Web designer challenges same-sex marriage mafia with Supreme Court case

December 14, 2022  By Pandra Selivanov

The Supreme Court has long held that same-sex marriages are constitutional. That hasn’t stopped the LGBTQ+ mafia in Colorado from trying to force everyone to get on the same-sex marriage bandwagon, an issue currently before the Supreme court. Fortunately, there’s one simple question that could help the Court understand what’s really going on here.

In an odd juxtaposition of events, Biden has signed a same-sex marriage bill into law at the very time the Supreme Court is considering the case of Lorie Smith, a web designer who does not want to design websites for same-sex couples. The Respect for Marriage Act attempts to gain respectability by lumping together same-sex couples with interracial couples.

Interracial marriage was indeed a crime only a few decades ago. However, interracial marriage has been legal in all 50 states since the landmark 1967 Supreme Court decision, Loving v. Virginia, in which the court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Interracial couples didn’t then and don’t now need a new law to protect a right they have enjoyed for decades, and it seems a cynical ploy to use such marriages to prop up same-sex marriage...........To Read More....

 

1st Amendment Victory: SCOTUS Strikes Down Philadelphia Law Forcing Same-Sex Adoption at Catholic Org

Hannah Bleau17 Jun 2021

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on Thursday unanimously overturned a lower court ruling regarding the City of Philadelphia barring foster children from being placed with the Catholic Social Services due to its unwillingness to endorse same-sex couples.

In a 9-0 judgment, SCOTUS held that the City of Philadelphia’s refusal to contract with Catholic Social Services (CSS) for the provision of foster care services unless the agency agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It came about after Philadelphia stopped foster children from being placed with the Catholic Social Services of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia on the basis of its beliefs and practices on traditional marriage.

“Philadelphia took this extraordinary action not in response to any legal violation, nor in response to any complaint it received, but because of CSS’s religious beliefs and practices regarding marriage, which City officials read about in the local paper,” the petitioner’s brief reads, noting the Third Circuit ruled in favor of Philadelphia, considering the city’s actions “neutral.”

“The City will renew its foster care contract with CSS only if the agency agrees to certify same-sex couples. The question presented is whether the actions of Philadelphia violate the First Amendment,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, in which he ultimately determined the city’s action did so.

The city’s actions, he wrote, “burdened CSS’s religious exercise by putting it to the choice of curtailing its mission or approving relationships inconsistent with its beliefs,” noting the city’s dissent of that opinion...........To Read More....

Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail

Ryan T. Anderson

For years, those in favor of same-sex marriage have argued that all Americans should be free to live as they choose. And yet in countless cases, the government has coerced those who simply wish to be free to live in accordance with their belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Ministers face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding. Just this weekend, a case has arisen in Idaho, where city officials have told ordained ministers they have to celebrate same-sex weddings or face fines and jail time…….To Read More….

Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional

Ken Klukowski 14 Dec 2013

In a game-changer for the legal fight over same-sex marriage that gives credence to opponents’ “slippery slope” arguments, a federal judge has now ruled that the legal reasoning for same-sex marriage means that laws against polygamy are likewise unconstitutional.   In his 91-page opinion in Brown v. Buhman, on Dec. 13, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups struck down Utah’s law making polygamy a crime. In so doing, he may have opened Pandora’s Box.

As a condition for becoming a state in 1896, Congress required Utah to outlaw polygamy, which is marriage between three or more persons. This case involved a family of fundamentalist offshoots of nineteenth-century Mormonism. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints disavowed polygamy in 1890, and again in 1904, but some splinter groups continue the practice.

Waddoups’ opinion would not only cover such groups, however, but also Muslims or anyone else who claims a right—religious or otherwise—to have multiple-person marriages. He notes that the Supreme Court ruled against polygamy in its 1878 case Reynolds v. U.S., but said he cannot simply rest upon that decision “without seriously addressing the much developed constitutional jurisprudence that now protects individuals from the criminal consequences intended by legislatures to apply to certain personal choices.” .....To Read More....  

My Take - And you're surprised...Right?  Let's face it, the real reason the western world embraced monogamy was because the laws of western civilization were based on Biblical definitions. Ancient Jews practiced polygamy, but without divine approval. The Christian era ended such thinking, in the Christian world. No matter what social construct society creates in opposition to that principle it creates serious problems. 

In Africa, where polygamy has been practiced for centuries, the social problems this arrangement creates within the home are serious. Every arrangement, whether its monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, or homosexuality has difficulties, but when these constructs are outside the traditional marriage arrangement the social and legal problems are exacerbated and detrimental to maintaining a long term stable society. 

What we need is a little more clarity. In order to do that, we need to properly define the problem. The real issue here is one of ultimate moral authority. All those on the left, whether they call themselves, socialists, leftists, progressives or Democrats are subscribers to a philosophy that is foundationally atheistic. 

Their goal is the elimination of traditional values in order to separate God from society. But their ultimate goal is to eliminate the concept of God entirely in order to create a socialist state with ultimate moral authority, and the right to control every aspect of our lives.