The House of Lies

Catholic World Report ^ | 3/26/13 | Anne Hendershott

[marshmallow]

This week’s Supreme Court hearings on same-sex marriage cases owe much to Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 ruling that overturned anti-sodomy laws. However, the story behind Lawrence isn’t what many suppose.

The recent endorsement of same-sex marriage by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came as no surprise. She joins a long list of politicians—mostly Democrats, but increasingly more Republicans—who claim to have been “recently” converted to the cause. Earlier this month her husband, the former President William Clinton, published a piece in the Washington Post in which he said he regretted signing the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo, who is Catholic, made gay marriage a priority in 2011—giving political cover to Republican legislators whose votes he needed. And, Maryland’s Catholic Governor Martin O’Malley made gay marriage a priority in 2012, winning passage in a Democratic dominated legislature.

Even some conservative Republicans are joining that list. Only a week ago, conservative Senator Rob Portman of Ohio spoke out in support of same-sex marriage. Learning that his own “much-loved” son was gay, Portman said, “changed everything.”

It is not a coincidence these conversion stories are coordinated for release this month. They are all intended to have an impact on the drama that begins today as the Supreme Court begins to hear oral arguments challenging the constitutionality of laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. All of these stories speak of “love” as the reason for the changes of heart. In a video for the gay advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, Mrs. Clinton recalls that a few years ago she and her husband celebrated the marriage of their daughter, Chelsea, to the “love of her life.” Claiming that she wants “all parents,” including the parents of gays and lesbians, to share in.....

[Graewoulf]

Obamanation Counterculture File.

[Jim from C-Town]

That is the primary reason why I believe that the SCOTUS MUST rule on this case. The California Supreme Court used it’s interpretation of the US constitution to strike down a State of California Constitutional Amendment. How can the SCOUTUS not rule on this case.