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.