Connect with us


Monster win for Natural Marriage

Bryan Fischer



Yesterday, the 6th Circuit of Appeals struck a reverberating blow on behalf of natural marriage and the Constitution by upholding bans on sodomy-based marriages in its jurisdiction.

It is impossible to overestimate the importance of this ruling.

It means, for one thing, that the issue is now on the fast track to the Supreme Court. If the Court accepts a marriage case by January, a decision will almost certainly be issued by next June.

From a constitutional standpoint, the 6th Circuit’s ruling is a model of sound jurisprudence. The ruling observes that the Supreme Court has already settled the question of the role of the states in defining marriage, in the 1972 case Baker v. Nelson. It’s often forgotten that the first challenge to bans on gay marriage were raised over 40 years ago, and the Court ruled flatly in Baker that Minnesota’s ban on same-sex marriage did NOT raise “a substantial federal question.”

In plain English, it means that defining marriage is exclusively an issue for the states to decide. The federal government, including the judiciary, has precisely zero authority to impose its own twisted definition of marriage on the states. None, zip, nada.

Now liberals are big-time fans of stare decisis, the doctrine that prior rulings create binding precedents that must be respected. If their precious principle of stare decisis has any abiding relevance, it’s game over. The issue was settled in 1972 and that precedent is still binding today. End of discussion. Marriage policy is something for the states alone to decide.

That marriage is the exclusive domain of the states is plain from the language of the Constitution itself. More precisely, this is plain from the language that is not in the Constitution. The words “marriage” and “homosexuality” never occur, not even a single time. You can read the Constitution left to right, right to left, upside down, and in Sanskrit and you will never, ever run into the word “marriage.” It’s not in there.

Article I, Section 8 lists all the powers of action that “We the People” have conferred upon the central government. If a power of action is not listed there, the central government has no legal or constitutional right to exercise it.

According to that same Constitution, the 10th Amendment thus reserves exclusively to the states every other power of action, including the power to define marriage. No authority, none, not even a smidgen of authority is given in our Constitution to the central government to decide questions of domestic policy.

And no state can be dictated to on this matter by another state, even through a feeble attempt to invoke the “full faith and credit” clause. Said the 6th Circuit, “states have always decided for themselves when to yield to laws of other states.” Quite simply and quite correctly, the court ruled that if a state doesn’t want to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state, it doesn’t have to.

Along the way, the court ruled that the 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling, overturning a state ban on interracial marriage, is irrelevant, because that ruling left intact the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It didn’t change the fundamental character or understanding of marriage at all.

Importantly, the 6th Circuit ruled that the only standard state bans need to reach is the “rational basis” test. That is, if it can be demonstrated that there is a rational foundation for a ban on sodomy-based marriages, such a ban is perfectly constitutional. There are abundant reasons to reserve marriage for man-woman unions, including public health issues (homosexuality is the number one risk factor for HIV/AIDS and is a risk factor for an enormous number of sexually transmitted diseases) and creating stable family relationships that provide the optimal nurturing environment for the raising of children.

Tellingly, the court ruled that there is no evidence that amendments upholding natural marriage were motivated by “animus” towards gays and lesbians. The judges pointed out that courts would have to be able to read the minds of 8.6 million voters to make a determination about their motives. That is obviously something that no court could do even if it was entitled to try.

Lastly, the court said – and this is huge – that “the federal courts have no long-lasting capacity to change what people think and believe about new social questions.” These issues must be settled by America’s people, not by black-robed tyrants swinging gavels like sledgehammers.

There is much to celebrate in this ruling. Perhaps, just perhaps, we have taken our first step away from the edge of the moral abyss.

Bryan Fischer is a senior columnist for Cowger Nation, and the radio host of Focal Point, where he provides expertise on a wide range of public policy topics.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


THE MOST STUPID THING IN SPORTS/ATHLETICS TODAY: Transgender-women vs. actual women.

Jimmy Zulz



I think that women are starting to react and push back a bit. Finally. This is easily the most stupid thing in sports, and it boggles my mind that the people running these events haven’t put a stop to it already. And that thing is: transgender women are competing with God-made women.

I will guarantee you that there are going to be some male athletes (not all and probably not most), who are unable to compete and win in male competition, so they think hey, this is a great way to be more successful in (fill in the blank).  So, they go through the surgeries and whatever is necessary to compete as a woman and… voila! Now, they are up at the top in competition.

I heard a possibly transitioning-man on sports talk radio (I’m sorry they’re even talking about this) call in and he said, “If the man is going to go through the hardship and painful surgery to become a woman, women in that sport are just going to have to suck it up and realize she’s every bit as much a woman as they all are.”

And that’s the problem: he-now-she is much more than the God-made women in that sport, so he-now-she has an enormous advantage. Strength and ability will likely be more than most women can compete with. It’s absolute bull-crap.

The fact that some women athletes are speaking up is why they were talking about it on the radio. At some point, these God-made women are going to have to DEMAND that trans-she-males will have to have their own division, because putting men in competition with women is flat out unfair. I can’t imagine why this wasn’t done immediately.

Continue Reading


MAKING KIDS GAY? Disney to begin indoctrinating and exposing children to homosexuality.

Caiden Cowger



Tonight, Disney Channel is airing an episode of Andi Mack, featuring its “first gay coming-out story.” This episode will mark the primer of the show’s second season, and is directed at children ages 10 and up.

Andi’s friend Cyrus Goodman (played by Joshua Rush) will begin his coming-out journey as a homosexual. Disney is using a 15-year-old boy, Joshua Rush, as an instrument to promote the homosexual lifestyle, while also exposing Rush to homosexual behavior in the process. Disney Channel is actively participating in the corruption of a minor.

It is expected that this plot-line could potentially lead to underage, teenage boys participating in same-sex kissing. This perversion will broadcast to millions of teenagers and children across America, exposing them to homosexual behavior. Such programming can cause confusion in minors, leading them to question their sexual preference, starting at the young age of just 10 years old.

“‘Andi Mack’ is a story about ‘tweens’ figuring out who they are,” Disney Channel expressed in a statement earlier this week. “Everyone involved in the show takes great care in ensuring that it’s appropriate for all audiences and sends a powerful message about inclusion and respect for humanity.”

The story line also gained praise from the GLAAD LGBT advocacy organization.

“With more and more young people coming out as LGBTQ, Andi Mack is reflecting the lives and lived experiences of so many LGBTQ youth around the country,” the organization’s president and CEO, Sarah Kate Ellis, released in a statement. “Television reflects the real life world and today that includes LGBTQ youth who deserve to see their lives depicted on their favorite shows. Disney has been a leader in LGBTQ inclusion and there are so many young people who will be excited to see Cyrus’ story unfold.”

The first episode airs October 27, 2017, at 8:00p | ET.

Continue Reading



George Lujack



On October 11, 2017, the Boy Scouts of America’s board of directors unanimously agreed to allow girls to join the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, giving girls the opportunity to earn the highest rank of Eagle Scout.

“I’m saying that the Boy Scouts have a standard. You must be a biological boy to be a Boy Scout. You have to be a boy to be a Boy Scout.”

“Where is that written though?”

“In the name, ‘Boy’ Scouts.”
– Ben Shapiro

Not anymore, Ben. This is 2017 and this is the new progressive Boy Scouts of America, who announced that they will begin to allow girls to join their ranks.

What Ben Shapiro said however, is nonetheless true, “You must be a biological boy to be a Boy Scout. You have to be a boy to be a Boy Scout.” If the ‘Boy’ Scouts do not change the name of their organization to “The Scouts,” or something similar, the organization will be taking a stand in the cultural war on the side of liberal progressives over the issue of gender neutrality. Any girl who states, “I am a ‘Boy’ Scout,” will be unwittingly stating that she is a boy, even if she is a genuine scout, the type of girl who likes the scouting activities that the Boy Scouts provide and are involved in.

Although the Boy Scouts’ board of directors voted to allow girls to join their ranks, they were within their First Amendment Constitutionally protected right of freedom of association to deny them entry.

The Girl Scouts of America could wind up being a casualty of the Boy Scouts’ decision to recruit girls into their membership rolls. Back in August, the head of the Girl Scouts accused the Boy Scouts organization of a “covert campaign to recruit girls,” as a way to boost declining membership. If girls across America decide to join the Boy Scouts, en masse, it could mean the end of the Girl Scouts as a viable organization.

Other than the issue of a girl calling herself a “‘Boy’ Scout,” conservatives should not be overly concerned with co-ed scouting. Boys and girls have enjoyed a long history of sharing summer camp activities together in America, without becoming gender neutral. Boys will still be boys and girls will still be girls (most of the time).

“Girls will be boys and boys will be girls it’s a mixed up muddled up shook up world…”
– The Kinks, “Lola

However, the gender-neutral minded cultural elites would like to redefine the gender roles of boys and girls in society and confuse the gender identity of boys and girls, when possible, which is the real issue that is rightfully alarming to most Americans. Progressives have long sought to corrupt and neuter the Boy Scouts through social engineering, as they have likewise done in other institutions, and have now succeeded in doing so.

Continue Reading

Most Popular