“Civil Unions” & “Gay Marriage”

Catholic Lawyers Association Calls for Church Sanctions against Catholic SCOTUS Justice Anthony Kennedy over Obergefell Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Decision

Tuesday, July 28th, 2015
The American Catholic Lawyers Association

Catholic In Name Only? The American Catholic Lawyers Association accuses Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the Obergefell decision imposing homosexual “marriage” on the nation, of failing to “uphold the divine and natural law that marriage is between a man and a woman.” Kennedy is a Roman Catholic.

The following was released by the American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc.:

Press Release on Obergefell v. Hodges

July 27, 2015, Fairfield, NJ – The American Catholic Lawyers Association (ACLA) announces its objection to the majority ruling in the case of  Obergefell v. Hodges regarding same-sexThe marriage.  Sodomy, as the Supreme Court itself observed in Bowers v. Hardwicke, before overruling itself a mere seventeen years later in Lawrence v. Texas, is immoral and perverse conduct that the U.S. Constitution was never intended to protect; and the Constitution is forbidden to transgress those aspects of the divine and natural law binding on all men and all nations. Nor was the Constitution ever intended to take away from the States the right to punish sodomy or to codify the truth of both divine and natural law that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Moreover the Obergefell decision is invalid in that two of the Justices were required by the U.S. Code, Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, § 455, to recuse themselves because of “impartiality that might reasonably be questioned.” Both Justices Kagan and Ginsburg failed to recuse themselves despite having a public record of advocacy of “same-sex marriage,” with both having conducted “same-sex wedding” ceremonies.

Finally, the American Catholic Lawyers Association protests in the strongest terms the actions of Justice Anthony Kennedy.  Because he was the deciding vote, God gave him, as a professing Catholic, the opportunity to uphold the divine and natural law that marriage is between a man and a woman. Instead, he did the unthinkable and attempted to overturn that truth with false human reasoning.

As a Catholic jurist, especially one protected by the life tenure that ensures judicial independence from popular sentiment, Justice Kennedy was bound to obey a law higher than his false notion of “liberty,” the law that God has inscribed in human nature.  Justice Kennedy failed in this sacred duty, violated the oath to God he took upon ascension to his high office, and thereby inflicted incalculable harm on society.

In a teaching that applies universally under the natural law, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a statement whose publication was ordered by John Paul II, declared that even “[i]n those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a dutyOne must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application.” [“Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons”, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003]

Accordingly, we call upon the Court to overrule this decision at the first opportunity. Further, we call on the Bishop of Justice Kennedy’s diocese or any competent Church authority to impose appropriate canonical sanctions in keeping with the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by John Paul II, which provides: “Those who have… been obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” CIC (1983) § 915. The Catholic faithful are not immune from the authority of the Church when they don judicial robes or enter legislative chambers. On the contrary, the Church imposes a higher duty on Catholic public officials precisely in virtue of their public offices—a duty to defend and protect the common good according to the higher law.

____________________________

AMERICAN CATHOLIC LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, INC. is a federally tax-exempt organization dedicated, since 1991, to defending the rights of Catholics in civil and criminal courts throughout the nation, both state and federal, and in public discourse and debate. Donations to the work of the Association are tax-deductible in accordance with IRS Code § 501(c)(3).

CONTACT PERSON: John Obriski, Administrative Assistant,973.244.9895obriski@acla-inc.org. ACLA website: http://www.americancatholiclawyers.org/

Baylor OKs Homosexual Behavior – Barber Asks: Will Christian Universities Obey God or Man?

Monday, July 20th, 2015

Baylor University removes ban on ‘homosexual acts’ from its sexual conduct code

Baylor_logo

Sodomy-Friendly Baylor–More ‘Caring’ than God? The “Christian” university dropped its ban on “homosexual acts” from its sexual conduct code.–because Baylor officials didn’t believe the Bible-based sodomy proscription “reflected Baylor’s caring community.”

By Matt Barber

First published by WND.com; also see Barbwire.com,

It’s by design. As I, and others, have repeatedly warned, the establishment of so-called “gay marriage” as a newfangled federal “right,” and the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment simply cannot coexist in harmony. Things diametrically at odds cannot possibly occupy, with any coherence, the same time and space.

The secular left is tripping over itself right now to prove my point. In the wake of last month’s Obergefell v. Hodges opinion – an opinion that somehow divined a top secret “constitutional right” for Patrick Henry to “marry” Henry Patrick – liberals are now demanding, as both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito predicted, that Christian universities immediately abandon recognition of, and obedience to, God’s unequivocal natural sexual order, and adopt, instead, the new pagan orthodoxy.

In a July 14 article in The Atlantic headlined, “Gay Marriage and the Future of Evangelical Colleges,” University of Tampa professor David R. Wheeler asks, “Now that same-sex couples have the right to wed, will higher-ed institutions that condemn LGBT students still be eligible for federal funding?”

Wheeler is not alone in asking. “As cultural evolution on the issue of LGBT rights continues to accelerate, it’s inevitable that some Americans will start asking hard questions about whether it makes sense to allocate scarce public resources to institutions that are not only anti-gay, but proud of it,” opines anti-Christian bigot Barry Lynn, of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “For starters, can federally supported educational institutions bar married same-sex couples from living together in student housing? I doubt it,” he adds.

In other words, Christian universities must together embrace and facilitate homosexual sin, or lose, at once, both tax-exempt status and access to all students who choose to fund their education via federal loans and grants (which is most of them).

Read the rest of this article »

Robert Reilly – ‘Farewell Reality’ – Says Supreme Court Now Posits Sodomy as Morally Equivalent to the Marital Act

Monday, July 13th, 2015
Robert Reilly will be keynoting AFTAH's annual fundraising dinner-banquet Oct. 17, at Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, IL.

Robert Reilly, author of “Making Gay Okay,” will be keynoting AFTAH’s annual fundraising dinner-banquet Sat., Oct. 17, at Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, IL.

Folks, Robert Reilly is one of this nation’s clearest thinkers in explaining the essence of the “gay” debate and the revolutionary LGBT activist campaign to normalize homosexuality and gender confusion in our culture. That is why we at Americans For Truth chose him to keynote our annual banquet Saturday, October 17, at Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Reilly–who has impeccable conservative credentials (see his bio below)–is the author of Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything [order it HERE or on Amazon].

In a recent speaking appearance in Chicago, Reilly agreed with this writer that the pro-family strategy of the last decade or so of focusing on a positive defense of natural marriage and avoiding discussing homosexuality is “the losing strategy. That is how we lost.” Reilly said,

“The entire issue is based on the morality or immorality of sodomy. And once you’re no longer willing to address that issue or if you concede that issue, you have lost, and you’ll get rolled on the religious freedom issue as well.”

Amen.

We live in bizarre times in which even some who profess to be “conservatives” are making the radical case for “marriage” based on the sexual perversion of homosexuality. Shame on them for debasing conservatism and Christianity all at once. But I am greatly encouraged that Reilly’s clear and reasoned voice of principle is beginning to rebuild the foundation for an aggressive defense of Truth on this vexing issue–without cutting corners–for many decades to come. We greatly look forward to Bob’s presentation October 17: please mark your calendars and tell your friends! This article first appeared in the Catholic World Report June 27. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

_________________________

Farewell Reality

Justice Kennedy and the other Justices joining him in this decision have violated the principle of non-contradiction and have passed over into insanity

By Robert Reilly

First published June 27, 2015 by Catholic World Report

Let us be clear about what has taken place in the Supreme Court decision extending homosexual marriage to the entire nation. Justice Anthony Kennedy has led the Court in affirming a denial of reality and in enshrining darkness as if it were light, blindness as if it were sight.

In this he has been entirely consistent. In the 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas, he discovered a right to sodomy in the Constitution. Then a year ago, in the U.S. v. Windsor case, he fabricated a right to homosexual marriage that obliterated key sections of the Defense of Marriage Act. Now, he has led the decision in removing any remaining provisions in state constitutions or laws that prevent homosexual marriage because he has discovered the right to such “marriages” in the Constitution – specifically in the 14th amendment (which, interestingly, was ratified by states all of which had prohibitions against sodomy).

Each step of the way has required the consideration of the act of sodomy as morally equivalent to heterosexual coitus and, now finally, to the marital act itself. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision has taken the last step in this chain of logic by sanctifying sodomy as a foundation for marriage.

Here’s what is required for one to think this way. The marital act is the highest expression of human sexual powers in that it is by its nature unitive and generative. In Aristotelian language, the full potential of human sexual powers is actually fulfilled – meaning, reached its perfection – in that act. Any sexual behavior that is less than the marital act is by its nature imperfect and a privation of the good of the marital act.

Let us compare it to 20/20 vision in the eye as opposed to blindness. An eye reaches its full potential, i.e. its perfection in 20/20 vision. It cannot see better than that. Anything less than 20/20 vision is a privation of the organ of sight. The further from perfection, the greater the deprivation. Blindness is the ultimate privation of sight. Now if one were to say that blindness is as good as, or equal to, sight, one would be asserting that the privation of a good is equivalent to the good of which it is a privation. This of course would be a violation of the principle of non-contradiction, which holds that a thing cannot be what it is and also be its opposite.

The Supreme Court has now held something similar: that an essentially non-generative and non-unitive act is equivalent to, or as good as, a unitive and generative act. Thus, sodomy and other homosexual acts are as good as heterosexual marital union. Upon this peculiar theory, Justice Kennedy bases his much vaunted freedom for homosexuals to marry. However, the freedom to marry is teleologically ordered by the ends of marriage, none of which can be met by homosexual behavior. The freedom to marry cannot include an abuse of this freedom, any more than the freedom of speech can include the right to lie. But sodomy is to sex what blindness is to sight. It is not only a privation of the good of sex, and therefore of marriage; it is its negation in that is deliberately non-unitive and non-generative. Justice Kennedy and his confrères have therefore violated the principle of non-contradiction. But, as we have already pointed out, this is not the first time. What can account for this consistency?

I’ve had some experience with people suffering from psychopathic paranoia. One very impressive thing about them is that they are usually of greater than average intelligence, and they operate with impeccable logic. Once you understand the premise upon which they are acting, you can see how perfectly logical their behavior is. The problem is that the premise upon which they are acting is delusional – totally unconnected with reality. That is why they are insane.

Justice Kennedy has also operated with impeccable logic, but his premise is totally disconnected from reality. In a way, his view is more disordered than the paranoid person’s distortion of reality because a paranoid person usually will not deny the principle of non-contradiction. Justice Kennedy and the other Justices joining him in this decision have violated that indispensable principle and, therefore, have passed over into insanity. The problem is that the institution in which the Justices operate is not a psychiatric one and they are not its inmates. But they are behaving as if they were; so perhaps it should be.

It is not only the Constitution and democracy that have been traduced by this decision, but reality itself. For the sake of our own sanity and spiritual survival, we must fully resist the Court’s imposition of darkness as light, of blindness as sight, of sodomy as a marital act.

“And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness grasped it not.”

________________________________

About the Author
Robert R. Reilly was Senior Advisor for Information Strategy (2002-2006) for the US Secretary of Defense, after which he taught at National Defense University. He was the director of the Voice of America (2001-2002) and served in the White House as a Special Assistant to the President (1983-1985). A graduate of Georgetown University and the Claremont Graduate University, his books include The Closing of the Muslim Mind and Making Gay Okay.

Brought to You by Walmart: New York City ‘Gay Pride’ Parade Exposes Kids to Nudity, Lewdness, Vulgarity, even an S&M Float

Thursday, July 2nd, 2015

AFTAH Exclusive: NYC parade belies SCOTUS claim that homosexual marriage “safeguards children”; homo-fascist tells AFTAH president that freedom doesn’t apply to him because ‘you’re anti-gay”

PART ONE: WARNING: Offensive images, expletives and graphic descriptions

Homosexual Sadomasochistic "Pride" - Brought to You by Walmart: This float for the New York city homosexual "leather" bar The Eagle rolls down Fifth Avenue at the New York City "Pride" parade Sunday. Note the black-and-blue flag at left symbolizing "leather pride"--the S&M counterpart to the rainbow-colored flag symbolizing "gay pride." Sadistic/masochistic "leather" sex involves extreme behaviors that glorify domination, brutality and human degradation. This includes "master-slave" couplings in which one partner becomes the "sex slave" of another "master." Homosexual leathermen revel in some of the vilest practices invented by mankind, including hand-arm-rectal "fisting." Click to enlarge. Note the police looking on at lower left: one wonders what they are thinking. Photos may be reproduced provided credit given as follows: "Photo: AmericansForTruth.org."

Homosexual Sadomasochistic “Pride” – Brought to You by Walmart: This float for the New York city homosexual “leather” bar The Eagle rolls down Fifth Avenue at the New York City “Pride” parade Sunday. Note the black-and-blue flag at left symbolizing “leather pride”–the S&M counterpart to the rainbow-colored flag symbolizing “gay pride.” Sadistic/masochistic “leather” fetishes involve extreme behaviors that glorify domination, brutality, pain and human degradation. This includes “master-slave relationships” in which one partner becomes the “sex slave” of his “master.” Homosexual leathermen revel in some of the vilest practices invented by mankind, including hand-arm-rectal “fisting.” Note the policemen looking on at lower left: one wonders what they are thinking. Photos may be reproduced provided credit given as follows: “Photo: AmericansForTruth.org.”

 

TAKE ACTION: Call Walmart’s Corporate Offices: 

Call Walmart’s headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., at 479-273-4000 and choose ext. 3, then ask for the office of CEO Doug McMillon. Or call 1-800-WALMART (925-6278). Write Walmart online HERE (click the “Community and Giving” option). When I called the first number I was routed to Customer Relations. Send the CEO a fax: fax CEO McMillon directly at 479-204-0798. Urge Walmart to STOP financing the celebration of sexual immorality and extreme gender confusion like New York City “Pride.” Tell them that you are offended as a customer that Walmart would sign on as a top-level funder of a New York City’s debauched homosexual “pride” parade that featured nudity, perversion, vulgarity, gender rebellion and even an S&M float being flaunted in front of young children. See also this past AFTAH article on Walmart’s capitulation to the LGBTQ agenda. 
_____________________________

Walmart_Pride_logoBy Peter LaBarbera; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera

Americans For Truth Exclusive

New York City’s annual homosexual “Pride” parade–sponsored Sunday (June 28, 2015) for the first time at the highest “Platinum” level by Walmart Corporation–featured nudity, lewdness, vulgarity and even a sadomasochism float–subjecting the many young children who either marched in or viewed the parade to behaviors and messages that are highly inappropriate for their age and emotional immaturity. [See photos below.]

This AFTAH writer observed most of the parade, which was dominated by major corporate sponsors. One of the bases for the Supreme Court’s stunningly radical June 26 ruling creating a “constitutional right” for homosexual “marriage” is that it “safeguards children and families.” But in truth homosexual parenting harms kids in a variety of ways. It was precisely homosexual (and pro-”gay”) parents who brought impressionable children to observe this highly-sexualized parade glorifying immorality and gender confusion. This is just one example, but a very troubling one, of how “gay parenting” harms children.

I asked a woman who was hostile to me being there about the propriety of exposing kids to lewd behaviors and vulgarity. She said she didn’t agree with everything that goes on at the “pride” parade but that nobody was forcing people to attend it. However, that right to choose does not extend to minor children, who are taken to such bawdy events by their parents and subjected to the perverseness and homo-eroticism that naturally flow from a parade celebrating deviant sex and gender. One such child was a girl standing next to me who appeared to be about 10 or 11; she was evidently dropped off by her father (I saw a man check on her once), who left her alone for hours to view the “pride” parade.

Walmart Champions "Pride" in Homosexuality: Walmart marchers at New York City's homosexual "Pride" parade carry massive "rainbow flag" symbolizing the celebration of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism (extreme gender confusion). Walmart was a top-level "Platinum" corporate sponsor of Heritage Pride, which runs the parade and the extended "pride" activities in late June in the Big Apple.

Walmart Champions “Pride” in Homosexuality: Walmart marchers at New York City’s homosexual “Pride” parade carry massive “rainbow flag” symbolizing the celebration of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism (extreme gender confusion). Walmart was a top-level “Platinum” corporate sponsor of Heritage of Pride, which runs the parade and the extended “pride” activities in late June in the Big Apple.

“Gay” Bully Exercises Special Rights
At one point half-way through the parade, as I stood near the corner of Fifth Avenue and 10th  Street (near the homosexual “pride”-celebrating Church of the Ascension), two homosexual activists, a man and a woman–started verbally challenging me, escalating to outright harassment. They had figured out that I was not a homosexual enthusiast and were upset that a moral critic was taking photos at “their” parade, even though it was a very public event.

Read the rest of this article »

SCOTUS and ‘Gay Marriage’ – Obergefell v. Hodges: Illegitimate, Unlawful, and a Fraud on the American People

Friday, June 26th, 2015
AFTAH president Peter LaBarbera (at right) and AFTAH's Washington, D.C. spokesman

SCOTUS Lacks Moral Authority: AFTAH president Peter LaBarbera (at right) and AFTAH’s Washington, D.C. spokesman Brian Fitzpatrick (at left) hold truthful banner outside the Supreme Court April 28 during the Court’s hearing of oral arguments on homosexual “marriage” cases. To read the Court’s 5-4 decision nationalizing so-called “gay marriage” as a supposed fundamental right, go HERE. Click to enlarge.

Put down June 26, 2015 as a very tragic day in the history of the United States of America–the day our highest court defied the will of millions of voters in many states to impose counterfeit, homosexuality-based “marriage” on the entire country.

This is part of the series, “Building the Resistance to Same-Sex ‘Marriage,’ sponsored by the U.S. Justice Foundation. AFTAH has published just one of the 13 other essays in this series; see, “Does the Supreme Court Have the Authority to Mandate Same-Sex ‘Marriage’?” As with that piece, we have taken the liberty to put quote marks around homosexual “marriage.” More will follow. Click to read the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling.–Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera

_________________

Obergefell v. Hodges:  Illegitimate, Unlawful, and a Fraud on the American People

by Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson;  June 26, 2015

There is simply no other way to say it.

The Supreme Court’s decision today redefining marriage to include couples of the same sex is wholly illegitimate and unlawful.  A nullity.  Worthy only to be disobeyed.

Anyone who says otherwise — that the rule of law requires recognition of same-sex marriage — is committing a fraud.  And any State official — like Governor Robert Bentley of Alabama — who says that his oath of office requires unconditional obedience to the Supreme Court’s mandate to issue same-sex couples licenses to “marry” is mistaking his oath to the Constitution as if it were an oath of absolute obedience to five justices who happen to be sitting on the nation’s highest court.

As Chief Justice Roberts in dissent has described the action taken today:

“Five lawyers have closed debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.  Stealing this issue from the people ….”

And just who are these lawyers?  Justice Scalia reminds us that they are all educated at either Harvard or Yale, from the east- and west- coasts, not from the vast middle of the country, and not a single one an evangelical Christian or a Protestant, and then observes:

“The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage.”

Indeed, from the outset of his bare majority decision, Justice Kennedy did not even act like a judge.  Rather, he wrote as if he were an existentialist philosopher seeking the meaning of life, as if the “liberty” protected in the Constitution was a personal quest “to define and express [one’s personal] identity.”

But the Constitution is not some philosophical work written by Jean Paul Sartre.  Rather, it is a political and legal document designed by America’s founders to secure the unchanging God-given rights to life, liberty, and property which are deeply rooted in the 18th century soil of the nation.  Justice Kennedy showed no regard for these fixed principles, opting for an evolutionary approach to law — asserting that the existential definition of marriage changes with changing times.

Read the rest of this article »

AFTAH’s Core Principles and Beliefs

Thursday, June 25th, 2015
Kinsey-Table-34-2

The Deviant Roots of a Sin Movement: Dr. Alfred Kinsey’s Table 34 showing timed “orgasms” for babies and young children–apparently supplied to him by a child molester. This table appears in Kinsey’s celebrated 1948 book, “Sexual Behavior and the Human Male,” which also greatly exaggerated the number of people practicing homosexual behavior in American society. Homosexual activists seized on Kinsey’s book to argue that homosexuality was widespread and normal. See AFTAH Point 12 below. Click on graphic to enlarge.

There will be revisions and additions to this list, but here is AFTAH’s first draft of core principles and beliefs.–Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

______________________________

1) Homosexual behavior and trans-gender rebellion are morally wrong as they defy Nature and Nature’s God.

2) Homosexuality is not the basis for a healthy self-identity; embracing homosexual or transgender lifestyles/behaviors is a very bad and destructive choice.

3) Homosexuality is about What You Do, not Who You Are. Everyone is responsible before God for his or her sexual conduct. “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity”–the notion of an innate or inherent nature centered around proclivity toward sex- and gender-confusion–are the misguided foundations of self-serving “gay” ideology. These concepts seek to justify immorality by essentially removing one’s moral responsibility for his or her actions.

4) Homosexualism and gender confusion are not the basis for civil rights. Equating  the campaign for homosexual “rights”and same-sex “marriage” to the Black civil rights movement insults Black Americans and their noble struggle against slavery and institutional racism (e.g., Jim Crow). Christians in past days were wrong to misuse the Bible to ban interracial unions. Interracial marriages produce beautiful children and families; homosexuality cannot produce life. Creating “rights” based on moral wrongs and sexual/gender perversions naturally undermines other people’s rights, especially the freedoms of religion and conscience enshrined in the United States Constitution. As John Adams, the second president of the United States and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote: ”[W]e have not government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our constitution was made only for a moral and spiritual people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

5) All people as human beings created in the image of God deserve respect; all behaviors and ideologies do not.

6) Unlike race and ethnicity, homosexuality is not immutable: people can pursue virtuous change and leave aberrant sex- and transgender lifestyles behind. Oddly, the same LGBTQ activists who champion men and women who abandon their marital spouse and children to live a homosexual life–or the DNA-defying notion that people can change sexes–often excoriate and dehumanize EX-”gays.” Nevertheless, thousands of people have successfully left homosexuality behind, and their wholesome transformation should be celebrated. Legal and legislative efforts to ban pro-heterosexual change therapy for minors are cruel, antithetical to liberty and parental rights, and demonstrate the totalitarian mindset of homosexual advocates and their allies. [AFTAH highly recommends Restored Hope Network, an umbrella group of Christian ex-"gay" ministries.]

Read the rest of this article »

WATCH: Sorba Undercover Video #3 Shows Democrats Supporting ‘Polyamorous Marriage’ Rights – Multiple-Partner Unions

Tuesday, June 23rd, 2015

Folks, I will say this about the latest Ryan Sorba video: you don’t need to go undercover to reveal the Democrats’ penchant for embracing any sexual lifestyle that is outside the bounds of one-man/one-woman marriage. More and more social liberals–who always follow the “progressives’” lead–are jumping on the “polyamory” (multiple-partner) bandwagon. Sorba’s description of the video follows the jump and the video. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera

_____________________________________

Ryan Sorba writes:

Published on Jun 22, 2015

Recently, I went undercover posing as a same-sex marriage activist and asked prominent gay activists and Democrats the following question:

“If the purpose of marriage is to confer dignity upon individuals who love each other, then what about polygamous couples who love each other? They should be able to marry too, don’t you think?”

Shockingly, the gay activists and Democrats all answered, “Yes!”

Read the rest of this article »

Does the Supreme Court Have the Authority to Mandate Same-Sex ‘Marriage’?

Monday, June 22nd, 2015
Supreme-Court-2014

Abusing Authority? Current U.S. Supreme Court: Standing in back (left to right): Justices: Sonia Sotomayor; Stephen Breyer; Samuel Alito; and Elena Kagan. Front row, sitting (left to right): Justices: Clarence Thomas; Antonin Scalia; Chief Justice John Roberts; Anthony Kennedy; and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Click to enlarge.

“The High Court often acts as if it has been entrusted with the raw power to decide for us the most important public policy issues facing the nation.” — William Olson & Herb Titus 

The article below is the first in a series on the courts and homosexual “marriage”; the destructive effect of judicially-imposed counterfeit “marriage” on the nation; and how we as citizens can fight back against this immoral legal/cultural juggernaut. We have taken the liberty of putting quotation marks around the word same-sex “marriage” even when the authors do not–as part of our ongoing struggle to preserve the real meaning of words against “progressive” semantic distortions. Yes, it’s a pain in the rear but it’s the right thing to do.

Kudos to attorneys and pro-family advocates Bill Olson and Herb Titus for conceiving of this project and giving so much of their time and energy toward these in-depth articles together. Thanks also to the U.S. Justice Foundation for financing this project. Should you want to help support this important work, contributions may be made to the U.S. Justice Foundation. – Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera

__________________________

Reconsidering the U.S. Supreme Court’s Authority to Mandate Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

(Part one of a series)

By William J. Olson and Herbert W. Titus

On April 28, 2015, nine unelected lawyers drawn from three elite law schools (Harvard, Yale, and Columbia) listened to 90-minutes of oral argument about same-sex marriage and then retreated behind a wall of red velvet drapes to confer secretly about whether the U.S. Constitution requires that the U.S. Supreme Court impose same-sex “marriage” on the entire nation.

Consider for a moment the process by which that decision will be reached.  When the Court decided to hear the Obergefell consolidated cases from the Sixth Circuit, that decision was reached in secret. The Justices consult only with their colleagues and their law clerks, also drawn from elite law schools.  When a decision in the case is issued, presumably before the end of the current term toward the end of June, the Court will address only those issues argued by parties and the amici curiae that it cares to address.  Its opinion will contain only those reasons for its decision that the Court chooses to reveal. The majority decision may be agreed to by as few as five of these nine justices unaccountable to no one but themselves. And then, the Court will expect the American people to set aside their individual and collective judgment and passively abide by whatever decision is reached — based on a doctrine no where found in the U.S. Constitution–“judicial supremacy.”

Although the Supreme Court’s only constitutional responsibility is to resolve “cases” and “controversies” brought before it, the High Court often acts as if it has been entrusted with the raw power to decide for us the most important public policy issues facing the nation. While the Court would have us believe that those decisions are mandated by faithful adherence to the constitutional text, the truth lies elsewhere. In his autobiography, Justice William O. Douglas provided a glimpse behind the curtain as to how the Supreme Court really works. In his autobiography, he explained that Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes had once explained to him: “[a]t the constitutional level where we work, ninety percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections.”

Read the rest of this article »


Support Americans for Truth about Homosexuality

Americans for Truth
P.O. Box 5522
Naperville, IL 60567-5522


Americans for Truth Radio Hour

Americans for Truth Academy

Want to See Every New AFTAH Article?

If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.