The Daily Labor Report published by Bloomberg Law discussed CLDEF as a social conservative organization that filed a brief in the Zarda case.
Bill Olson Speaks at Anti-Obergefell Rally on Supreme Court Steps
Obergefell Protest
Obergefell Protest
Today, Bill Olson was one of a dozen speakers at an anti-Obergefell rally on the steps of the Supreme Court. The rally protesting the third anniversary of the Obergefell decision was sponsored by Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. The other speakers included David Arthur, a former transgender/homosexual prostitute, who now serves the Lord and runs Belong Amen! Ministries and Coach Dave Daubenmire of Pass the Salt Ministries.
Video
Ban on Sexual Orientation Change Therapy
This article in LIFESITE quotes from the CLDEF brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in Welch v. Brown.
First Amendment Rights at State in Gay Marriage Case
Cliff Kincaid discusses CLDEF’s brief in the Obergefell case in this article for Accuracy in Media.
Stormans, Inv. v. Wiesman
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.
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt
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)
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.
United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor
(defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act)
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.
Dennis Hollingsworth v. Kristin Perry
(defending California’s Proposition 8 constitutional definition of marriage)
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.