GAY TRUTH

Republican-appointed Justices John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch joined the U.S. Supreme Court’s liberals Monday in ruling that longstanding anti-discrimination law should be reinterpreted to cover homosexuality and gender confusion, in a case that will have drastic ramifications on religious liberty and force Americans to adopt a “fluid” understanding of biological sex in scores of policies.  Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s first addition to the nation’s highest court, wrote the majority opinion for the 6-3 ruling, which concluded that “sex discrimination” in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be interpreted to mean sexual orientation and gender identity, in addition to its original biological meaning. The case consolidated several suits into one, including that of a Christian funeral home that fired a male employee who insisted on dressing as a woman on the job; a skydiving instructor who was fired after informing a customer he was gay; and a county child welfare servi

Official 2005 photo of Chief Justice John G. Roberts (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) “Senator Wong was wrong in her declaration to the Labor national conference that ‘there is nothing to fear from equality’”, said Dr David van Gend, President of the Australian Marriage Forum. “There is always something to fear when the self-interest of the powerful crushes the rights of the weak, and that is what so-called “marriage equality” does. “ Marriage equality ” is a selfish adult-centred movement that tramples on the rights and needs of the child, and that is an abuse of power: · In the name of adult “equality” it destroys the rights of children to have both a mother and a father in their life - which is a profound injustice. · In the name of “equal love” between two men it destroys the more primal love between a mother and baby – and that is an unloving act. · In the name of “ anti-discrimination ” it discriminates against certain children who will be denied their biolog

English: Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) As one of the four justices that dissented from today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling declaring that all 50 states must legalize same-sex “marriage, Justice Antonin Scalia issued a sharp rebuke of his colleagues’ arrogance, warning that “pride goeth before a fall.” “The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic,” he wrote. “It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the court to do so.” Scalia was speaking of his disapproval of five black-robed justices issuing an edict that he opined was “highly unrepresentative” of the nation and “hardly a cross-section of America .” “Today’s decree says that my ruler, and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine

photograph of the justices, cropped to show Justice Scalia (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) It is disappointingly predictable that the media in Australia is obsessed by a slim majority activist US Supreme Court decision. At the same time there have been no reports of  an elected representative vote in another country of 110-26 against same-sex marriage. While we have heard much about the US Supreme Court's extraordinary ruling that a right to marry someone of the same sex has – somehow – always been constitutional, there's been hardly any mention about last week's overwhelming vote against gay marriage in the Austrian legislature. Most people in a democracy believe social policy should be determined by the people, not by dubious interpretation by an activist judiciary. The US Supreme Court majority has set a dangerous precedent for the US by asserting that the American people have, since inception, somehow misunderstood their own constitution.  As dissenting Justi

English: Anthony Kennedy, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) As many expected, the Supreme Court , by a 5-4 vote, ruled that under the Constitution, “ same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry .” Brushing aside arguments about history and the purpose of marriage, Justice Kennedy , writing for the majority, wrote “No longer may this liberty be denied to them.” This ruling is no surprise. All along, court-watchers knew that it would all come down to what Justice Kennedy thought about the issue. The votes of the other eight justices were never really in doubt. And it was obvious that Justice Kennedy, as the author of Planned Parenthood ’s infamous “mystery passage,” would have trouble excluding same-sex marriage from “the right to define one’s own concept of existence.” Justice Kennedy’s opinion, along with the four dissenting opinions, will be dissected and analyzed for some time. For now, though, I’d like to ta

U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that the state of Virginia does not have to begin sanctioning same-sex “marriages.” The stay comes after a panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to  strike down the state's constitutional marriage protection amendment . The appeals court refused to grant a stay until the Supreme Court decided the case, a decision that would have forced Virginia clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples  starting this week . However, one such clerk, Michele B. McQuigg , petitioned Chief Justice John Roberts to grant a stay. The order was allowed without dissent. “This is another indication that the rush to judgment declaring marriage to be unconstitutional is not only premature, but incorrect,” said Brian Brown, president of the  National Organization for Marriage . “The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that states have the right to define marri

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