court battle
Update on Perry v Schwarzenegger Case
Friends of Utah Voices,
I wanted to share with you this latest update from the Prop 8 campaign. Obviously, UtahVoices.com provides you bloggers from all sides of the political spectrum. This post shows my strong beliefs for keeping the traditional definition of marriage being between one man and one woman. Since it seems I have been the only blogger to share my opinions as of late you definitely are getting a one sided opinion. If you would rather read a post supporting gay marriage, I recommend Crystal’s post, A Liberal LDS Perspective on Prop 8.
I strongly believe that the institute of marriage has never been, and was never intended to be, merely the union of any two adults who have formed a strong emotional bond. Marriage has always been the way society ensures that every child, to the degree possible, is raised by his or her own mother and father. To destroy this bedrock foundation of marriage is to unravel the ties that bind society together across the generations. Andy Pugno makes this case eloquently in his remarks below. If we are to defend marriage we must understand why it exists, and Mr. Pugno is tremendously helpful in this regard. I hope you enjoy his comments.
Keep up the Fight,
Paul
———————————————————————–
Dear Friends,
As you know, we are still in the thick of the Perry v Schwarzenegger trial. Both sides have submitted post-trial briefs to Chief Judge Vaughn Walker for his review. Closing arguments have yet to be scheduled.
Essentially, our post-trial submissions “connect the dots” between our legal arguments and the hard evidence we put forth during the three weeks of courtroom proceedings in January. This email will provide a snapshot of some of those arguments and evidence. Look for more discussion of our legal defense of traditional marriage in coming emails.
A primary foundation of our case is the history of the institution of marriage itself and the central role it has played for centuries in societies all across the globe. Historic marriage has its roots in pairing a man to a woman and has served as the foundation of the family and society as a whole. In fact, across societies, marriage has been defined in both law and language as a union between a man and a woman and acts as the predominate relationship in which to create and support children. As we have noted previously, and one of our expert witnesses spent a great deal of time addressing, the purpose of marriage through the ages has been and continues to be the “guarantee, insofar as possible, that each child is emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with the woman and the man whose sexual union brought the child into the world.”
And while it is true that the traditional model of marriage between a man and a woman has been disputed of late in the United States, a set of universal functions of marriage remains:
- Complementing nature with culture to ensure the reproductive cycle;
- Providing children with both a mother and a father whenever possible;
- Providing children with their biological parents whenever possible;
- Bringing men and women together for both practical and symbolic purposes; and,
- Providing men with a stake in family and society.
In addition, there are corresponding universal features of the institution of marriage, which include the following:
- High social and legal authority and attractive incentives supporting the institution;
- Maleness and femaleness;
- A definition of eligible partners;
- A public dimension;
- Encouragement of procreation under specific conditions;
- Mutual support between men and women and duties toward children; and
- An emphasis on complementary parental roles and relationships.
Simply put, to change the definition of marriage that has served California, the United States and every other country on Earth to include anything other than one man and one woman would result in such a profound change to the structure and public meaning of marriage as to severely damage society, possibly beyond repair.
As we indicate in our Findings of Fact court brief, “no society has established same-sex marriage as a cultural norm. Leading linguists, lawyers, philosophers, and social scientists have always understood marriage to be uniquely concerned with regulating naturally procreative relationships between men and women and providing for the nurture and care of the children who result from those relationships.”
This is precisely what we are fighting for, what your vote in favor of Proposition 8 was predicated upon, and what we need your support to help preserve. With your support we will continue to put our best legal minds to work throughout this arduous process.
We will continue to share with you, our partners in this epic battle, the core components of our legal case.
Sincerely,
Andy Pugno
General Counsel