GAY TRUTH

English: Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court justice (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a lower court's order forcing the state of Kansas to begin recognizing same-sex “marriages” today. Justice  Sonia Sotomayor , who handles emergency appeals, issued the surprising order  at 5:58 p.m. Monday evening. The order may be quite temporary, as it states the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Kansas, which brought the lawsuit, must respond by 4 p.m. Central time today. The confusion over the duration of the order mirrors the bewildering legal landscape in the state. The state Supreme Court has instructed officials in all 105 counties not to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples pending the outcome of a case that is still ongoing. After the  U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear appeals cases from states over judicial decisions redefining marriage  on October 6, a lesbian couple in Johnson County known as “Kelli and Ange

U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Yesterday's emergency ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court not only ended a record run of nearly 1,000 marriages in Utah . The apparently unanimous decision to temporarily restore Utah's state law banning same-sex marriages suggests this case could be the legal battle both sides of the debate have been waiting for . In June, the Supreme Court managed to rule on two separate cases involving same-sex marriage without ruling on the merits of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Now court watchers are assessing whether the unusually straightforward legal case in Utah likely makes it , as NPR suggests , "the case that forces the high court to wrestle [directly] with the big issue." Past cases have involved multiple legal questions or technical issues that have allowed courts to issue rulings without addressing the merits of the core issue. Kitchen v. Herbert has no technical issues and no legal q

Opponents of same-sex marriage resist it because it amounts to redefining marriage, but also because it  will invite future redefinitions . If we embrace same-sex marriage, they argue, society will have surrendered any reasonable grounds on which to continue forbidding polygamy , for example. In truth, proponents of same-sex marriage have never offered a very good response to this concern. This problem was highlighted at the Supreme Court last month in oral argument over California’s Proposition 8 , the state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Surprisingly, the polygamy problem that same-sex marriage presents was raised by an Obama appointee, the liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson to pose the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right in the way proponents of same-sex marriage contend, “what state restrictions could ever exist,” for example, “wi

 ( Family Research Council ) - The mainstream media would have you believe that the decision to redefine marriage for the benefit of homosexual couples has already been made. Time  magazine ran a cover story under the title,  “How Gay Marriage Won” —featuring cover photos of a male couple kissing or a female couple kissing—your choice. Pollsters claim that a majority of Americans now support legalizing same-sex “marriage,” and that among young people, that majority is overwhelming. Democratic senators (and a couple of Republicans) who previously opposed redefining marriage have begun falling like dominoes. Same-sex “marriage” is “inevitable,” we are told—it is only a matter of time. Do not believe it. In a country where 41 out of 50 states still define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and voters in a majority, 30 have placed that definition in their state constitutions; it can only be wishful thinking for the advocates of marriage redefinition to claim that it