Letter to the Editor: Wyoming Supreme Court should not punish anti-gay justices

Editor’s Note: This is a letter from a reader not affiliated with the Branding Iron and Student Media. Some may vigorously disagree with the sentiments in this letter (and even find some of it alarming), but it is not our responsibility to cut opinion out of our readership. 

So now Judge Ruth Neely has been publicly censured by a divided (3-2) Wyoming Supreme Court because she said her religious beliefs prevented her from presiding over same-sex marriages.

If the U.S. Supreme Court abused its power and ruled that blacks were inferior to whites, would the majority of the Wyoming Supreme Court just go along with that ridiculous decision?  Would it punish “civilly disobedient” justices who tried to fight it?

The bizarre decision by five wayward Supreme Court Justices to impose so-called “gay marriage” on this country, which decision basically equates immoral heterophobic homosexuals with normal moral heterosexuals and can’t be supported with science and logic and natural law, is a decision that should be opposed.   

Thinking people have known for centuries that homosexuality is an objective disorder and that homosexual activity is immoral and a bad legal precedent.  Contrary to “politically correct” propaganda, it is pretty obvious that homosexual minds in heterosexual bodies, female minds in male bodies, and male minds in female bodies are all sure signs that something went wrong somewhere (in nature and/or nurture), are all clearly mind/body mismatches or disorders (a commonsense position taken for years by the American Psychiatric Association before it became infected with ever-so-trendy “political correctness”).  

We collectively need to tell the five wayward Supreme Court Justices who abused their power and forced this nonsense on us to, essentially, “take a hike.”  This country should not only ignore their irrational decision, but demand they resign.  They are an embarrassment.

Wayne Lela (630-964-4678)




  1. After reading a letter to the editor in UW’s Branding Iron, I called and spoke over the phone with the writer for over half an hour. In the BI, Wayne Lela wrote: “The bizarre decision by five wayward Supreme Court Justices to impose so-called ‘gay marriage’ on this country, which decision basically equates immoral heterophobic homosexuals with normal moral heterosexuals and can’t be supported with science and logic and natural law, is a decision that should be opposed.” The founder of Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment (HOME), based in Downers Grove, Illinois, Wayne described himself to me as an agnostic with a background in psychology, English literature, and mathematics, similar to what I might say about myself. In my first inquiry regarding his anti-homosexuality letter, I asked if he regarded left-handed persons as similarly suffering from “an objective disorder,” since they are much in the minority from majority right-handed human beings. When he dismissed this as “irrelevant” along with people who are blonde-haired or blue-eyed or of a different blood type from O-positive, I pointed out that the word “sinister” comes from a term applied to left-handed individuals who up until just a few decades ago were often discouraged in schools from writing with their left hand. Next I began enumerating famous people – Alexander the Great, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Pyotr Tchaikovsky, Thornton Wilder, Leonard Bernstein, Alan Turing, Aaron Copland, Laurence Olivier – which he promptly dismissed as “irrelevant.” He wanted me to refer to his website where he “proves scientifically” that homosexuality is contrary to natural law. His argument in brief is that because males and females are anatomically made for sexual relations, without which the human race could not reproduce and survive, therefore homosexual behavior runs counter to natural law. What about fellatio and anal sex among heterosexuals? Or men engaging in sex with animals or inflatable dolls? A similar attack on lesbianism doesn’t hold up either. First, I replied, real science, ever vigilant in testing its hypotheses and theories, never proves anything since any theory is subject to change or discredit if new data defeat its assumptions. Second, a considerable number of empirical studies strongly suggest that human sexual orientation is on a spectrum, not simply at one extreme (male) or the other (female). Thus, people may be homosexual, transgender, bisexual as well as heterosexual. Third, since his premise is that natural law has determined that homosexuality is immoral, his logic is flawed from the outset. Ex falso sequitur quodlibet (from a false [premise] anything follows). A determination of what is justified or moral is not something science takes up, rather that is a topic for theology or moral philosophy. So I pressed him as to what he based his natural law on. Wayne said that it was obvious. “Not to me,” I replied, “nor to millions of other people.” However, when I attempted to get him to acknowledge something that is obvious – “Two plus two is four in base ten” – he repeatedly refused, dismissing my declaration as again “irrelevant.” I knew he didn’t want to answer me because he could see where I was going. If he were to agree that 2+2=4 is obviously truthful to almost any rational intelligence but his assertion about homosexuality’s being immoral clearly isn’t, then his assigning homosexuality as an immoral behavior according to natural law utterly fails. What, then, did he expect of people whose brains and bodies, as he put it, are “mismatched” to do with their emotions for those to whom they are attracted? Describing himself as “promiscuous,” being desirous of having intercourse with every attractive female he encounters, yet controlling his animal instinct with his rational mind, he says he refrains from acting on his lust. Homosexuals should conduct themselves with similar dispassion. I laughed aloud. Thus, Wayne Lela’s diatribe is irrelevant.

  2. All you have to know about Mr. Ivers is that he uses well-known logical fallacies like “appeal to authority” (he does this when he tries to use “famous people” to support his argument) and he does NOT deem it obvious that 2 (I’m now holding up 2 fingers in my left hand) and 2 (I’m now also holding up 2 fingers in my right hand) equals 4 (I’m now holding up 4 fingers in my left hand and no fingers in my right hand). I also asked him for even one logical argument to support his view that homosexual activity is moral or that it should be approved by society and he was tongue-tied. He didn’t have anything. That’s because homosexual activity cannot be logically defended.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Fill in the Captcha *