Homosexual marriage is gaining some strange allies. “Christians” who reject what the Bible says on the subject.
All of a sudden, it is pedal-to-the-metal, full-speed-ahead, no-holds-barred promotion of homosexuality everywhere you turn. It is as if someone said, okay, now is the time to launch our all out assault on traditional principles and values; while crushing all opposition.
I can not even enjoy a non-political Saturday watching do-it-yourself home improvement TV channels without almost every show aggressively promoting homosexuality. Homosexuals are only slightly over 2% of the population. And yet, their representation on TV shows is dramatically disproportionate to their numbers. Clearly, the networks have become political activists promoting the homosexual agenda.
My wife can not watch her bridal gown and pregnancy TV shows without the producers featuring same sex couples. We protest by changing the channel.
What really frosts me and is super scary is the Left’s ever-increasing strong-arm tactics, forcing us to agree with their sin. I thought, good grief, next they will be teaching our kids, “Great Lesbians in History.” Then, I thought, oh my gosh, they are already doing that celebrating Gay Pride Month beginning in elementary school.
Think about that folks. Regardless of your religious beliefs or opinion, the Left has said screw you, we’re teaching your child that homosexuality is a good thing and something they should explore. Period.
Leftists (Democrats) are passing legislation to make it illegal to assist anyone unhappy with their sexual attractions to change. Isn’t that outrageous? While portraying themselves as victims who claim to only seek tolerance, Leftists are insidiously working to have their government enforcers arrest pastors, counselors and parents who help their sexually confused kids.
Folks, we are talking Sodom and Gomorrah all over again; homosexuality aggressively forced upon us.
Before you call me crazy, consider this. For 200 years marriage was defined as between one man and one woman. Today, such thinking is considered nutty, extreme and hateful in the mainstream media, numerous political and social circles. Opposing their so-called “mainstream” consensus on this issue will cost you your livelihood and even jail-time.
My Christian minister dad called me to say that a family member gave him a heads up that my daughter’s wedding pictures are posted on Facebook. My daughter married a woman. She wanted me to attend the wedding. I explained that while I love her and am fond of her partner, my faith does not allow me to bless their union by attending their wedding.
Her mom and I divorced when she was around 7 years old. My daughter and I were estranged until five years ago. I cherish our new found relationship. So, I was happy when my daughter said she loves me and understands my reason for not attending her wedding.
At 87 with over 50 years as a pastor, Dad remains as cool and wise as ever. He adamantly advised me to shower my daughter and her partner with love. Dad said as Christians, love is our greatest weapon.
Now do not get me wrong. Far too many Christians today believe “love” means co-signing sin; passively allowing the Left’s relentless implementation of their anti-God agenda to go unchallenged. That is not what Dad meant, nor is it his definition of “loving them.” He suggests that I behave according to Romans 12:9 “Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.”
I will not be manipulated by the Left’s absurd claim that loving parenting means rubber-stamping all of your child’s life choices. When I received my daughter’s wedding invitation in the mail, Dad advised me not to attend and explain why to my daughter. Dad was confident that she would understand.
In response to my daughter’s wedding pictures on Facebook, my millennial nephew and nieces congratulated her. Despite their Christian upbringing, liberal public school indoctrination and mainstream media have shaped their opinions.
Before ending our phone call (I’m in Florida, Dad is in Maryland), Dad instructed me to read Exodus 20: 1-6 and Deuteronomy 5: 1-10. These scriptures promise that if you are faithful and love God, He will bless your family for generations. Praise God. That was Dad’s way of comforting and assuring me that God has everything under control.
I do not pray for God to turn my daughter straight. I pray that she and her partner will come to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Meanwhile, without approving their lifestyle, I will love them both to death.
RELATED ARTICLE: Gay Marriage Goal Is ‘To Wipe Out the Christian Religion’
The Supreme Court is poised to make blasphemy part of our national laws.
RELATED ARTICLE: The infallible in pursuit of the inedible
NBC News cites a poll: “Majority Wants Supreme Court to OK Same sex Marriage.” Why the clamor to tell Supreme Court what to do? When has the majority ever been on the right side morally? Favor for such unions was strong among the young (73%) while opposition came from 68% conservatives or seniors opposed it. Notably absent was the “In-God-We-Trust” views of Christians. Why not poll them?
The media eagerly publish secularizing reports by scientists suggesting millions or billions of years for earth’s development, while they are silent on our Christian heritage and the #1 best-selling book of all times with its #1 personage who divided history into BC and AD.
Speaking of end-times, Christ said it would be “as the days of Lot” when destruction fell on the day Lot left Sodom. From the 1st and 2nd chapters of the Bible we see that God blessed the unions of male and female—He even performed the first wedding!
With the world in a crisis over many issues, this is not a good time for social experiment that goes against what our parents taught us. Can’t we see that our educational system is failing when it’s mostly the young who favor same-sex marriage while those who are older (and maybe know better) oppose it?
It’s time for Christians to weigh in on this issue. The National Day of Prayer is tomorrow. When Elijah prayed, judgment fell on Israel, and the nation turned back to God. God says He doesn’t change. What’s wrong with us? Can’t we turn the TV off and get serious about the alternate lifestyles of sin that TV encourages? Or is sin too bad a word to use for our secular society where everything else goes?
Tomorrow on our National Day of Prayer, why not tell God, Hey—we’re in a mess and unless you do something, we are lost. Please do whatever You see as needful—Thank You!
Dr. Judith Reisman, Director of the Liberty Center for Child Protection, is joining pro-family leaders from across the country in opposing the newest fad, experimental “marriage”. The brief filed on behalf of Dr. Reisman and written by Liberty Counsel exposes the 67-year history of the “sexual revolution” spawned by a sexual psychopathic bi-homosexual pederastic sadomasochist, Dr. Alfred Kinsey (source Kinsey Institute). His famous sex “research” claiming 10% to 37% of men were/are homosexual, permeates today’s marriage debate.
Yet his subjects included 1,400 sex offenders, including criminals, pedophiles and pederasts who provided the data base on their sexual abuse of infants and children for Kinsey (source Kinsey Institute).
Thus the current notion that children are unharmed by sex with adults since they are sexual from birth published in Kinsey’s books on sexual behavior in tables below.
Allegedly timing “orgasms” but actually torture, as confirmed by Kinsey descriptions of said “orgasms”. Kinsey’s team continues to tout their finding that children are sexual from birth, proudly displaying a photograph donated to the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University. Dr. Reisman’s brief explains how this data chronicling the abuse of children such as the baby pictured above, and information provided by sex offenders, criminals and prostitutes is the basis for decades of social change, including the present request for the Supreme Court to dismantle natural marriage.
Dr. Reisman and Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel which wrote the brief, explain the genesis of the attack on marriage in a new documentary produced by Janet Porter entitled, “Light Wins: How to Overcome the Criminalization of Christianity.”
Mrs. Porter will be among the pro-family leaders gathering at the Supreme Court on the eve of the Court’s oral arguments on the marriage issue to represent the majority of Americans who want their voices to be heard and respected and the breakdown of the Judeo-Christian foundation of the country to stop.
RELATED ARTICLE: AP Poll: Religious freedom trumps gay rights
EDITORS NOTE: To learn more about the cultural impact of Alfred Kinsey click here.
“As the debate over same-sex marriage heats up across the country, advocates for traditional marriage gathered in the nation’s capitol to make their voices heard. With the U.S. Supreme Court taking on the issue in a landmark gay marriage case in the coming weeks, The Daily Signal asked attendees of the 2015 March for Marriage—and some protesting the event—what’s next,” writes Alex Anderson and Kelsey Harkness for The Daily Signal.
Alex Anderson is a news producer for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Alex.
Kelsey Harkness is a news producer at The Daily Signal. Send an email to Kelsey.
On April 28 the US Supreme Court case will hear oral arguments for the case that will essentially decide whether “gay marriage” is a previously unknown “fundamental right” enshrined in the US Constitution, similar to the Court’s 1973 abortion ruling.
What was once a fringe, unthinkable idea is now on the verge of being imposed on the entire nation.
What is happening? Here are ten things to know about this case:
1. How we got to this point
The popular sentiment against “gay marriage” in the United States has been overwhelmingly one-sided at the ballot box. Since 1998, 30 states have passed constitutional amendments banning it. Some of these amendments were passed by huge margins (as high as 80%). This appeared to everyone to be an insurmountable obstacle to the “gay marriage” movement.
After losing in state after state, the homosexual movement realized that it could never overturn these amendments legitimately. In very blue states, using massive amounts of money, they were able to successfully lobby legislatures and sway elections. But the amendments across the country were a problem.
So they decided to focus on perfecting the strategy that worked in Massachusetts in 2003: using the courts and hand-picked activist judges, along with very shrewd manipulation of the legal process and well-funded legal teams and political strategists. They crafted a plan to get the state amendments declared unconstitutional.
This strategy took advantage of the LGBT lobby’s well-funded propaganda push over the last few decades in law schools, law firms, and judicial chambers, as well as a fresh new generation of radical federal judges appointed by Barack Obama.
Starting with California in 2009, where a homosexual judge overturned the Proposition 8 vote, they soon picked up momentum. Across the country, the various cases began sailing through the state and federal courts largely unimpeded. It was quite frightening for all of us to watch.
Other factors helped keep it going. The almost universal unwillingness of the legal teams on the pro-family side to aggressively confront the other side’s arguments gave them a free pass on what could have been difficult issues to overcome. And a number of pro-gay “marriage” Democrat (and RINO Republican) Governors and Attorneys-General simply refused to properly defend the cases and/or appeal them after losing.
Using both state and federal courts, the LGBT lobby has now gotten activist courts to “overturn” 26 of the 30 state constitutional amendments. (Some of these cases are still being appealed.)
But on November 6, 2014, their string of successes hit a snag, as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Ohio constitutional amendment. However, since this disagreed with the other Federal District Court rulings, it bumped the case up to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it and make a broad decision.
2. How the 14th Amendment is used to push the radical agenda in the courts
In all these cases (as in countless other “progressive” legal challenges over the years) the radicals have used twisted interpretations of the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment to advance their agenda through the courts.
The Fourteenth Amendment says:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The “due process” and the “equal protection” clauses are the hammers used to smash the existing laws and constitutional amendments. Along with that, the LGBT lawyers start with the assumption (which our side does not refute) that “sexual orientation” constitutes a class of citizen (based on an immutable characteristic, etc).
Regarding the “equal protection” argument: They argue that “gays” are not allowed to marry the ones they love, but heterosexuals are. They say that “gays” are thus “demeaned,” made “second class citizens,” and kept “unequal” – and this causes them terrible harm.
They further argue that not recognizing “gay marriages” from other states is a violation of due process because of the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause.
Of course, this is all legal nonsense. The answer to their “equal protection” argument is simple: Under the law, every person can only marry someone of the opposite sex. The marriage laws apply to every person equally. No legal expert we’ve consulted has disagreed with us on that reasoning. And everyone gets the same “due process” under it. Unfortunately, to our knowledge these points are rarely used to buttress our side’s argument.
Furthermore, the “full faith and credit” clause was never meant to be used to alter the meaning of the word marriage (i.e., plural marriages, incestuous marriages, marriages to young children), but only the application to a marriage case (or a divorce, etc.,) where the meaning of the word marriage was commonly agreed upon. It’s pretty simple – unless you’re an activist judge.
3. What this case is specifically meant to decide
The case is officially named Obergefell v. Hodges, which is a consolidation of four “gay marriage” cases previously brought before the Sixth Circuit.
According to the court documents, this case addresses only two specific questions:
1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
On April 28, a total of 90 minutes is allotted for oral argument on question #1, and a total of 60 minutes is allotted for oral argument on question #2. As discussed above, in any normal circumstance this would be a no-brainer.
Not surprisingly, there have been dozens of amicus briefs filed for this case. (You can read them here.) Most of those filed by our side discuss the importance of marriage in society, the historical roots of marriage, how imposing “gay marriage” would divide the country, children needing a father and a mother, etc. None that we’ve seen actually addresses the two questions regarding the Fourteenth Amendment which this case is about. We can only surmise that people are assuming that the Justices are not actually focusing on strict constitutional law but on these unrelated issues.
4. The lawyers arguing this case on April 28
The competition to represent the pro-family side was definitely not as intense as for the “gay marriage side.”
Arguing for the pro-family side: Eric E. Murphy is the current Ohio State Solicitor, who won the appeal before the Sixth Circuit after losing in District Court. John J. Bursch was Michigan State Solicitor from 2011-2013 and has argued eight times before the US Supreme Court. According to news reports, Bursch’s current firm, Warner Norcross & Judd, supports “gay marriage” and has refused to be involved in this case to help him.
Both attorneys have a good reputation for competence.
Eric E. Murphy, State Solicitor
John J. Bursch
Arguing for the homosexual “marriage” side: Alphonse A. Gerhardstein is a prominent civil rights attorney from Cincinnati. Mary Bonauto is the celebrity lesbian attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who won the original Goodridge “gay marriage” case in Massachusetts in 2003. We at MassResistance know Bonauto well. She argued the lawsuit against us (unsuccessfully) in the infamous “Fistgate” case, and we have debated her on television.
We don’t know much about Gerhardstein. In our opinion, Bonauto is not particularly impressive.
Alphonse A. Gerhardstein
Mary L. Bonauto
(Contact information is from Supreme Court filings.)
5. Anticipated problems with our side’s arguments
The other side’s arguments rarely bother dealing with the strict constitutional meaning of the text in question. They are almost exclusively based on the assumption that “sexual orientation” constitutes a legitimate legal “class” of people who are “born that way,” and as such have innate rights as a “class.” The concept of a “class” of people is foreign to the text of the Constitution. But it has nevertheless been accepted by courts for decades and undoubtedly by a number of the Supreme Court Justices.
That concept must be vigorously confronted and debunked. Unfortunately, our lawyers have been afraid to do that. Instead they concede to it and attempt to make a persuasive argument within those absurd boundaries — i.e., every child needs a mother and father, marriage is an institution for procreation, etc. This strategy almost always fails.
Why does our side avoid a strong argument? The answer falls into two categories:
1. Fear of being accused of “animus.” Our lawyers have internalized the idea that any perception of “animus towards gays” in their arguments will alienate the Justices. After all, gays are a “class” of people. This forces out any discussion of anything that debunks that, such as the horrible medical consequences associated with homosexual behavior: diseases, addictions, mental health problems, domestic violence, lower life expectancy, etc. Or any suggestion that is an immoral, unnatural perversion. Or the proven damage to children raised in same-sex households.
2. Pandering to “rational basis.” There is an extra-constitutional concept that judges have the authority to overturn a law if it doesn’t appear rational to them. Whether or not it was “rational” to a legislature or to the people makes no difference. Thus, the LGBT lawyers simply state that it’s “not rational” to exclude the class of “gays” from marrying whomever they want. It’s been one the basis for overturning constitutional marriage amendments. Our lawyers fear being judged “irrational” if they bring up the uncomfortable aspects of homosexuality, so they stick to the “comfortable” arguments.
It’s about time to quit doing what doesn’t work. Our fear, unfortunately, is that the lawyers on our side have been working closely with pro-family establishment lawyers in Washington DC (and we all know who they are) who are anything but aggressive or confrontational on these issues.
6. When the Court will issue a decision
The Court will issue its ruling before its current term ends in late June – i.e., within two months.
7. Why Justices Ginsburg and Kagan must legally recuse themselves from this case
Federal law 28 U.S. Code § 455 states:
Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
In the past year Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan have performed same-sex “weddings.” Ginsburg told people that the acceptance of same-sex “marriage” reflects “the genius of our Constitution.”
Kagan’s aggressive advocacy for LGBT “rights” goes back to her years as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009), and is thoroughly documented in our MassResistance report.
Ginsburg and Kagan are unquestionably biased on this issue and by law mustdisqualify themselves from this case. Failure to do would call into question the legitimacy of the (feared) ruling on this case, at the very least. Furthermore, a near-universal interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “due process” clause(above) includes the right of impartial court proceedings. Having biased judges violates that.
Motion for Recusal. We have been informed that Attorney Andy Schlafly (son of Phyllis Schlafly) has drafted a Motion for Recusal, under section 28 USC 144,which will be filed by one of the state Attorneys-Generals in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan or Kentucky who have standing in the case. According to Mr. Schlafly, “This will be the first time in the history of our country that a Motion for Recusal will have been filed against U.S. Supreme Court Justices because the above codes are for Federal District Judges, yet the principle of recusal can be expanded to all federal judges including Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
8. Bill filed in Congress to remove the Court’s jurisdiction on marriage
It is possible for Congress to restrict the Federal Courts from hearing certain types of cases.
Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution gives Congress the ability to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and federal courts:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
In the case of marriage, this probably should have been done at least a decade ago. However, this past week, some action was started.
Rep. Steve King, (R-Iowa), filed a bill to block the federal courts, including the U.S Supreme Court, from hearing or deciding cases involving the definition of marriage.
Rep. King’s bill is titled Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act of 2015. “This bill strips federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases related to marriage. The effect of the bill would prevent federal courts from hearing marriage cases, leaving the issue to the States where it properly belongs,” said Rep. King on his website.
Will the RINO Republican leadership in the US House and Senate go along with it? We will see. And then Obama must sign it …
9. The latest in the Court’s long history of illegitimate usurpation of power
The problem of the federal courts acting as unelected rulers — contrary to the intent of the Constitution — is not new. In 1861, in his first Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln condemned the Supreme Court’s power grab then:
If the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
Over the last several decades it’s only gotten further out-of-control.
In 2005, the Hoover Institution published a paper by Lino Graglia, a law professor at the University of Texas, titled “Constitutional Law without the Constitution: The Supreme Court’s Remaking of America” that described it very well. An excerpt from that article:
The central fact of contemporary constitutional law, however, is that it has very little to do with the Constitution. Nearly all the Supreme Court’s rulings of unconstitutionality have little or no basis in, and are sometimes in direct violation of, the Constitution. Their actual basis is nothing more than the policy preferences of a majority of the Court’s nine justices. The power to assert that the Constitution prohibits any policy choice of which they disapprove has enabled the justices to make themselves the final lawmakers on any public policy issue that they choose to remove from the ordinary political process and to assign for decision to themselves. Over the past half-century the justices have chosen to make themselves the final lawmakers on most basic issues of domestic social policy in American society. These include issues literally of life and death, as in the Court’s decisions on contraception, abortion, capital punishment, and assisted suicide; issues of public order, as in its decisions on criminal procedure, public demonstrations, and vagrancy control; and issues of public morality, as in its decisions on pornography and homosexuality. These are the issues that determine the basic values, nature, and quality of a society. In essence, the Court now performs in the American system of government a role similar to that performed by the Grand Council of Ayatollahs in the Iranian system: voting takes place and representatives of the people are elected as lawmakers, but the decisions they reach on basic issues of social policy are permitted to prevail only so long as they are not disallowed by the system’s highest authority.
That’s what we’ve been up against: Nine justices appointed for life who have made themselves the unelected legislators over us all.
10. Immense pressure from the homosexual movement
It’s difficult to describe the enormous amounts of money and sophisticated planning, political maneuvering, and pressure tactics that the homosexual lobby has used in this nationwide march through the federal courts. Millions of dollars have flowed to them from major US corporations and wealthy donors. Adding to that is the flood of major media support (including even FOX News!) that the LGBT movement enjoys. Needless to say, it’s unbelievably one-sided.
On the other hand, most wealthy conservative donors have made their peace with the LGBT movement and have abandoned their support at a time when it’s needed most. And virtually no corporations donate money to the pro-family side of this issue.
The LGBT movement has used its resources and power very aggressively. In just the last several weeks, hundreds of corporations and high-profile politicians, including Republicans, have publicly told the Supreme Court that they want “gay marriage” imposed on America by the judiciary. Virtually the nation’s entire legal community now refuses to even engage cases involving challenges to “gay marriage” — an unprecedented turn of events.
Will this push a majority of the Supreme Court Justices over the top? In any other time in history, this case would have been laughed out of any courtroom. So anything is possible.
What do we do next?
By any objective measure, this whole case is a mockery of actual Constitutional law. Yet, the odds are that Ginsburg and Kagan will not disqualify themselves and enough of the rest of the judges will rule to force this insanity on all of America — and which among other things will surely lead to the further persecution of people of faith.
Should the worst happen, we’ll certainly have it rubbed in our faces as quickly as possible. As happened in Massachusetts in 2003, the first thing we will see will be adolescent screams of joy and jumping in the streets by the homosexual radicals, celebrated spectacularly in the mainstream media.
But what about our side? We have to fight back, that’s for sure.
What does that mean? There has been a lot of talk about pro-family “civil disobedience” and “taking to the streets.” But let’s be honest. When the Left threatens civil disobedience the local police schedule double shifts (often to protect them). But when we do it, nobody really pays attention. To most conservatives civil disobedience is not mowing your lawn for three weeks or posting strong articles on FaceBook – not exactly rioting.
And the legal system will surely come down even harder on anyone disobeying the new rulings, as well as state and local non-discrimination ordinances.
MassResistance has some ideas. But let’s hope the worst doesn’t happen.
The progressives are guilty of what they have often accused others of being. Hypocrites.
So now the elitist progressives have dubbed the support of traditional marriage between a man and a woman as bigotry equal to racism. It is amazing how with a straight face at least publicly, the progressives actually equate marriage between a man and a woman with racism and bigotry. Such an argument obviously borders on insanity. But the mistake would be to laugh it off and act like it is just silly liberals with nothing better to do.
In fact, such statements are part of a massive orchestrated effort to fundamentally change every good aspect of our constitutionally limited republic. It is the progressives who are actually the bigoted and hateful ones. It is they who disdain God’s design for man and woman to come together in holy matrimony and raise children in a solid family unit. One of the surest ways to maintain a strong, vibrant and blessed society is the continuation of the traditional family. It was my own Dad who would often tell me that a nation is only as strong as it’s families.
The progressives know that to be true as well. That is why they have burrowed their way into every sphere of influence throughout society. They wormed their way deep into the entertainment industry, the education system, the news media, the sports industry, corporate America, the military and even mainline Christian denominations to fundamentally turn those institutions away from the more solid principles they had practiced for eons. For example, someone in academia telling students that a natural marriage between a woman and a man who desire to be together equates to racism.
Thus, the progressives themselves are displaying their own bias against a successful way of life that has served mankind very well for dozens of centuries. Those in opposition to the many positive institutions (such as traditional marriage) are on a deviant mission to wedge their more troubling progressive policies of destruction into our American society. Recently, we witnessed in Indiana how big business, big media along with progressive political leaders use their significant power and influence to topple over good proven religious liberty protections. This cultural cronyism is a coming together of those in power and influence, who like President Obama desire to fundamentally change America.
The elites are so united, that even though the same amount of amicus briefs have been file at the Supreme Court both supporting and opposing state marriage laws, not one single major law firm has filed a brief supporting marriage as the union of a man and a woman. (That little tidbit was supplied by noted writer, Ryan T. Anderson) Most homosexual, environmental and social justice activists all have one creepy thing in common. That is the changing of the United States of America from a Christian professing constitutionally limited republic into a Christian loathing politically left of center, where big nanny goat government is god.
I must say, that while the leftist progressives has numerous issues they promote, with homosexual marriage being the hot flavor of the month of June for them, I have a question. If homosexual marriage is so right and meant to be, why can’t they be fruitful and multiply by just mating alone? ‘We the People” of America must unite and stand against big government abusing and penalizing sovereign citizens who simply seek to live their lives as they legally and morally see fit. They must not be forced to travel down the progressive road that leads to destruction.
Have you noticed that the further America is dragged away from the building block principles that made her the one time envy of the world, the more she deteriorates in every aspect, including economics, military decision making, etc.? For those who insist on comparing a Christian photographer choosing to pass on the opportunity to film a certain type of wedding, here is a news flash! Whether you like it or not, the Bible affirms that marriage (as God intended) has nothing at all to do with race. But rather it has everything to do with love between a man and a woman and procreation. From Genesis to Revelation the Bible specifically deals with husbands and wives in many circumstances.
Thus it is most important not to allow the progressive elites to fundamentally change America in order to bully and go after us Americans who simply maintain our belief in the ONE who shed his grace upon our exceptional nation. God Bless America and May America Bless God.
“Revulsion is not an argument; and some of yesterday’s repugnances are today calmly accepted — though, one must add, not always for the better. In crucial cases, however, repugnance is the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason’s power fully to articulate it.” — Leon Kass
First, let me say how happy I am to have my column back at the Freeman. I look forward to being here every other week alongside Sandy Ikeda and Sarah Skwire.
If you’ve spent any time on the Internet in the last couple of weeks, you’ve found it abuzz with opinions on Indiana and gay rights. The passage of the state’s version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has generated all kinds of commentary from both left and right, and most of it is misguided or overwrought.
I’d like to offer a few of my own thoughts on these matters, which, I think, add up to a call for both tolerance and freedom of association — as well as a rejection of repugnance as the basis for public policy.
Tolerance lies at the core of the libertarian worldview. Living peacefully with each other means accepting our differences and allowing others to engage in behavior that we might dislike but that does not harm third parties. “Anything that’s peaceful” is our lodestar, as Leonard Read often reminded us. Such tolerance does not require that we associate with people we disagree with, only that we leave them in peace. And this idea cuts to the core of the debate in Indiana.
If, like me, you think that gays and lesbians are not doing anything harmful to anyone, and that they should be treated just like other human beings, you might call the behavior of those who refuse to, for example, provide photography services at a same-sex marriage “intolerant.” Perhaps it is, but those who have such views are not engaged in any attempt to prevent gays and lesbians from getting married — or anything else — by refusing to provide them with a service. They are, in fact, tolerating them, but also refusing to associate with them.
Tolerance does not mandate association.
Any idea of tolerance that mandates association will quickly get us into trouble. If, for example, you object to those who refuse to sell their products or services to gays and lesbians because homosexuality runs counter to their deeply held beliefs, would it not be a far worse form of intolerance to make it illegal for them to act on their religious beliefs? After all, your side is willing implicitly (or explicitly) to back its intolerance of religious convictions with coercion — you know, guns, fines, and prisons — while the other side’s intolerance involves only the simple and peaceful refusal to sell.
To repeat: those who refuse to sell are not preventing people from behaving peacefully; those who would make the refusal to sell illegal are.
If, like me, you are bothered by the behavior of those who won’t deal with gays or lesbians, you shouldn’t make matters worse by using state power to engage in true intolerance. Instead, demonstrate how much you really care about tolerance by using persuasion and disassociation to change the behavior you find intolerant.
To see how real tolerance, persuasion, and disassociation in civil society can work, consider this story from Texas. A narrow-minded store clerk objects to a mom letting her little girl wear a boy’s suit. Mom’s friends hear the story and then give the store bad reviews online. (And unlike the small, Christian-owned pizzeria in Indiana, no one threatened the owners or threatened to burn down the store, both of which would be crossing the line that separates real tolerance from coercion.) The store pulls its Facebook page after people leave critical comments. Mom was not actually “denied service,” because she immediately declared she wouldn’t patronize the store due to the clerk’s attitude.
What didn’t happen?
No one sued, used violence, called the police, or said, “there ought to be a law.” People used words, reputation, and the power of exit to persuade others of who was right and who was wrong. This is how it should work. We don’t need a law. The mom had choices and exercised them, and the clerk and store paid a price for indulging their views on gender stereotypes. This is peaceful conflict resolution involving the rights of expression, exit, and disassociation — no need to get the state involved. Tolerance, after all, does not mean we have to like everything everyone else does. It only means we can’t and shouldn’t stop them from doing anything that’s peaceful.
Too often, we try to make laws on the basis of our mere dislike for others’ behavior. As a favorite Internet meme of mine says, “Everything I like should be mandatory and everything I don’t like should be banned.” This sort of reaction to our repugnance at the behavior of others is a real danger to liberal societies.
Whether it involves outlawing peaceful behavior, forced association, or state-sponsored discrimination, using repugnance as the basis for enacting laws is itself repugnant. What we end up with, after all, is poisonous discourse and a social order that is increasingly coarse and uncivil.
Why are people threatening the owners of a small pizza shop in Indiana who, hypothetically, said they would peacefully refuse to cater a same-sex wedding? What underlies such threats is the belief that repugnance (in whatever form it takes) justifies coercion. That belief also helps explain why others are so vehemently opposed to giving same-sex couples legal equality. Whether it’s repugnance at people’s religious beliefs or repugnance at the thought of two people of the same sex being married, such an emotion does not suffice to trump fundamental freedoms.
Sacrificing fundamental constitutional rights and our commitment to equality before the law isn’t worth the warm glow of an ephemeral “victory.” The trade-off is simply too steep — as is the slippery slope it could put us on.
About Steven Horwitz
Steven Horwitz is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University and the author of Micro-foundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective, now in paperback.
On March 26th, 2015, John Stemberger, President and General Counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, participated in a debate and panel discussion at the Saint Petersburg College’s Institute for Strategic Policy Solutions on the topic of the impact to society and culture from same-sex marriage. Mr. Stemberger’s seven minute opening remarks begin at minute 19:10 in the below video and the lively question and answer session that followed was also very interesting and educational.
The panel included another lawyer, a sociology professor and a gay activist.
My fiancé is white. I’m not. We plan to jump the broom this summer, to honor my heritage and the hardships of couples like us. The tradition was born under anti-miscegenation laws that forbade blacks from marrying. And signing an official state marriage license feels inappropriate, considering the racist history behind it.
Anti-miscegenation laws had been a part of US history since colonial America. In the late 1700s, states began increasing their control over marriage by requiring a license. By the 1920s, 30 states had enacted laws that further prevented interracial marriage, including my home state, Virginia, with the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. It wasn’t until 1968 that banning interracial marriage was declared unconstitutional in the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia.
Had my partner and I been engaged only 50 years ago, our application for a marriage license would have been rejected. Our only choice would’ve been to jump the broom. Theoretically, our marriage license still could be rejected, because it’s an application process, and all it takes is one bigoted judge to turn it down. And it isn’t just blacks or interracial couples who have been targeted by these invasive institutions.
Opening briefs for same-sex marriage arguments have already been filed with the Supreme Court. For gay rights supporters, the hope is that bans on same-sex marriage will be declared unconstitutional. If this hope is realized, then every state will be forced to recognize heterosexual and homosexual couples equally. However, I’m not convinced this is a step in the right direction.
As it stands, a marriage license is the most effective way for a couple to legally protect themselves. A license comes with over a thousand legal rights, including those relevant to medical emergencies, child custody, and inheritance. It’s important that those rights be respected by every state, but they should also be freely given to consenting adults without constraint. Marriage falls within our right of association, and the state should not be able hold it hostage while ordering you to submit to a blood test or pay a fee. No government agency should be able to reject you unless your marriage falls outside of two simple parameters: consensualand adult. The only “permission” to marry I should need is my partner’s. And now we’re left with an extremely difficult decision.
Do we reject the notion of state-regulated marriage and live as an unrecognized couple, or sign the license and perpetuate conventions we find wholly abhorrent? If we don’t sign the marriage license, we could end up paying lawyers hundreds of dollars to draw up contracts in an attempt to get some of the same rights and recognition as a legally married couple (“some” being the key word here). I don’t like to think about how it will feel to jump the broom in honor of my predecessors and then sign a piece of paper with a legacy of keeping couples like us apart.
Americans tend to take the liberties spelled out in the Bill of Rights for granted. This is especially true of freedom of religion in which the First Amendment protects “the free exercise thereof” while at the same time prohibiting “an establishment of religion” to ensure that neither a state nor the federal government can stipulate a specific religion as the “official” one.
The earliest Americans came here to avoid persecution for their beliefs and created a nation in which tolerance of other faiths was an established virtue.
All of the major religions of the world condemn homosexuality and prohibit same-sex marriage. While homosexuality has gained a measure of tolerance in America many if not most Americans do not accept same-sex marriage as a “right” that can be found in the U.S. Constitution.
In the March 9 edition of the National Review, one news item noted that “The sheer brazenness of President Obama’s dissembling on gay marriage—confirmed by David Axelrod in a new book—might gall even the most hard-bitten of cynics.”
“Obama, Axelrod writes, ‘was in favor of same-sex marriages during the first presidential campaign, even as (he) publicly said he only supported civil unions, not full marriages’, but he could not admit as much for fear of losing black churchgoers. Thus it was confirmed that the ‘change’ candidate had fallen back on a ‘sacred’ religious belief he claimed to be representing, in furtherance of a policy that he now openly describes as a ‘civil right.’ There is a word for this sort of conduct. But it is not ‘hope’.”
The word is “liar”, but after six years of Obama, anyone paying any attention knows that he lies routinely and constantly no matter what the topic may be.
He lied repeatedly to secure support for the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare. Passed into law by Democratic Party votes—no Republicans voted for it—the so-called contraceptive mandate has created many problems for Christians and others who are pro-life. In a similar fashion, many people of faith oppose same-sex marriage.
A new book, “Religious Freedom in America: Constitutional Roots and Contemporary Challenges”, edited by Allen D. Hertzke of the University of Oklahoma’s Institute for the American Constitutional Heritage, calls religion “an exceedingly messy area of constitutional law…because the boundaries of religion, state, and society are complex and ever shifting.”
For most Americans there is no shift in their view of marriage as a sacred rite exclusively between a man and woman. One can read the Old and New Testaments from start to finish and find no justification for same-sex marriage. From its earliest days civilization throughout the world has never deemed same-sex marriage lawful, but Americans are being told by its courts that the Constitution does.
The Founders who wrote the Constitution would be astonished to learn this.
As Mary Nussbaum wrote in the Summer 2009 edition of Dissent, “Government plays a key role in all three aspects of marriage. It confers and administers benefits. It seems, at least, to operate as an agent of recognition or the granting of dignity. And it forms alliances with religious bodies.”
“Clergy are always among those entitled to perform legally binding marriages. Religions may refuse to marry people who are eligible for state marriage and they may also agree to marry people who are ineligible for state marriage. But much of the officially sanctioned marrying currently done in the United States is done on religious premises by religious personnel. What they are solemnizing (when there is a license granted by the state) is, however, not only a religious ritual, but also a public rite of passage, the entry into a privileged civic status.” (Emphasis added)
When the Defense of Marriage Act was being debated, Sen. Richard Byrd (D-WVA) said:
“[T]hroughout the annals of human experience, in dozens of civilizations and cultures of varying value systems, humanity has discovered that the permanent relationship between men and women is a keystone to the stability, strength, and health of human society—a relationship worthy of legal recognition and judicial protection.” (Emphasis added)
That is what’s at stake. Homosexuals have been offered “civil unions” granting them access to the government benefits that “marriage” provides, but they have regarded this as stigmatizing and degrading. They have insisted that society change and, for most who hold a strong religious faith, that is impossible for the reasons stated by Sen. Byrd.
Ms. Nussbaum concludes saying, “The future of marriage looks, in one way, a lot like its past. People will continue to unite, form families, have children, and, sometimes, split up. What the Constitution dictates, however, is that whatever the state decides to do in this area will be done on a basis of equality. Government cannot exclude any group of citizens from the civil benefits or the expressive dignities of marriage without a compelling public interest.”
So, the 14th Amendment that guarantees the “equal protection of the law” will encompass the demand that citizens of the same sex can marry even if religions and those who see this as a threat to a well-ordered society disagree.
Religions in America, many of whom administer charities, maintain colleges and universities, and serve people of all faiths have encountered a world of problems following the passage of ObamaCare. They are also being challenged in schools and academia, and being told that any form of public prayer is unacceptable.
Here are just a few examples:
- In 2006, Boston’s Catholic Charities shut down its historical adoption program after the State of Massachusetts refused their “conscience accommodation” in its licensing requirements. The same year, Morristown, New York began prosecuting Amish home-builders for code violations.
- In 2009, the U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission ruled that Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina violated discrimination laws by not offering birth control in its health plan coverage. A family court in Laconia, New Hampshire ordered a Christian mother to stop home schooling her daughter because she “appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith.”
- In 2010, the Catholic Charities of Washington, D.C., shut down its foster care program because of mandates that violated church teaching. The following year three Illinois diocese adoption and foster care programs were shut down.
- In 2011 Alabama law made it illegal for churches to serve undocumented immigrants, including baptisms, hearing confessions, anointing the sick, giving marriage counseling and providing Sunday school, Bible studies, or even providing Alcoholics Anonymous a place to meet.
- In 2012 through 2014, facing huge fines for violating religious principles, more than 300 religious institutions and businesses filed lawsuits against the Health and Human Services contraceptive mandate.
As Hertzke noted, “A key measure of a free society, in sum, is the extent to which people are not forced to choose between sacred duties and citizenship privileges or obligations. This is what makes religious freedom foundational to the American constitutional order.”
In 1993 Congress seemed to have agreed. It passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which states that “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a restrictive means of furthering” a “compelling government interest.” It was signed into law by President Clinton. Four years later, the Supreme Court struck down its core in Boerne v. Flores. It ruled that RFRA was unconstitutional when applied to state and local governments, but upheld it when applied to the federal government.
Issues such as ObamaCare’s contraception mandate and same-sex marriage raise vital questions about individual religious faith and the government’s right to determine societal standards.
The question of whether religion in America is losing the battle for historical and traditional moral standards is one that affects people of faith and the society as a whole.
© Alan Caruba, 2015
On March 4th, 2015, the Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP) announced that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore would receive their first ever “Letter from Birmingham Jail Courage Award” in recognition of Justice Moore’s principled stand in defense of traditional marriage.
The group was moved to honor Chief Justice Moore following his defense of Alabama’s statutory and constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Moore’s actions were based on the fact that the federal court does not have the power to redefine marriage in direct opposition to legal tradition and the clearly expressed will of the people. His courage and conviction persuaded CAAP that Chief Moore was the ideal honoree for the inaugural presentation of an award inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous letter.
“Chief Justice Moore is an example for all of us,” stated Rev. William Owens, President of CAAP. “By making a principled and persuasive stand for marriage, Chief Justice Moore has singled himself out as someone who is ready to defend our most cherished values and help lead this new civil rights movement. By his words and courageous actions, he has helped preserve marriage, the family, justice, and the spirit of democracy. This is what it means to be a ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail Courage Award’ recipient. We hope that his example inspires others to take similar action to defend marriage in their own communities.”
The group announced that they plan to present the Letter from Birmingham Jail Courage Award to Justice Moore in a special ceremony in April.
Fred Barbash from the Washington Post reports:
The Alabama Supreme Court ordered a halt Tuesday to same-sex marriages in the state despite a U.S. Supreme Court order allowing them to proceed. The ruling capped a wild month of confusion and resistance in Alabama following a January decision by a U.S. district court invalidating Alabama’s ban on gay marriage.
The Alabama justices were defiant. “As it has done for approximately two centuries,” the court said, “Alabama law allows for ‘marriage’ between only one man and one woman.” Alabama judges have a duty “not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law. Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty.”
Something very unpleasant is occurring in America. Those who have a strong religious faith are being denied the right to say “no” based on its teachings and values. This is particularly true these days as homosexuals, barely three percent of the population, demand that they be accommodated when their demand runs counter to thousands of years of what has been deemed moral behavior and, for many, still is.
When it comes to marriage. Gays insist they have a “right” to get married and call their union “marriage”, but there is absolutely nothing in the thousands of years of the Judeo-Christian ethic that defines same-sex unions as either moral or legal.
The most recent and egregious example of what can happen when someone obeys God rather than the state is Arlene’s Flowers, a small floral shop in Richland, Washington. Its owner, Barronelle Stuzman, declined to make flower arrangements for a gay couple’s wedding and, instead of finding a shop that would, they took their grievance to court. A judge ruled Ms. Stutzman violated the state’s anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws.
I find it odd that one cannot refuse to render a service or sell a product if that decision is based on one’s religious beliefs. Isn’t that a form of discrimination against religion? Yes, it is.
Commenting on these increasing cases filed by homosexuals, the noted conservative writer, Selwyn Duke, said “It is a new front in the war on faith, legitimate freedom and private property rights. Many point out that it constitutes an unprecedented trampling of religious liberty and this is true.”
America is a nation based on its Founder’s beliefs that the rights of its citizens came from God, not the state. Something is very wrong when judges ignore that fundamental truth.
Anti-discrimination laws have the intent of ensuring the right of people to be treated equally. Not all such laws are the same. Some permit exemptions based on religion or gender. The reality that women are different from men has seen some nations such as ours exclude them from serving in a frontline combat role or aboard submarines. This is a concession to reality.
Ms. Stuzman’s new reality, after forty years in business, is the loss of her business due to the fines that have been assessed, along with the cost of legal fees. “They want my home, they want my business, they want my personal finances as an example for other people to be quiet,” said Ms. Stuzman. The gay couple may love each other, but they have demonstrated their belief in their right to marry permits them to inflict an enormous harm on a 70-year-old florist. There is something truly obscene about that.
In August of last year, a same-sex couple from Newark requested the use of the Liberty Ridge Farm for their wedding ceremony and was denied. In order to comply with a court order that they make their farm available despite their religious convictions, Cynthia and Robert Gifford, the owners of the farm near Albany, N.Y., have decided to no longer host any wedding or other ceremonies.
It’s not like the New Testament isn’t quite clear regarding the issue of homosexuality:
Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our Go
Romans 1:26-28 “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
Under Islam, you can be put to death for homosexuality.
Here in America, it is not the homosexuals who are subject to restrictions. It is people of faith who are being told they must provide services and products to them in the context if they intend to marry or as a reflection of their gender preference.
Urloved Photography is a small business in Northern California specializing in wedding and event photograph. In response to a request from a gay couple, Urlove replied with an email that said “Thanks so much for contacting us and for your very kind words. We feel that photographing a gay wedding is not the best match for us, however we can refer you to a colleague who would make a great match. We wish you the very best!” In California, however, one cannot reject business on the basis of sexual orientation.
Some states are trying to extend a measure of legal protection against the demands of homosexuals. In Kansas, its Federal and State Affairs committee has passed a bill aimed at protecting individuals, groups and businesses that refuse for religious reasons to recognize same-sex marriages or provide benefits to gay couples. Kansas law already protects employees from being sanctioned based on religious beliefs.
Federal judges have recently struck down bans on gay marriage in Oklahoma and Utah. In Indiana legislation to protect residents with strong religious beliefs from having to provide services and products to same-sex weddings is under consideration. In October, however, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Indiana’s gay marriage ban.
Our states are sovereign republics in their own right. That should be respected.
We are witnessing the arrogance of the homosexual community pitting itself against millennia of tradition and spiritual belief. Can’t find a photographer, florist or baker who wants to provide services for your same-sex wedding? Find someone who will.
Instead, states are caving into homosexual demands and asking their residents to abandon the reality that marriage is intended solely for a man and a woman.
© Alan Caruba, 2015
Last Friday afternoon (January 16), the United States Supreme Court agreed to review the 6th Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in DeBoer v. Snyder and three other cases which upheld state laws defining marriage exclusively as the union of one man and one woman. The 6th Circuit Court’s DeBoerdecision upheld laws preserving traditional marriage in Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky. Written by Judge Jeffrey Sutton, the DeBoer decision was the only one of five court of appeals decisions which upheld the vote of citizens on traditional marriage.
Title 28, Section 455 of the United States Code states “any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
The Supreme Court of the United States could decide in its upcoming term whether same-sex couples nationwide have the right to marry under the Constitution.
Should Justices Elana Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg properly and legally recuse themselves from these cases because they have personally performed same-sex wedding ceremonies and demonstrated their partiality? That is a question those involved in the case are asking.
Justice Kagan performed a September 21st, 2014 same-sex marriage for her former law clerk and his partner Patrick Pearsall in Maryland. Justice Ginsburg performed a same-sex marriage at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. in August 2013.
The American Family Association notes, “Both of these justices’ personal and private actions actively endorsing gay marriage clearly indicate how they would vote on same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court. Both Kagan and Ginsburg have not only been partial to same-sex marriage, they have proven themselves to be activists in favor of it!”
The Daily Signals’ Genevieve Wood writes, “Now, I take issue with [President of Everytown for Gun Safety] John Feinblatt’s statement that ‘the majority of the public’ in individual states supports same-sex marriage. Just consider that in the 34 states that have put it on the ballot, voters in 31 of those states voted to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Only three states went the opposite way. The redefinition of marriage is being forced on the public via judicial fiats, not voters at the ballot box.”
The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a friend of the court brief (amicus brief) supporting traditional marriage in the 6th Circuit’s DeBoer case on behalf of the National Coalition of Black Pastors and Christian Leaders (Coalition).
Richard Thompson, the TMLC’s president and Chief Counsel, commented, “The 6th Circuit was the only Court of Appeals that sustained the will of the people expressed by their overwhelming votes in favor of traditional marriage. And if the Supreme Court strikes down these state laws defining traditional marriage, it will be the worst example of judicial activism since Roe v. Wade. It will lead to further persecution of Christians who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, and over time, the ultimate the demise of marriage and Western civilization as we know it.”
Continued Thompson, “The notion of same-sex marriage has been foisted on our culture by well-planned and executed public relations campaigns and the tremendous influence of militant homosexual activists in the news media, entertainment industry and most of academia.”
Aside from its briefs in the DeBoer case at both the appellate and Supreme Court level, the TMLC has played a prominent role in the defense of traditional marriage. It was instrumental in crafting the language of Michigan’s constitutional amendment defending traditional marriage which was passed by fifty-nine percent of Michigan voters. The other states covered by the 6th Circuit’s DeBoer decision passed their laws defining traditional marriage by overwhelming votes, as well: Kentucky by seventy-four percent, Ohio by sixty-two percent, and Tennessee by eighty percent. Moreover, the TMLC has filed amicus briefs on behalf of the Coalition in support of traditional marriage in several other federal appellate courts across the country.
Will the Court be willing to nullify thousand of same-sex marriages in states where courts have already allowed it? The language of the Supreme Court’s order granting review has caused a great deal of speculation on what the court will do. The order specifically limited the argument to two issues: “1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”
The Justices will hear oral arguments in the case in April 2015, and render their decision before by the end of June 2015. The Court has allotted a total of two and half hours for oral arguments. Many Court observers have opined that the Court decided to hear the case as a clear sign there are enough votes in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage in all states. However, to render that kind of decision, the court would have to find that a state has no rational basis for their laws defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Whatever the final outcome, it will likely be a 5-4 decision with Justice Kennedy as the swing vote.
In 2014, TMLC launched a national strategy to defend traditional marriage and formed a legal team headed by senior trial counsel Erin Mersino and co-counsels William R. Wagner and John S. Kane of Lansing, MI as part of an effort to stem the onslaught of federal cases overturning the definition of traditional marriage that were passed by overwhelming majorities of voters.
TMLC’s legal team has worked extensively to file legal briefs on behalf of the National Coalition of Black Pastors and Christian Leaders in significant cases dealing with same-sex marriage. One of the purposes of these briefs is to negate the homosexual community’s fallacious argument that discrimination because of one’s sexual preference is the same as racial discrimination. To date, TMLC has filed four briefs with the Supreme Court, as well as with the 5th and 6th Circuit Courts in support of traditional marriage.
EDITORS NOTE: For those readers interested in sending an email on this issue their members of Congress may click here.