“One wonders how the case would have come out if the Colorado Commission had not been overtly hostile to Jack Phillips.”

By William Olson and Herb Titus, first published June 5, 2018, by Restoring Liberty

[On June 4], the Supreme Court ruled in favor of cake maker Jack Phillips in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. Justice Kennedy wrote the decision for the Court, joined by six other justices, both liberal and conservative. Justices Gorsuch and Alito concurred, Justices Thomas and Gorsuch concurred, Kagan and Breyer concurred, and Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented.

There is very little principled analysis in any of the Court’s five opinions except for that of Justice Thomas, who concluded that Phillips was denied his freedom of speech.

Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion focused mainly on the despicable treatment Phillips received in front of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In particular, Justice Kennedy noted that the Commission ruled against Phillips for his refusal to bake a pro-gay cake, but ruled in favor of three other bakers who refused to bake anti-gay cakes.

The significance of the majority opinion is nicely summed up in its last paragraph: “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

In other words, this decision is essentially confined to his facts — ruling for Jack Phillips because the Colorado commission was openly hostile towards Phillips’ religious beliefs. Every future case involving such a state “public accommodations” law, however, will be a balancing act, conducted by federal judges, pitting homosexual “dignity” against sincere religious beliefs.

Those Days Are Gone….for LGBTQ activists. Although Trump has already made some key capitulations to the LGBTQueer agenda, he has also disappointed homosexual and gender-confusion activist in major ways. Obama’s immoral LGBTQ legacy is astonishing and much of it will be hard to undo. This Newsweek cover accompanied an adoring 2012 piece on Obama by homosexual writer Andrew Sullivan.

Folks, after President Trump flubbed it bigtime by extending Obama’s LGBT executive order on federal contractors (and declaring as president-elect that SCOTUS-imposed homosexual “marriage” is settled law), he has done the right thing here by letting Obama’s intrusive “transgender” executive order die in court.

Think of it as payback for Obama refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) after “bullsh–ting” the American people on “gay marriage” in his 2008 run for president (to quote his top aide). Remember how Obama conned voters into thinking he was a pious believer in marriage as one man, one woman? (Mr. Rainbow Halo will have to answer to God for that some day, and much more.)

Now a note to AFTAH’s readers and supporters: if you haven’t figured it out yet, here is our approach toward President Trump and the LGBTQueer agenda: “Don’t really trust, and verify.” When he does right, like in NOT pushing gender confusion in schools, we will praise him. When he advances the “gay/trans” agenda, through action or non-action, we will criticize him.

I say this as a Cruz guy in the primaries who voted for Trump Nov. 8, and who would do so again: it is my longstanding conviction that God doesn’t give a pass to “Republican-backed” Sin Movements. Morality and biblical Truth know no party. So all you diehard, Trump-can-do-no-wrong fans: don’t bother urging us to go easy on Trump or look the other way when he enables homo-immorality, because we simply cannot–especially after hammering pro-sin Democrats all these years.

Here’s a “Washington Watch” piece with some good background on the Obama transgender order by Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council. Following that is the reaction to AG Jeff Sessions’ action by the Human Wrongs Rights Campaign (HRC), the world’s largest and most powerful homosexual-bisexual-transgender lobby group. God bless. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera

_________________________

Trump Washes His Hands of Bathroom Order

February 13, 2017, FRC Washington Watch; sign up for FRC emails HERE

If you thought President Trump hit the ground running, you should see Jeff Sessions. The new attorney general was probably still unpacking his office when he got to work turning the page at the Justice Department after eight years of scandal. First up? The Obama bathroom mandate for public schools.

Less than 48 hours after his confirmation, Sessions’s DOJ made it clear the agency was under new management by refusing to defend the controversial order to let students of both sexes use any locker room, shower, or restroom they want. Since last May when President Obama shocked the country with his decree, the issue has been working its way through the courts — thanks to a huge pushback from states like Texas. By summer’s end, a federal judge agreed with parents: the Obama administration had overstepped its boundaries. In a huge win for the Constitution and common sense, Reed O’Connor blocked the rule from taking effect, at least temporarily. Frustrated, the Obama attorneys asked the court to lift its ban in every state except the 13 who sued the government over it. O’Connor refused, insisting:

“It is clear from Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent that this Court has the power to issue a nationwide injunction where appropriate. Both Title IX and Title VII rely on the consistent, uniform application of national standards in education and workplace policy. A nationwide injunction is necessary because the alleged violation extends nationwide,” he wrote. “Should the Court only limit the injunction to the plaintiff states who are a party to this cause of action, the Court risks a ‘substantial likelihood that a geographically-limited injunction would be ineffective.”

Read the rest of this article »

Homosexual activists fret over Neil Gorsuch’s judicial philosophy and record; Log Cabin Republicans noncommittal

Let the “Borking” Begin: Homosexual legal group Lambda Legal runs photo of Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, with the word “Dangerous” printed over his face.

By Peter LaBarbera

Trump giveth, and Trump taketh away. Days after giving homosexual activists a huge gift by NOT rescinding a 2014 Obama executive order forcing federal contractors to have an LGBT “nondiscrimination” policy, Trump offered up a constitutional “originalist,” Judge Neil Gorsuch, to replace deceased Justice Antonin Scalia.

That led the coddled array of deviant-sex-and-gender leftist groups, otherwise known as the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer) movement, to go ballistic [see my LifeSiteNews piece here].

Note that, regarding one 2015 decision by Circuit Court Judge Gorsuch involving a gender-confused prisoner, the LGBTQ Lobby almost literally has its (transgender) panties in a wad. (The poor fella in the case, a “male-to-female” transsexual, was not permitted to wear “feminine undergarments” in jail. Boo-hoo.)

It is hardly shocking that the same homosexual and transgender activists who create “rights” based on sodomitic inclinations and same-sex/gender-confused feelings would fear a man like Gorsuch, who is being compared to the brilliant conservative Justice Scalia. The latter repeatedly eviscerated the “living, breathing Constitution” judicial philosophy of “progressives” that discovers “rights” out of thin air to accommodate modern social ills like abortion-on-demand, homosexuality and pornography.

Even honest liberals might agree with this: it is difficult to find a “constitutional” right for two dudes to “marry” seeing that sodomy itself was illegal in most colonies and a taboo at the time of the Constitution’s framing. (“Prior to 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state, punished by a lengthy term of imprisonment and/or hard labor,” the left-biased Wikipedia reports.)

So even though the newly elected Trump choked badly by telling 60 Minutes that legalized same-sex “marriage” via the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling is “settled law” (while somehow Roe v. Wade is not), the Supreme Court could be just one more Trump appointment away from reversing it and sending “gay marriage” back to the states. That freaks out the Homosexual Lobby, which, like the Left in general, regards its SCOTUS victories as permanent, and pro-family wins like the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision upholding sodomy laws as temporary.

Here’s a quick rundown with links on some of the larger LGBTQ organizations’ hostile statements against Gorsuch; most of these are excerpts (note source links attached to group name). Also note the nuanced, noncommittal statement of the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans on Trump’s nominee:

GLAAD (formerly Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination):

“Neil Gorsuch’s harmful history of discrimination against the LGBTQ community renders him completely unfit to sit on the highest court in the land,” said Sarah Kate Ellis, GLAAD President & CEO. “He has record of advocating for anti-LGBTQ rhetoric or supporting candidates that are in favor of open discrimination against people and families who simply want to be treated the same as everyone else. Gorsuch’s presence on the Supreme Court will affect the law of the land for generations to come – long after Trump is out of office, and will turn back the clock on equality and acceptance.”

Fox News, media, Republican social liberals cheer on LGBTQ agenda in Cleveland

“Fake” Culture Wars? Donald Trump gave homosexual (activist) Republican and PayPal founder Peter Thiel a prime-time slot to address the Republican convention–and he used it to belittle the “culture wars” and pro-family campaigns against “transgender rights,” i.e., laws allowing men wearing dresses to use female restrooms. AFTAH does not cower to political correctness: we tell the truth: that God makes no special dispensation for Republican homosexuality as opposed to the Democrat variety.

By Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH Special Report, Part One

Quick Summary [see videos at bottom]:

• Donald Trump is already taking the Republican Party in a pro-homosexual direction
• Trump as a life-long New Yorker has a history of supporting homosexual “rights”
• In his speech accepting the GOP presidential nomination, Trump went out of his way to affirm the “LGBTQ [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and/or Questioning] community”
• Meanwhile, Trump said nothing about overturning the Supreme Courts’s Obergefell ruling imposing homosexual “marriage” on the states
• Trump also ignored the battle raging between “gay rights” and freedom of conscience [see this Colorado baker case update]. And his long speech did not mention abortion and the plight of the unborn 
• All these issues were featured prominently in the conservative 2016 GOP Platform approved in Cleveland
• Trump did champion a repeal of the Johnson Amendment inhibiting churches from political involvement. This will greatly help Christians and pastors to engage culturally if he succeeds
• Trump invited openly homosexual PayPal founder and “gay” activist Peter Thiel to give a prime time address at the GOP convention [watch video at bottom]
• Thiel used the opportunity to deride the “Culture Wars” as “fake”; said he was “proud to be gay”; and he belittled pro-family efforts opposing “transgender rights” laws 
• Fox News and other major media applauded Thiel and generally celebrated the “gay Republican” cause
• Fox News’ Megyn Kelly brought on young homosexual Republican Guy Benson and a liberal Democrat–but no social conservative–to comment on Thiel’s address

Homosexualism in the name of “freedom”…is being pushed in the GOP by groups like the American Victory Fund. Shown above are (left to right): Montel Williams, Margaret Hoover and Bruce (“Caitlyn”) Jenner at a widely covered AUL event held at the Republican convention in Cleveland. Watch Jenner’s and Williams’ presentation at the AUL event here. Photo: American United Fund website.

• A convention event put on by the American Unity Fund–a pro-LGBT Republican group–featuring Bruce (“Caitlyn”) Jenner and Montel Williams also received wide media attention in Cleveland
• In contrast, dissident conservative voices–e.g., pro-life and pro-natural marriage voices–will likely receive little media attention at the left-leaning Democratic convention this week
• Socialcons, Beware: Throughout the GOP primary campaign, some socially liberal and libertarian Republicans welcomed Trump’s rise because, to quote one writer, it “appears to have broken the stranglehold social conservatives have had on the party’s primary process”
• The pro-LGBTQ appeal within the GOP is being marketed to and in part driven by millennial voters (ages 18-29)–who, polls show, favor “same-sex marriage” and are more accepting of homosexuality than older demographics
• However, transcendent, biblical morality is timeless and is not determined by polls
• Unlike many politically correct conservatives who walk on eggshells when discussing “gay Republicans” and the GOP’s perversion-enabling “Big Tent,” we at Americans For Truth embrace and boldly defend historic truth: homosexualism is immoral whether advanced by Democrats or Republicans, or by young people or older people.
• And with God’s help, people can overcome the sin of homosexuality: see this inspiring interview with former “gay” Frank Worthen
• Conservatives have long condemned “moral relativism,” but that is the essence of the new campaign by GOP moderates and social liberals to rationalize homosexualism and gender confusion in the name of freedom and conservatism
• Openly homosexual Republicans and their “straight allies” may be conservative on a variety of issues, but on homosexual and transgender issues they usually echo liberal, LGBT talking points
• If the GOP becomes a party espousing homosexual “marriage” and “LGBT rights”–i.e., a “Democrat-Lite” party on moral and social issues–it will cease to be truly conservative and pro-family. It will dishonor God, and become an agent of destructive change in America

__________________________________

Quick Links:

• Trump GOP convention speech text
• Peter Thiel GOP convention speech text and video (note conservative Breitbart site’s laudatory coverage)
• Video: Fox “Fair & Balanced”? Homosexual conservative Guy Benson praises Thiel’s speech on Megyn Kelly’s show
• Obama’s Reign of Error: Long list of President Barack Obama’s pro-LGBT actions
• AFTAH article: “Affidavit and Video: Cross-dressing Transgender Voyeur Shauna Smith – Who Shot Video of Woman Undressing at Idaho Target Store – Says It Was Like Viewing Porn
• GOP 2016 Platform: excerpts on key social issues
• Full Republican Party Platform approved in Cleveland (PDF)
• Fox News’ liberalism: Author’s in-depth report on Fox News’ Pro-Gay Bias for America’s Survival (PDF)
• New York Times article (4/22/16): “Donald Trump’s more accepting views on Gay issues set him apart in GOP”
• Politico article (7/22/16): “Gay Republicans want more from Trump”
• AFTAH article on Trump’s liberal, “gay”-affirming past: “Trump Called For Adding Homosexuality to the 1964 Civil Rights Act – in 2000 Interview with ‘Gay’ Magazine”
• Conservative pollster Rasmussen Reports on Trump breaking social conservatives’ “stranglehold” on the Republican Party (3/3/16): “Why Trump Is Good for the GOP”
• Video: American Unity Fund event at GOP Convention featuring Bruce (“Caitlyn”) Jenner and Montel Williams (who compares unchangeable race to homosexuality)
• Trump’s Promise to Christians: Time article (7/14/16) on Trump and the Johnson Amendment: “Republican platform calls for repeal of ban on political organizing by churches”
• “Gay conservatives” get nasty like other homosexual activists: “Tammy Bruce’s Nasty Ambush Interview [of this writer], and Cliff Kincaid on CPAC and ‘Gays'”
• It is a lie to say that “gays” cannot change: “VIDEO: Anne Paulk Interviews Frank Worthen, Dean of Ex-‘Gays’ – at Restored Hope Network Conference”

__________________________________

Dear AFTAH Readers,

Like Gov. Mike Pence, the Indiana governor and Donald Trump’s choice for his vice-presidential running mate, for the last 30-odd years since I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior, I have considered myself a Christian first, a conservative second and a Republican third—“in that order,” as Pence says.

I became interested in the “gay” (homosexual) revolution in America about 25 years ago. It has been fascinating to watch the interplay of homosexualism, Republicanism, media and Christianity in politics and culture even since. The treatment of homosexualism—which I define as essentially the celebration of homosexuality as a “civil right” and a proud, personal identity—is one indicator of the spiritual and moral health of a society.

As sober and biblically-minded Christians know, the news is not good in America. Like much of the West, we have a spiritual sickness—moral relativism, rooted in disrespect for God and his Laws. We love our sin and the tolerance thereof more than we love God and love Truth (capital “T,” what used to be called absolute truth).

Now that spiritual sickness has infected the Republican Party and “conservative” media, and the result can only be the further deterioration of the patient—because true “goodness” is rooted in God alone and His holy Word–not man’s fickle, transitory and self-rationalizing ideas.  — @Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

_______________________________________

• Outstanding Resources: Order Robert Reilly’s excellent book, Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything, for $25 postpaid—and support Americans For Truth in the process! Give online HERE (note book in memo) or send $25/book (request “Making Gay Okay”) to AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.]
• Also: A Gem for Just $5: Get your copy of the late Dr. Charles Socarides’ book: Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far: A Psychoanalyst Answers 1,000 Questions Abut Causes and Cure and the Impact of the Gay Rights Movement on American Society — for any gift to AFTAH of just $5 or more postpaid. Give online here.

______________________________________

Joe Sobran, 1946-2010

Folks, I generally avoid using the term “sodomites”**–it too easily plays into the hands of anti-Christians–but who am I to make a politically correct edit on the late Joe Sobran, one of the greatest conservative writers of modern times? This essay by Sobran is even more applicable today than when he penned it in 2003, following the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s creation of a newfangled “right” to homosexuality-based “marriage.”

I particularly like Sobran’s passage on liberalism:

But liberalism itself is a continual digression. Nobody can divine its next trend. Even its most profound critics, including John Henry Newman, have been unable to anticipate its particular fads. It may, or may not, embrace pedophilia next. On what principle can any perversion be ruled out?

Such is the nature of God-defying, sin-as-a-civil-right modern “progressivism.” And now the Sexual Left–having legally destroyed the meaning of marriage with the eager help of the U.S. Supreme Court–has moved on to “mainstreaming” and mandating accommodation for: (trans)gender rebels–think men with fake boobs and a penis invading female restrooms; sadomasochism; men becoming human “dogs”; and “polyamory” (anti-fidelity).

As for pedophilia, that lobby is still gearing up–mimicking the successful, manipulative tactics of the “gay liberation” movement by portraying themselves as the aggrieved “victims” of an inconvenient “orientation.” (See this “support group” for “Minor Attracted Persons,” or MAPs.) Of course, we know who the real victims are.

If only more conservatives who possessed the moral clarity of Joe Sobran! –– Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; @PeterLaBarbera

** P.S. I will grant that “Sodomite”–linked to the abominable act that demanded God’s horrific punishment–is more accurate than “homosexual,” a 19th-Century semantic invention that itself has been declared anathema by today’s LGBTQ activists. (They prefer “gay” for men and women–which we put in quotes because it’s essentially self-serving propaganda.) Homosexual (as a noun)–though used clinically at first–came to imply a special personhood to de facto homo-sexual sinners, i.e., an innate or at least inherent–even proud!–self-identity based on his or her inclination toward same-sex deviance. Logical (and biblical) thinkers must never acquiesce to such a false identity–unless we also are prepared to label and confirm people as (inherent or inborn) liars, “pornos,” gossipers, drunks, etc., according to their besetting sinful thoughts and behaviors.

___________________________

The case against sodomy: How to use reason and natural law to argue against homosexual acts and ‘gay marriage’

Explaining Why Homosexual Behavior Is Wrong: Robert Reilly, author of ‘Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything,’ will speak at AFTAH’s annual dinner-banquet Saturday, October 17th at Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, IL. Sign up online HERE. Tickets are $20/person or $200 for a Table of 10. Send a check with “AFTAH Banquet” on the memo line to: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522. For a printable PDF color flier of the event, click HERE.

What: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality’s (AFTAH) annual dinner-banquet fund-raiser

Who: Keynote speaker: Robert Reilly, author, ‘Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything’ [order it HERE or on Amazon]. Reilly served as a Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan and was the Director of the Voice of America.

When: Saturday, October 17, 2015, 6:00 PM Central; doors open at 5:30.

Where: Christian Liberty Academy, 502 W. Euclid Ave., Arlington Heights, IL 60004. Map HERE.

Cost: Only $20 per person. Sponsor a Table of 10 for just $200. Or sponsor 5 attendees for $100. Send check made out to “AFTAH” to: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522. Or sign up online using our safe credit card form (check the box for Banquet Registration or to sign up to sponsor a Table of 10).

PDF Flier: For a printable PDF color flier on the Oct. 17 event, click HERE.

UPDATE: Stellar pro-family advocate Linda Harvey of Mission America (and a WND.com columnist) will also be speaking at the AFTAH banquet Saturday, Oct. 17!)

_________________________

Second AFTAH Banquet in Wash., DC on Nov. 21: Americans For Truth will be hosting Robert Reilly for a second dinner-banquet in the Washington, D.C. area on Saturday, Nov. 21. Stay tuned for more details.

_________________________

Crafting a Principled Strategy: At a recent speaking appearance in Chicago, Reilly explained how the dominant pro-family movement strategy of the last decade of focusing on a positive defense of natural marriage and consciously avoiding discussing homosexuality is “the losing strategy. That is how we lost.” Reilly continued:

“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. It is such clear and principled thinking that sets Reilly apart from many pro-family leaders. 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 (and sin) of homosexuality. Shame on them for debasing conservatism and Christianity all at once. But I am greatly encouraged that Reilly’s well-reasoned approach is beginning to gain ground as we endeavor to rebuild the foundation for an aggressive defense of Truth on this vexing issue. We greatly look forward to Bob’s presentation October 17: please mark your calendars and tell your friends! This article below appeared in many online publications, including CNS News. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Email: americansfortruth@gmail.com; Phone: 312-324-3787 

_________________________

Below is an excellent column by Robert Reilly that lays out the compromise in the pro-family legal strategy that helped pave the way for the imposition of homosexual “marriage” by the courts, culminating in the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling:

Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Goes Against the ‘Laws of Nature and Nature’s God’

By Robert R. Reilly | June 9, 2015 |

Why have the pro-natural family forces been losing in court?  Intentionally or not, Judge Richard Posner explained the reason in a 7th Circuit Court ruling (Sept. 4, 2014), in which he decided against the Indiana and Wisconsin laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman:

“The state [Wisconsin] does not mention Justice Alito’s invocation [in the Windsor case] of a moral case against same-sex marriage, when he states in his dissent that ‘others explain the basis for the institution in more philosophical terms.  They argue that marriage is essentially the solemnizing of a comprehensive, exclusive, permanent union that is intrinsically ordered to producing new life, even if it does not always do so.’ [U.S. v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 2718 (2013).] That is a moral argument for limiting marriage to heterosexuals. The state does not mention the argument because as we said, it mounts no moral arguments against same-sex marriage.”  Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648, 669 (7thCir. 2014) (emphasis added).

While Justice Alito recognizes that there is a moral argument for limiting marriage to heterosexuals, it was not only the State of Wisconsin that failed to make such a case. Neither have the States of Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, or Tennessee in Obergefell, the decisive case now before the U.S. Supreme Court.  I believe that this is one of the key reasons that the pro-natural family position has been losing in most of the cases thus far.

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 18^th 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.

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.”