At stake in two cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court is the “very existence” of America, according to attorneys who have filed briefs in support of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and the California state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

“The natural family is fundamental to our very existence,” Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said as his organization filed friend-of-the-court briefs.

“Thriving societies need healthy children who grow up into responsible citizens,” he said. “Healthy children require committed parents who will sacrifice their own desires for the well-being of their children. This is all created within the context of natural marriage between one man and one woman.”

His organization filed two briefs in U.S. v. Windsor, which challenges the federal Defense of Marriage Act. That law says that for federal purposes, only marriage between one man and one woman is recognized.

In February 2011, President Obama instructed his Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

The other case is Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges California’s decision by voters to define in their state Constitution marriage as a relationship only between one man and one woman.

The decision to overrule the voters’ marriage definition in California came from U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who retired shortly after the case and became open about his own homosexuality.

“We are at a pivotal point in history,” Staver said. “Nothing will define the future of America more than the court’s decision on marriage.”

Liberty Counsel, which was one of many pro-family organizations filing arguments on behalf of marriage, said the high court previously indicated in Baker v. Nelson the U.S. Constitution does not grant a right for same-sex couples to marry.

“Common sense and a quick read of the Constitution say there is no such right to same-sex marriage,” the organization said.

The cases are expected to be argued in the spring.

Others that filed arguments include:

  • Mike Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He contends the First Amendment allows state votes such as California’s, which includes the choice to uphold traditional Western concepts of marriage and family. He argues the nation repeatedly has enacted laws supported by religious and moral arguments, including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s.
  • Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, said the power of the homosexual lobby in America, a movement aided by Obama, is strong. “CWA’s briefs focus on the undeniable political power of the homosexual movement and why they should never be considered a ‘suspect class,'” she said. “Both briefs paint a very clear picture showing we are dealing with one of the most powerful movements in history, even though it represents a very minute section of the population. “The half-a-million members of Concerned Women for America are fully aware that our religious liberties and the very fabric of our nation are at stake on this issue,” she said.
  • CWFA’s Beverly LaHaye Institute also submitted a brief “highlighting one of the most comprehensive studies on the effects of homosexual parenting on children.” The study “showed that compared to adults from married-mom-and-dad homes, those raised by lesbian mothers had negative outcomes in 24 of 40 categories and those raised by homosexual fathers had negative outcomes in 19 of the 40 categories.” Janice Crouse, senior fellow of BLI said, “The study simply makes clear that the legislature has more than a compelling interest in protecting marriage as the union between one man and one woman. It is simply the best, most stable, most profitable environment for children and, therefore, for our nation’s future.”
  • Hundreds of thousands of people also were represented in a brief filed on behalf of supporters of the Manhattan Declaration. Chicago attorney John Mauck said, “Natural law, the nature of the human person, and common sense provide ample reason to preserve marriage as it has always been understood. “He said his brief “sets out the natural law of the family unit, constitutional authority to establish what is best for the nation, and identifies social reasons to preserve male-female marriage. It thus shows that the historic institution of male-female families allows American children, families, and society to benefit from a firm foundation in the home, thus preserving strong future growth. The brief identifies societal circumstances around the world that have accepted homosexual marriage, resulting in a decline in societal function and a harsh increase in religious oppression.”

Between 1998 and 2012, there were 31 votes in 30 states on same-sex marriage, and in all but one, the voters supported traditional marriage. The exception was Arizona, where voters later approved a ban. In the 2012 election, however, flooded with money from pro-homosexual interests, four states voted in favor of same-sex marriage.

Justice Marvin Baxter of the California Supreme Court, in his dissenting opinion in the 2008 case affirming same-sex marriage, warned of the consequences of judicially ordering a change in the standard for marriage.

“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 for his court. “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.”

His warning?

“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?”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.