GAY TRUTH

WASHINGTON, D.C. , September 3, 2013 ( LifeSiteNews ) – After the U.S. Supreme Court ’s June decision striking down key portions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had previously banned federal recognition of same-sex “ marriages ,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Saturday became the first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex “wedding.” Prior to June’s ruling, Ginsburg, now 80, had told  The New Yorker  magazine that while she would be open to officiating at gay nuptials, she had never been asked to do so, despite the fact that same-sex “marriage” has been legal in Washington, D.C. since 2009. "I don't think anybody's asking us, because of [the DOMA] cases," she told the magazine at the time. "No one in the gay-rights movement wants to risk having any member of the court be criticized or asked to recuse. So I think that's the reason no one has asked me." Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg But with the DOMA and Pro

US President Barack Obama A Bigot?  Fourteen months ago, President Obama was a bigot. Now he is simply wrong. That's what you have to believe to agree with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy 's majority opinion for the Supreme Court on the Defense of Marriage Act. Kennedy writes that the only reason Congress had for passing DOMA - which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law - was to "disparage," "injure," "degrade," "demean" and "humiliate" gay and lesbian Americans . So in 2008 when the American people elected a president opposed to redefining marriage, they elected a bigot. Got it? When President Obama "evolved" on the issue just over a year ago, he insisted that the debate about marriage was legitimate one. He said there are people of goodwill on both sides. Supporters of marriage as we've always understood it (a male-female union) "are not coming at it fro

Days from now, our country will be celebrating an America that its founders would barely recognize. Freedom, Alexis de Tocqueville once said, requires virtue. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that the pillars of both are under attack. By a single vote, five unelected justices determined that they know better than God and struck at the heart of marriage in America. It was a powerful rebuke of a law FRC helped develop, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -- but not the final blow. To the disappointment of many, this was not the sweeping nationwide redefinition of marriage that homosexual activists were hoping for. Instead, the Court's majority decided that the federal law is unconstitutional in states where same-sex "marriage" is legal. There, couples will have full access to the 1,100 federal benefits, rights, and protections that naturally married spouses enjoy. While it wasn't a complete dismantling of marriage, the Court's ruling paves

The Supreme Court has issued a ruling that could lead to the resumption of same-sex “marriages” in the state of California after a thin majority of justices held that the state's voters had no legal standing to challenge a court decision striking down Proposition 8 . Under federal law, they said, the people of a state have no legal recourse if a popular initiative is struck down by judicial decree. After a vigorous debate, the voters of California passed Proposition 8 in November 2008 by a margin of 52-48. After a lower court threw out that the voter-supported constitutional amendment – which defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman – Governor Jerry Brown , then the state's attorney general, as well as other elected officials refused to appeal the decision. Instead, a coalition of voters and private citizens cited their right to defend the measure in court. Under state law, they argued, the voters may defend such a law in court, if their elect

WASHINGTON, D.C. , March 27, 2013 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) – The legislative impact of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) came under heavy fire during oral arguments before the Supreme Court today, with enough justices questioning its effect to signal it may be struck down on states' rights grounds. Meanwhile, the court's conservative wing wondered if the “new regime” had instituted a “new world” of jurisprudence, slamming what is regarded as the Obama administration's hypocritical stance on the law. “I'm certainly concerned when you have potentially five justices question the federal Defense of Marriage Act ,” Mat Staver of  Liberty Counsel  told  OneNewsNow.com . “If for some reason the court had five justices vote to strike down Proposition 8 or the federal Defense of Marriage Act under some concoction that it was prohibited by the Constitution, that would have catastrophic effect.” Such a decision, he warned, would put the court “on a direct collision cou

Image via Wikipedia WASHINGTON, January 12, 2012 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) - Christian advocates are celebrating following a Supreme Court ruling Wednesday unanimously supporting the right of a church to select its own ministers, known as the “ministerial exception,” denying the Obama administration ’s argument that no such protection actually existed. Under the First Amendment , the high court ruled, churches are entitled to protection for their employment practices that applies beyond the head of a religious congregation to others, such as teachers, who are viewed as also carrying the message of the church. The court thus dismissed a wrongful termination suit brought against a church by a former teacher, who complained of disability discrimination to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . Conservative analysts note that Obama administration lawyers went farther than anti-religion interest groups weighing in on the case: Ed Whelan of National Review   said  the administrat