Sen. Cruz: “The religious liberty threat is real. They are coming for each of us, and Kim Davis is only the first.”

Folks, this is a wonderful and enlightening exchange between talk show host and author Mark Levin and GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz on the situation of Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused post-Obergefell to issue official homosexual “marriage” licenses under her name due to her Christian beliefs. Davis was jailed yesterday and faces likely stiff penalties, if not extended jail time. This interview was recorded yesterday, September 3, 2015. Levin eviscerates the “rule of law” argument frame advanced by the Left and even many “conservatives” who do not seem to be willing to admit that the Supreme Court of the United States itself declared it above the “rule of law” by taking the issue of marriage away from the people. (Kentucky citizens voted by a whopping 75 percent in favor of a “one man/one woman” constitutional amendment in 2004.) — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

Question and answer fit homosexual activist narrative; Kelly’s and Fox News’ pro-“gay” evolution continues

Fox News’ Pro-Homosexual Bias: America’s Survival’s 90-page report on the “conservative”-leaning network’s pro-“gay” bias, authored by Peter LaBarbera. Photo on cover is of Fox News prime time star Megyn Kelly posing for a photo at the — annual fund-raiser of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association. To download a PDF copy of the report, go HERE. For an HTML version, go HERE. See a transcript of the debate HERE. See the video of LaBarbera discussing the report with Michael Voris below.

TAKE ACTION: Contact Fox News and urge the network to stop promoting homosexual “marriage” and the rest of the LGBT agenda (as Megyn Kelly, Dana Perino and other on-air personalities are doing). Call 888-369-4762 or use their Online Contact Form. Or e-mail Fox News at comments@foxnewsinsider.com. Download a PDF of the author’s in-depth 2013 report on Fox News’ pro-“gay” bias HERE.

_______________________________

By Peter LaBarbera; @PeterLaBarbera

In a nation that professes to be “under God” but is teetering on the edge of moral collapse, perhaps it was inevitable that–in the most watched U.S. primary political debate ever–the opportunity for candidates to defend marriage between a man and a woman would get short shrift.

Fox News prime time star Megyn Kelly, one of the three debate moderators at the Fox-sponsored Republican presidential primary debate August 6, may be known as a tiger for her tough questioning of guests, but when it came to her team’s debate question on homosexual “marriage,” she was a pussycat for the LGBT Lobby, asking a hypothetical that evoked sympathy for the homosexual cause. Sadly, this has become a trend with Kelly and Fox News, which, as this writer has documented (see report HERE or at right), increasingly has a pro-“gay” bias.

According to a Pew Research study in 2013, Fox News ran more stories that were biased towards homosexual “marriage” rather than against it (see Page 2). And Fox News also funds the advocacy-oriented National and Lesbian Journalists Association (NLGJA) every year; Kelly and other Fox journalists have attended NLGJA fund-raisers in support of the homosexual organization.

In the days leading up to Thursday’s prime time debate in Cleveland, Fox News anchors had been telling us how hard they were laboring to prepare penetrating, specific questions that would prevent their GOP targets from being evasive.

Electoral politics led by media pundits is pretty much a “biblical morality-free zone”–at least on the issue of homosexuality–as journalists obsess over the political “horse-race” rather than right versus wrong. Many journalists and even some conservatives have become cheerleaders for the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Transgender) cause, while others simply bow to the prevailing political correctness.

So I was prepared for the worst as I sat down Thursday night to watch the main Fox News GOP debate, and, well…here is an excerpt of the key prime time exchange on same-sex “marriage,” posed to Ohio Gov. John Kasich by Kelly:

KELLY: Governor Kasich, if you had a son or daughter who was gay or lesbian, how would you explain to them your opposition to same-sex marriage?

KASICH: Well, look, I’m an old-fashioned person here, and I happen to believe in traditional marriage. But I’ve also said the court has ruled —

KELLY: How would you — how would you explain it to a child?

KASICH: Wait, Megyn, the court has ruled, and I said we’ll accept it. And guess what, I just went to a wedding of a friend of mine who happens to be gay. Because somebody doesn’t think the way I do, doesn’t mean that I can’t care about them or can’t love them. So if one of my daughters happened to be that, of course I would love them and I would accept them.

Who knew that the toughest question that the Fox News brain trust could come up with on homosexual “marriage” could have been penned by the Media Department of the Human Rights Campaign?! Some LGBT activists and liberals must have been checking their TV remotes to make sure they weren’t watching MSNBC.

It was telling that the Fox team directed its “gay’-sympathetic query not to a strong social conservative candidate like Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, or Dr. Ben Carson–who likely would have vigorously defended traditional marriage and religious freedom, and assailed the SCOTUS Obergefell ruling—but to “moderate” Kasich, who pathetically boasted about attending a friend’s “marriage” ceremony based on a sexual sin. Coincidentally (or not), Ohio’s U.S. Senator, Rob Portman, a Republican, changed his position in 2013 and backed homosexual “marriage” to support his homosexual son–a theme echoed in Kelly’s debate query to Gov. Kasich.

Now, it goes without saying that parents should love their children unconditionally–Kasich got that part right. But the governor offered no reasons behind his stated opposition to homosexual “marriage”–typical of GOP politicians who avoid discussing immoral homosexual behavior like the plague.

A close friend of mine shared my observation about Fox News’ strange priorities, and astutely noted regarding Kasich’s weak answer:

Kasich’s three-part answer, which resulted from a carefully planted question by Megyn Kelly, could have been drafted by the Human Rights Campaign:

• “I’m old-fashioned….”   This makes natural marriage merely a matter of personal preference, one that could be eclipsed by time and reason.  Anytime a pol starts this way, he is selling out a traditionalist moral stance. Right up there with “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but….”
• “Love everybody”  —  If you don’t go along with the fiction of a brideless or groomless “wedding,” you don’t love people.
• Attended a “gay” wedding – See how tolerant I am, as opposed to all those bigots who voted for the 31 state constitutional amendments protecting natural marriage?

No wonder liberal praise has been pouring in for the Fox News debate moderators (and Kasich)–although the moderators’ aggressive questioning of Donald Trump has drawn most of the commentary and public criticism.

To be fair (and balanced), Kelly followed up her Kasich question with one from Facebook sent in by a social conservative. It dealt with people’s religious freedom NOT to support same-sex “marriage,” and was directed to libertarian Sen. Rand Paul, who hardly hit it out of the park. (See questions and answers in “gay marriage” debate excerpt at bottom.)

But the damage had already been done by the Fox News star’s emotion-laden question and Kasich’s rambling, Chamberlain-esque response, in which he simultaneously extolled his own Christian faith and his willingness to attend a blasphemous, homosexuality-based “wedding.” The one-two punch of Kelly’s “gay”-sympathetic hypothetical and Kasich’s guilt-ridden reply perfect illustrates how conservatives and Christians have lost on homosexuality-based “marriage.”

Megyn Kelly: growing ally of “gays”

Not Always Fair & Balanced (or Unafraid): Fox News’ Republican debate moderators (left to right): Chris Wallace, Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier. Each has demonstrated pro-homosexual bias in their reporting or actions in recent years. In 2011, Kelly berated Dr. Keith Ablow for suggesting that parents need to guard their children from media celebrations of “transman” “Chaz” (Chastity) Bono. In January of this year, Baier, a Catholic, cancelled a scheduled speaking appearance at a meeting held by the Catholic organization Legatus following criticism from an online homosexual activist of the organization as “anti-gay.” Baier said he did so at the request of his employer, Fox News. See a YouTube of Kelly’s unprofessional interview with Dr. Ablow below, or read about it in pages 25-30 of the author’s Fox News-“gay” biased report.

First, representing the media—which is easily the most powerful force driving the “gay” revolution–is Kelly, a professed Catholic, the prime-time star of Fox News who seems to be a “conservative feminist.” In a rather creepy 2010 interview with perverted shock-jock Howard Stern, Kelly declined to label herself and said she is conservative on some issues and liberal on others.

As this writer has documented in a 90-page America’s Survival report on Fox News’ pro-homosexual bias—Kelly is increasingly public as an LGBT “ally” who uses her considerable TV power to defend gay/transgender positions. In 2011, she grilled psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow and recklessly accused him of “adding to the hate” for daring to question whether female-to-male “transman” “Chaz” (formerly Chastity) Bono is an appropriate TV role-model for kids (who might want to imitate Bono’s transgenderism). Homosexual activists heaped praise upon Kelly for her agenda-driven interview berating Dr. Ablow. [Read about it on pages 25-30 in my Fox News-pro-homosexual-bias report, or watch a YouTube of the interview below.]

It deserves mentioning that Megyn Kelly and Fox News–unlike more liberal media networks–still give voice to Christian conservatives. She welcomes Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on as a frequent guest of her prime time show “The Kelly File”–even as Perkins has been targeted by intolerant, pro-LGBT leftists who demand that he be banned from TV talk shows due to his supposed “anti-gay hate.” Kelly was invited as a speaker at FRC’s upcoming annual “Values Voter Summit” in Washington, D.C., but she is not now on the list of scheduled presenters.

Nevertheless, Kelly’s sympathies on homosexual and transgender issues are not hard to discern. Recently, she took on the role of straight ally/“protector”* of Guy Benson, a newly “out” young, homosexual conservative and political editor of Townhall.com. In Benson’s “coming out” interview with Kelly [see YouTube below], she describes Benson as “very brave” for revealing his homosexuality on national TV, and says her show is a “safe space” for Benson amidst (mostly “progressive”) criticism of him. In a subsequent June interview with Benson–who himself is a Fox News Contributor–after the Supreme Court imposed homosexual “marriage” on the entire nation, Kelly seemed quite taken with the youthful Benson, who applauded the SCOTUS ruling and described himself as “someone who’s gay and Christian.” [See Dr. Michael Brown’s column dealing with the “gay Christian” controversy.]

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

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.”

________________________________

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!”

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.”

Order “Light Wins” today: by sending $22 postpaid to: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522. In addition to the full-length film, you will receive a 30-minute abridged version and 90 minutes of special features.

Folks, it was my privilege to be a part of this excellent documentary film, “Light Wins,” produced by my friend and pro-family Force of Nature, Janet Porter. Janet did an outstanding job boiling down dozens of hours of interviews with pro-family leaders to make this movie. Now we are asking YOU to show it to your network of friends, including your church family. This is a superb teaching tool and when you order it, you will be helping to sustain both AFTAH and Janet’s ministry, Faith2Action. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth

ORDER THE VIDEO: for just $22 postpaid you will get a DVD containing the following:

• The full-length feature film “Light Wins”  (100 minutes)
• A 30-minute abridged version for easier showing at house- or church showing parties
• 90 minutes of extra interviews on special topics like homosexuals in the military

ORDER TODAY: Send $22 postpaid to: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522; bulk discounts available: write Brad Wallis at connops@yahoo.com for more information. All proceeds from sales will be split between AFTAH and Faith2Action.

SCOTUS decision could negate a vote of 76% of Texas voters; Dr. Hotze: Gov. Abbott has been “AWOL” on defending Texas Marriage Amendment

Will Gov. Abbott act to defend marriage in Texas? Dr. Steve Hotze of Conservative Republicans of Texas presents letter signed by Texas pro-life and pro-family leaders to an aide to Gov. Greg. Abbott. The letter calls on the governor to call a special legislative session to defend Texas’ popular marriage-protection amendment–which could be negated by a Supreme Court ruling “nationalizing” homosexuality-based “marriage.”

The following is taken from an e-mail sent out June 4 by Dr. Steve Hotze, president of Conservative Republicans of Texas calling for a special legislative session to defend real (traditional) marriage in Texas from being redefined by the U.S. Supreme Court. The actual pro-family coalition letter is at the bottom of this post:

Urge Governor Abbott to Call a Special Legislative Session to
Defend State Sovereignty and the Texas Marriage Amendment

Sign Petition Below

June 4, 2015

Governor Greg Abbott must call a Special Legislative Session to defend the Texas Marriage Amendment and assert our state sovereignty!

During the recent Legislative Session, Republicans in the Texas House and Senate were blocked by the pro-homosexual Democrats from voting on legislation that would have defended the Texas Marriage Amendment. That proposed legislation, HB 4105, The Preservation of State Sovereignty and Marriage Act, had overwhelming support of Texas Republican State Legislators. In fact, 92 of 150 state representatives coauthored HB 4105. The Democrats were able to filibuster and throw up roadblocks to prevent this bill from being voted upon.

AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera with Dr. Steve Hotze, President of Conservative Republicans of Texas, in front of the Texas State Capitol building in Austin. Click to enlarge.

Republicans in the Texas House had to settle for a Legal Memorandum supporting traditional marriage and the Republicans in the Senate were only able to pass a resolution supporting traditional marriage, SR 1028. Unfortunately, neither of these has the force of law.

Your voice needs to be heard! You can still help make sure that this legislation is passed.
You need to act today! You are a part of the 76% that voted for the Texas Marriage Amendment.

Governor Abbott needs to hear from you now because he has been AWOL as Governor on defending the Texas Marriage Amendment. He refused to sponsor or speak at either one of the Defense of Texas Marriage Amendment Rallies. In fact Daniel Hodge, Governor Abbott’s Chief of Staff, tried to intimidate me into cancelling the Defense of the Texas Marriage Amendment Rally at the state convention. The first rally was held at the Republican State Convention on June 5, 2014 and the second one was held at the Texas State Capitol on March 23, 2015 which featured Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama. In contrast to Abbott, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz spoke at the state convention rally. Lt. Governor Dan Patrick and Attorney General Ken Paxton spoke at both rallies.

Encourage Governor Abbott to call a Special Legislative Session to defend the Texas Marriage Amendment and to advance state rights and state sovereignty which are guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Bryan Fischer

I hope Bryan Fischer is wrong and that Justice Ginsburg was instead defiantly affirming the fiction of a “Constitutional right” to homosexual “marriage” at the immoral ceremony over which she presided. We’ll know soon. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera

________________________________

Ginsburg Tips Her Hand – The Fix Is in on Sodomy-Based “Marriage”

By Bryan Fischer; Twitter: @BryanJFischer

First published by AFA on May 20, 2015

It’s time for social conservatives to prepare for a post-apocalyptic world. The Supreme Court will issue a ruling in late June imposing sodomy-based “marriage” on the entire country. It’s a done deal. The fix is in. You can take it to the bank.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 28, and then, according to custom, immediately adjourned to vote. So the results were known to the other members of the Court by close of business that day. The only remaining matter was for Chief Justice Roberts to assign the writing of the majority opinion.

Under normal circumstances, the results of these immediate Supreme Court votes are a jealously guarded secret. No one is supposed to breathe a word. No one is supposed to know the outcome until the ruling is actually released, which will almost certainly be at the very end of the session in late June.

But we now know the result of the vote beyond any shadow of doubt. How do we know? Ruth Bader Ginsburg told us over the weekend.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd was a guest last Sunday at a homosexual “wedding” ceremony presided over by Justice Ginsburg herself.

The wedding took place in a glitzy setting, the Anderson House in the Embassy Row neighborhood, which houses a club for descendants of soldiers, both French and American, who fought in the Revolutionary War.

Here are the telling paragraphs from Dowd’s column (emphasis mine):

“But the most glittering moment for the crowd came during the ceremony. With a sly look and special emphasis on the word ‘Constitution,’ Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States.

“No one was sure if she was emphasizing her own beliefs or giving a hint to the outcome of the case the Supreme Court is considering whether to decide if same-sex marriage is constitutional.

“But the guests began applauding loudly, delighted either way. Justice Ginsburg, who has officiated at same-sex weddings in the past, also seemed delighted…”

Well, the guests may have pretended to be unsure of the significance of Ginsburg’s words, but we don’t have to be. When she emphasized the word “Constitution” and did so with a “sly look,” Ginsburg was most emphatically not “giving a hint” about the outcome of the Supreme Court’s vote, she was telling us as plainly as possible.

Ginsburg was informing us that the Supreme Court has already decided that marriage based on what Massachusetts’ state law still calls the “abominable and detestable crime against nature” is now a right guaranteed in the Constitution.