GAY TRUTH

Now that the moral revolutionaries are solidly in control, what is to be demanded of Christians who, on the basis of Christian conviction, cannot join the revolution? The demands have now been presented, and they represent unconditional surrender. In a stunningly candid essay from May 2016, Harvard Law School professor Mark Tushnet declared a total liberal victory and chastised his fellow liberals for what he called a “defensive crouch liberal constitutionalism ” that is now outdated. With liberals firmly in control of almost every power base in the culture—most importantly, the federal courts—there is no reason for liberals to play defense, he asserts. Tushnet argued that liberal judges are now in the majority, and he expected that the Supreme Court , given the death of Justice Antonin Scalia , would be unlikely to reverse any liberal decisions handed down by lower courts. Federal judges, Tushnet argued, “no longer have to be worried about reversal by the Supreme Court if the

Same-sex marriage proponents say "marriage has evolved over time," but not in any way to support the changes taking place now. One of the most common reasons given in favor of supporting same-sex marriage is the claim that marriage has evolved over time.  In his majority ruling for the 2015 Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges , Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. That institution — even as confined to opposite-sex relations — has evolved over time. He argues that expanding marriage to include same-sex couples is the next logical evolutionary step. In support of this claim, Kennedy cites how marriage was once viewed as an arrangement and then became a voluntary contract between a man and a woman. And he also notes that the state used to legally consider marriage a male-dominated institution. As a result, he concludes: These and other developments in the institution of marriage over the past centuries we

There appears to be a new trend in academia — invite a guest, bestow an honor and then publicly renege on the honor at the first whiff of controversy. The consequence of this approach is usually public humiliation for the honoree and an even-greater media kerfuffle than caused by announcing the award in the first place. For higher education institutions that pride themselves on “free thought,” it sure increasingly seems that "thought" can be bought by the highest-bidding alumnus who calls to complain. Indeed, the latest instance of higher education’s troubling moral equivocation took place in a rather unexpected locale — the Princeton Theological Seminary. After announcing that the Rev. Timothy Keller would receive the Kuyper Prize for Excellence in Reformed Theology and Public Witness, one of the school's most prestigious lectureships, the seminary received blowback because of Keller’s traditional views on marriage and female ordination. This week, the seminary

Of all the people to speak on the first day of what promises to be a grueling week of hearings, Judge Neil Gorsuch – the man whose confirmation to the US Supreme Court is being deliberated – was notably concise. After thanking his family, his law clerks, and his mentors, he grew emotional talking about his late Uncle Jack, an Episcopal priest, and his childhood in Colorado. “In my childhood it was God and Byron White ,” he said, referencing the former Supreme Court justice whom he clerked for. “A product of the West, [Justice White] modeled for me judicial courage.” Indeed, “God and Byron White” could be a succinct description for the lines of inquiry Republicans and Democrats can be expected to take when the Senate Judiciary Committee begins questioning Judge Gorsuch Tuesday. As the minority, Democrats can't boycott him the way Senate Republicans did with Judge Merrick Garland , nominated by former President Obama. Instead they have tasked themselves with probing for weak sp

Judge Neil Gorsuch is confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice , he would play a decisive role in the demise of immoral sodomy marriage in the United States. The Court held in its 2015 - 1 vote majority -  Obergefell decision that there is a supposed nationwide right of homosexuals couples to marry, by beleiving the constitution is an evolving documents.  But no Supreme Court decision is written in stone. Gorsuch’s statements on the issue in his 2004 Oxford University dissertation for his Doctorate in Philosophy reveal that he thought it obvious that the United States Constitution does not support homosexual marriage. If he still holds this view, he could join forces with other justices to reverse the Court’s protection of this right. This would be a good outcome. In order to understand why Gorsuch’s statements are potentially a great outcome for the dismissing of immoral homosexual marriage we must look closely at the constitution. Gorsuch is critical of this legal doct