CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Darin Miller, (866) FRC-NEWS or (866) 372-6397
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Family Research Council (FRC) and the Thomas More Society (TMS) of Chicago, Illinois, today announced the filing of amicus briefs opposing the lower court decisions in the two marriage cases the U.S. Supreme Court will hear in late March, 2013. Hollingsworth v. Perry comes to the Court out of the Proposition 8 litigation in California. United States v. Windsor involves a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and arose out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Paul B. Linton, J.D., of the Thomas More Society served as counsel of record in the cases. FRC's Chris Gacek, J.D., Ph.D., worked with him on the briefs. Family Research Council played a key role in the passage of DOMA in 1996 and takes a great interest in erroneous and misguided challenges to its constitutionality. FRC also believes that Proposition 8's constitutionality is unassailable.
Chris Gacek, an expert on the federal Defense of Marriage Act, is senior fellow for regulatory affairs at the Family Research Council. Peter Sprigg is senior fellow for policy studies at FRC.
Of the cases FRC President Tony Perkins said:
"The health of our nation's families determines the strength of our nation. Redefining marriage only undermines the societal purpose of marriage which has always been to build healthy families and provide children with both a mom and a dad.
"The Supreme Court must strike down the lower court decisions against the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8. DOMA was completely appropriate in 1996, when it passed bipartisanly through Congress and was signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton. The uniformity in federal law it creates by explicitly confirming that 'marriage' would be between one man and one woman for federal purposes ensures equal treatment under law for all Americans. Americans have overwhelmingly decided to uphold this definition of marriage, as a significant majority of states in the U.S. consider marriage to be between one man and one woman.
"Additionally, we believe the people's vote on Proposition 8 should be respected. It is the constitutional right of the people to create their own state laws where the federal Constitution has not already ruled. Activist courts like the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should not overturn the vote of the people. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize the right of voters to uphold natural marriage as the law of their state," concluded Perkins.
FRC-TMS Amicus brief in United States v. Windsor: http://www.frc.org/legalbrief/amicus-brief-hollingsworth-v-perry
FRC-TMS amicus brief in Hollingsworth v. Perry: http://www.frc.org/legalbrief/amicus-brief-us-v-windsor