One of my friends and former teachers, Gregg Frazer, shared with me this friendly response to a local Los Angeles-area columnist (a proudly liberal Democrat) with whom he is acquainted. Frazer's email offers a cogent summary of arguments against the recent California Supreme Court ruling in re MARRIAGE CASES.

Gregg Frazer is Professor of Political Studies at the Master's College.

1) Since marriage is NOT a CIVIL right, but a POLITICAL right (privilege granted by the govt., like driving) – how is it a civil rights issue? If it’s a civil right, it belongs to all persons and my 12-year old would have it and so would 2-year olds. Also, if it were a civil right, you could compel someone to marry you lest you be denied a civil right. I challenge to show where in the California – or U.S., for that matter – Constitution marriage is listed/identified as a civil right. One of the myriad of problems in our society is the claim that anything anyone wants to do is a “civil right.” Where do I sign up to claim that owning a Mercedes is a civil right – after all, some people get to do it!

2) Also, homosexuals have ALWAYS had EXACTLY THE SAME rights as heterosexuals where marriage is concerned. What they’ve won (at least temporarily) is a special or additional unique right. NO ONE, regardless of “sexual preference,” had the right to marry someone of the same sex and EVERYONE, regardless of “sexual preference,” had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex – so all had exactly the same right. Of course, I’m using the word “right” loosely here because no one actually has ever had the right to be married – you have to convince someone to enter into it with you.

3) Governments have ALWAYS had a place in this matter because of society’s interest in marriage – a fundamental pillar of civilization and society. If it’s just a religious thing, why have all governments everywhere defined marriage the same way – regardless of very different religions??

4) What “legal protections provided by marriage” were not included in California’s civil union statute? None. I don’t think homosexual activists pursued this to gain more legal protections – I think they did it in support of their ongoing efforts to have their “lifestyle” legitimated.

5) You are correct that you never chose to be heterosexual; that’s because heterosexuality is the natural state of man – you don’t have to choose it. Homosexuality is not an “orientation,” but a choice. I’m going to explain this to you, but you’re not going to like it or accept it because you do not accept the authority behind it. People have chosen homosexuality despite its deleterious effects/consequences for the same reason that others make other disastrous choices (alcoholism, drug use, adultery, murder) – because they are sinners (as am I, by the way) and we all choose to manifest our sin nature in some way. For example, in the biblical account of Sodom & Gomorrah, the men of the city are blinded by God because they are seeking to have homosexual relations with two angels visiting Lot; but, after being blinded, they don’t repent or even back off, they wear themselves out trying to find the door and get at the angels. To echo your question: why would someone choose a lifestyle of crime that will cost them jobs, homes, jail, scorn, etc.? Answer: because that is the way they manifest their sin nature. I have a sin nature, too and I manifest it in various ways which are foolish and potentially self-destructive. I doubt that you will accept this explanation because you don’t accept the authority of the Bible – but that doesn’t change the facts. Either it is, in fact, correct or not. Just like you may doubt that there is life after death – but there either is or is not such life and whether we accept it or not doesn’t change the reality (whichever it is). For centuries, historians and archaeologists denied the existence of the Hittite civilization because the authorities they trusted – historical record and archaeological record – did not recognize their existence; only the Bible had accounts of them. Then, archaeologists discovered artifacts from the Hittite civilization and it became accepted. In fact, of course, the Hittites had always existed and the fact that some did not believe that they did was irrelevant to the truth. Ever wonder why every civilization throughout world history – regardless of religious difference -- defined marriage a particular way?

6) I completely agree with you on the “ruining marriage” thing. You are quite correct that heterosexuals do an excellent job of discrediting marriage to the extent that they can. Ultimately, man cannot do anything to destroy God’s creation – man can only mar it. So, neither heteros nor homosexuals will ruin marriage – but it will be significantly marred to the extent that churches marry homosexuals – as it is marred when churches marry adulterers or persons who don’t take the institution seriously. Frankly, I am much more concerned with what churches do than with what the state recognizes in this area because it is, fundamentally, a “religious” thing, as you’ve said. My main problem with it is the validation it gives to sin and the confusion it can cause and damage it can do in children.

7) If you fail to see the harm that a committed, loving relationship can cause to anyone, then I assume that you also favor polygamy/bigamy, incest, pederasty, and the right to marry an animal – as long as they’re loving, committed relationships, of course. Or how about another guy also having a loving, committed relationship with your wife?

8) If you’re really interested in damage done, look below for what a HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVIST (David Benkof) said.***

9) By the way, this is yet another change in the law made specially for homosexuals – the marriage law said nothing about “love” before. It is a red herring to argue that homosexuals were denied the right to marry who they loved – no heterosexual had such a right, either, except by coincidence.

10) HERE’S THE REAL DANGER IN THIS DECISION: (although you won’t see it as such because this is how you “democracy advocates” [ha ha] get all of the radical changes that you want, but cannot convince majorities to support) THE COURT CLEARLY LEGISLATED IN THIS CASE (or as Hamilton referred to it: exercised “will” rather than “judgment”). THIS IS ONE MORE STRIKE AGAINST REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT AND ONE GIANT STEP CLOSER TO AUTHORITARIAN RULE! It amuses me that people of your ilk complain about the Bush administration threatening freedom and self-government, but YOU CANNOT SEE REAL USURPATION OF AUTHORITY AND REAL VIOLATION OF SEPARATION OF POWERS when it stares you in the face! Do I need to quote Lincoln again? As one commentator put it: “The court has to pretend that there is a right to gay marriage even though it is nowhere evident in the state constitution. Read the constitution, hold it up to the light, squeeze lemon juice on it – you won’t see a right to gay marriage in there.”

***Benkof points to real damage to religious freedom and to child welfare
a) if a “traditionally religious business owner wants to extend his ‘marriage discount’ only to couples married in his eyes,” that would be actionable
b) if a teacher taught that marriage is between a man and a woman, a lawyer told him “’then it becomes a job performance issue’ and the school district should take appropriate action.”
c) if a “newspaper writes that a given same-sex marriage wasn’t really a marriage, [a lawyer said]: ‘it is certainly in the realm of possibility for someone to bring a (libel) suit … they need to be slapped publicly.’”

Here’s Benkof’s reaction: “Now, no lesbian in history has lost her assets, her job, or her freedom for writing, teaching, and running her business guided by her belief that marriage is a union of any two individuals who love each other. So why do gay activists … support limitations on the freedom of speech, the press, and religious expression for anyone who disagrees with them?”

d) “you guys” are always talking about “the children” – Benkof points out that a huge and well-regarded adoption agency (Boston Catholic Charities) had to go out of business because of the Massachusetts Politburo’s (uh…Court’s) decision. As he put it: “which means there are children in the Bay State who do not have the mother and father they could have had if gay activists hadn’t been so strident.” He then urges the homosexual community (his own community) to focus attention on “real and injurious issues” facing the homosexual community.


Gregg Frazer's primary areas of interest are the American Founding and pre-nineteenth-century political philosophy.

For Further Reading by Frazer: see this essay from the Claremont Institute website for his insightful explanation of what he characterizes as the "theistic rationalism" of the key founders.