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

“I think the average Christian has no clue about this freight train that’s coming.” Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, said that the homosexual agenda is the most powerful force in society today. “It’s the most powerful special interest on the side of the law that’s not on the side of God,” LaBarbera says that a lot of Christians just kowtow to the formidable group — perhaps because they don’t want to create a ruckus or maybe their pastor doesn’t preach on the issue of homosexuality. LaBarbera has organized a rally in front of the Supreme Court today to protest the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, on the fourth anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling to “redefine” marriage and legalize same-sex marriage. It’s God’s Truth LaBarbera’s goal? To overturn the ruling in 2015’s Obergefell. He wants Christians to see the issue as just as important as the right to life movement has been. So far, he’s seen Christians compromise on “gay marriage.” “We c

On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court refused to review a lower court ruling holding that cities may not deprive married same-sex couples the benefits it provides to opposite-sex couples. The court’s decision leaves in place a pro-equality ruling that forbids the government from discriminating against gay people for no good reason. But one judge, Justice John Devine, argued that his court should have taken the case and reversed the lower court’s judgment. His opinion is a wonderful sign that conservative judges are striving to work around Obergefell v. Hodges and affirm the constitutionality of state-sponsored pro marriage push. Devine is clearly no fan of Obergefell, “Marriage is a fundamental right,” Devine wrote. “Spousal benefits are not.” Devine insisted that Obergefell’s affirmation of same-sex couples’ constitutional right to wed does not preclude Texas from discriminating against married, homosexual couples in other ways. Obergefell, the justice argued, was strictly limited t

“It’s going to be an issue.” You may recall those five words that were spoken by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli in the oral arguments phase of  Obergefell v Hodges . Specifically, that sentence was Verrilli’s response to a question from Justice Alito about the tax-exempt status of private religious schools that continued to define marriage traditionally over and against the definition of the government.   Justice Alito made a salient observation: If the Obama administration’s contention was that traditional marriage laws were analogous to racial segregation, wouldn’t schools that defined marriage traditionally be in the same category as those (such as Bob Jones University in the 1990s) who continued to enforce anti-segregation campus policies (and, thus, were ineligible for tax-exempt status)? Verrilli’s response was telling; it signaled a willingness to acknowledge the latent tension in the same-sex marriage debate between the advance of “equality” and the preservatio