Replies

Five out of nine fallible (or blackmailed) Supremes could rule that a horse is the same as a cow, or that 2+2=5, but they can't make them true.

Or they could rule that runaway slaves had to be captured and returned to their masters, as they did before, and that wouldn't be right either.

And they can rule that homosexuals can "marry," but they the can't make that unnatural union a natural marriage any more than they can declare a horse to be a cow.

Marriage is not a "right". Not for homosexuals. Not for heterosexuals. Marriage is an inter-personal religious institution; a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. The government of the United States of America *chose* to recognize that union. Our predecessors recognized the value of marriage. They affirmed that the traditional family unit provided a stable environment conducive to good citizenship and the growth of a sound and moral nation. They did not create "marriage". They merely "recognized" it, and "chose" to encourage it for the betterment of the nation.

As such, we are playing in the liberals' ball field in the gay marriage debate. They have groomed the battlefield such that this has become a question of equal protection. Granted, that is a fallacious argument at the onset. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally protected already, because *neither* has the "right" to be married. But still, their's is an emotional and perhaps successful argument, because Conservative Evangelicals like to be "fair".

The Supreme Court should *not* be asking "is it fair or unfair" to support one union and not another. The Supreme Court should recall our predecessors *chose* to support one union for the stability and morality required for good citizenship. The Supreme Court *should* be pressing the gay marriage advocates to provide examples of the stability and morality they add for the purpose of nation building ... but provide it *to the legislature*. The legislature should either be encouraged or discouraged from recognizing a non-marital homosexual union. The Supreme Court *cannot* infringe on the free practice of religion -- and redefining a religious term does precisely that.

In a nutshell, this is the most ridiculous battle the Supreme Court has perhaps ever enjoined themselves into.

I’ve not seen anyone backing down. If anything groups like the National Organization for Marriage even with set backs in 2012 are even stronger as people are seeing the seriousness of this issue. It is one thing when people are just responding to the vaporous ideas of “fairness” and “equality” but when they see that SSM marriage means not just extending marriage to gays but to consenting to a suppression of the dominance of biologically correct marriage the opinion shifts markedly. The biggest problem is money. The only reason for the setbacks in 2012 was because Pro Marriage groups were outspent 10-1 in many cases while a billion $ was spent on electing Romney who did not make marriage a big issue even during the Chikfila blowup which was an opportunity. That said marriage out performed Romney by double digits in almost every one of the blue states where there were referendums. Also marriage is an issue that clearly unites blacks, whites, and Hispanics in a way other Republican politics doesn’t. Its an opportunity that has continued to be squandered because of elite consultants and GOP political class.

Look at France. It was unbelievable. Most people believe that people ought to be able to live their private lives as they see fit but the idea that a sexual deviance must be embraced and loved or else throughout society is another thing altogether. I’m not disheartened by the polls most are easily manipulated on this issue by changing just a few words and given such a hard push by the msm they are pulling out all stops. Also as this article rightly points out people can shift dramatically especially when they realize the liberty is at stake and only fools, traitors, or the uninformed could not see that it is.

The downside for the pro gay marriage side is inevitability causes people to believe that they no longer have to be active while it mobilizes the opposition and while we are all tired it is my opinion that the best arguments come out when you see a clear and present threat and the supreme court represents that.

Results Table 2 from Mark Regnerus study of a RANDOM SAMPLING of adults who, as children, were raised by at least one gay parent. How did their lives turn out?

For example, did the respondent receive welfare benefits while growing up: -- from biologically intact families, 17% -- had a lesbian mother, 69% -- had a gay father, 57% -- was adopted by strangers, 12% -- parents divorced after subject turned 18, 47% -- had a step-parent, 53% -- raised by single parent, 48%