Letters to the Supreme Court

Episode 3

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein:

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 don’t believe God intended them to be that way." "Because my religion believes that's an abomination." "It's 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, it's perverted and deviant. That's 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 country's 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 person's private, reasonable, and personally-held beliefs.

I ask that you take this letter into consideration in your deliberations.

Respectfully yours,

Michael Elderson