GAY TRUTH

When Rachel Colvin, a teacher at Ballarat Christian College, refused to sign a new statement of faith that had been strengthened following the same-sex marriage plebiscite, she set in train an anti-discrimination case which captures the issues at the heart of Australia’s religious discrimination debate. She should have stood down immediately. But she aligned herself with people who are clearly anti-God and anti-scripture while still claiming to be a Christian.  The school’s new statement says  “God designed the two genders, male and female, for the purpose of joy and procreation within the sole relationship of marriage. So marriage can only be between a male and a female, and upon this foundation alone should children be conceived and families formed.”  Although a very liberal Christian, Colvin disagreed. She should have withdrawn and walked away instead she chose to go with the immoral culture and not scripture and embarrass a Christian school. Lovely. Rachel Colvin cla

South Carolina legislators have proposed a bill that calls homosexual “marriage” a “parody” of “natural” marriage between a man and a woman.  The “ Marriage and Constitution Restoration Act ” (H. 4949) introduced earlier this month clarifies that marriage is between one man and one woman, and defines same-sex arrangements, whether legally solemnized or not, “parody marriage.” “‘Marriage’ means a union of one man and one woman,” the Act reads. “‘Parody marriage’ means any form of marriage that does not involve one man and one woman.” The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “parody” as “a feeble or ridiculous imitation.” Six Republicans sponsored the Act, which uses Constitutional arguments to “prohibit the state from respecting, endorsing, or recognizing any parody marriage policy.” The preamble of the proposed amendment to South Carolina’s Constitution states that it is scientifically “unsettled” if homosexuality is “immutable or genetic,” and therefore sexual orienta

Immoral homosexual marriage has been pushed onto all USA citizens for almost two years with a slim one- vote majority, but normal people are looking to fight this unbalanced  U.S. Supreme Court ruling through a lawsuit challenging Houston 's benefits for immoral homosexual couples. This is a wonderful thing! Almost two years after immoral homosexual marriage was legalized and forced onto all US citizens, Texas Republicans are correctly fighting this unjust immoral debauched ruling. The Texas Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on Wednesday in a Houston case challenging the city’s benefits policy for married same-sex couples. Though such policies have been in place since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges , Texas conservatives are betting the Houston case opens up a path to relitigate the high court’s decision. “This particular opinion will go to the U.S. Supreme Court and is a potential vehicle for overturning Obergefell