GAY TRUTH

In a devastating 6-3 ruling on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt religious liberty a brutal blow and handed the LGBT movement a victory that stunned even them by deciding that both “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Antonin Scalia’s replacement Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, and John Roberts joined him. President Donald Trump called it a “very powerful decision,” and most of the top GOP senators greeted the ruling with a collective shrug. Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley offered criticism, but for the rest, it appears that Rod Dreher has been correct in his constant warnings that much of the Republican Party is disinterested in doing the tough work necessary to protect religious liberty. To discuss the implications of the ruling, I contacted Dr. Darel E. Paul, professor of political science at Williams College and author of the essential book  From Tolerance to Equality: How the Elites Brought America to

U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) To many people it will seem obvious that the US Constitution , which says nothing at all about homosexual marriage , cannot be claimed to support any “right” to homosexual marriage. The US Supreme Court has not ruled on this issue, but several state courts have issued rulings. Most notably the Massachusetts, Connecticut,45 and Iowa supreme courts have now “found” a right to same-sex marriage in state constitutions that contained absolutely no mention at all of homosexual marriage. The California Supreme Court also created a “right” to same-sex marriage, but that decision was overturned when the voters in November 2008 passed Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that restored marriage as the union between one man and one woman. How could various courts “discover” same-sex “marriage” in their state constitutions? Or how could it ever be decreed by any federal court or by the US Supreme Court? Only if it were invented by

Image via Wikipedia A group of broadcast networks led by Fox is challenging the constitutionality of the federal government’s decency standards for television broadcast, including the use of expletives and nudity. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will be defending its decency standards before the U.S. Supreme Court after the Second Circuit , in a July 2010 case involving the use of expletives in two Fox TV awards shows, ruled that the standards were too vague. The same court upheld the ruling in a separate case in January, striking down the FCC’s fine against a group of ABC stations that broadcast an actress’ nudity in an episode of NYPD Blue in 2003. Broadcasters will argue that the current standards violate their Fi Image via Wikipedia rst Amendment rights . “ Prime-time television has already degraded. Removing the current decency standards would allow prime-time TV to slide into a cinematic cesspool,” said Liberty Counsel founder Mathew D. Staver , whose group fil