Michigan Voters Join Nationwide Mandate in Support of Traditional Marriage – Law Center Prepared to Defend Bans if Challenged
Wed, Nov 3, 2004
ANN ARBOR, MI — Michigan voters turned out Tuesday to overwhelmingly support a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, by an estimated margin of 60-40%. The Michigan results reflected a national trend where 10 other states also passed constitutional amendments to protect traditional marriage.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which played a significant role in drafting the language of Michigan’s amendment commented, “We have a nationwide mandate in support of traditional marriage. Nevertheless, we expect homosexual activists to mount federal court challenges to these amendments in an effort to defeat the will of the people. We are ready for them.”
Michigan’s constitutional amendment, considered the broadest of the 11 state amendments, provides that “…the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.” The amendment is intended to prohibit courts or other efforts to impose same-sex marriage, polygamy, or any other form of counterfeit “marriage” on the state.
Patrick T. Gillen, an attorney with the Thomas More Law Center advising the organizers of Proposal 2 stated, “History and common sense have demonstrated that marriage is a social institution between a man and a woman, which is a natural union that serves as the only firm basis for the natural family.”
“Voters confirmed that persons with same-sex attractions have no right to demand a radical redefinition of marriage or a radical social experiment with the family,” continued Gillen.
Proponents of the effort to amend the state constitution point out that an ever-growing body of social science is confirming the vital contribution that traditional marriage makes to the good of the spouses, children and, ultimately, society at large. At the same time, the social sciences continue to confirm the commonsense judgment that the homosexual lifestyle is harmful to adults and children raised in same-sex households.
Poll Shows Michigan Strongly Behind Proposal 2, Traditional Marriage
Thu, Oct 28, 2004
ANN ARBOR, MI — A new poll on Michigan’s Proposal 2 published by the Detroit Free Press indicates strong support for the proposed state constitutional amendment that would protect traditional marriage. Thursday’s edition of the Detroit Free Press reported that their latest poll shows 60% of respondents support Proposal 2, while only 35% oppose it.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which aided in drafting the language of the amendment commented, “This amendment is about protecting and promoting the timeless institution of marriage and the family. We all witnessed what happened in Massachusetts earlier this year when the highest court in that state forced gay marriage on the people.”
The proposed constitutional amendment would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and prohibit courts or other efforts to impose same-sex marriage, polygamy, or any other form of marriage on the state.
Patrick T. Gillen, an attorney with the Thomas More Law Center advising the organizers of Proposal 2 stated, “History and common sense have demonstrated that marriage is a social institution between a man and a woman, which is a natural union that serves as the only firm basis for the natural family.”
“Those persons with same-sex attractions have no right to demand a radical redefinition of marriage and the family or a radical social experiment with the family,” continued Gillen.
Proponents of the effort to amend the state constitution point out that an ever-growing body of social science is confirming the vital contribution that traditional marriage makes to the good of the spouses, children and, ultimately, society at large. At the same time, the social sciences continue to confirm the commonsense judgment that the homosexual lifestyle is harmful to adults and children raised in same-sex households.
Thompson continued, “It is truly unfortunate that at the very time evidence continues to mount proving the importance of the traditional family, there is a movement to engage in a radical redefinition of that institution.”
Fight Not Over – Thomas More Law Center Files Appeal Seeking to Stay Massachusetts Same-Sex Marriage Decision
Tue, Jun 15, 2004
ANN ARBOR, MI — The Thomas More Law Center has filed an appeal with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, seeking to stay the court’s decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which legalized same-sex marriage. As a result of that decision, same-sex couples have been permitted to marry in Massachusetts as of May 17, 2004. The appeal, which in all likelihood is the last legal action surviving in the state courts that is capable of stopping this decision, was filed on behalf of C. Joseph Doyle, the executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts.
In legalizing same-sex marriage, the Massachusetts Court candidly claimed that its decision “marks a change in the history of our marriage law.” The Court acknowledged that this change affected the historic, civil, and legal understanding in Massachusetts and elsewhere that marriage constitutes the union of one man and one woman.
On April 20, 2004, the Law Center petitioned a single justice of the court on behalf of Doyle to put the Goodridge decision on hold out of respect for and in deference to the Constitution of the Commonwealth. The petition and an ensuing request for an expedited appeal were denied, but the full Court ultimately decided that Doyle’s appeal could “proceed in the ordinary course,” keeping the case alive. As a result, Doyle filed the present appeal.
The appeal argues that the Court should stay its decision so that the process currently underway to amend the state’s constitution by defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman can proceed unhindered. Noting that the Massachusetts Constitution “ensures the people that judges will not use the law to impose their opinion about how society should be ordered regardless of the democratic will,” the Law Center argues in its brief that “what happens with the legal institution of marriage should ultimately depend on the democratic processes outlined in the Commonwealth’s Constitution rather than by judicial fiat.”
According to Robert Muise, Associate Counsel handling the case for the Law Center, “Mr. Doyle is a citizen of Massachusetts, and he has a constitutional right to be heard on this issue. It is simply irresponsible for the Court to ignore the grave implications of its decision and to forge ahead with it in light of the constitutional process that is underway to reverse it. What will be the status at the conclusion of the constitutional amendment process of those same-sex couples who have already sought ‘marriage’ as a result of the Goodridge decision? The ensuing legal chaos is predictable. The Court has an obligation to stay its decision to prevent further harm until the amendment process is completed.”
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “The adverse effects of this decision are not only being felt in Massachusetts, but throughout the country as well. Four, un-elected judges in Massachusetts are deciding this important social and cultural issue for the rest of this nation. ”
Other pro-family law groups joining the appeal on behalf of Doyle include Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights, Liberty Counsel, and AFA Center for Law and Policy.
Federal Lawsuit Filed to Stop Same-Sex Marriage in Massachusetts
Mon, May 10, 2004
ANN ARBOR, MI — With only a week remaining until same-sex couples will be allowed to legally marry in Massachusetts, the Thomas More Law Center and several other pro-family groups have opened up a new front by filing a federal lawsuit claiming that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court exceeded its authority by redefining marriage thereby violating the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of a republican form of government.
The Thomas More Law Center joined Liberty Counsel, Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights, and AFA Center for Law and Policy in asking a federal judge to stop the enforcement of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the decision which legalized so called “same-sex marriage.”
Under the Massachusetts constitution, it is the role of the legislature and not the courts to define marriage for the Commonwealth. By accepting jurisdiction to hear the Goodridge case in the first instance and by redefining marriage to permit same-sex couples to marry, the Massachusetts high court exceeded the powers granted it and thereby violated the federal constitutional guarantee that prevents one branch of government from acting above the law.
According to the lawsuit, the judicial activism that produced this decision violates the federal constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government. The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government.” This constitutional provision serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch of government thereby reducing the risk of tyranny.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “Judicial activism is destroying our culture. The Goodridge decision, if left unchecked, will have far reaching implications on the institution of traditional marriage that go well beyond the borders of Massachusetts. This is a national problem that must be addressed now.”
In the Goodridge case, the Massachusetts high court acknowledged that its decision changed the history of marriage law and was contrary to the historic, civil, and legal understanding in Massachusetts and elsewhere that marriage constituted the union of one man and one woman. Nevertheless, the court construed civil marriage to mean “the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others,” thereby redefining marriage to include same-sex partners.
In a related state court case, the Law Center and others filed an appeal this past Friday with the Massachusetts high court asking it to stay its decision legalizing same-sex marriage. The Law Center had previously filed a petition with a single justice of the court seeking to put a hold on Goodridge. However, the single justice hearing the request denied it, questioning whether he had the authority to grant the stay.
The Law Center is appealing this decision and asking the full court to exercise its power to stay its decision pending the outcome of the process that is already underway to amend the state’s constitution to ban “same-sex marriages.” According to the appeal, it would be “irresponsible [for the Court] to ignore the grave implications of [its] decision and to forge ahead with it in light of the constitutional process that is underway to reverse it.”
According to Robert Muise, associate counsel handling the cases for the Law Center, “In a series of Revolutionary War pamphlets entitled American Crisis, Thomas Paine claimed that ‘These are the times that try men’s souls.’ These words ring true today. Just as the founders of our Nation were battling the tyrannical rule of England, the citizens of this nation are now battling the tyrannical rule of the courts. As history reveals, there is much at stake.”
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. It depends on contributions from individuals, corporations and Foundations. It is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
Law Center Seeks Stay in Massachusetts Same-Sex Marriage Decision to Prevent Legal Chaos
Tue, Apr 20, 2004
ANN ARBOR, MI — Claiming it is necessary to prevent legal chaos, a petition to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts seeking to stay its decision legalizing same-sex marriage was filed today by the Thomas More Law Center, and several other pro-family legal groups. The petition is asking the Court to put its decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health on hold — a decision which held that it was unlawful to deny same-sex couples the benefits and protections of marriage under Massachusetts’ state law. As a result of this decision, same-sex couples will be permitted to marry in Massachusetts beginning May 17, 2004.
Other pro-family law groups joining the petition on behalf of a Massachusetts citizen include Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights, Liberty Counsel, and AFA Center for Law and Policy. The petition is asking the Court to stay its decision so that the constitutional process, which is already underway, to amend the state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman may proceed unhindered. According to the petition, “The right of the citizens of Massachusetts . . . to decide constitutional matters through the amendment process will be undermined should the effect of Goodrich be fully realized prior to the vote.”
In the Goodridge case, the Massachusetts Court candidly claimed that its decision “marks a change in the history of our marriage law.” The Court acknowledged that this change affected the historic, civil, and legal understanding in Massachusetts and elsewhere that marriage constituted the union of one man and one woman. Nevertheless, the Court construed civil marriage to mean “the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others,” thereby redefining marriage to include same-sex partners.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “Allowing same-sex marriages will radically transform society. And this decision is a tragic example of how activist judges across this country are usurping the power of the people to direct the course of our society and culture. The people of Massachusetts have a proud history of fighting tyranny. Now it is time to fight the tyranny of the judiciary.”
According to Robert Muise, Associate Counsel handling the case for the Law Center, “The citizens of Massachusetts have a right to be heard on this issue by amending their constitution to protect traditional marriage. It is the people of this state who hold the ultimate power to govern, not a handful of activists judges who seek to impose their radical political agenda on the majority. The process to amend the state’s constitution to reflect the will of the people is underway, and the Supreme Judicial Court has an obligation to step aside and let the process work its course.”
Thomas More Law Center Seeks to Defend Marriage By Intervening in Three New York Lawsuits
Mon, Apr 19, 2004
ANN ARBOR, MI — In an attempt to ensure that New York’s marriage laws are vigorously defended, five parties have filed motions seeking to intervene to defend the constitutionality of laws barring same-sex marriage in three cases now pending in the State of New York. The decision to intervene was made after New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer released an opinion expressing reservations about the constitutionality of New York laws barring same-sex marriage. The parties seeking to intervene are represented by the Thomas More Law Center, Liberty Counsel, and the AFA Center for Law and Policy, all Christian- based public interest law firms.
The three cases now pending in New York involve lawsuits filed against public officials for their failure to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Private citizens represented by the ACLU, the LAMBDA Legal Defense Fund, and a private attorney in Rockland County brought the lawsuits in an effort to challenge New York laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. One of the cases involves Daniel O’Donnell, brother of prominent homosexual activist Rosie O’Donnell.
The parties that seek intervention represent a variety of interests affected by New York’s state law governing marriage. Senators Ruben Diaz, Sr. and Raymond Meir are co-sponsors of S2220, state legislation that bars recognition of same sex marriages in New York. Along with Assemblyman Dan Hooker, the Senators seek to intervene to defend New York’s existing laws and ensure that the state legislature, and not the courts address this matter.
The New York Family Policy Counsel is a public interest group dedicated to protecting the institution of the family as traditionally understood and protected by New York law. Mike Long is the head of the Conservative Party of New York and business owner who likewise seeks to defend New York’s laws.
Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center said that intervention is necessary in order to ensure that New York’s marriage laws are vigorously defended without regard to politics. “Under the pretext of redefining marriage, we are witnessing an attempt by radical homosexual groups to destroy the family. If these groups succeed it will mean the ultimate destruction of the family which has served as the foundation of our society and western civilization.”
The cases in which the Thomas More Law Center is seeking to intervene include, Hernandez v. Robles, Shields v. Madigan (Rockland County), and Samuels v. New York.