Who Does the Constitution Protect? by Dr. Frank Turek

Last week, one unelected judge, overturned the will of 1,317,178 North Carolinians when he declared North Carolina’s definition of marriage in violation of the United States constitution. Judge Max Cogburn, appointed by President Obama, said that the definition 61 percent of voters approved just two years ago violated the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment—the same rationale used by judges elsewhere to violate the expressed will of the people. This is beyond absurd.

It’s absurd rationally because 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. Same sex marriage and natural marriage are different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law rightfully treats them differently. One behavior perpetuates and stabilizes society, and the other doesn't.

These rulings are also absurd constitutionally. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was passed in 1868 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 one ever thought a court could use the “equal protection” clause to change state voting laws. So why do 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? What planet are these judges ruling from?

Why do you think the Federal and State governments went through the arduous constitutional amendment process to give blacks and women the right to vote? Courts knew they couldn’t act as legislatures to fix the problem. Congress and State legislatures had to vote to add the 15th and 19th Amendments in 1870 and 1920 respectively.

There was no rational case to preclude people from voting because of their race or sex. But there certainly is a rational case to preclude changing marriage. It’s the one institution best capable of creating and then raising children by encouraging their mothers and fathers to stay together. It’s the basis of a civilized society. We can’t build and maintain a civilization through homosexuality or by equating it to what moms and dads do. You may claim that’s bigotry, but it’s really just biology. (Sorry, I didn’t set up the facts of nature. I have noticed, however, that conservatives attempt to change their behavior to fit reality, while liberals attempt to change reality to fit their behavior.)

Anyone who wants to change laws should convince their fellow citizens to do so at the ballot box, not through unelected judges. Unfortunately, activist judges won’t honor the ballot box. 41,020,568 people across more than half the states have voted to recognize marriage for what nature’s design says it is—the union of one man and one women. Yet just 23 unelected judges have overturned those 41 million people across about 20 states! I don’t care where you stand on the marriage issue: when 23 people substitute their personal policy preferences to overrule those of 41 million Americans, we are no longer free or equal.

Of the approximately 30 states that now have same-sex marriage (it changes every day), only one state has done it through popular vote (Maine). The people of Maryland and Washington narrowly voted not to overrule the same-sex marriage provisions their legislatures had approved. Eight laws were changed by state legislatures without popular input. Activist judges overruled the people in the remaining states.

As unwise as I think changing the institution of marriage is, I can at least respect the process when it is done democratically. For all their talk about equality, the other side does not respect democracy unless the vote comes out their way.

What do you think would happen if some federal judge wrenched a passage of the Federal Constitution out of context and summarily struck down Maine’s law democratically decided law approving same-sex marriage? Do you think the people preaching “tolerance”—including their cheerleaders in the media—would tolerate such judicial abuse? The airwaves would be blasting howls of unfairness and calls for judicial impeachment. Yet when the same thing is done to strike down marriage laws based in biological reality—laws passed by millions of voters—liberals celebrate that those voters have been disenfranchised. Saying that one judge’s vote counts more than the votes of millions of Americans is an unequal way to advance “equality.”

“Oh, but the Constitution evolves,” some say. “We don’t have to look at what was intended in 1868.”

If that’s the case, then why have a constitution at all? If judges can make the law say anything they want, then how can we govern ourselves? We can’t. It also means that none of our rights are secure (including new-found “rights” to same-sex marriage). What’s to stop some rogue judge from taking away your freedom of speech or religion because the constitution has “evolved” in just the way his liberal mind desires?

Oops, that’s already happened, as many bakers, florists, photographers, and conscientious people in other businesses have discovered. If you don’t agree to celebrate same-sex marriages, you will be sued, fined, fired, and perhaps even jailed. All in the name of “tolerance, inclusion and diversity.”

And parents, don’t think you have the right to educate your children with certain moral values in public schools. Same-sex marriage ends your parental rights there as well.

What? You voted and your values won? Sorry, your votes don’t count. Some people get more “equal protection” than you do. A judge said so.

The truth is, nowhere does the Constitution say that the courts are the final word on what laws mean or what laws are valid. We have three co-equal branches of government. We also have a federal government that is constitutionally subordinate to state governments on most issues, including this issue of same-sex marriage (that’s one thing the Supreme Court got right in last year’s DOMA decision).

America needs a state governor who still believes in America—a governor willing to take a page from President Andrew Jackson who once rebuffed a Supreme Court decision against the state of Georgia by telling Chief Justice Marshall, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." He called the decision “stillborn.”

America needs an Andrew Jackson governor—a statesman who peacefully but firmly tells the court, “Your decision violates the Constitution and the rights of my citizens to govern themselves. It will not be enforced in this state. If you want to change our laws, then respect our people and our Constitution by convincing us to change our minds in the voting booth.”

While that may create a constitutional crisis, our Constitution is already in crisis! What can be lost that hasn’t ready been lost? We will not regain our right to self-government or maintain ordered liberty if we continue to cede all power to the judicial branch or to the federal government.

Are there any statesmen left in America?

The Gender Agenda – Coming to a School Near You! (by Julie Roys)

Four years ago, if you had predicted that the end-game of the LGBTQ community was to destroy all gender and sexual boundaries, many would have labeled you an extremist on a witch hunt. I know because I made that prediction. And, in response, I received many angry denials from members of a local high school’s Gay Straight Alliance (GSA).

“DCPS Pride - DC Capital Pride - 2014-06-07” by Tim Evanson is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

“You seem to believe that the LGBTQ movement wants to spark a gender-reformation. How could one reform a biologically accurate thing? Well, it's not possible...” Another wrote: “The Gay Straight Alliances have done nothing of the sort... They merely have decided... to show that there are so many beautiful people out there that society has not tolerated for the longest of time.”

However, two articles published about a week ago in a suburban Chicago high school newspaper show that’s precisely the LGBTQ movement’s intent. The articles appeared in the Statesman, the tax-payer funded student newspaper of Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Illinois, where my husband teaches math.

One article entitled, “How vast is the gender spectrum?” argued that limiting gender to male and female is too restrictive. “Nothing is written in black or white,” the article asserted. “In fact, the world is filled with many gray areas. Nowadays, our gender identity is not restricted to two choices: boy or girl.”

This is a shocking statement given that Genesis – the foundation for two major world religions – states very clearly in black and white that only two genders exist. Genesis 1:27 states, “God created mankind in his own image... male and female he created them.” Other religions affirm this understanding, as well. In fact, it’s been the established societal view since the beginning of human history. But, in one fell swoop, this article declared this age-old, religious understanding obsolete. And, it asserted this falsehood, not as opinion with attribution, but as fact!

A second article in the Statesman further deconstructed traditional and religious sexual mores. When identifying their “sexual orientation,” it encouraged students to think beyond sexual stereotypes – not just heterosexual ones, but homosexual ones too. “I think there are infinite sexual orientations,” a Stevenson student named Cameron said. “There are so many labels. It’s impossible to number them...”

Wow. “Infinite sexual orientations”? In my wildest imagination, I could maybe come up with several dozen, but infinite? And, what about the moral legitimacy of these orientations? Cameron went on to say, “There is nothing wrong with however you are. If you like boys, girls, anyone in between, or none of the above, that’s okay.” Seriously? All these infinite orientations are morally acceptable? Is this what they’re teaching students these days? What if you’re attracted to animals? A family member? The dead? (Yes, it exists. It’s called necrophilia.)

One has to wonder where students get these ideas. Perhaps, it’s from English teachers like William Fritz, also the GSA faculty advisor. In the article on gender spectrum, he says, “The gender of the person you truly are can be different from (your physical features). We are not a one size fits all species.”

One has to wonder how this English teacher came to this epiphany. He offered no evidence to support his claim. In fact, neither article presented any evidence for their wild assertions. They didn’t offer any dissenting opinions either. Instead, they relied solely on LGBTQ activists and their disciples – Mr. Fritz; a staff person with the national GSA; a 17-year-old “gender studies” blogger; and high school students, presumably members of the school’s GSA.

Apparently, LGBTQ activists at public schools are getting bolder – and school administrators are affording them special privilege to proselytize openly. Certainly, if a Christian would try to distribute literature at Stevenson explaining the biblical understanding of gender, the administration would immediately shut him down. Yet, here gay activists are given carte blanche to spread their propaganda right in the school-sponsored newspaper!

One of the people quoted repeatedly in the article on the gender spectrum is teenage blogger Kathryn Tenbarge. “To break free from conforming stereotypes is a very courageous thing to do,” Tenbarge said. “It means you have reached a level of understanding yourself that most people haven’t.” Really? So, those of us with a Judeo-Christian understanding of sexuality are simply unenlightened? The article concludes, “For now, Fritz, (another student) and Tenbarge agree there is nothing to lose from expanding the strict labels and categories our society tries to squeeze everyone into.”

Again, this is just another wild assertion without any basis in fact. With all due respect, how can these self-appointed gender experts know this? To date, the traditional family model has served as the foundation for all Western Civilization. Though many today express disdain for this great civilization, one can’t deny that it’s produced some of the most prosperous and stable societies the world has ever known. But, now we are moving into new territory with unpredictable results. Yet, early indications show that this anything-goes sexuality may have devastating consequences.

One woman whose husband left her for his gay lover, and took their children with him, writes in Public Discourse: “Behind the happy façade of many families headed by same-sex couples, we see relationships that are built from brokenness.... I represent hundreds upon thousands of spouses who have been betrayed and rejected.” This is tragic and certainly will have widespread ramifications for the children raised in these devastated homes. But, this is what results when one’s attractions du jour trump marriage vows.

The author of the article also notes that “Every same-sex family can only exist by manipulating nature.” Unlike traditional marriage, which naturally produces children, same-sex couples must rely on “assisted reproductive technologies such as surrogacy or sperm donation to have children. Such processes exploit men and women for their reproductive potential, treat children as products to be bought and sold, and purposely deny children a relationship with one or both of their biological parents.” Again tragically, it’s children who suffer.

But what about transgendered people? How is expanding the “gender spectrum” working for them? According to a study conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, it’s not going well. The study found that a staggering 41 percent of transgendered people say they’ve attempted suicide. And apparently, permanently changing their sex doesn’t help either.

A 2011 Swedish study found that people who undergo sex-change surgery start experiencing increased mental difficulties about 10 years after surgery. In fact, their suicide mortality then rises to almost 20 times greater than the comparable non-transgender population!

A case in point is a Belgian woman who underwent sex reassignment surgery and then last year chose to be euthanized. Apparently, the self-hatred that drove her to become a man persisted after her sex change. Just like she couldn’t accept herself as a woman, she couldn’t accept herself as a man, either. "(N)one of these operations worked as desired,” Nathan (born Nancy) Verhelst said. “(W)hen I looked in the mirror, I was disgusted with myself. My new breasts did not match my expectations and my new penis had symptoms of rejection. I do not want to be... a monster. "

According to Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, people with transgender feelings experience psychological distress because they suffer from “body dysmorphic disorder”: just like someone suffering from bulimia wrongly believes she is fat, so a person with transgender feelings wrongly thinks he or she is a sex that doesn’t correspond to reality. McHugh says most of those who elect to have sex-reassignment surgery describe themselves as “satisfied.” However, studies found that “their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have surgery.” As a result, Johns Hopkins Hospital has stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery. As McHugh puts it, “producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.”

Interestingly, McHugh reports that controlled and follow-up studies show that 70-80 percent of children with transgender feelings spontaneously lose those feelings as they mature. School counselors should be challenging these students’ false beliefs about themselves. Instead, McHugh says, diversity counselors function much like “cult leaders,” often encouraging these confused young people to distance themselves from family and anyone who challenges the legitimacy of their feelings.

So, our public high schools, by promoting this unproven gender-bending agenda may actually be hurting those they purport to help. Perhaps, this is because the reality that billions throughout the centuries have affirmed is actually true! We do not construct ourselves; God constructs us. And, when our confusion and brokenness leads us to deny our God­-given gender, we only harm ourselves and those closest to us. Instead of encouraging students to pursue whatever feels right to them, maybe administrators and faculty advisors should be urging them to love and accept the person God created them to be?

Unfortunately, students in many of our public schools never hear this common sense, Judeo-Christian view. As these student articles show, it’s simply presumed false or too restrictive.  You may think this is happening in only liberal suburban Chicago schools, but it’s everywhere. For example, just last week, the media reported that school administrators in Lincoln, Nebraska – hardly a hotbed of liberalism – instructed teachers to no longer use “gendered expressions” such as “boys and girls.” Instead, they told them to use “gender inclusive” terms like “purple penguins.” Seriously – purple penguins!

Now that this radical, gender-destroying agenda of the LGBTQ community has been revealed, how should we respond? Do Christians retreat and allow the radicals to distort children’s understanding of their dignity, purpose and God­-given gender? Do we let high school administrators define our boys and girls as “purple penguins” – and use our taxes to promote propaganda?  Or, do we say enough is enough – and begin reasserting our voice in this society gone crazy? Our children’s future is at stake. And, to quote one of my heroes, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

Julie Roys is a Christian speaker, blogger, and host of national talk radio show Up for Debate. Follow Julie on Facebook or Twitter.