Marriage Equality

Staver: Justice Kennedy Acted Like Dred Scott Judge In DOMA Ruling

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel continued to level attacks against the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision. On Janet Parshall’s radio show last week, Staver compared Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in Windsor, to former Chief Justice Robert B. Taney, infamous for writing the Dred Scott ruling.

The Liberty University Law School dean told Parshall that the court decided wrongly in part because “our history has actually criminalized homosexual behavior” and alleged that Kennedy decided to “label everyone who believes and affirms in the natural created order of marriage between a man and a woman as a bigot and a hater.”

“How dare this court. How dare Justice Kennedy. How dare he actually give those kinds of labels to people,” Staver said. “I think the court crossed the line to illegitimacy by doing so and I think it put itself in the same category as Chief Justice Taney in the 1857 Dred Scott decision in which they said blacks were inferior human beings not entitled to citizenship, as they did in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case that said ‘sorry Carrie Buck, Virginia has a right to forcibly sterilize you.’”

Lutzer: Legalizing Gay Marriage Like Drilling a Hole in a Boat

Erwin Lutzer, pastor of the Chicago-based Moody Church, appeared last month on The John Ankerberg Show to discuss the “Five Disturbing Changes Facing Our Nation” – including growing support for LGBT equality. While discussing efforts in Illinois to pass same-sex marriage legislation, Lutzer warned that the gay rights movement will lead to a “tsunami” of anti-Christian persecution and warned against tolerating marriage equality laws.

According to Lutzer, same-sex marriage cannot “coexist” with opposite-sex marriage because “same-sex marriage legalized breaks down the family in some very, very important ways.”

Marriage equality, Lutzer predicts, will lead to societal collapse just like drilling a hole will sink a boat: “I can imagine someone riding in a boat saying, ‘I have a constitution right to drill a hole through my side of the boat.’ The problem is we are all on the same boat.”

Watch:

Phil Burress Doesn't Understand What 'Bisexual' Means

Ohio anti-gay activist Phil Burress, head of Citizens for Community Values, is gearing up to fight a proposed ballot measure to make same-sex marriage legal in his state, and he’s not letting the facts get in his way.

Burress tells the Canton Repository that polls showing increasing support for marriage equality are just plain wrong:

“On no other issue in America is the polling data is so wrong,” he said. “The real polls are when people go to the polls and vote.”

He then warns of the “slippery slope” created by marriage equality. “What are you going to do for bisexuals?" he asks. "They have to have a man and a woman to make them happy.”

“Ask the question, how do you prohibit polygamy?” Burress said. “Or anything? You’ve gotta give them anything they want. When you start using words like ‘equal protection,’ or when you can say there’s discrimination, what are you going to do for bisexuals? They have to have a man and a woman to make them happy.”

NOM: No More Brides and Grooms If Gay Marriage Becomes Legal

Jennifer Thieme of the National Organization for Marriage’s Ruth Institute is worried that marriage equality laws will mean that no one can be a bride or a groom ever again. According to Thieme, in states that recognize same-sex marriages, “no woman gets to be a bride and no man gets to be a groom,” which may come as a surprise to all of the couples who have been married there since marriage equality was approved.

And of course, big government will step in to pick up the pieces. “The state will not likely give up the increased power it gets over individuals, children, and the church as this change gains traction,” Thieme writes, urging libertarians not to back gay rights because “socialists support it.”

First, I do not think it is realistic to believe the government will actually get out of marriage, especially once the definition of marriage becomes sexless (genderless) as a widespread policy. Sexless marriage as a policy is what must happen in order to allow gay couples to marry. It wasn't fair that only straight women could be brides, and only straight men could be grooms. So now no woman gets to be a bride, and no man gets to be a groom in same sex marriage states. The state will not likely give up the increased power it gets over individuals, children, and the church as this change gains traction.



"How does gay marriage affect YOUR marriage?"

I've encountered honest, far-left leaning Democrats who admit that sexless marriage is the destruction of traditional marriage. They admit it, point blank. One even likened it to slavery. This is not how it gets marketed to voters. Voters are told that marriage is simply being expanded to include gay couples. Expanding marriage vs. eliminating traditional marriage are two very different things.

Furthermore, father of Marxist thought Friedrich Engels was against traditional marriage. It is not possible to know what sort of stand he would take on the sexless marriage issue. I think it's very fair to say that his modern day followers support it. It frustrates me that some prominent libertarians refuse to engage an important social policy that socialists support. Does it occur to them why socialists support it?

Charisma: Fight Against Gay Rights Resembles Fight Against Nazism

Pastor Larry Tomczak sure does like comparing gay rights advocates to Nazis. The Charisma columnist this week claimed that, like Nazi Germany, gay equality threatens the church and “would imperil us all—our children, our grandchildren and our future as a nation.” He praises “courageous” African countries that “outlaw homosexuality” for “standing strong amidst this moral storm” of President Obama, WNBA player Brittney Griner and “unscriptural, squishy, spineless” Christians.

Naturally, Tomczak ends the column by quoting Winston Churchill’s speech on the imminent Nazi attack on Britain.

The landmark Supreme Court ruling on gay “rights” did not redefine marriage, but it did give the rationale to deconstruct marriage.

Those of us standing up for traditional marriage now find ourselves portrayed as bigots for simply upholding marriage as it has stood for over 5,000 years of Western civilization! It’s unbelievable, but true.



All Christians are called to be salt and light, but if leaders choose calm over courage instead of addressing these issues for any number of reasons—“Just keep things positive,” “Don’t scare people off,” “We’re in a building program and can’t risk offending big donor,” Just preach the gospel; steer clear of politics,” “It’s all going down anyway,” “Why invite trouble or controversy?” “I’m warning all of you on staff that this would be a deal-breaker if you start talking about these kind of issues”—marriage as the central pillar of our civilization will be forever lost. We just cannot sit on the bench, mute in the midst of the defining moral issue of our generation, as the people will follow suit.

That’s what happened in Nazi Germany as pastors (with the exception of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and a remnant) were intimidated into silence and their flocks emulated their example. Adolf Hitler chortled derisively behind closed doors, knowing he’d discovered the key to railroading his plans through: “They [German pastors] will submit. … They are insignificant little people, submissive as dogs, and they sweat with embarrassment when you talk to them.”

Granted, we are not facing the Fuhrer, but redefining marriage means redefining religious liberty, and that would imperil us all—our children, our grandchildren and our future as a nation.



Alan Chambers, Rob Bell and Jim Wallis crisscross the country advocating for an unscriptural, squishy, spineless approach to this hot-button issue of homosexuality. The WNBA No. 1 draft pick from Baylor Baptist University, Brittany Griner, invites girls to follow her lesbian example as a new role model in USA Today. Even our president holds nothing back in pronouncing, “God bless you!” at America’s No. 1 abortion provider’s convention, then flies to Africa after the Supreme Court ruling in order to promote gay rights there after last telling them, “Africa’s future is up to Africans!”

Thank God for our courageous African counterparts who aren’t capitulating but are instead standing strong amidst this moral storm. Thirty-seven nations there outlaw homosexuality, and Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, 2011 Nobel Peace Prize winner and Africa’s first female president, boldly stands to say she opposes decriminalizing homosexuality in her country. “We’ve got certain traditional values in our society that we’d like to preserve,” she says.



Will you ask God to help you speak up as America is going down? We need to pray and foster another great revival before it’s too late. As Winston Churchill told his flock in England’s “darkest hour” as they faced the extinction of their democratic freedoms, “I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. … If we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age. … Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its commonwealth last 4,000 years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour.’”

Dan Cummins: America Divided Between 'Gay Zones' and 'Free Zones'

Pastor Dan Cummins of Come Pray With Me has worked with a variety of Religious Right groups, including Newt Gingrich’s Renewing American Leadership, Rick Perry’s The Response USA and Tony Perkins’ Watchmen on the Wall, and organized his own prayer rally in the Capitol’s Statuary Hall.

But soon, Cummins warns, such organizations may not exist.

In a Charisma column today, Cummins writes thats gays will drive the church “underground” and turn churches into “government community centers.”

Cummins claims that the Supreme Court has created a divide in America similar to the Korean DMZ and the Berlin Wall, called “the Rainbow Curtain.” He says that the justices “from their judicial lair” have “set off a catalytic charge toppling traditional marriage” and now “the collapse of America’s moral infrastructure has been irreversibly set into motion.”

Residents of states with marriage equality are now “hostages” to a government that will use “foreign troops” to put them “re-education camps,” he argues. 

“Like a surreal scene from Red Dawn, America woke up on June 26 to a divided nation, with 95 million of its citizens in 13 states held hostage to judicial legislation, trapped behind the Rainbow Curtain,” Cummins writes. “What’s ahead for those in the gay zones who refuse to comply with Kennedy’s dictates—re-education camps for homophobic racists? Will Big Sis employ foreign troops invading through our unsecured borders to enforce the transition into this brave new world?”

He hopes that the new “refugees” will “flee with their families into neighboring free zones,” asking, “Where are Patrick Swayze and his pack of Wolverines when we need them?”

He calls on anti-gay activists in “gay zones” to “become forearmed” as society unravels into a gay dystopia and “the choking dust clouds from the collapse of the last societal pillar of biblical, natural marriage stop rolling through the streets of our cities and states.”

After World War II, Stalin installed an iron curtain around Russia, keeping his capitalist neighbors from eavesdropping. The Chinese accessorized their Cold War condo with a bamboo curtain, deterring pesky peeping toms from the West.

Soon Mr. Khrushchev, keeping up with his Commie neighbors, built a privacy wall and gated community, secluding East Berliners from greedy, free-market entrepreneurs soliciting door to door. Not to forget Kim Il-Sung’s ensemble of razor wire and land mines across North Korea’s 38th parallel to discourage those JW and LDS types from indoctrinating the folks.

Now, in the midst of the American culture war, behind another curtain of sorts—a life-size photographic scrim concealing a facelift to the Supreme Court’s crumbling west façade—Justice Anthony Kennedy has ordered a redecorating of the nation’s landscape with a bold, colorful and inclusive statement—the Rainbow Curtain—a polyamorous blend of gender-on-gender suited for a post-moralist motif designed to safeguard the modern American family from the narrow-minded views of those “animus”-filled Founding Fathers.

From their juridical lair, the liberal Gang of Five recently set off a catalytic charge toppling traditional marriage—the last principled pillar upholding Uncle Sam’s home. Just how long his 237-year-old colonial manor can remain standing minus its moral supports intact is anyone’s guess. But the collapse of America’s moral infrastructure has been irreversibly set into motion by five legislating justices.

As the new civil rights movement packs the neighborhood streets, shouting, “Move that bus,” is America ready for the extreme home makeover the LGBT architects have designed for the evolving modern family?

Like a surreal scene from Red Dawn, America woke up on June 26 to a divided nation, with 95 million of its citizens in 13 states held hostage to judicial legislation, trapped behind the Rainbow Curtain and forced to accept the moral dictates of the elitist ruling party—a pentagram of liberal judges on the Supreme Court.

Many of those hostages, like California’s residents, were disenfranchised of their constitutional votes in the process. What’s ahead for those in the gay zones who refuse to comply with Kennedy’s dictates—re-education camps for homophobic racists? Will Big Sis employ foreign troops invading through our unsecured borders to enforce the transition into this brave new world?

What stark new realities are ahead for those behind the Rainbow Curtain? Will Americans become refugees in their own country as they flee with their families into neighboring free zone states? Where are Patrick Swayze and his pack of Wolverines when we need them?

The Supremes striking down Proposition 8 and partially ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) have given the prize—marriage without borders—to the LGBT crowd and thrown the pro-biblical marriage community a legal bone by kicking the can back to the free zone states to argue it out in court.

What does this mean for the 70 percent of the U.S. population living in the free zones? Watch what happens to the families, businesses and churches in the gay zones who refuse to comply with Kennedy’s court. Be forewarned and become forearmed.



The new persecution of the church will be in the form of prosecution of the church. This legal martyrdom will be slow, painful and expensive. Some churches, especially in the gay zones initially, will fold under the financial strain.

The end result for any church refusing complicity to the court’s opinion will be loss of tax-exempt status. The IRS will not only control America’s health care but her religious institutions as well. For those churches indebted by hefty mortgages, the outcome of losing membership and their tax-exempt tithes will be potentially fatal. As foreclosed church properties flood the real estate market, they will be prime choices for government community centers.

You say this can’t happen in America? We were saying similar things 10 years ago about same-sex marriage and 40 years ago about abortion. Wake up!

Maybe China is the new model for American society. When the choking dust clouds from the collapse of the last societal pillar of biblical, natural marriage stop rolling through the streets of our cities and states, we will witness the aftermath left by Justice Kennedy’s ruling upon our families, churches and religious freedoms.

Will there only be two churches left in America when that time comes—the state church, with its complicit clergy complete with gay members, and the underground church of Jesus Christ? Take heart—the greatest revival in the world is now taking place in the underground church of China. Maybe revival is coming to America after all. Either way, you had better get a Bible.

Huelskamp: Supreme Court Legalized Polygamy

Yesterday, while speaking with Janet Mefferd, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) expanded on his claim that the Supreme Court Justices who ruled on Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act should’ve flunked law school.

Huelskamp said Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision on DOMA was “outrageous” and based on smearing gay rights opponents: “If you’re writing for the left and you’re not gonna follow the Constitution you have to make it up as you go along so you inject name-calling into a constitutional decision, I mean that’s an outrageous decision.”

He also called Chief Justice John Roberts’ ruling on Prop 8 “crazy” and described it as an example of left-wing bias. Huelskamp even argued that the DOMA ruling effectively tossed out state laws barring marriages between a mother and her daughter, adding that “polygamy should be allowed under this decision.”

“What’s the impact on our children? That’s what the left doesn’t care about,” Huelskamp said, repeating his earlier claim that “children will be hurt” by the rulings. “That’s why this is showing up in these decisions that you know what just because two adults or three adults desire one thing that doesn’t mean it’s best for our children.” 

The congressman also told Mefferd that Republicans are too timid in their opposition to gay rights and should also focus on the “fiscal impact” of gay marriage and what he believes is the legalization of polygamy: “There’s a real big fiscal impact, we’re going to extend 1,100 benefits to homosexual and polygamous couples, perhaps, what’s the impact on that?”

Gallagher: Supreme Court DOMA Decision a 'Declaration of War' Against Half of America

Not content with just claiming that Justice Anthony Kennedy has proclaimed a “fatwa” against opponents of gay marriage, National Organization for Marriage founder Maggie Gallagher is now blasting the Supreme Court for issuing a “head-on declaration of war against at least half of the American people.”

In an interview with Lars Larson, Gallagher said that the court’s pro-marriage equality rulings limit the “democratic rights” of activists who seek to ban same-sex unions and argued that the justices could “not name” where gay and lesbian couples are protected in the Constitution.

Robertson Cites Levitical Death Penalty for Gays, Warns the Land Will 'Vomit You Out'

Today on the 700 Club, televangelist Pat Robertson reflected on a recent reading of the Old Testament and warned gays and lesbians that the land will “vomit you out.” Robertson said that Leviticus lists homosexuality as an “abomination” on par with incest and bestiality, “and those who do that in the Old Testament were stoned to death.”

He feared that the US is not heeding the Bible’s teaching that “the nations who were doing these things were vomited out of the land and the land vomited them out.”

“For some reason now the Supreme Court has said homosexuality is now a constitutional right and this decision that was handed down recently by the majority glorifies this activity and talks about the civil rights and all this, well the Bible didn’t talk about civil rights it talked about this was an offense against God and it was an offense against the land and the land would vomit you out.” Robertson continued. “Which is going to take precedence, the Supreme Court of the United States or the holy word of God?”

Of course, Robertson also believes that we should ignore what the Old Testament said about slavery.

Watch:

Keyes: Case for Gay Marriage Same as the Case for Slavery

Alan Keyes believes that Justice Antonin Scalia didn’t go far enough in his dissent in Windsor, the decision which struck down a key component of the Defense of Marriage Act, maintaining that he should’ve argued that gay marriage, which Keyes called a “tyrannically defined fabrication,” is unconstitutional.

According to Keyes, gay marriage advocates are using the same line of reasoning of slavery proponents who argued that “the notion of unalienable rights did not apply to black people” and did so “by denying black people their share in human nature.” “In like fashion, the advocates of homosexual so-called marriage now seek to deny the nature of marriage” and “override right and justice as endowed by the Creator.” Since same-sex unions violate God’s laws, Keyes reasons, it is therefore unconstitutional and allow government to undermine unalienable rights.

The advocates of slavery in the United States often attempted to justify that institution by denying black people their share in human nature. On this account, they pretended that the notion of unalienable rights did not apply to black people, and that they therefore had no rights government was obliged to respect and secure. In like fashion, the advocates of homosexual so-called marriage now seek to deny the nature of marriage. They do so on the excuse of promoting equal treatment for homosexuals. But the necessary and intended result of their advocacy is to deny the family's functional claim to be an expression of human nature, indeed the primordial expression of its social aspect. This, in turn, allows them to deny that the individuals who make up the family are engaged in an exercise of right, according to the laws of nature and of nature's God. Once this is successfully denied, the activities arising from their exercise of right need no longer be respected as unalienable rights, antecedent to all human governments, which it is government's aim to secure.

In what amounts to an effort to overturn the whole idea of unalienable rights that gives rise to constitutional self-government, some elements of America's judiciary have moved to proclaim as law that marriage must be redefined in a way that accommodates homosexual relationships. But this means that a human relationship in no way rooted in the Creator's provision for our nature must be allowed to usurp the name, authority, and rights of the God-endowed institution.



Once this effect upon the unalienable rights of the natural family is understood, it becomes clear that the Constitution is not neutral with respect to the approval or disapproval of same-sex marriage, in the name of law. There is an explicit constitutional prohibition against denying or disparaging rights unenumerated in the Constitution but retained by the people. Since the unalienable rights of the family arise from the individual's commitment to fulfill the natural law by propagating humanity, they are certainly among these unenumerated rights. Therefore, Congress simply did its duty, in accordance with the 9th Amendment, when it moved to prevent the denial and disparagement of the rights of the natural family by judges and justices seeking to replace the natural family with a tyrannically defined fabrication.

Why did Justice Scalia fail to take note of this constitutional justification for DOMA, utterly ignored by the Windsor majority? Why, instead, did he pretend that the issue involved can simply be decided by majority vote of the people in their respective states, as if the human sovereignty that constitutes government, at any level, has authority to override right and justice as endowed by the Creator? In this respect, neither the Windsor majority nor Justice Scalia's dissent shows any respect for the premises that informed the deliberations of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. Yet without those premises, the declared purposes and essential features of the constitution they devised cannot be properly understood.

Harry Jackson: Gay Marriage Will 'Destroy Children'

In a column for the Christian Post today, Bishop Harry Jackson claims that children raised by single moms often “turn to lives of crime and violence” in order gain attention from father figures.

Naturally, Jackson connects this assertion to the debate over marriage equality, warning that legalizing same-sex marriage will create “broken relationships” within families that will “destroy children.” He even pushes the consistently debunked claim that marriage rates fall in countries that pass gay marriage laws because people “simply stopped bothering to get married in the first place”:

Is it any wonder that young boys turn to lives of crime and violence, when the purveyors of such lifestyles are the only men to show them any real attention? It is about as surprising as a starving child attempting to steal bread. And no social policy that fails to take into account the deep and legitimate need that every child has for both a mother and a father can ever be considered fair or just.

What does the internal aching so many children have for their missing fathers have to do with how marriage is legally defined? Advocates of redefining marriage constantly scoff at the notion that their policy goals could have a negative effect on anyone. "How does the legal union of two homosexual men affect your marriage?" they ask mockingly.

And of course the debate has nothing to do with my marriage or yours. It has to do with how future generations of adults will approach the very idea of marriage and parenthood. We already have nearly two decades of social experimentation in Scandinavia to draw upon. And it tells us that the broader the definition of marriage is the fewer adults bother with it in the first place. Since legalizing registered partnerships and gay marriage in Scandinavia, an overwhelming number of adults have simply stopped bothering to get married in the first place.

As I have pointed out many times before, words that mean everything, mean nothing. The looser we make the definition of marriage, the fewer people will feel bound to its obligations and constraints. And while broken relationships can hurt adults, they can destroy children.

Gay Marriage Violates the Separation of Church and State, Apparently

On Wallbuilders Live today, David Barton and Rick Green hosted Baptist pastor Danny Holliday, who was active in the campaign to block marriage equality legislation in the Illinois legislature. Green kicked off the show by comparing Holliday’s anti-gay activism to John Adams’ push for the adoption of the Declaration of Independence: “He was like John Adams at the Continental Congress, the guy behind the scenes that was working day and night to make sure we got the Declaration of Independence.”

Barton also wanted people to know that there is nothing “gay” about being gay.

“I’m not going to call it gay marriage; it’s homosexual marriage,” Barton pointed out. “Our friend Ken Hutcherson says he’s the gayest guy he knows because he’s not going to give the word gay up to homosexuals; gay means happy, bright and cheerful and that’s not what homosexuality is.”

Holliday told the hosts that marriage equality for gays and lesbians violates the separation of church and state. Under his Barton-esque view, Holliday said the separation of church and state actually means that the government has “no right to disregard what God says” about marriage or other issues.

It’s not about the character or integrity of people who are gay, it’s not about them. The issue is God defined marriage and since our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence and the oath of office in the state of Illinois recognize almighty God, then we have no right to disregard what God says about the institution of marriage. They don’t have a right to step beyond the veil, that separation of church and state, because it is God who gives us religious freedom and not the state.

Swanson: Gay Marriage Leads to Laptop, Pet Rock Marriages; 'Drags Feces' over Institution of Marriage

Fresh after blaming gays and women wearing hats and pants for the Colorado wildfires, Colorado pastors Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner on Generations Radio have responded to the Supreme Court’s rulings on DOMA and Prop 8 by predicting the legalization of marriages to inanimate objects.

Harkening back to an earlier program about how Star Trek allegedly promotes bestiality, Buehner claimed that “cross-species” marriages and unions with “non-life forms” will soon become all the rage: “there are some people who love their MacBooks.” Swanson even wondered about people who “want to marry their Pet Rock.”

But don’t get too excited about marrying your laptop or Pet Rock just yet, as Swanson notes that “at this point it’s the destruction of civilization.”

Swanson and Buehner both agreed that gay couples don’t actually want to get married but only seek to “stick a finger in the eye of God and to destroy civilization,” and not to mention “drag feces all over one of the most beautiful things God has created.” 

“It’s all about committing cultural suicide,” Swanson explained, “the Supreme Court of the United States took a gun, put it to its own head and pulled the trigger because now we’re looking at a civilization committing suicide.”

Rod Parsley Prophecy Special: Gays Destroy Civilization, Obamacare Will Require Chip Implants

Televangelist Rod Parsley brought on Perry Stone of Voice of Evangelism today to discuss the End Times, which, they noted, thanks to Obamacare is materializing more quickly than one might think. Stone claimed that Obamacare will mandate people to have a “heath care chip” implanted in their right hand and suggested that the chip is the Mark of the Beast.

Another self-proclaimed prophet, Cindy Jacobs, made the same contention on her show last year. Of course, the claim is completely and utterly false – if not laughable – as nothing in the law requires microchip implantations. Despite the ridiculousness, Stone says he found believers in at least four state senators receptive to the claim and is working with one to pass a state law blocking the imaginary requirement.

Later, Parsley and Stone talked about how churches should tell politicians that they will make sure their congregations only back candidates who oppose abortion rights and gay rights. “We are on the verge of legalizing abominations that have destroyed empires,” Stones cried.

“That is when the empire gets destroyed, not when the sin goes on but when the sin is legislated by the people, when it becomes ingrained in the laws then that becomes the destruction of that society or civilization,” Parsley added.

Later in the program, Parsley said that the supposed silence among pastors on the issues is a plot by the Devil.

Watch:

Crouse: Gay Marriage Will Lead to the 'Imprisonment' of Christians

After arguing that gay marriage is a threat to children and community spirit, Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America took to the Washington Times today to warn about the approaching “bleak future Christians” in which people of faith will experience “harsh retribution in the form of fines and imprisonment” if gay marriage becomes legal.

Crouse lashed out at “in-your-face media campaigns to normalize homosexual relationships” and pointed to an opinion piece by a Heritage Foundation fellow in CNN.com to claim that the DOMA ruling is a threat to democracy.

“It contradicts centuries of experience across time and cultures for the best family structure for strong nations,” Crouse writes about same-sex unions. “It represents a national experiment in social reconstruction at the expense of our children’s futures and the future of America.”

Regarding the Proposition 8 vote, the Supreme Court, in an instance of legal maneuvering that trumps common sense, said that those sponsoring the California initiative did not have “standing” to defend the constitutional amendment passed by more than 7 million voters. This amounts to the court saying, if we don’t want to address the issue, we simply say you don’t have the right to raise the issue with us. Thus, the California officials who refused to enforce the law got away with rejecting the will of the majority in their state.

In the Defense of Marriage Act vote, the Supreme Court struck down Section 3, which defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman for federal purposes. The narrow victory grants federal benefits to same-sex couples who live in states where such “marriages” are legal. In effect, though, the decision overturns the 1996 action of a bipartisan majority in Congress, even though the decision allows states to determine their own definition of marriage. Even CNN pointed out: “This is a serious loss for federalism and democratic self-government.” Section 2 of DOMA, which remains, makes it clear that no state is required to recognize another state’s same-sex “marriages.”

The technicalities, though, are obscured by the media “victory” won by the homosexual activists. More and more Americans are viewing same-sex “marriage” as inevitable, and the in-your-face media campaigns to normalize homosexual relationships are successfully changing the popular culture.



The bottom line is that the Supreme Court rulings fly in the face of a growing mountain of social science research showing that the best household arrangement for children is a married mom and dad. It contradicts centuries of experience across time and cultures for the best family structure for strong nations. It represents a national experiment in social reconstruction at the expense of our children’s futures and the future of America. These decisions repudiate — with a vengeance — the sacred trust of the Founders who built this great nation “under God” and on a foundation of Judeo-Christian principles that have stood the test of time.

Worse, the rulings warn of a future where Christians will have a choice: Keep silent about their faith or face not just being cast as a social pariah, but harsh retribution in the form of fines and imprisonment. It is hard to envision such an outcome, but the pivotal changes and losses of religious freedom and freedom of speech over the past few years portend a bleak future Christians must take seriously.

Louie Gohmert Mocks Supreme Court Justices and Gay Marriage Supporters for Believing in Evolution

While Justice Antonin Scalia has problems believing in biology, Rep. Louie Gohmert takes issue with any Supreme Court justice who understands evolution. On last week’s edition of Washington Watch, Gohmert spoke to conservative activist J. Christian Adams about the court’s decisions in the DOMA and Prop 8 cases, which he had previously warned signal the collapse of civilization.

Gohmert reacted to the court’s rulings by quoting “the wisest man in the history of mankind,” King Solomon, while lamenting that his wisdom was “ruined” by engaging in polygamy (which also happens to undermine Gohmert’s case that there was just one definition of marriage in the Bible).

“He should’ve stuck with one man and one wife and I think he’d stay wise the rest of his life,” Gohmert said of Solomon, “but during a period of wisdom he said, ‘There is nothing new under the sun,’ and the holy quintet [the Supreme Court] had not apparently realized that, they really thought this was something new and improved.”

The congressman then delved into the world of philosophy: “From a philosophical standpoint, you know, we got intellectuals on the court who are believed to support the idea that evolution is how mankind got here and there is an ongoing evolution occurring. And I can’t just help but wonder, as these brilliant intellectuals have gotten to this point, how marriage between two men fits into the evolving of producing higher offspring that make the species higher and better.”

Adams added the justices have sought to “change the laws of nature” and “alter what is reality,” while Gohmert referenced a Chiffon margarine commercial to warn the justices that they “shouldn’t mess with Mother Nature.”

Feder: Gay Marriage Means America Is 'Doomed to Extinction'

World Congress of Families spokesman Don Feder claims that the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act will legalize polygamy, incest, pedophilia and bestiality, and will ultimately mean that society is “doomed to extinction.” In fact, Feder writes in a column today, “Members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association celebrated [the ruling] by forming a chorus line in trench coats, waving candy bars.”

Feder calls the push for marriage equality “marriage mutilation” and asserts that gays and lesbians are a “breeding ground for all sexually transmitted diseases,” warning that their “death-style” only produces “disease and chaos.”

Oh give me a home where the loving couples roam and constitutionally-protected sexual choices hold sway.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which essentially said that if a state was stupid enough to establish ersatz marriage, federal taxpayers weren't required to subsidize the travesty.

Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy – Ronald Reagan's most tragic mistake, surpassing even Bush '41 – said the wicked and iniquitous DOMA "places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in second-tier marriages. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects…."

Of course, the Constitution does no such thing. It no more protects "sexual choices" (under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) than it creates a sphere of privacy (under the First Amendment) which permits abortion-on-demand. A society incapable of differentiating between a family and a perversion is doomed to extinction. Concurring with DOMA's 5-4 majority, the nation's Love Doctor, Barack Hussein Obama, exalted: "I applaud the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving couples as a separate and lesser class of people….We are a people who declared that we are all created equal…. And the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." (Emphasis added.) All the love we "commit" – including polygamous love, incestuous love, "intergenerational" love (pedophilia), cross-species love, and masochistic love (taxpayers voting for Democrats)?



We the People, in whose name the Constitution was ordained and established, have decreed – frequently and volubly, in the only polls that count – that we reject marriage mutilation.

No matter. Windsor makes clear what will be the inevitable outcome of the current charade. Again, from Scalia's dissent: "It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here – when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congresses' hateful moral judgment against it."

Besides democracy, loving couples also trump public health.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (when last I checked, not an arm of the Family Research Council), "men who have sex with men" or MSMs (AKA, male homosexuals), made up 61% of all new HIV cases in 2010, while constituting between 2% and 4% of the male population.

Conservatively, that means male homosexuals are 50 times more likely to become HIV-positive than male heterosexuals. By contrast, a male smoker is only 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer than his non-smoking counterpart.

Loving couples are a breeding ground for all sexually transmitted diseases. Again, according to CDC, a male homosexual is 46 times more likely to contract primary or secondary syphilis than other men. Apparently, all of the love they commit does nothing to ensure anything remotely approaching fidelity and restraint.

One type of family produces children, social order and the future – the other disease and chaos. Which is to be preferred? SCOTUS says differentiation between them is unconstitutionally demeaning.

But government-mandated homosexual marriage is only part of what awaits us. With the gay lobby, there's always the next big thing. They will demand that you endorse their death-style – publicly and on bended-knee. Ultimately, it's about the mailed fist of the state smashing religious liberty and conscience.



During oral arguments, in questioning a lawyer for gay marriage – who claimed that, of course, there would be limits to deconstructing a millennia-old institution – Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor (part of the DOMA majority) asked: "If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what's the restriction with respect to the number of people that could get married, the incest laws – mother and child? What's left?"

The obvious answer is nothing – which is why polygamy advocates welcomed the DOMA decision and members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association celebrated by forming a chorus line in trench coats, waving candy bars.

Dobson: Marriage Rulings Will Lead to the Disintegration of Society

On his radio show today, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson discussed the Supreme Court’s marriage equality rulings with Family Research Council president Tony Perkins and Bill Becker, an attorney affiliated with right-wing groups such as the Alliance Defense Fund and the Discovery Institute.

As you could imagine, Dobson was aghast at the decisions, arguing that same-sex marriages “threaten the entire superstructure” of society. “I believe it can come down,” Dobson warned. “This has been devastating. Even if eventually legally we somehow walk it back a bit, I don’t see our ever completely recovering from what has happened here.”

Becker went even further, saying that civilization crumbled the day the court released its rulings: “We’re talking here about the foundation of civilization and I wrote today that I believe we’ve seen the collapse of Western civilization in one day.”

Becker also quoted from Ephesians to suggest that the LGBT rights advocates represent “spiritual forces of evil,” adding that they plan to “indoctrinate” children.

Fischer: New Yorker 'Promoting Child Endangerment and Child Abuse' by Having Bert and Ernie In a 'Homosexual Clinch' (VIDEO)

Expanding on his earlier column, American Family Association spokesman lashed out at The New Yorker for putting Bert and Ernie in a “homosexual clinch” on their new cover. “Ladies and gentlemen they are cuddling on a couch, this is a romantic interlude,” he said.

“I don’t know which is which.” After quoting statistics from the very very very discredited Mark Regnerus study about same-sex parenting, Fischer said, “This is grossly irresponsible for The New Yorker to promote this, they really are promoting child endangerment and they are promoting child abuse.”

Watch:

Huelskamp: DOMA Ruling an Attack on Jesus Christ; Justices Couldn't Pass Law School

After calling on Congress to reconsider the Federal Marriage Amendment and warning that marriage equality will hurt children, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) appeared on The Steve Deace Show yesterday to once again upbraid the Supreme Court for its marriage equality rulings.

Huelskamp accused the justices of trying to “rewrite the Constitution” and of attacking Jesus Christ himself. “The idea that Jesus Christ himself was degrading and demeaning is what they’ve come down to,” he said.

The congressman agreed with Deace’s charge that the left “has every intention of turning government against the church.” He added that progressive are bent on “ramming their views down the throats of Americans.”

Huelskamp also told Deace that the justices who ruled on DOMA and Prop 8 probably couldn’t have passed law school: “Twisted logic, tortured the Constitution, I can’t even stand to read the decisions because I don’t even think they’d pass law school with decisions like that.”

Syndicate content

Marriage Equality Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Wednesday 07/09/2014, 3:40pm
In a June address to the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council lamented the support for same-sex marriage and abortion rights among “liberal Jewish folk.” Perkins cited the rise of gay rights as a sign that American society is abandoning the Bible, warning that the U.S. may next disregard biblical directives to support Israel. He also pointed to the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s recent decision to allow pastors to officiate same-sex weddings and to divest from three American corporations that are involved in West Bank settlements. MORE
Brian Tashman, Thursday 07/03/2014, 11:45am
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is outraged that Elton John cited the teachings of Jesus Christ as a reason to support marriage equality, because obviously only anti-equality activists are allowed to point to scripture. In a column yesterday, Farah offered the musician some “tough love” that is “designed to save people from really bad decisions.” After calling same-sex marriage an “absurd” “oxymoron” that validates a “vile practice” and will bring down civilization, Farah argued that gay people can only take part in “make-... MORE
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 07/02/2014, 11:15am
John Nienstedt, the Catholic archbishop who championed the failed effort to ban same-sex marriage in Minnesota, is facing a church investigation over allegations of inappropriate sexual relationships with other men, including priests and seminary students. “I believe that the investigators have received about ten sworn statements alleging sexual impropriety on the part of the archbishop dating from his time as a priest in the Archdiocese of Detroit, as Bishop of New Ulm, and while coadjutor and archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis,” church whistleblower Jennifer Haselberger... MORE
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 07/01/2014, 1:15pm
“Generations Radio” host Kevin Swanson lambasted the Presbyterian Church (USA) last week for voting to allow same-sex marriages to take place in their churches, which Swanson said means the denomination has teamed up with the Antichrist. “The Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, a purported Christian church, a church that had something of a Christian heritage, but of course now rotten to the very core, has adopted the Neronic agenda and effectively joined the ranks of the Antichrist,” he said, referring to the Roman emperor Nero. Swanson went on to... MORE
Miranda Blue, Friday 06/27/2014, 4:02pm
In an interview earlier this month with the Iowa blog Caffienated Thoughts, noted paragon of consistency Bobby Jindal lamented about “candidates who tell us one thing then go do another” on judicial nominations. Jindal was discussing recent court decisions in favor of marriage equality, which he suggested could be grounds for recalling judges. In 2012, Jindal joined the failed effort to recall an Iowa Supreme Court justice who had joined the court’s unanimous marriage equality ruling. The Louisiana governor spent the first half of the interview deriding the Common Core... MORE
Miranda Blue, Friday 06/27/2014, 11:41am
In his keynote speech at the National Organization for Marriage’s March for Marriage gala last week, Dr. Ben Carson explained how Marxists are using LGBT rights to destroy American unity and impose the "New World Order." Carson said he knows about this plot from reading right-wing conspiracy theorist W. Cleon Skousen’s book “The Naked Communist.” Earlier in the speech, Carson told the audience that gay-rights opponents are the real victims of “injustice” because they just want to be “left alone.” “When we talk about... MORE
Brian Tashman, Thursday 06/26/2014, 11:45am
Before addressing last week’s March for Marriage, where he called for a new anti-gay “civil rights movement,” Rev. William Owens appeared on “The Capitol Hill Show” with Tea Party News Network host Tim Constantine to promote the rally. Owens told Constantine that allowing gay people to marry takes away his rights, without of course saying which rights he is losing exactly. He is suffering so greatly, in fact, that he called for “another civil rights movement to reclaim our rights” with people who are “willing to die” to oppose LGBT... MORE