GAY TRUTH

Today the Supreme Court issued rulings on two historic and controversial cases which challenged the legal validity, at both the state and federal level, of the the traditional definition of marriage. Here are nine things you should know about the cases: 1. The two cases,  United States v. Windsor   and  Hollingsworth v. Perry , are each based on differing -- and perhaps mutually exclusive -- theories of which level of government has the right to define marriage. The challenge to DOMA ( Windsor ) was based on the claim that marriage is a matter for state rather than federal regulation while the challenge to Proposition 8 ( Hollingsworth ) was a challenge to to the claim that an individual state can define marriage as between one woman and one man. 2.  United States v. Windsor  was a direct challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This  case was not about  whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but rather whether Congress can treat married same

On the last day of its term, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today on two same-sex marriage cases. Both are important cases, and both will go far in redefining the most basic institution of human civilization. The Court knew it was making history. A majority of the justices clearly intended to make history, and future generations will indeed remember this day. But for what? In the first decision handed down today, the Supreme Court found that the Defense of Marriage Act , passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, is unconstitutional. Specifically, it found that the federal government’s refusal to recognize a same-sex marriage that is legal in a state to be unconstitutional. The Court left in place the DOMA provision that protects states from being required to recognize a same-sex union that is valid in another state. In the Proposition 8 case, the Court’s majority held that the plaintiffs in the case, representing the people of California

WASHINGTON, D.C. , March 14, 2013, ( Heritage Foundation ) - Scholars have filed more than 50 amicus briefs with the Supreme Court urging it to uphold California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). While the media seems intent on ignoring these briefs and  hyping the briefs on the other side , the sheer number and quality of the briefs in defense of laws recognizing marriage as the union of a man and a woman is impressive. Austin Nimocks, Senior Counsel at the  Alliance Defending Freedom , explains the significance: During the Supreme Court’s 2011-2012 term, an average of only 10 amicus briefs per case were filed. And in the historic landmark case of  Roe v. Wade , only 26 total amicus briefs were filed. By comparison a combined total of 58 amicus briefs were filed in support of Prop 8 and DOMA. The pro-marriage arguments are deep, rich, well-reasoned, common sense- and common good-based, and worthy of serious reflection by the Court and any othe

"It's time for the Supreme Court to correct some wrongs!" That's what I told Fox News in the wake of the Supreme Court's surprise decision last Friday to take up the Prop 8 case, as well as the DOMA cases: There is no constitutional right to redefine marriage. Our Founding Fathers didn't see it that way, and the last Supreme Court decision, Baker v. Nelson, the United States Supreme Court said there was no federal question here; so this is essentially making the law up as you go along, it is reading into the Constitution something that is not there. And I reiterated this on Tuesday, as I told  Newsmax.TV , "We are ecstatic that the court granted cert and took the case. Folks may not remember this, but the lawyers for those that wanted to overturn Proposition 8...actually argued and asked the Supreme Court to not take the case. [...] There is no constitutional right to redefine marriage and the Court's going to find that." Predict