admin Family and Life

Family & Life

 

The U.S. Constitution was designed to protect the rights of U.S. citizens, but activist federal judges have misused the Constitution to effect social changes that they believe would be good for the country. The Supreme Court has distorted the rights guaranteed to us by the Fourteenth Amendment both to authorize the murder of unborn children and, more recently, to compel recognition of unnatural sexual coupling as if it was morally comparable to Biblically defined marriage.

CLDEF has actively worked to defend against this distortion of the Constitution to fight against the onslaught on the sanctity of life and traditional marriage.

In a recent article, we discussed what is probably Justice Clarence Thomas’ best dissent ever.  Justice Thomas discusses the flawed nature of much of modern constitutional law.  CLDEF’s briefs have brought this same message to the U.S. Supreme Court in dozens of briefs filed over the last 15 years.

Below are some of the Family & Life matters in which CLDEF has been involved.

Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board

admin Family and Life

Today, an amicus brief was filed for CLDEF opposing the Obama Administration’s effort to force open the rest rooms, locker rooms and showers of public schools in Gloucester County, Virginia to members of the opposite sex.

Stormans, Inv. v. Wiesman

admin Family and Life, First Amendment

Today an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the U.S. Supreme Court defending a Christian-owned pharmacy from attack by the Washington State Pharmacy Quality Assurance Commission due to that pharmacy’s refusal to stock and sell abortifacient drugs.  Although the Pharmacy Commission is a government agency, its steps were largely directed by Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest. Read More

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

admin Family and Life, First Amendment

Today, an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting two Texas laws requiring that abortions be performed only at certain types of facilities by physicians with  hospital admission privileges.   The brief set out why the pro-abortion petitioners, and the Obama Administration as amicus curiae, misrepresent to the Court its own abortion jurisprudence.  However, even more importantly, the brief explains why Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.

Moose v. MacDonald
(defending Virginia’s crimes-against-nature laws)

admin Family and Life

Moose v. MacDonald involved a challenge to Virginia’s “crimes against nature” statute.  A federal district judge found that the statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that this law had been invalidated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas.  The state of Virginia sought Supreme Court review. Read More

United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor
(defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act)

admin Family and Life

The Windsor case involved the federal Defense of Marriage Act — a federal law defining marriage as between one man and one woman for purposes of federal law.  The case also addressed the standing of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group — representing the House of Representatives — to defend that statute in federal court after the Obama administration refused to do so. Read More

Dennis Hollingsworth v. Kristin Perry
(defending California’s Proposition 8 constitutional definition of marriage)

admin Family and Life

This case involves a challenge to California Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment which defined “marriage” as between one man and one woman and was approved by a majority of voters in California. California’s government (led first by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and then by Governor Jerry Brown) refused to defend the amendment enacted directly by the people of California, and so the proponents of the amendment stepped in to defend it. Read More

Personhood Oklahoma v. Brittany Mays Barber
(defending proposed amendment to the Oklahoma constitution that life begins at conception)

admin Family and Life

A ballot initiative was proposed in Oklahoma to amend the state constitution to define “person” as “any human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being to natural death.”  The proposal was challenged in state court, and the Supreme Court of Oklahoma blocked the proposed initiative from going forward to the voters on the ballot.  In doing so, the state supreme court misused the Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey to deprive the people of Oklahoma of a power reserved them by the Tenth Amendment.  The proponents of the initiative filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Read More

Awad v. Ziriax, Amicus Brief

admin Family and Life, First Amendment

On November 16, 2010 an amicus brief was filed on behalf of CLDEF in the case of Muneer Awad v. Paul Ziriax, et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Read More