Liberty Counsel
NEWS RELEASE

Contact: PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT - 800-671-1776

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 3, 2007

San Francisco, CA - Yesterday Liberty Counsel filed its opening brief in the California Supreme Court in the ongoing consolidated same-sex marriage cases which address the constitutionality of California's marriage laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The cases originated in February 2004 when Liberty Counsel filed suit on behalf of Campaign for California Families and its executive director, Randy Thomasson, to stop San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The California Attorney General asked the California Supreme Court to decide whether Mayor Newsom's actions were lawful, and the Court ruled that he mayor did not have the authority to issue the licenses based upon his personal belief that the marriage laws were unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, several same-sex couples and the City of San Francisco filed four separate lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the marriage laws. Those four lawsuits and Liberty Counsel's action were consolidated and heard by a Superior Court judge in San Francisco, who found the laws unconstitutional. The California Court of Appeal reversed the judge, ruling that the marriage laws are constitutional and refusing to create a new right "changing the definition of so fundamental an institution as marriage." The matter was then appealed to the California Supreme Court where briefing is now underway. The City is arguing that preserving marriage as an institution involving the union of one man and one woman discriminates against homosexuals who want to marry.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, who presented oral argument in this case before the California Supreme Court last year, commented: "The City's argument that marriage discriminates against homosexual relationships misunderstands the purpose of marriage which is to promote stable relationships between men and women, which is the only union where national procreation can occur. It also misunderstands the importance gender in families. Gender makes a significant difference in the well being of children. The City isn't arguing for a minor change in marriage, but for a deconstruction of the institution of marriage. The essence of marriage rooted in our history has always been union of one man and one woman. We have never allowed, for good reason, a myriad of diverse human relationships united under the banner of marriage."

###