Home About Us Contact Shop Donate
U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Marriage in America!
Court must respect the will of the people!


MIAMI-Any day now, the United State Supreme Court will announce its decision in two marriage cases which will decide the fate of marriage in America!  
The first case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, involves a challenge to California’s Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment respecting marriages in California as one man, one woman.  Voters approved the amendment, 52% - 48% in November, 2008. Opponents challenged the law and a federal appeals court eventually ruled it to be unconstitutional. Supporters asked for the Supreme Court to review the ruling. 
The consensus view: The justices will limit the expansion of homosexual so-called "marriage" to California.   
The implications of this unjust decision would mean that despite the will of the people, unelected federal court judges would usurp democracy and set themselves up as super legislators.  
BACKGROUND ON THE PROP. 8 CASE:  In the California case, the message would be that the U.S. Supreme Court does not respect the will of the people.  On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court recklessly and irresponsibly overturned the will of the people of California and imposed homosexual so-called "marriage" on the state.  However, less than six months later, on November 5, 2008, the people of California by 52% majority overruled the California Supreme Court decision and voted to amend their state constitution, known as Proposition 8, to respect marriage as the union of one man, one woman.  The California Supreme Court heard several challenges to Proposition 8 in March 2009, but ultimately upheld the amendment.  However, opponents challenged the law and a federal appeals court eventually ruled it to be unconstitutional. Supporters asked for the Supreme Court to review the ruling. 
In the second case, United States v. Windsor challenges the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law which provides federal benefits only for marriages between one man, one woman.  
The consensus view: On the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), most agree, will the court strike down Section 3, which provides federal benefits only for marriages between one man, one woman.  
BACKGROUND ON THE DOMA CASE: The second case was brought by Edith Windsor, who challenged the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which requires that the federal tax code treat same-sex couples as unmarried. The U.S. Justice Department declined to challenge an appeals court ruling striking down DOMA as unconstitutional, so congressional Republicans hired counsel to defend the act.
In both these marriage cases, the consensus view would continue the blatant violation of the separation of powers by the courts and further undermine the will of the people in our representative democracy.  At which point, only a grassroots movement demanding the impeachment of these justices would properly resolve this matter, as was done in the state of Iowa when voters impeached three state supreme court justices who imposed homosexual so-called "marriage" on the state.