Monday May 10, 2010

Nat’l Organization for Marriage: a Vote for Kagan is a Vote against Traditional Marriage

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 10, 2010 ( – The pro-homosexuality views of Solicitor General Elena Kagan could have dire implications for traditional marriage in America should her nomination to the Supreme Court be approved, says the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

President Obama on Monday nominated Kagan, who sports a pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality record, for an opening on the Supreme Court left by retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

“A vote for Elena Kagan as Supreme Court Justice will be a vote for imposing gay marriage on all 50 states,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM, in a press release following the nomination.

The pro-family group points out that the timing of Kagan’s nomination is critical in the fight for traditional marriage, as the Supreme Court is likely to vote on two key marriage cases in the next two years. The cases are Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which challenges California’s Proposition 8 and seeks a ruling that would impose gay “marriage” on all 50 states, and Gill et al v. Office of Personnel Management, which will ask the Supreme Court to overturn the federal definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Brown notes that a controversial brief authored under Kagan as solicitor general regarding DOMA, “explicitly and gratuitously rejected the key legal defense for marriage as the union of husband and wife — that such unions uniquely protect children by encouraging responsible procreation.”

“Kagan’s brief was designed to, and in fact will, undermine the legal defense of marriage currently before the federal courts,” said Brown. While the brief urges the California district court to dismiss the charges against DOMA due to lack of standing, it nonetheless states that, “With respect to the merits, this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal.”

NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher noted that the legal tactic has been used before to undermine traditional marriage, such as in the case of California Attorney General Jerry Brown. In these cases the bureaucrats and lawyers “who initially claim they are defending a law, actually file briefs that undermine the law and substantially contribute to its legal defeat.”

“This tactic is not only wrong, in the sense that it fails to defend marriage, it is deeply duplicitous or at least intentionally misleading,” stated Gallagher.

Gallagher told (LSN) Monday that the Justice Department brief had been reworded after an initial draft upholding the child-centered reasoning behind traditional marriage was vociferously attacked by homosexualist activists – a change Kagan would have overseen.

“The Solicitor General is responsible for the kind of legal argumentations made,” said Gallagher. “The way in which she defended it … in fact, will undermine the law. So, there’s now on record that the government of the United States has rejected the main reason for marriage, [while] every state supreme court that has upheld marriage has done so on the grounds that marriage is related to responsible procreation.”

Gallagher noted that NOM might have “held off weighing in on this so quickly, except there seemed to be a concerted effort to suggest that somehow her statements would lead you to believe that she’s moderate on the gay marriage issue.”

“On the one hand she’s saying she’s going to defend DOMA, on the other hand, guts the legal record in a way that makes it much more likely that we’ll lose that federal DOMA case,” said Gallagher.

Both Gallagher and the Family Research Council (FRC) have also criticized Kagan for her extremism when, as Dean of Harvard Law, she barred military recruiters from entering campus in the height of the Iraq conflict, as a means of protesting the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rule banning open gays in the military.

“Ms. Kagan’s incredibly hostile view of the military suggests she is out of touch with mainstream sensibilities and obedience to the rule of law,” FRC president Tony Perkins noted in an email to constituents Monday. Gallagher agreed that the anti-military move was “an indicator of a pretty radical vision of what gay equality requires from the rest of us.”

While Kagan has not publicly self-identified as homosexual, Internet news services have played host to strong rumors that her relationship with a female partner is an “open secret” at Harvard Law. Last month, the White House forced a CBS news blogger to retract a statement asserting that Kagan would be the first “openly gay judge,” whose female partner “is rather well known in Harvard circles.”

And while Brown states that “we have no quarrel with Elena Kagan’s personal character, or with her intellectual brilliance, or technical qualifications,” the group considers the media’s downplaying of Kagan’s pro-homosexuality views alarming.

“The current PR campaign designed to portray Kagan as opposed to imposing a constitutional right to gay marriage based on her responses during the confirmation process for Solicitor General is similarly clearly wrong and misleads the public about her core values and commitments to Constitutional law,” added Gallagher.

Meanwhile, pro-homosexuality groups have applauded the appointment of Kagan as a supporter of their cause.

“We are confident that Elena Kagan has a demonstrated understanding and commitment to protecting the liberty and equality of all Americans, including LGBT Americans,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a leading homosexualist group.

See related coverage:

Obama Nominates Pro-Abort Elena Kagan for Supreme Court

Updated: Obama to Pick Pro-Abort Elena Kagan for Supreme Court


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.