GAY TRUTH

ARE HOMOSEXUAL MEN WHO ADOPT - IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE KIDS? NO LOUISVILLE --- A family court judge who sits in Barren and Metcalfe counties has announced he will no longer hear adoption cases involving “homosexual parties” because he believes allowing a gay person to adopt could never be in the child's best interest. This is a good thing and reflects what the majority of people historically and currently agree with - regardless of fake LGBT limited research claiming the opposite. Judge W. Mitchell Nance, who begins court each day by requiring everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance , said in an order this week that he would recuse himself from all adoptions involving gay people . Nance cited a judicial ethics rule that says a judge must disqualify himself when he has a personal bias or prejudice. He said in the order issued Thursday that “as a matter of conscience” he believes that “under no circumstance” would “the best interest of the child be promoted by the a

Words in state law must be interpreted as having “natural and ordinary meaning” under a bill passed by the Tennessee Senate on Thursday. Critics call it a biblical way of encouraging state judges to deny immoral homosexual activities to gay couples and transgender people. LGBT groups lamented the 23-6 vote and immediately began prodding Republican Gov. Bill Haslam for a veto, but his spokeswoman Jennifer Donnals said he is “deferred to the will of the legislature.” The House approved the same legislation last month. Sarah Kate Ellis , president and wing nut of the immoral LGBT rights group GLAAD , which manipulates movies and media to put as much gay sex on the screen, said the bill would be bad for business and “set a dangerous precedent that could place the well-being of LGBTQ Tennesseans in jeopardy.” Bad for Business ! Really? What a joke argument! The legislation has been pushed by the Family Action Council of Tennessee, which advocates for one-man, one-woman marriage. Th

Same Sex Marriage (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) LINCOLN, NE , March 4, 2015 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) -- Homosexual activists celebrated another victory Monday as U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon once again ordered the state of Nebraska to stop enforcing its marriage protection amendment , which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Bataillon, who was appointed by former president Bill Clinton , struck down the amendment when it was first challenged by gay activists ten years ago, but his decision was overturned by the 8 th  Circuit Court of Appeals.  Now that gay activists have challenged the law again, the judge has issued a new ruling barring its enforcement, citing the recent string of federal court victories by supporters of same-sex “marriage.” Bataillon said laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples unfairly discriminate based on “archaic” and “outdated” gender stereotypes.   “[Nebraska’s Marriage] Amendment explicitly creates a classificatio

A lesbian couple married in San Francisco in 2004 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Homosexuals and lesbians will often say that people who love each other, no matter what their gender, should be allowed to marry each other.  After all, they say, that's what heterosexual couples do.  Why shouldn't homosexuals have the same rights?  It makes sense, doesn't it?  It does but not that much.  First of all, love is not the basis on which marriage is defined or justified.  Marriage is defined by a public, legal commitment; and love is not a necessary component of the contract (though it is a good idea to love each other).  Marriage is entered into by a mutual agreement that involves emotional and sexual faithfulness and the promise to raise children within its bonds.  Of course, some heterosexual couples can't have children, and some adults marry knowing they will not have children.  The issue is that marriage has always been the normal means in which children have been br

LITTLE ROCK, AR ,  – County clerks in Arkansas are refusing to issue marriage licenses and the state attorney general has vowed to appeal after a Pulaski County judge ruled the state’s 17-year-old ban on same-sex “marriage” unconstitutional. In a 13-page ruling, Judge Christopher Piazza  said  Arkansas’ constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. “The difference between opposite-sex and same-sex families is within the privacy of their homes,” wrote Piazza. While Piazza said he was “not unmindful of the criticism that judges should not be super legislators,” he argued that the issue was sufficiently important to overturn the will of the majority in the defense of the homosexual minority, and compared their plight to that of blacks affected by institutional racism during the last century. “The issue at hand is the fundamental right to marry being denied to an unpopular minori

LITTLE ROCK, AR ,  – The Arkansas State Supreme Court has refused to grant a stay, meaning that homosexual “marriages” may continue in the state although the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled their legality. Last week, County Circuit judge Chris Piazza ruled that Arkansas' 2004 marriage amendment is unconstitutional. Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel asked for the decision to be suspended while the state appeals the decision, but the state's high court  refused the request  on Wednesday. Within days of Piazza's ruling, 450 homosexual couples received marriage licenses, which will be declared invalid if the state law is upheld. Nearly all county clerks refused to provide licenses, arguing that the Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of same-sex "marriage." McDaniel said this uncertainty should be enough for a "stay" of Piazza's ruling, which struck down a 2004 constitutional amendment approved by 75 percent of

Image via Wikipedia Arkansas ’s state Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a voter-approved initiative passed in 2008 that forbade unmarried couples, including homosexuals, from adopting or fostering children. The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Arkansas Act 1, was unconstitutional because it violated the rights of couples engaging in sexual activity to adopt. Act 1, which voters passed by a 57 – 43 percent margin in November 2008, stated: “A minor may not be adopted or placed in a foster home if the individual seeking to adopt or to serve as a foster parent is cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of a marriage which is valid under the constitution and laws of this state.” The Act clarified that the prohibition “applies equally to cohabiting opposite-sex and same-sex individuals.” “Act 1 directly and substantially burdens the privacy rights of ’opposite-sex and same-sex individuals’ who engage in private, consensual sexual conduct in the bedroom by foreclosing t