Marriage and Family

Masterpiece Cakeshop, LTD. and Jack C. Phillips v Colorado Civil Rights Commission; Charlie Craig; And David Mullins

In this case, two homosexuals asked a cake shop owner, Jack Phillips, to make a wedding cake for them.  Jack explained that his Christian convictions would not allow him to do so.  The homosexual couple filed a complaint against Jack and the business with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, claiming they had violated Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws.  The Commission ordered Jack to make the cake.  He appealed that decision through the state court system and ultimately to the Supreme Court of the United States.  The Supreme Court has not yet rendered its decision.  We were involved in two briefs in this case.

Read More

Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church v. Unsworth

Montana’s commissioner of political practices ruled that Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church violated election law by participating in a Focus on the Family simulcast and allowing petitions in support of a pro-marriage ballot initiative to be circulated on church premises. 

Read More

Godfrey v. Spano

In this case—actually, two consolidated cases—taxpayers in New York challenged a local executive order and a state policy that recognized out-of-state same-sex marriages. At this time, same-sex marriages were not permitted under New York law. The taxpayer plaintiffs lost in the lower courts and appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Read More

N.B. v. A.K.

Whether the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, which affords custody and visitation orders full faith and credit, or the Defense of Marriage Act, which does not require full faith and credit be afforded to rights arising from same-sex relationships treated as marriage, controls when Alabama is asked to give full faith and credit to California parentage and custody rights arising from a California court order insofar as Alabama‟s laws expressly declare that any “union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex . . . in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect” in Alabama.

Read More

Kulstad v. Maniaci

It is difficult to overstate what the court below has done. Simply put, and contrary to precedent from this Court and the United States Supreme Court, the court below created new law grounded in nothing more than a passing reference by this Court—a reference noting that some courts have found an equitable interest in custody and visitation matters on a de facto or psychological parenting theory.

Read More

Strauss, et al. v. Horton, et al.

After the California Supreme Court declared homosexuals could marry, voters amended the state Constitution to prohibit homosexual marriage. Then activists tried to have the amendment declared unconstitutional. This time the Supreme Court ruled correctly by refusing to undo the amendment. However, that left open the question of what to do about same-sex “marriages” that had been solemnized in the interim. The court held those marriages were valid.

Read More

Pedreira v. Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children

Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children (KBHC) is a private organization that receives some funding from the Commonwealth of Kentucky for its services to at-risk children. After KBHC fired a lesbian employee for violation of its religious beliefs, she—along with another lesbian who claimed that she wanted to apply for employment but would not because it would be futile—sued KBHC for employment discrimination and sued Kentucky officials along with KBHC for violating the Establishment Clause.

Read More

Lewis v. New York State Department of Civil Service

As explained by the court:
“When defendant Department of Civil Service announced that it would recognize the parties to a same-sex marriage as spouses if their marriage were valid in the jurisdiction where it was solemnized, thereby allowing such spouses of state employees access to the benefits provided under the New York State Health Insurance Program . . . plaintiffs commenced this action as individual taxpayers seeking a declaration that the Department’s recognition of such marriages is illegal, unconstitutional and results in the unlawful disbursement of public funds.”

Read More

In re: Rachel L.

The California Legislature has the duty under Article IX, section 1 under the California Constitution to use “all suitable means” to promote education “which is essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people.” However, trampling a parent’s Free Exercise Rights is not a suitable means. Thus to interpret the statute in such a way as to severely restrict Christian parents’ rights to home-school their children violates the constitutional mandate.

Read More

Varnum v. Brien

The District Court erred in treating numerous “ultimate” facts and sociological judgments as findings of fact. This court should reverse the District Court because the fundamental right to marry only includes opposite-sex marriage. The District Court also erred in Citing Justice O’Connor’s concurrence in Lawrence.

Read More
Scroll to Top