Connect with us:

Center for Arizona Policy jumps into California’s gay-marriage fray

Center for Arizona Policy jumps into California’s gay-marriage fray

The most powerful evangelical Christian advocacy group in Arizona has signed a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to bolster California’s case against gay marriage.

The Center for Arizona Policy announced that it got involved because the case jeopardizes bans on gay marriage in 31 states, including Arizona.

“This ruling could invalidate Arizonan’s vote on the 2008 Marriage Amendment, and sets precedent to overturn any ballot initiative based on the court’s inclination,” said Cathi Herrod, chief lobbyist for The Center for Arizona Policy.

The 30 or so groups that signed the brief argue the U.S. Constitution does not require marriage to exclude same-sex couples. They are appealing a lower court’s ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that struck down California’s ban on gay marriage, which was established by a constitutional amendment that passed as Proposition 8 in 2008.

The brief states, in part: “The people may be wrong, as they often are. The courts, too, may be wrong, as they often are. But this we know: Twice in eight years the people of California declared they want to keep marriage as it has been for time immemorial.”

The Center for Arizona Policy and other groups that signed onto the brief say the initiative process is perhaps the most effective way to gauge the will of the people, and the judge’s decision to overturn California’s ban on gay marriage subverted a critical part of the Democratic process.

– Matt Bunk

  1. Robert

    Cool if we can band the states together with hate on our side. Perhaps we can undermine the rights of a minority and keep them feeling like second class citizens. Just remember God is on our side! even if it is the wrong thing to do!

  2. mishi

    By “marriage as it has been since time immemorial,” do they mean back when King Solomon had 700 wives? IOr back in MIng China, where lesbian marriages were legally sealed? As it’s constituted right now in Saudi Arabia, where a man may have multiple wives? Or when the universe was created 5000 years ago and Sarah Palin’s forefather was riding around on a T. Rex?

  3. E. Bertrand
    E. Bertrand09-27-2010

    I have to say that from where I sit in Massachusetts, the people of the Center for Ariz. Policy look incredibly stupid and short-sighted. Massachusetts has extended the right of marriage equality to its gay and lesbian minority for more than five years and in that time, not a single church, organization, or other interested party has been forced to do anything that it has not voluntarily chosen to do. The churches are as free as they have ever been to bless (or not) same-sex relationships and not a single individual has been forced to do something that violates his or her conscience (with the singular exception of state and local Justices of the Peace – a few of whom have resigned as a result of the ruling).

    GAY MARRIAGE is going to be the law, nationwide, within 20 years. It’s the overwhelming will of the majority of those 35 and under and there is no way that that demographic/sociographic reality can be fought or altered. This fight is, in essence, already over. Wasting time (and incredible amounts of money) fighting what amounts to a futile, rear-guard action is just…sad. There are so many other things over which a good fight would be GOOD for the nation! Gay marriage isn’t one of them.

  4. Thomas Alex
    Thomas Alex09-27-2010

    “subverted a critical part of the Democratic process.”

    You mean the part where a Judges job is to decided whether a law that is enacted by the people is constitutional or not? In this case, the law was found to be unconstitutional. Doesn’t matter how many people vote for a law, if the law is unconstitutional, it will be overturned.

  5. Dolly

    Come On


  6. Benito Musso
    Benito Musso12-07-2010

    I needed to say that it is gtreat to know that somebody talked it over.

Leave a Reply