Lynn v. Sekulow

Barry, contested issues of public policy, such as the definition of marriage, should be settled at the ballot box, not through violence or the actions of activist judges. It is unfortunate that you would try to link the defense of traditional marriage with isolated acts of violence, just as it is unfortunate that some opponents of Proposition 8 resorted to interrupting church services, threatening houses of worship, and mob violence after the vote occurred.


The fact is that the wide-ranging majority of Californians and other Americans who support traditional marriage do so for a variety of sound reasons. It is not “homophobia” to believe that marriage should remain, as it has since time immemorial, a union between one man and one woman, nor is it distasteful to interpret the Bible as supportive of this view. Many different segments of California’s diverse population supported Proposition 8, not just white evangelicals. Exit polls showed that about 70 percent of blacks and a majority of Latinos voted in favor of traditional marriage.


Regarding the legal challenges filed by opponents of Proposition 8, this is yet another example of a court being asked to improperly usurp the will of the people. The voters of California have spoken clearly on this issue on two different occasions (the California Supreme Court invalidated a voter-approved traditional definition of marriage earlier this year). The people of California, like the people of countless other states that have been presented with the issue, unequivocally reaffirmed the traditional definition of marriage, and that decision should not be overturned by an activist judiciary.


As we pointed out in a letter filed with the California Supreme Court, all perceived doubts regarding Proposition 8 must be resolved in favor of upholding it. “As Thomas Jefferson famously stated, ‘I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.'” We also explained that “Proposition 8 does not create far reaching, sweeping, or profound changes in the state’s constitutional scheme. Rather, it merely clarifies the definition of a single right recognized in the California Constitution. As such, Proposition 8 does not rise to the level of a constitutional revision.”


In short, the case is about what “marriage” is, not about whether an individual is denied the ability to enter a “marriage.” All adults in California equally enjoy the fundamental right to enter a marriage, i.e., a union between one man and one woman, and no person holds a right to enter any other form of relationship and call it “marriage.”


Barry, the bottom line here is that the people have spoken after a high-profile, vibrant debate and the California Supreme Court should not overturn their decision.

Join the Discussion
comments powered by Disqus