Monday, July 20, 2015

Substantial Decline in Support for Same-Sex "Marriage"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

In the days following the Supreme Court's presumptive ruling telling America, and God, what marriage is and is not--- new polls reveal support for same sex "marriage" is falling substantially.

Associated Press has discovered that support for redefining marriage has fallen 6 points in a matter of days.

AP has also found that resistance toward government penalizing people for their deeply held religious beliefs regarding marriage has increased in recent days.

There is even a call to remove the gay rainbow flag from flying over public facilities.

An effort is also under way to remove the gay activists from the Supreme Court for a rehearing of the case.

An awakening of biblical morality in America?

Dr. Thomas D. Williams wrote yesterday, "Rather than galvanizing Americans into a unified body, the Obergefell [same-sex marriage case] decision has left US citizens more divided that ever on the question of gay marriage..."

Dr. Williams calls the independent publishing of the dissent of the 4 justices who stood for marriage "unprecedented."

As a result of the forthrightness of those 4 Supreme Court Justices in their independently published dissent, Americans are coming to understand the real impact on the culture and individual religious freedom the decision, made by 5 Justices---2 of whom are gay rights activists, will have on the culture, the community and the church.

In the days following the Court's ruling, support for same-sex "marriage" fell from 48% to 42% according to the Associated Press.

The resistance to government penalizing people, including business people, for declining to participate in same-sex ceremonies because of their religious beliefs is increasing.

Just prior to the Court's ruling, 52% of Americans felt Christian business people should be allowed to decline participation in same-sex ceremonies. Following the ruling, 59% now believe government should not be allowed to punish people for their deeply held religious beliefs about marriage.

In his strongly worded dissent, Justice Alito warned that the ruling would have "iniquitous" effects on "religious Americans and all those who believe in marriage as it has been understood in every culture until now."

He said the decision of the majority "will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy."

Justice Alito said, "People with a historical understanding of marriage will be considered extremists whose opinions have no place in society."

Alito also said, "In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment to African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent."

Fear of repercussion from the homosexual community, backed by newly minted laws, has indeed caused some biblical Christians to simply become silent about their religious beliefs.

This same agenda and these same laws are destroying Christian business people who attempt to practice their deeply held religious beliefs in the marketplace.

The Supreme Court ruling has, among other things, brought clarity to the matter.

The question often asked by homosexual activists; "How will this affect your marriage?"--- Or, "How will this effect your personal life?" ---has been answered. Forcefully.

John Nolte, an entertainment columnist, is now calling for the removal of the gay rainbow flag from public buildings and property.

The reason, he says, is because "The gay rainbow flag is seen by many Christians as a symbol of hate and oppression---and for good reason. Under that banner, there has been an all out assault by the media and the Left against our religious freedoms."

Nolte reports, "Under that banner, on the same day of the Chattanooga terror attack, a Jewish man was physically threatened in person and on social media by Inside Edition's Zoey Tur, a man who identifies as a woman."

Nolte also notes that the "rainbow flag is undoubtedly offensive to devout Muslims, and therefore provocative" and should be dispensed with.

Bob Unruh, former newspaper journalist and writer for Associated Press for nearly 30 years, reported this weekend, "A couple of constitutional experts have written an open letter to the attorneys general, governors and lawmakers in Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky pleading with them to file a request for rehearing before the US Supreme Court on the decision that created same-sex 'marriage' across the nation."

Based on constitutional law, Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg acted "unethically and unlawfully" in participating in the case after they had publicly taken a position on the outcome.

Fox News reported that Kagan performed a same-sex "wedding" ceremony for her former law clerk Mitchell Reich and his partner on September 21, 2014 in Maryland.

National Public Radio reported that Ginsberg performed a same-sex "wedding" at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington DC in August 2013.

Attorneys Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson wrote the open letter to officials in these four states because they are the states represented in the lawsuit that was before the Supreme Court, and only these four states can file the request for rehearing.

I have met Herb Titus several times. He is a powerful figure in the Christian conservative community. He taught constitutional law for 26 years and concluded his active law career as founding dean of Regent Law School. William Olson served in three positions in the Reagan administration. Together they have filed more than 80 briefs in the US Supreme Court.

Hundreds of members of the Jewish Rabbinical Alliance of America have joined the call for Kagan and Ginsburg to be removed from the case and for it to be re-heard by the Court.

The four states have until tomorrow, July 21, to file for a rehearing by the Supreme Court, without Kagan and Ginsburg.

Justice Alito, in his dissent, said, "I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools."

Perhaps an elected leader in Michigan, or Ohio, or Tennessee, or Kentucky will have the courage to file a request for a re-hearing by the Supreme Court, less the 2 disqualified members, on the matter of marriage, before the sun sets today---July 21, 2015---in the year of our Lord.

God help us.


  1. The homosexual agenda is against everything the constitution stands for.

  2. There is no politician or judge who can be for redefining marriage, and for America's constitution at the same time.

    1. OK, I'll bite, how is gay marriage against the constitution?

    2. How is it not? When the Supreme Court declares homosexual marriage a constitutional right, a servant of God who seeks to obey Christ, if he is an employee of the state who's duty it is to issue marriage licenses, has the right to deny the issuance of such license, for the sake of conscience, and this is protected by the constitution.

      The so called right of homosexual marriage, is only a pretended constitutional right, and not the real thing.

      In order for judges to be real, they will have to defend a public servant's right to deny the issuance of homosexual marriage licenses, thus deciding that such a complaint against the public servant had no merit, and was only an attack upon the constitutional right of another, which is an attack against the constitution itself.

      The constitution is greater than the rule of a few wayward Supreme Court justices.

    3. Type in "Arlene's Flowers" in the search box on this blog to learn more about the assaults of the homosexual agenda on our constitutional rights. The abuses go much beyond this, but this is one example.

    4. The question was, 'how is gay marriage against the constitution?".

      Whether or not civil employees have a right to refuse to perform any part of their job based on religious freedom is an entirely separate question.

      Whether or not a business has a right to refuse service to someone based on their religious beliefs is also an entirely separate question.

      So, again, how did the the supreme court violate the constitution by allowing gay marriage? It's a very specific question and should be easily answered if gay marriage itself does indeed violate the constitution.

  3. I suppose it means little to politicians, judges, or even presidents who acknowledge no higher authority than themselves, that they have sworn an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." They treat the Constitution and the American people with contempt. They will have to answer to the Holy God one day. In the meantime, we who claim Christ as Savior must remain true to Him, "wise as serpents, but innocent as doves." I nearly despair of any redemption for our beloved nation. We have placed a Manaasseh in the White House and he has opened the flood gates for debauchery. But he was preceded by more than three decades of open-season slaughter of more than 50 million innocents. God has warned us time and again (Jihadi attacks, natural disasters, "super-bugs," financial crises) with only limited response from His people. The question now is, is Nebuchadnezzar at the gates yet?

  4. In the beginning God made a wife for Adam out of his own body. This God did for this sinless man in the beginning, and it was the beginning of all of humanity. Later on, God made the Church to be the Bride of Christ, out of his own body. Out of his death on the cross came the grace of God to us, and in his resurrection, we were raised to live in newness of life, becoming a part of him. This came to us by the grace of God in the new covenant, the new testament which is in his blood.

    Marriage is a portrayal of the gospel, in a figure, and it bears a true witness, telling us of the righteousness, goodness, and grace of God. God made man in the beginning through Jesus Christ, and it seemed to me so often, that whatever Jesus did, it was about the gospel, something he was always about doing.

    Redefining marriage, corrupting it as is being done, is an abomination. It should always be protected.

  5. I'll believe that marriage is only between men and women when a talking snake tells me so.

  6. @Anonymous 3:37p

    This case was about the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which states in Section 1:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    No where in this amendment does it say anything about marriage or the definition of marriage.

    The 10th Amendment of the Constitution states:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    This issue of marriage, is a State issue, not a Federal issue. Every State should have the right, and more importantly, the people of each State, to decide what marriage is to them.

    Unfortunately, this decision has made a State issue a Federal issue now. Even with that being the case, this is still not over.

    1. You are correct, the 14th doesn't mention marriage - it doesn't have to - "equal protection of the laws" applies to everything, not just marriage. And it applies to everyone in every state - states can't opt out of this one.

      I think the supremes just upheld the constitution. And it is over, although I'm happy to see you keep this on the table as an issue to define the republican party.


Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.