ADF has been involved in many cases defending the family. Our involvement includes case funding, direct litigation and amicus support, mentoring, training, strategic planning and coordination, and other forms of partnership and assistance.
The cases listed are just a random sampling of some of the victories that ADF has been blessed to help enable through the power of an alliance.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rules Against the Exportation
of Same-Sex “Marriage”
By God’s Grace, ADF Attorneys Win a Victory for Marriage in Tennessee
Alleluia! Another Early Christmas Present for America!
You Prayed and God Answered! Pastor Ake Green Acquitted of “Hate Speech”
by Swedish Supreme Court!
Texas Voters Overwhelmingly Pass Constitutional Amendment Affirming Marriage
Oregon Judge Reaffirms the Will of the People…
The People of Kansas Vote to Affirm Marriage Between One Man and One Woman!
ACLU Defeated in Kansas...
Arizona State Supreme Court Says "No" to Same-Sex "Marriage"
Win at the California Supreme Court
The Will of the People Upheld in Ohio and Oklahoma Decision…
Second Win for Marriage Since Lawrence v. Texas Decision…
Same-Sex "Marriage" Defeated Once Again - This Time in ADF's Home State...
ADF Staff Attorney’s Work Plays Vital Role in Preserving Marriage…
Court Strikes Down Same-Sex Partner Subsidies in Philadelphia…
ADF Defeats Pornographers at U.S. Supreme Court…
Children Now Safer at Public Libraries…
ADF Attorney Helps Citizen Battle Strip Club…
Traditional Marriage Upheld in Kansas…
Decency in Cincinnati…
ADF Ally Successfully Defends Marriage in Georgia…
Previous ADF Defense of Marriage Used to Strike Down Same-Sex Partner Subsidies in Alaska…
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rules Against the Exportation
of Same-Sex “Marriage”
In March 2006, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld a law prohibiting
same-sex couples from “marrying” in the commonwealth if their marriage
would be prohibited in their home states.
Out-of-state same-sex couples had filed a lawsuit, seeking to throw out the
protective law, which had been in effect since 1913. Had the law been declared
unconstitutional, travel agents would have rejoiced because out-of-state same-sex
couples may have been allowed to “marry” in Massachusetts, with
the result that many could have attempted to get their home states to recognize
their “marriages.”
ADF attorneys filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case (Cote-Whitacre
v. Department of Health) in defense of the law.
Glen Lavy, Senior Vice-President of ADF’s Marriage Litigation Center
says: “This case has important implications for the rest of the country
with regard to the defense of marriage against activists who are attempting
to destroy it. Marriage has become an extremely emotional issue because political
special interests are trying to reduce it to nothing more than a benefits system
for any two people (two for now!) who say they’re in love. Allowing same-sex
couples from anywhere to marry in Massachusetts would have furthered this destructive
agenda back in their own states.”
We give thanks for this God-given victory that once again proves that same-sex
“marriage” is NOT inevitable!
back to top
By God’s Grace, ADF Attorneys Win a Victory for Marriage in Tennessee
On February 24, 2006, we celebrated another win against the ACLU and its allies
in the ongoing legal battle to let the American people have a say when it comes
to so-called same-sex “marriage”—this time in the state of Tennessee.
A state judge ruled – in a case which ADF attorneys represent members
of the Tennessee state legislature – that the ACLU had no case against
the state’s proposed constitutional amendment protecting marriage as between
one man and one woman. The ACLU claimed that the state General Assembly had
not published the text of the amendment soon enough for it to be included on
the November 2006 ballot. The judge disagreed.
While the ACLU may appeal, this ruling means – barring a reversal –
that Volunteer State voters will get to express their opinion this November
with regard to same-sex “marriage.”
You can read the full text of the order at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ACLUvDarnelldecision.pdf.
Remember, this is the same ACLU whose then-executive director said after Alaskan
voters passed a constitutional amendment affirming marriage: “Today’s
results prove that certain fundamental issues should not be left up to a majority
vote.”
We praise God for another victory in this epic legal battle.
back to top
Alleluia! Another Early Christmas Present for America!
On December 19, 2005, ADF received word of another tremendous victory in the
continuing legal battle to affirm marriage as between one man and one woman.
When the mayor of San Francisco issued his illegal same-sex “marriage”
licenses in February 2004, a number of “sympathetic” municipalities
jumped on the bandwagon and declared that they would legally recognize the pseudo-marriages
of city employees. One such municipality was San Jose, California.
ADF quickly filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Proposition 22 (the state’s
Defense of Marriage Act) Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Values Advocacy
Council against the city’s actions as a violation of marriage as set forth
in the one man/one woman proposition that was passed in 2000 by over sixty percent
of the state’s voters.
State Superior Court Judge Mary Jo Levinger agreed, writing: “This court
hereby finds and declares the San Jose City Council’s March 9, 2004 approval
of … all [pseudo] marriages of City employees certified by other jurisdictions
is contrary to California law and is therefore pre-empted. Furthermore, only
marriages between a man and a woman may be recognized by the City of San Jose…”
You can read the court’s opinion at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/Prop22vSJorder.pdf.
While this news did not make the front page of secular media outlets, this
is a FIVE-STAR victory for the Body of Christ and for marriage – in a
case that some had urged ADF not to file! This proves that once again –
even in California where some public officials have tried to make an end-run
around the law – same-sex “marriage” is not inevitable.
back to top
You Prayed and God Answered! Pastor Ake Green Acquitted of “Hate Speech”
by Swedish Supreme Court!
In late November 2005, the Swedish Supreme Court – in an unanimous
decision - acquitted Pastor Ake Green of charges that he engaged in “hate
speech” when he delivered a sermon on homosexual behavior to his small
church.
This is a MAJOR victory for religious freedom worldwide, as a loss would not
only have sentenced Pastor Green to jail, but also set an international precedent
that radical advocates of homosexual behavior would have attempted to use to
legally silence the uncensored preaching of the Gospel around the globe.
ADF Chief Counsel Benjamin Bull, who traveled to Sweden to advise Pastor Green
and observe the trial, says: “This is a huge international victory for
fundamental human rights, religious freedom, and freedom of speech. Voicing
one’s conscience is a fundamental human right. In this contest between
religious freedom and the radical homosexual agenda, religious freedom prevailed.
As David slew Goliath, Ake Green slew the radical homosexual agenda in this
case. We can only hope that will deter other attempts to censor Christian ministers
from delivering Bible-based messages against harmful homosexual conduct. Ake
Green is a hero and we are grateful for his stand and his perseverance.”
ADF coordinated and funded the filing of friend-of-the-court briefs for the
case as well as the translation of trial transcripts into English. Numerous
international groups have used these transcripts to prepare their friend-of-the-court
briefs on Green’s behalf.
back to top
Texas Voters Overwhelmingly Pass Constitutional Amendment Affirming Marriage On Tuesday, November 8, 2005, Texas became the 19th state to pass a constitutional amendment affirming marriage to be between one man and one woman. Despite deceptive campaign tactics by advocates of homosexual behavior, 76% of Lone Star state voters approved the constitutional amendment.
After the vote, homosexual behavior advocates showed their disdain, not only for the will of the people, but for the processes of democracy itself. Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force said: “All that today’s results show is that it is profoundly wrong and profoundly un-American to put the rights of a small minority of Americans up for a popular vote. This is not democracy; this is the tyranny of the majority.” (See Susan Jones, “Texas Voters Pass Marriage Protection Amendment,” CNSNews.com, November 9, 2005;
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200511%5CCUL20051109a.html.
Of course, according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, “democracy” is defined as “a government by the people; especially; rule of the majority; a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically free elections.” (emphasis ours). And, in America that also means under a written Constitution, not one courts can rewrite every session. That’s why this constitutional amendment had to be adopted.
Mr. Foreman once again demonstrates that the “pretense of tolerance” is over from advocates of homosexual behavior and their allies. Foreman went on to say: “We’re in this for the long haul…Tomorrow, the fight resumes.” And with God’s grace, ADF is as well.
back to top
Oregon Judge Reaffirms the Will of the People…On Friday, November 4, a circuit court judge in Oregon upheld the constitutionality of Measure 36 – a constitutional amendment passed by nearly 60 percent of the state’s voters last November – which affirms marriage as between one man and one woman.
ADF funded a special intervention into the case on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Coalition, represented by ADF allied attorney Kelly Clark.
Those who seek to deny the will of the people, and force same-sex “marriage” on Oregonian voters, have vowed to appeal. You can be assured that ADF and its allies will be there for every step in the continuing legal battle to protect marriage. In the meantime, we praise God for another victory affirming marriage as He intended.
back to top
The People of Kansas Vote to Affirm Marriage Between One Man and One Woman!On April 5, 2005, the voters of Kansas made it eighteen wins out of eighteen decisions, when they voted overwhelmingly (70%-29%) for a constitutional amendment to affirm marriage as between one man and one woman.
Once again, the citizens of this nation have shown that when they -- and not the courts -- make the choice, same-sex “marriage” is not inevitable.
The voters of Kansas – despite all of the pre-election predictions of a “close” election – voted in a lopsided and overwhelming margin to protect marriage from advocates of homosexual behavior and judges who seek to redefine this God-ordained institution.
ADF attorneys had an active role in this successful effort. ADF counsel Kevin Theriot testified before the Kansas legislature on the constitutionality of the amendment language. Kevin and two other ADF team members also met with a coalition of Kansas pastors and provided them with the legal materials needed to educate their congregations on this important issue.
back to top
ACLU Defeated in Kansas…In Kansas, the ACLU and radical homosexual activists tried to use the
Lawrence v. Texas decision to reduce the sentence of Matthew Limon, who had been convicted of engaging in sodomy with a fourteen-year-old developmentally disabled boy. Limon – who had been convicted twice before of committing sodomy with minors – had been charged under a Kansas law that bans sodomy between an adult and a minor of the same sex. He was to receive over seventeen years in prison.
The ACLU had argued that the law was really unconstitutional in light of the
Lawrence decision, which discovered constitutional protection for some homosexual behavior. The ACLU and radical homosexual activists argued that Limon’s sentencing represented “unconstitutional discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual behavior. They attempted to have Limon be charged under a different underage sex law which would have only sentenced him to fifteen months in prison.
back to top
Arizona State Supreme Court Says "No" to Same-Sex "Marriage"In an ADF-assisted case, the Arizona Supreme Court let stand a lower court’s ruling that the state’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is constitutional.
The Supreme Court, without comment, rejected an appeal by a Phoenix homosexual couple, Don Standhardt and Tod Keltner, that the state’s DOMA law is unconstitutional. They had also argued that it was unlawful under the Arizona Constitution to deny homosexuals a “fundamental right to marry.” This is particularly important because in some respects, the Arizona Constitution offers more protection than the federal constitution.
“This is a fantastic victory in the defense of marriage. We are extremely pleased at the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case. Arizona’s marriage laws are clear, the Arizona Court of Appeals understood that, and now the Supreme Court has agreed. The plaintiffs simply had no case,” said Gary McCaleb, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund.
ADF represented Arizona State Senator Mark Anderson as a friend of the court. ADF filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of Arizona on February 11 arguing that Standhardt and Keltner, the two men denied a marriage license, misrepresented the law, that the radical Massachusetts
Goodridge opinion does not control Arizona law, and that there is no national “trend” toward same-sex marriage.
The Court of Appeals had ruled last October that there is no fundamental constitutional right to same-sex marriage. It also ruled that the state had a rational basis for prohibiting same-sex “marriage” for procreation and child-rearing reasons.
back to top
Win at the California Supreme Court!The California high court ruled 7-0 in
Lewis v. Alfaro that the mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, exceeded his authority when he ordered the county clerk to issue “marriage licenses” to same-sex couples. The court also ruled 5-2 that the licenses are invalid because the mayor and county clerk of San Francisco had no authority to issue them.
ADF senior counsel Jordan Lorence, who argued the case before the court on May 25th, says: “An important battle for marriage and the rule of law in California has been won. We are pleased that the justices rightly saw the chaos that could ensue if a local official was allowed to defy the law with court approval.” He added: “
Same-sex ‘marriage’ is not inevitable in America. People across America want to protect and preserve real marriage.”
Jordan was also thankful the court did not validate the “licenses.” He says: “Illegally issued documents are not valid. What good would it do to tell someone they acted illegally but then allow the result of their lawbreaking to stand? The licenses were null and void from day one.”
ADF lawyers representing California residents filed the original request for a stay and writ of mandate to stop the issuance of the San Francisco “marriage licenses” on February 25th. That stay was entered by the California Supreme Court on March 11th in a 7-0 ruling.
back to top
The Will of the People Upheld in Ohio and Oklahoma!In Ohio, the state Supreme Court ruled 6-1 on Thursday that it will not prevent the state’s proposed Marriage Protection Amendment from appearing on the November 2nd ballot. Once again, those who have sought to circumvent our democratic process have tasted defeat, and the will of the people will be allowed in the Buckeye State.
The proposed amendment states that Ohio will only recognize marriages between one man and one woman. In addition, it states:
“This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effect of marriage.”“This is a great victory for marriage and democracy,” says Benjamin Bull.
“And it is a great loss for advocates of same-sex ‘marriage’ that want to remove this decision from the people.” ADF staff and allied attorneys, working with courageous David Langdon of the Ohio based Law and Liberty Institute, spent many long hours defending the right for the voice of the people to be heard on this nation-shaping issue.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court put the brakes on an attempt by the ACLU to stop a vote on a proposed state constitutional amendment that would only recognize marriages between one man and one woman. ADF allied attorney Brent Olsson successfully defended the right of Oklahomans to vote on the referendum put forth by the state Legislature that will legally protect traditional marriage.
“The people of Oklahoma will indeed be heard,” he said.
“The ACLU’s attempt to take away the right of Oklahomans to choose on this issue has failed. Their continued attacks simply expose their desire to undermine the will of the people by filing frivolous lawsuits. In the end, the people, not the courts, or the ACLU, will decide this issue.”
back to top
Second Win for Marriage Since Lawrence v. Texas Decision…On November 5, 2003, a New Jersey Court, in the case of
Lewis v. Harris, ruled against the latest legal attempt by radical homosexual activists to redefine marriage and the family.
The court dismissed the hard-fought case, which demanded creation of same-sex “marriage,” on the grounds that there is no historical basis for it and held that this was a matter best left to the Legislature to resolve. The victory upholds thousands of years of legal and moral history.
The deck seemed to be stacked against us, but with God’s incredible grace along with your continued prayers and support, ADF and its allies have seen victory against the radical homosexual agenda once again!
This was the second victory for traditional marriage since the U.S. Supreme Court’s
Lawrence v. Texas sodomy decision this past June. Another attempt by radical homosexual activists to use that decision to push for same-sex “marriage” was rejected by an Arizona court on October 8.
Attorneys funded and trained by ADF participated in this case, along with our ally, the Center for Marriage Law and the New Jersey Family Policy Council – once again proving the power of unity in strategy, training, and funding.
ADF chief counsel Benjamin Bull says: “New Jersey Judge Feinberg properly followed her role in applying the law instead of making law.”
back to top
Same-Sex "Marriage" Defeated Once Again - This Time in ADF's Home State...On October 8, 2003, we received the news that the Arizona Court of Appeals had dismissed the latest effort by homosexual activists to force same-sex “marriage” on the American people.
Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in
Lawrence v. Texas, two homosexual men attempted to capitalize on that decision by using it as the basis to overturn Arizona’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and other regulations prohibiting same-sex “marriage.” They claimed since the court had created special privileges relating to the act of sodomy, the DOMA law infringed on their “right to privacy” and was a violation of the state and federal constitutions.
On behalf of Arizona State Senator Mark Anderson, ADF chief counsel Benjamin Bull and his legal team filed a motion to intervene, which was converted to an amicus curiae with the court, that refuted the claims made by the homosexual activists and their allies (which included the ACLU).
The Arizona Court of Appeals agreed with ADF’s arguments and dismissed the case!
The court wrote:
“The history of the law’s treatment of marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman, together with recent, explicit reaffirmations of that view, lead invariably to the conclusion that the right to enter a same-sex marriage is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by due process.” This decision is not only a huge victory for marriage, but it is a repudiation of the media’s drumbeat after the
Lawrence v. Texas decision that that decision would invalidate traditional marriage laws across the country.
back to top
ADF Staff Attorney’s Work Plays Vital Role in Preserving Marriage…Indiana law recognizes that marriage is only to be between one man and one woman. However, three same-sex couples who had obtained Vermont “civil unions” had come back to the state and demanded a marriage license.
Judge S.K. Reid of the Marion Superior Court Civil Division ruled that same-sex couples are biologically and legally different from one man-one woman unions and therefore the court cannot allow them to “marry.”
The judge’s decision affirmed traditional marriage by stating that:
- Traditional marriage between one man and one woman “promotes the state’s interest in encouraging procreation to occur in a context where both biological parents are present to raise the child…Same-sex couples are not similarly situated with opposite-sex couples who cannot reproduce because same-sex couples can never reproduce on their own as a categorical matter.”
- Maintaining marriage between one man and one woman “vindicates the related interest in promoting the traditional family as the basic living unit of a free society.”
- The court said that because of “the history of traditional marriage as a critical component of Western Civilization, it is rational for the [Indiana] General Assembly to recognize opposite-sex marriage in order to promote traditional families as the bedrock of society. Same-sex marriage has not played a similar historical role…”
ADF staff attorney Glen Lavy, working with the Alliance, provided important assistance on this case.
back to top
Court Strikes Down Same-Sex Partner Subsidies in Philadelphia…The Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia – reversing years of defeat -- struck down the city’s sex-partner subsidy ordinance!
A list of groups defending the ordinance reads like a "who’s who" of radical homosexual and left-wing organizations: The American Civil Liberties Union of Philadelphia, The Center for Lesbian and Gay Rights, The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, The League of Gay and Lesbian Voters, and the Pennsylvania National Organization for Women, to name just a few.
Against the “goliath” of homosexual and left-wing groups were ADF-funded attorneys.
The court clearly saw through this attempt by radical homosexual activists to redefine marriage and the family. The judges wrote:
“We can think of no reason for this multitude of similarities other than a thinly veiled attempt by the City to duplicate the institution of marriage for couples of the same-sex…the category and status of ‘Life Partnership’ creates a new, and unique, domestic relationship and therefore, clearly violates public policy, which has been clearly and forcefully articulated by the Legislature of this Commonwealth.”
back to top
ADF Defeats Pornographers at U.S. Supreme Court…ADF funded lawyers won a key battle in the legal effort to limit the pernicious effects of pornography in the case of
Los Angeles v. Alameda Books. The City of Los Angeles, Calif., had passed a law back in 1978 requiring “adult oriented” businesses to be at least 1,000 feet away from other such businesses, and 500 feet away from schools, churches, and public parks. The law was a response to studies that showed that areas with a large concentration of “adult” businesses had increased crime and lower property values, among other negative consequences.
Unfortunately, the pornographers quickly found a loophole in the law and set up multiple “adult” businesses at the same location, calling them “sex superstores.” In response to this, the city prohibited multiple “adult” businesses from operating at the same place. However, the bar was largely unenforced by the city until two city inspectors found that two “adult” bookstores had added video viewing booths.
After the violations were reported, the stores sued the city, stating that the regulation was a “violation” of their free speech “rights” and treated “sexual content” differently than other forms of speech. A federal judge ruled in favor of the businesses, and on appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, saying that while the city had a “substantial government interest” in reducing crime in local neighborhoods, it did not provide enough evidence that the law would achieve that goal.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the city had enough evidence to document the negative social consequences of having multiple “adult-oriented” businesses located closely to each other.
back to top
Children Now Safer at Public Libraries…In a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court finally ruled in
United States v. American Library Association that Congress CAN mandate that publicly funded libraries provide Internet filtering devices on computers in order to protect children.
This was the third time an Internet filtering law was challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has struck down two previous Congressional attempts to block Internet porn on public library computers. But it appears the “third time was the charm” as Justices Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, and O’Connor held that this latest attempt at legislation was constitutional. This is just another example of how we need to continue to persevere and not quit if one “battle” goes against us.
ADF provided key financial and other assistance to our allied attorney Kelly Shackelford through the funding of an amicus brief in this case and his nationwide coordination of amicus briefs filed in support of the Internet filtering law.
back to top
ADF Attorney Helps Citizen Battle Strip Club… The Déjà Vu strip club wanted to bring cultural pollution to the riverfront of Shreveport, Louisiana.
However, with the assistance of Alliance-trained graduate volunteer attorney Mike Johnson, Shreveport citizens have stood up to those who sought to undermine their common values and destroy the community.
With case law and legal arguments prepared by Mike, these concerned citizens of Shreveport took their case to the people.
In less than five days, they gathered 4,800 signatures on a petition asking the Metropolitan Planning Commission to reverse their previous conclusion that the strip club complied with city zoning and distance standards. Community members came together and presented a united front before the Shreveport City Council and made a compelling legal and financial case that the planning commission should change its decision.
The result? City council chairman John David Stewart said that they would reconsider the decision: “
Without question, everyone on this council and the mayor want to make certain that we follow the letter of the law in every decision.” After the City Council meeting, a member of our ADF team received the following e-mail:
“I want to thank you for your assistance to us and your help in sending Mike Johnson our way. I’m not certain whether he’s had much sleep the past couple of nights, because he drafted a legal analysis and interpretation of [the] Shreveport Code regarding our issue, drove up to Shreveport from Baton Rouge, and presented it to the City Council yesterday…Thanks again to ADF!”
back to top
Traditional Marriage Upheld in Kansas…J’Noel Gardiner had undergone a sex change before (his?) (her?) marriage to Marshall Gardiner in 1998. When Marshall passed away a year later, his son, Joe, challenged J’Noel’s inheritance claim, stating that their marriage was invalid because J’Noel was a transsexual.
The Kansas Court of Appeals ruled in May that the marriage was valid since J’Noel was a woman when the marriage occurred. But in a unanimous opinion, the Kansas Supreme Court disagreed!
The court ruled that a marriage between a man and a transsexual woman is not valid in that state. Kansas has a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but this case tried to skirt around it because the law does not address transsexual marriage. Still, it is mind-boggling that radical homosexual activists carry such clout that this case made it all the way up to the state’s highest court!
Writing for the court, Justice Donald Allegrucci said:
“The Legislature has declared that the public policy of this state is to recognize only the traditional marriage between ‘two parties who are of the opposite sex,’ and all other marriages are against public policy and void. We cannot ignore what the Legislature has declared to be the policy of this state.” Alliance NLA trained attorney Aronda Kerns, along with Patrick Gillen of an ADF-allied legal ministry, assisted in the writing of an amicus brief defending the state’s DOMA law from this attack.
back to top
Decency in Cincinnati…Greyson Currence, the owner of Extasy Entertainment provided a “nude dance” act - with both male and female dancers - to Cincinnati homes or hotel rooms for a fee ranging from $70 to $240 per hour. After undercover Cincinnati police videotaped one of his “performances”, he was charged with violating the city’s anti-obscenity regulation.
The city has a regulation of sexually oriented businesses – adopted in 1996 – that requires that these businesses be licensed (for a fee). It also prohibits nudity in sexually oriented businesses. It was the hope of the City of Cincinnati that these requirements would restrict the expansion of pornography in their community. Currence filed suit against the city’s regulation, stating that it was a violation of his free speech rights and that the license fee was an unfair tax that was not imposed on other businesses.
ADF, through its allied organization, the
Community Defense Counsel, helped the city by filing an amicus brief that defended its regulation, and by God’s always amazing grace, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the city did not violate Currence’s free speech rights and that his business can be regulated by the city! In addition, they ruled that the licensing fee was not an unfair tax on sexually oriented businesses.
back to top
ADF Ally Successfully Defends Marriage in Georgia…Susan Burns, and her “partner” Debra Freer, had sued the state to force it to recognize their Vermont “civil union” as legal marriage. They were hoping to circumvent a visitation agreement that Susan Burns had with her ex-husband. This agreement stated neither party could have visitation or overnight stays with their children if they were co-habitating with someone else. Susan Burns was attempting to have her “civil union” re-defined as the equivalent of marriage to get around this provision.
On January 25, 2002, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued a unanimous ruling which stated that a Vermont “civil union” is not the equivalent of marriage, and even if a “civil union” were the equivalent of marriage elsewhere, it would not be recognized as a marriage in Georgia. The court upheld the Georgia Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.
In the opinion, the justices wrote:
“[The Georgia Defense of Marriage Act] clearly states that it is the public policy of Georgia ‘to recognize the union only of a man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.”
back to top
Previous ADF Defense of Marriage Used to Strike Down Same-Sex Partner Subsidies in Alaska…An Anchorage Superior Court judge ruled against nine same-sex couples that filed suit demanding the City of Anchorage and the State of Alaska to provide same-sex subsidies. The judge cited the same-sex marriage amendment (which ADF played a critical role in coordinating and funding) and ruled that same-sex couples fall into the same legal category as unmarried male-female couples and are not entitled to city and state benefits under current law. In her decision, the judge wrote:
“…this case is not about whether gays and lesbians have been, and continue to be, the focus of unfair discrimination…The State in this instance is not treating them differently than other unmarried, opposite-sex couples, and thus the plaintiffs do not have an equal protection claim.”
back to top