Letters to the Supreme Court by GLMO LLC

LETTERS TO THE SUPREME COURT

DANIEL WHYTE III with DANIEL D.P. WHYTE IV

Letters to the Supreme Court by Daniel Whyte III with Daniel D.P. Whyte IV Cover Design by Atinad Designs. ÂŠ Copyright 2017 TORCH LEGACY PUBLICATIONS: ATLANTA, GEORGIA; DALLAS, TEXAS; BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 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 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 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 8

whom our founding fathers were greatly familiar. In Blackstone’s 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 9

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: â&#x20AC;&#x153;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.â&#x20AC;? 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 10

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, “What’s 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 boy’s name on it. I recognized the name as one of my son’s 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, “That’s 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 daughter’s 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. 14

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 15

reasonable. But, rest assured, a greater political and social movement is afoot â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 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

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 samesex 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, â&#x20AC;&#x153;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.â&#x20AC;? 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, â&#x20AC;&#x153;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 18

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 19

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 countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; be they religious people or nonreligious people. No man, government, or court, has the right to infringe on a personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s private, reasonable, and personally-held beliefs. I ask that you take this letter into consideration in your deliberations. Respectfully yours, Michael Elderson

Letter

Four

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein: 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 public’s 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 O’Connor 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. Hunter’s 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 22

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 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; not only by words, but by actions â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 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

Letter

Five

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein: 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 thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 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 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 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 26

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 isn’t 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

Letter

Six

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein: 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 didn’t start out as hip-hop fashion designers; they were slaves. There’s 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 don’t 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 person’s behavior. All people choose their behavior; no one 30

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 person’s 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, 31

but applause and affirmation from many in society. Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be deceived. Respectfully, Michael Elderson

Letter

Seven

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein: 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 country’s 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 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; stating that it was not good for Adam to be alone â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 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 34

two people of the same-sex can be in a legally recognized “marriage,” the Court will open what has been compared to a Pandora’s 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, samesex marriage was legalized by the state’s 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 35

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

Letter

Eight

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein: 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 nation’s 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 same-sex 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 father’s 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 children’s 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 38

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 child’s 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 39

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 don’t want America to lose her hardwon 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 child’s 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

Letter

Nine

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein: 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 same-sex 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 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 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 Christ’s 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 God’s 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 42

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 God’s 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

Letter

Ten

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein: 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. Hereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 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 Turek’s 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 didn’t 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 woman’s right to vote but does guarantee a woman’s right to marry another woman? “Since the people ‘evolved’ on voting rights, they convinced super-majorities in Congress and the state legislatures voted to add the 15th and 19th Amendments in 1870 and 1920 respectively. The courts knew they shouldn’t act as legislatures to grant rights not addressed by the Constitution. Neither should this Supreme Court. “Fourth, despite all the talk about equal rights, 46

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 don’t have equal rights. The ‘born that way’ justification doesn’t 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 sex-marriage, incestuous marriage, and polygamous marriage are all different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law rightfully treats those behaviors differently.” Respectfully yours, Mitchell Ellison

Letter

Eleven

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein: 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, “What’s 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 Adam’s 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. God’s will for humanity can only 50

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 won’t 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 51

female â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 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

Letter

Twelve

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein: 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 Bibleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 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 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 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 sexually-related diseases. While the Bible does not explicitly mention samesex 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. â&#x20AC;&#x153;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.â&#x20AC;? 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 peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lives. Respectfully yours, Michael Elderson

Letter

Thirteen

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein: 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 Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 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

Letter

Fourteen

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein: 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: â&#x20AC;&#x153;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. David’s adultery, for example, was rewarded by the death of a son born in that union and the discord that never left his house. Abraham’s 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. 58

Marriage was made in heaven and it is not in the best interest of society that men â&#x20AC;&#x201D; no matter who they are â&#x20AC;&#x201D; tamper with it. Respectfully yours, Michael Elderson

Letter

Fifteen

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein: 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 God’s 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 Bibleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 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

Letter

Sixteen

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 further-reaching 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 same-sex 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 one’s head in the sand and throw up one’s 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 samesex 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 64

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 Courtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ruling. These are just some things to pray about and get prepared for in this new unfortunate reality. Sincerely, Michael Elderson

Letter

Seventeen

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices: 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 samesex 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 Court’s dissenting opinion stated, “The Constitution leaves no doubt” that defining what constitutes a marriage is outside the bounds of any

country’s 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 city-state 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, shouldn’t 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 67

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

Letter

Eighteen

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices: During the months leading up to the Supreme Court’s 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 samesex 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 God’s eyes and for conscience’s 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 70

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 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; one that will respect the right of any American to live according to their deeply-held religious beliefs. Sincerely, Michael Elderson

Letter

Nineteen

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices: Why should the United States government (or any government for that matter) afford special status and privileges to the union typically described as traditional marriage? Because it is only through this union that society has innately decided the human race can be carried on. Procreation, the production of another human being, only occurs one way. The ultimate impulse of the human race is to survive. If what scientists say about the Earth is true â&#x20AC;&#x201D; that it has been in existence for millions of years â&#x20AC;&#x201D; the people of Earth, in whatever form they have existed, have only survived and carried the human race forward one way â&#x20AC;&#x201D; through the production of another human being from the union of a man and a woman. (The petitioners before the Supreme Court admitted that they knew of no society that permitted same-sex marriage before 2001.) This recent phenomenon (that of same-sex marriage) puts governments in a bind. While democracies value the protection of the rights of all people, including those who happen to be in the minority, the government struggles with whether to endorse and promote all rights as equal, good, and beneficial. While it has been firmly established that marriage (defined traditionally) is best for the good of society, the

government must decide whether the protection and promotion of that unique union suits its purposes as well. Without traditional marriage, without the carrying on of the human race through procreation, a government will find that society crumbles. The government’s goal is essentially the same as the impulse of the human race — to survive. The government carries this out through different means — through the defense of its borders, through facilitating the general welfare of its people, and through providing educational, medical, and financial services that enable the people in its jurisdiction to live comfortably — to survive. As the dissenting opinion of our court stated, “For the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond… By bestowing a respected status and material benefits on married couples, society encourages men and women to conduct sexual relations within marriage rather than without” (Page 5, 576 U.S. 2015, ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting). If any government is interested in supporting the survival of the human race, protecting and promoting traditional marriage will be high on their list of priorities. Sincerely, Michael Elderson

Letter

Twenty

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices: Although our president and other executive and judicial officials would have us to believe that religious freedom/religious liberty would not be affected by the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage, recent history and experience have shown that to be true. Many good, decent citizens oppose the recognition of same-sex marriage as a matter of faith. The freedom to exercise such religious beliefs is spelled out in the Constitution — it is one of the cornerstones of this country’s founding. However, the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court reveals a shocking reality (emphasis mine): Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses. (Page 28, 576 U.S. 2015, ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting).

Further, it has been reported that, during the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, when the U.S. Solicitor General representing the current administration was asked if a ruling legalizing same-sex marriage would have any effect on religious institutions (specifically a Christian university or college that opposed same-sex marriage), he said (after trying to avoid answering the question), “I don’t deny that… It is going to be an issue.” And it has been — even before the Supreme Court’s ruling. Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director for the Judicial Crisis Network, said that this country will see an “absolute head-on collision” between religious liberty and the government’s law in the very near future. In recent months (both before and after the Supreme Court’s ruling), citizens who have simply tried to exercise their religious liberty when it comes to same-sex marriage have been fined, sued, humiliated by being forced to attend sensitivity training, forced to close their businesses, and even jailed. Is this the road we want to go down? Surely, lawabiding citizens of various legal and religious opinions can live peacefully in this society without demeaning or demonizing those who hold strongly to different beliefs. Sincerely, Michael Elderson

Letter

Twenty-One

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices: The dissenting opinion of the court stated, “people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive” from the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage. One would assume that, in America of all places, the opinions of all people — especially the opinions of the religious and/or the majority would be respected, protected, even defended by the judicial system in this country. One would assume that those beliefs would not be demonized. After all, this country was formed as the amalgamation of people with vast and varying religious, social, and political beliefs. For over 230 years, this nation has been held together by a government and people committed to respecting differences of belief. However, such respect no longer seems to be the case. In the Supreme Court’s decision, the majority disappointingly felt the need to disparage the reputations, beliefs, and actions of religious men and women who believe the government should only recognize marriage as being between a man and a woman. While the majority states that they respect those who disagree with their opinion, their words indicate otherwise. The majority decision states that “the necessary consequence” of states’ laws that defined marriage as 77

being between a man and a woman and/or outlawed same-sex marriage is to ‘demean or stigmatize’ same-sex couples. The dissenting opinion summarizes: The majority reiterates such characterizations over and over. By the majority’s account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history—in particular, the tens of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States’ enduring definition of marriage—have acted to “lock…out,” “disparage,” “disrespect and subordinate,” and inflict “dignitary wounds” upon their gay and lesbian neighbors… It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to samesex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s “better informed understanding” as bigoted. (Pages 28-29, 576 U.S. 2015, ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting) This opinion of the majority gives backing to proponents of same-sex marriage who have already persistently tried to describe people of faith who disagree with same-sex marriage as hateful people. (For example, Proposition 8, which resulted in a short-lived ban on same-sex marriage in California, was opposed by samesex 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 78

Letter

Twenty-Two

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices: 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 reality—that 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 majority’s telling, it is the courts, not the people, who are responsible for making ‘new dimensions of freedom…apparent 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 samesex 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 â&#x20AC;&#x153;friend of the courtâ&#x20AC;? briefs were filed in this case alone. There is tremendous interest in this matter and many in this country feel that, by the Courtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ruling, the benefits of further public discussion has been stripped away. Sincerely, Michael Elderson

Letter

Twenty-Three

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices: 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 samesex 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 person’s 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 majority’s 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

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices: 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: â&#x20AC;&#x153;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 courtâ&#x20AC;Śâ&#x20AC;? Sincerely, Michael Elderson

Letter

Twenty-Five

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices: 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 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 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 non-essential 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

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices: 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 mustnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t make the same mistakes twice. As recent attacks have shown, in both European and American cities, extremists are 87

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 samesex 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 nation’s 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 88

Letter

Twenty-Seven

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices: The U.S. Constitution is perhaps the most important document in the United States, and certainly one of the most important in the world. It was sweated over, argued over, and fought over for over a year as the delegates from the thirteen colonies sought to establish a better nation than any that had existed in history. But it has become common today to belittle and question the document that has run this country for over 200 years. There is fear in the air that the march of progressivism will eventually lead for some to call for a renewing of the Constitution. Just as some say the Bible needs to be tempered for use in the modern age, there are those who say we need a Constitution 2.0. But the founding fathers did something unique with the Constitution. They crafted a document firm enough to hold together the diverse, teeming masses of this nation, yet one that is also flexible enough to be invoked in the regular discourse of American politics and governance. The reason why it is argued over and referred to constantly today is precisely because it is so important. As judges, whose job it is to interpret the Constitution (and other laws), it is your responsibility to ensure that the foundation of this country remains

intact. The Constitution will be and is being eroded from both sides â&#x20AC;&#x201D; from civilian and government angles. (Thomas Jefferson said, â&#x20AC;&#x153;The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.â&#x20AC;?) The temptation is to subscribe to the idea that such an old document has little bearing today. But that is not the case. In a day and time when threats to religious and moral freedom are on the rise, the Constitution is more important than ever. Sincerely, Michael Elderson

Letter

Twenty-Eight

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices: 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 countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 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

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices: After the Supreme Court effectively legalized samesex 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 “transgendered” 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

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices: 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 Pandora’s 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

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices: Some will be tempted to dismiss the so-called ‘bathroom bill’ issue as a small matter. Some will shrug their shoulders and say, ‘What’s the big deal? You can’t stop how people feel about themselves. We shouldn’t 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 slowcooked 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 â&#x20AC;&#x153;gender spectrum.â&#x20AC;? 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

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices: 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 nongender 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 genderspecific 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 girlsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; bathrooms and vice-versa. A hostile takeover of a closed, private space â&#x20AC;&#x201D; akin to British soldiers invading the private homes of Americans, taking for themselves food and lodging â&#x20AC;&#x201D; must not be allowed. Sincerely, Michael Elderson

100

Letter

Thirty-Three

Dear Chief Justice Silverstein and Fellow Justices: In America, nothing is more important than protecting free speech, allowing people to express their opinions, and preserving people’s 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.

101

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 twoway 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

102

Do You Know Jesus Christ as Your Savior? A note from the publisher: Our goal in publishing inspirational fiction is two-fold: (1) To help those who know Jesus Christ as their Savior live more faithful Christian lives, and (2) To show those who do not know Jesus Christ as their Savior how they can get to know Him in the course of life circumstances that many people face. That being said, if you do not know Jesus Christ as your Savior, here is how you can get to know Him today: First, accept the fact that you are a sinner, and that you have broken God’s law. The Bible says in Ecclesiastes 7: 20: “For there is not a just man upon earth that doeth good, and sinneth not.” Romans 3:23 says, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” 105

Second, accept the fact that there is a penalty for sin. The Bible states in Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death…” Third, accept the fact that you are on the road to hell. Jesus Christ said in Matthew 10:28: “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” The Bible also says in Revelation 21:8: “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” Fourth, accept the fact that you cannot do anything to save yourself! The Bible states in Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is a gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Fifth, accept the fact that God loves you more than you love yourself, and that He wants to save you from hell. “For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (Jesus Christ, John 3:16). Sixth, with these facts in mind, please repent of your sins, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and pray and ask Him to come into your heart and save you this very moment. 106

The Bible states in the book of Romans 10:9, 13: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Seventh, if you are willing to trust Christ as your Saviour, please pray with me the following prayer: Heavenly Father, I realize that I am a sinner. For Jesus Christ’s sake, please forgive me of my sins. I now believe with all of my heart that Jesus Christ died, was buried, and rose again. Lord Jesus, please come into my heart and save my soul and change my life. Amen. For more information to help you grow in your newfound faith in Christ, go to GospelLightSociety.com and read What To Do After You Enter Through the Door. Please e-mail us at gls@gospellightsociety.com so that we can send you free material that will help you grow in your walk with Christ.

107

FICTION BY DANIEL WHYTE III WITH MERIQUA WHYTE FAMILY DRAMA ...And Family Drama Just Won't Stop I ...And Family Drama Just Won't Stop II ...And Family Drama Just Won't Stop III THE PRAYER TRILOGY The Unspoken Prayer Request I Need Someone to Pray With Me I Know What Prayer Can Do Charmaine The Common Prayer Not for the Righteous I'm Dreaming of a Black Christmas The Thanksgiving Letters Shaking the Gates of Hell No Time for Evil The Writer's Life All the Bishop's Children 1 All the Bishop's Children 2 TO BE A TEEN AFTER GOD'S OWN HEART Zelphur GinÃ©

WITH DANIEL D.P. WHYTE IV The Prophet, the President, and the Pastor The Correction The Cover-Up (The Cover-Up, #1) The Candidate (The Cover-Up, #2) Judas Church Letters to the Supreme Court

WITH DANITA WHYTE The Great Train Ride to Liberty Mountain

WITH DANIELLA WHYTE Eden, N.C.