Letters To The Supreme Court (Serial Novel)

Copyright 2015-2016. Torch Legacy Publications. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner,
except for brief quotations included in a review of the book. This is a work of
fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents either are products of the
author's imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or
locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.
Letter One
Dear Chief Justice Simon Silverstein:
I write to you as a concerned citizen of the United States.
This past week, my wife and I decided to pull our two young
children from the public school system. They had been attending for
nearly three years and were getting good grades. Unfortunately,
though, the more I learned about the public school system in
America, the more doubtful I became of its benefits to my children.
What spurred me on to my discoveries was the recent action that
a well-known member of my community took. This man a
pediatrician in his forties who has children in the local school system
raised a complaint at a recent parent-teacher association meeting.
This man is an avowed atheist (which I did not know before), and he
took issue with the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at the
beginning of each school day. Specifically, he took issue with the
words under God as he said he was raising his children to believe
that there is no God. A few days later, I found that although the school
has now made the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance a voluntary
action, the doctor has sued the school district to ensure that it will not
be recited or posted anywhere on school grounds. He cites as his
defense the separation of church and state. This case, or others like
it, may in the future rest in your hands.
There are many other issues which weigh upon my mind as a
relatively young father who aims to raise his children in the sacred
vein of honesty, hard work, faith in God, and patriotism that our
country has long espoused. I will write to you and your colleagues of
those issues in the near future.

For now, I ask that you bear with me as I disclose the primary
issue which burdens my heart and mind. It is this: While in our free
and democratic society the rights of every man to live and believe as
he so pleases (as long as he does not harm others or the larger
society) should be defended, it worries me that so many seem to
think that there is no such thing as an absolute that morality and
law are relative to human desires and wishes. Not only are people
challenging conventional human laws that human governments have
laid down in what they believe to be the best interest of the public, but
people are challenging ancient standards which are laid out in
religious writings such as the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran.
Some people seem to think that God should have no say in the
operation of his world and in the lives of the people he created. I
vehemently disagree. But rather than burden you with my own
reasonings, I ask that you look back nearly three-hundred years to
the grounds out of which the laws and systems of the United States
government have grown. I appeal to the writings of Sir William
Blackstone, the preeminent English jurist with whom our founding
fathers were greatly familiar. In Blackstones Commentaries on the
Laws of England, which were republished numerous times in the
formative years of our Republic (1770-1783), he points to God as the
source of all law, stating that man, considered as a creature, must
necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a
dependent being.
How then does man derive his laws from God? Blackstone
believed from two sources nature and revelation.
What did he mean by man being able to derive laws from
nature? He meant that man, by observing the natural courses of life,
could discern that some things were just and right and that
aberrations and deviations from the normal course of nature were evil
at worst and should be held suspect at best.
For example, I am sure you would readily agree that the normal
course of nature shows us that for a child to be born and for the
human race to continue a male and a female are necessary to
facilitate the conception of that child. Therefore, it follows that there is
something aberrational and deviant about two males or two females
being together in the same way that a male and a female get
together. To use the words of Jesus Christ, It was not so from the
beginning. A homosexual union cannot produce a human life. If such
unions were the norm, the human race would be wiped out within a
few generations. Therefore, since it is not natural, it is (and should
be) against the law. (I mention this as I know you will soon be
considering a case regarding same-sex marriage. I plan to write to
you and your colleagues in more detail on this issue in the near
future.)
Back to my main point: What did Blackstone mean by being able
to derive laws from revelation? Revelation is, of course, the specific
communication of God to man. When God called Moses up onto
Mount Sinai and gave him the Ten Commandments, that was
revelation.
So from nature and from revelation, mankind gains the
knowledge of the laws of God. Blackstone summarizes: Upon these
two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend
all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to
contradict these.
What prompted me to write this letter, your honor, is the apparent
lack of respect that many in our society have developed toward God
and the natural laws which have been adhered to unquestioned for
centuries. As I think about the atheist doctor in our community who is
now seeking to have the Pledge of Allegiance eradicated from use in
the school district, I can see how many with similar views will seek to
not only have the name of God, but the laws of God removed from
public life. Many of these and similar cases will rest in the hands of
you and your colleagues.
I bring my concerns to your attention, Chief Silverstein, because,
as you continue in your tenure, I ask that for the good of this nation
and the children of this country that you keep in mind that laws ought
not to be based on the whims and passions of men, but on eternal
and immutable laws of God as revealed through nature and
revelation.
With deepest respect,
Michael Elderson
Letter Two
Dear Chief Justice Silverstein:
I trust that you and your esteemed colleagues received my last
letter.
I know that you are quite busy this time of year, so I will keep this
letter short.
As I told you in my last letter, my wife and I made the decision to
begin homeschooling our two young children. Well, this week, our
son had a baseball game. As usual, my wife and I and our daughter
went to the game to cheer him on and to get in a bit of relaxation
ourselves while also catching up on the lives of our friends and
neighbors.
Well, while we were in the midst of cheering and eating and
talking, I heard my six-year-old daughter tug my arm and say, Ew,
gross. I looked over to see what the matter was expecting that
perhaps an insect had landed on her hotdog or one of the boys had
poured his cold soda over his head again. (It was a hot day.) I said,
Whats wrong? She pointed and said, They just kissed.
I followed her gaze until I saw two men sitting beside each other
in the bleachers two rows ahead of us. They had their arms around
each other and were holding a sign with a boys name on it. I
recognized the name as one of my sons teammates. Whenever the
boy was up at bat, they cheered loudly and called his name.
Whenever he hit a ball and ran the bases, they kissed each other on
the lips and cheered even louder, Thats our son!
I was stunned and repulsed that my daughter not to mention
the other children at the ballpark had to witness such a confusing

and abnormal display of affection. My wife and I moved to new seats
several feet away to put that couple out of her view. Unfortunately, I
was unable to put the incident out of my mind, and I am sure it was
not extinguished from our daughters mind either. I was unable to
enjoy the rest of the game as I kept wondering how I was going to
explain this to her.
I am afraid that these sorts of scenarios will be played out
increasingly across America as homosexual activists come out of the
closet and try to force the rest of society to accept their lifestyle. I
know that America is a nation of diversity and freedom of lifestyle
people can choose the way they want to live. However, society
should not be subject to the whims, demands, and oppression of a
minority whose lifestyle is viewed as detrimental, harmful, or at least
suspect by the majority. People in a traditional marriage situation
should not have to witness or explain to their children how or why
someone else who participates in a deviant lifestyle chooses to do
so. Public places schools, churches, grocery stores, movie
theaters, parks, sporting arenas, and the like should be places of
safety and normalcy where all people can go and enjoy whatever is
taking place there.
Unfortunately, many in the homosexual community refuse to
leave it at that. They wish to bring their lifestyle before the world and
make the rest of society accept it and approve of it. This should not
be in a free and democratic society. The majority should not be
cowed or terrorized by a minority and their allies. If you have any
doubt about this action being deliberate and calculated, notice the
following from a psychologist and an expert on family life, Dr. James
Dobson:
What do we know about this disorder [homosexuality]? Well first,
it is a disorder, despite the denials of the American Psychiatric

Association. Great political pressure was exerted on this professional
organization by gays and lesbians (some of whom are psychiatrists)
to declare homosexuality to be normal. The debate went on for
years. Finally, a decision was made in 1973 to remove this condition
from their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). It was made not
on the basis of science, but was strongly influenced by a poll of APA
members, which was initiated and financed by the National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force. The vote was 5,834 to 3,810. The American
Psychological Association soon followed suit. Today, psychologists or
psychiatrists who disagree with this politically correct interpretation, or
even those who try to help homosexuals change, are subjected to
continual harassment and accusations of malpractice.
When isolated, the calls for gay rights and equal treatment
may seem harmless even good and reasonable. But, rest assured,
a greater political and social movement is afoot one that threatens
to transform the institution of marriage, the institution of the family,
and the nation as we know it for years to come. I throw myself on the
mercy of the court and I am sure on the behalf of many others,
please save this country from total destruction by doing everything in
your power to not make homosexual marriage the law of the land.
That is all I will write for now, as I have to help my dear young
children understand the evil and confusion that they just witnessed.
With deepest respect,
Michael Elderson
Letter Three
Recent events have prompted me to write to you again.
In the wake of my last letter, I began to research how the
legalization of homosexual marriage in this country would affect those
who are opposed to such action. If we look at what has happened in
states where homosexual marriage and/or civil unions have been
allowed, it is easy to see that things will not go well for those who use
their Constitutionally-protected rights to express their disagreement.
Bakeries owned by Christians who oppose same-sex marriage
based on the Bible have been targeted with lawsuits and charges of
discrimination for their refusal to provide their services for a
homosexual wedding. Owners of flower shops have also been
targeted for their refusal to do so as well. Unfortunately, when these
cases are brought before the state or local authorities, the law has
not come down favorably for the business owners. Surely, cases like
these will be argued before you in the future if you and your
colleagues decide to allow same-sex marriage across the nation.
It is baffling to think that those in the homosexual community do
not see the wisdom of simply requesting the services of another
establishment when it is made clear that one establishment does not
want to serve them due to a difference of belief. It appears that there
is a concerted effort by homosexual activists and their supporters to
force Christian business owners and others who disagree with
homosexual marriage to serve and support something they believe is
wrong. The idea here is to break down the resistance. However, no
man should be forced by the government or by public outcry to
violate his conscience.

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States said,
Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience
and private judgment. They are by nature subject to no control but
that of Deity, and in that free situation they are now left. You and your
colleagues may find it constitutionally acceptable to allow same-sex
marriage in our democratic society, however, it is not constitutionally
acceptable for any group to be allowed to bully and coerce others into
acting against their conscience as informed by their religious beliefs.
President George Washington said, If I could have entertained
the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed in the
Convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly
endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I
should never have placed my signature to it; and, if I could now
conceive that the General Government might ever be so
administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg
you will be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than
myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual
tyranny and every species of religious persecution.
According to results published in the sociology journal Social
Currents, when asked why they oppose homosexual marriage, the
majority of people stated religious and moral reasons. Some
representative examples include: Because I dont believe God
intended them to be that way. Because my religion believes thats
an abomination. Its not natural. Because marriage is a sacred
thing between a man and a woman that is orchestrated by God, and
the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin, its perverted and
deviant. Thats all. The survey summary concludes, These
comments are not the exceptions. The overwhelmingly most common
response (over 65%) among opponents to same-sex marriage is
religious or moral disapproval.

Looking at those survey results makes one thing apparent: a lot
of people have religious or moral objections to homosexual marriage.
If same-sex marriage is legalized across the country, this segment of
society will essentially have a target painted on their backs. With
many of the lower courts in the country apparently moving toward
allowing same-sex marriage 37 states have already legalized it
the law does not appear to be on their side. As has been shown in
the cases of bakers and flower shop owners, those who apply their
moral and religious objections to their privately held businesses can
be forced to shut down if they choose not to violate their own
conscience and participate in something they do not agree with.
That being said, as the Supreme Court takes up the issue of
same-sex marriage in the coming weeks, it would also be wise to
consider the religious protections and freedoms that our Constitution
affords each of this countrys citizens. Any ruling should include legal
parameters that protect those who morally object to same-sex
marriage from being sued, charged with discrimination, or otherwise
harassed and/or put out of business.
America is a country that was founded on the principle that
people ought to be able to live according to their consciences be
they religious people or non-religious people. No man, government,
or court, has the right to infringe on a persons private, reasonable,
and personally-held beliefs.
I ask that you take this letter into consideration in your
deliberations.
Respectfully yours,
Michael Elderson
Episode 4
Greetings.
According to U.S. Code, Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21 455: Any
justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify
himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably
be questioned. He shall also disqualify himself in [a case] where he
has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.
I begin with those words because I discovered recently that two of the
members of the court had already officiated at homosexual
marriages, thereby letting their own personal views on the matter be
known. I and others are concerned that they will not be able to
consider the arguments for and against the legalization of
homosexual marriage from an entirely objective perspective.
It is, of course, impossible to ask the members of the court to be
entirely without opinion. And, I am sure that you and your colleagues
are dedicated to maintaining an open mind as you consider the sides
of a case. But how can you assure the American public that the case
is being handled from a completely independent standpoint? With all
the dishonesty and mistrust that permeates the publics perception of
the branches of government legislative, executive, and judicial I
believe it is in the best interest of the court that you ask your
colleagues to step down. And, particularly considering the information
I shared with you in my previous letter regarding the moral and
religious qualms many in this country have about same-sex marriage,
you can prevent accusations being hurled at the court from those
who feel the deck was stacked against them from the outset.
There is legal precedent for this as well.

For example, Justice Sandra Day OConnor normally did not take part
in cases concerning telecommunications firms which she held stock
in. Justice Stephen Breyer did not take part in some cases involving
insurance companies because he once participated in a UK
insurance market. Chief Justice John Marshall recused himself from
the Martin v. Hunters Lessee trial because he and his brother had
agreed to buy property from the petitioner, Denny Martin.
Perhaps the situation that is most applicable to the current situation is
when, in 2004, Justice Antonin Scalia recused himself from the Elk
Grove Unified School District v. Newdow case. Michael Newdow, a
Sacramento attorney and emergency physician filed suit against the
school district claiming that the words under God in the Pledge of
Allegiance amounted to a government establishment of religion in
violation of the Constitution. In a public speech, Justice Scalia
criticized the decision of a lower court in the case thereby making his
personal views known before the Supreme Court heard the case.
This removed the appearance of impartiality and he recused himself
to preserve the integrity of the court.
Similar circumstances are at work here. If your colleagues who have
made clear their opinion on this case not only by words, but by
actions refuse to recuse themselves, whatever decision the court
comes to will be tainted, and will likely lead to a drawn out series of
legal challenges that will add to the open wounds of a nation already
torn by a sensitive and divisive issue.
Respectfully yours,
Michael Elderson
Episode 5
Greetings.
I would like to share with you some concerns that I have observed
and heard from others over the past few months. These concerns are
from respectable, fair citizens and people of faith across the country.
They worry that they will be under increased pressure from the
government if homosexual marriage is legalized across the country.
They already see how that through much of the media, people and
organizations which disagree with homosexual marriage and the
homosexual agenda are ostracized, criticized, threatened, and
persecuted. In recent memory, several television personalities and
leaders of organizations who have expressed legitimate concerns
about the homosexual lifestyle and where the homosexual agenda
will lead to have been forced out of their positions or branded as
hateful bigots when thats just simply not the case. Thankfully, in
some of these cases, due to the outcry of supporters, these people
have been able to retain their positions and their livelihood. However,
there is deep concern that if the federal government legalizes
homosexual marriage nationwide, pressure will increase
exponentially on those who disagree with the law.
Their fear is not misplaced. Some of the concerns they have shared
are as follows:
1. Churches which refuse to marry same-sex couples (or allow their
buildings to be used for a same-sex marriage ceremony) will be sued
for discrimination.
2. Churches, religious colleges, religious schools, and faith-based

non-profits will face discrimination lawsuits for refusing to hire
homosexuals.
3. Churches will face public protests and lawsuits for firing a worker
or kicking out a member who is a practicing homosexual.
4. Faith-based adoption agencies will be sued, fined, and/or forced to
shut down because they refuse to give children to same-sex couples.
(This is already happening.)
5. Counseling centers will be sued for refusing to counsel
homosexual couples. The same thing goes for marriage therapists,
chaplains, or doctors, who for moral or biblical reasons, choose not to
provide services to homosexuals.
Simply put, if the Supreme Court legalizes homosexual marriage
nationwide and elevates it on a governmental level to being equal to
heterosexual (traditional) marriage, these people will be breaking the
law one they consider to be unrighteous and unjust. Recent events
in Alabama (where many county clerks refused to issue marriage
licenses to homosexual couples) make this a very real possibility.
Very many people who feel that homosexual marriage is wrong will
not comply with the implications of a ruling that states that it is right.
(Obviously, because men are not angels, they can be mistaken in the
laws they create. It has happened before.)
In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
wrote: [T]there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the
first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a
moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral
responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine
that an unjust law is no law at all.'
Obviously, not everyone in our society will agree on what is and what
isnt a just law. But these concerns and considerations must be taken
into account, lest the court end up creating more tyranny than true
justice.
Respectfully yours,
Michael Elderson
Episode 6
Greetings.
As you take up the issue of same-sex marriage, you will undoubtedly
be confronted with the argument that the gay rights movement is
equivalent to the civil rights movement. In other words, that the
rights that homosexuals demand are the same as the rights that
blacks demanded in the 1950s and 1960s.
This is a faulty argument for two major reasons.
First, the plight of homosexuals in the twenty-first century cannot be
compared to the plight of blacks during the civil rights movement in
the 1950s and 1960s. This can be shown through a few simple
observations:
During Jim Crow, many businesses posted signs denying service to
blacks or directing blacks to use different facilities or
accommodations than whites. That type of outright discrimination
does not exist toward homosexuals in modern-day America. They,
like all other citizens, can come and go as they please at all places
of public service and accommodation stores, gas stations,
restaurants, hotels, movie theaters, etc.
During civil rights marches, blacks were routinely harassed,
mocked, hosed and beaten by police, and attacked and mauled by
police dogs. Gay pride parades today are not subjected to such
indignities.
Homosexuals today are readily accepted (and even embraced) by
the general public, whereas blacks during the civil rights movement
(particularly in the South) were rejected. For example, one would be
hard pressed to name black counterparts who lived in the 50s and
60s to the following well-known openly homosexual individuals:
news anchors Anderson Cooper and Rachel Maddow, Fortune 500
CEO Tim Cook, Houston Mayor Annise Parker, talk show host Ellen
DeGeneres, and others. If the aforementioned people were black
sixty to seventy years ago, they would have nowhere near the
notoriety and acceptance that they have today.
Contrary to what some would say, gay is not the new black. The
plight of homosexual Americans is not in any way comparable to the
plight of black Americans. The two cannot be equated. Homosexuals
already enjoy the basic human rights and privileges that blacks had
to march and protest to obtain.
In the words of a homosexual journalist: Newsflash: blacks in

America didnt start out as hip-hop fashion designers; they were
slaves. Theres a big difference between being able to enjoy a civil
union with the same sex partner of your choice and not being able
to drink out of a water fountain, eat at a lunch counter, or use a
restroom because you dont have the right skin color.
The second major reason why homosexual rights cannot be
compared with civil rights is because a distinction must be drawn as it
concerns a persons behavior. All people choose their behavior; no
one chooses their skin color. Blacks cannot help being black. To
judge someone based on something they have no control over is
absurd. On the other hand, behavior in this case, sexual behavior
is something that is subject to a persons will and decisions. A
black person may be discriminated against simply by walking into a
public place. However, a homosexual cannot be discriminated

against unless he, in some way, demonstrates or indicates that he is
a homosexual.
Although some claim that sexual orientation is determined at birth,
there is no reputable evidence to support this. The American
Psychiatric Association states: To date there are no replicated
scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology [cause or
set of causes] for homosexuality. This is further borne out in the fact
that there are former homosexuals. (There are no former blacks.)
Numerous people who once identified as homosexuals have changed
their behavior. The law justly prevents people from being
discriminated against because of genetics something they have no
control over skin color, age, or gender. Homosexual rights
advocates cannot claim that in their defense.
The civil rights movement was about overturning a culture of hatred
and discrimination toward a group of people who had done nothing
that would warrant such discrimination. The homosexual rights
movement is about forcing the broader culture to accept and condone
the private lifestyle and behavior choices of a small group of people
who already enjoy, not only basic civil rights, but applause and
affirmation from many in society.
Dont be deceived.
Respectfully,
Michael Elderson
Episode 7
Greetings.
When considering the institution of marriage, one can readily note
that it predates any form of government. The first humans engaged in
marital activity long before governments came about. They raised
children, formed families, and developed the basis of community and
society. The institution of government came later. Whatever form of
government that was implemented monarchy, oligarchy, republic,
democracy, communist, etc. all recognized that the family (fathers,
mothers, and their children) were the basic building block of society.
The key word is recognize. Governments recognize marriages, and in
some cases, they offer benefits to individuals based on their marital
status. My point is this: government did not create marriage, therefore
it is beyond the scope of government to try to change or redefine
what constitutes a marriage.
Governments provide numerous benefits to the residents of a country
law and order, keeping the peace, etc. and therefore they have
the right to tax citizens who choose to live in that country and enjoy
those benefits. Governments form and manage a countrys military,
and therefore they have the right to command those who choose to
join the military to do what the head of state feels is necessary to
protect the country. Governments create and manage public school
systems, and therefore, they have the right to have a greater say in
what is taught and how it is taught. They do not have such a right in
private schools, church schools, or homeschools.
Marriage, however, is different. It is not something that the

government created or manages. Who created marriage? The Book
of Genesis in the Bible makes it perfectly clear that God created
marriage in the beginning when he created Adam, a man, and then
stating that it was not good for Adam to be alone created Eve, a
woman, to be his companion. It was God who told them to be fruitful
and multiply (bear children). Marriage is the atomic relationship of
society. Government can only recognize this fact, and should,
therefore, not try to redefine marriage by declaring legal recognition
for same-sex marriage or any other form of marriage.
Here are further reasons why neither the federal government nor the
Supreme Court should try to redefine marriage:
1. The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution
and laws created by the U.S. Congress. The U.S. Constitution
says nothing about marriage, therefore it is beyond the
bounds of the Supreme Court to take deciding issues of
marriage upon itself.
2. If the Supreme Court takes it upon itself to say that two
people of the same-sex can be in a legally recognized
marriage, the Court will open what has been compared to a
Pandoras Box. After same-sex marriage is legally
recognized, what is to prevent those who wish to marry a
sibling, or a man who wants to marry ten women, or an
animal, or a tree, etc., or any other combination of living
beings from demanding their rights and equal protection and
recognition under the law?
3. Marriage is an intensely private matter. When weddings take
place, there is usually no government representative present.
Family and friends gather before a pastor (or other official) to
witness two people coming together in marital union. Some

couples simply decide to be married without the input of
anyone else. The government comes along later and issues a
marriage license which shows that the government
recognizes those two individuals as married. It is possible for
two people to be married without the government being
involved. The government does not make the marriage; God
and the people do.
Speaking of the people: of the 37 states where homosexual marriage
is already recognized by the government, only three of those states
came to such a decision by popular vote. In two of those states,
same-sex marriage was legalized by the states legislature. In all the
rest, same-sex marriage was legalized by the courts the same
courts whose job it is to simply act as interpreters of the law and
arbiters in legal disputes.
It is up to the Supreme Court to stop the tide of the judicial branch of
government from overstepping its bounds and imposing the will of a
tiny minority on a sacred institution that predates every form of
government.
Respectfully yours,
Michael Elderson
Episode 8
Greetings.
In my letters to you on the issue of homosexual marriage, I have
failed to raise the issue of the impact of such unions on the nations
children. Of course, the results of long term scientific studies of these
effects are still out; the arrangement has come about too recently for
any solid, meaningful research to be provided. However, I would like
to call your attention to the experiences of a woman raised by a
homosexual father who had multiple partners throughout her
childhood.
Her name is Dawn Stefanowicz. She recently published an article
explaining why, perhaps surprisingly, she opposes legalizing samesex marriage. Mrs. Stefanowicz was born and raised in Canada
the fourth country to legalize homosexual marriage nationwide and
the first country outside of Europe to do so. Her argument comes out
of the harm that she experienced as a child raised by a homosexual
parent.
The effects of such an environment which she detailed are as follows.
1. Children raised in such environments will grow up without a
healthy reference point for their own sex or the opposite sex.
Stefanowicz states, I did not see my father and his partners valuing,
loving and affirming women. My fathers preference for one gender
(male) created an inner sense of inequality for me.
A girl raised by two homosexual men will have no reference point for
how a (straight) man is supposed to relate to a woman or for how a
(straight) woman is supposed to relate to men. The same goes for

boys raised by two lesbian women they will not know how to relate
to a (straight) woman or (straight) men. Children raised in such
environments will likely experience feelings of uncertainty and
struggle with their own sexual development.
2. What is best for children is pushed to the side in favor of what
adults desire. Stefanowicz states, For many of us adult children of
gay parents, we have come to the conclusion that same-sex marriage
is more about promoting adults desires than about safeguarding
childrens rights to know and be raised by their biological parents.
Children are the future of our society and the future of our country.
What kind of people would we be if we put the sexual desires of a
minority above the broader good of the younger generations of the
nation?
3. Parents rights to teach their children based on their own religious
or moral beliefs will be restricted if homosexual marriage is legalized.
Speaking from her own observations in a country that legalized
homosexual marriage, Stefanowicz states, Same-sex marriage
permits state powers to override the autonomy of biological parents.
Necessary parental rights to teach children your beliefs, express your
opinions, and practice your personal faith are infringed upon by the
state when your beliefs, opinions and or faith practices are in
opposition to what is taught and promoted at school.
Parents who teach their children at home that marriage is between a
man and a woman run the risk of having their beliefs and lifestyle
questioned, ostracized, and/or criticized by the government. This can
easily come about if the children mention their beliefs in a public
school classroom. For example, if a teacher reads a book that depicts
a same-sex marriage or same-sex parents, and a child says, Well, I
believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, that childs

parents could come under scrutiny. But, it is not only parents who will
experience this pressure; Christian schools, faith-based counseling
centers, faith-based adoption agencies, and any other organization
that has anything to do with parenting and the family which holds to
the belief that children need a mother (female) and a father (male).
Those who do not comply with the federal definition of what makes
up a pair of parents may in the future be charged with hate speech
and discriminatory activity. Since Canada legalized homosexual
marriage, the Human Rights Commission has penalized citizens for
publicly expressing their opposition to particular sexual behavior.
There are certain things pastors cannot say on TV in Canada
because of hate speech laws governing the airwaves. If
homosexual marriage is legalized in the U.S., our cherished right to
free speech could soon be stripped away because of overzealous
judges and activists committed to forcing everyone to fall in line with
something they do not agree with.
At the close of her article, Mrs. Stefanowicz states, I am a witness
and I dont want America to lose her hard-won freedoms as my fellow
Canadians have. Marriage must remain between a man and a
woman to the exclusion of all others.
Despite what a minority would have us to believe, two men or two
women cannot raise a child the same way a man and a woman
(preferably, both of them being the childs biological parents) can.
There is simply no way an institution such as the nuclear family,
which has successfully propagated the human race for thousands of
years, can be successfully replaced by something so new-fangled as
same-sex parenting arrangements. Even many in the homosexual
community do not agree that this is the case. Last month, two openly
homosexual Italian men, Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana (of
the fashion design company Dolce & Gabbana), expressed their

opinion that the traditional family with children born to a mother and
a father is best and is preferable even to children being adopted by
homosexual parents. One even stated, some things cannot be
changed. One is the family.
Respectfully yours,
Michael Elderson
Episode 9
Greetings.
One of the greatest arguments against same-sex marriage is the
argument which stems from religion. The holy writings of Catholics
and Jews (of which the court currently consists of) condemn samesex relationships. These writings do not go so far as to mention
marriage in the homosexual context; that is simply not in view.
Two passages in the Torah condemn such activity Leviticus 18:22
and Leviticus 20:13 which read as follows:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is
abomination.
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have
committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood
shall be upon them.
As seen, under Jewish law, such activity warrants the death penalty.
These same passages are included in the Old Testament of the Bible.
The New Jerusalem translation (which is widely used among
Catholics) states:
You will not have intercourse with a man as you would with a woman.
This is a hateful thing.
The man who has intercourse with a man in the same way as with a
woman: they have done a hateful thing together; they will be put to
death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Some will raise the question of whether or not Christians today
believe that homosexuals should be put to death? The answer is no.

After Christs coming, a new covenant came into effect because of his
death and resurrection. Many of the strict, legal ramifications of the
Old Testament law no longer apply. The Old Testament emphasized
the severity of righteousness and the necessity of perfection before
God. Any lack of perfection required harsh punishment. However,
under the New Testament, since Jesus Christ took the punishment of
death a sentence deserved by all people upon himself, we can
look to Gods grace and mercy.
Now, this does not negate the wrongness of sins that are condemned
in the Old Testament legal code. Just as we still readily agree that
murder, lying, or stealing is wrong, homosexuality is wrong as well.
The New Testament Scriptures speak to that fact. Romans 8:26-27
states:
God abandoned them to degrading passions their women have

exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural practices; and the men,
in a similar fashion, too, giving up normal relations with women, are
consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameful things
with men and receiving in themselves due reward for their
perversion.
I Corinthians 6:9-10 states:
Do you not realise that people who do evil will never inherit the
kingdom of God? Make no mistake the sexually immoral, idolaters,
adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites, thieves, misers, drunkards,
slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of
God.
Jude 1:7 states:
Sodom and Gomorrah, too, and the neighbouring towns, who with
the same sexual immorality pursued unnatural lusts, are put before
us as an example since they are paying the penalty of eternal fire.

We see in these verses that the New Testament condemns
homosexuality (along with other sins) in similarly strong terms as it
did in the Old. God still sees homosexuality as a sin and as offensive
to him. The verses from Romans let us know that there are natural
consequences that stem from homosexuality (due reward for their
perversion). The verses from First Corinthians make it plain that a
person who engages in homosexuality will never inherit the
kingdomd of God unless he comes under the life-changing influence
of Jesus Christ. In Jude, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are used
as an example of Gods judgment upon those who engage in
homosexuality.
Millions of people in America hold to the belief that homosexuality is
wrong even many who do not identify as Christian or Jewish.
Homosexual marriage is out of the question.
Respectfully yours,
Michael Elderson
Episode 10
Greetings.
Some have claimed the 14th Amendment to the Constitution as a
basis for establishing legal recognition of same-sex marriage across
the United States. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which was
passed in 1868, reads as follows:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Obviously, this amendment is given to us in broad terms.
Homosexual rights groups say that refusing to extend recognition of
same-sex marriage is a violation of the privileges of U.S. citizens, and
deprives them of their liberty and equal protection under the law. It
can be used to speak to many issues of our day, but homosexual
marriage is not one of them. Heres why:
First, when this amendment was passed in 1868, all of the states in
the union banned homosexual behavior. Homosexual marriage was
not even in sight by the state legislatures which voted to ratify this
amendment.
Second, just because we are living in a different time period now
far removed, socially and culturally from the moral standard of the
1860s that does not mean that the law should automatically
change. The Constitution and its amendments were written within a
specific scope of time, and they do not have ultimate flexibility. When
interpreting these laws, we must consider if similar circumstances
such as we have now existed at the time a law was being made.
Notice the following points from Frank Tureks article on this issue:
Third, the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from
discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and
women didnt even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it
could use the equal protection clause to change state voting laws.
So why do some district courts think they can use it now to change
state marriage laws? Are we to believe that equal protection does
not guarantee a womans right to vote but does guarantee a womans
right to marry another woman?
Since the people evolved on voting rights, they convinced supermajorities in Congress and the state legislatures voted to add the
15th and 19th Amendments in 1870 and 1920 respectively. The
courts knew they shouldnt act as legislatures to grant rights not
addressed by the Constitution. Neither should this Supreme Court.
Fourth, despite all the talk about equal rights, everyone already has
equal marriage rights. Every person has the same equal right to
marry someone of the opposite sex. That law treats all people
equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. If people with
homosexual desires do not have equal rights, then people with
desires to marry their relatives or more than one person dont have
equal rights. The born that way justification doesnt work either
because that same justification could make any desired arrangement
marriage, which means the logic behind it is absurd. The Court
needs to acknowledge the fact that traditional marriage, same sexmarriage, incestuous marriage, and polygamous marriage are all
different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law rightfully treats

those behaviors differently.
Respectfully yours,
Mitchell Ellison
Episode 11
Greetings.
Those in the homosexual movement as well as some on the
liberal/progressive side of the aisle have used the idea that there is
no real difference between the genders as a way of influencing public
and judicial opinion to support same-sex marriage. They say, Whats
the difference between a man and a woman who love each other and
want to spend the rest of their life with each other and two men or two
women who love each other and want to spend the rest of their life
with each other? Some have even suggested that if the Supreme
Court allows for the legalization of same-sex marriage, those
churches and other institutions that refuse to recognize such unions
would be charged with gender discrimination. (And some have
noted that, since the federal government bans gender discrimination,
the government would be obligated to act with police force if
necessary to stop such discrimination.)
I will address the idea of gender difference in this letter from a Biblical
perspective.
Is there really a difference between the genders? Are men and
women interchangeable?
The Bible says in Genesis 1:27, So God created man in His own
image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He
created them. The specification in these verses indicates deliberate
difference. God purposefully created two different genders not two
similar genders; not two of the same kind. This specificity is further
shown in the two differing accounts of the creation of the first man
and woman. The first man was shaped from the dust of the ground.
The first woman was shaped from a rib of the man.

The Bible indicates that God made the first woman, Eve, because
something was missing in the life of the first man, Adam. Genesis
2:18 reads, And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man
should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. The word
meet means suitable. If God was to supply what was missing in
Adams life, he could not have made another human of the same kind
(another male just like Adam), for that male would have had the same
void in his life as Adam did in his. Adam would not have been fulfilled.
Thus, God made a female another human of a different kind. And
Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh
[clearly human]: she shall be called Woman [but also clearly
different], because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man
[a male] leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his
wife [a female]: and they shall be one flesh.
The man and the woman were made differently and they were named
differently. Neither could replace the other. They were
complete together, a holy union designed and approved by God.
Gods will for humanity can only be carried out through the union of a
male and a female two different kinds coming together as one.
(Think of a battery: A battery has a positive side and a negative side.
Those two sides working together are what provide power to a
flashlight or any other electronic device. Two positive sides together
or two negative sides together wont work.)
Male and female bodies are compatible sexually, and it is by this
natural union that children are conceived. If God had intended for the
human race to continue through offspring coming from homosexual
unions, He would have made that possible. (As such, He did not even
leave it as an option. He did not make it so that both heterosexual
and homosexual unions could produce children.)
Some have said that this Old Testament view is outdated that a
new era calls for a new interpretation of Scripture. However, if we
look at the New Testament, we see that Jesus Christ and the
Apostles backed the view that the genders are different and not
interchangeable.
In Matthew 19, Jesus said, Have ye not read, that he which made
them at the beginning made them male and female, For this cause
shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and
they twain shall be one flesh? The Apostle Paul also quoted Adam
when he said in Ephesians 5, For this cause shall a man leave his
father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two
shall be one flesh.
God designed the different genders male and female and
society can only continue with these boundaries remaining clear and
distinct. In my next letter, I will look at some of the effects that will
come about if we allow our society to continue to blur the lines of the
Biblically-based distinction of the genders.
Respectfully yours,
Michael Elderson
Episode 12
Greetings.
In my last letter to you, I began writing from the perspective of the
book of Genesis in hopes to influence you by our mutual respect for
the Word of God and by your professed faith. The Bibles teachings
have, for centuries, been the basis for morality and conduct in
society. Many of our legal codes are based on the Bible as you well
know. Surely, as we recognize this, we must consider what the Bible
has to say about the same-sex marriage issue.
Already, we have looked at the Biblical basis for the distinction of the
genders. As much as society would have us to believe otherwise,
males and females are not interchangeable. While neither gender is
less than or greater than the other, they both have distinct roles to
play in the family the building block of society. The heterosexual
marriage relationship is God-ordained and natural for men and
women. Various studies indicate that homosexual relationships make
both men and women more vulnerable to diseases and a shorter
lifespan. According to a study published in 1997 in the International
Journal of Epidemiology, half of homosexual and bi-sexual men then
aged 20 years old were not expected to live past 65 years old.
Numerous studies have also shown that people in homosexual
relationships are more susceptible to HIV, AIDS, and other sexuallyrelated diseases.
While the Bible does not explicitly mention same-sex marriage, it
does clearly condemn homosexual behavior in both the Old and New
Testaments. Romans 1:26-27 calls homosexual desires and actions
shameful, unnatural, and immoral. For this cause God gave them up
unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use
into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving
the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward
another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving
in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. First
Corinthians 6:9 also says that homosexuals will not inherit the
kingdom of God.
Since God has clearly condemned homosexual behavior, it would be
wrong for any government to sanction same-sex marriage. We will
not be helping our country or society as a whole; nor will we be
helping the homosexuals themselves. As believers, we should stand
firmly against anything that God has condemned and that has proven
to have a detrimental effect on peoples lives.
Respectfully yours,
Michael Elderson
Episode 13
Greetings.
Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is always in the context of
being between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage in
Genesis 2:24 describes it as a man leaving his father and mother and
being united with his wife. In Scriptures that contain instructions
regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians
5:23-33, the relationship is clearly defined as being between a man
and a woman.
According to Gods original design, this union is to last for a lifetime
primarily for the purpose of building a family, raising children,
providing a stable environment for those children who will one day
grow up to carry on the human race through the same activity.
However, the Bible is not alone in its defense of heterosexual
marriage. Marriage, as depicted in the Bible, has been the universal
understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history
for millennia. History argues against homosexual marriage. Even
modern non-religious psychology recognizes that men and women
are designed to complement one another.
A union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as
good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise
well-adjusted children. Physically speaking, clearly, men and women
were designed to fit together. Since the natural purpose of sexual
intercourse is procreation, it is clear that only a sexual relationship
between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues
against homosexual marriage.
If the Bible, history, psychology, and nature all argue for marriage
being between a man and a woman, there really is no contest today.
We cannot sacrifice a universal ideal because of a slim minority who
wish to deviate.
According to Scripture, people inherently know that homosexuality is
immoral and unnatural even the homosexual knows this. Thus, the
only way to suppress this inherent knowledge is to try to normalize
homosexuality and homosexual marriage by attacking those who
oppose it and by getting the powers-that-be to recognize it. The intent
is to make same-sex marriage equal to traditional marriage, and we
should not let that happen.
Respectfully yours,
Michael Elderson
Episode 14
What more does the Bible have to say about marriage that would
help make a right decision regarding whether or not the government
should legalize same-sex marriage?
Some have said that the Bible does not really prohibit same-sex
marriage because marriage is just a social institution that has
changed and adapted with the times and with the culture. However,
we see it differently. Marriage is a holy ordinance ordained by God in
the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. It is carried from the very
beginning of time into the New Testament age where even the first
century apostles clarified marriage as being a union caused by a man
leaving his father and mother and being joined to his wife.
Simply because Jesus Christ was single does not mean that He was
indifferent to marriage. The life of Jesus Christ speaks to an even
greater truth regarding marriage. Numerous times in the Bible,
marriage is used as a metaphor for, first, the union of God with the
children of Israel and, second, the union of Christ with the Church.
Listen to Ephesians 5:25-27: Husbands, love your wives, even as
Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might
sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he
might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or
wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without
blemish.
Jesus eternal union with the church is also celebrated in the book of
Revelation: Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for
the marriage of the Lamb [Jesus] is come, and his wife [the church]
hath made herself ready.
So, marriage is no light thing in the Bible. It is something that God is
greatly interested in and invested in. After all, He commanded that
the earth be populated through the children born from a union of a
man and woman.
Although the Bible records the failings of some of its greatest heroes
in the area of marriage adultery, polygamy, etc. this does not
mean that God condoned or approved of their actions. The Bible also
records the consequences of their erring ways. Davids adultery, for
example, was rewarded by the death of a son born in that union and
the discord that never left his house. Abrahams adultery was
rewarded by constant strife between his sons, Ishmael and Isaac,
which is still being played out in the Middle East today.
There is no small reason why marriage is thought of as something
under the jurisdiction of the church. When an ordained minister
proclaims a man and woman to be husband and wife, he is simply
affirming the ordinance which God has already set up.
Marriage was made in heaven and it is not in the best interest of
society that men no matter who they are tamper with it.
Respectfully yours,
Michael Elderson
Episode 15
Greetings.
Recently, there have been a number of people in Christian circles
who claim that monogamous homosexual unions are simply an
expansion of the BIblical perspective on marriage. They argue that
since every person is created in the image of God, the original intent
of the union of Adam and Eve was a social fellowship. They say that
intimacy, not biology, is the appropriate measure of Gods design for
union between any people.
However, the theology regarding the image of God is not the only
parameter for the thing called marriage. While the social and spiritual
union of two people (or any number of people) is important,
physical/biological union is what sets marriage apart. The physical
aspect is fundamental to the function of marriage, and it is the
violation of this physical aspect that God condemns. Theologian W.A.
Elwell writes, Sexual differentiation intends physical union, the
becoming of one flesh. Because a homosexual relationship cannot
produce a unity of sexually differentiated beings, there cannot be a
marriage.
Some members of the homosexual community have attempted to
spread the impression that Christians and other marriage
traditionalists have it out solely for homosexuals. This is far from the
truth. Most Christians line up with the Bible which condemns
numerous forms of sexual sin, not just homosexuality. In fact, the
Bibles condemnations of sexual sin overwhelmingly focus on
heterosexual acts. Thus, while both the Old Testament and New
Testament, describe homosexuality as unjust or impure, incest, rape,
adultery, bestiality, and other sexual acts that are outside of the
monogamous heterosexual union are also condemned.
Legalizing homosexuality will open the proverbial can of worms.
Once homosexual practice is condoned and protected by the
government, those who wish to engage in other perverted sexual
activity will also demand that their desires be condoned and
protected. Society will turn into a sexual free-for-all in which anything
(and everything) goes. This kind of environment will destabilize the
long-standing foundations of marriage, family, and community in
America.
Respectfully yours,
Michael Elderson
Episode 16
Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices:
A divided court reflected a divided nation.
While the Supreme Court ruled on several key issues in its latest
term, none was so momentous nor had (or will have) a furtherreaching impact than its decision to strike down homosexual marriage
bans across all 50 states. While my hope and prayer, and the hope
and prayer of many good-hearted people, was that the Supreme
Court would at least leave the matter of legalizing or banning samesex marriage in the hands of the states, thus giving the people a
chance to have their voices heard, the 5-4 ruling has ushered in a
new reality for the nation.
In the rest of my series of letters, I wish to address this new reality
what its primary effects are and how we should respond to it. Let me
say that now is not the time for recoiling in fear and horror. As
Scripture says, There is nothing new under the sun. Our forbearers
have had to face the heinous evils of their day, and we must face the
heinous evil of ours. It can be done. But it will not be done if we have
a spirit of fear and cowardice, and a readiness to bury ones head in
the sand and throw up ones hands in despair. No dragon was ever
defeated before it was confronted.
There are two major negative impacts that will stem from the
Supreme Court ruling.
At the outset, we can say that a new sexual revolution is in the works.
Now that homosexuality has been legalized and sanctioned by the
federal government, and same-sex couples have all the rights and
privileges of heterosexual couples under the law, there is nothing to
prevent any combination of consenting individuals from presenting

their union, demanding that it be recognized as marriage, and
expecting to receive all the rights, privileges, and recognitions that
heterosexual couples have benefited from for centuries. The
Supreme Court (nor any lower court) has no basis upon which to
condemn those who wish to engage in polygamy, polyamory,
cohabitation, incest, bestiality, or any other sexual union and have it
called marriage. That was thrown out the window when the Court
legalized same-sex marriage.
We must brace for this onslaught. Perhaps, as it wrestles with such
cases over the coming years, the Supreme Court will see the error of
its ways.
The second major negative impact of the Supreme Court ruling will
be increased pressure on churches, religious organizations (such as
schools and colleges), as well as businesses owned by people who
do not recognize same-sex marriage. These entities and people will
be pressured to conform to the law of the land. We will see more
instances of the long-running church vs. state conflict as religious
entities will be threatened with the power of the state if they do not
bow to the law. This will only further the animosity between the two
sides. It is only prudent to expect that some will lose privileges, some
will be fined, some will be jailed, and some will be killed for their
refusal to abide by the Supreme Courts ruling.
These are just some things to pray about and get prepared for in this
new unfortunate reality.
Sincerely,
Michael Elderson
Episode 17
During its deliberations on same-sex marriage, the court recognized
that marriage, defined as being between a man and a woman, has
existed for millennia and across civilizations. The court also
acknowledged that the institution called marriage transcends the
government, our constitution, and any man-made authority as it
existed long before any such authority structures came into being.
If this is the case, who are we to redefine what constitutes a
marriage. The question is not whether or not we believe marriage
should include or exclude same-sex couples. Regardless of our
beliefs, we must humbly submit to the fact that it is not within the
power of any court or government to define what marriage is or what
marriage is not. In a democracy, an argument could be made that
such a right lies with the people. (This would exclude the court
system entirely and leave the decision up to state-by-state
referendums.) I and many others believe, however, that the right to
define marriage lies with God who created the first man and woman
and put them together in a union the first and original marriage. As
the Supreme Courts dissenting opinion stated, The Constitution
leaves no doubt that defining what constitutes a marriage is outside
the bounds of any countrys justice system.
It is tempting to confuse popular preference with what should be law,
especially in a democracy. But, as was borne out in the failed citystate of ancient Athens, the will of the masses is not always right.
However, in this case, the masses may be on to something. When
the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, it relied on its
desire to remake society according to its own new insight. It also

struck down the marriage laws of over half of the States laws that
had either been put in place by referendum or by legislation approved
by those elected to represent the people of that state.
The court abandoned its usual restraint to trample on democracy in
progress. If, in fact, the same-sex marriage movement would have
inevitably advanced to the point where a majority in all fifty states
approved of such unions, shouldnt the people of those states decide
when that time might be?
By taking this risk and mandating that same-sex marriage be
recognized across the nation, the Court has only facilitated the
continued division of American society. It has also placed at risk those
who justifiably oppose same-sex marriage for reasons the Court itself
has admitted that marriage as we know it has been in existence for
millennia and that defining marriage is not something a judicial
system should be engaged in. Already, conflict has arisen with lower
judges in states that had laws banning same-sex marriage ordering
county clerks who disagree with same-sex marriage to issue
marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some clerks have complied,
others have refused, and, at least in one case, a clerk decided not to
issue marriage licenses to anyone until the issue is resolved. Hence,
the Court has ensured that many dark and difficult days are ahead for
the nation.
Sincerely,
Michael Elderson
Episode 18
During the months leading up to the Supreme Courts decision
making homosexual marriage legal in all 50 states, many lawyers,
religious leaders, and other concerned citizens expressed their
concern that, if homosexual marriage were indeed legalized
nationwide, the U.S. justice system would be obligated to uphold
such a ruling by punishing those who refused to abide by it. Before
the ruling came down, many who hold religious convictions against
homosexual marriage made it clear that they would obey God rather
than man. Some said they were willing to pay fines or go to jail
instead of violating their beliefs. At the time, some dismissed their
concerns as hype or phobia. However, today, we see that those who
had such concerns were not far off from the truth.
The recent court summoning and jailing of a county clerk in Kentucky
who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses proves that what
supporters of traditional marriage have feared all along the federal
government taking sides in this debate over a fundamental
cornerstone of society is taking place. While churches and other
religious organizations have been assured that they will not be forced
to hold same-sex marriage ceremonies, what is to be done about
those who adhere to the doctrine represented by the religious
institution? The government cannot ask its citizens to leave their
religious convictions behind in the church, the synagogue, or the
mosque.
In each election that rolls around, political commentators repeatedly
highlight the polarization among the U.S. populace. Red vs. Blue.
Liberal vs. conservative. Pro-business vs. pro-worker. Gay vs.
straight. A country divided against itself cannot stand not for long.
And, now that homosexual marriage is the law of the land, the judicial
system must not add to the strife by trampling on the rights of citizens
who have well-founded disagreement with what is, in their view, an
unjust law.
The situation with the Kentucky county clerk could have been
handled in a manner that did not end with a citizen (and an elected
official), who was simply trying to live by her conscience, put in jail. At
the same time, she should not have been forced to issue same-sex
marriage licenses. (For example, another clerk who did not have a
problem doing so could have been called upon to handle the matter.)
Besides that, it is stated by her attorney that she just wants her name
off of the marriage licenses that are being given to homosexuals so
that she, in Gods eyes and for consciences sake, will not be a part
of such an abomination. This seems to me a reasonable request.
Be assured, the scenario that has played out in Kentucky over the
past few weeks will be repeated over and over again for years to
come. Media reports have indicated that there are at least more than
a dozen other county clerks across the nation who also refuse to
issue same-sex marriage licenses. If those few remain true to their
beliefs, others will join them. (And, that is not counting the thousands
and millions who support them.) The justice system in the U.S. will
have another chance to get this right. Hopefully, they will make the
right decision one that will respect the right of any American to live
according to their deeply-held religious beliefs.
Sincerely,
Michael Elderson
Letter Nineteen
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 governments 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
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 Courts 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 countrys 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 majoritys decision imposing same-sex
marriage cannot, of course, create any such
accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that
religious believers may continue toadvocate 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 dont deny
that It is going to be an issue. And it has been even before the

Supreme Courts 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 governments law in the
very near future.
In recent months (both before and after the Supreme Courts 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
The dissenting opinion of the court stated, people of faith can take
no comfort in the treatment they receive from the Supreme Courts
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 Courts 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 majoritys account, Americans who did nothing more
than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for
our entire historyin particular, the tens of millions of people
who voted to reaffirm their States enduring definition of

marriagehave acted to lockout, 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 majoritys 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 samesex 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
Letter Twenty-Two
There are many who feel as though the Supreme Court overstepped
its bounds by ruling in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage
nationwide. A 2002 Supreme Court ruling stated that the legitimacy
of this Court ultimately rests upon the respect accorded to its
judgments. In a democracy, such as ours, how can any ruling stand
when many feel that the justices have overstepped their bounds not
just in this case but in others as well.
The dissenting opinion stated, Respect flows from the perception
and realitythat we exercise humility and restraint in deciding cases
according to the Constitution and law. The role of the Court
envisioned by the majority today, however, is anything but humble or
restrained. Over and over, the majority exalts the role of the judiciary
in delivering social change. In the majoritys telling, it is the courts, not
the people, who are responsible for making new dimensions of
freedomapparent to new generations, for providing formal
discourse on social issues, and for ensuring neutral discussions,
without scornful or disparaging commentary.'
In the eyes of many, the Supreme Court pushed aside the still
ongoing public debate over whether or not same-sex couples should
have all the legal rights and benefits of married heterosexuals,
whether or not same-sex unions are detrimental to society, and
whether or not children suffer from being raised by same-sex parents.
There has been extensive litigation regarding these issues, as well as
numerous books, scholarly writings, studies, and reports. More than
100 friend of the court briefs were filed in this case alone. There is
tremendous interest in this matter and many in this country feel that,
by the Courts ruling, the benefits of further public discussion has
been stripped away.
Sincerely,
Michael Elderson
Letter Twenty-Three
Is there anything to be said about a people ruling themselves? Many
conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage were not seeking a
Supreme Court ruling that banned same-sex marriage in the United
States. Rather, they desired that the court would let state laws
banning same-sex marriage stand and allow the people of each state
to vote their opinion on the issue or elect legislators who would
propose legislation that represented the will of the people of that
state.
What would have been the benefit of this allowance?
By allowing the people of each state to decide whether or not their
government would recognize same-sex unions and treat them the
same as traditional marriages, the federal government would save
itself from igniting mass displeasure with the judicial system. Those
people in some regions, such as the American South, where
traditional views still hold fast, would have been able to dictate the
course of their immediate environment. People in other regions, such
as the West Coast and New England, would have been able to
dictate the course of their immediate environment.
If the same-sex marriage issue is of great importance to a citizen, that
citizen would have the prerogative to move to a state that allowed or
denied same-sex marriage according to that persons preference.
Such a ruling would have also inadvertently set up a test case. Within
a few years, the nation would have been able to see the effects of
allowing or denying (recognizing or not recognizing) same-sex
marriages. Then the nation would have been able to move forward in
a wiser fashion.
In the words of the dissenting opinion, Those who founded our
country would not recognize the majoritys conception of the judicial
role. They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right
to govern themselves. They would never have imagined yielding that
right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected
judges. And they certainly would not have been satisfied by a system
empowering judges to override policy judgments so long as they do
so after a quite extensive discussion.'
As the ruling in another Supreme Court case made clear last year: It
is demeaning to the democratic process to presume that voters are
not capable of deciding an issue of this sensitivity on decent and
rational grounds.
Sincerely,
Michael Elderson
Letter Twenty-Four
Careful observation of human nature will reveal that a people are
more likely to rebel against a law if they feel that that law has been
forced upon them. The Supreme Court Justices who ruled in favor of
legalizing same-sex marriage presented themselves as laying the
issue to rest, deciding once and for all.
Historians will tell us that the American colonies would have remained
under British rule for a much longer time if it had not been for King
George and the British Parliament who felt that they could tax the
colonies and give them no say in the matter. At first, the colonies
rebelled, not because they sought independence from England, but
because they felt their rights and privileges were being trampled on.
When Britain responded with punitive measures, the colonies
decided to seek their independence, becoming patriots for the cause
of freedom.
Many anticipate that such a reaction will occur among those who
oppose same-sex marriage, particularly if they feel that the
government will force them to accept, condone, sanction, or abide by
it in their churches, businesses, or educational institutions.
This view is cautioned by the dissenting justices in this matter: There
will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an
issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to
close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling
of a court
Sincerely,
Michael Elderson
Letter Twenty-Five
As the nation moves toward another presidential primary season,
many people are thinking about the Constitution and what it
guarantees, as well as democracy and what it means for the current
generation. We often take our rights under the Constitution and a
democratic government for granted until those rights are trampled
on and made of none effect. What those rights are and how we relate
to them have come under increasing scrutiny on numerous issues
including: gun ownership, the public practice of religion, where and
when citizens can protest, as well as the issue of marriage.
Nothing makes hard-working, honest citizens feel more betrayed than
when they look up and realize that the government that is supposed
to be on their side, looking out for their best interest, and defending
their rights is actually working against them.
Take for example a Christian couple who own a bakery in Oregon:
Last month they had to pay over $135,000 because of a complaint by
a same-sex couple whose wedding they refused to bake a cake for
due to religious objections. Not only the federal government, but
many state and local governments seem biased (and beholden) to
the homosexual rights agenda which insists that anyone who
disagrees with them is hateful or bigoted.
Homosexual rights activists insist that objecting to provide nonessential services (such as a wedding cake) is discrimination (and
should be prosecuted as such or as a hate crime). It is not, especially
when there are dozens of other bakeries in the region that would
happily provide the same services. (This is the same group of people
who insist on diversity. Apparently, they allow for diversity only as
long as one does not diversify too far from their own set of beliefs.) If
the government and the judicial system truly wish to protect the
diverse population of this country, it must not halt at fair treatment of
those who differ one from another in religious belief and practice.
Sincerely,
Michael Elderson
Letter Twenty-Six
Nothing is more valued in America than the liberty we have to govern
ourselves. That is the freedom we won in the War for Independence
from Great Britain. King George III and the English Parliament
wanted the colonists to be ruled by a government in which they had
no say. When the British threat was done away with as a result of the
war, many forms of government were proposed. Some thought it wise
to make George Washington king; he declined. Eventually, a system
of government emerged which allowed for the people to have
maximum freedom and liberty and for the government to defend said
freedoms against threats from within and without.
Today, our country faces threats to its freedoms from within and
without.
From without, Islamic extremists have threatened to infiltrate or
invade our country (or both). They see the freedoms we have as
excess (and even sinful) and wish to take away those rights and
impose harsh Islamic law. Such a threat might seem farfetched, but
many European governments thought Hitler and his Nazis would
never really attempt to take over the continent. He got far too close to
accomplishing his goal. We mustnt make the same mistakes twice.
As recent attacks have shown, in both European and American cities,
extremists are among us, and they have shown a will to kill, maim,
and destroy.
The situation from within is more complicated. Our divided nation
seems unable to settle on which groups are a true threat to the liberty
Americans enjoy.
Take guns, for example: Who is really trying to secure Americans
rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Those who

advocate freer access to guns or those who are trying to restrict such
access?
Take religious freedom: Are those who oppose any expression of faith
in public really defending Americans rights? Or is freedom of
religious expression in public protected under the Constitution?
Take same-sex marriage: Are those who oppose same-sex marriage
trying to deny a basic right to other Americans? The answer is no.
These people are just standing up for long-held biblical truth. Are
those who desire for same-sex marriage to be openly embraced by
all, thus trampling on the rights of those who are against it? The
answer again here is no.
These are important questions to think about in this election year.
One thing is certain, for years to come, the Supreme Court will play
an important role in these debates. As the interpreters of the
Constitution, the nations highest justices have an obligation to
protect the freedom of Americans. It must truly serve that purpose
and not set itself up as a ruler of the American people.
That is not its role.
Sincerely,
Michael Elderson
Letter Twenty-Seven
Religious liberty is an issue that has come front and center in recent
months. It appears much of the news in America and the world is
driven by religious conflict. Courts have increasingly ruled on cases
involving religious practice and issues. Perhaps no sphere of life is
more critical to our times than religion.
The awareness regarding the religious aspects of our society have
led to raised tensions regarding the separation of church and state.
Some seem to prefer that the government and/or the courts have a
preference for a single majority religion. Others prefer that the
government be totally atheistic. Still others seem to prefer that the
government show favor to minority religions and remain silent toward
and actually stand against majority religions based upon their
prominence in our society.
Cases involving religion and religion-related issues have increasingly
been tried in the court system, some making their way to the
Supreme Court. Even some cases involving social issues have
religious aspects that people of faith take an interest in.
While it is tempting to pander to the extremes of the religious debate
in American society, the government and the court systems, whose
job it is to determine how the countrys long-standing laws apply to
the nation today, must be fair to all involved. America has always and
should continue to be a place where all people of faith are welcome
to practice in peace and safety. Just as all men should stand equally
before the law, all established religions should be considered equally
before the law.
Sincerely,
Michael Elderson
Letter Twenty-Eight
Religious liberty is an issue that has come front and center in recent
months. It appears much of the news in America and the world is
driven by religious conflict. Courts have increasingly ruled on cases
involving religious practice and issues. Perhaps no sphere of life is
more critical to our times than religion.
The awareness regarding the religious aspects of our society have
led to raised tensions regarding the separation of church and state.
Some seem to prefer that the government and/or the courts have a
preference for a single majority religion. Others prefer that the
government be totally atheistic. Still others seem to prefer that the
government show favor to minority religions and remain silent toward
and actually stand against majority religions based upon their
prominence in our society.
Cases involving religion and religion-related issues have increasingly
been tried in the court system, some making their way to the
Supreme Court. Even some cases involving social issues have
religious aspects that people of faith take an interest in.
While it is tempting to pander to the extremes of the religious debate
in American society, the government and the court systems, whose
job it is to determine how the countrys long-standing laws apply to
the nation today, must be fair to all involved. America has always and
should continue to be a place where all people of faith are welcome
to practice in peace and safety. Just as all men should stand equally
before the law, all established religions should be considered equally
before the law.
Sincerely,
Michael Elderson
Letter Twenty-nine
After the Supreme Court effectively legalized same-sex marriage in
the United States, it was easy to think that the cultural debate
regarding this controversial issue was over, or at least would
gradually die down.
But not so. Really, it was just getting started. Huge quarters of
American society are apprehensive about or outright opposed to the
LGBT agenda. Conservative legal groups have been arming for the
conflict to protect houses of worship, educational institutions, and
privately-owned businesses against those who seek to force them to
abide by laws that they believe are unconstitutional, unbiblical, and
immoral. Unfortunately, the LGBT activist community raised its head
in a place where many did not suspect anyone would cause a stink:
the public restroom.
Battles have been famously (or infamously) fought in South Dakota,
Tennessee, Wisconsin, and, most notably, in Georgia and North
Carolina. The lines have been drawn over whether or not people who
identify with a gender other than their birth gender should be
allowed to use a public restroom that so-called trans-gendered
individuals claim is the gender they presently identify with, which is
opposite the gender God made them.
I would like to make a single point in this letter. According to a Pew
survey, only 7% of Americans identify as LGBT, and only 1% identify
as transgender. Will we really allow such a slim minority of individuals
to dictate to the rest of the country on such personal matters as who
gets to use certain public restrooms? This kind of minority rule is the
type of government our founding fathers ran from. Surely, the minority
is loud. The minority may even be powerful. The minority has deep
pockets. But none of that makes the minority right. The American
people from the ordinary citizen to the highest judges and
government officials in the country must stand up and not allow
common sense and decency to be drowned out by loud shouting
from a few.
Sincerely,
Michael Elderson
Letter Thirty
I would like to address the protection question.
One of the primary arguments against the demand of LGBT activists
that transgender individuals be allowed to use the bathroom of their
choice is that vulnerable individuals will be put at risk of rape, sexual
assault, and mental trauma.
Up until the present day in modern society, men and boys have used
public restrooms marked for males, and women and girls have used
public restrooms marked for females. Unfortunately, also in modern
society, we have a criminal element, a group of individuals, who prey
on those who are vulnerable with the intent of rape, molestation,
sodomy, or other offensive, non-consenting sexual acts. These cases
are routinely reported on in the media, and sadly to avoid family and
individual embarrassment, many go unreported.
Now, if we get rid of birth-gender-designated bathrooms, we open the
door to a whole series of problems. Straight males will be free to
enter female restrooms with the intent of committing unspeakable
acts because there will simply no longer be female restrooms.
There will only be confusing free-for-alls. (If someone were to
confront these males, they would simply be able to say they presently
feel as though they are female, and be allowed to enter unhindered.)
These persons may also be registered sex offenders, convicted
rapists, child molesters, or wicked perverts who feed on pornography
and want to act out what they look at. Legally, allowing them into
female restrooms gives them a prime hunting ground where they can
prey on and attack vulnerable women and girls.
Furthermore, people who claim to be transgender will be allowed to
enter the bathroom of their choice be they biologically male or

female. This will result in extreme confusion for boys and girls who
see persons of the opposite sex in a place where they have been
taught (and naturally know) such persons should not be. Some
children have already been forever traumatized by such an
occurrence. Public schools are already grappling with this issue.
Society throws enough trash at impressionable girls and boys. They
should not have to endure the mental confusion of seeing someone
of the opposite sex in a place that is not designated for them.
This whole bathroom issue is a slippery slope, a Pandoras box.
Those who claim to be on the right side of history do not know the
hornets nest they are playing with.
Sincerely,
Michael Elderson
Letter Thirty-One
Some will be tempted to dismiss the so-called bathroom bill issue as
a small matter. Some will shrug their shoulders and say, Whats the
big deal? You cant stop how people feel about themselves. We
shouldnt be trying to legislate how and where people go to the
bathroom.
While it seems absurd that our society has devolved into a debate
over bathroom usage complete with protests and threats of
violence this issue is only a single snowflake in a snowstorm. The
homosexual agenda has methodically broken down barriers to its
acceptance from the removal of homosexuality as a disorder in
psychological manuals to the placement of books depicting same-sex
parent families in public schools. The push for cross gender bathroom
usage is only another step in this process.
At some point, people must wake up and realize what is happening.
Our culture and society is being slow-cooked into acceptance of
societal changes based upon the homosexual agenda which has
repeatedly been shown throughout history to be detrimental to any
society.
The ultimate goal of this agenda is to remove all gender and sexual
distinctions in public life. Instead of male and female, promoters of
this agenda endorse a gender spectrum. Even now, students are
being encouraged to identify themselves at any place (or several
places) along this spectrum.
We cannot forget the simple driving factor in the sustaining of the
human race is the traditional male/female family structure which

fosters reproduction, nurturing, and growth. We should never forget
that simple truth.
Sincerely,
Michael Elderson
Letter Thirty-Two
Now that this issue has been raised, what is a good solution to the
debate over who gets to use public bathrooms?
If the campaign for cross gender bathrooms carries to its logical
conclusion, we will eventually have non-gender specific bathrooms.
This prospect is what has caused such an outcry in society over this
agenda. Men and boys, women and girls will no longer have a
designated space where they can safely handle private affairs without
being confronted by confusing and uncomfortable scenarios.
The only solution that works is to keep gender-specific bathrooms, at
least in public spaces and government-owned spaces. (If private
businesses want to designate bathrooms as gender neutral, there is
nothing that can be done legally to stop them. They will simply have
to deal with the consequences of such action, which would likely
include boycotts by people of the opposing persuasion).
America was expressly founded on the principle that the status and
desires of a majority of the people would not be overridden or
stamped out by the few no matter how loud, powerful, or elite
they are. In other words, the majority of Americans, male and female,
who want to have bathrooms set aside for males and bathrooms set
aside for females ought not to be bogarted into accepting men who
feel like being a woman for a day to go into little girls bathrooms and
vice-versa. A hostile takeover of a closed, private space akin to
British soldiers invading the private homes of Americans, taking for
themselves food and lodging must not be allowed.
Sincerely,
Michael Elderson
Letter Thirty-Three
In America, nothing is more important than protecting free speech,
allowing people to express their opinions, and preserving peoples
rights to live according to their sincerely held beliefs. Unfortunately,
we live in a climate where many individuals understanding of
tolerance is lacking. For some, tolerance is the requirement that
opposition to a particular viewpoint not be expressed at all. Tolerance
has become a code word for be silent particularly for Christians and
social conservatives.
We also, unfortunately, live in a society where people seem to be
unable to handle criticism. Much fair criticism or difference of opinion
is decried as homophobic, hateful, bigoted, or offensive. Outrage,
sometimes largely fomented by social media, has led numerous
individuals to feel the need to apologize for publicly expressing a
difference of opinion, often one that, years ago, would have been the
norm and, I might add, making these people who apologize look
very confused and foolish. We have been shocked and amazed at
how very accomplished people who obviously stood against the sin of
homosexuality and the homosexual agenda go back on what they
truly believe and apologize for saying that they disagree with that
lifestyle.
It is almost as if we have forgotten the art of disagreement which has
been a major part of this nation since its inception. The Founding
Fathers, the Continental Congress were never houses of
homogenous perspective. This nation was forged in the fires of
vehement, bitter disagreement. Yet, at the end of the day, love for this
country and the desire to see her prosper and succeed led numerous
individuals to decide that which they could agree on.
We need a return to the spirit of those days. Chief Justice Silverstein,
the Supreme Court plays an important role in ensuring that public
dialogue remains a free two-way street. We cannot succumb to the
outcry of the few who seek to quiet the voices of different views,
particularly when those voices are the majority in this country called
America.
Sincerely,
Michael Elderson
TO BE CONTINUED...

Letters To The Supreme Court (Serial Novel)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Letters To The Supreme Court (Serial Novel)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Copyright 2015-2016. Torch Legacy Publications. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or

those issues in the near future.

the other children at the ballpark had to witness such a confusing

it is a disorder, despite the denials of the American Psychiatric

violate his conscience.

religious or moral disapproval.

There is legal precedent for this as well.

2. Churches, religious colleges, religious schools, and faith-based

In the words of a homosexual journalist: Newsflash: blacks in

public place. However, a homosexual cannot be discriminated

Marriage, however, is different. It is not something that the

witness two people coming together in marital union. Some

(straight) woman is supposed to relate to men. The same goes for

believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, that childs

the fashion design company Dolce & Gabbana), expressed their

believe that homosexuals should be put to death? The answer is no.

God abandoned them to degrading passions their women have

us as an example since they are paying the penalty of eternal fire.

different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law rightfully treats

The first woman was shaped from a rib of the man.

prevent any combination of consenting individuals from presenting

desire to remake society according to its own new insight. It also

government carries this out through different means through the

that It is going to be an issue. And it has been even before the

who voted to reaffirm their States enduring definition of

rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Those who

enter the bathroom of their choice be they biologically male or

human race is the traditional male/female family structure which

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi