The nation remains in suspense as another Monday has passed without the release of opinions by the U.S. Supreme Court on the DOMA and Proposition 8 cases.  The anti-gay group Family Policy Institute of Washington is done with waiting, apparently, because it has already posted three responses to the unreleased opinions.

FPIW was one of Family Research Council’s 30 state affiliates to sign onto an amicus brief asking the courts to uphold Proposition 8.  Their brief asserted:

Through the initiative process, the people of California have made their will known. In their state, they want marriage to remain as it has for thousands of years. They spoke twice in eight years, and their will should not be subverted by one judge of one branch of the federal government’s redefining core institutions like marriage to follow the whims of the elite.

As I noted at the time:

[FPIW & Co.] are hoping you’ll buy into the notion that “the people” of California have unlimited power in the state.  They don’t.  The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and while it establishes the federal judiciary as a co-equal arm of government, it makes no explicit provision for citizens’ initiatives.  If a majority of voters passes a state constitutional amendment that violates the U.S. Constitution as Prop 8 does, the fact that those voters were in the majority is irrelevant.  [FPIW & Co.] don’t want you to consider the fact that a voting majority can act unconstitutionally, and that the federal judiciary has the power to strike down any unconstitutional measure they may pass.

If FPIW thinks the DOMA and Prop 8 opinions are a “win-win”, expect to hear something like this from its director, Joseph Backholm:

SCOTUS Upholds Natural Marriage (W/W)

by Joseph Backholm  |  June 24, 2013

…“I applaud the United States Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the constitutionality of the.  They were correct to rule that the U.S. Constitution does not include a “right” of same-sex couples to have their relationships officially affirmed as “marriages.”  We agree that the public’s interest in promoting responsible procreation provides a rational basis for defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  The Court did the right thing by permitting the debate over the definition of marriage to continue through the democratic process.”

FPIW’s response to a “partial win” looks like this:

SCOTUS Upholds Natural Marriage (PW)

by Joseph Backholm  |  June 24, 2013

…“Those who want to redefine marriage suffered an important defeat today. The Supreme Court refused to declare a constitutional right to same-sex “marriage,” and rejected their request to impose a redefinition of marriage on all fifty states. This decision means that this important debate will continue state by state across the country.”

And finally, if FPIW rates the rulings a “lose-lose”, this long-winded response is in the offing:

SCOTUS Redefines Marriage (L/L)

by Joseph Backholm  |  June 24, 2013

Today the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Prop 8 and declared a constitutional right to marry someone of the same gender. anyone you want…maybe.

Joseph Backholm, executive director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, said, “The Court reached this decision only by ignoring reality—that male-female unions are uniquely important, because only they can result in natural reproduction; and that such unions are uniquely valuable, in that only they can bind a child to both the parents who created it and bind those parents to each other.”

In addition to its departure from scientific reality, the Court’s decision was a shocking abuse of its power—the ultimate in judicial activism, making law from the bench rather than interpreting the law and the Constitution as written.

Backholm continued, “It is absurd for the Court to argue that any of the Constitution’s authors either granted, through its text, or intended to grant, through its spirit, a “right” for two men or two women to “marry.” In reaching a decision so lacking in foundation in the text of the Constitution, or in the history or traditions of our country, the Court raises serious questions about its legitimacy.”

In overturning the laws of 38 states, and the constitutions of 30, the Supreme Court has launched a shocking assault on our system of federalism, as well as upon the right of the people to govern themselves.

However, supporters of natural marriage are committed to continuing the fight for marriage. Just as the country has never accepted the Supreme Court’s declaration of a “right” to destroy unborn human life in Roe v. Wade, we will never accept the Court’s assertion of a “right” to change the definition of our most fundamental social institution.

Update (6/25): FPIW has wiped the premature posts from its blog.

Laurel Ramseyer

Laurel Ramseyer