Uncategorized

2006 Archives

December 31, 2006 by

Michigan Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Public Schools Can Fund Same Sex Domestic Partnership Benefits
Thu, Nov 9, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Michigan Supreme Court this week decided to hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of Ann Arbor Public Schools’ (AAPS) policy of funding benefits for same-sex domestic partners. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of several tax payers by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor.

The Law Center claimed that Ann Arbor Public Schools violated Michigan’s Marriage Amendment and state law that prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriages when it used public funds to recognize and subsidize same-sex unions.

When the suit was filed in 2003, the taxpayers argued that AAPS’ recognition of same-sex partnerships for the purpose of providing benefits violated Michigan law governing marriage and prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages. While the suit was pending, the Law Center collaborated with the Coalition For The Protection Of Marriage and other pro-family groups, such as the American Family Association of Michigan, to draft and secure passage of Michigan’s Marriage Amendment, which provides that “the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center commented, “This case will give the Michigan Supreme Court an opportunity to interpret Michigan’s Marriage Amendment as it relates to same-sex partnership benefits. We believe AAPS abused its authority; rather than using public funds to promote public education, it used those funds to promote a lifestyle opposed by most citizens.”

Patrick T. Gillen, a Law Center trial counsel who argued the application for leave before the Michigan Supreme Court last month, noted, “I look forward to arguing the case before our Supreme Court. The traditional family is a unique institution that promotes the good of spouses, children who enter the family, and, ultimately, the common good. AAPS has no authority to redefine the family and I am confident that the Michigan Supreme Court will not allow AAPS to thwart state law by means of a hollow exercise in labeling.”

On November 7th seven additional states voted to approve constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages — Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. With the addition of these seven states, there are now 27 states in the nation that have constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage from activist judges and radical homosexual groups.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

Thomas More Law Center Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Overturn Ninth Circuit Decision Eliminating Parents’ Fundamental Rights
Thu, Nov 2, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI—The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has submitted a friend of the court brief to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of itself and six United States Congressmen urging the Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Fields v. Palmdale School District, which held that public schools may impart any sexually based information to elementary school children as the schools sees fit, even if parents would object on religious or moral grounds.

In the case, children between seven and ten years of age in the Palmdale school district, without their parents’ informed consent, were administered a sexually explicit survey asking whether they agreed with statements such as “Can’t stop thinking about sex,” “Touching my private parts too much,” “Touching other people’s private parts,” and “Not trusting people because they might want to have sex.” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the parents who challenged the school district’s practice.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “The far-left liberal agenda is to use our public education system to drive a wedge between parents and their children on moral, social, and religious issues. This case is an example of how court opinions by activist judges are supporting that agenda. The Supreme Court needs to reaffirm that the fundamental rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children extends even while their children are attending public schools.”

Joining the brief are Representatives Tim Murphy (R-PA), Rob Bishop (R-UT), Tom Feeney (R-FL), Louis Gohmert (R-TX), Patrick McHenry (R-NC), and Paul Ryan (R-WI). Representative Murphy authored and sponsored House Resolution 547, which expressed the sense of the House of Representatives that the Ninth Circuit deplorably infringed on parental rights in the Fields case. Representatives Bishop, Feeney, Gohmert, McHenry, and Ryan were co-sponsors of the Resolution, which the House of Representatives overwhelmingly adopted.

The Law Center is concerned about the disturbingly strong language used in the Ninth Circuit’s opinion:

Parents have no constitutional right “to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so.”
The only choice parents have is whether or not to enroll their children in public school.
Once in school, the parents have no authority over what their children are taught.
The school can teach the children anything it wants … short of committing treason.

According to Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Law Center, “A key issue in this case is whether parents’ constitutional rights over the upbringing of their children still apply while the children attend public school. Public schools should not be places where schools do as they please with children.”

N.J. Supreme Court Ruling Opening Door to Same-Sex Marriages, A Wake-Up Call
Thu, Oct 26, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled yesterday that same-sex couples are entitled to all the rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite–sex couples. The Court ordered the state legislature to enact legislation within 180 days that would either include same-sex couples in the existing marriage laws, or create a parallel statutory structure. Gay activists hailed the Court’s decision as an enormous victory.

The ruling overturned two lower court decisions that had dismissed the complaint brought by seven same-sex couples, which alleged that state restrictions of marriage to the union of one man and one woman violated the liberty and equal protection guarantees of the state constitution. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex unions despite the fact that current state law defines marriage as between one man and one woman and despite the fact the court acknowledged there is no fundamental right to same –sex marriages.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, condemned the ruling, “The New Jersey Supreme Court has engaged in a reckless act of social engineering and judicial activism which, if allowed to stand, will have bitter consequences for society in the future. No consideration was given to the instability the Court’s social experimentation will have on society as they cavalierly detached marriage from procreation and the traditional family of one man and one woman. This decision should be a wake-up call to the vast majority of Americans who oppose same-sex marriages. Perhaps the chief lesson of yesterday’s decision is the importance of providing traditional marriage with constitutional protection.”

In 2004, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, collaborated with the Coalition For The Protection Of Marriage and other pro-family groups, such as the American Family Association of Michigan, to draft and secure passage of Michigan’s Marriage Amendment. When opponents of the amendment claimed it was unnecessary because Michigan law limited marriage to the union of one man and one woman, the Center warned that a constitutional amendment was the best guarantee against a redefinition of marriage by an activist court.

Patrick T. Gillen, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who drafted Michigan’s Marriage Amendment for the Coalition, noted another lesson to be learned from the decision. “The defense of traditional marriage was fatally compromised by the Attorney General’s failure to defend the role that marriage plays in promoting the true good of the spouses and children who enter the family. Once society fails to appreciate these essential goods of marriage, damage to the family and, ultimately, the common good, becomes inevitable.”

Last week Gillen appeared before the Michigan Supreme Court in a case where the Law Center argues that Michigan’s Marriage Amendment prohibits public schools from recognizing and subsidizing same-sex domestic partnerships. Yesterday, the Law Center filed an appeal from a decision dismissing its claim that the Marriage Amendment prohibits Michigan State University from recognizing and subsidizing same-sex domestic partnership benefits. In both cases the courts refused to rule on the merits of the claim, dismissing the suits based on narrow jurisdictional grounds.

Currently, Massachusetts is the only state that has authorized same-sex marriages. Two other states, Vermont and Connecticut authorize civil unions. Nineteen states have adopted constitutional amendments that explicitly ban samesex marriages. On November 7th eight additional states will be voting on constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages — Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Thomas More Law Center Decries Supreme Court Refusal To Review Decision Penalizing Sea Scouts For Policy Excluding Gays And Atheists
Mon, Oct 23, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, expressed its disappointment that last week the United States Supreme Court declined to review a California Supreme Court decision allowing the City of Berkeley, CA to deprive the Sea Scouts of free berthing privileges given to other nonprofit organizations because the Sea Scouts refused to repudiate their association with the Boy Scouts of America and its policy requiring exclusion of gays and atheists.

The Sea Scouts are a public service organization that serves local youth by teaching them to sail and learn other skills such as carpentry and plumbing. It is associated with the Boy Scouts of America and must abide by BSA’s policy excluding gays and atheists.

The Law Center had filed a friend of the court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case of Evan v. City of Berkeley. The Law Center’s brief argues that Berkeley’s decision to strip the Sea Scouts of a benefit extended to other public service organizations because the City disagrees with BSA’s policy places an unconstitutional condition on receipt of public benefits that violates the First Amendment.

Patrick T. Gillen, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who authored the brief, observed that Berkeley’s policy is a blatant effort to penalize the Sea Scouts for an exercise of their First Amendment rights. “The Supreme Court’s decision lets a truly tragic injustice stand. In this case militant homosexual activists have victimized the underprivileged in a vindictive effort to punish anyone associated with the Boy Scouts of America.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “It is disappointing that the Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to reverse an outrageous example of how homosexuals use the powers of government to discriminate against an outstanding youth group in order to force compliance with their worldview on sex, marriage and religion.”

Thomas More Law Center Files Brief Supporting Right of Sea Scouts To Exclude Gays And Atheists
Wed, Sep 27, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has filed a brief in support of a petition for certiorari, which the Sea Scouts have filed with the United States Supreme Court. The Law Center seeks reversal of the California Supreme Court’s decision that allowed the City of Berkeley to deprive the Sea Scouts of free berthing privileges given to other nonprofit organizations because the Sea Scouts refused to repudiate their association with the Boy Scouts of America and its policy requiring exclusion of gays and atheists.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “This is a clear example of how radical homosexuals using the powers of government attempt to coerce compliance with their world views on sex, marriage and religion.”

The United States Supreme Court, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, recognized that the Scout’s policy was an exercise of expressive association protected by the First Amendment. In the aftermath of Dale, the City of Berkeley demanded that the Sea Scouts repudiate its association with BSA’s policy and, when the Sea Scouts’ failed Berkeley’s litmus test, the City stripped the Sea Scouts of the free berth extended to public service organizations. The California Supreme Court rejected the Sea Scout’s claim that Berkeley’s decision to strip them of free berths violated their First Amendment right to expressive association. The Law Center’s brief argues that Berkeley’s decision to strip the Sea Scouts’ of a benefit extended to other public service organizations because the City disagrees with BSA’s policy places an unconstitutional condition on receipt of public benefits that violates the First Amendment.

Patrick T. Gillen, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who authored the brief, observed that Berkeley’s policy is a blatant effort to penalize the Sea Scouts for an exercise of their First Amendment rights. “Berkeley may believe that the Sea Scouts should repudiate the BSA and its decision to exclude gays and atheists in order to promote a lifestyle that is “morally straight” but the First Amendment prohibits the government from denying benefits to citizens simply because they refuse to abide by government orthodoxy. Berkeley’s effort to make the Sea Scouts pay for exercising their right to expressive association should be struck down.”

Federal Appellate Court Hands Traditional Marriage Another Victory
Tue, Jul 18, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – On Friday, July 14th, a federal appeals court reversed a lower federal court ruling that had struck down Nebraska’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. The constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages had been passed by seventy per cent of that state’s voters in 2000.

In Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reinstated Nebraska’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In a first such ruling by a federal appeals court, a three-judge panel unanimously held that Nebraska voters had not violated the Constitution by seeking to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, since “laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests.”

The opinion was written by Chief Judge James B. Loken and joined by Circuit Judges Bowman and Smith. Writing for the court, Judge Loken held that the express intent of traditional marriage laws to encourage heterosexual couples to bear and raise children in committed relationships is a legitimate state interest.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, advised the Nebraska Attorney General’s office in the case, and also filed an amicus brief arguing that the Nebraska marriage protection amendment did not violate the Constitution’s equal protection jurisprudence as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). The Eighth Circuit panel spent the majority of its opinion on precisely this issue, agreeing with the Thomas More Law Center that the Nebraska constitutional amendment is “rationally related to a legitimate government interest” under the Romer analysis.

According to Kim Daniels, the Trial Counsel for the Law Center who authored the amicus brief on behalf of the Law Center, “The Eighth Circuit’s unanimous opinion in Bruning represents a significant step forward in the fight to preserve traditional marriage. The Nebraska voters who overwhelmingly passed this amendment have been vindicated, and it’s heartening to finally see a federal appeals court affirm that citizens have the right to enact laws preserving the institution of marriage.”

Amicus briefs supporting Nebraska’s position were submitted by eleven other states, numerous public interest organizations, the Nebraska Catholic Conference and members of the Nebraska Legislature.

Earlier in the month, the highest courts in New York and Georgia rejected attempts to gain marriage rights for same- sex couples.

On July 5th, the Thomas More Law Center filed a lawsuit against Michigan State University (MSU) challenging that institution’s recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships for the purpose of providing benefits. The lawsuit claims that MSU’s policy violates Michigan’s Marriage Amendment, passed by the voters in 2004, which provides that “the union of one man and one women in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose,” as well as Michigan statues that prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages.

Michigan State University Sued By the Thomas More Law Center To Stop Its Recognition of Same Sex Marriages
Wed, Jul 5, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, today filed a lawsuit in Ingham County Circuit Court challenging Michigan State University’s recognition of same sex unions for the purpose of providing benefits to “MSU-recognized same-sex domestic partners.”

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the American Family Association of Michigan, a non-profit organization that promotes the welfare of children through the preservation of the traditional family.

The lawsuit claims that Michigan State University (MSU) is in violation of the Marriage Amendment to Michigan’s Constitution, which provides that “the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose,” and Michigan statutes that prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages. The language of the constitutional amendment was crafted by Patrick T. Gillen, Trial Counsel with the Law Center, and Gary Glenn, President of the American Family Association of Michigan and then adopted by Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, the group that led the successful 2004 campaign to amend the state constitution.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “Clearly, this publicly funded university is thumbing its nose at the will of the people and the legislature by creating its own laws of marriage and divorce.”

Michigan State University provides benefits to same-sex domestic partners if they file a declaration of domestic partnership demonstrating that they: (1) are of the same sex and for that reason unable to marry each other under Michigan law; (2) are in a long term-committed relationship, have been in that relationship for six months and intend to remain together indefinitely; (3) are not legally married to others and neither has another domestic partner; (4) are at least 18 years of age and have capacity to contract; (5) are not related to one another closely enough to bar marriages in Michigan; (6) share a residence and have done so for more than 6 months; and (7) provide a signed “partnership agreement” that obligates each of the parties to provide support for one another, and provides for substantially equal divisions, upon termination of the relationship and any property acquired with those earnings.

MSU, by its own set of detailed rules also sets forth the process for obtaining what amounts to same sex divorces. The MSU employee who wishes to remove a former same-sex partner from benefits files an affidavit of termination of domestic partnership and registers the “life event” with MSU’s benefits department.

Patrick T. Gillen, the Law Center’s attorney handling the case said that MSU’s policy is a transparent effort to circumvent the Marriage Amendment and state law. According to Gillen, “The constitution and laws of Michigan are designed to protect marriage and refuse recognition to same-sex unions, including same-sex domestic partnerships. Common sense and history demonstrate the enduring value of the traditional family, and its vital role in promoting the good of spouses and children, as well as the common good of society. MSU is not free to disregard state law to promote its own definition of marriage and use state funds to promote its experiment with the family.”

The suit seeks a declaration that MSU’s decision to define and recognize same-sex domestic partnerships for the purpose of providing benefits to MSU-recognized same-sex domestic partners violates the constitution and laws of the State of Michigan. The Law Center also seeks an injunction preventing MSU from recognizing and subsidizing same-sex domestic partnerships through the provision of benefits paid for with state money.

2006 Archives II – July-December

December 31, 2006 by

Thomas More Law Center Submits Brief Supporting The Public Display Of A Bible
Thu, Dec 21, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has submitted a friend of the court brief to the fifteen-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that will be considering the case involving a fifty-year-old display of a Bible on government property.

The Bible is part of a memorial to William Mosher, a prominent businessman and philanthropist in Houston, Texas, who had been a longtime supporter of the Star of Hope Mission, a Christian charity in Houston that has cared for the homeless since the early 1900s. In 1956, as a memorial to Mosher, the Star of Hope Mission erected a four-foot high monument topped by a glass case that includes an open Bible. The Mission included the Bible in the display to convey that Mosher was a Christian and a “Godly man” who had helped others.

The Mission’s display caused no controversy until 2003, when Kay Staley a local attorney sued Harris County, Texas, over the display by claiming the display of the Bible violated the Establishment Clause to the United States Constitution. The federal trial judge agreed with Staley, as did a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit.
The full court of the Fifth Circuit, however, in an unusual move, decided to review the case.

According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, “We are pleased all the active judges of the Fifth Circuit agreed to hear this case. Their decision to review this case is a positive sign that a number of the active judges do not agree that the display of the Bible violates the Constitution.”
The Thomas More Law Center had previously filed a friend of the court brief with the three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit and has now filed a modified version of its brief for all fifteen active judges to consider when they decide this case.

Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Law Center, who prepared the brief, stated, “The memorial to William Mosher is the private speech of the Star of Hope Mission, a private organization. Private religious speech on public property is protected by the First Amendment. The Star of Hope Mission’s monument should be protected by the courts and should not be forced to be removed from the place where it has stood for five decades.”

Federal Judge Says San Francisco’s Anti-Catholic Resolution is Constitutional: Thomas More Law Center Appeals
Wed, Dec 13, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is appealing a federal judge’s recent approval of a virulently anti-Catholic resolution passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, a Carter appointee and one time counsel for the National Organization for Women (NOW), ruled that the Board resolution condemning Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality and urging the Archbishop of San Francisco and Catholic Charities of San Francisco to defy Church directives does not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The resolution, adopted March 21, 2006, alludes to the Vatican as a “foreign country” meddling in the affairs of the City and describes the Church’s moral teaching and beliefs as “insulting to all San Franciscans,” “hateful,” “insulting and callous,” “defamatory,” “absolutely unacceptable,” “insensitive and ignorant.” The resolution calls on the local Archbishop to “defy” the Church’s teachings and describes Cardinal William Joseph Levada, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is responsible for safeguarding the doctrine on the faith and morals of the Church throughout the Catholic world, as “unqualified” to lead.

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling this matter, commented, “Our constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith. In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco have abused their authority as government officials and misused the instruments of government to attack the Catholic Church. Their egregious abuse of power now has the backing of a federal judge. This battle, however, is far from over. We are appealing this offensive ruling.”

The Law Center filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hear the appeal.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, observed, “This judge totally ignored or attempted to rationalize the evocative rhetoric and venom of the resolution which are sad reminders of Catholic baiting by the Ku Klux Klan.”

Continued Thompson, “Federal judges across the country are removing passive religious symbols, such as the crèche and the display of the Ten Commandments, from the public square because these innocent symbols supposedly express an official government endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. However, when San Francisco passes an overtly, anti-Catholic resolution expressly attacking Church moral teaching and calling on Church leaders to defy Church teaching as a matter of official government policy, a federal judge gives these anti-Catholic bigots a free pass. Unfortunately, this case amply demonstrates the anti-religious bias that pervades our judicial system.”

Catholic doctrine proclaims that allowing children to be adopted by homosexuals would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. According to Church authority, such policies are gravely immoral and Catholic organizations must not place children for adoption in homosexual households. Accordingly, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has directed Catholic organizations to adhere to the Church’s moral teaching.

The Law Center’s lawsuit claimed that the City’s anti-Catholic resolution violated the First Amendment, which “forbids an official purpose to disapprove of a particular religion, religious beliefs, or of religion in general.” The Law Center argued that the “anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message to Plaintiffs and others who are faithful adherents to the Catholic faith that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community and an accompanying message that those who oppose Catholic religious beliefs, particularly with regard to homosexual unions and adoptions by homosexual partners, are insiders, favored members of the political community.”

In her decision upholding the resolution against the Law Center’s constitutional challenge, the federal judge defended the City by essentially claiming that the Church invited the attack by publicly expressing its teaching on moral issues. In her written opinion, the judge stated, “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith provoked this debate, indeed may have invited entanglement, by its [doctrinal] statement. This court does not find that our case law requires political bodies to remain silent in the face of this provocation.”

Thomas More Law Center’s Christmas Campaign Brings Another Nativity Victory in Beaver, Pennsylvania
Tue, Dec 5, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – Even though Michael and Deborah Sturm, with the assistance of the Thomas More Law Center, were allowed to display a Nativity scene last Christmas in a public park in the Borough of Beaver, Pennsylvania, this year their Nativity display request was in trouble as a new Borough Council Board tabled the approval of their request. The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm in Ann Arbor, Michigan, assisted by Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, attorney Noah Fardo of Flaherty, Fardo & Cook, again sprung into action.

Law Center trial counsel Edward L. White III sent letters to the Borough explaining that the Sturms had a constitutional free speech right to display their Nativity scene in the public park in which the Council had permitted others to exercise their free speech rights. As a result, the Council held a special meeting on November 21st and granted the request by the Sturms to erect a private Nativity scene in Irvine Park, a public park in the downtown section of the Borough.

After receiving the news that their request had been approved, Michael and Deborah Strum both commented that they were glad the Borough had done the right thing in allowing their Nativity display.

The Sturms will be displaying their Nativity scene in Irvine Park from December 16 through 31, 2006.

Beaver, Pennsylvania, is the latest success in the Thomas More Law Center’s Christmas Campaign to bring back Christmas to the public square. The Law Center has asked its supporters to go on the offensive — where government has allowed a religious display of another faith, ask that a Nativity display be erected on the same property as well; where there is a public forum for the exercise of free speech ask for permission to erect a Nativity display.

More than two-dozen files have been opened for possible litigation across the country and more requests for help are coming in each day. The Law Center has asked its several hundred affiliated attorneys across the nation to assist in this year’s Christmas Campaign.

Said Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, “It’s a national tragedy that despite the fact over 85 percent of Americans are Christians, the ACLU has bullied elected representatives and school officials to eradicate the public celebration of Christmas under threat of lawsuits. Municipalities and schools should be aware that the systematic exclusion of Christmas symbols during the holiday season is not warranted, and such exclusion itself could be inconsistent with the Constitution, and subject them to a possible lawsuit.”

Next week, the United States Supreme Court is expected to announce whether it will grant review in another Thomas More Law Center Christmas case, Andrea Skoros v. City of New York. In that case, a sharply divided Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ panel upheld the right of the New York City schools to discriminate against Christian symbols while specifically allowing the Jewish and Islamic symbols. The New York City school policy allowed the display of Menorahs during the Jewish holiday of Chanukah, and the Star and Crescent during the Muslim holiday of Ramadan, but specifically excluded Nativity displays.

Mount Soledad Cross Victory in State Court
Thu, Nov 30, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – Today, the Fourth District Court of Appeals in California upheld the constitutionality of Proposition A—the hugely successful referendary petition drive that transfers the Mount Soledad memorial property, including the cross, to the federal government for use as a veterans memorial. The Thomas More Law Center represented San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial in this appeal. “San Diegans” is the organization that was responsible for the passage of Proposition A. As a result, the court allowed it to participate in the case as an aggrieved party.

In a special election held in July 2005, Proposition A passed by an overwhelming 76% of the vote. However, a state superior court judge issued an order halting Proposition A, claiming that this transfer was unconstitutional. The state court challenge was brought on behalf of Philip Paulson, the self-proclaimed atheist who was also seeking to have the cross removed from the public land.

In a lengthy opinion, the court of appeals reversed the superior court judge and held that the transfer of the memorial was in fact constitutional.

Charles LiMandri, the West Coast Regional Director for the Law Center, commented, “We are quite pleased with the court’s decision. It protects the will of the people and their desire to preserve a historical, veterans memorial for future generations.”

Thomas More Law Center’s Christmas Campaign Pays off in Bedford, New York
Wed, Nov 22, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – For the past three years, the Town of Bedford, New York has permitted a local Jewish group to erect a large Menorah on the town hall lawn to celebrate Chanukah, which included the traditional lighting ceremonies. For the past two years, the town has denied resident Thomas Kiley’s request to display a Nativity on the same property.

Last night, however, the Town Board approved Kiley’s request, after the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, intervened on his behalf. New York attorney, Christopher Ferrara of the American Catholic Lawyers Association, assisted the Law Center.

After finally receiving approval, a joyous Thomas Kiley commented, “My Nativity display is in honor of my family which has been in this area for five generations and to honor all our Christian friends. We wish everyone a Merry Christmas.”

Earlier this month, Thomas More Law Center trial counsel, Edward L. White III sent the Town Board a letter on Kiley’s behalf asking that his Nativity request be placed on the November 21st agenda. White argued that Kiley had a constitutional right to display his private Nativity on the lawn where the town has allowed the display of a private Menorah during the past three years. At last night’s Board meeting, Christopher Ferrara echoed these legal principles. The Town Board voted to approve Kiley’s request to display the Nativity and hold a celebratory gathering on the property.

Bedford is the latest success in the Thomas More Law Center’s Christmas Campaign to bring back Christmas to the public square. The Law Center has asked its supporters to go on the offensive — where government has allowed a religious display of another faith, ask that a Nativity display be erected on the same property as well; where there is a public forum for the exercise of free speech ask for permission to erect a Nativity display.

Said Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, “It’s a national tragedy that despite the fact over 80 percent of Americans are Christians, the ACLU has bullied elected representatives and school officials to eradicate the public celebration of Christmas under threat of lawsuits. Municipalities and schools should be aware that the systematic exclusion of Christmas symbols during the holiday season is not warranted, and such exclusion itself could be inconsistent with the Constitution, and subject them to a possible lawsuit.”

Berkley, Michigan City Council Caves In To ACLU Threat And Removes Decades-Old Nativity Display
Tue, Nov 21, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Berkley, Michigan City Council last night voted 6-to-1 to no longer display a Nativity scene on city property. The City caved in to an ACLU threat of a lawsuit if they continued their decades-old Nativity display. Some residents claim that the Nativity display had been on city property for more than 60 years.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “The City Council crushed the crèche. Despite all of its rationalizing last night, the council did a disservice to its residents by allowing itself to be intimidated by the ACLU. The plain facts are that the city received a threat from the ACLU and in response to that threat removed this universal symbol of Christmas. No amount of explanation will excuse their cowardice. It makes me wonder what they’re going to do with the church steeple on their City logo. Shame on them.”

Last month, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, sent a letter to Berkley’s city officials offering to defend the City at no charge should the ACLU file its lawsuit. The Law Center encouraged the City to keep the Nativity scene as part of its annual holiday display – especially since the Nativity scene could legally be displayed on city property. On November 9, 2006, trial counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, Edward L. White III, attended a meeting of the City’s “Ad Hoc Holiday Display Committee” and again conveyed the same message.
White spoke at last night’s council meeting, and again urged them to maintain the Nativity scene as part of the City’s annual display. White pointed out that the neighboring city of Clawson’s Nativity display had been challenged in court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs Michigan, had ruled that the Nativity could be displayed legally on city property.

Although citizens were permitted to speak, it was obvious that the Council Members had made up their minds beforehand, since most read from prepared written statements when explaining their votes.

Thomas More Law Center Submits Brief To Preserve our National Motto
Tue, Nov 21, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has submitted a friend of the court brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals supporting the preservation of our National Motto, “In God We Trust.” The brief was submitted in a case brought by atheist Michael Newdow against the United States Congress to have the Motto declared unconstitutional. Newdow is appealing a lower court’s dismissal of his case.

According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, “This case has great significance in the ongoing battle by the ACLU and its allies who aim to remove every vestige of Christianity from the public square. I am sure Newdow has high hopes of overturning the lower court decision since he will be in the most liberal federal appeals court in the land. If he loses there, however, he no doubt will take his case to the United States Supreme Court.”

Newdow’s numerous lawsuits challenging the public acknowledgment of God have attracted considerable attention in recent years. Newdow successfully convinced the same Ninth Circuit a few years ago to declare the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it includes the words “under God.” The United States Supreme Court tossed out Newdow’s victory in the Pledge case, but only on a technicality.

In its brief, the Law Center explained that the National Motto provides an ongoing acknowledgment of our unifying religious heritage, and is completely compatible with the United States Constitution.

Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, who authored the brief, explained: “The phrase “In God We Trust” does not establish a religion. Instead, the phrase publicly acknowledges our nation’s rich religious heritage, which is something we should foster.”

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, Approves Nativity Displays
Mon, Nov 20, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – In past years, the Florida city of Palm Beach Gardens’ annual holiday display included a Jewish menorah, but not a Christian Nativity scene. This year, however, resident Elizabeth Sither, with the assistance of the Thomas More Law Center, obtained the City’s approval to display a Nativity on public property in front of the City’s Recreation Center. Mrs. Sither was also allowed to donate a second Nativity that would be part of the City’s indoor annual holiday display.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “I applaud Mrs. Sither’s willingness to publicly proclaim and demonstrate that the reason for Christmas is the birth of Jesus, which the Nativity scene reflects. I also appreciate the City Council’s quick action to approve her request.”

The Thomas More Law Center is a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. This year it has embarked on an aggressive campaign not only to defend from legal attack Nativity displays already approved by municipalities, but also to defend the right of citizens to erect Nativity displays where none had existed before. The Law Center has called upon its several hundred affiliated attorneys located across the nation to assist in this effort.

On November 15, 2006, Mrs. Sither along with Law Center trial counsel Edward L. White III, and a Law Center affiliated attorney, Florida attorney Dina Cellini, met with the Palm Beach Gardens City Attorney and the City Manager. As a result of the meeting, the city officials agreed to propose to the City Council that Mrs. Sither be permitted to erect a Nativity scene in a newly created outdoor free speech zone and that the City accept a donated Nativity from Mrs. Sither that the City would add to its indoor holiday display of the menorah (as well as other secular holiday items).

The following day, November 16, 2006, the City Council approved the proposal. In attendance were Mrs. Sither, Ms. Cellini, and Thomas Rooney, another Florida attorney affiliated with the Thomas More Law Center.

Another Florida City Poised to Allow Nativity Display On Public Property At Law Center’s Request
Thu, Nov 16, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI — Continuing its pro-active efforts to increase the number of Nativity displays to celebrate the religious significance of Christmas, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan has obtained an agreement by representatives of the Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, City Council. The City representatives have agreed to make a recommendation to the City Council to allow resident Elizabeth Sither, to display a Nativity scene on public property. They have also agreed to allow a donated nativity scene to be displayed alongside the menorah display that the City itself has been displaying in the past in City Hall. The City Council meets this evening to formalize this agreement. Representatives from the Law Center, Dina V. Cellini and Thomas J. Rooney will be present.

The agreement was reached yesterday in a meeting attended by the Palm Beach Gardens city attorney, the city manager and Law Center attorneys Edward L. White, III and Dina V. Cellini who are representing Elizabeth Sither. Last year, the City of Palm Beach Gardens only displayed a menorah to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Chanukah.
This year the Law Center has asked thousands of supporters to go on the offensive—where there has been no nativity display before, ask the government for permission to erect one; where the government has allowed a religious display of another faith, ask that a nativity display be erected on the same property as well; where there is a public forum for the exercise of free speech, ask for permission to erect a nativity display.

North Miami Grants Permission To Erect Nativity Scene On Public Plaza
Wed, Nov 15, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – For a second year in a row, the Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) in North Miami, Florida, has granted permission for a private nativity scene to be erected on the public plaza in front of the Museum. In past years, the public plaza only displayed a menorah during the Jewish holiday of Chanukah. Last year, however, Michael and Marilyn Thomas, with the assistance of the Thomas More Law Center, obtained permission to display a nativity scene on the plaza – the first time in recent memory that a nativity had been displayed on the plaza.

This year, the Thomas family was again represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Dina Cellini, a Florida attorney affiliated with the Law Center also assisted this representation. Thomas More Law Center trial counsel, Edward L. White III, sent a letter to the City of North Miami requesting permission for the nativity display. Within a matter of days, the City granted the request and is permitting the Thomas family to display their nativity scene on the plaza from December 1, 2006, through January 7, 2007.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “I applaud the City of North Miami for allowing its Christian citizens to express their religious faith during the Christmas holiday as a reminder that the purpose of the state and national holiday is to recognize the birth of Jesus Christ. Too often, municipalities are intimidated by ACLU threats of lawsuits – specifically targeting nativity displays.”

The request made on behalf of the Thomas family is part of the Thomas More Law Center’s annual Christmas Campaign. The Law Center is currently involved in other Florida cases involving nativity displays. Additionally, several files involving other states have been opened for possible litigation. All of this is part of the Law Center’s aggressive strategy of a retaking the public square from the ACLU, which has for too long dominated municipal policies through intimidation across the country – causing the removal of traditional Christian symbols like the nativity scene.

The Law Center has advised its supporters across the nation to take a more pro-active stand this Christmas:

Where there has been no nativity display before, ask the local government for permission to erect one.
Where the government has allowed a religious display of another faith, ask that a nativity display b

2006 Archives I – January-June

June 30, 2006 by

Supreme Court Asked To Stay Lower Court Order To Remove the Mt. Soledad Cross
Thu, Jun 29, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, this morning, filed an emergency application in the U.S. Supreme Court asking Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to stay a lower federal court decision that orders the City of San Diego to remove the Mt. Soledad Cross by August 1st or face fines of $5,000 a day thereafter. The City has indicated that unless the legal situation changes, it will comply with the lower court order to remove the cross and will begin plans to implement that order beginning in the first week of July.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed the emergency application for stay on behalf of San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial, the organization that spearheaded the highly successful referendary petition drive that resulted in the City Council repealing its March 8, 2005 vote not to transfer the memorial property to the federal government.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center commented, “The legislative actions of area Congressmen and the grass roots efforts of San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial have kept the cross atop Mt. Soledad. We are now, however, at a critical stage, and time is running out.”

The Law Center’s emergency application explained that this case presents a serious question regarding the place of religious symbols in the public life of our nation.

The Law Center argued, “Removing the memorial cross, which has been displayed continuously in its present location since 1954, would destroy the integrity of the Veterans Memorial, undermine the state court proceeding, and cause irreparable harm to Applicant, the citizens of San Diego, and the many family members, friends, and comrades of the nearly two thousand veterans who are honored by this memorial for their sacrificial service to this country. It would be a national tragedy to tear down the memorial cross, which is scheduled to occur on or before August 1, 2006, absent a stay.”

Charles LiMandri, the West Coast Regional Director for the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “The Mt. Soledad Cross and Memorial represents the sacrifices our veterans and their families have made and the gratitude that we, as a community and a nation, have for them. They fought hard for our freedoms. We will fight hard to preserve them.”

In addition to the emergency application to the Supreme Court, the Law Center is also involved in appeals to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the California Court of Appeals, to save the cross.

On Monday evening U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter introduced House Bill 5683, which mandates the federal government take over the memorial and transfer it to the Defense department. Representative Darrell Issa and newly elected Representative Brian Bilbray are co-sponsors of that legislation. However, it will be a difficult undertaking to move the bill through both the House of Representatives and the Senate for signature of the President before the August 1st deadline.

In addition to the numerous legal steps the Law Center is taking to prevent removal of the memorial cross by August 1st, the Law Center is also asking all Americans to join in the effort to urge President Bush to immediately use the federal powers of eminent domain to take the land on which the cross and memorial sit by signing a petition to the President contained on its website at: www.thomasmore.org.

Explained Thompson, “Our legal team is pursuing every possible legal option to save the Mt. Soledad Cross, including an appeal to President Bush and Congress to take the land under the federal powers of eminent domain. Our veterans deserve it.”

War Hero Urges President Bush to Save the Mt. Soledad Cross and Veterans Memorial
Tue, Jun 27, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – Retired Navy Rear Admiral Jeremiah Denton, highly decorated Vietnam War veteran, former POW and former U.S. Senator, in a personal letter sent on June 14th, asked President Bush to save the Mt. Soledad cross, which is the centerpiece of a national war memorial honoring our veterans. Rear Admiral Denton urged the President to consider saving the cross by means of the federal government exercising its power of eminent domain in order to maintain the land as a National monument.

Rear Admiral Denton serves on the Thomas More Law Center Citizens Advisory Board and is responsible for developing strategy. The Thomas More Law Center has been leading the fight to save the Mt. Soledad cross since 2004 after it learned that the 15 year old lawsuit brought by an atheist was about to be settled by the defendants agreeing to remove the cross.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center commented, “Faced with unsympathetic California judges at both the state and federal level, and the fact that the City of San Diego has been given until August 1st to remove the cross or face fines of $5,000 per day thereafter, President Bush’s intervention may be the only way to prevent removal of the cross. We owe it to our veterans and fallen heroes to do everything we can to preserve this national memorial erected in their honor. Of course, even after federal intervention, the court battle will most likely continue.”

Rear Admiral Denton first came to the American public’s attention in 1966 as a POW during a televised interview by his Communist captors. Before the interview, Denton was tortured and threatened with more torture if he didn’t properly answer their questions regarding alleged American atrocities. Despite those threats, Denton responded in front of the gathered Communist dignitaries, and glaring camera lights, “Whatever the position of my government is, I believe it, I support it, and I will support it as long as I live.” During the televised interview, Rear Admiral Denton blinked his eyes in Morse Code spelling out the message “T-O-R-T-U-R-E,” which was the first confirmation Naval Intelligence had that American POWs in Vietnam were being tortured.

Of the nearly eight years as a POW, Denton served over four years in solitary confinement. As spokesperson for the first group of returning POWs in1973, as he stepped from the plane he was asked to make a statement on behalf of the group. He turned to the microphones and said, “We are honored to have had the opportunity to serve our country under difficult circumstances. We are profoundly grateful to our Commander-in-Chief and our nation for this day. God bless America.”

In his book, “When Hell was in Session,” which chronicles his experience as a POW, Denton describes the importance of his only personal possession as a POW, a cross woven of bamboo strips by a fellow prisoner. Throughout his book, Rear Admiral Denton describes the importance of his Christian faith to his survival as a POW under horrific conditions. The importance of that faith underscores Rear Admiral Denton’s desire to save the memorial cross.

Thomas More Law Center Continues Battle to Prevent Desecration of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial
Mon, Jun 26, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm, filed an emergency motion to intervene in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this past Friday, seeking to reverse Federal District Court Judge Gordon Thompson’s May 3rd order to the City of San Diego to remove the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial cross by August 1st or face fines of $5,000 per day.

The Law Center’s emergency motion to intervene was filed two days after the Ninth Circuit denied San Diego’s request to stay the removal of the cross. The Court instead expedited the appeal, ordering briefs to be filed by July 19th and setting oral argument for the week of October 16th, two months after the Cross is supposed to be removed. The Law Center filed its emergency motion to intervene so that it can participate in the expedited briefing schedule and argument.

The Law Center also has pending before the Ninth Circuit its own emergency motion to stay the removal of the memorial cross pending resolution of its appeals in both the Ninth Circuit and a parallel state court case. The Ninth Circuit has yet to rule on this stay request.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “We have made a pledge to fight this battle to the end, and we are doing that. Our heroic veterans continue to fight for our freedoms. We owe it to them and their families to continue to fight to preserve this national memorial that was erected in their honor.”

The Law Center’s emergency motion to intervene was filed on behalf of San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial, the organization responsible for Proposition A, a hugely successful referendary petition drive that transfers the memorial to the federal government. Proposition A passed by an overwhelming 76% of the vote in a special election held in July 2005. However, a state court judge halted the implementation of Proposition A, claiming that it violated the California Constitution. Atheist Philip Paulson, the one who challenged the cross in the federal lawsuit, is also challenging Proposition A in the California courts. The Law Center is also appealing the state court ruling.

Charles LiMandri, the West Coast Regional Director for the Law Center, commented, “We will not give up this fight. We will exhaust all options to save the Mt. Soledad veterans memorial. This memorial and what it stands for are too important to lose.”

For further information on the Mt Soledad Cross controversy you may visit the Thomas More Law Center website at www.thomasmore.org.

Ninth Circuit Decides: The Mt. Soledad Cross Will Come Down
Thu, Jun 22, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – A three–judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to stay Federal District Judge Gordon Thompson’s order to remove the Mt. Soledad Cross pending an appeal. Thus, the City of San Diego must remove the Cross by August 1, 2006, or face fines of $5,000 per day thereafter. In its decision, however, the Ninth Circuit scheduled oral arguments on the matter for the week of October 16, 2006, weeks after the Cross is to be removed. The 43- foot Cross was erected in 1954 and currently is the centerpiece of a national memorial honoring American veterans of all wars.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has been fighting to save the Cross since 2004 when it received information that the private memorial association operating the memorial site and the City were about to agree to settle the case, which had been on going for 15 years, by removing the Cross.

Richard Thompson, the Law Center’s President and Chief Counsel, commented on the recent order: “It is an outrage and insult not only to Christians, but people of all faiths, that this memorial site to our veterans and fallen war heroes would be desecrated by removal of a universally recognized symbol of sacrifice just because one atheist was upset about it. We will continue our legal fight to save the cross. A quick answer to the current legal challenge would be for the federal government to step in and take the land under its power of eminent domain. So far they have remained silent.”

Continued Thompson, “The Cross and memorial honors those Americans of all faiths who have given their lives to preserve our religious freedom; we are now called upon to do whatever it takes to prevent the courts from destroying the Cross that symbolizes our religious heritage and their sacrifice.”

Rob Muise, a Law Center trial counsel who has authored many of the pleadings in this case, indicated that further legal action will be taken to preserve the cross and memorial. Said Muise, “Friends, comrades, and family members of thousands of our fallen veterans have chosen the Mt. Soledad memorial as a place to honor and remember their fallen heroes. As a former Marine officer and veteran of the first Persian Gulf War, I am sickened by the thought of the pain that these court decisions must be causing for these grieving families. Our veterans deserve better than this.”

In December 2004, as a result of legal research and urgings by the Thomas More Law Center, Congress and the President designated the Mt. Soledad Cross, the land on which it stands, and the granite memorial walls surrounding it a national veterans memorial. The congressional action authorized the Department of the Interior to accept a donation of the property. The Secretary of the Interior would administer the Memorial as a unit of the National Park System, giving the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association the right of continued maintenance of the Cross and surrounding granite memorial walls and plaques.

However, despite widespread support, the San Diego City Council declined to make the donation. As a result, a religiously diverse, grass roots organization, “San Diegans for the Mt Soledad War Memorial,” headed by Jewish businessman Philip Thalheimer, obtained more than 100,000 signatures on petitions, calling on the council to reverse its decision. In response, the City Council opted to place the question authorizing the transfer as Proposition A on the July 2005 special election ballot.

Plaintiff Paulson’s attorney filed a second lawsuit, this time in state court, seeking to stop the vote. Despite the fact that the ballot proposal passed by an astonishing 76% of the vote, State Court Judge Patricia Cowett ruled that Proposition A violated the California constitution. Her order is being appealed as well.

Federal Court: Public School Children Not Allowed to Recite Pledge
Wed, Jun 21, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm, has filed a friend of the Court brief seeking reversal of a decision striking down the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school children in California because the Pledge includes the phrase “One Nation, Under God.” The decision was rendered late last year in the second lawsuit challenging the Pledge brought by nationally known atheist Michael Newdow.

In striking down the Pledge, federal district court judge Lawrence Karlton held that he was bound to follow the decision in Newdow’s favor rendered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002–even though the Supreme Court had reversed the Ninth Circuit in 2004. When the Supreme Court’s reversed the Ninth Circuit it held that federal courts should not reach the merits of Newdow’s first challenge to the Pledge because that challenge was advanced on behalf of Newdow’s daughter and Newdow’s right to represent his daughter’s interest were doubtful under California law. In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court did not address the constitutionality of the Pledge, leaving that issue for another day. In the aftermath of this reversal, Newdow filed a second suit on behalf of himself and others, which produced the ruling now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

Patrick T. Gillen, who wrote the brief for the Center, called Judge Karlton’s reliance on the Ninth Circuit’s earlier opinion as “plainly wrong” and noted that it undermined the authority of the Supreme Court. According to Gillen, when Karlton erred he gave binding effect to a “deplorable decision at odds with the history and traditions of our nation as well as the more enduring and cogent principles used to interpret and apply the Establishment Clause.”

The Center’s brief concluded that the Ninth Circuit should consider Newdow’s challenge as if writing on a blank slate and conclude that the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because it contains the phrase “One Nation, Under God.” The phrase does not represent an establishment of religion but simply acknowledges the common conviction that this nation exists under God, a conviction that engendered the very protection for religious liberty that Newdow and the other Plaintiffs enjoy.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “Ironically this God-given freedom expressed in the Pledge of Allegiance is what endows Mr. Newdow with the right to voice his opinion that there is no God.”

Newdow, a practicing physician as well as lawyer, has directed his legal energies towards removing all religious expressions from the public square. In addition to his challenges to the Pledge, Newdow has sued to remove our national motto, “In God We Trust” from U.S. currency, prohibit the President from ending his inaugural oath with “So help me God,” ban invocations at inaugural ceremonies, and prevent Congress from hiring legislative chaplains.

Federal Judge Dismisses Case Challenging National Motto
Tue, Jun 13, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – A California federal trial judge has dismissed the lawsuit filed by Michael Newdow challenging the constitutionality of our national motto, “In God We Trust.” Newdow is the atheist who achieved national attention in his previous unsuccessful attempt to remove the Pledge of Allegiance from public schools because it includes the words “one nation under God.”

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, had filed a friend of the court brief seeking the dismissal of Newdow’s national motto lawsuit.

Edward L. White III, the Thomas More Law Center’s trial counsel who submitted the friend of the court brief, commented: “Our national motto does not have the constitutionally impermissible effect of establishing a religion. Rather, it acknowledges our nation’s rich religious heritage, which informed the founding of our nation.”

The federal trial judge ruled that the national motto has nothing to do with the establishment of a religion. The judge noted that the use of the national motto is patriotic and has no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.

Thomas More Law Center Asks Ninth Circuit To Halt Destruction of the Mt. Soledad Cross
Tue, Jun 6, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – Today, the Thomas More Law Center, a national, public interest law firm, filed an urgent motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, seeking a stay of Federal District Court Judge Gordon Thompson’s May 3 order to the City of San Diego to remove the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial cross within 90 days or face fines of $5,000 per day. Unless the Ninth Circuit stays this court order, the City will be forced to remove the cross by August 1.

The Law Center’s motion was filed on behalf of San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial, the organization responsible for Proposition A, a hugely successful referendary petition drive that transfers the memorial to the federal government. In a special election held in July 2005, Proposition A passed by an overwhelming 76% of the vote. However, a state court judge recently issued an order halting Proposition A, claiming that it violated the California Constitution. Atheist Philip Paulson, the one who challenged the cross in the federal lawsuit, is also challenging Proposition A in the California courts.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “This case is reaching a critical stage, and we are exhausting all legal options to save the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, which includes the centerpiece cross. It would be a gross miscarriage of justice for the Ninth Circuit to allow the destruction of the cross without considering how changed circumstances since 1993 when the court upheld the injunction have impacted the legitimacy of that decision.”

The Law Center is asking the Ninth Circuit to stay the order to destroy the cross pending the resolution of the constitutionality of Proposition A. That transfer could render Judge Thompson’s order ineffective because the City will no longer be responsible for the memorial cross, it will belong to the federal government. This case is in the California appellate courts, and the Law Center is involved in that action as well. The Law Center is also asking the Ninth Circuit to halt the destruction of the memorial cross so that the court can consider changed circumstances that demonstrate the constitutionality of the memorial.

Charles LiMandri, the West Coast Regional Director for the Law Center, commented, “It would be unjust for the Ninth Circuit to allow the destruction of the memorial cross without considering the impact of Proposition A and the changed circumstances that warrant a reversal of the decision to remove it in the first instance. We will continue to press the fight and are hopeful that justice will prevail.”

For further information on the Mt Soledad Cross controversy you may visit the Thomas More Law Center website at www.thomasmore.org.

Thomas More Law Center Seeks Supreme Court Review Of Court Decision Allowing California Public School To Teach Twelve Year-olds How To Become Muslims
Mon, Jun 5, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has requested that the United States Supreme Court review the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision holding that it is constitutional for a California public school to engage in a three week intensive course for seventh graders on how to “become Muslims.”

For three weeks in 2001, impressionable twelve-year-old students were, among other things, placed into Islamic city groups, took Islamic names, wore identification tags that displayed their new Islamic name and the Star and Crescent Moon, which is the symbol of Muslims, were handed materials that instructed them to “Remember Allah always so that you may prosper,” completed the Islamic Five Pillars of Faith, including fasting, and memorized and recited the “Bismillah” or “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,” which students also wrote on banners that were hung on the classroom walls.

A California federal trial court and the Ninth Circuit determined that these practices did not violate the Constitution.

According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, “This case cries out ‘double standard.’ The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the same court that held our Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it contained the phrase ‘under God,’ and yet they allow a three week intensive course on how to become Muslims, including class memorization of Islamic prayers and participation in Islamic religious rituals.

Edward L. White III, the Law Center’s trial counsel handling the case, commented, “Although a public school may teach about religion, the school district here went far beyond an explanation of the historical or literary significance of Islam and placed these seventh graders into the position of becoming trainees in that religion. These young children were indoctrinated in Islam, which the Constitution forbids.”
It is anticipated that the Supreme Court will decide whether to review this case within the next few months.

Parents of Fallen War Hero To the President: Save The Mt. Soledad Cross
Tue, May 23, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – “There is no better place to honor our fallen heroes than under that cross, overlooking the country they fought and died to preserve.” These were the words of the parents of Marine Captain Michael D. Martino who was killed in action in Iraq, contained in a May 15, 2006 letter to President Bush, urging him to save the Mt. Soledad Cross.

On November 2, 2005, Captain Martino was killed when his Cobra helicopter was shot down by a surface-to-air missile. This past week, Captain Martino’s Camp Pendleton Unit—a Marine air squadron that had just recently returned from Iraq—dedicated plaques at Mt. Soledad to honor him and his fellow pilot, Major Jerry Bloomfield, for their heroic service. Over three hundred fellow Marines stood in line for over three hours to meet and pay their respects to Robert and Sybil Martino, the parents of Captain Martino.

Captain Martino’s father told the Thomas More Law Center, “I cannot express the sincere feeling of emotion we felt for our heroes and those Marines. We were truly glad that there was a place where you felt such peace under the cross, which overlooked the beautiful country they died to protect.”

“In bitter irony, the very freedoms Captain Martino and Major Jerry Bloomfield died to protect are being perverted by the ACLU and atheists to deprive them and their grieving families the honor and solace they deserve,” said Richard Thompson, President of the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which has been working around the clock to save the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial.

Law Center trial counsel Robert Muise, a former Marine officer and veteran of the first Persian Gulf War, commented from first hand experience, “I am deeply moved by the sacrifices made by men like Captain Martino and the thousands of others in our armed services. I have witnessed them myself. Unfortunately, while these brave men and women are heroically fighting to protect our Constitution, the ACLU and activist judges are taking it apart. For the sake of our fallen veterans, we must fight to keep this memorial intact. Our veterans deserve it.”

As a result of a lawsuit brought by atheist Philip Paulson, with the help of the ACLU, on May 3, 2006, Federal District Judge Gordon Thompson ordered the City of San Diego to remove the cross within 90 days or face fines of $5,000 per day. The removal of this cross and the concomitant destruction of this national veterans memorial will be a national tragedy and an affront to the many proud Americans who gave the ultimate sacrifice for this Country. One grieving family’s story tells it like it is.

The May 15, 2006, letter urges President Bush to take the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial under federal ownership and preserve the cross. The letter stated, “Our son loved his country and the many rights and liberties it provided . . . . Our son died with a strong belief that he was fighting to preserve the freedom of all Americans. Please let us have OUR freedom from activist judges and their personal interpretation of our Constitution.”

For further information on the Mt Soledad Cross controversy you may visit the Thomas More Law Center website at www.thomasmore.org. Please sign the petition on the website urging President Bush to save the Mt. Soledad Cross and Veterans Memorial.

Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Defended In The United States Supreme Court
Mon, May 22, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI — The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has submitted a brief with the United States Supreme Court supporting the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Joining the Thomas More Law Center in the friend of the court brief are the Catholic League and the National Pro-Life Alliance.

The appeal to the Supreme Court involves a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Nebraska that found the federal Act to be unconstitutional. Two other federal courts of appeal, the Second Circuit in New York and the Ninth Circuit in California, have also ruled the Act unconstitutional.

The Act bans the abortion procedure wherein an unborn baby, generally 20 weeks or longer in gestation, is removed from her mother’s womb, except for the head. The doctor punctures the child’s head, sucks out the child’s brains in order to collapse the skull, and then removes the dead child from the mother.

According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, “Partial-birth abortion is nothing other than infanticide, and this barbaric procedure must be stopped.”

In the brief, the Law Center exposes the rhetoric of the pro-abortion movement, which is designed to distract the public and the courts from the reality that each time an abortion is performed, a human life is destroyed. As medical science demonstrates, life begins at the moment of conception, and abortion advocates have tried to blur this reality in an attempt to sedate the public into believing that the atrocity of abortion is acceptable.

Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, explained, “In our brief, we request that the Supreme Court find the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 to be constitutional. We also request that the Supreme Court take this opportunity to reconsider and reject its ‘abortion rights’ decisions, such as Roe v. Wade. The time has come for the Supreme Court to stop the grave injustices that have resulted from those decisions.”

The Thomas More Law Center is currently involved in several other pro-life initiatives, including defending the State of Michigan’s statute banning partial-birth abortions, and a petition drive for a Michigan constitutional amendment that defines a person as existing from the moment of conception and thus protected by Michigan’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The Thomas More Law Center was also involved in the 2004 South Dakota attempt to criminalize abortions and directly confront Roe v. Wade, an attempt that lost by one vote in the South Dakota legislature.

Thomas More Law Center Takes Legal Action to Save the Mt. Soledad Cross
Thu, May 18, 2006

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national, public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has filed papers in the U.S. District Court in San Diego, California, asking Federal District Judge Gordon Thompson to allow them to intervene in the case challenging the display of the Mt. Soledad cross. The motion to intervene is the first step by the Law Center towards an appeal and stay of Judge Thompson’s order to remove the Mt. Soledad Cross within 90 days.

The San Diego City Council is scheduled to vote next week on whether they will appeal Judge Thompson’s order to remove the cross.

The Law Center filed the papers on behalf of the San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial, an organization that was formed in March 2005 to save the national

2005 Archives II – July-December

December 31, 2005 by

Court Issues Troubling Decision In Dover Intelligent Design Case
Wed, Dec 21, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI — Today the district court judge issued a lengthy opinion in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, holding that the School District violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution by reading to students of a ninth-grade biology class a short, one-minute statement that mentions “intelligent design” twice. Pursuant to this statement, the book Of Pandas and People, which addresses intelligent design arguments, was placed in the school district library for students to voluntarily review, along with other books that are critical of intelligent design. This statement was read in a class in which Darwin’s theory of evolution was taught pursuant to the Pennsylvania academic standards and pursuant to its standing in the scientific community. Moreover, the primary and only required text for this class, Biology by Prentice Hall, fully and comprehensively covers the theory of evolution, and it was co-authored by one of the experts who testified for the Plaintiffs. According to the judge’s opinion, this “policy” violates the Establishment Clause, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “What is clear from this decision is that our present Establishment Clause jurisprudence, as several Supreme Court justices have noted, is in hopeless disarray and in need of substantial revision. In his opinion the judge bemoaned that the school district ‘deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.’ In this respect, he was correct. This case should have never made it into a federal courthouse. The Founders of this country would be astonished at the thought that this simple curriculum change ‘established religion’ in violation of the Constitution that they drafted.”

Several Supreme Court justices have openly criticized the way in which this body of constitutional law has developed. For example, Justice Thomas stated in his concurring opinion in the pledge of allegiance case, “Our jurisprudential confusion has led to results that can only be described as silly.” In Edwards v. Aguillard, a case relied upon by the district court in which the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to teach creationism alongside evolution, Justice Scalia criticized the Court’s “embarrassing Establishment Clause jurisprudence.” In a school prayer case, then Justice Rehnquist noted, “It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years.” Justice Rehnquist is referring to the metaphor of the wall of separation between church and state.

Thompson continued, “The district court’s decision today continues along this path of applying a fundamentally flawed jurisprudence. Unfortunately, until the Supreme Court adopts a more coherent and historically sound jurisprudence, school districts like Dover will be at risk of costly lawsuits by the ACLU for adopting such modest curriculum changes such as the one at issue.”

Ninth Circuit Appellate Court asked to Reconsider its Ruling that it is OK For Public Schools To Teach Seventh Graders “To Become Muslims”
Mon, Dec 19, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI. – A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had ruled in a short unpublished memorandum opinion that it was constitutionally permissible for twelve-year-old public school students to be told they would “become Muslims,” has been asked to reconsider its decision by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Law Center has also asked all twenty-four active judges on the Ninth Circuit to decide the case.

For three weeks in 2001, impressionable twelve-year-old students were told that they would become Muslims, memorized verses from the Koran, took Islamic names, wore identification tags that displayed their new Islamic name and the Star and Crescent Moon, which is the symbol of Muslims, were handed materials that instructed them to “Remember Allah always so that you may prosper,” completed the Islamic Five Pillars of Faith, including fasting, and memorized and recited the “Bismillah” or “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Praise be to God,” which students also wrote on banners that were hung on the classroom walls.

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “This ruling is evidence of a double-standard when it comes to religion in public schools. If students had been instructed on Christianity, as they had on Islam, a Constitutional violation would have most likely been found. The appeals court should clarify in a published opinion just how far public schools can go in teaching about religion. Christians want to know.”

The Law Center represents several parents and their children who challenged the California Byron Union School District’s practice of teaching twelve-year-old students “to become Muslims.”

A federal district court judge in San Francisco had previously determined that the school district had not violated the constitution. Edward L. White III, a Law Center attorney, had asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ three-judge panel to overturn the district court’s decision.

The three-judge panel, however, affirmed the ruling of the district court in a short unpublished memorandum decision. In its unpublished decision, the three-judge panel overlooked, and did not rule on, the plaintiffs’ claims that their free exercise of religion rights and their parental rights had been violated.

The Law Center has asked the three-judge panel to reconsider its ruling and to rule on the free exercise and parental rights claims.

Thomas More Law Center Challenges New Jersey District’s Total Ban on Christmas Music In Federal Appellate Court
Thu, Dec 15, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI — The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has filed its opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, challenging the constitutionality of a New Jersey school district’s policy that banned all religious music in the district’s public schools. The School District’s ban was specifically focused on preventing the playing of Christmas music, including simple instrumentals, during the 2004 year-end celebrations in its public schools.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “This blatant anti-religious policy is yet another example of the total and militant hostility that many public schools exhibit towards the celebration of Christmas. The Grinch is alive and well in New Jersey.”

The brief was filed on behalf of Michael Stratechuk, who sued on his own and on behalf of his two children, who are students in the New Jersey School District. According to the brief, the school district’s ban on religious music conveys the impermissible, government-sponsored message of disapproval of and hostility toward religion in violation of the Establishment Clause, and it deprives the Stratechuk children the right to receive information and ideas, an inherent corollary of their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and academic freedom.

Robert Muise, the attorney handling the case for the Law Center, noted in the brief: “Christmas is a national holiday, and religious music in the public schools is one of the rich traditions of this season. Those that are hostile to these traditions hide behind the mantle of ‘tolerance,’ only to promote intolerance. Indeed, we learn to understand and respect traditions, customs, and beliefs not by being offended or threatened by the traditions of others, but by understanding the meaning of such traditions and why they have the capacity to inspire.”

The New Jersey School District policy at issue in this case was recently featured in a book, The War On Christmas, by Fox News anchor, John Gibson.

Persistent Reverend; Wellington OKs Nativity Display
Wed, Dec 14, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI. – For the last four years during the Christmas season, the Village of Wellington, Florida has displayed a menorah but no nativity. Undaunted by the failure of Wellington officials to take up his written request for a nativity display last year, Reverend Tim Bumgardner of the Palm Beach Worship Center again made his request, this time with the help of the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

The Reverend’s persistence paid off. Although Village officials had initially indicated there would be no nativity added to the menorah this year, but would take up the issue in 2006, the Reverend’s appearance on the O’Reilly Factor brought national attention to Wellington.

On Tuesday, December 13th, the Village Council unanimously voted to include a nativity alongside the menorah. More than 200 residents, most in favor of the nativity, packed the community center. They heard the Reverend’s message of inclusion, “Scrooges (ACLU) are trying to steal Christmas from our nation and community,” he said. “Leave up the menorah, recognize our wonderful Jewish community…. but put up the nativity. It is Christmastime in America.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “In many communities across America, officials feel that if they are going to put up any religious display celebrating the holiday season, they are legally compelled to put up either a nativity display or a menorah display, but not both. The primary reason for this confusion is a series of incoherent Supreme Court cases dealing with religious displays which have the unfortunate effect of pitting one religion against another.”

Law Center trial counsel Edward L. White III spoke to the Village attorney and sent a letter to Village officials requesting, that they either add a nativity scene to their display of a menorah and evergreen tree or permit Rev. Bumgardner, himself, to place a nativity next to the menorah and tree. Mr. White explained that the menorah is a religious symbol and is the principal symbol of the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah. The evergreen tree, however, is a secular symbol and is not the principal symbol of the Christian holiday of Christmas.

Mr. White explained that the nativity scene is the principal symbol of Christmas and it must be added next to the menorah and tree so that the Christian faith is properly represented in the Village’s display. Mr. White concluded by noting that the absence of the nativity scene from the Village’s display demonstrated hostility toward Christians, which the United States Constitution forbids.

At Tuesday’s Village Council meeting, Thomas More Law Center affiliate attorney Dina Cellini and Rev. Bumgardner advanced these arguments when they addressed the Village Council.

Beaver Borough, Pennsylvania OK’s Nativity Display; Thomas More Law Center Instrumental
Wed, Dec 14, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI. – Through the efforts of the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Deborah and Michael Sturm will finally get to erect a nativity scene display on public property.

On Tuesday, December 13th, Law Center trial counsel Edward L. White III accompanied the Strums to the Beaver Borough Council meeting in Pennsylvania. In November, Mr. White had written to the Borough Council to request that the Council grant the Strums permission to erect a nativity scene in a public park in the Borough. The request was placed on the Borough Council’s agenda for the December 13th meeting.

During last night’s meeting, White made a presentation with the Sturms to the Council and answered Council questions dealing with the legality and specifics of the display. After much discussion, the Council voted 7-2 in favor of the Sturms’ request.

White indicated that the nativity display will go up this Saturday. Ironically, that is the same day on which citizens will protest against Beaver County for not allowing any nativity displays outside the County courthouse. The Courthouse is across the street from the park where the Sturms are putting up their nativity. The Sturms will be speaking at the protest and those at the protest will be invited to cross the street and visit their nativity scene in the Borough park.

White commented, “December 13th was a great night for our clients and for the public recognition that Christmas is about the birth of Jesus Christ.”

Thomas More Law Center Defends Nativity Scene Display Requests In Florida and Pennsylvania
Mon, Dec 12, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI – Attorneys with the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, will attend town council meetings in the Village of Wellington, Florida, and the Borough of Beaver, Pennsylvania, on Tuesday, December 13, 2005, to request that their clients be permitted to erect nativity scenes on public property.

In Wellington, the Law Center represents the Reverend Tim Bumgardner of the Palm Beach Worship Center. The Law Center has requested that Wellington officials approve the Reverend’s request for officials to erect a nativity scene next to a menorah and a lit evergreen tree that appear outside the Village’s Community Center or, in the alternative, to permit the Reverend Bumgardner to erect a nativity scene on that same public property. Attending the meeting with Reverend Bumgardner will be Thomas More Law Center affiliate attorney, Dina Cellini. Reverend Bumgardner recently appeared on the O’Reilly Factor to discuss the lack of a nativity scene in Wellington.

On the same date, Law Center trial attorney Edward L. White III will attend the Borough of Beaver Council meeting with client Deborah Sturm. Mrs. Sturm has requested to display a nativity scene in a public park, and the Borough Council will decide the matter at its December 13th meeting. Assisting in the representation of Mrs. Sturm is Thomas More Law Center affiliate attorney Noah Fardo of Pittsburgh.

The Law Center has been defending the right to publicly display nativity scenes throughout the nation. This past November 2005, Law Center attorney Edward L. White III successfully represented the Samona family of Novi, Michigan, who had been threatened with fines if they did not remove the nativity scene from the front yard of their private home. The management company of their subdivision backed down and the nativity scene remained.

In 2003, the Law Center sued the Town of Palm Beach, Florida, for its refusal to respond to repeated requests of citizens to display nativity scenes alongside town-sanctioned menorahs. The federal district court judge in that case acknowledged the importance of recognizing religious holidays and ordered Palm Beach to treat all religious symbols equally.

In 2004, the Law Center sued the Town of Bay Harbor Islands, Florida, for denying a citizen the right to display a nativity scene next to a menorah in a public forum. The federal district court judge in that case granted the citizen the right to display her nativity scene during the Christmas season.

The Law Center also is currently challenging the policy of a New Jersey school district that banned all religious music, including instrumentals, from public schools in the district.

And, the Law Center continues to press its 2002 case against the New York City public school system whose written policy permits students to display the Jewish menorah and Islamic star and crescent in school, but specifically prohibits students from displaying Christian nativity scenes.

Front-Page of Sunday’s Detroit News – Thomas More Cases Range From Defending Intelligent Design to Opposing Same-Sex Marriage
Sun, Dec 4, 2005

By Kim Kozlowski

ANN ARBOR– Richard Thompson is confident the day will come when the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.

As head of a law firm touting itself as Christianity’s answer to the American Civil Liberties Union, Thompson would gladly litigate a case that could give the nation’s highest court an opportunity to further restrict or even reverse the case that legalized abortion. This is because the Thomas More Law Center, which Thompson co-founded in 1999 with Domino’s Pizza founder Tom Monaghan, sees its mission as protecting life at conception, religious freedoms and family values, one case at a time.

The law center was recently thrust into the limelight with the nationally watched case challenging intelligent design, a controversial theory that explains life as being so complex that it could have been created only by an intelligent being.

But the five attorneys in the firm’s Ann Arbor office — along with 403 volunteer lawyers in other states — are working on 200 cases in 40 states on issues ranging from keeping Christian symbols on public property to protecting the speech of anti-abortion activists to challenging the gay community.

The law firm, among a handful in the country working exclusively on Christian causes, seeks to change American culture that it believes has been shaped by liberal organizations.

“If we succeed in those issues, we will succeed in returning to our culture established by our Founding Fathers,” said Thompson, 68, president and chief counsel of the firm and the former Oakland County prosecutor who tried to stop Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who has claimed to have helped more than 130 people commit suicide.
The law firm’s work is getting attention.

Just last week, it represented the Novi family that prevailed over a neighborhood association to keep a nativity scene in their front yard.

Critics such as the ACLU say the Thomas More Law Center is advocating the dominance of one religion in this country.

“We are seeking to enforce the Constitution, the Bill of Rights,” said Kary Moss, executive director of the ACLU of Michigan. “They are trying to rewrite it. The founders of this country wrote the First Amendment to get away from religious tyranny and to ensure this culture had a fertile soil for multiple religions to grow. That’s not what the Thomas More Law Center wants.”

Still others are concerned about how it uses its legal muscle to chip away at Roe v. Wade.

The Thomas More Law Center recently reviewed ballot language proposed by Citizens for Life, an anti-abortion Lansing group, which seeks to amend Michigan’s Constitution and define life as beginning at conception in hopes of paving the way to making abortion illegal in Michigan.

The Michigan Board of Canvassers is scheduled to consider the language Wednesday. If approved, the group said it hopes to get the measure on the ballot and passed as soon as possible.

In South Dakota, the More center helped write a bill that was nearly passed last yearthat would have banned abortions in that state. Observers thought the intent was to force litigation on women’s constitutional right to have an abortion, perhaps as far as the U.S. Supreme Court.

Planned Parenthood’s Kate Looby says fighting efforts like those waged by the center are frustrating.

“I’d like to spend my time preventing unplanned pregnancies and taking care of children here right now that need our love and energy,” said Looby, South Dakota state director for Planned Parenthood Minnesota/North Dakota/South Dakota. “It’s very frustrating to us on the front lines of this culture war.”

But others say it’s about time someone is working in the judicial system to fight for Christian interests.

His organization “relies on the Thomas More Law Center as a faithful and extremely effective ally in promoting and defending the traditional family values shared by most Americans,” said Gary Glenn, president of American Family Association of Michigan, an organization best known for fighting gay rights.

Roots in Election Loss

The Thomas More Law Center was founded after Thompson lost his elected seat as Oakland County prosecutor in the wake of trying to prosecute Kevorkian. Soon after, he and Monaghan, a devout Catholic, were talking about the country’s political climate and how culture wars were being waged and won in the courts.

Monaghan put up the $500,000 to start the law firm, named after the Catholic patron saint of lawyers. He increased its funding annually through mid-2004. Now, the $2.3 million public interest law firm is funded exclusively by 50,000 individuals with $25 annual memberships and other benefactors. “They are an excellent organization, and one that is an avid defender of the Christian faith and religious expression and exercise as it relates to the Christian faith,” said Jared Leland of the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, a Washington, D.C., law firm working on behalf of all faiths.

The More center received considerable attention recently during the 40-day trial defending the decision of a school board in Dover, Pa., to require science teachers to tell students about holes in Darwin’s theory of evolution and about the theory of intelligent design.

The latter is backed by some scientists, as well as President Bush and Pope Benedict XVI. But most scientists and others oppose it, arguing that intelligent design is creationism in disguise.

Bernadette Reinking, a new Dover school board member opposed to teaching intelligent design in science classes, bristled at the interference.

“We felt there was an outside interest trying to control what was happening in Dover,” Reinking said.

The school board members who supported the policy were voted out of office in the election last month, so it is unclear where the lawsuit may be headed. The judge hasn’t rendered a decision, and the new board could reverse the policy.

But Thompson said it wouldn’t matter if the lawsuit were dropped because it already has thrust intelligent design into the public dialogue.

“The genie is out of the bottle,” he said.

Fights are on Varied Fronts

The center rarely hesitates to take on controversial cases.

It has been defending the 50-year display of a 29-foot cross atop Mount Soledad in La Jolla, Calif. The firm is also representing 12 anti-abortion activists who were fined millions of dollars for identifying and publishing the names and addresses of abortion doctors in Portland, Ore.

The firm has also worked on a variety of Ten Commandments cases and worked to stop same-sex marriage rights in Michigan and other states.

The center is also not shy about ruffling its neighbors, including the Ann Arbor Public Schools.

“We seem to be a test case for them,” said district spokeswoman Liz Margolis.
A federal judge last year ordered the school district to pay $100,000 to the firm in legal fees following the case of student Elizabeth Hansen. Hansen unsuccessfully sought to get her opposing views on homosexuality discussed on a Diversity Week panel in which ministers explored the compatibility of homosexuality with some faiths. The courts ruled her rights to free speech were violated.

School officials said it was simply a mistake by educators who are not well-versed in constitutional law. They also said their decisions were not part of a pattern of bigotry, but just the opposite: They sought to promote tolerance and understanding.
Randy Friedman called the lawsuit “opportunist,” especially in an era when all school districts are struggling with limited dollars.

“If you are pursing a principle, even if it’s a praiseworthy principle, aren’t there ways to achieve it without stripping away badly needed dollarsfrom innocent kids?”

Friedman said. “The only people that got penalized here was the kids.”

School officials also can’t figure out why the firm has filed another lawsuit challenging their same-sex benefits policy, when the city, county and university have similar policies.

“We spend a lot of potential instruction money trying to defend the rights of the students and our staff against a small minority of people trying to dictate how public schools should operate,” Margolis said.

But Thompson said that’s ridiculous.

His firm is only working to ensure that the rights of Christians are not trampled on and to reform what he sees as an increasingly anti-Christian society.
“We look at ourselves as counterculture,” Thompson said. “We’re trying to change the culture.”

Victory for the Nativity Display; Management Company Backs Down
Wed, Nov 30, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI – After being threatened with fines from their management company if they did not remove a nativity scene from their front lawn, the Samona family of Novi, Michigan, has been informed that the demand to remove the nativity has been withdrawn.
The management company first informed the Samona family that if they did not remove the display, they could be fined up to $100 a week until the display was removed. Since moving into their new home three years ago, the Samona family has displayed a nativity scene on their front lawn during each Christmas season. This year, however, the management company of their subdivision sent them a letter demanding that they remove the nativity scene.

In defiance, the Samona family contacted the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which agreed to represent the family at no charge. The Law Center contacted the management company yesterday on the family’s behalf.

Today the family received a letter from the management company informing them that their nativity display was not in violation of any rules or regulations of the subdivision and apologizing to the family for any distress they have caused. To show its regret over the incident, the company is sending the family a gift basket as a “as a token of our remorse, in the spirit of this holiday season.” The Samona family has requested that the company forward the gift basket to the Saint Vincent DePaul Society in Pontiac, Michigan.

According to Edward White, trial counsel for the Law Center who represented the family, “We are pleased the management company quickly realized the mistake it had made and corrected the matter. The Somanas are a great example for everyone. They showed that people should fight for what they believe in. I am glad the Thomas More Law Center was able to help them.”

Pope Sides with ‘Intelligent Design’ Advocates
Sun, Nov 13, 2005

Chicago Sun-Times – By Nicole Winfield

VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI has waded into the evolution debate in the United States, saying the universe was made by an ”intelligent project” and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.

Benedict made the off-the-cuff comments during his general audience Wednesday. The Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, published the full text of his remarks in its Thursday editions.

Benedict focused his reflections for the audience on scriptural readings that said God’s love was seen in the ”marvels of creation.”

He quoted St. Basil the Great, a fourth century saint, as saying some people, ”fooled by the atheism that they carry inside of them, imagine a universe free of direction and order, as if at the mercy of chance.”

Remarks hailed by advocates

”How many of these people are there today? These people, fooled by atheism, believe and try to demonstrate that it’s scientific to think that everything is free of direction and order,” he said.

”With the sacred Scripture, the Lord awakens the reason that sleeps and tells us: In the beginning, there was the creative word. In the beginning, the creative word — this word that created everything and created this intelligent project that is the cosmos — is also love.”

His comments were hailed by advocates of intelligent design, who hold that the universe is so complex, it must have been created by a higher power. Proponents of the theory seek to get public schools in the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum.

Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism — a literal reading of the Bible’s story of creation — camouflaged in scientific language and does not belong in science curriculum.

John Paul’s remark ‘rather vague’

Questions about the Vatican’s position on evolution came up in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.

In a New York Times op-ed piece, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was ”more than just a hypothesis.” Schoenborn said the late pope’s statement was ”rather vague and unimportant.”

Schoenborn attended Wednesday’s audience.

San Diego to Appeal Cross Decision – Judge Nullified Citizens’ 75% Vote to Maintain Landmark
Thu, Nov 10, 2005

World Net Daily – by James Lambert

The city of San Diego will appeal a court ruling that nullified an overwhelming vote by its citizens to save a historic cross that sits on public land.

Attorney Charles LiMandri, who represented the city in the case, told WorldNetDaily yesterday that newly elected Mayor Jerry Sanders informed him of the decision to appeal the Oct. 7 ruling by San Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowett.
Cowett’s decision effectively overturned Proposition A, passed by 75 percent of voters in July, which called for the city to donate the cross to the federal government as the centerpiece of a veterans memorial.

But Cowett ruled such action would be an unconstitutional aid to religion.
The conflict arises from an ACLU lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the 29-foot concrete structure, which has been the center of a war memorial on city land since 1954.

Deputy City Attorney David Karlin confirmed to WND that Sanders intends to appeal the decision. Karlin explained that the city cannot file its appeal until the court signs an entry of judgment, which must be requested by the plaintiff. When that occurs, likely some time this month, the city will then have 60 days in which to file an appeal.

LiMandri, who works with the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest group, believes the case ultimately will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

He has offered his services again to San Diego pro-bono, but the city has not decided yet who will represent it in the new legal round of appeal.

The Law Center provided legal analysis that formed the basis for a federal law that declared the cross and memorial as a National War Memorial and authorized the federal government to receive a donation of the land.

A bill authorizing the federal government to take over the memorial was authored

2005 Archives

December 31, 2005 by

Thomas More Law Center Defends Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act In Supreme Court
Thu, Oct 20, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI — The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has submitted a friend of the court brief with the Supreme Court of the United States supporting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s efforts to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Nebraska had previously found the Act to be unconstitutional.

The Act bans the abortion procedure wherein an unborn baby, generally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is removed from her mother’s womb, except for the head. The doctor punctures the child’s head, sucks out the child’s brains in order to collapse the skull, and then removes the dead child from the mother.

According to Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Law Center, “Partial-birth abortion is a gruesome procedure. It is nothing other than infanticide and must be prohibited in this country.”

Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, explained, “In our brief, we request that the Supreme Court find the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 to be constitutional. We also request that the Supreme Court take this opportunity to reconsider and reject its ‘abortion rights’ decisions. The time has come for the Supreme Court to prevent the grave injustices, which have resulted from those decisions, from continuing.”

Federal Appeals Court Slashes Multi-Million Jury Award to Abortion Doctors
Thu, Sep 8, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI — A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Portland, Oregon, cut a $108.5-million punitive damages award imposed against pro-life advocates to $4.7 million. Billed as the “Nuremburg Files” case, many constitutional law experts consider it to be one of the most important First Amendment cases in the nation.

The case is based entirely on the publication of two Old West style wanted posters and a non-party’s website (the so-called “Nuremberg Files”) alleged to be “threats” against the named abortionists in violation of FACE and RICO. The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, entered the case on behalf of several of the defendants after the 1999 jury verdict. The American Catholic Lawyers Association represents the remaining defendants.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “Although we consider the decision a good first-stage victory, the Law Center will continue its appeal. The entire case should be dismissed based upon the Free Speech rights of these pro-life defendants to speak out on the controversial issue of abortion regardless of how uncomfortable it makes abortion doctors.”

The case has had a long history in the courts. After the original 1999 jury verdict, an appeal was taken to the Ninth Circuit and in 2001 a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit set aside the verdict because the First Amendment protected the pro-life advocates’ speech. The unanimous decision, however, was overturned in 2002 by a sharply divided eleven-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, which voted six to five in the case.

The Supreme Court refused to review the case and returned it to the district court to reconsider its award of punitive damages. The district court found the $108.5 punitive damages award to be proper. The Ninth Circuit, however, on September 6, 2005 disagreed and reduced the amount by 96%, from $108.5-million to $4.7-million.

Edward L. White III, Trial Counsel with the Thomas More Law Center handling the case, stated, “The Ninth Circuit did not reduce the damages award enough. There should have been no punitive damages imposed in this case. Our clients were exercising their First Amendment rights, and we intend to pursue this case again to the United States Supreme Court.”

White continued, “We had argued on appeal that the jury’s verdict should have been overturned completely or, at a minimum, a new trial granted, in light of recent Supreme Court decisions that changed the law to the direct benefit of our clients. The Ninth Circuit, however, disregarded those issues and focused just on the question of punitive damages. We trust the Supreme Court will consider all issues involved in this case and ultimately rule in our clients’ favor.”

For example, based on new Supreme Court decisions that were issued while the Nuremberg Files case was pending, a defendant may only be found guilty of making a threat if the defendant made the threat with the specific intent to commit violence. In the Nuremberg Files case, however, the jury was told that it did not have to find specific intent, which is contrary to the new Supreme Court case law.

Also, the Supreme Court has now made it clear that for a pro-life advocate to be found guilty of “extortion” under RICO, as were the pro-life advocates in the Nuremberg Files case, the pro-life advocate must obtain property from an abortion provider. There was no evidence, however, that the pro-life advocates in the Nuremberg Files case had obtained any property from the abortion providers, yet they were found liable under RICO, which is contrary to the new Supreme Court case law.

Law Center President Reaffirms Governor’s Authority Under State Criminal Laws to Prevent Death of Terri Schiavo – Legal Memo Provided to Governor 17 Months Ago
Thu, Mar 24, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI — Former prosecutor of Jack Kevorkian, Richard Thompson, reaffirmed Thursday morning the authority of Florida Governor Jeb Bush to utilize state criminal laws to prevent the death of Terri Schiavo. Pointing to two legal memos prepared by the Thomas More Law Center which were delivered to Governor Bush in October of 2003, Thompson again urged Bush to launch a formal criminal investigation into the facts surrounding the disability of Schiavo.

The two letters dated October 15th and 16th point to the constitutional authority of Governor Bush to order the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to investigate violations of criminal laws. The letters cite a number of facts suggesting Terri Schiavo is a victim of domestic abuse and neglect, and may be a victim of domestic violence. Furthermore, the letters point out that officials from the Florida Department of Children and Family Services have the authority to enter the premises where Schiavo is currently being held and remove her if they believe that medical care is necessary to avert a likely risk of death or serious injury.

The October 15 letter concludes that a growing number of facts establish probable cause to “conduct a full criminal investigation of the circumstances surrounding the disability of Ms. Schiavo. To date, the facts of this case have not yet been viewed through the lens of a criminal investigation. Shamefully, the government’s investigatory resources have not been brought to bear on discovering the truth in this case.”

Speaking Thursday, Thompson once again urged Governor Bush to launch a formal criminal investigation and remove Terri Schiavo from the custody of her current guardian. He further indicated that the consent of Schiavo’s guardian is not necessary to obtain custody of Terri. Thompson also offered the assistance of attorneys from the Thomas More Law Center to assist the Governors staff if needed.

The two legal opinions were prepared and delivered to Governor Bush in October of 2003, after Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed. Bush through his aides requested the legal counsel at the time, but instead chose to work with the Florida legislature to pass emergency legislation to prevent the death of Schiavo.

Law Center Backs Michigan Citizens Against ACLU Attack on Partial Birth Abortion Law
Thu, Mar 17, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI —The Thomas More Law Center has filed a motion to intervene in the federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and others, who seek to overturn the recently enacted Michigan Legal Birth Definition Act. The law is a new approach to ban partial-birth abortions. The Law Center is representing Standing Together To Oppose Partial-birth-abortion (“STTOP”), the ballot question committee, which played a crucial role in enacting this citizen-initiated legislation.

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the matter, commented, “There is a point at which the law protects a child that is in the process of being born. No civilized society should have to accept and condone the inhumane killing by partial-birth abortion. The Legal Birth Definition Act seeks to put a stop to this grisly form of infanticide.”

In October 2003, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm vetoed a bill passed by the Legislature to ban partial-birth abortion. In response, the citizens of Michigan, through the efforts of STTOP, with an all-volunteer team of circulators, gathered nearly 460,000 signatures, 200,000 more than needed to adopt the legislation without the governor’s approval. The Legal Birth Definition Act was subsequently passed by a simple majority vote in both the Michigan House and Senate. STTOP’s petition drive was one of the most successful petition drives in recent Michigan history.

On March 1, 2005, the ACLU and others filed a lawsuit in federal court in Detroit, Michigan, seeking to overturn the will of the people of Michigan, claiming that the Legal Birth Definition Act violates their right to have and perform abortions. The Law Center is seeking to intervene in the lawsuit on behalf of STTOP, arguing that STTOP has a vested interest in upholding the constitutionality of this law and further noting that STTOP represents the voice of the citizens of Michigan who have a substantial interest in the protection and preservation of human life, which includes protecting and promoting the health, welfare and safety of all persons.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “Pro-abortionists lost the battle in the arena of public opinion and the legislative halls, and now in accordance with their usual tactic, seek to short-circuit the democratic process by going to the courts to uphold this most barbaric and gruesome form of abortion.”

2005 Archives

December 31, 2005 by

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Hears Oral Argument In Case Seeking to Stay Same-Sex Marriage Decision
Tue, May 3, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI — The Thomas More Law Center participated in oral argument before a packed courtroom of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in a case seeking to stay the court’s decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which legalized same-sex marriage. As a result of that decision, same-sex couples have been permitted to marry in Massachusetts as of May 17, 2004.

Robert Muise, trial counsel with the Law Center handling the case, commented, “This case seeks to preserve the right of the citizens of Massachusetts to have the final say on the issue of marriage. Marriage is a public good. It is a social institution of the highest importance, and it serves as the very basis for the fabric of society. The people as a whole have a real interest in the preservation and protection of this social institution, and it is they who should decide this issue and not four un-elected, justices.”

The case was filed by the Thomas More Law Center, Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights (CPCR) and others on behalf of C. Joseph Doyle, the executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. Both Muise and Chester Darling, attorney for CPCR, presented oral argument to the Court on behalf of Doyle, asking the high court to stay its ruling pending the resolution of the process currently underway to amend the Commonwealth’s constitution to reverse this decision and ban so-called “same-sex marriage.” The attorneys argued that the court ought to stay its decision out of respect for and in deference to the constitution, which give the ultimate authority on defining marriage to the citizens of the Commonwealth.

Fight for Traditional Marriage Continues – Date For Oral Argument Set In Case Seeking to Block Massachusetts Same-Sex Marriage Decision
Wed, Apr 13, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI — The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced that it will hear oral argument on Monday, May 2nd at 9:00 a.m. in a case seeking to block the court’s decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which legalized same-sex marriage. As a result of that decision, same-sex couples have been permitted to marry in Massachusetts as of May 17, 2004. This case, which is the last legal action surviving that is capable of stopping this decision, was filed by the Thomas More Law Center, Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights (CPCR) and others on behalf of C. Joseph Doyle, the executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts.

Robert Muise, trial counsel handling the case for the Law Center, and Chester Darling, attorney for CPCR, will present oral argument to the Supreme Judicial Court on behalf of Doyle.

According to Muise, “We are extremely pleased to have an opportunity to argue this historic case before the Supreme Judicial Court. The Massachusetts Constitution ensures the people that judges will not use the law to impose their opinion about how society should be ordered regardless of the democratic will. What happens with the legal institution of marriage should ultimately depend on the democratic processes outlined in the Commonwealth’s Constitution rather than by judicial fiat. This case seeks to preserve this proper balance of power for the Commonwealth.”

Fight Not Over – Massachusetts Supreme Court Grants Oral Argument In Case Seeking to Stay Massachusetts Same-Sex Marriage Decision
Thu, Feb 10, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI — The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in an unexpected move, announced that it will hear oral argument in a case brought by the Thomas More Law Center and others, seeking to stay the court’s decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which legalized same-sex marriage. As a result of that decision, same-sex couples have been permitted to marry in Massachusetts as of May 17, 2004. This case, which is the last legal action surviving that is capable of stopping this decision, was filed on behalf of C. Joseph Doyle, the executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts.

According to Robert Muise, trial counsel handling the case for the Law Center, “We are extremely pleased that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has decided to hear oral argument on this historic case. This last election has shown that the people of this county do not want so-called same-sex marriage and have overwhelmingly supported constitutional amendments to ban it. The citizens of Massachusetts have a constitutional right to be heard on this issue, and now they will have that opportunity.”

In legalizing same-sex marriage, the Massachusetts Court candidly claimed that its decision “marks a change in the history of our marriage law.” The Court acknowledged that this change affected the historic, civil, and legal understanding in Massachusetts and elsewhere that marriage constitutes the union of one man and one woman. On April 20, 2004, the Law Center petitioned a single justice of the court on behalf of Doyle to put the Goodridge decision on hold, pending the constitutional process currently underway to amend the state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
The petition and an ensuing request for an expedited appeal were denied, but the full Court ultimately decided that Doyle’s appeal could “proceed in the ordinary course,” keeping the case alive. As a result, Doyle filed an appeal and the Massachusetts Supreme Court just announced that it has agreed to hear it.

The appeal asks the Court to stay its decision so that the process currently underway to amend the state’s constitution by defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman can proceed unhindered. Noting that the Massachusetts Constitution “ensures the people that judges will not use the law to impose their opinion about how society should be ordered regardless of the democratic will,” the Law Center argued in its brief that “what happens with the legal institution of marriage should ultimately depend on the democratic processes outlined in the Commonwealth’s Constitution rather than by judicial fiat.”

Joining the Law Center in arguing this case before the state’s highest court will be attorney Chester Darling of the Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “The adverse effects of the Goodridge decision are not only being felt in Massachusetts, but throughout the country as well. The fact that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has decided to take up this issue again is remarkable. Clearly, the tide is changing in America—moral values do matter.”