Maggie Gallagher, one of the leading marriage equality foes in the US, penned an open letter to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The essay was published on 1 May in the National Review. Many legal experts see Kennedy as the likely deciding vote in the marriage cases the country’s highest court heard last week.
She starts by calling same-sex marriage advocates a force to be reckoned with.
‘The forces for gay marriage are powerful. You have been their hero in the past, when gay people were not so powerful,’ Gallagher begins.
‘The tables are turned now, as I think is clear to everyone,’ she continues. ‘The LGBT community has built a powerful cultural, legal, and political movement. They are not helpless or friendless.’
She insists that now people of faith, opposed to gay marriage, need Kennedy’s ‘help.’
‘We live at a time when our livelihoods are under new attack, when our standing as equal citizens is under attack, when the system of ideas and the deep human realities that gave rise to marriage for millennia are now being dismissed as mere bigotry, as irrational, incomprehensible hatred.’
From there, she offers a few reasons why the justice should not confer marriage rights to LGBTI couples.
Gallagher insists that same-sex and opposite-sex couples will never be onthe same level.
‘Not all sexual relationships are equal, even if they are loving and committed.’
There is also a critique of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBT civil rights group in the country.
‘If we want to get to live and let live, we need your help to not constitutionalize the Human Rights Campaign’s sexual morality.’
She ends by noting that human relationships do not need governmental approval.
‘To imagine that a government stamp of approval is what creates value in human relationships, or gives dignity to our sexual lives, is to accord to government a power it does not have: a power to impose an idea of equality that is not true, and to remove from the American people the hard work — of negotiating, compromise, and dealing with one another — that belongs to the democratic process, not the Constitution.’