GAY TRUTH

English: Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) February 12, 2014 ( Albert Mohler ) - “As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe.” Those are the words of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia , drawn from his dissent in the case  United States v. Windsor , handed down last year. In that case, the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act , ruling that the United States government could not refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. The Court struck down a law passed by massive majorities in both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. While the Court did not rule that all fifty states must immediately legalize same-sex marriage, it set the stage for this eventual result. Justice Scalia made that point clear in his dissent. Now, Justice Scalia’s prophecy has come to pass in Kentucky . Yesterd

LOUISVILLE, KY, February 12, 2014 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) – A federal judge ruled today that the state of Kentucky must recognize same-sex “marriages” conducted in other states, or even other countries. A legal expert warns the ruling could open the door to recognition of polygamous marriages contracted in foreign nations. Judge John G. Heyburn II U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II of the Western District of Kentucky ruled that, while the state did not have to conduct same-sex “marriages” itself, it must grant full marital benefits to couples who live in the state but had nuptials conducted elsewhere. In 2004, 75 percent of the state's electorate approved a marriage protection amendment. Four gay and lesbian couples brought the lawsuit. One of the couples, Gregory Bourke and Michael Deleon of Louisville, were “married” in Canada. Others received a marriage license in Iowa, Connecticut, and California. "If the decision is upheld, Kentucky will have to rec

A federal judge in Utah dropped a bomb on the institution of marriage, striking down the most crucial sections of the Utah statute outlawing polygamy. Last Friday, Judge Clark Waddoups of the United States District Court in Utah ruled that Utah’s anti-polygamy law is unconstitutional, violating the free exercise clause of the First Amendment as well as the guarantee of due process. In one sense, the decision was almost inevitable, given the trajectory of both the culture and the federal courts. On the other hand, the sheer shock of the decision serves as an alarm: marriage is being utterly redefined before our eyes, and in the span of a single generation. Judge Waddoups ruled that Utah’s law against consensual adult cohabitation among multiple partners violated the Constitution’s free exercise clause, but a main point was that opposition to polygamy did not advance a compelling state interest. In the background to that judgment was the argument asserted by Supreme Court Justice A

June 3, 2013 ( thePublicDiscourse ) - During the oral arguments about Proposition 8 , Justice Anthony Kennedy referred to children being raised by same-sex couples. Since I was one of those children—from ages 2-19, I was  raised by a lesbian mother with the help of her partner —I was curious to see what he would say. I also eagerly anticipated what he would say because I had taken great professional and social risk to file an amicus brief with Doug Mainwaring ( who is gay and opposes gay marriage ), in which we explained that children deeply feel the loss of a father or mother, no matter how much we love our gay parents or how much they love us. Children feel the loss keenly because they are powerless to stop the decision to deprive them of a father or mother, and the absence of a male or female parent will likely be irreversible for them. Over the last year I’ve been in frequent contact with adults who were raised by parents in same-sex partnerships. They are terrified of sp

WASHINGTON, D.C. , August 30, 2013 ( Heritage Foundation ) - Just as families are getting ready to head out the door for a long holiday weekend, the Obama administration has rolled out new policies that disregard states’ authority over marriage and redefine marriage for a variety of federal purposes. The  U.S. Department of the Treasury and the IRS  and the  Department of Health and Human Services  put out press releases on Thursday announcing they’ll be recognizing same-sex marriage even in states that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The agencies announced that they will recognize same-sex couples as married provided that they were married in states that have redefined marriage, even if they now reside in states that retain the historical definition of marriage. As Treasury and IRS put it, “The ruling applies regardless of whether the couple lives in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage or a jurisdiction that does not recognize same-sex marr

 I n his dissent in  United States v. Windsor , the Supreme Court decision invalidating the federal definition of marriage as natural marriage, Justice Scalia rightly identified as particularly outrageous the Court’s assertion that the purpose of the definition was a “‘bare … desire to harm’ couples in same-sex marriages.” The assertion is ignorant and bigoted to the point of being delusional. It’s not as if the justices hadn’t seen arguments to the contrary. How did they come to say such a thing? From one perspective the Court was simply doing what it always does when it establishes as a matter of constitutional law sexual autonomy rights that are favored by governing elites but lack any basis in the Constitution. It has the justice with the least professional shame ( William O. Douglas ) or the least intelligence ( Harry Blackmun , Anthony Kennedy ) put together some words that purportedly support the right. The rest of the majority then attach their names to what he writes

English: Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Laws giving special legal rights to homosexuals Prior to 1992, Denver, Boulder, and Aspen in Colorado had passed laws banning discrimination against homosexuals in those cities. At first such laws sounded reasonable to people—who wants to be in favor of “discrimination”? The United States already has such laws forbidding discrimination against people because of race, gender, or age, for example. But on further reflection, when such laws include homosexuals, then will a Christian photographer be forced to take the job if asked to photograph a homosexual “wedding”? This happened in New Mexico, when a young photographer named Elaine Hugenin had a complaint filed against her by a lesbian couple because she respectfully declined to photograph their same-sex “commitment” ceremony. The New Mexico Human Rights Commission ordered Elaine and her husband to pay nearly $7,000 in