Letters to the Supreme Court

Episodes 19-21

Letter Nineteen

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices:

Why should the United States government (or any government for that matter) afford special status and privileges to the union typically described as traditional marriage? Because it is only through this union that society has innately decided the human race can be carried on. Procreation, the production of another human being, only occurs one way.

The ultimate impulse of the human race is to survive. If what scientists say about the Earth is true -- that it has been in existence for millions of years -- the people of Earth, in whatever form they have existed, have only survived and carried the human race forward one way -- through the production of another human being from the union of a man and a woman. (The petitioners before the Supreme Court admitted that they knew of no society that permitted same-sex marriage before 2001.)

This recent phenomenon (that of same-sex marriage) puts governments in a bind. While democracies value the protection of the rights of all people, including those who happen to be in the minority, the government struggles with whether to endorse and promote all rights as equal, good, and beneficial.

While it has been firmly established that marriage (defined traditionally) is best for the good of society, the government must decide whether the protection and promotion of that unique union suits its purposes as well. Without traditional marriage, without the carrying on of the human race through procreation, a government will find that society crumbles. The government's goal is essentially the same as the impulse of the human race -- to survive. The government carries this out through different means -- through the defense of its borders, through facilitating the general welfare of its people, and through providing educational, medical, and financial services that enable the people in its jurisdiction to live comfortably -- to survive.

As the dissenting opinion of our court stated, "For the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond... By bestowing a respected status and material benefits on married couples, society encourages men and women to conduct sexual relations within marriage rather than without" (Page 5, 576 U.S. 2015, ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting).

If any government is interested in supporting the survival of the human race, protecting and promoting traditional marriage will be high on their list of priorities.

Sincerely,

Michael Elderson

Letter Twenty

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices:

Although our president and other executive and judicial officials would have us to believe that religious freedom/religious liberty would not be affected by the Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage, recent history and experience have shown that to be true. Many good, decent citizens oppose the recognition of same-sex marriage as a matter of faith. The freedom to exercise such religious beliefs is spelled out in the Constitution -- it is one of the cornerstones of this country's founding. However, the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court reveals a shocking reality (emphasis mine):

Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority's decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to "advocate" and "teach" their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to "exercise" religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses. (Page 28, 576 U.S. 2015, ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting).

Further, it has been reported that, during the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, when the U.S. Solicitor General representing the current administration was asked if a ruling legalizing same-sex marriage would have any effect on religious institutions (specifically a Christian university or college that opposed same-sex marriage), he said (after trying to avoid answering the question), "I don't deny that... It is going to be an issue." And it has been -- even before the Supreme Court's ruling.

Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director for the Judicial Crisis Network, said that this country will see an "absolute head-on collision" between religious liberty and the government's law in the very near future.

In recent months (both before and after the Supreme Court's ruling), citizens who have simply tried to exercise their religious liberty when it comes to same-sex marriage have been fined, sued, humiliated by being forced to attend sensitivity training, forced to close their businesses, and even jailed.

Is this the road we want to go down? Surely, law-abiding citizens of various legal and religious opinions can live peacefully in this society without demeaning or demonizing those who hold strongly to different beliefs.

Sincerely,

Michael Elderson

Letter Twenty-One

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices:

The dissenting opinion of the court stated, "people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive" from the Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage. One would assume that, in America of all places, the opinions of all people -- especially the opinions of the religious and/or the majority would be respected, protected, even defended by the judicial system in this country. One would assume that those beliefs would not be demonized. After all, this country was formed as the amalgamation of people with vast and varying religious, social, and political beliefs. For over 230 years, this nation has been held together by a government and people committed to respecting differences of belief. However, such respect no longer seems to be the case.

In the Supreme Court's decision, the majority disappointingly felt the need to disparage the reputations, beliefs, and actions of religious men and women who believe the government should only recognize marriage as being between a man and a woman. While the majority states that they respect those who disagree with their opinion, their words indicate otherwise.

The majority decision states that "the necessary consequence" of states' laws that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman and/or outlawed same-sex marriage is to 'demean or stigmatize' same-sex couples. The dissenting opinion summarizes:

The majority reiterates such characterizations over and over. By the majority's account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history—in particular, the tens of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States' enduring definition of marriage—have acted to "lock...out," "disparage," "disrespect and subordinate," and inflict "dignitary wounds" upon their gay and lesbian neighbors... It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority's "better informed understanding" as bigoted. (Pages 28-29, 576 U.S. 2015, ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting)

This opinion of the majority gives backing to proponents of same-sex marriage who have already persistently tried to describe people of faith who disagree with same-sex marriage as hateful people. (For example, Proposition 8, which resulted in a short-lived ban on same-sex marriage in California, was opposed by same-sex marriage advocates with the slogan, "Say no to hate.") For religious dissenters, the issue is not one of hate/love or approval/disapproval, but right and wrong. It is a shame that the U.S. Supreme Court would enshrine and endorse such language and behavior in its law.

Sincerely,

Michael Elderson