By Chris Huqueriza
Anti-gay marriage proponents submitted an opening brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday arguing for the defense of a traditional definition of marriage in regards to upholding Prop 8 in court.
The brief states, “...if it was reasonable for California to [uphold marriage] for 158 years before the California Supreme Court’s ruling in the Marriage Cases, it is also reasonable for California to draw the same line, for the same reasons, after the 142-day hiatus caused by that short-lived decision. And if it is rational for Congress and 40 other States to distinguish between opposite-sex couples and other types of relationships for purposes of marriage, surely it is rational for California to do so as well.”
The brief argues that the state’s highest court should uphold the legality and rational basis of the amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It also argues that the courts should refuse to give in to mounting pressure calling for a court-appointed end to the public debate on the definition of marriage.
Proposition 8 denying same-sex couples equal marriage rights was approved by voters of California in 2008. It was then declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in February 2012.
As part of the legal team for ProtectMarriage.com, attorneys of the Alliance Defending Freedom helped propel the approval of Proposition 8 in 2008.
“Marriage between a man and a woman is a universal good that diverse cultures and faiths have honored throughout the history of Western Civilization,” said Austin R. Nimocks, Senior Counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom. “Marriage isn’t merely a matter of personal preferences. How we treat marriage has societal consequences. The wisest course is for the court to resist demands to prematurely end the national debate over the future of marriage. Californians voted for marriage twice, and the court should respect the people’s freedom to affirm society’s fundamental building block.”
Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, a federal lawsuit that directly challenges Prop 8 in California. The court’s eventual decision could dramatically influence the national marriage debate in the future.
Charles J. Cooper, lead counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, spoke against the court’s decision on declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional: “The Supreme Court has made clear that defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is constitutional as a matter of public policy. The lower courts rejected all relevant Supreme Court and appellate court precedent. We are confident that the Supreme Court will uphold its precedent and affirm California’s freedom to protect marriage.”