GAY TRUTH

A cancer victim who sued the state of Tennessee for the "right" to have doctors kill him says the U.S. Supreme Court's decision constitutionalizing homosexual "marriage" expands individual rights so as to legalize assisted suicide . Former Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Jay Hooker , who is terminally ill, wants to be put to death. A Tennessee judge said no. Hooker's lawyer argued that since   Obergefell v Hodges   was decided, that's unconstitutional.  Hooker, 84, went to court in Nashville to win the "right" to die by assisted suicide. Three doctors said they were willing to prescribe a deadly dosage of painkillers for him, but they wanted to be sure they wouldn't be put in jail for killing him. Hooker's attorney, Hal Hardin, sought to prove that since the U.S. Supreme Court constitutionally expanded the definition of a fundamental right to include gay "marriage," the right to privacy is constitutional

FRONT ROYAL , Virginia , ( LifeSiteNews ) – The Republican club at Christendom College , Virginia's renowned orthodox Catholic college, has left the national and state College Republicans over a debate surrounding sexual orientation. On February 1, the Christendom College Republicans announced they had withdrawn from the College Republican National Committee (CRNC) and the College Republican Federation of Virginia (CRFV) after the CRFV voted overwhelmingly to add sexual orientation as a protected class to the chapter's constitution. "This proposed amendment to the CRFV Constitution institutionalizes the values that the Republican Party stands for: being inclusive of all individuals who believe in the conservative principles of the Republican Party," said a CRFV press release dated December 14, 2015. "The vote to announce this potential amendment was unanimously supported by all voting members of the CRFV Executive Board and any College Republican chap

I have said that the proponents of the idea that a man can feasibly marry another man call their desire a trivial variation from a statistical norm, like being left-handed. I have shown that on the face of it that cannot be so, because the left-hander uses his hand as a hand, just as the right-hander uses his. But now suppose that the proponent concedes the point. “All right, I grant that it is not the same at all. But so what? We are just like everybody else in all important respects.” The first answer to that is that the proponent is begging the question. On the one hand he wants us to treat this particular desire as so important, so determinative of who he is, that to refrain from giving it our blessing, from playing along with it, from recognizing it in law, is to affront his very humanity.  Yet almost in the same breath he tells us that it is trivial, like having a taste for blondes rather than brunettes. But these are the claims precisely under contention. We deny that the