The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a nonprofit public
interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, late Friday afternoon (Nov. 7),
filed an amicus brief (friend of the court brief) in the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals urging the Court to affirm a lower federal district court decision
which upheld Louisiana’s traditional marriage law.
 |
| Stacy Swimp (second two right) leads the coalition of black pastors at the TMLC press conference discussing their National strategy to defend traditional marriage |
Louisiana’s marriage law affirms the definition of marriage
as the union only between one man and one woman and was passed by 78% of the
state’s voters. The Louisiana lawsuit filed by homosexual activists sought to
use judicial power to overturn the will of the people. However, Louisiana Federal District Court
Judge Martin C. Feldman ruled that Louisiana was under no constitutional
obligation to recognize so-called “same-sex marriage,” and that its state law
was “anchored to the democratic process.”
The plaintiffs appealed his ruling to the Fifth
Circuit. In support of Judge Feldman’s
decision, TMLC’s brief stated:
If “marriage” means whatever a political activist, a
cherry-picked plaintiff, or an appointed judge wants it to mean, it means
nothing. If it has no fixed meaning, it is merely a vessel for a judge’s will.
It is used as a subterfuge for judicial legislation. And as Montesquieu
observed: “There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the
shield of law and in the name of justice.”
As a part of its national strategy to defend traditional
marriage, TMLC formed a team of lawyers to file friend of the court briefs
(amicus briefs) on behalf of the National Coalition of Black Pastors and
Christian leaders. The team consists of
TMLC’s senior trial counsel, Erin Mersino, and Co-counsels William R. Wagner
and John S. Kane of Lansing, Michigan. The team is tasked with filing briefs in
significant cases dealing with the issue of traditional marriage.
The Law Center’s briefs reflect the view of a majority of
African-Americans: that discrimination because of one’s sexual preference is
not the same thing as racial discrimination and that tradition and morality
should not be discarded as a basis of the law; as the pro-homosexual judges
have done in their opinions.
TMLC’s brief is the fourth brief filed on behalf of the
National Coalition of Black Pastors and Christian Leaders. It presents the
unique perspective of African American religious leaders that discrimination
because of one’s sexual preference is not the same thing as racial
discrimination.
“Same-sex attracted individuals have never lawfully been
forced to attend different schools, walk on separate public sidewalks, sit at
the back of the bus, drink out of separate drinking fountains, denied their
right to assemble, or denied their voting rights. The legal history of these disparate
classifications, i.e., immutable racial discrimination and same-sex attraction,
is in-congruent. Yet, courts continue to mistakenly draw upon this in-congruence
as the basis for what they now deem “marriage equality.”
TMLC’s brief also countered same sex marriage arguments
based on the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia in which the US Supreme Court
overturned Virginia’s laws prohibiting interracial marriages. The Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia,
solely analyzed a state law that wrongfully condoned racial discrimination in
the context of traditional marriage. The
case did not address redefining marriage beyond the scope of the union between
one man and one woman.
As a member of the Coalition, Bishop Samuel Smith of the
Apostolic World Christian Fellowship consisting of 25, 000 churches worldwide
representing over 5 million laity, avows: “Marriage was defined by God. Not by government. Government has no right to
redefine marriage and destroy the meaning of family.”
SOME EXCERPTS FROM TMLC’S BRIEF (“Appellants” refers to
Plaintiffs)
“The “marriage equality” slogan is self-defeating, because
it is a standard-less standard that renders “marriage” equally meaningless for
all. See id. at 269-75 (discussing that the logic of Plaintiffs’ position
demands “equal marriage rights” for bigamists, polygamists, same-sex siblings,
and virtually any other arrangement individuals might want to create).”
***
“If “marriage” means fulfilling one’s personal choices
regarding intimacy, as the Appellants insist, it is difficult to see how States
could regulate marriage on any basis. If personal autonomy is the essence of
marriage, then not only gender, but also number, familial relationship, and
even species are insupportable limits on that principle and they all will fall.
This is not just a slippery slope on which the Appellants wish to set us, it is
a bottomless pit into which they desire to throw us.”
***
“The Appellants wish to replace the morality of the
Judeo-Christian tradition on which our country was founded with the trendy,
relativist morality of political correctness.”
***
“As our tradition recognizes, some truths are self-evident.
Among them are that men and women are different. In fact, it is clear from our
very existence that men are made for women, and women for men. None of us would
be here but for that truth. Another self-evident truth is that it is best for
children to be raised by their parents whenever possible. There have been many
theories to the contrary throughout history, but they have all proven vacuous
at best. Public policy that recognizes and acts on these truths is not unfairly
discriminatory. In fact, the only way to have sound public policy is to build
on such truths.”
***
“Louisiana’s legislature and voters, with an overwhelming
majority, affirmed a truth upon which our nation was founded and has flourished
for over two hundred years: that the natural family is the optimal environment
in which children should be raised. Human history, scientific observations of
human biology, and our own experience, common sense and reason tell us that
children come exclusively from opposite sex unions, and children benefit from
being raised by their biological parents whenever possible.”
***
“Marriage should be reinforced, not redefined. This Court
should uphold the District Court’s just ruling and reject the Appellants’
unconstitutional arguments, which undermine the family as the fundamental
building block of our society by destroying the meaning of marriage.”
***
No comments:
Post a Comment