Supreme Court Strikes Down LGBTQ Discrimination

The Supreme Court issued a new landmark ruling this morning when it held that federal job protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act should be extended to prohibit discrimination against gay workers. Even more surprising that the outcome of the ruling is that Neil Gorsuch, a Trump-appointed justice, authored the opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts also joined the Court’s four liberal justices to form a 6-3 majority.

In the ruling, Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga., includes several similar cases but is named for Gerald Bostock, a child social services coordinator who was fired after his boss learned that he had joined a gay softball league. Other plaintiffs included Donald Zarda, who was fired from his job as a skydiving instructor at Altitude Express after mentioning that he was gay, and Aimee Stephens, a biological male who was fired from his funeral home job after telling his employer that he planned to “live and work full-time as a woman.”

The ruling holds that the employers in all three cases violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which holds that it is “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

“An employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex,” Gorsuch writes in the majority opinion. “It makes no difference if other factors besides the plaintiff’s sex contributed to the decision or that the employer treated women as a group the same when compared to men as a group.”

“Because discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex, an employer who intentionally penalizes an employee for being homosexual or transgender also violates
Title VII,” the ruling continues.

While the Civil Rights Act clearly did not intend to protect homosexuals, transgenders, and transvestites, Gorsuch notes that the letter of the law does not exclude such claims, saying, “The employers contend that few in 1964 would have expected Title VII to apply to discrimination against homosexual and transgender persons. But legislative history has no bearing here, where no ambiguity exists about how Title VII’s terms apply to the
facts.”

After noting that there is little argument over the meaning of the words “sex” and “discrimination” and that the employers admit to firing the employees due to their sexual orientation, Gorsuch states, “This Court has explained many times over many years that, when the meaning of the statute’s terms is plain, our job is at an end. The people are entitled to rely on the law as written, without fearing that courts might disregard its plain terms based on some extratextual consideration.”

In Gorsuch’s view, his decision was not judicial activism but a result of following the established facts and the written law to its conclusion. While Gorsuch may or may not have sympathy for the gay community, the facts of the case were determined by the words that Congress enacted into law in 1964.

Justices Alito and Thomas joined in a dissent penned by Alito, which notes that a bill that would have defined “sex discrimination to include both ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity'” has been brought before Congress but not enacted into law.

“The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous,” Alito charges. “Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of ‘sex’ is different from discrimination because of ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity.’ And in any event, our duty is to interpret statutory terms to ‘mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written.'”

Alito continues vividly, saying, “The Court attempts to pass off its decision as the inevitable product of the textualist school of statutory interpretation championed by our late colleague Justice Scalia, but no one should be fooled. The Court’s opinion is like a pirate ship. It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated––the theory that courts should ‘update’ old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.”

Justice Kavanaugh also penned a separate dissent in which he argues that discrimination because of sexual orientation and discrimination because of sex are not the same thing.

“Courts must follow ordinary meaning, not literal meaning,” Kavanaugh writes. “And courts must adhere to the ordinary meaning of phrases, not just the meaning of the words in a phrase.”

“Both the rule of law and democratic accountability badly suffer when a court adopts a hidden or obscure interpretation of the law, and not its ordinary meaning,” he continues.

In the end, the ruling is not surprising given the Supreme Court’s embrace of same-sex marriage and other gay-friendly rulings in past decades. While the ruling will disappoint social conservatives, most of the country will not be unhappy with the decision. American culture has shifted in recent decades to the point where a large majority approve of homosexuality.

The ruling does hold two important lessons. The first is that Congress should craft legislation extremely carefully and as specifically as possible. The problem is that legislators have no way of knowing how language and culture will shift 50 or 100 years after they pass a law.

Justice Alito makes this point when he writes, “The question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not.”

The second lesson is an established one that Supreme Court justices cannot be depended upon to always vote as their partisan backers wish. This is especially true in the case of textualists who look to the words of the law as written rather than the party platform of the president who appointed them.

To paraphrase Forrest Gump, a Supreme Court justice is “like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re going to get.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Gays On Film Flop Despite Increased Presence

Have you heard of ABC’s epic miniseries, When We Rise? Neither have I, but LifeSiteNews says that the eight-hour show detailing the rise of the gay rights movement was heavily promoted during the Oscars. (Come to think of it that might explain why I missed it.) Nevertheless, the miniseries bombed and placed last among shows on the big four networks and next-to-last overall, coming in just ahead of Jane the Virgin on the CW.

LGBTQ shows were the hot new thing last year. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage across the country, networks bet that the time had come for gay television shows. CNN reported last year that there were more gay and lesbian characters on television than at any time in the past. Overall, 4.8 percent of regular characters fell under the LGBTQ umbrella.

The push for gay characters shows no signs of abating. Earlier this month, Disney introduced its first gay (or at least questioning) character in the new version of Beauty and the Beast. A gay romance has also been confirmed for the new Star Wars movies.

If it seems like homosexuality is more prevalent on television than in real life, you are right. Only 3.8 percent of Americans identify as LGBT per Gallup.

In spite of this, The Advocate bemoans the unpopularity of gay television and movies like When We Rise. Even though Moonlight, another movie that I had never heard of about a gay black boy in Miami, won the Academy Award for best picture in an upset over La La Land, “it had the lowest box-office numbers of all the nominees,” writes Daniel Reynolds.

Reynolds also notes that CBS recently canceled Doubt, “the first network TV show to feature a trans actress (Laverne Cox) in a regular, main-cast trans role.” Reynolds says, “If Doubt were still on the air, viewers on CBS — a network with real red state reach — could have seen Cox’s character, an attorney, strike up a romantic relationship with a cisgender man and help defend a trans victim of violence.” That is not exactly must-see TV for red state viewers.

Polling shows that Americans are increasingly accepting of both homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Pew found that 63 percent now believe that homosexuality should be accepted. Resistance to homosexuality among both Christians and conservative Republicans has declined in recent years. Gallup now shows 61 percent in favor of same-sex marriage with only 37 percent opposed.

How then can we square the flop of gay programming with the increasing acceptance of homosexuality? A clue can be found in Reynold’s lament over the cancellation of Doubt. He seems to view the show as evangelism to red states rather than entertainment.

Americans typically have a live and let live, libertarian attitude to issues like homosexuality. “Let them do what they want behind closed doors if it doesn’t affect me,” seems to be the prevailing attitude. This laissez-faire attitude towards personal sexual relationships does not extend to watching shows and movies about gays that are not entertaining.

There have been two unquestionably successful shows featuring main characters who are gay. Will and Grace, which ran from 1998 through 2006, and Modern Family, which debuted in 2009, were both mainstream hits. These were funny shows that succeeded on their own merits as entertainment and not because they pushed a gay agenda.

With gay viewers representing only a tiny slice of television viewers, producers and writers must be careful not to turn off straight viewers with gay characters and plots. A New York Times list of the most influential gay movies and television shows reveals that most of the entries that were memorable and successful were gay characters and episodes on otherwise straight shows such as the lesbian wedding episode on Friends or the lesbian kiss on Roseanne. Many of the “groundbreaking” shows and movies were notable only as footnotes in gay film history.

Due to the proliferation of cable channels and internet television shows, it is easier than ever before for a show to become successful while appealing to only a small segment of viewers. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, a reality show in which gay men gave straight men fashion makeovers, was successful on Bravo for five years. Girls, a series on HBO, catapulted Lena Dunham from obscurity to minor celebrity status. Even a hit show like Modern Family draws only about 8 million viewers each week out of a nation of 350 million. In contrast, I Love Lucy drew 11 million viewers each week when there were only 15 million TV sets in the entire country.

The lesson for networks is that while Americans are increasingly tolerant towards gays, they don’t necessarily want to tune in to gay romances or shows that preach a gay political agenda. While movies like Moonlight and When We Rise may achieve critical acclaim, it’s the shows that make us laugh and offer an escape from day-to-day life that get us to tune in. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Marco Rubio gay arrest story debunked

 

Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia

An article began making the rounds on the internet this week alleging that Marco Rubio had been arrested for soliciting a gay prostitute in a Miami park in 1990. If true, the allegations could shatter the campaign of the Republican candidate who is currently surging in the polls.

The story, published on a website called The Political Insider, further claims that Angel Barrios, one of the teens arrested with Rubio that night, was later implicated in a gay porn ring. The article also contains a photo of a “gay foam party” with an arrow pointing to a man that is allegedly Marco Rubio. The Political Insider “bombshell report” concludes with a video from Infowars that makes many of the same allegations.

The Political Insider piece is based on two articles, one from the Washington Post and another from the Miami New Times. The article gets some details of Rubio’s 1990 arrest right, but omits and misrepresents crucial facts that are readily available in the same sources that Political Insider cites. It is true that Marco Rubio was arrested in Wainwright Park in Miami with two friends on May 23, 1990 when he was 18 years old. Political Insider paints this arrest as being connected with gay prostitution and implies that there was no other reason to be in the park at night, but neither original source makes these claims.

According to the Post story, a local homeowner association cited complaints about the park including “gang warfare, gunfire, prostitution (straight and gay), drug dealing and muggings.” The Post also quotes Delrish Moss, a Miami police public information officer, as saying, “It was very dark and had lots of trees. People went out there to smoke illegal substances, have sex, drink.” The Political Insider ignores everything except the gay prostitution angle.

Todd Harris, a spokesman for the Rubio campaign, told the Post, ““When he was 18 years old, he [Rubio] violated a municipal code for drinking beer in a park after hours. He was never taken into custody, never hired a lawyer and never appeared in court. Why The Washington Post thinks that is a story is beyond me.”

In response to the Rubio campaign’s response, The Political Insider breathlessly notes that “the police incident report never mentions alcohol!” The reason is explained in the Post article. The arrest was for the misdemeanor offense of being in the park after it was closed. The Post further explains, “There’s no indication that Rubio was involved in any illegal activity other than drinking beer and being in a public park after closing. The police incident report, which does not mention alcohol, states that drug activity was ‘not applicable.’” The misdemeanor charges were later dropped.

The Political Insider goes on to say that Angel Barrios, one of the boys arrested with Rubio that night, “was sued for running a gay pornography studio in a property his company owned.” The Insider quotes the Miami New Times which says that “Barrios was associated with perhaps the most notorious gay porn ring in Miami history….” Pretty damning guilt by association, right?

Not exactly. At the time, Barrios owned a property management company which rented a house to the firm that produced the porn. Barrios is quoted in the same article that the Insider cites as saying, “We are not in the gay porn business. We are not in the straight porn business. We are not in the porn business. My poor father, he had no idea what was going on in there.” The report continues, “Barrios says that he moved quickly to force the business out and that the gay porn site was gone within six months.” The incident occurred in 2007, 17 years after Barrios’ arrest with Rubio.

The New Times report goes on to say that the City of Miami sued Barrios and Cocodorm, the porn company, for illegally operating an adult business in a residential area. Barrios and Cocodorm countersued. Eventually the city waived the fines against Barrios and removed a lien from the house.

“They [Cocodorm] offered to pay all the attorneys' fees if we sued the city,” Barrios explained to the New Times. “I was looking at these huge civil citation fines from the city for something I had nothing to do with. So I was happy to let them go to court to try to get rid of these fines.”

Barrios denied that he and Rubio had a sexual relationship. “I have nothing against gay people, but this is just so far from the truth,” he said, “I have kids, and now they’re reading all this garbage online. It’s insane.” The New Times reported that Barrios “laughs out loud at the idea of having had a sexual relationship with Rubio.”

Neither source presents any evidence that Rubio and Barrios had any contact after the 1990 arrest.

Barrios did talk about the arrest and his friendship with Rubio in the Post. Barrios says that, while in school, they “were just messing around and partying. Trying to get pretty girls.” Barrios did not recall why they were at the park that night. “We never even used to go to that area,” he said. “That might have been the first time I went there.”

He also said, “I don’t think we got handcuffed and taken to jail.” Instead, they got a “piece of paper.” The Post describes this as a “promise to appear” in court, but Barrios said, ““I don’t think we even ended up going to court.” The Post notes that the charges were dismissed two months later and that “record searches turned up no evidence that mug shots were taken.”

As to the foam party, on the Jimmy Fallon Show Marco Rubio did talk about going to a foam party once, but there was no indication that it was a “gay foam party.” Rubio indicated that he did not enjoy the foam party since the foam ruined his boots, a tacit indication that he was clothed, unlike the men in the Political Insider photo.

The Insider links the picture to a gay website called Towleroad.com. Not mentioned by the Insider is Towleroad’s description of the picture: “Another photo shows a gay foam party at the ’90s South Beach gay nightclub Warsaw Ballroom, and show’s a man’s profile which Madsen says ‘is believed to be’ Rubio. The face is obscured, so it really could be anybody” [emphasis mine].

An additional photo on Political Insider allegedly shows Rubio dancing in what the New York Observer called a “Chippendales performance” when it published the photo in April 2015. The Insider does not provide any context for this photo, but far from being a strip club act, the picture was taken at an annual male talent show at South Miami Senior High School in 1989. The Observer identifies Rubio and the other dancers as members of the school football team, the Cobras.  Rubio also performed a rendition of “Still” by Lionel Ritchie. He did not win the title of “King Cobra.”

One final question is who “The Political Insider” really is. The site makes no pretense of objectivity with its claim that “we break down the barriers employed by the government and the liberal media….” To underscore the site’s pseudonews status, the byline of the Marco Rubio article is an anonymous handle, “Kosar,” not the actual name of a writer. The terms and conditions page of the site invites submissions and makes no mention of journalistic standards, editorial supervision or basic fact checking.

The information presented in this article is readily available. Much of it came from the same sources that the Insider linked in its piece. If a reader bothers to click the link and read the articles from real news sources, the truth is readily apparent. Instead, The Political Insider selectively quoted and misrepresented the real news accounts.

[An attempt was made to contact The Political Insider for this article, but no response was received. I have elected not to provide a link to the original article to avoid driving traffic to a fake news story. Caution should be exercised in visiting The Political Insider site. My computer got slow every time I went to the site.]

Rubio’s previously undisclosed arrest is a legitimate issue. Just prior to the 2000 election, news broke that George W. Bush had a previously undisclosed arrest for DWI in 1976. Bush had been leading in the polls, but the news of the arrest was enough to sway the popular vote to Al Gore.

Even though Rubio’s arrest was real, the charge that he is a closeted homosexual is unsupportable by fact. The article from Political Insider is nothing more than a very thinly veiled attempt to destroy Rubio’s character and standing in the conservative community.

Marriage ruling is case of emperor having no clothes

Today’s news of the landmark Supreme Court ruling making same-sex marriage the law of the land confirms what many Americans have long known: On a host of issues, American society and government have become almost totally divorced from reality.

In 1837, Hans Christian Anderson published a story called “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” The story told of a vain emperor who ordered a suit of clothes from a swindler. The con man claimed that the suit was woven from a magical fabric that could not be seen by anyone who was “unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid.” Of course, no one could actually see the clothes. They didn’t really exist. But no one wanted to admit that they couldn’t see them, because doing so was a tacit admission that they were unworthy.

Finally, as the emperor walked in a royal procession before his admiring subjects, a child cries out, “But he hasn't got anything on!” Nevertheless, the emperor keeps up the pretense and “walked more proudly than ever,” totally naked through the town.

In 2015, America is like the emperor who has no clothes. The most obvious example is the current craze for changing one’s gender identity. While most Americans probably understand that gender comes in two flavors, male and female, many are now uncomfortable stating such an obvious fact because of pressure to see gender as fluid and changing, rather than something that is set at birth. A February 2015 poll by Fusion magazine found that half of millennials believe that gender is a spectrum, rather than being defined as a male or female. ABC News reported last year that Facebook now offers 58 gender options for creating a profile, rather than two.

The country’s fascination with Bruce Jenner and his claim that, “For all intents and purposes, I’m a woman” on ABC’s 20/20 earlier this year is a representative example. Jenner is obviously male, but the country has chosen to become complicit in his delusion that his “brain is much more female than it is male.” When Americans fawn over Jenner for his courage and refer to him as “Caitlyn” and with feminine pronouns, they might as well be telling the emperor how glorious his new clothes are.

Men can never become women and vice versa. Men like Jenner, even if they undergo sex-change surgeries, will still be men, albeit with surgically mutilated genitalia. Their DNA is still male DNA. He can never bear a child or have a period (at least not without massive medical intervention). Without heavy doses of pharmaceuticals, his body regresses to his own more masculine form.

The same is true for women who choose to “become” men. Their DNA will always be that of a woman. Biologically, they can never father a child, the one true test of maleness. They can look and act like men, but they are a pale imitation of the real thing.

The redefinition of marriage is another case of Americans paying court to the emperor and his invisible, regal robes. A vestige of my pre-internet days as a student is a 1989 Webster’s dictionary on my office bookshelf. It defines “marriage” as “the institution under which a man and a woman become legally united on a permanent basis.” It is only this generation that has suddenly decided that what worked well for thousands of years is no longer good enough and that the underpinnings of society must be radically altered in the name of fairness.

The current generation has decided that men and women are interchangeable and that a family can be anything. There will be no consequences for children – or the nation as a whole – if children are raised by two men, two women, one woman, or a village. Aren’t the emperor’s new clothes grand!

There has been little study of what effect this headlong rush to marriage “equality” will have on children, families, or society in general. Some of the more rigorous scientific studies, like the New Family Structures study, suggest that children from gay families don’t fare as well as their counterparts in traditional families. Activists respond by attacking the researchers.

The child’s father in the story asked, “Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?” Proponents of redefining marriage answer critics with “Did you ever hear such hatred?”

The bottom line is that judges and politicians may be able to redefine the legal definition of marriage, but they cannot redefine the inherent marital relationship between a man and a woman. Two men or two women may be able to legally enter a relationship that is now called marriage, but what they have is not marriage at all, but an imitation of the real thing. Changing the definition of marriage changes the institution into something different. The emperor has no clothes.

Now the process of stifling dissent of those who point out the emperor’s nudity will continue. Already we have seen attacks on the freedom of religion as religious beliefs come head-to-head with newfound sexual liberties. There will be more attacks on those who choose to exercise their freedom of conscience to say that the emperor is naked and who choose to not participate in the royal procession.

President Obama’s head of the EEOC, Chai Feldblum, quoted in National Review, famously commented that, in the conflict between the constitutional freedom of religion and sexual freedom, “Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

If you adhere to the traditional belief of every major religion that homosexuality is sinful, she’s talking to you.

For years, liberal activists called for tolerance toward gays. Now, as homosexuality has been decreed to be on par with heterosexuality by the nation’s highest court, calls for tolerance have vanished. Instead, the leftists call out to diminish and silence those who disagree with their viewpoint and the ruling of the Court. Harassment, ridicule and mandatory recognition – nay, approval – at the point of a federal gun are the order of the day. The emperor doesn’t like to be told that he is naked.

 Read the full article on Examiner.com

New poll shows social conservatives in decline

Polling released over the past few weeks has revealed what may be seismic shifts in American morality. On virtually every issue, American public opinion has shifted to the left. The most recent polling, released today by Gallup, show that the country has moved left on abortion and approval of out-of-wedlock births.

Today, a poll on attitudes about abortion showed that half of Americans consider themselves pro-choice for the first time since 2012. The Gallup poll showed that the percentage of Americans who identify as pro-life has declined to 44 percent, its lowest point since 2008. 2009 was the first year in which pro-life polled higher than pro-choice. Attitudes on abortion are still much more divided than they were in the 1990s.

The poll does not define pro-choice and pro-life, but 29 percent of respondents indicated that abortion should be legal in all circumstances. The plurality, 36 percent, said that abortion, should be legal in only a few circumstances.

Another Gallup poll released today revealed increasingly divergent attitudes on out-of-wedlock births. Sixty-one percent now believe that it is morally acceptable to have a baby outside of marriage. Only 35 percent call out-of-wedlock births immoral. Opinions on extramarital births have diverged widely since 2002, the last year that a majority called them immoral.

The shift has come as the percentage of out-of-wedlock births has increased dramatically. In 2014, the Washington Post reported that Census figures show that less than 60 percent of first-time births are to married couples. The Census report noted that “women with a nonmarital [sic] first birth are both less likely to ever marry and less likely to remain married if they do marry” and also links unmarried births to higher risks of poverty, lower educational attainment and family instability.

Today’s polling comes on the heels of increased support for doctor-assisted suicide, also from Gallup. Sixty-eight percent of respondents now support a right to die when a person has an incurable disease and is in severe pain. Only 28 percent are opposed. After remaining close for years, opinion on doctor-assisted euthanasia has diverged since 2013.

The biggest shift in public opinion is related to homosexuality and gay marriage. Gallup reports that a record high of 60 percent now supports gay marriage. Only 37 percent disagree. As recently as 1999, the numbers were almost completely reversed with 62 percent opposed and 35 percent in favor of redefining marriage.

Likewise, by 51 – 30 percent, most Americans now believe that homosexuals are born gay, not created by upbringing or environment. On this issue, Gallup’s numbers have also reversed since the 1990s. In reality, scientific proof that homosexuality is inherited genetically has been hard to find. It is even harder to find a genetic explanation for bisexuals, which make up approximately half of the gay and lesbian community.

On a similar issue, Gallup found that respondents greatly overestimated the number of gays in the US. Only 3.8 percent self-identify as gay or lesbian, but poll respondents believed that 23 percent of Americans were gay.

In general, the recent Gallup polling shows that social liberals are now equal in number with social conservatives in the United States. Since 1999, the percentage of social conservatives has declined while social liberals have increased. Both factions now stand equal at 31 percent.

The polling shows that the sample trended more liberal on virtually every issue since 2001. The largest shifts occurred on gay and lesbian relations (considered moral by 23 percent more in 2015 than in 2001), extramarital births (16 percent more), extramarital sex (15 percent more), divorce (12 percent more) and stem cell research using human embryos (12 percent more). Other issues with a large shift included polygamy (nine percent increase) and cloning humans (eight percent).

Some issues are considered less moral today than 14 years ago. Support for the death penalty declined by three percent, but a majority (60 percent) still approve. Support for medical testing on animals declined by nine percent to 56 percent approval.

Some of the shift in public opinion may be explained by the sample. The poll was conducted from May 6-10, 2015 with 1,024 adults, aged 18 or older, living in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Since all of the findings stem from the same poll, if there is an error in providing an accurate sample or weighting the responses, the findings could have been skewed to the left. Nevertheless, these findings do support other polling that shows social attitudes moving to the left on several issues. 

Read the full article on Examiner.com

God save America

freestockphotos.biz

This Fourth of July it might be time to amend the traditional patriotic song and sentiment of “God bless America.” In recent years, America has become so divorced from godly values that it now seems mocking and irreverent to seek his blessing. It might be more appropriate to prostrate ourselves and seek his forgiveness.

The most recent rejection of God is the wave of gay marriage laws sweeping the nation. Twenty years ago, gay marriage was unheard of. Denmark passed a gay partnership law in 1989, but same-sex marriage did not exist legally until 2000 when the Netherlands first passed a gay marriage law. In what would become a familiar theme, gay marriage was legalized in Canada the next year after two gay couples sued. In the U.S., Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, again after a lawsuit. In 2007, Iowa followed suit, again after the state’s marriage law was struck down by courts. Gay marriage did not pass through the legislative process until 2009 when Vermont’s legislature approved the redefinition of marriage. At this point, gay marriage is legal in twelve states, but recent Supreme Court decisions indicate that the Court will probably strike down state definition of marriage laws in the near future.

One of the few truly scientific studies that has been done on the radical changes to the structure of society’s most basic unit, the family, is the New Family Structures Study of 2012. The study reported that gay families are much less stable than comparable heterosexual families. The instability leads to many negative effects in children including being “more apt to report being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed, more likely to have cheated on a spouse or partner, smoke more pot, had trouble with the law, and report… more sexual victimization.”

In the New Testament, particularly Romans 1, homosexuality is described, not as an unpardonable sin, but as a consequence of judgment. Paul wrote that homosexuality is one of the consequences of a society that rejects God. Homosexuality is not the only result of judgment, however. Paul’s roll call of depravities reads like a list of twenty-first century special interest groups:

“…filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”
The issue of abortion has also seen setbacks in recent years. President Obama’s signature piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act, was billed by Life News as “the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.” The ACA, “Obamacare,” mandates that all insurance policies cover abortifacient drugs without copayments. The ACA also ignores the Hyde Amendment that once prohibited federal tax money from being used for abortion. Together with federal funding for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, Obamacare means that the United States government is in the business of funding and encouraging abortions.

Abortion was at the forefront in the trial of Kermit Gosnell. Although the trial of the Philadelphia abortionist was largely ignored by the media, the news of how Gosnell and his staff allowed babies to be born only to murder them in cold blood spread around the country via social networks. Gosnell was found guilty of three counts of first degree murder as well as a number of other charges. An estimated 50 million Americans have been aborted since the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973.

Also in 2013, Colorado became the first state to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. The use of the drug is being normalized in spite of the fact that there are clear links between marijuana use and schizophrenia and aggression. Writing in the Wall St. Journal, Samuel Wilkinson of the Yale School of Psychiatry points out that heavy users of marijuana who start at a young age have a 200 percent increased risk for schizophrenia, which affects more than three million Americans. About one third of homeless Americans are schizophrenics.

The expansion of abortion and homosexuality corresponds to attacks on religion in spite of the First Amendment. Christian teaching on these issues is being called “offensive” by liberal activists. Members of the Obama Administration talk of “freedom of worship” rather than “freedom of religion.” What this means in practice is that religion, specifically the Christian religion, is being driven underground. Advocates of traditional marriage or pro-life causes can have their jobs threatened or be forced to attend sensitivity training. Christian businesses are sued if they refuse to supply their services to gay weddings, even in states where gay marriage is not legal. In New Jersey, a Methodist church has already been sued – and lost – for refusing to rent their facility to a lesbian couple for their same-sex union.

The fundamental problems with America today are rooted in the decline of Christianity and the corresponding rise of government. The beginning of the decline of American marriage in the 1960s is clearly visible on a Heritage Foundation graph. A separate graph shows the simultaneous rise of out-of-wedlock children at the same time. Both correspond to the “Great Society” programs of President Johnson in which the federal government began to take responsibility for caring for the poor and children away from families, churches, and charities. Unsurprisingly, the federal debt began a meteoric rise at the same time.

At the same time, American church attendance fell sharply. Gallup reports that in 1955 U.S. church attendance over the past week was at 75 percent. Now, even though 78 percent of Americans identify as Christian, only 43 percent attend church regularly. Consequently, many American Christians are ignorant about the doctrines of their professed faith, leaving them open to pseudo-Biblical arguments for liberal policies.

These social trends mean that out-of-wedlock births now account for almost half of U.S. births. The average age of a woman at her first marriage is 26.5 years while the average age at her first childbirth is 25.7 according to CBS News. This is causing a rise in single-parent families that poses dire consequences for the United States because these families are much more likely to live in poverty and require government financial assistance than traditional families. There are also negative effects on the children of single-parent families, such as being more likely to be abused and more likely to become involved in violent crime, drug abuse, and premarital sex according to the National Fatherhood Initiative. The cycle repeats as children of broken homes grow up to have their own children, often in single-parent homes as a result of premarital sex or divorce, and the dependency on government entitlement programs becomes more pronounced.

It may already be too late to reverse America’s decline. Jonathan Cahn, author of “the Harbinger,” believes that recent history, from the Sept. 11 attacks to the economic crash, are warnings from God and that America is running out of time for repentance. Cahn pointed out to Examiner that the “macro pictures of end-time prophecy” do not include America. The current series of “harbinger” warnings “fill in the gap with specific detail” as to how America will “lose its crown as the head of nations” although Cahn is careful not to commit to a specific timeline.

Last year, no less a man of God than Billy Graham published a letter to America in which he wrote, “My heart aches for America and its deceived people…. The farther we get from God, the more the world spirals out of control.” Graham related how his wife Ruth had exclaimed, “If God doesn’t punish America, he’ll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.” Nevertheless, Graham also points out, “The wonderful news is that our Lord is a God of mercy, and He responds to repentance.”

Later in the year, Graham ran ads that urged Americans “to vote for those who protect the sanctity of life and support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman. Vote for biblical values this November 6, and pray with me that America will remain one nation under God.” For his involvement in politics, Graham’s ministries were targeted by the Internal Revenue Service.

America is at a crossroads. Either our country will continue to reject God and continue to decline or we will seek his forgiveness and begin the process of repentance. The process of turning America around begins with individuals. Even if the country faces the ultimate judgment, individuals can be saved. As Jonathan Cahn said in his interview with Examiner, “We all live in the face of judgment.  And the time to repent, to be saved, and to get right with God . . . is now.”
Originally published on Examiner.com:

What’s next for defenders of marriage?

Wednesday’s Supreme Court rulings on marriage, while hardly unexpected by most traditional marriage advocates, have nonetheless left social conservatives disappointed. For supporters of traditional marriage, the saving grace of the rulings was that they did not apply to the 35 states with definition of marriage laws or constitutional amendments.

That situation is likely to change. If, as Justice Kennedy wrote in United States v. Windsor, a traditional marriage definition “violates basic due process and equal protection principles” then it is likely that future Supreme Court rulings will invalidate the right of the states to keep marriage between a man and a woman. This may come through a direct challenge to a state constitutional marriage amendment or through the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, which requires that states respect “the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” Barring a change in the balance of the Court, it is likely that the justices will continue to chip away at traditional marriage.

One possible response to the rulings would be to give up and move on. Polling shows substantial movement toward acceptance of gay marriage in recent years. A CNN/ORC poll from June 11-13 shows that 55 percent of Americans now believe that same-sex marriage should be recognized as valid with 44 percent opposed. Ten years ago, 55 percent opposed same-sex marriage and 39 percent approved. Much of the change has come since Barack Obama was elected president.

Public opinion is not static, however, and the stakes are high. A 2012 study reported in Examiner found that the instability of gay families is more likely to cause children to experience depression, substance abuse, delinquency, sexual abuse, and a variety of other problems. Studies from Europe’s experience with gay marriage show that childbearing has become increasingly separated from marriage in those countries. This leads to more entitlements and government debt. Likewise, the cost of Social Security and benefit payments for gay partners cannot be accurately calculated, but may well be greater than the additional tax revenues the government will receive.

On another social issue, public opinion has reversed in recent years. In 2009, for the first time in more than a decade, more Americans considered themselves to be pro-life than pro-choice according to Gallup. A Gallup poll from May 2013, found that 48 percent of the country is pro-life and 45 percent pro-choice. As recently as 1995, pro-choice Americans had outnumbered pro-lifers by 23 percentage points (56 to 33 percent).

Even though Roe v. Wade still stands, states can tighten restrictions on abortion incrementally. Many states prohibit late term abortions and some states have effectively regulated abortion clinics out of business. No such incremental restriction would be likely if the Supreme Court decrees that gay marriage is the law of the land, so what logical course, other than voting for politicians who will appoint judges friendly to traditional marriage, can marriage supporters take?

Since definition of marriage statutes have proven less resilient than amendments, gay marriage proponents will likely target those states with lawsuits or attempt to pass their own legislation. Marriage supporters are also likely to attempt to pass additional definition of marriage amendments, even though state constitutions are vulnerable to federal judges.

A more permanent solution might be to resurrect the idea of a federal marriage amendment. An amendment to the Constitution defining marriage was attempted in the past, but failed. On June 26, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) announced his intention to reintroduce an amendment preserving traditional marriage.

According to the Constitution, an amendment must be passed by a two-thirds vote of both the houses of Congress. This would require 288 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate. Currently the GOP controls the House with 234 seats, 54 short of the necessary majority. If the amendment passes the House, it is unlikely to succeed in the Senate where Democrats hold the majority. A Constitutional amendment does not have to be signed by the president.

The Constitution does provide an alternate means of proposing an amendment. Two-thirds of the states, 30 legislatures, can call a constitutional convention. This method has never been used to amend the Constitution.

In either case, the proposed amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states to become law. This would require acceptance of the new amendment by 38 of the 50 states, a number very close to the number of states that already have marriage laws. With changing attitudes towards same-sex marriage, the outcome of an attempt to amend the Constitution could easily go either way, but the difficulty in amending the Constitution (there have been only 27 amendments in more than 200 years, the last in 1992) favors gay marriage advocates.

In Georgia, where a definition of marriage amendment passed with more than 70 percent of the vote in 2004, there is still strong support for traditional marriage. A Public Policy poll from December 2012 found that 65 percent of Georgians opposed same-sex marriage.

Although this week bore good news and celebrations for supporters of gay marriage, the issue is not yet decided for the majority of the country. The fight will almost certainly continue for both sides for years.

Originally published by National Elections Examiner

Answering the religious left

The religious left, while still small, has grown somewhat over the last decade. While often perceived as hostile to religion, particularly Christianity, Democrats are somewhat tolerant of religious leftists. As an example, black voters are both heavily religious and heavily Democratic.

The signature issues of the religious left are war, the environment, and poverty. As the American involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq winds down and concerns about global warming abate, the major point of contention between the religious right and left concerns how to address poverty.

A passage frequently cited by religious leftists is Matthew 25:40, “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’” The theme of charity occurs throughout the Bible. Religious conservatives don’t dispute Jesus’ command to help the poor. The question is how best to do so.

Religious leftists advocate government anti-poverty programs. These programs are notoriously expensive, inefficient and prone to fraud. According to the Cato Institute, the state and federal governments spend more than $1 trillion annually on anti-poverty programs. This translates to $20,610 for every poor person in America, yet the poverty rate is still almost unchanged from 1964 when Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. As Ronald Reagan put it, “Some years ago the federal government declared war on poverty - and poverty won.”

The left is also fond of pointing to Matthew 22:21 where Jesus tells the Pharisees to “render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's….” Often the second part of the verse, “and unto God the things that are God's” is not quoted. Christians should pay taxes, but they are also commanded to support their local churches and charities. Ironically, statistics from the book “Who really cares?” by Arthur Brooks show that although liberals tend to earn more than conservatives, they give less in terms of money, time and even blood.

The fallacy with unquestioningly rendering to Caesar is that we do not (at least not yet) live under an authoritarian regime. As participants in a republican democracy, it is our duty to make sure that our tax money is spent wisely. In fact the Bible commands it. Since voters are responsible for their government in a republic, they must ensure that the government is a good steward of tax money.

According to Jesus in Luke 16:1-2, a good steward is not wasteful. A good steward works diligently for his money (Proverbs 28:20, Colossians 3:23-24). A good steward invests wisely and diversifies (Ecclesiastes 11:2). Good stewards provide for their own families (1 Timothy 5:8). Even though a good steward pays taxes (Romans 13:6-7), that does not alleviate the responsibility of personally helping the poor and doing so cheerfully (2 Corinthians 9:6-8, Acts 20:35).

Government-enforced charity runs afoul of Biblical doctrines in several areas. First and most obvious, the Bible calls for voluntary and cheerful giving. This is not consistent with mandates and taxes that are enforced by the government at the point of a gun.

Second, the Bible clearly values honest work. People who are legitimately in need should be helped, but those who are capable of working should support themselves and their families. In 2 Thessalonians 3:10 Paul wrote, “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.’” Charity should not go to people who could be working to support themselves. Many government programs actually encourage people not to work because they lose their benefits if they do.

Third, government is wasteful. No one seriously doubts that much of the money that the government confiscates to help the needy is wasted. The waste is two-fold. First, the money flows through bureaucracies at both the state and federal levels. These bureaucracies have high overhead due to expensive buildings and pay and benefits for employees that are substantially higher than their private sector counterparts according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Second, fraud is rampant in government entitlement programs. Untold billions of dollars are lost to fraud every year. Bureaucratic caseworkers with scant contact with their charges are often unable to tell when they are being duped. As entitlement programs grow, the propensity for fraud becomes more likely due to the sheer numbers of people involved.

Finally, government programs ignore the Bible’s warnings against incurring debt. Proverbs 22:7 warns that “The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender.” Psalm 37:21 says, “The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously.” Paul writes in Romans 13:8, “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another….” and admonishes “You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings” (1 Corinthians 7:23).
What, then, would God think about borrowing 40 cents on the dollar and confiscating money from workers trying to feed their families to pay for a wasteful and inefficient system that encourages the poor not to work? It is hard to imagine that he would be pleased.

The religious left also lacks Biblical support for two other prominent issues. First, with respect to abortion, it is clear from numerous Bible passages such as Matthew 19:14 that Jesus loved little children. In Matthew 18:6, Jesus said that it would be better for a person to have a “great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” than to cause a child to sin. How much worse would it be to physically harm a child than to cause one to sin?

The Old Testament was even more specific saying, “Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed innocent blood” (Deuteronomy 27:25). In Exodus 21:22-23, there was something akin to a personhood law: “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life…. ” Jeremiah 1:5 indicates that a baby in the womb is already a person known to God.

The Bible is also clear on same-sex marriage. Most people are familiar with the Old Testament laws concerning homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. There are also hints that homosexuality was one of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom (from which we get the word “sodomy”) and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. Christians are not bound by Old Testament law (Galatians 5:18). Neither is the United States a theocracy (nor should it be). Old Testament laws do provide clues to right and wrong however.

Less commonly known is the New Testament’s condemnation of homosexuality. In Romans 1:24-27, homosexuality is described as God’s judgment on people who “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator….” In 1 Timothy 1:9-11, homosexuals are listed with other sinners including the sexually immoral, slave traders, liars and perjurers. Jude 7 confirms that homosexuality was one of the sins for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

Nowhere does God command Christians to hate homosexuals, but it is clear that God considers homosexuality to be a sinful act that should not be encouraged. Especially when the welfare of children and God’s prohibition against leading children astray (Matthew 18:6) are considered, it becomes clear that same-sex marriage should not be considered for societal as well as religious reasons. The New Family Structures Study by Mark Regnerus, associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, offers compelling evidence that children of same-sex couples do not fare nearly as well as children of traditional families.

Members of the religious left are free to vote for whoever they choose and upon whatever basis they choose. If they believe that their political views are aligned with their religious views, however, they should seek to learn what Jesus and the Bible say about the issues at hand.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/answering-the-religious-left

Nine myths about same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriage is once again in the news. Three weeks ago, North Carolina voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The next day, President Obama reversed his support for traditional marriage and returned to a previously stated position that same-sex couples should be granted the right to marry. Now a decision by a federal appeals court in Boston has thrust the issue into the headlines once again.

The ruling by the First Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals found Section Three of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage in federal law as between a man and a woman, to be unconstitutional. The Court did not address Section Two, which stipulates that states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The Court stayed its own ruling pending appeal which will almost certainly reach the Supreme Court.

There are many myths and much misinformation surrounding the same-sex marriage issue:

Myth #1: Defense of marriage laws are “gay marriage bans.”

While the media and homosexual activists often refer to these laws as “gay marriage bans,” in reality they do often do not ban anything. The laws simply create a definition of marriage according to the government. The heart of the federal DOMA simply states, “… the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.''

Similarly, the North Carolina amendment reads, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”

In other words, most state laws do not prevent same-sex couples from entering into private contracts or holding private religious marriage ceremonies. Likewise, nothing prohibits private companies from offering benefits to same-sex partners of their employees. Definition of marriage laws only mean that the government will not recognize, sponsor or encourage the union of same-sex couples.

The marriage amendment to the Georgia Constitution is more ambiguous on the issue of private ceremonies. Article I Section IV Paragraph I (a) reads, “This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.” In reality, however, Georgia does not persecute same-sex couples. Georgia would not be likely to object to a private religious ceremony and does not penalize companies who choose to offer benefits to same-sex partners.

Myth #2: Marriage laws violate the Equal Protection Clause.

In reality, rights are held by individuals, not by couples. This means that people of homosexual orientation have exactly the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. No one, not even a heterosexual, has the right to marry anyone they choose or whoever (or whatever) they happen to love.

According to USmarriagelaws.com, all 50 states have laws against bigamy, marrying more than one person at a time. All 50 states also have laws establishing a minimum age of consent to marry. In Georgia, the minimum age is 18, but 16-year-olds can marry with the consent of their parents or a judge according to Findlaw.com. Some states recognize common law marriages. Georgia is among the states that do not. Some states don’t allow cousins to marry. Georgia is among the 26 that do.

Definition of marriage laws are simply one more example of states legislating how their citizens want marriage to be treated. The laws apply equally to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

Myth #3: The ruling will require states to recognize same-sex marriage under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Proponents of same-sex marriage argue that the Constitution requires traditional marriage states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in same-sex marriage states because the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution requires that states recognize “the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State….” In their view, this means that if a state like Massachusetts issues a marriage certificate to a same-sex couple, every other state is constitutionally required to recognize it. Section Two of the DOMA specifically states that federal law should not be interpreted this way.

In this case, the ruling by the First Circuit does not address Section Two. Subsequent lawsuits probably will. The Supreme Court could also choose to invalidate the entire DOMA when it hears this or other cases on the issue, but the question of the Full Faith and Credit Clause has not yet been addressed by the courts. In the future, Georgia might be forced by the courts to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states even though Georgia law prohibits such marriages.

Myth #4: The DOMA is inconsistent with state’s rights and federalism.

Proponents present the DOMA as a case of the federal government usurping the state power to define marriage. In reality, the DOMA defines marriage only for the federal government. Section Two of the DOMA protects state rights by stipulating that traditional marriage states cannot be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage from states that have chosen to recognize same-sex marriages. Lawsuits to mandate same-sex marriages and invalidate state definition of marriage laws usurp the will of the people and their elected representatives.

Myth #5: Only religious nuts oppose same-sex marriage.

Proponents of same-sex marriage portray supporters of traditional marriage as bigots and religious fanatics, while arguing that the U.S. is not a theocracy and that the separation of church and state prohibits the government from taking a religious view of marriage. In reality, much of the support for traditional marriage can be traced to secular arguments.

It is in the vital national interest of the state to ensure that children, the next generation of taxpayers, have a stable family unit. There is strong evidence that children need both a mother and a father. It seems that the absence of fathers is particularly damaging to children. In the book “Life Without Father,” David Popenoe noted that the absence of fathers was strongly linked to many societal ills. Sixty percent of rapists come from fatherless homes, as do 72 percent of young murderers and 70 percent of long-term prison inmates. When viewed in these terms, there is a compelling government interest to encourage marriage relationships between men and women as a stable unit for childrearing. The burden of proof should be on those who seek to overturn thousands of years of history, tradition, and law that point to both a mother and a father as the best unit for raising children.

Even though not all heterosexual couples bear children, the potential is always there. Even couples who cannot have or do not want to have children have the biological possibility of procreating, whether purposely or by accident. Additionally, the same need for a stable, nurturing family unit with parents of both genders applies to adopted children as well.

Further, there is the argument that recognizing same-sex marriages would be expensive for cash-strapped governments. The First Circuit ruling estimates that more than 100,000 couples are affected by the federal DOMA. Recognizing these marriages would generate untold billions of dollars of costs that were not planned for by government actuaries. Likewise, extending marriage tax credits to same-sex couples would mean millions or billions in lost tax revenues. With governments already paying out more in benefits than they take in, they simply cannot afford to pay out more in benefits.

Other rights that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution have limitations as well. The First Amendment does not permit a person to yell “fire” in a crowded theater or protect a slanderer. The Second Amendment does not mean that a person can manufacture pipe bombs in their home and permits states and cities to enact reasonable regulations on guns.

If marriage is merely a statement of love without a societal consequence, then why limit it to only two people? Why not allow polygamy as well? Why limit it to people at all? Recent news stories have detailed how different women have shown their love by marrying the Eiffel Tower, the Berlin Wall, a dog, and a dolphin, One woman even married herself.

Myth #6: Definition of marriage laws are similar to interracial marriage bans.

Same-sex marriage proponents point to older state laws against interracial marriage as a similarly unjust regulation. In reality, interracial marriage was very different from same-sex marriage. Where same-sex couples are biologically incompatible and infertile, interracial couples were of the male and female genders and created a fertile couple.

Bans on interracial marriage did violate the Equal Protection Clause because they treated people differently based on race. Under these laws, two men, one black and the other white, did not have an equal chance to marry a given woman. Definition of marriage laws are different in that they hold that the state will not recognize the marriage of any person to any other person of the same gender, treating everyone equally.

Myth #7: Same-sex couples need marriage so they can visit in the hospital.

The need to be able to visit partners in the hospital has long been a justification for same-sex marriage, but Nancy Polikoff, an American University law professor and gay rights activist, wrote as far back as 2008 that, “Hospital accreditation standards include those who play a significant role in a patient's life, even if not legally related, within the definition of family. Neither gay nor straight couples should have to marry to visit each other in the hospital.”

Myth #8: Same-sex marriage is growing in acceptance.

There is some polling support for this idea, but it is far from proven. For example, polls in North Carolina seemed to indicate that the marriage amendment there might be defeated or that the vote would be close. In reality, the amendment passed by a margin of more than 20 percent.

One theory is that people are not being honest with pollsters because of the heavy-handed rhetoric used by the media and the left on the issue. For whatever reason, a majority of voters has never endorsed same-sex marriage, even in blue states like California and Oregon. In most cases, when the issue went to the voters it wasn’t even close. Georgia’s marriage amendment passed with 76 percent in favor according to CNN. To date, 38 states do not recognize same-sex marriage. Only 12 do.

Myth #9: Conservatives are using same-sex marriage as a wedge issue and attempting to force their morality on others.

The reality is that no conservative wants to spend this election season talking about same-sex marriage. The central issue to the 2012 election is the economy and whether President Obama’s handling of it merits extending his contract for another four years.

When same-sex marriage is in the news, most often it is because the left has made it an issue. As the ruling itself notes, the federal DOMA was a response to a 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision in a lawsuit filed by homosexual activists. Hawaii’s legislature then defined marriage in 1994 and Congress passed the DOMA, introduced by Georgia congressman Bob Barr, with broad bipartisan support in 1996. President Bill Clinton signed the DOMA into law. When judges in Massachusetts ruled in 2003 that the state could not deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, other states started enacting defense of marriage laws to prevent judicial activists from issuing edicts redefining their own marriage laws.

In reality, as Ryan Anderson wrote in National Review, the question is not whether same-sex couples will be allowed to express their love for each other; “the question is whether the rest of society will have the freedom to choose which type of relationship to honor as marriage” and whether a minority can force their view of morality on the nation at large.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/nine-myths-about-the-same-sex-marriage-debate