GAY TRUTH

WASHINGTON, D.C. , March 27, 2013 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) – The legislative impact of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) came under heavy fire during oral arguments before the Supreme Court today, with enough justices questioning its effect to signal it may be struck down on states' rights grounds. Meanwhile, the court's conservative wing wondered if the “new regime” had instituted a “new world” of jurisprudence, slamming what is regarded as the Obama administration's hypocritical stance on the law. “I'm certainly concerned when you have potentially five justices question the federal Defense of Marriage Act ,” Mat Staver of  Liberty Counsel  told  OneNewsNow.com . “If for some reason the court had five justices vote to strike down Proposition 8 or the federal Defense of Marriage Act under some concoction that it was prohibited by the Constitution, that would have catastrophic effect.” Such a decision, he warned, would put the court “on a direct collision cou...

Image via Wikipedia For two years now, I’ve warned that the drive for so-called “gay marriage” was the greatest threat to religious liberty we’ve ever faced. But I think I may have underestimated the threat, because now I fear the democratic process and the rule of law are endangered as well. It was bad enough when the President and the Attorney General declared the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and would not defend the law of the land in court. Never mind that the DOMA was signed by President Clinton in 1996 after the Senate passed it 85-15 and the House by a margin of 342 to 66! But after the House of Representatives hired the law firm of King and Spalding to represent DOMA in court (since the executive branch wouldn’t), something not-so-funny happened. Gay-rights groups threatened King and Spalding and its commercial clients with boycotts. In an ethically questionable action, at least under the canon of legal ethics, King and Spalding caved and told the House...

Image via Wikipedia The defense of the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] got a little more complicated yesterday as the law firm that the House of Representatives had hired to defend the law withdrew from the case.  As The New York Times stated bluntly, the firm dropped the case “amid pressure from gay rights groups.” The Atlanta-based firm, King & Spalding , had agreed to take the case, and one of its lawyers, Paul D. Clement , was to lead the legal effort to defend the constitutionality of DOMA, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman in terms of federal recognition. The law also prevents any state from being forced to grant legal recognition to a same-sex marriage performed in another state. Robert D. Hays, Jr., chairman of King & Spalding, released a statement in which he said: “In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate. … Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occur...