TMLC Logo 10.30.13The effort to redefine marriage is not equivalent to the civil rights movement according to an historic amicus brief filed by the Thomas More Law Center in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. CTV’s President, James Muffett and Executive Director, Amy Hawkins are proud to stand with these leaders in support of Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, who appealed the recent Federal District Court decision to overturn Michigan’s 2004 Marriage Amendment.

“It is important that leaders take a stand in defending historic marriage and we are thrilled that so many Black pastors are raising their voices on this critical issue,” noted James Muffett.

Here are some excerpts from the Law Center’s Brief:

“Comparing the dilemmas of same-sex couples to the centuries of discrimination faced by Black Americans is a distortion of our country’s cultural and legal history. The disgraces and unspeakable privations in our nation’s history pertaining to the civil rights of Black Americans are unmatched. No other class of individuals, including individuals who are same-sex attracted, have ever been enslaved, or lawfully viewed not as human, but as property. Same-sex attracted individuals have never lawfully been forced to attend different schools, walk on separate public sidewalks, sit at the back of the bus, drink out of separate drinking fountains, denied their right to assemble, or denied their voting rights. Id. The legal history of these disparate classifications, i.e., immutable racial discrimination and same-sex attraction, is incongruent.”

“When the lower court said it was rejecting morality as a basis for Michigan’s codification of its traditional marriage rule, it was not being entirely forthright. . . .What it actually did was to supplant the tried and true morality of the Judeo-Christian tradition upon which our country was founded with the trendy, relativist morality of political correctness.”

“There is no surer way to destroy an institution like marriage than to destroy its meaning. If “marriage” means whatever one judge wants it to mean, it means nothing. If it has no fixed meaning, it is merely a vessel for a judge’s will. It is used as a subterfuge for judicial legislation.”

CTV strongly supports these leaders for their stand in defending the will of 2.5 million voters with the 2004 Constitutional Marriage Amendment.

Read the entire brief here.