Foreign agent tried to influence marriage vote

A representative of a foreign government tried to influence Californians in their vote on a state constitutional amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman, telling the American voters they should follow the example of Europe, according to a new report.

The Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, a group that works to impact the social policy debate at the United Nations, said a coalition of 33 American organizations already has filed a formal complaint with the German government over the apparent interference in a domestic election.

The groups are charging that German foreign ministry and justice officials were promoting same-sex marriage in the U.S. The California initiative, Proposition 8, was approved by voters 52 percent to 48 percent.

"German Federal Minister of Justice Brigitte Zypries campaigned recently in California to urge voters to follow the lead of Germany and the rest of Europe in promoting 'same sex marriage' by defeating Proposition 8," the U.N. monitor group said.

TRENDING: Couple faces double layoff … and creditors

"According to the German Consulate in San Francisco, the justice minister's lecture entitled, 'Gay Marriage in Germany and California' at the 'LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender) Community Center,' was accompanied by meetings with human rights organizations, a visit to city hall to gather information regarding the California Supreme Court's decision, and a meeting with one California legislator who awarded her a certificate for her work promoting the cause," the group said.

A spokesman for a German human rights organization that deals with parental rights, including the right to homeschool their own children, said it is the same German federal official, Zypries, who has aggressively tried to eliminate the rights of parents in Germany.

Spokesman Joerg Grosseluemern said Zypries "is the same who was responsible for the tightening of German family law this year, where the state's possibilities to take … custody [of a child] from the parents [were increased]."

His organization, Netzwerk-Bildungsfreiheit, advocates for homeschool and parental rights in Germany.

WND recently reported on the adoption of a new German federal law that gives family courts the authority to take custody of children "as soon as there is a suspicion of child abuse." Germany defines homeschooling as child abuse.

"The new law is seen as a logical step in carving up family rights," a homeschool father told advocates. He said local "youth welfare" offices now have authority that includes "withdrawal of parental custody as one of the methods for punishing 'uncooperative' parents."

"Mrs. Zypries is responsible for the state's socialization of families and the child's education, her approach in the case of family law takes away vital rights from the parents, which are not only God-given but granted in the constitution," Grosseluemern said.

"Her new approach in California is an impertinent interference in domestic affairs of the United States," he said.

Such interference, the German rights advocate said, smacks of arrogance.

RELATED: 'Gays' fume over image used to push same-sex marriage ban

"There was a saying, 'Am deutchen Wesen soll die Welt genesen,' (which means that the German manner of living, thinking and acting is the right way for people all over the world)," he said.

"The German [minister's] approach for the defeat of traditional marriage and the promotion of homosexuality fits into the German pattern of destroying families rights, values and faith," Grosseluemern said. "American people should know what is behind the new interference of Minister Zypries, Americans should know that German families, especially Christian and homeschool families suffer from this kind of policy which has strongly contributed to the destruction of traditional families in our country."

The Catholic institute report said Zypries' lobbying was arranged by Germany's consul general in San Francisco, Rolf Schuette, "who has been working with local homosexual rights activists in California to undermine Proposition 8 by linking those who defend traditional marriage to Nazis."

Schuette has stated, "From … the persecution of homosexuals under Nazis to today … full equality for gay and lesbian couples has not been achieved … there are forces which even would like to roll back what has been achieved."

Officials at the consulate said Schuette has dedicated one-third of his speeches this year to promoting same-sex marriage, the report said.

The complaint letter alleges Schuette's "actions violate the role of a diplomat and abuse the courtesies extended to members of a foreign government."

Meanwhile, the Alliance Defense Fund said this week's attempts by homosexual activists to maneuver the legal system to prevent the implementation of Proposition 8 following its approval by voters "is a brazen attempt to gut the democratic process."

"The people of California have spoken yet again, but that doesn't mean anything to radical groups that want to impose their will at all costs. Once again, they are attempting to use the courts to push their agenda since they can't achieve it legitimately at the ballot box," said ADF senior counsel Glen Lavy.

In addition to California's vote this week, voters in Florida and Arizona also approved "gay" marriage bans for their state constitutions, raising to 30 the number of states in which voters have embedded protections for traditional one-man-one-woman marriage in their constitutions.

California's situation was slightly different in that the state Supreme Court already had ordered the creation of homosexual marriage, and the vote overturned the court ruling. The decision came in May despite a warning from one member of the court.

In Justice Marvin Baxter's dissent to the majority opinion in California, he raised the specter of chaos soon to come.

"The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy," he wrote. "Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.

"Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?" he wrote.