by Tom Shaheen, PA Family Institute
Those of us who care about marriage await the U.S. Supreme Court’s consideration of the “gay marriage” challenge to California’s Proposition 8, where a majority of citizens of all political stripes approved of keeping marriage between husband and wife. Attorneys for activist organizations that want to re-define marriage, have argued time and again they need the courts to “protect them from unequal treatment’ under the law. But the legal history in the U.S. shows that “equal protection” is afforded those who actually suffer or are disadvantaged – financially, politically, etc. – because of the color of their skin or their ethnicity or national origin or disability
In his latest column, Bishop Harry Jackson does a brilliant job of busting this myth:
Judge Robert Jones of a federal court in Nevada has laid the groundwork for such a conclusion. In his ruling on a lawsuit which sought to overturn Nevada’s ban on gay marriage, Jones wrote that the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) lobby’s success in advancing its agenda means that it does not need help from the courts:
“It simply cannot be seriously maintained, in light of these and other recent democratic victories, that homosexuals do not have the ability to protect themselves from discrimination through democratic processes such that extraordinary protection from majoritarian processes is appropriate.”
