Dr. Wilkins: California Marriage Decision will Have Serious Long-term Consequences

Last week's decision by the California Supreme Court to legalize same-sex "marriage" is sending shock waves around the world. Dr. Richard Wilkins, a constitutional law professor and legal expert on marriage and managing director of the Doha International Institute for Family Studies and Development, Qatar Foundation, issued the following statement today to United Families International:

The recent decision of the California Supreme Court redefining marriage demonstrates the continued willingness of unelected judges to overturn – and frankly ignore – the will of the people on a vital issue of social policy that lies at the core of any successful society. The decision to alter dramatically the meaning of marriage in California will have long-term (and as yet not fully known but nevertheless serious) consequences. The decision, at the very least, flies in the face of mounting evidence that children need (and deserve) the care of a father and a mother. The decision also ignores the now undisputable facts that altering the historic meaning of marriage destabilizes the institution of marriage and weakens its vitally important social roles. For example, in countries that have had same-sex "marriage" for a significant period of time (e.g., the Netherlands), marriage rates are at all-time historic lows, the number of children born out of wedlock are at all-time historic highs and marital dissolution rates have reached all-time historic levels.

The People of California must act – dramatically and quickly – to place a constitutional amendment preserving marriage on the ballot. The meaning of marriage involves much more than a simple question of “equality.” Rather, it involves a broad range of issues that go to the very core of the social processes that make civilization possible. Those who support marriage as the union of a man and a woman are not driven by animus toward those with diverse sexual orientations. On the contrary, they are driven by well-founded concern for the future of their children, grandchildren and generations of Californians yet unborn.

Dr. Wilkins has in a most articulate manner put the California situation in proper perspective. The decision of the court was short-sighted.

California’s Supreme Court Declares Marriage Unconstitutional

California’s Supreme Court refused today to recognize a “compelling state interest” in traditional marriage:

"We cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

By a 4-3 decision, the court struck down Proposition 22, which defined marriage as one man and one woman. That initiative won by a landslide 61-39 percent margin.

High courts in other jurisdictions, including New York and Maryland, have in fact found a compelling interest for their states to recognize only marriage between one man and one woman. The California court could have done likewise, but chose not to.

Justices voting in the majority were:

Chief Justice Ronald George, who wrote the opinion. He was appointed by former Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, in 1991.

Justice Joyce Kennard, appointed by Republican Gov. George Deukmejian in 1989.

Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, appointed in 1994 by Gov. Wilson.

Justice Carlos Moreno, appointed in 2001 by Gov. Gray Davis.

Dissenting:

Justice Marvin Baxter, appointed by Gov. Deukmejian in 1990. He accused the court of substituting “its own social policy views for those expressed by the people.”

Justice Ming Chin, a 1996 Wilson appointee.

Justice Carol Corrigan, a 2005 appointee of current Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Today's ruling will have unintended consequences. The ruling will allow legal same-sex “marriages” in 30 days and puts men, women and children at risk. Taxpayers will pay out more in social agency costs as a result of today's decisions. The nations that do allow same-sex “marriage” have shown high rates of domestic violence rates in the homosexual community, and children do not fare well in homes headed by homosexual adults. The safest place for children is in the homes of married parents of opposite gender.

Abortion on Trial in South Dakota Again

You have to hand it to those avid pro-lifers in South Dakota. For the second straight election cycle, they have qualified a ballot initiative in an attempt to limit abortions in the homeland of Mount Rushmore – the Shrine to Democracy.

Nothing is more central to democracy than the right to life.

Initiated Measure 11, if passed by voters November 4th, would ban any abortions not deemed necessary to preserve the lives or health of women and in cases of rape or incest.

A more restrictive ban passed by the Legislature lost at the ballot box in 2006, 56-44 percent. That initiative lacked exceptions.

Credit the group VoteYesForLife.com for leading the effort to protect the unborn children of South Dakota for collecting the necessary signatures for the new ballot measure.

The 2008 initiative looks like a good bet to win. However, South Dakota will no doubt see a celebrity parade of pro-choice sympathizers coming into the state. We suggest that anyone with any doubts about the right to life for all pre-born children and the harms of abortion to utilize the following two resources:

UFI’s “Guide to Family Issues: Abortion”

Report of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion

Abstinence Education Under Fire Despite Great Success

On Tuesday, speakers at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., announced that two new studies have joined the growing list of research demonstrating the efficacy of abstinence education. Despite a plethora of evidence to this effect, Democrats in Congress still want to discontinue or reduce federal funding of abstinence education. A study by Dr. Stan Weed, of the Institute of Research and Evaluation, evaluated the role of abstinence education in decreasing the sexual activity of students in Virginia’s middle schools. The program achieved a significant reduction in teen sexual initiation. Also, Christine Kim and Robert Rector, of The Heritage Foundation, released their comprehensive review of 21 previous studies of the effectiveness of abstinence and virginity pledge programs. Sixteen of the 21 studies of abstinence education reported lower levels of sexual activity among students who had studied abstinence. It is not surprising that new studies confirm what we have known all along: discussing and teaching abstinence provides a valuable service to children and their families. The focus on condoms in so-called “safe-sex” education classes cannot compare to abstinence education in any way. Nevertheless, Congress needs to recognize the success of abstinence education and appropriate federal funding.

Today, Congressman Henry Waxman (Democrat, California), an aggressive opponent of abstinence education, brought in seven witnesses to testify to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is deliberating on federal funding options for sexual education. Waxman stacked the deck with anti-abstinence education witnesses. Six of the seven witnesses testifying opposed abstinence education. As the only witness offering testimony on the efficacy of abstinence education, Dr. Weed pointed out that most studies demonstrate that abstinence education clearly works better than comprehensive “safe-sex” education and its reliance on encouraging teens to be sexually active and use condoms.

The Heritage Foundation Study

UFI President in Kosovo to Address Constitutional Issues

UFI President Carol Soelberg is in Pristina, Kosovo working with pro-family/pro-life coalition allies for the purpose of commenting on the draft of a new constitution’s treatment of social values. Carol filed this report:

I am safely in Kosovo. It was a long, but good trip. I am meeting many wonderful people here and our agenda continues to add new appointments. Our goal is to actually start a few grassroots organizations that will help convey our message when we leave. Our fear is that the newly formed government is moving from "dependence" under the ruling of the United Nations to unelected international bureaucrats, as opposed to their own independent rule.

The man who picked me up from the airport told me a fascinating story. He is an Albanian and has lived here with his family all his life. In 1999, all Albanians were called to the city center for a "rally." When they arrived, they learned that they were all to be killed on the spot. The commander in charge could not bring himself to do such a dastardly deed, so he put all 8,000 people in trucks and drove them to Albania, where they had to stay for three months until things settled down some. They left without any clothes or supplies, but were grateful to be alive.

Our coalition team of legal and human rights experts is meeting with top government officials and religious leaders about the draft constitution. The team comes from some of the most influential non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the United States and Europe that focus on social policies related to constitutional and international law, human rights and international institutions. I am representing United Families International here. The team consists of members from: the Alliance Defense Fund, Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute, Concerned Women for America, Chrétiens Démocrates Fédéraux, Action pour la famille-Actie, Educational Initiative for Central and Eastern Europe, Human Life International, Alliance of Romania's Families and Advocates Europe.

The group is concerned that aspects of the draft constitution removes any ability for Kosova to determine what issues are constitutionally protected. For instance, language in the draft could be misinterpreted to promote certain rights including special rights for “sexual orientation” leading to same-sex “marriage," a right to abortion. The coaliton is also concerned that the draft could violate the rights of conscience of Kosovar professionals and limit speech, media, assembly and association, preventing any public expression of unpopular viewpoints – the viewpoints that most need constitutional protection.

We are meeting with senior government officials and we also held a press conference today. This weekend, the group will provide a lecture at the University of Pristina and meet with religious leaders.

Our purpose is to comment on the substance of the constitution, not to address the question of independence.

UFI vs. European Union: The Fight to Keep Abortion Rights Language out of UN Document

Marcia Barlow, UFI’s director of international policy, is at the United Nations attending the annual International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). She filed this report today:

What seemed like a very tame day Wednesday turned out to be not so great. Late that day, Nan Kennelly, leader of the U.S. delegation here, introduced family-friendly language to the ICPD’s outcome document, in several places. She used language that I drafted -- eight words in total. The United States delegation is one of the key allies for UFI and our coalition efforts to defend the traditional family from the ongoing assault by anti-family change agents.The family language is included the document at present, but isn’t popular. Kennelly said that when she introduced the language there was a "huge groan" from the assembly of delegations. The negotiating group permitted the European Union (EU) to pack the document with sexual and reproductive health services language. Thus, the standoff that we face at all of these social conferences at the UN was set.

The EU refuses to accept any descriptive terms that refer to the traditional family in singular terms, preferring instead to promote the more politically correct term “families.” As in the multiple forms of families -- broken, headed by homosexual adult(s) and cohabiting households that result in extraordinary costs to government social agencies. UFI believes it is in the best interests of governments to work to strengthen marriages and the family in order to assure healthy communities which require less drain on taxpayer-funded social costs. A group of EU member nations introduced an amendment to the ICPD document which would add three sentences on “reproductive health services” – code language for abortion. Now we've got a real problem. Our pro-family coalition was greatly alarmed by this development. It will take hard work to remove the reproductive health services language, and it may result in losing the pro-family language introduced by the U.S. That is precisely what has happened during past ICPD assemblies.

It is pretty much a waiting game now. We have our usual vigil going outside the negotiating room. Utilizing UFI’s “United Nations Negotiating Guide,” we are pulling up all the past conference documents and language precedents that we can to refute the bad language and we are doing everything we can to persuade delegations to remove the EU-preferred terminology.
More as things develop …