GAY TRUTH

While I am disappointed that the “Respect for Marriage Act” (RFMA) passed in the U.S. Congress, I am convinced that this bill will be the undoing of the Supreme Court’s 2015 same-sex marriage opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges. We fought hard to stop HR 8404, and we came very close to killing the bill thanks to so many citizens engaged in preserving religious freedom in America. To them, I would say, “Don’t get discouraged.” Now we move to the next strategy, in which I have a high level of confidence. The advocates of RFMA may celebrate today, but that celebration will not last. Lawmakers and LGBTQ advocates have unwittingly created the perfect scenario to fix the mess the High Court originally created. Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, has no constitutional foundation. Overturning Obergefell would return the regulation and definition of marriage to the States as it was throughout our history up till the Court issued its flawed opinion in June 2015. Like abortion, many states would return to

The Abbott government got what it bargained for in having the ACT homosexual marriage law overturned. The High Court said that the Federal Parliament can pass such a law. This has been known all along. Contention had surrounded whether the Federal Parliament could enact a same-sex marriage law . The question hinged on the word ''marriage'' in section 51 of the constitution, which defined the scope of federal power in the area. The meaning to be given to ''marriage'' exposed two very different ways of interpreting the constitution. On the one hand, the High Court could limit ''marriage'' to being between a man and woman by taking an originalist perspective, that is, by reading the constitution according to the intentions of its framers. Alternatively, the court might take a more liberal approach by allowing the word to evolve. Opponents of homosexual marriage made much of this lingering constitutional uncertainty. Lawyers for the Pres

English: Tony Abbott in 2010. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Prime Minister Tony Abbott says same-sex couples who married in the ACT knew there was a possibility their marriages would be annulled. Around 30 same-sex couples knowing that this legislation was faulty based on lies from ACT Labor and Greens politicians, were married in Canberra in the five-day window before the ACT's same-sex marriage law were overturned.  On Thursday, the High Court unanimously ruled that the ACT's laws were inconsistent with the Federal Marriage Act and were therefore unconstitutional. The ruling is a victory for the Commonwealth , the nation, thinking people, churches, charities, businesses, logic, morality, children, families and millions of ordinary Australians.  Mr Abbott says his position on the issue has not changed and he remains opposed to gay marriage . At least we have a strong leader, not like Mr Turnbull who is playing to appease both sides of the fence. Abbott correctly

Homosexual couples who rashly went ahead and wed last weekend in the ACT, and sought to influence both public opinion and the High Court will have their marriages annulled after the High Court ruled against the laws . Today the High Court in Canberra unanimously ruled that the laws were inconsistent with the Federal Marriage Act, and were therefore unconstitutional. The ruling is a victory for the Commonwealth , for the majority of ordinary thinking Australians who believe marriage is between a man and a woman, for Churches, for all religious organizations, for all church schools, church hospitals and other religious non-profit organizations and just ordinary people. The ACT tried to argue that its laws could sit beside the federal legislation because it had defined a different type of marriage between same-sex couples . However, the unintended consequences of this proposal was obvious but homosexual politicians who are zealots could not see they were setting up more problems for

Nine Labor and Green Politicians are being allowed to change the definition of marriage for the rest of the nation? Outrageous!  A West Australian Labor MP plans to be among the first to marry his homosexual partner when homosexual marriage becomes legal in the Australian Capital Territory tomorrow. The MLC Stephen Dawson intends to marry his partner of 10 years, Dennis, in a small ceremony in the ACT at one minute past midnight. The new immoral laws being forced on Australia by nine politicians (Labor and Greens) allowing homosexuals to marry will be short-lived as they face a huge challenge in the High Court . The huge challenges is that these immoral relationships will not be recognized in different states on a whole range of issues, including financial, welfare, inheritance, death and other issues that only federal marriages can claim. Mr Dawson wants to sends a message to the community. In effect, he is saying, whether you like it or not we will force homosexual

Rainbow flag. Symbol of immoral homosexual sinful pride. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) The High Court's two-day hearing of the Commonwealth 's case against the ACT government 's homosexual marriage law has begun. The landmark case before the full High Court bench is expected to decide whether or not the ACT has enacted a law that is in conflict with the federal marriage act and the federal family law act . The case is the first real test of whether or not states and territories can legislate for homosexual marriage. The logic that the ACT has presented would also allow in the future other creative relationship that mimic heterosexual marriage, such as bigamy.  Already the transcript of the hearing clearly portrays the mess that will be created if one territory is permitted to make it own laws like this. This was argued by incoherent laws applying in different states when living in a state that does not have the ACT homosexual law. The divorce history portrays this co