GAY TRUTH

February 25, 2014 ( BreakPoint ) - Imagine for a moment that someone sues you. You arrive in court, expecting your lawyer to defend your interests, only to hear him say that he disagrees with you and will now assist your adversary. There would be pandemonium. Your attorney would be relieved of his duties, and in all likelihood, face professional censure. Yet, something akin to this happened to the people of Virginia last week. It’s part of a trend that should trouble people regardless of their position on certain “hot-button” issues. On February 13, a federal district court judge in Norfolk struck down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage. Judge Arrenda Wright Allen ruled that the voter-approved amendment to the Virginia constitution violated the 14th Amendment ’s Equal Protection Clause . Allen wrote that “Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to th

DENVER, CO, February 25, 2014 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) – On “The Simpsons,” Helen Lovejoy  frequently cries out , “Won't somebody  please  think of the children?” In Michigan and Oklahoma, that's exactly what pro-family lawsuits are trying to force judges to do – realize how heterosexual couples benefit the next generation. This week, Alliance Defending Freedom   filed a lawsuit  with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Colorado in defense of a Tulsa, Oklahoma County Court Clerk . The clerk, Sally Howe, was sued by two women to whom she refused to issue a marriage license.  Federal judge Terence Kern ruled in favor of the women in January. The "Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ," he said.  However, Alliance Defending Freedom says children should be raised in homes with parents of different sexes. The state of Oklahoma , which is also appealing Kern's dec

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK , January 15, 2014 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) – The state of Oklahoma approved a state constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage by a three-to-one margin in 2004. But on Tuesday, a federal judge struck the amendment down, branding it an "arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens  from a governmental benefit ." In a  68-page opinion , U.S. District Judge Terence Kern said the state constitution's definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman “violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution .” “Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed,” he wrote. In 2004, more than 75 percent of state voters approved Oklahoma Question 711 , which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, barred the state from recognizing same-sex “marriages” contracted in other states, and made issuing a marriage

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

Same Sex Marriage (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) May 24, 2012 ( PublicDiscourse.com ) - The president has recently received a  good deal of credit  from liberal commentators for having come out clearly in support of same-sex marriage . Having once opposed it, and having more recently said that his position was evolving, he has now said that he is in favor of it. The credit he is getting for this supposedly brave stand is undeserved, however, because the president’s position is still, on a close examination, very muddled. It is sufficiently inconsistent to lead one to suspect that it arises from a deep confusion or, alternatively, an equally deep cynicism about the principles at stake. These contradictions are readily apparent to anyone who takes the time to read the full  transcript  of the president’s interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts, in which he made national news by announcing his new position and discussed the reasons for it at length. To begin with, it is noteworthy