Posted on 08/23/2012 6:14:43 AM PDT by Gopher Broke
Victoria Cobb, President
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Information Alert: AG Defends Federal Marriage Law
The attack on the definition of marriage is never ceasing, so neither is our work.
In late May, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, covering Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire and Puerto Rico, ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), legislation protecting the definition of marriage that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, was unconstitutional. The decision by that court threatens not only the federal DOMA, but the definition of marriage, both constitutional and by statute, in 42 states.
The decision has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Earlier this month, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli joined 14 other state Attorneys General in filing an amicus (“Friend of the Court”) brief urging the Supreme Court to review the First Circuit’s decision. Because the Obama administration has refused to do its responsibility and defend federal law, the U.S. House of Representatives has taken on that duty.
In the brief, the fifteen AG’s present decades of law and legal precedent pertaining to the states’ interest in benefiting heterosexual marriage because of children. The brief says, “The choice to promote traditional marriages is based on an understanding that civil marriage recognition arises from the need to encourage biological parents to remain together for the sake of their children. It protects the only procreative relationship that exists and makes it more likely that unintended children, among the weakest members of society, will be cared for.”
It goes on to state, “This ideal does not disparage the suitability of alternative arrangements where non-biological parents have legal responsibility for children. But these relationships are exactly that—alternatives to the model. States may rationally conclude that, all things being equal, it is better for the biological parents also to be the legal parents, and that marriage promotes that outcome.”
Thomas Messner of the Heritage Foundation puts it this way:
Individuals marry based on various private interests. The public interest in marriage, in contrast, is based directly on the role that marriage plays in creating and raising the next generation. Same-sex marriage breaks the essential connection between marriage, children, and the mothers and fathers who create them.
Same-sex marriage also puts the law on the wrong side of reality by claiming that marriage is something other than what it is: the union of husband and wife. Many kinds of relationships are meaningful and valuable to the individuals involved and even to the broader public. But that does not make them marriages. It is not irrational or bigoted for the law to recognize that marriage is a unique kind of relationship deserving a unique kind of status.
Virginians, understanding the preciousness of marriage and its integral role in the raising of children, voted to add an amendment to the state Constitution defining marriage in 2006. But the fact that same-sex marriage advocates are 0-30 at the state ballot box is no deterrent to their aggression, and has in fact fueled their anti-religious fervor. The Family Foundation will continue to stand in the gap with those elected officials who stand for marriage and religious liberty to ensure that your values are protected!
Thank you, AG Cuccinelli!
I SO love this guy...
He’s got my vote, anytime, anywhere.
“Individuals marry based on various private interests. The public interest in marriage, in contrast, is based directly on the role that marriage plays in creating and raising the next generation. Same-sex marriage breaks the essential connection between marriage, children, and the mothers and fathers who create them.”
Important distinction and aptly stated. Really the crux of why same sex marriage must be defeated - the religious and secular reasons are bound up in this. Thanks for posting this piece.
It is good to see marriage so accurately defined.
Never did I think that anyone would need to have it defined, though..............we live in crazy times.
You got it...ice tea is on me!
Awesome!!
Why can’t someone like Cuccinelli be on the Republican ticket?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.