Kenya Christian Professionals Forum (KCPF) is an organization founded to support the enhancement of family values in Kenya, with four key pillars namely Life, Family, Religion and Governance. We are an advocacy and networking organization made up of Christian professionals from diverse Christian groups and churches, from diverse professional backgrounds, but all committed to supporting a pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion and good-governance social environment

1. The Marriage Wars:
“Judicial Tyranny” In the U.S.?
“Cultural Imperialism” Abroad
Presented by
Dr. John C. Eastman
Chairman of the Board, National Organization for Marriage
Henry Salvatori Professor of Law, Chapman University Fowler School of Law
Founding Director, Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE

2. Current Status of Marriage Litigation
In U.S. Supreme Court
• United States v. Windsor (2013)
 Struck Down Federal Defense of Marriage Act
 Justice Scalia, in dissent, described the Court’s “pretense that
today's prohibition of laws excluding same-sex marriage is
confined to the Federal Government (leaving the second, state-
law shoe to be dropped later, maybe next Term).”
• In 2 years since Windsor
 Numerous lower fed. district courts invalidated state laws
 4 federal circuit courts of appeal (4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th Circuits)
 1 federal circuit court upheld marriage laws (6th Circuit)
• So Was Scalia Right? Decision expected by End of June.

3. 5 Reasons Why I’m Cautiously Optimistic: #1
Supreme Court Already decided, 40 years ago: Baker v. Nelson (1972)
• Lower courts have ignored Baker, saying that subsequent developments have
undermined that precedent.
• But here’s what the Supreme Court itself has instructed about that:
– “the lower courts are bound by summary decisions by this Court ‘until such
time as [this] Court informs (them) that (they) are not.’”
Hicks v. Miranda (1975)
– “If a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest
on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should
follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of
overruling its own decisions.”
Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express (1989)

4. Reason #2
Justice Kennedy’s own opinion in Windsor:
• “For marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought
of by most people as essential to the very definition of that term and to its
role and function throughout the history of civilization.”
• “[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed
full power over the subject of marriage and divorce ... [and] the
Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United
States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”
• “The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent
and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the
United States.”

5. Reason #3
• The Prop. 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry
• Majority (no standing)
 Chief Justice John Roberts
 Justice Scalia
 Justice Ginsburg
 Justice Breyer
 Justice Kagan
 Dissent
• Justice Kennedy
• Justice Thomas
• Justice Alito
• Justice Sotomayor

6. Reason #4
Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Schuette (2014)
• The respondents in this case insist that a difficult question of
public policy must be taken from the reach of the voters
• That is inconsistent with the underlying premises of a
responsible, functioning democracy.
• It is demeaning to the democratic process to presume that the
voters are not capable of deciding an issue of this sensitivity on
decent and rational grounds.
• Freedom embraces the right, indeed the duty, to engage in a
rational, civic discourse in order to determine how best to form
a consensus to shape the destiny of the Nation and its people.
• These First Amendment dynamics would be disserved if this
Court were to say that the question here at issue is beyond the
capacity of the voters to debate and then to determine.

7. And the final reason . . . The MAP!

8. Compare Human Rights Campaign Map:
The “Inevitability” Narrative

9. Voter Approved Same-Sex Marriage

10. Plus Legislature-Approved SSM

11. Now Add In Court-Imposed SSM

12. What Are the Likely Harms?
• Redefining Marriage Will Weaken The Institution,
resulting in Fewer Marriages
 Decline in marriage in the Netherlands – about 15%
 Decline in U.S. States, between 3 and 9%
• Children do best when raised by their married
biological parents
 Risk of serious developmental, psychological, and
physiologocial harms is more than double when only 1
biological parent is present

13. What Are the Likely Harms?
• This is definitional true for Same-Sex Marriages
 “For every measure of child emotional difficulty, children with
same-sex parents are observed to have higher levels of
emotional or behavioral distress than do children with opposite-
sex parents.” – 2014 Sullins Study – rates of distress more than
double.
• Shift from “child-centered” to “adult-centered” will
delink the institution from children
 Leading U.S. Gay Rights Advocate Bill Eskridge:
“Gay experience with ‘families we choose’ delinks family from
gender, blood, and kinship. Gay families of choice are relatively
ungendered, raise children that are biologically unrelated to one or
both parents, and often form no more than a shadowy connection
between the larger kinship groups.”

14. What Are the Likely Harms?
• Harm Will Be Particularly Severe for Poor Women
and Children
 By making fathers “optional” in the marriage definition,
we’ll likely see greater numbers of children raised without
their fathers.
 “The weight of scientific evidence seems clearly to support
the view that fathers matter” for children’s development.
 Higher rates of school drop-out, teen pregnancy, criminal
delinquency occur to children raised in fatherless
households

15. Why U.S. Outcome Matters
• US cultural influence is a juggernaut
• More troubling, “Cultural Imperialism.”
 “The United States is deeply concerned by Nigeria’s enactment
of the Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act.” -- Sec of State John
Kerry 1/13/14
 “The United States actually said it would help Nigeria with Boko
Haram only if we modify our laws concerning homosexuality,
family planning, and birth control.” -- Bishop Emmanuel Badejo
2/18/15

16. Development of U.S. Policy
• U.S. President Speech to U.N., Sept. 21, 2011
 “No country should deny people their rights because of who
they love, which is why we must stand up for the rights of gays
and lesbians everywhere.”
• Dec. 2011 “Presidential Memorandum – International
Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, and Transgender Persons”
 Concern about “laws that criminalize LGBT status”
 “beating citizens simply for joining peaceful LGBT pride
celebrations”
 “killing men, women, and children for their perceived sexual
orientation”
 The U.S. will “bring our tools to bear” to vigorously advance
LGBT rights.

17. The Substance of “The Memorandum”
• Section 1. Combating Criminalization of LGBT Status or
Conduct Abroad:
 Agencies engaged abroad are directed to strengthen existing
efforts to effectively combat the criminalization by foreign
governments of LGBT status or conduct and to expand efforts to
combat discrimination, homophobia, and Intolerance on the
basis of LGBT status or conduct.
• Sec. 2. Protecting Vulnerable LGBT Refugees and Asylum
Seekers.
 In order to improve protection for LGBT refugees and asylum
seekers at all stages of displacement, the Departments of State
and Homeland Security shall enhance their ongoing efforts to
ensure that LGBT refugees and asylum seekers have equal
access to protection and assistance, particularly in countries of
first asylum.

18. The Substance of “The Memorandum”
• Sec. 3. Foreign Assistance to Protect Human Rights and Advance
Nondiscrimination
 Agencies involved with foreign aid, assistance, and development shall
enhance their ongoing efforts to ensure regular Federal Government
engagement with governments, citizens, civil society, and the private
sector in order to build respect for the human rights of LGBT persons.
• Sec. 4. Swift and Meaningful US Responses to Human Rights
Abuses of LGBT Persons Abroad
 The Department of State shall lead a standing group, with appropriate
interagency representation, to help ensure the Federal Government’s
swift and meaningful response to serious incidents that threaten the
human rights of LGBT persons abroad.
• Sec. 5. Engaging International Organizations in the Fight Against
LGBT Discrimination.
 Agencies engaged abroad should strengthen the work they have begun
and initiate additional efforts in these multilateral fora and organizations.

19. How the “Memo” Is Being Implemented
• Aid to Radical LGBT groups via the
new LGBT Global Development
Partnership of USAID
 Including the Astraea Lesbian
Foundation for Justice, which
advocates for legalization of
prostitution (“sex work”)
• Pro-LGBT requirements as
condition for partnering with
USAID
• “This Vision outlines our Agency’s
commitment—both in
Washington and abroad—to
include LGBT considerations in
every area of our work, and in
every place we work.”

20. Note How Radical It Is
• “In this world, LGBT persons and
their allies can come together to
advocate for the equal treatment
for all persons, regardless of sexual
orientation, gender identity or
gender expression.”
 In California, it is now illegal to deny a
teenage boy who claims to be a girl
access to the girls showers.
 A federal judge has ordered taxpayers
to pay for gender reassignment
surgery for a prison inmate who claims
his “gender identify” was different
than the “gender he was assigned at
birth”

21. USAID’s Mission: To Transform Your Society
USAID seeks to improve the
lives of LGBT citizens around
the world by becoming more
inclusive in our development
efforts and by ensuring that
LGBT persons have access to
and reap the benefits of our
programming, and in so doing,
are instrumental in the
transformation of their own
societies.

22. Case Study: Uganda Anti-Sodomy Law
• Passed Dec. 2013, signed by Pres. Museveni Feb. 24, 2014.
 Life imprisonment for “aggravated homosexuality”
• Homosexual acts by one infected with HIV/AIDS
• Homosexual acts with minors
 Prison for groups who counsel people into homosexuality.
• Reaction in Europe
 Netherlands, Norway, and
Denmark cut or suspended aid
payments to Uganda
 The World Bank did as well.

23. Case Study: Uganda Anti-Sodomy Law
• June 2014: U.S. announced its sanctions:
 Suspension of some aid to Uganda
 Imposition of visa restrictions
 Cancelation of regional military exercise (despite fact that
Ugandan soldiers have been helping U.S. in Somalia and in the
fight against the “Lord’s Resistance Army”, which has massacred
and kidnapped tens of thousands of people in Central Africa).
• U.S. Reaction:
 President warns that signing the bill will affect relations
between U.S. and Uganda
 Feb. 2014: Secretary of State John Kerry announces that
he has begun “an internal review of our relationship
with the government of Uganda to ensure that all
dimensions of our engagement, including assistance
programs, uphold our anti-discrimination policies and
principles and reflect our values.

24. Uganda Response
• President Museveni:
“We see how you do things, the families,
how they're organized. All the things, we see
them, we keep quiet. It's not our country,
maybe you like it. So there's now an attempt
at social imperialism -- to impose social
values of one group on our society.”
“Africans do not seek to impose their views on anybody. We do not want anybody
to impose their views on us. This very debate was provoked by Western groups
who come to our schools and try to recruit children into homosexuality. It is
better to limit the damage rather than exacerbate it.”
• Ugandan Supreme Court invalidated the law (though only on technical
grounds)

25. Pressure at the
United Nations
• 2004 General Assembly Resolution
requires the Secretary General to
determine marital status of UN staff by
reference to the laws of the country of
origin.
• Nevertheless, June 2014: Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon unilaterally extended
benefits of marriage to all UN staff.
• March 2015: Vote to quash the Secretary-General’s order.
• 80 nations in favor of the SSM recognition (even though half of them do
not recognize it); 43 against
• 70 abstained (all of them with laws that do not recognize SSM)
• “The abstentions and no shows are the product of a six year campaign by the
United States and European countries to get countries to abstain during votes
involving lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights (LGBT) at the United
Nations.” –- Center for Family & Human Rights

26. USAID Policy Can Be Reversed
• In Fact, It is Already Contrary to Law
• Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Pres. John F. Kennedy)
 The “principal objective” is the encouragement and sustained
support of the people of developing countries in their efforts to
acquire the knowledge and resources essential to development and
to build the economic, political, and social institutions which will
improve the quality of their lives.
 Alleviate Poverty
 Promote “self-sustaining economic growth with equitable
distribution of benefits
 Encourage development processes that protect civil and economic
rights
 Promote good government

27. Where is the Money Being Diverted From?
• Poverty programs, to “substantially
lower infant mortality, . . . Increase
life expectancy, food production,
literacy, and employment”
• Health programs, which are used
primarily for basic integrated health
services, safe water and sanitation,
disease prevention and control
• Special health needs of children and
mothers, the “Child Survival Fund”

28. Contrary to the Goal of Preventing HIV/AIDS
• Sec. 104A: Assistance to Combat HIV/AIDS
 “It is a major objective … to provide assistance for the prevention,
treatment, and control of HIV/AIDS …, particularly activities focused
on women and youth [and to prevent mother-to-child transmission]
• PREVENTION!
Funding of “programs and
efforts that are designed or
intended to impart knowledge
with the exclusive purpose of
helping individuals avoid
behaviors that place them at
risk of HIV infection, including .
. . reduction of casual sexual
partnering,…”

29. The “Human Rights Abuse” Ban
• Sec. 116: (a) “No assistance may be provided under this part to the
government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross
violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention
without charges, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and
clandestine detention of those persons, or other flagrant denial of the right to
life, liberty, and the security of person, unless such assistance will directly
benefit the needy people in such country.”
• (b) No assistance may be provided to any government failing to take
appropriate and adequate measures, within their means, to protect children
from exploitation, abuse or forced conscription into military or paramilitary
services.
• Remember President Museveni’s Statement:
“This very debate was provoked by Western
groups who come to our schools and try to
recruit children into homosexuality.”

30. What Is At Stake Here in Kenya
• The Preamble to the Constitution of Kenya provides:
“We, the people of Kenya—
Acknowledging the supremacy of the Almighty God of all creation;
. . .
Committed to nurturing and protecting the well-being of the
individual, the family, communities and the nation;
. . .
Exercising our sovereign and inalienable right to determine the
form of governance of our country . . .
Adopt, Enact, and give this Constitution to ourselves and to our
future generations.

31. What Is At Stake Here in Kenya
• To Be Sure, The Preamble also recognizes “the aspirations of
all Kenyans for a government based on the essential values of
human rights, equality, freedom, democracy, social justice and
the rule of law,” and it will undoubtedly be argued that
pressure from the U.S. and others in the West simply
advances this aspiration.
• But see: Part 2, Sec. 45. Family.
 (1) The family is the natural and fundamental unit of society and the
necessary basis of social order, and shall enjoy the recognition and
protection of the State.
 (2) Every adult has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex,
based on the free consent of the parties.
• And Sec. 53: Children.
 (1) Every child has the right—. . . (e) to parental care and protection,
which includes the equal responsibility of the mother and father to
provide for the child . . . .

32. Help Us Get the Story Out
• Tell us your Stories, and those you hear about
 Cutting off aid
 Threats to cut off aid
 Backroom pressure to change your laws
• Email John Eastman at jeastman@chapman.edu
• Most of All – Stand FIRM!

33. The Marriage Wars:
“Judicial Tyranny” In the U.S.?
“Cultural Imperialism” Abroad
Presented by
Dr. John C. Eastman
Chairman of the Board, National Organization for Marriage
Henry Salvatori Professor of Law, Chapman University Fowler School of Law
Founding Director, Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE