Homosexual activists in India failed to convince that nation's Supreme Court their lifestyle is good for society.
First, activists won a decision from a lower court that they face discrimination because current law only recognizes the legitimacy of heterosexual intimacy. Family advocates then appealed to the India Supreme Court, which upheld current law.
Attorney Benjamin Bull is executive director of Alliance Defending Freedom Global.
"When given the same choice the Supreme Court of the United States had in Lawrence vs. Texas, the Indian Court did the right thing," says Bull, which was choose to "protect society at large rather than give in to a vocal minority of homosexual advocates."
Tweet to @AllianceDefends
The net effect is to protect the integrity of the family and by extension to protect traditional marriage.
In the Texas case, the state's high court struck down sodomy laws in a 6-3 decision that affected similar laws in other states.
The Texas case "laid the groundwork for the invalidation of traditional marriage by a number of courts subsequent to that," the attorney explains.
The Indian Supreme Court saw what had happened there "and was wise enough not to want to go down that road."
"America needs to take note that a country of 1.2 billion people has rejected the road towards same-sex marriage, and understood that these kinds of bad decisions in the long run will harm society," he adds.
When it comes to religious freedom in the courts, you win some and you lose some – largely because the First Amendment is in legal chaos.