The Rev. Rod Parsley argued in favor of the passage of a so-called Marriage Protection Amendment (Faith & Values column, June 2). The only problem is his argument flies in the face of medical science, ignores historic reality and ridicules the fundamental system of checks and balances written into our Constitution.

Parsley began with a parable about a 3-year-old child playing with a drawer of knives, as if to convince us that a child growing up in a same-sex household is in mortal danger. This is simply not true. Peer-reviewed medical studies, including both psychological and sociological studies, have shown that children raised in a samesex-headed household perform equally well on all measures as compared with children raised by opposite-sex parents. Almost every national child-welfare organization, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, has upheld these findings and offered official support of families headed by same-sex parents.

Parsley then ignored the reality and history around him. He talked about "marriage between one man and one woman" as a perfect and unchanging institution in this country. In this case, he is simply incorrect by omission. An accurate accounting of the history of marriage in the United States must include the fact that wives were once considered the property of their husbands. Until 40 years ago, the institution of marriage was reserved only for people of the same race.

Lesbian and gay people have existed throughout history and will continue to exist, whether we finally enjoy equal marriage rights or not. As we have always done, we will continue to form loving relationships. Like Susan and Judy of Rocky River, who have been together for 21 years filled with love, not convenience. Today, there are same-sex-headed households in every county in Ohio, according to the latest census data.

We will continue to adopt or raise children. Like a same-sex couple in northern Ohio who have adopted and are raising a thriving child who came to them with fetal alcohol syndrome and post traumatic stress disorder. There are more than 1 million children of same-sex couples in our country. The federal Marriage Protection Amendment does nothing to strengthen opposite-sex marriage, and it would put thousands of children and loving couples at risk.

It is the last error in Parsley’s commentary that is the most frightening. He speaks of activist judges "redefining marriage to suit their political biases." Does Parsley have that much contempt for the institution of separated powers in our Constitution? When any law is passed, it is subject to judicial review, and many times justices strike down or ask the legislature to clarify a law. This is not judicial activism; it is the exact role of the judiciary intended by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. When someone like Parsley, who has called for the elimination of democracy and the establishment of a theocracy, starts to attack the fundamental values of our nation, people should be worried.

Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has already told America that he does not intend for the Marriage Protection Amendment to pass, and that it is being voted on simply to activate a sleeping base of voters in the fall. I say to Frist and Parsley: Stop trying to use our families to distract people from the real issues that matter to Ohioans and Americans. Our elected officials should protect all families and citizens and respond to their needs, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.

BO SHUFF
Director of Education and Public Policy
Equality Ohio
New Albany