. 2008):

Three types of smas
Three Types of SMAs Protecting Conjugal Marriage and 3 More States Have Pending Votes on SMAs

Eight SMAs Protect Status of Marriage:


E.g., “To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.” Alaska Const., Art. I, sec. 25 (1998)

*ARIZONA PROP 102 fits here – Most modest Protection

Eighteen SMAs Protect Substance of Marriage (Forbid Giving Equivalent Substance to DPs or CUs):


E.g., “Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.”Utah Const., Art. I, sec. 29 (2004)

One SMA Protects Government Structure (Legislature Can Ban SSM):


“The Legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.” Haw. Const., Art. I, sec. 23 (1998)

Voter support for state marriage amendments
VOTER SUPPORT FOR STATE MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS Protecting Conjugal Marriage and 3 More States Have Pending Votes on SMAs

The average vote in favor of state marriages amendments in all of the states combined is nearly 69%.

The popular support in the state votes has ranged from a low of 57% in favor (OR) to 84% in favor (MS).

In only one state (AZ) have voters considered and rejected a SMA.

(2008 = second chance: to correct the embarassing mistake.)

5 only redneck states support smas
#5 Only Redneck States Support SMAs! Protecting Conjugal Marriage and 3 More States Have Pending Votes on SMAs

  • >>>

6 it threatens minorities
#6) It Threatens Minorities! Protecting Conjugal Marriage and 3 More States Have Pending Votes on SMAs

Minorities strongly support constitutional protection of conjugal marriage:

As the Reverend Walter Fauntroy, who marched and worked with the Rev. Martin Luther King, put it: “I am one of gay rights’ strongest advocates . . . [b]ut . . . it’s a serious mistake to redefine marriage as anything other than an institution between a man and a woman.”

As a group of African-American pastors in Georgia declared:

“As our respected fallen leader, Dr. King once said, ‘I have a dream, that my four children will one day live in a country where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.’ This is a character issue where we cannot tolerate compromise.”

Samples of voter support for smas
Samples of Voter Support for SMAs Protecting Conjugal Marriage and 3 More States Have Pending Votes on SMAs

  • StateYear% All % Afr-Am% Dem

  • GA 2004 75% 80% 64%

  • MI 2004 59% 59% 45%

  • OH 2004 62% 61% 44%

  • OK 2004 76% 74% 67%

  • TN 2006 81% 86% 72%

  • VA 2006 57% 56% 32%

  • AZ 2006 49% 61% 25%

7 equal rights loving supporters oppose smas
#7) Equal Rights ( Protecting Conjugal Marriage and 3 More States Have Pending Votes on SMAs Loving) Supporters Oppose SMAs!

Racial Equality is Different!!!

General Colin Powell described the difference between black civil rights claims for equality and gay rights claims for equality. “Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic; sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”

Loving struck down an attempt by racial eugenicists to “capture” marriage (by redefining it) to promote their ideology and social agenda.

Similarly, same-sex marriage is an attempt by gay rights activists to “capture” marriage (by redefining marrige) to promote their ideology and social agenda.

8 gender equality supporters opposes smas
#8) Protecting Conjugal Marriage and 3 More States Have Pending Votes on SMAs Gender Equality Supporters Opposes SMAs!

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a famous decision: “Physical differences between men and women. . . are enduring: ‘The two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one [sex] is different from a community composed of both.’” United States v. Virginia, 116 S.Ct. 2264, 2276 (1996)

9 what s the harm of legalizing same sex marriage no harm
#9) What’s the Harm of Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage? No Harm!!

1) Switch Burden of Proof (is on those proposing radical alteration of global norm)

2) Assumes immediate, visible harm (comparable to divorce children or smoking)

3) Diverts attention from transformative effect on marriage of inclusion of gay-lesbian lifestyles.  

4) Already some harms evident.

Compare to other radical structural redefinition of marriage:

-Fa-Dau marriage? Polyamory? Polygamy? Teen Marriages?

Would these affect you? Your family? Society?

Response to no harm
Response to “No Harm” Harm!!

Distinguish Public from Private Interests in marriage.

When marriages fail or fail to form, society must pick up the pieces and the public incurs huge fiscal and social costs.

How marriage is defined sends signals to and reflects common understandings about the expectations of the relationship.

Men and women are different, and the union of a man and woman still creates a different kind of union that the union of 2 men or 2 women. RB Ginsburg “-”

Marriage establishes the moral core of the family and the moral baseline and standards for society in many ways. “Marriage is a society's cultural infrastructure . . . .”

I introduction perspective context

David Blankenhorn, Harm!!The Future of Marriage

“Support for marriage is by far the weakest in countries with same-sex marriage. The countries with marriage-like civil unions show significantly more support for marriage. The two countries with only regional recognition of gay marriage (Australia and the United States) do better still on these support-for-marriage measurements, and those without either gay marriage or marriage-like civil unions do best of all.”

I introduction perspective context

Threats to Civil Rights Already Manifest Harm!!

  • MA: Boston Catholic Charities forced to shut down adoption services.

  • CA SCT decision : Catholic doctor legally liable (if facts) because declined ART services to a lesbian; no religious exemption

  • Suit involving CDC counselor for referral (‘homophobic’)

  • -Georgetown University club; Yeshiva Univ. married student housing

  • United States, the Boy Scouts denied privileges and public facilities.

  • -Canada, Knights of Columbus was held liable -Hospital (abortion already, so same-sex marriage, also)

  • -Educators and schools are vulnerable. (Middle-school Cross-dressing day, 1st Grade field trip to see teachers’ SF lesbian wedding, MA Parker, etc.)

  • - British Columbia, Trinity Western University denied accreditation

    Free speech rights have already been abused: effort to “silence” oppons

  • -Sweden Pentacostal Pastor Ake Green

  • -Similar cases have been reported in Canada and England & PA & OH (African-American administrator at college in OH).

  • - Ireland, ICCL warned that Catholic Bishops and clergy of hate speech

Violation of civil rights cont d
Violation of Civil Rights, cont’d Harm!!

  • Hyatt Hotel in San Diego – boycott to punish

    • - AALS partially supports the boycott

      San Francisco Board of Supervisors Resolution against Catholic Adoption Policy

      San Francisco BS Resolution against Evangelical youth organization

      New Mexico Photographers forced into court, ordered to pay nearly $7,000 in attorneys fees for not photographing same-sex commitment ceremony

      Judges/Magistrates/Registrars punished, forced to resign

10 just open up marriage more inclusive
#10) Just Open Up Marriage, More Inclusive? Harm!!

It’s not marriage. Including same-sex couples will transform marriage.

For example, a study by Dutch AIDs researchers, published in 2003 in the journal AIDS, reported on the number of partners among Amsterdam’s homosexual population. They found:

- 86% of new HIV/AIDS infections in gay men were in men who had steady partners.

- Gay men with steady partners engage in more risky sexual behaviors than gays without steady partners.

- Gay men with steady partners had 8 other sex partners (“casual partners”) per year, on average.

- The average duration of committed relationships among gay steady partners was 1.5 years.

American researchers Bell and Weinberg reported that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.

A recent study of 2,583 older sexually active gay men reported that “the modal range for number of sexual partners ever . . . was 101-500,” while 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners, and another 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand sexual partners in their lifetime.

Kirk and Madsen reported in their that “the cheating ratio of ‘married’ gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%. . . .”

When these relationships are “marriages” it will transform the social understanding and expectations of marriage.

I introduction perspective context

Available at the BYU Bookstore at Harm!! available from the publisher at^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0761843167

I introduction perspective context

Conclusion: We must speak up and stand up Harm!!

  • One of our responsibilities as parents, citizens, and especially scholars is to warn of dangers

  • - Elie Wiesel, Night: “Moishe the Beadle”

  • Elie Wiesel, Nobel Acceptance Speech: “I swore never to be silent . . . . We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor . . . .” We too must speak up and get involved.”

  • “There is so much to be done, there is so much that can be done. One person – a Raoul Wallenberg, an Albert Schweitzer, a Martin Luther King, Jr. – one person of integrity can make a difference, a different of life and death.”

I introduction perspective context

Standing for Something Harm!!

  • - President Gordon B. Hinckley, Standing for Something:

  • “We go to great lengths to preserve historical buildings and sites in our cities. We need to apply the same fervor to preserving the most ancient and sacred of institutions – the family.

  • What we desperately need today on all fronts . . . are leaders, men and women who are willing to stand for something. We need people . . . who are willing to stand up for decency, truth, integrity, morality, and law and order . . . even when it is unpopular to do so – perhaps especially when it is unpopular to do so.

  • “We cannot effect a turnaround in a day or a month or a year. But with enough effort, we can begin a turnaround within a generation, and accomplish wonders within two generations – a period of time that is not very long in the history of humanity.

Thank you
THANK YOU!! Harm!!

I introduction perspective context

Selected Partial Bibliography Harm!!(A few of many excellent resources that may be helpful in defending the fundamental institutions of conjugal marriage and the marital family)

  • The Divine Institution of Marriage (Salt Lake City, Aug. 13, 2008),

  • at

  • What’s the Harm (Lynn D. Wardle, ed., University Press of America 2008)

  • The Future of Marriage by David Blankenhorn (Encounter Books 2007)

  • Setting the Record Straight: Mormons & Homosexuality by A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., M.P.H. (Millenial Press Inc. 2008)

  • The Natural Family, A Manifesto by Allan C. Carlson & Paul T. Mero (Spence Publishing 2007)

  • The Meaning of Marriage (Robert P. George & Jean BethkeElshtain eds., Spence Publishing 2006)

  • Power Over the Body, Equality in the Family by Charles J. Reid Jr., (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing 2004)

  • Marriage and Same-Sex Unions, A Debate (Lynn D. Wardle, Mark Strasser, William C. Duncan & David Orgon Coolidge, eds. Praeger

  • 2003)

  • Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D. (Cedar Fort 2001)

  • The Case for Marriage by Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher (Doubleday 2000)

Why the us and some states have no constitutional protection for marriage
Why the US and some states have no Constitutional Protection for Marriage


1) History - 1787

2) Federalism

3) Deliberately Difficult Amendment Process (only 16 amendments in past 217 years since the original Bill of Rights)


1) History – SSM only recently an issue, a threat

2) Inertia - Difficult process (e.g., MA)

3) Intimidation - Extreme political hard-ball and hostility

Standing for something
Standing for Something for Marriage

  • - President Gordon B. Hinckley, Standing for Something:

  • “We go to great lengths to preserve historical buildings and sites in our cities. We need to apply the same fervor to preserving the most ancient and sacred of institutions – the family.

  • What we desperately need today on all fronts . . . are leaders, men and women who are willing to stand for something. We need people . . . who are willing to stand up for decency, truth, integrity, morality, and law and order . . . even when it is unpopular to do so – perhaps especially when it is unpopular to do so.

D j vu from 1787 91 and opposition to the bill of rights
Déjà vu from 1787-91 and opposition to the Bill of Rights for Marriage

1) Not needed, ample protection (facts show need for constitutional protection)

2) Endanger individual liberties (protect individual liberties)

3) Distort constitutional government (purpose of constitutional government)

4) Diverts attention from more important business (Pork barrel politics? Gerrymandering?)

5) Futile (not unless we have lost the rule of law; government of laws not men)

Three reasons why some 23 states have not adopted constitutional amendments protecting marriage
Three reasons why some (23) states have not adopted constitutional amendments protecting marriage

1) History (it was not previously an issue, not an issue when the state constitution was drafted)

2) Inertia (too much work and too much political cost to make the effort)

3) Intimidation (abuse of, attempt to silence those who oppose SSM)

Six big changes since 2000 that make passage of proposition 8 more difficult
Six Big Changes Since 2000 That Make Passage of Proposition 8 More Difficult

First, the prevailing sentiment is for “change” and it is led by a very charismatic and eloquent candidate for the U.S. Presidency who has openly expressed his opposition to Prop. 8.

Second, there is hostility and punitive reaction against not just the arguments that favor Prop. 8, but for the mere expression of views that support Prop. 8!

Third, the gay movement has increased in credibility, and influence.

Fourth, the California Supreme Court in May of this year decided In re Marriage Cases.

Fifth, supporters of same-sex marriage have engaged in widespread misuse and abuse of government authority to oppose Prop. 8.

Sixth, it should come as no surprise that a poll of expected voters taken by the Public Policy Institute of California (Aug. 12-19, 2008) found: Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to eliminate same-sex marriage, is favored by 40 percent and opposed by 54 percent of the state’s likely voters. (But the polls are volatile.)

Why the in re marriage cases decision should be overturned by prop 8
Why the 8 More DifficultIn re Marriage Cases Decision Should be Overturned by Prop 8

The California Supreme Court made five types of very serious mistakes:

1) Structural – judicial legislation

2) Substantive – endanger the basic unit of society

3) Analytical - policy rhetoric and bald assumptions, not constitutional analysis

4) Political – manipulation endangering integrity and independence of judiciary

5) Pandering – embraced rather than rejected the capture of marriage like the racial ant miscegenation movement