2006 Archives - Thomas More Law Center

Michigan Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Public Schools Can Fund Same Sex Domestic Partnership Benefits
Thu, Nov 9, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Michigan Supreme Court this week decided to hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of Ann Arbor Public Schools’ (AAPS) policy of funding benefits for same-sex domestic partners. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of several tax payers by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor.

The Law Center claimed that Ann Arbor Public Schools violated Michigan’s Marriage Amendment and state law that prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriages when it used public funds to recognize and subsidize same-sex unions.

When the suit was filed in 2003, the taxpayers argued that AAPS’ recognition of same-sex partnerships for the purpose of providing benefits violated Michigan law governing marriage and prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages. While the suit was pending, the Law Center collaborated with the Coalition For The Protection Of Marriage and other pro-family groups, such as the American Family Association of Michigan, to draft and secure passage of Michigan’s Marriage Amendment, which 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.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center commented, “This case will give the Michigan Supreme Court an opportunity to interpret Michigan’s Marriage Amendment as it relates to same-sex partnership benefits. We believe AAPS abused its authority; rather than using public funds to promote public education, it used those funds to promote a lifestyle opposed by most citizens.”

Patrick T. Gillen, a Law Center trial counsel who argued the application for leave before the Michigan Supreme Court last month, noted, “I look forward to arguing the case before our Supreme Court. The traditional family is a unique institution that promotes the good of spouses, children who enter the family, and, ultimately, the common good. AAPS has no authority to redefine the family and I am confident that the Michigan Supreme Court will not allow AAPS to thwart state law by means of a hollow exercise in labeling.”

On November 7th seven additional states voted to approve constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages — Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. With the addition of these seven states, there are now 27 states in the nation that have constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage from activist judges and radical homosexual groups.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and 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.

Thomas More Law Center Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Overturn Ninth Circuit Decision Eliminating Parents' Fundamental Rights
Thu, Nov 2, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI—The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has submitted a friend of the court brief to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of itself and six United States Congressmen urging the Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Fields v. Palmdale School District, which held that public schools may impart any sexually based information to elementary school children as the schools sees fit, even if parents would object on religious or moral grounds.

In the case, children between seven and ten years of age in the Palmdale school district, without their parents’ informed consent, were administered a sexually explicit survey asking whether they agreed with statements such as “Can’t stop thinking about sex,” “Touching my private parts too much,” “Touching other people’s private parts,” and “Not trusting people because they might want to have sex.” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the parents who challenged the school district’s practice.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “The far-left liberal agenda is to use our public education system to drive a wedge between parents and their children on moral, social, and religious issues. This case is an example of how court opinions by activist judges are supporting that agenda. The Supreme Court needs to reaffirm that the fundamental rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children extends even while their children are attending public schools.”

Joining the brief are Representatives Tim Murphy (R-PA), Rob Bishop (R-UT), Tom Feeney (R-FL), Louis Gohmert (R-TX), Patrick McHenry (R-NC), and Paul Ryan (R-WI). Representative Murphy authored and sponsored House Resolution 547, which expressed the sense of the House of Representatives that the Ninth Circuit deplorably infringed on parental rights in the Fields case. Representatives Bishop, Feeney, Gohmert, McHenry, and Ryan were co-sponsors of the Resolution, which the House of Representatives overwhelmingly adopted.

The Law Center is concerned about the disturbingly strong language used in the Ninth Circuit’s opinion:

Parents have no constitutional right “to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so.”
The only choice parents have is whether or not to enroll their children in public school.
Once in school, the parents have no authority over what their children are taught.
The school can teach the children anything it wants … short of committing treason.

According to Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Law Center, “A key issue in this case is whether parents’ constitutional rights over the upbringing of their children still apply while the children attend public school. Public schools should not be places where schools do as they please with children.”

N.J. Supreme Court Ruling Opening Door to Same-Sex Marriages, A Wake-Up Call
Thu, Oct 26, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled yesterday that same-sex couples are entitled to all the rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite–sex couples. The Court ordered the state legislature to enact legislation within 180 days that would either include same-sex couples in the existing marriage laws, or create a parallel statutory structure. Gay activists hailed the Court’s decision as an enormous victory.

The ruling overturned two lower court decisions that had dismissed the complaint brought by seven same-sex couples, which alleged that state restrictions of marriage to the union of one man and one woman violated the liberty and equal protection guarantees of the state constitution. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex unions despite the fact that current state law defines marriage as between one man and one woman and despite the fact the court acknowledged there is no fundamental right to same –sex marriages.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, condemned the ruling, “The New Jersey Supreme Court has engaged in a reckless act of social engineering and judicial activism which, if allowed to stand, will have bitter consequences for society in the future. No consideration was given to the instability the Court’s social experimentation will have on society as they cavalierly detached marriage from procreation and the traditional family of one man and one woman. This decision should be a wake-up call to the vast majority of Americans who oppose same-sex marriages. Perhaps the chief lesson of yesterday’s decision is the importance of providing traditional marriage with constitutional protection.”

In 2004, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, collaborated with the Coalition For The Protection Of Marriage and other pro-family groups, such as the American Family Association of Michigan, to draft and secure passage of Michigan’s Marriage Amendment. When opponents of the amendment claimed it was unnecessary because Michigan law limited marriage to the union of one man and one woman, the Center warned that a constitutional amendment was the best guarantee against a redefinition of marriage by an activist court.

Patrick T. Gillen, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who drafted Michigan’s Marriage Amendment for the Coalition, noted another lesson to be learned from the decision. “The defense of traditional marriage was fatally compromised by the Attorney General’s failure to defend the role that marriage plays in promoting the true good of the spouses and children who enter the family. Once society fails to appreciate these essential goods of marriage, damage to the family and, ultimately, the common good, becomes inevitable.”

Last week Gillen appeared before the Michigan Supreme Court in a case where the Law Center argues that Michigan’s Marriage Amendment prohibits public schools from recognizing and subsidizing same-sex domestic partnerships. Yesterday, the Law Center filed an appeal from a decision dismissing its claim that the Marriage Amendment prohibits Michigan State University from recognizing and subsidizing same-sex domestic partnership benefits. In both cases the courts refused to rule on the merits of the claim, dismissing the suits based on narrow jurisdictional grounds.

Currently, Massachusetts is the only state that has authorized same-sex marriages. Two other states, Vermont and Connecticut authorize civil unions. Nineteen states have adopted constitutional amendments that explicitly ban samesex marriages. On November 7th eight additional states will be voting on constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages — Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and 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.

Thomas More Law Center Decries Supreme Court Refusal To Review Decision Penalizing Sea Scouts For Policy Excluding Gays And Atheists
Mon, Oct 23, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, expressed its disappointment that last week the United States Supreme Court declined to review a California Supreme Court decision allowing the City of Berkeley, CA to deprive the Sea Scouts of free berthing privileges given to other nonprofit organizations because the Sea Scouts refused to repudiate their association with the Boy Scouts of America and its policy requiring exclusion of gays and atheists.

The Sea Scouts are a public service organization that serves local youth by teaching them to sail and learn other skills such as carpentry and plumbing. It is associated with the Boy Scouts of America and must abide by BSA’s policy excluding gays and atheists.

The Law Center had filed a friend of the court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case of Evan v. City of Berkeley. The Law Center’s brief argues that Berkeley’s decision to strip the Sea Scouts of a benefit extended to other public service organizations because the City disagrees with BSA’s policy places an unconstitutional condition on receipt of public benefits that violates the First Amendment.

Patrick T. Gillen, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who authored the brief, observed that Berkeley’s policy is a blatant effort to penalize the Sea Scouts for an exercise of their First Amendment rights. “The Supreme Court’s decision lets a truly tragic injustice stand. In this case militant homosexual activists have victimized the underprivileged in a vindictive effort to punish anyone associated with the Boy Scouts of America.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “It is disappointing that the Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to reverse an outrageous example of how homosexuals use the powers of government to discriminate against an outstanding youth group in order to force compliance with their worldview on sex, marriage and religion.”

Thomas More Law Center Files Brief Supporting Right of Sea Scouts To Exclude Gays And Atheists
Wed, Sep 27, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has filed a brief in support of a petition for certiorari, which the Sea Scouts have filed with the United States Supreme Court. The Law Center seeks reversal of the California Supreme Court’s decision that allowed the City of Berkeley to deprive the Sea Scouts of free berthing privileges given to other nonprofit organizations because the Sea Scouts refused to repudiate their association with the Boy Scouts of America and its policy requiring exclusion of gays and atheists.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “This is a clear example of how radical homosexuals using the powers of government attempt to coerce compliance with their world views on sex, marriage and religion.”

The United States Supreme Court, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, recognized that the Scout’s policy was an exercise of expressive association protected by the First Amendment. In the aftermath of Dale, the City of Berkeley demanded that the Sea Scouts repudiate its association with BSA’s policy and, when the Sea Scouts’ failed Berkeley’s litmus test, the City stripped the Sea Scouts of the free berth extended to public service organizations. The California Supreme Court rejected the Sea Scout’s claim that Berkeley’s decision to strip them of free berths violated their First Amendment right to expressive association. The Law Center’s brief argues that Berkeley’s decision to strip the Sea Scouts’ of a benefit extended to other public service organizations because the City disagrees with BSA’s policy places an unconstitutional condition on receipt of public benefits that violates the First Amendment.

Patrick T. Gillen, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who authored the brief, observed that Berkeley’s policy is a blatant effort to penalize the Sea Scouts for an exercise of their First Amendment rights. “Berkeley may believe that the Sea Scouts should repudiate the BSA and its decision to exclude gays and atheists in order to promote a lifestyle that is “morally straight” but the First Amendment prohibits the government from denying benefits to citizens simply because they refuse to abide by government orthodoxy. Berkeley’s effort to make the Sea Scouts pay for exercising their right to expressive association should be struck down.”

Federal Appellate Court Hands Traditional Marriage Another Victory
Tue, Jul 18, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – On Friday, July 14th, a federal appeals court reversed a lower federal court ruling that had struck down Nebraska’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. The constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages had been passed by seventy per cent of that state’s voters in 2000.

In Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reinstated Nebraska's constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In a first such ruling by a federal appeals court, a three-judge panel unanimously held that Nebraska voters had not violated the Constitution by seeking to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, since "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests."

The opinion was written by Chief Judge James B. Loken and joined by Circuit Judges Bowman and Smith. Writing for the court, Judge Loken held that the express intent of traditional marriage laws to encourage heterosexual couples to bear and raise children in committed relationships is a legitimate state interest.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, advised the Nebraska Attorney General's office in the case, and also filed an amicus brief arguing that the Nebraska marriage protection amendment did not violate the Constitution's equal protection jurisprudence as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). The Eighth Circuit panel spent the majority of its opinion on precisely this issue, agreeing with the Thomas More Law Center that the Nebraska constitutional amendment is "rationally related to a legitimate government interest" under the Romer analysis.

According to Kim Daniels, the Trial Counsel for the Law Center who authored the amicus brief on behalf of the Law Center, "The Eighth Circuit's unanimous opinion in Bruning represents a significant step forward in the fight to preserve traditional marriage. The Nebraska voters who overwhelmingly passed this amendment have been vindicated, and it's heartening to finally see a federal appeals court affirm that citizens have the right to enact laws preserving the institution of marriage."

Amicus briefs supporting Nebraska’s position were submitted by eleven other states, numerous public interest organizations, the Nebraska Catholic Conference and members of the Nebraska Legislature.

Earlier in the month, the highest courts in New York and Georgia rejected attempts to gain marriage rights for same- sex couples.

On July 5th, the Thomas More Law Center filed a lawsuit against Michigan State University (MSU) challenging that institution’s recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships for the purpose of providing benefits. The lawsuit claims that MSU’s policy violates Michigan’s Marriage Amendment, passed by the voters in 2004, which provides that “the union of one man and one women in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose,” as well as Michigan statues that prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages.

Michigan State University Sued By the Thomas More Law Center To Stop Its Recognition of Same Sex Marriages
Wed, Jul 5, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, today filed a lawsuit in Ingham County Circuit Court challenging Michigan State University’s recognition of same sex unions for the purpose of providing benefits to “MSU-recognized same-sex domestic partners.”

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the American Family Association of Michigan, a non-profit organization that promotes the welfare of children through the preservation of the traditional family.

The lawsuit claims that Michigan State University (MSU) is in violation of the Marriage Amendment to Michigan’s Constitution, which 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,” and Michigan statutes that prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages. The language of the constitutional amendment was crafted by Patrick T. Gillen, Trial Counsel with the Law Center, and Gary Glenn, President of the American Family Association of Michigan and then adopted by Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, the group that led the successful 2004 campaign to amend the state constitution.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “Clearly, this publicly funded university is thumbing its nose at the will of the people and the legislature by creating its own laws of marriage and divorce.”

Michigan State University provides benefits to same-sex domestic partners if they file a declaration of domestic partnership demonstrating that they: (1) are of the same sex and for that reason unable to marry each other under Michigan law; (2) are in a long term-committed relationship, have been in that relationship for six months and intend to remain together indefinitely; (3) are not legally married to others and neither has another domestic partner; (4) are at least 18 years of age and have capacity to contract; (5) are not related to one another closely enough to bar marriages in Michigan; (6) share a residence and have done so for more than 6 months; and (7) provide a signed “partnership agreement” that obligates each of the parties to provide support for one another, and provides for substantially equal divisions, upon termination of the relationship and any property acquired with those earnings.

MSU, by its own set of detailed rules also sets forth the process for obtaining what amounts to same sex divorces. The MSU employee who wishes to remove a former same-sex partner from benefits files an affidavit of termination of domestic partnership and registers the “life event” with MSU’s benefits department.

Patrick T. Gillen, the Law Center’s attorney handling the case said that MSU’s policy is a transparent effort to circumvent the Marriage Amendment and state law. According to Gillen, “The constitution and laws of Michigan are designed to protect marriage and refuse recognition to same-sex unions, including same-sex domestic partnerships. Common sense and history demonstrate the enduring value of the traditional family, and its vital role in promoting the good of spouses and children, as well as the common good of society. MSU is not free to disregard state law to promote its own definition of marriage and use state funds to promote its experiment with the family.”

The suit seeks a declaration that MSU’s decision to define and recognize same-sex domestic partnerships for the purpose of providing benefits to MSU-recognized same-sex domestic partners violates the constitution and laws of the State of Michigan. The Law Center also seeks an injunction preventing MSU from recognizing and subsidizing same-sex domestic partnerships through the provision of benefits paid for with state money.