Eugene Delgaudio Has Broad Back Up, Leads Diverse Defense of Marriage at Supreme Court "Maybe One Justice Is Flip flopping "
Public Advocate's legal squad has camped out at the Supreme Court for months with its pleadings and has presented some righteous arguements.
The sheer volume of reasoned argument in favor of the preservation of marriage is simply astounding, and we here at Public Advocate sincerely hope that all goes well in the upcoming court decision.
But then one Justice has always been a flip flopper.
If one Justice wants his hard rock salt bust at the Soddom and Gommorah Temple, he's gonna flip for that same sex clown maxim that old fashioned bible values embraced by referendum majorities prove the opposite of moral principles.
"The twisting liberal logic could make pretzels look straight," says Eugene Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate of the US Inc.
Those policy wonks at the Heritage Foundation have been paying attention to the amount of support being rallied in defense of marriage by an unprecedented mob of pro-family fellow pleaders.
Scholars have filed more than 50 amicus briefs with the Supreme Court urging it to uphold California's Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). While the media seems intent on ignoring these briefs and hyping the briefs on the other side, the sheer number and quality of the briefs in defense of laws recognizing marriage as the union of a man and a woman is impressive.
Austin Nimocks, Senior Counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, explains the significance:
"During the Supreme Court's 2011-2012 term, an average of only 10 amicus briefs per case were filed. And in the historic landmark case of Roe v. Wade, only 26 total amicus briefs were filed.
By comparison a combined total of 58 amicus briefs were filed in support of Prop 8 and DOMA. The pro-marriage arguments are deep, rich, well-reasoned, common sense- and common good-based, and worthy of serious reflection by the Court and any other American interested in the future of our most important social institution."
Family law expert Helen Alvare argues that society's interest in the upbringing of children and marriage's unique ability to serve that interest explains the government's involvement in marriage. Tracing the consequences of the past half century's "retreat from marriage," and its disparate effects on America's poor, Alvare argues that redefining marriage to exclude sexual complementarity would cause social harms to increase. The consequences of redefining marriage is the focus of the amicus brief that I filed with my co-authors Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis.