The Supreme Court is about to decide if the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage to include same sex relationships. There are several reasons why the answer is no.
The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated!
Some may say, "Who cares what they believed in 1868 about homosexuality? We've evolved since then." more >>
Advocates of redefining "marriage" to include same-sex couples use a number of arguments that can best be described as "myths." The reality is often quite different. For example:
MYTH: A "one man and one woman" definition imposes a religious definition of marriage on civil society. REALITY: The definition of marriage is rooted in nature itself. The sexual union of a man and a woman is what reproduces the human race. The durable commitment of that man and woman to one another is what provides children with a mother and father. This is important for people of any religion or of no religion.
MYTH: Children don't actually need both a mother and a father. REALITY: An overwhelming body of social science evidence demonstrates that children raised by their own mother and father, who are committed to one another in a lifelong marriage, are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than children raised in any other household setting. more >>
By an almost 2-1 margin, Americans in a recent poll declared they agree that "States and citizens should remain free to uphold marriage as the union of a man and a woman and the Supreme Court shouldn't force all 50 states to redefine marriage."
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — and her eight other colleagues on the high court — would do well to take notice.
Justice Ginsburg seems oblivious to this strong current in public opinion, however. In an interview with Bloomberg News on Feb. 12, she was asked if she thought "that there are parts of the country that would not be able to accept" a Supreme Court decision declaring "a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry." more >>
Today marks nine years since I did something that profoundly changed my life. On March 16, 2006, as college students at Georgia Tech, Orit Sklar and I filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against our school for free speech and religious liberty. It was a significant decision, but after much prayer, consideration, and counsel, our love of liberty and our love for Georgia Tech compelled us to take this stand so that every student's First Amendment rights would be respected.
Specifically, the goals of our suit – filed by Alliance Defending Freedom – were: 1) to hold GT accountable for selective enforcement of its speech codes, which resulted in mainstream conservative speech often being considered "hate speech" and "intolerant," while politically-charged, far-out-of-the-mainstream Leftist speech was considered part of the "intellectual diversity" purportedly valued by the Institute; 2) to challenge GT's unlawful discrimination against religious and political groups by refusing to fund them with the Student Activity Fee; and 3) to confront GT's endorsement of certain religious views and ridicule of others through the Institute-run "Safe Space" program. In other words, we wanted free speech for all students, we wanted equal rights for all organizations, and we wanted the Institute to abide by the U.S. Constitution by ceasing to promote certain religions over others.
Orit and I – along with other like-minded students – had endured literally years of censorship and condemnation of our actions and beliefs from Institute officials whenever our views were not in line with the extreme agenda they were desperately trying to promote in the name of tolerance. This was especially apparent when it came to matters of morality and sexuality; for example, on one occasion Institute officials forced us to take down a display confronting radical feminism, and another time administrators pressured us to participate in Coming Out Week, to name just two incidents from our litany of run-ins with campus authorities. more >>
A guilty verdict in Amanda Knox's most recent trial may derail her wedding plans with musician fiancé Colin Sutherland.
After battling a trial from an Italian prison for four years for the 2007 murder of her roommate, Meredith Kercher, receiving acquittal and freedom in 2011, then facing another retrial in January this year, a guilty verdict and conviction may altogether dissolve Amanda Knox's wedding plans with fiancé, musician Colin Sutherland.
If Knox and her co-accused, ex-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, are found guilty and given a 28-year prison sentence, they remain free. In Italian law, a guilty verdict does not automatically segue to a conviction until all appeals have been exhausted. more >>
A mistrial was declared on the Jodi Arias sentencing retrial when the jury deadlocked over Juror 17, whom they accused of holding out and not deliberating with the rest of the jurors.
Jodi Arias' murder sentencing retrial was declared a mistrial after the jury accused Juror 17 to be holding out and having a separate agenda. They also pointed out the lone juror's failure to deliberate.
According to Court documents released just two days before the mistrial was declared, Juror 17 informed the court she felt she was being harassed by her fellow jurors. more >>