“Another Daffy Ninth Circuit Ruling”

“Another Daffy Ninth Circuit Ruling”
So writes Ed Whelan about this week’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on an Arizona law regarding domestic partner benefits. The Court upheld a temporary injunction blocking a 2009 bill that limits state employee benefits for dependents to married employees. The law, signed by Governor Brewer, reversed a Napolitano administration order granting employee dependent benefits to unmarried domestic partners.

The majority of Arizonans favor marriage being recognized only as the union of one man and one woman. Arizona public policy as determined by our state elected officials does not recognize sexual orientation or domestic partners as a protected group in our anti-discrimination laws. Yet the Court has sided with homosexual activists and their agenda to make marriage laws meaningless through the granting of legal recognition and benefits to same sex partners. The Court’s opinion is another example of judges making law, not interpreting the law. Determining eligibility of benefits for state employees is a policy matter to be decided by the legislative and executive branches, not by the judicial branch.

This battle is not over. I fully expect the Brewer administration to appeal. Please click here to send Governor Brewer an email thanking her for her support and encouraging her to continue the fight to uphold Arizona’s law limiting state employee dependent benefits to married employees.

Censored by the Court 
I want to share with you a little known story behind this ongoing litigation. With CAP as the named party, the Alliance Defense Fund filed a friend-of-the-court brief in this case explaining why it’s important that benefits only be distributed based on marital status. The Ninth Circuit Court refused to accept our brief, even though they accepted briefs from two homosexual activist organizations.
California Continues to Fight for Marriage
The ongoing legal battle over California’s Proposition 8 marriage amendment had another hearing this week. The legal defense team at Protectmarriage.com argued for their right to intervene in the case on behalf of the 7 million voters who passed Prop 8. Both the California Governor and Attorney General have refused to defend Prop 8. Read the hopeful report from our friends at the California Family Policy Council on the hearing here.

Once again, we see why elections matter, and why it is critical to elect officials that recognize the essential role of the family and marriage in society. It’s unconscionable that duly elected officials are refusing to carry out their duty to defend laws passed by the people.

Faith in Action Tour
In case you missed the news, CAP along with Truth in Action Ministries is hosting a very special event on October 29 with Dr. Del Tackett, creator of The Truth Project. Our goal is to help you discover how God can use you to impact our community, engage you with local organizations to explore specific opportunities to make a difference right where you live, and transform our community by putting God’s Word into action.

You won’t want to miss this rare opportunity to see Del speak live and connect with local ministries. Click here to register – hope to see you there!

Positive Step for Secretary Bennett’s Planned Defense of Citizenship

CONTACT: Matthew Roberts

Rehearing Granted in Voter Registration Case

Today’s decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to grant a rehearing on Gonzalez v. Arizona before the entire membership of the court, (en banc) comes as great news to many, including Secretary of State Ken Bennett who promised to defend Arizona’s Proposition 200 all the way to the Supreme Court.

Proposition 200, when passed by Arizona voters in 2004, required that voter registration applicants provide documentary proof of citizenship. In addition it required that voters provide proof of identity at the polls on Election Day.

“Today’s decision to grant the petition for a rehearing en banc by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is encouraging,” said Secretary Bennett” “Arizonans obviously believe that people should provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote and we are pleased that the court may reconsider its decision.”

Last October, the 9th Circuit in San Francisco struck down Arizona’s requirement that residents provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote. Proposition 200 was passed by Arizona voters in 2004 and helps make sure that only eligible people vote in elections. The Court ruled that a federal voter-registration law supersedes Arizona’s requirement.

“What seems like common sense to most of us, others feel is a burdensome requirement,” the Secretary continued. “The previous decision by the 9th Circuit was an outrage, and I thought was a slap in the face to Arizonans who are concerned about the integrity of our elections. There isn’t a corner of this state where people are not concerned with voter fraud and opposition to the simple act of providing proof that you are legally eligible to participate in our elections is incomprehensible.”

Those registering to vote in Arizona are required to provide one of the following documents: a driver’s license, passport, birth certificate, tribal identification or naturalization certification number. Voters seeking to register online must provide a driver’s license number, which is verified through Arizona’s motor vehicle system.

“Not expecting either side to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court is like not expecting hot summer days in Phoenix,” said Bennett. “Today’s decision is just another step along that path and we’re prepared to fight for Arizona’s right to fair and fraud free elections.”