GAY TRUTH

English: Anthony Kennedy, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) As many expected, the Supreme Court , by a 5-4 vote, ruled that under the Constitution, “ same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry .” Brushing aside arguments about history and the purpose of marriage, Justice Kennedy , writing for the majority, wrote “No longer may this liberty be denied to them.” This ruling is no surprise. All along, court-watchers knew that it would all come down to what Justice Kennedy thought about the issue. The votes of the other eight justices were never really in doubt. And it was obvious that Justice Kennedy, as the author of Planned Parenthood ’s infamous “mystery passage,” would have trouble excluding same-sex marriage from “the right to define one’s own concept of existence.” Justice Kennedy’s opinion, along with the four dissenting opinions, will be dissected and analyzed for some time. For now, though, I’d like to ta

MONTGOMERY, AL , March 5, 2015 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) -- Alabama’s high court has upheld the state’s definition of marriage and ordered a halt to marriage licenses for homosexual couples in the state, while also criticizing its federal counterpart for striking down DOMA. The Alabama Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that “nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides” state judges’ duty to administer state law. The all-Republican court also  said  the federal district court had employed a “judicial sleight of hand” in “conferring fundamental-right status upon a concept of marriage divorced from its traditional understanding.” “Throughout the entirety of its history, Alabama has chosen the traditional definition of marriage,” the ruling said. “That fact does not change simply because the new definition of marriage has gained ascendancy in certain quarters of the country, even if one of those quarters is the federal judiciary.” The ruling is significant in making Alaba

As judges country-wide are invalidating state marriage protection amendments, a new poll out of Ohio shows that not everyone is thrilled with the march toward a wholesale redefinition of marriage – in fact, the majority of Ohioans oppose making same-sex “marriage” legal. Homosexual activists are currently gathering signatures for a petition to repeal the state’s marriage protection amendment , which was passed by 62 percent of voters in 2004 and constitutionally defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.  But although the petition has already garnered more than 650,000 votes – far more than the 385,000 needed to appear on the ballot this year – sponsors of the effort have opted not to move forward with the initiative process because they’re worried they don’t have the votes. According to a recent Columbus Dispatch poll, 46 percent of Ohioans oppose the proposed repeal of the state’s marriage protection amendment, compared to just 43 percent who support it. 

United States Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Have you ever heard of the 1972  U.S. Supreme Court decision in a case called  Baker v. Nelson ? If so, you are probably a lawyer, or (like me) a person who regularly reads briefs and court decisions on the issue of redefining “marriage” to include homosexual couples. If you have never heard of this case, you can be forgiven — even if you regularly read news stories about the movement for the same-sex redefinition of marriage . However,  Baker v. Nelson  is an important precedent on this issue. It was the very first case in which anyone ever asserted that the Constitution of the United States protects the right to legally “marry” a person of the same sex. In  Baker , a male couple sued a county clerk in Minnesota for denying them a marriage license in May 1970. The case made its way to the Supreme Court of Minnesota — which, on October 15, 1971, issued a ruling declaring that the state’s marriage law did not

May 22, 2014 ( FRC ) - Federal judges seem to have entered into an echo chamber of political correctness in their recent rulings in support of the homosexual redefinition of marriage. They ignore or deny obvious truths (like the importance of procreation to the natural definition of marriage), while dogmatically asserting as true things which are either blatantly false or inherently unknowable. The May 19, 2014 decision by U. S. District Court Judge Michael J. McShane ( Geiger v. Kitzhaber ), striking down Oregon ’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, was yet another example. I will not bother going through his decision point by point to refute it, since it varies little from the similar decisions handed down by other judges in recent months. Those interested in why these judges have it wrong should refer to the recent  FRC paper ,  Marriage on Trial: State Laws Defining Marriage as the Union of One Man and One Woman Are Valid under

LITTLE ROCK, AR ,  – County clerks in Arkansas are refusing to issue marriage licenses and the state attorney general has vowed to appeal after a Pulaski County judge ruled the state’s 17-year-old ban on same-sex “marriage” unconstitutional. In a 13-page ruling, Judge Christopher Piazza  said  Arkansas’ constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. “The difference between opposite-sex and same-sex families is within the privacy of their homes,” wrote Piazza. While Piazza said he was “not unmindful of the criticism that judges should not be super legislators,” he argued that the issue was sufficiently important to overturn the will of the majority in the defense of the homosexual minority, and compared their plight to that of blacks affected by institutional racism during the last century. “The issue at hand is the fundamental right to marry being denied to an unpopular minori

ATLANTA, GA , March 17, 2014 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) – A federal judge on Friday issued an injunction temporarily blocking enforcement of Tennessee’s constitutional ban on same-sex “marriage,” noting in her decision that she believes laws defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman will soon be nothing more than historical “footnotes.” “At this point, all signs indicate that, in the eyes of the United States Constitution , [same-sex] marriages will be placed on an equal footing with those of heterosexual couples and that proscriptions against same-sex marriage will soon become a footnote in the annals of American history,” wrote Judge Aleta Trauger .  Trauger’s order means that the state must recognize – at least for now – the “marriages” of three homosexual couples who married in states where the practice is legal and have sued to overturn the 2006 ban.  The order currently applies only to those directly involved in the case. Republican Gov. Bill Haslam’