GAY TRUTH

photograph of the justices, cropped to show Justice Scalia (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Scalia’s significance lies in his commitment to originalism , also known as textualism — the belief that the Constitution of the United States is to be read and understood and applied in keeping with the language, syntax, and vocabulary of its text as understood to be intended by the framers.  This was how the Supreme Court had operated for decades, without even having to express originalism as a method. All that changed in modern decades as the Court and the nation’s liberal legal culture adopted an understanding of the Constitution as an evolving document that was to be interpreted in light of current social needs — even if this required the abandonment of the Constitution as a regulative document. " But much of the torrential outpouring of acid hatred over the past weekend is by activists who still sting from Justice Scalia ’s   dissent from the Obergefell v. Hodges decision legal

A Slovenian pro-family coalition has won a referendum rejecting by a two-to-one margin a law legalizing same-sex "marriage," despite many roadblocks. It matches pro-family initiatives across Eastern Europe .   The Christian Coalition claimed a complete victory. It had not only won the referendum required, by a 63-36% margin of the popular vote, but also surpassed the required quorum of 30% of eligible voters by 7%. Its leaders, Metka Zevnik and Aleš Primc, issued a brief note of triumph, stating, "We have succeeded! Congratulations to all of you who in the referendum contributed to the excellent outcome! We are grateful to all supporters and sympathizers and their families for all the support and excellent work." A referendum earlier this year in Slovakia produced an astonishing 94% majority against same-sex "marriage," but only 21 % of the electorate participated, far below the 50% threshold  required. (Last year, Slovakian legislators enshri

English: Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florida, Former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives Français : Marco Rubio, homme politique républicain de Floride (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Surging GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio , R-FL, says that " God's law " trumps the U.S. Supreme Court ’s Obergefell decision imposing same-sex “marriage” nationwide. The senator also told Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody that the Supreme Court's redefinition of marriage is not "settled," but instead "current law." “No law is settled,” said Rubio. “Roe v. Wade is current law, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t continue to aspire to fix it, because we think it’s wrong.” “If you live in a society where the government creates an avenue and a way for you to peacefully change the law, then you’re called to participate in that process to try to change it,” he explained, and "the proper place for that to be defined is at th

The same-sex marriage debate entered a new phase of intolerance with Labor voting to expel parliamentarians who advocate man-woman only marriage. In two Parliaments time , Labor MPs and Senators who vote against redefining marriage will be expelled from the party. Australian Christian Lobby Managing Director Lyle Shelton said this was devastating for the millions of ethnic, indigenous and religious Australians who will never support a state-imposed redefinition of marriage . “Sadly this is a cynical ploy to force the Coalition to drop its policy on marriage when Labor’s real agenda is one of intolerance to its own who dissent. “If this is the principle Labor forces its people to comply with, what will be the out-working of this principle on dissenters when it is next in power? “Will there be freedom of conscience to choose not to provide services to same-sex weddings ? “Will Christian, Muslim and Jewish schools be allowed to teach children a definition of marriage that the party

High court's new liberal interpretation of the Constitution may mean the end of law-making as we know it If five U.S. Supreme Court justices can concoct a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, what else might they impose? Just about anything on the Left’s agenda. Until barely a decade ago, the laws of every state had always defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That was true when the Constitution was first established, and it was true when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. The intelligent citizen will reasonably wonder how five Supreme Court justices could have ruled two weeks ago that these state laws violate the 14th Amendment and that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The short answer: Those five justices were just making it up. Oh, to be sure, Justice Anthony Kennedy ’s majority opinion tries to dress things up in the sort of legal-sounding jargon designed to mystify non-lawyers. But Kennedy and the four liberals

English: Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) As one of the four justices that dissented from today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling declaring that all 50 states must legalize same-sex “marriage, Justice Antonin Scalia issued a sharp rebuke of his colleagues’ arrogance, warning that “pride goeth before a fall.” “The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic,” he wrote. “It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the court to do so.” Scalia was speaking of his disapproval of five black-robed justices issuing an edict that he opined was “highly unrepresentative” of the nation and “hardly a cross-section of America .” “Today’s decree says that my ruler, and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine

For evangelicals who lament last Friday’s Supreme Court decision , it’s been a hard few days. We aren’t asking for emotional pity, nor do I suspect many people are eager to give us any. Our pain is not sacred. Making legal and theological decisions based on what makes people feel better is part of what got us into this mess in the first place. Nevertheless, it still hurts. There are many reasons for our lamentation, from fear that religious liberties will be taken away to worries about social ostracism and cultural marginalization. But of all the things that grieve us, perhaps what’s been most difficult is seeing some of our friends, some of our family members, and some of the folks we’ve sat next to in church giving their hearty “Amen” to a practice we still think is a sin and a decision we think is bad for our country. It’s one thing for the whole nation to throw a party we can’t in good conscience attend. It’s quite another to look around for friendly faces to remind us we’re no

photograph of the justices, cropped to show Justice Scalia (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) It is disappointingly predictable that the media in Australia is obsessed by a slim majority activist US Supreme Court decision. At the same time there have been no reports of  an elected representative vote in another country of 110-26 against same-sex marriage. While we have heard much about the US Supreme Court's extraordinary ruling that a right to marry someone of the same sex has – somehow – always been constitutional, there's been hardly any mention about last week's overwhelming vote against gay marriage in the Austrian legislature. Most people in a democracy believe social policy should be determined by the people, not by dubious interpretation by an activist judiciary. The US Supreme Court majority has set a dangerous precedent for the US by asserting that the American people have, since inception, somehow misunderstood their own constitution.  As dissenting Justi