Thousands of years of human history cannot be overruled by three hours of debate before nine imperfect people. But today that is the best liberals can hope for in the race to upend nature's law -- and nature's God. Outside the U.S. Supreme Court, where the future of civilization was on trial, people from both sides of the marriage debate soaked in the sun while inside clouds gathered over the question that's shadowed America for the last 11 years: does the court have a right to force same-sex "marriage" on every state in the union?
Two years ago, these same justices argued no. It was wrong, Anthony Kennedy warned, for courts to "put a thumb on the scales and influence a state's decision as to how to shape its own marriage laws." Now, a vocal minority is asking these nine justices to put -- not just a thumb, but the body of America's highest court on the scales, toppling 240 years of self-governance. If they concede, burying the nation's democratic heritage under an avalanche of judicial activism, states' rights are forever at risk.
"If you prevail here, there will be no more debate," Chief Justice John Roberts told the other side's attorneys. "People feel very differently if they have a chance to vote on it" as opposed to having it forced on them. Justice Antonin Scalia chimed in as well, insisting that the key question here was who should decide the issue, pointing out that only 11 states had done so by a "vote of the people or the legislature." more >>
As the Supreme Court's oral arguments on whether states should be constitutionally obligated to issue same-sex marriage licenses adjourned Tuesday afternoon, Heritage Foundation's Ryan Anderson said in a news conference outside the building that the likely swing vote justice, Anthony Kennedy, was "not persuaded" by LGBT arguments.
As many are predicting the Supreme Court's decision in June to come down to a narrow 5-4 vote, Justice Kennedy has been pegged again as the justice who is likely to decide which way the court leans in making the tough decision on whether the 14th Amendment requires states to uphold same-sex marriages and validate same-sex marriage licenses given out by other states.
Kennedy pointed out in the hearing that "one of the problems" in this case is that the traditional man-woman definition of marriage has been the norm for "millennia," while the LGBT definition of marriage as being a union between two loving and consenting adults has only existed inside the United States for a decade, as Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in June 2004. more >>
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered by experts to be a "swing vote" in the gay marriage case that's expected to split the justices in a five to four decision, made statements both for and against same-sex marriage during Tuesday's oral arguments.
"The word that keeps coming back to me is 'millennia,'" Kennedy told Mary Bonauto, a lawyer for the same-sex couples challenging state laws that prohibit same-sex marriages. "This definition has been with us for millennia. It's very difficult for the court to say, 'Oh well, we know better.'"
Later in the day, however, Kennedy said that same-sex couples were seeking the same "dignity" and "ennoblement" as heterosexual couples. more >>
One line of questioning during Tuesday's oral arguments on gay marriage before the U.S. Supreme Court suggests a "wild card" compromise as one possible outcome.
While court watchers expect the usual five to four, liberal/conservative split on the court, with Justice Anthony Kennedy being the deciding vote, another possible outcome is a compromise led by Chief Justice John Roberts.
There are two questions before the Court in Obergefell v. Hodges: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state? more >>
A Christian print shop owner who refused to print pro-LGBT T-shirts in 2012 has the constitutional right not to print messages that conflict with his Christian beliefs, a Kentucky court ruled on Monday.
After Blaine Adamson, the managing owner of a Lexington print shop called Hands on Originals, refused to print T-shirts for Lexington's 2012 gay pride festival, he was found to be guilty of discrimination by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission last year, even though doing so would have violated his religious conviction. Additionally, the print shop was ordered to serve future requests from LGBT activists.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal advocacy group that defends the right of Christian expression, came to HOO's aid and filed an appeal of the decision. Fayette Circuit Court Judge James D. Ishmael Jr. reversed the Human Rights Commission's decision on Monday and stated the commission went above its statutory authority in siding with the LGBT legal group, the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization of Lexington. more >>
The gay dilemma is arguably the most pressing cultural issue facing the church. So, it didn't surprise me that the issue took center stage at last week's Q Conference in Boston, which gathers 1,300 top Christian leaders to discuss cultural issues.
What did surprise me, though, was the complete absence of even the suggestion that sexuality could be redeemed or transformed. Every speaker referenced sexual orientation as an immutable trait beyond the scope of redemption. And tragically, no speaker really offered a compelling view of orthodox Christian sexuality. Instead, author Debra Hirsch's talk on "Redeeming Sex" offered more titillation than truth, comparing heaven to "a continuous orgasm" and relaying questions like: "I asked Jesus into my heart, but how do I get him into my (sex organ)?"
Hirsch's talk was the first of three talks on Thursday that specifically addressed sexuality and/or homosexuality. Hirsch criticized the church for failing to address human sexuality properly and urged it to develop a robust theology of sexuality. Unfortunately, though, Hirsch didn't offer any solid theology. Instead, she delivered a mix of pop psychology and opinion. She suggested there is "social sexuality" and "genital sexuality"; "multiple masculinities and femininities"; and then spoke of the need to bring sexuality and spirituality together – again, offering only vague definitions of both without any grounding of her assertions in Scripture. more >>