GAY TRUTH

English: West face of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. Español: Edificio de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos en Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) America’s so-called “ red states ” and “blue states” may have very different views about whether same-sex “marriage” should be legal, but there’s one thing a majority have agreed upon: The Supreme Court needs to make a ruling on the issue, and soon. Citing the “morass” brought about by dozens of conflicting court decisions at both the state and federal level regarding the legality of marriage protection laws – which define marriage as a union between one man and one woman – seventeen states with such laws have signed on to a court filing asking the Supreme Court to review two federal circuit court rulings overturning  Oklahoma’s  and  Utah’s  bans on same-sex “marriage.” Colorado , which is currently fighting its own battle with the 10 th  Circuit to save its marriage protection law, led the

Crowd in support of Gay Marriage (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Congress could see a historic number of Republican members who support same-sex “marriage” after the 2014 elections. This week, National Journal reported that 11 Republicans running to represent their states and districts on Capitol Hill support same-sex "marriage," as do three incumbents not running in 2014. Six of the 11 candidates are incumbents, while the rest are challengers. Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition told LifeSiteNews that while the number of GOP candidates and incumbents has grown in recent years, perspective is necessary. "Let's keep in mind there are currently 233 Members of the House and 45 Senators who are Republican," she said. "Whether the numbers of gay marriage supporters are 3, 5, 6 or 11 – out of 278, these numbers do not make a seismic shift." Tim Wildmon , president of the influential American Family Association, warned that "th

Two men in handshake during San Francisco Immoral Marriage March with banner "We all deserve the freedom to sin" (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) WASHINGTON, D.C. – The 2014 midterm elections are still months away, but a group of young Republican activists have set their sights on 2016 as they meet in Iowa this week to launch a planned two-year, $1 million effort to convince the GOP to adopt support for same-sex “marriage” as part of the party platform . “It’s time for the party to modernize on this issue,” Margaret Hoover of “Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry ” – a spinoff of the national “Freedom to Marry” homosexual advocacy group – told  Politico . “Savvy 2016 candidates realize that this is not going to be a winning wedge issue .” Hoover and her colleagues from Freedom to Marry will hold several meetings in Iowa this week in an attempt to recruit supporters of same-sex “marriage” to run for slots as delegates for the National Republican Convention in 201

United States Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Have you ever heard of the 1972  U.S. Supreme Court decision in a case called  Baker v. Nelson ? If so, you are probably a lawyer, or (like me) a person who regularly reads briefs and court decisions on the issue of redefining “marriage” to include homosexual couples. If you have never heard of this case, you can be forgiven — even if you regularly read news stories about the movement for the same-sex redefinition of marriage . However,  Baker v. Nelson  is an important precedent on this issue. It was the very first case in which anyone ever asserted that the Constitution of the United States protects the right to legally “marry” a person of the same sex. In  Baker , a male couple sued a county clerk in Minnesota for denying them a marriage license in May 1970. The case made its way to the Supreme Court of Minnesota — which, on October 15, 1971, issued a ruling declaring that the state’s marriage law did not

Today the  10th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important ruling  on Utah ’s marriage amendment. This is the first time a circuit court has ruled on marriage since the  U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)  this time last year. In a 2-1 split decision, the 10th circuit ruled that Utah’s marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution . The majority held that “the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry” and that “a state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.” The decision will almost certainly be appealed. Of course the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry—but the  Supreme Court decisions that established a fundamental right to marry  understood  marriage as the union of a man and a woman . In

IRVING, TX , May 30, 2014  – Homosexual activists are outraged after ExxonMobil once again refused to explicitly include sexual preference in its anti-discrimination policy, marking the 17th time the company has done so. New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli has led the charge to add sexual preference to the gas company’s equal opportunity policies, which currently state that individuals employed by or seeking employment with the corporation will be evaluated without regard to “race, color, sex, religion, national origin, citizenship status, age, genetic information, physical or mental disability, veteran or other legally protected status.” ExxonMobil argues that their “zero-tolerance” standards for discrimination already exceed federal regulations and apply equally to every worker, regardless of sexual preference. The company has also offered full benefits to legally “married” same-sex couples since the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the Defense of Ma

The pro-marriage case can win — if we don't give up on it. By Ryan T. Anderson In the media's portrayal, people defending marriage as the union of a man and woman have been getting routed ever since the Supreme Court decision last June — if not before. They point to a string of lower-court rulings striking down state marriage amendments and to public opinion polling, especially of my peers in the Millennial generation . Many also point to the forced resignation of Brendan Eich and the defeat of Arizona's religious-liberty bill. Some people would like me and the millions of Americans who continue to believe that marriage is what societies have believed it to be throughout human history — a male-female union — to get with the program and accept the inevitable. We're clearly, they tell us, on the Wrong Side of History. But we should avoid the temptation to prognosticate about the future in lieu of working to shape that future. We are citizens in a self-gove