Dear Editor, Bakersfield Californian Newspaper – Community Voices
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that the family is the fundamental group unit of society, and subsequent international human rights instruments acknowledge the importance of mothers and fathers being equal partners in marriage. The bedrock institution of traditional marriage has survived thousands of years across all cultures because it produces the best outcomes for children and society at large.
During the Prop 8 hearing, the justices struggled over whether the High Court should have a significant role in shaping the social institution of marriage an issue that it previously left to state law. For instance, Justice Alito asked Donald Verrilli, the lawyer for the U.S. government: You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet? I mean we do not have the ability to see the future. On a question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials?
Justice Scalia asked the pivotal question: I’m curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Has it always been unconstitutional?
Ted Olsen, the attorney for several same-sex couples attacking Prop 8, replied, When we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control. Scalia then asked, When did that happen? Olson responded, There’s no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.
Did you catch that? Olsen built his case on the unsupportable assumption promoted by LGBT activists that sexual orientation cannot be controlled. In other words, that it is fixed and inevitable. However, studies and testimonies clearly show that sexual orientation is not solely genetic, but rather, something that can be changed, at least for some people. In light of this data, which unfortunately the lawyer for Prop 8, Charles Cooper, never raised, it is difficult to create a strong constitutional argument as to why homosexuals should be able to marry. Equal protection arguments don’t apply here because sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like race.
Pastor Phillip Lee
His Way Out Ministries