Filter by
Search
Search Keywords
- ADF attorneys file motion to intervene in federal court on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com to defend Calif. marriage amendment
- District court will decide on whether to affirm ministry’s right to use its property in manner consistent with its beliefs
- ADF attorneys represent ProtectMarriage.com
- ADF attorneys filed motion to intervene in federal court on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com
- MADISON, Wis. — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys together with allied attorneys representing Wisconsin Family Action board members filed an original action lawsuit with the Wisconsin Supreme Court Thursday to stop the governor and state legislature from skirting a voter-approved constitutional amendment protecting marriage. The lawsuit asks the high court to halt the state’s “domestic partnership” scheme because it creates a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage, which directly violates Article 13, Section 13, of the state constitution. “Politicians shouldn’t be ...
- ADF attorneys represented taxpayers
- Photo artist told by civil rights commission to pay over $6,600 in attorneys’ fees for declining to photograph same-sex ceremony
- Court rules that district court erred in setting aside Supreme Court precedent upholding federal prosecution of hardcore obscenity
- The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defense Fund Legal Counsel Dale Schowengerdt regarding the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit to declare the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Gill v. Office of Personnel Management: “Society should protect and strengthen marriage, not undermine it. The federal Defense of Marriage Act provides that type of protection, and we trust the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse the 1st Circuit’s erroneous decision.” “In allowing one ...
- The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Jim Campbell regarding a determination by the director of the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights that a Christian ministry engaged in “wrongdoing” for abiding by its faith: “The government should not be able to force a Christian organization to use its property in a way that would violate its own religious beliefs. Both the U.S. and New Jersey constitutions protect the freedom of faith-based groups to use their property in a manner consistent with those beliefs. That freedom trumps any state law that conflicts ...