More reactions by various individuals and groups concerning the decision by the high court on 2015-JAN-16 to hear appeals:
Tony Perkins, is president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian para-church organization. It has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-gay hate group.
1 He wrote:
"The U.S. Supreme Court now has the opportunity to issue a long-overdue ruling to restore the freedom of the people to uphold marriage in their state laws as the union of a man and a woman. Lower court judges have robbed millions of people of their voice and vote on society's most fundamental relationship -- marriage.
There is nothing in the Constitution that empowers the courts to silence the people and impose a nationwide redefinition of marriage.
Voters in thirty states have adopted, by referendum, state constitutional amendments to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In exercising their right to vote, they sent a message that that they want to see society rebuild and strengthen marriage -- not have it redefined by unelected judges. At present, courts have overturned the peoples' votes on marriage in 20 states. This is unacceptable in a nation that prides itself on being a place where the people rule.
"The union between one man and one woman will continue to be uniquely important to society because it is timeless and universal. This is a discussion that now has made its way to the nation's highest court, whose ruling will speak loudly to whether self-government still matters in a country claiming that 'We, the People rule'." 2
Adam Liptak, writing for the New York Times, said:
"The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether all 50 states must allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, positioning it to resolve one of the great civil rights questions in a generation before its current term ends in June. ..."
"The plaintiffs said they have a fundamental right to marry and to be treated as opposite-sex couples are, adding that bans they challenged demeaned their dignity, imposed countless practical difficulties, and inflicted particular harm on their children.
The pace of change on same-sex marriage, in both popular opinion and in the courts, has no parallel in the nation‚s history. ..."
In a remarkable and largely unbroken line of more than 40 decisions, state and federal courts relied on the [U.S. Supreme Court's] Windsor decision [of 2014-JUN-26] to rule in favor of same-sex marriage. 3
Jon W. Davidson, the legal director of Lambda Legal.
"We are finally within sight of the day when same-sex couples across the country will be able to share equally in the joys, protections and responsibilities of marriage."
Tom Goldstein is a lawyer in Washington, DC who handles many cases before the Supreme Court. He said:
"It's impossible to overstate the historic significance of a decision on such a fundamental piece of our social fabric." 4
Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, another group promoting marriage equality, said:
"The Supreme Court‚s decision today begins what we hope will be the last chapter in our campaign to win marriage nationwide, and it‚s time." 5
Bill Schuette (R), the Attorney General of Michigan, said:
"This case involves people of good will, sincerely motivated, on both sides. All of Michigan's voters, as well as the citizens of our nation, will be well served by the court's decision to decide this case and resolve such an important issue. Therefore, I am pleased that the Supreme Court has chosen to review this case, so that important issues involving the fundamental institution of marriage, our Constitution, and the rights of voters will be decided." 5
Among individuals involved in the Michigan case who promote marriage equality:
Plaintiff April DeBoer said:
"We saw something wrong and we wanted to make it right. Stand up for what you believe, cause that's what we are doing. ... We have a long road ahead of us. A long fight ahead of us." 6
Jayne Rowse, the other plaintiff, said:
"We're in awe that this day has happened. ... It's overwhelming. This is just so overwhelming," 7
Dana Nessel, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said:
"This case has been a long time coming. ... It's been a long road and journey but hopefully soon we'll know that it's worth the wait and we very much hope that when our case is heard and when there is a decision by the Supreme Court that marriage equality will be the law of the land not just here in Michigan but for all 50 states." 6
CITIZENLink is a partner of the fundamentalist Christian group Focus on the Family. They distributed a "special alert" via email, saying:
"At issue is the right of a state to define marriage in its constitution and decide whether to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. 8
Bruce Hausknecht, a judicial analyst at Focus on the Family, a fundamentalist Christian group, wrote:
"There are 30 states where voters approved constitutional amendments in order to keep the state courts out of the marriage redefining business. However, that didn‚t prevent federal courts from stepping in and trampling the will and wisdom of those citizens.
‚Once before, we watched the Supreme Court mandate a 50-state solution to a social issue in the abortion case of Roe v. Wade. That set off a cultural conflict that is still going strong, 42 years later. Even the liberal members of the Supreme Court today have criticized the Court back then for jumping into that issue that was working itself out at the state level. The question now is: Will those same justices learn from the mistakes of the past, or repeat them?
The bottom line on marriage is that no matter how much the courts interfere, they can‚t really change the true definition of marriage, and they can‚t change what is best for kids: a married mom and dad." 9