DONATE

Showing posts with label Same-Sex Marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Same-Sex Marriage. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 3, 2026

God’s Word Superior to Man-Made Laws

An Intro to ‘The Movement to Overturn Obergefell’


John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© February 3, 2026

 

On June 26, 2015 SCOTUS ruled Same-Sex Marriage legal in a slim 5-4 vote with Obergefell v. Hodges case. This is the classic godless example of the so-called Living Constitution overshadowing the Originalist Constitution ignoring America’s Christian Roots and the overwhelming influence of Christianity upon America’s Founders (yup, even the so-called Deists).

 

Biblically, Same-Sex Marriage is an affront to the Creator’s design and intent for the Redeemed in the Risen Savior Jesus Christ:

 

Genesis 1: 27-28; 2: 21-24 NKJV

 

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that [a]moves on the earth.”

 

Footnotes

a. Genesis 1:28 moves about on

 

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He [a]made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

 

23 And Adam said:

“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called [b]Woman,
Because she was taken out of [c]Man.”

 

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be[d] joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

 

Footnotes

a. Genesis 2:22 Lit. built

b. Genesis 2:23 Heb. Ishshah

c. Genesis 2:23 Heb. Ish

d. Genesis 2:24 Lit. cling

 

 

When Activist Judicial rulings violate God’s Word there is an extra-legal problem.


There is an emerging movement to overturn SCOTUS Obergefell v. Hodges based on how Sam-Sex Marriage has been a disaster in subjecting children to Sam-Sex Parenting. AGAIN, God’s Word is clear on the family unit and that clarity has zero to do with Same-Sex Anything:

 

Ephesians 5: 31-33 NKJV

 

31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

 

AND NOW, The Patriot Post examination of overturning Obergefell v. Hodges through the lens of the Same-Sex Parenting disaster.

 

JRH 2/3/26

ALWAYS FREE TO READ yet READER SUPPORTED!

PLEASE! I need more Patriots to step up. I need Readers to chip in $5 - $10 - $25 - $50 - $100 (PAYPAL or CARD - one-time or recurring). YOUR generosity is APPRECIATED. PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for Liberty:

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!

Our Senior Citizen Family Supplements our income by offering healthy coffee products. BETTER YOUR HEALTH with healthy & good tasting COFFEE and enjoy some weight management supplements. BUY Happy Coffee & Weight Loss Supplements at the Diana Wellness Store:

 

https://dianawellnessstore.com

****************************

The Movement to Overturn Obergefell

It’s been a decade since this bad Supreme Court decision regarding marriage was handed down, and conservatives are pushing for change.

Scales - Adult Desires vs A Child's Needs (TPP Photo)

 

By Emmy Griffin

February 2, 2026

The Patriot Post

 

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Indeed, it was ordained by God for the purpose of creating a family. Ten years ago, however, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. The result was further degradation of the family and the victimization of countless children.

 

Let’s define the idea of child victimization. A child in a same-sex household is denied the right to both a male and female parent. Or as Colson Center President John Stonestreet explains, “Moms don’t dad and dads don’t mom. [Blog Editor Bold Text Emphasis] It’s not enough to say kids need loving parents because kids need a particular kind of parent.” Furthermore, children in same-sex households are placed in very vulnerable — and sometimes even very dangerous — positions.

 

Obergefell redefined marriage, but it also redefined parenting. It opened a can of worms, defining same-sex couples as “infertile.” In and of itself, this makes light of the tragic hardship of married heterosexual couples who are struggling with infertility. For them, it’s a sad reality. For homosexuals, it’s a lifestyle choice. Yet their status as “victims” allows them to use surrogacy and IVF to purposely create motherless and/or fatherless children. Moreover, Obergefell made adoption agencies more likely to give children, particularly babies, to homosexual couples, making an already broken situation for that child exponentially worse.

 

In other words, same-sex persons living together in what Obergefell deemed “marriage” fundamentally violates the family rights of children. The sexual desires of adults should never be allowed to infringe on the rights and safety of children.

 

Now, 47 Christian and conservative organizations have gathered to launch a new campaign, “Greater Than,” to overturn Obergefell. Here is the campaign video:

 

Youtube VIDEO: Greater Than Campaign

[Posted by Them Before Us

Posted on Jan 28, 2026

 

MORE DESCRIPTION]

 

The campaign’s corresponding slogan, “Greater Than Equal,” hearkens back to the original push by LGBers when they first declared same-sex marriage a right to which they were entitled. They argued that just because they were engaging in sterile sex didn’t mean they weren’t also entitled to the rights and privileges of marriage, up to and including children. The Human Rights Campaign even made its logo a yellow equal sign on a blue background to call for gay and lesbian “equal rights.”

 

However, that narrative shifted over the years, and instead of being about “equality,” it became about “love.” Because who can argue against someone who is just fighting for what they love? “Greater Than Equal” is a positive slogan that puts kids at the center because it is ultimately their rights that have been infringed.

 

In 2012, an infamous study was published by Mark Regnerus, a researcher at the University of Texas at Austin. His study, which followed 3,000 families, 248 of whom comprised homosexual parents, showed that children raised in those 248 same-sex households suffered “suboptimal results” from that rearing. These included lower economic advantage, lower academic success, depression, drug use, and higher adult unemployment status.

 

In 2019, the American College of Pediatricians published a scientific analysis of children in same-sex households, and its conclusion concurred with Regnerus’s. The authors wrote that “biology matters” and that “children need a mother and a father.”

 

The 2012 study caused an uproar. However, its findings were revisited last year and subjected to an even more rigorous test to address political bias. The newer critical analysis confirms the original hypothesis: Kids with non-heterosexual parents were more likely to have negative outcomes than those in mother-father families.

 

Obergefell was the natural, terrible culmination of what started decades before: no-fault divorce. This is where the victimization of children truly started. With the advent of no-fault divorce and the onset of the sexual revolution, children’s lives were torn apart. Millions of kids were born into intact families, and then divorce ripped stability away, setting them up for many hardships emotionally, socially, and economically.

 

While “Greater Than” advocates have no specific plans to start the process, their platform is likely to have a stronger footing than that of former Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis, who famously refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple. The Supreme Court declined to hear her case at all.

 

Katy Faust, the founder of Them Before Us, which is spearheading the “Greater Than” movement, declared, “It’s time we make a change, which is why this coalition of concerned citizens, parents, siblings, faith leaders, nonprofit organizations, and others have linked arms to overturn Obergefell’s failures, law by law.” Faust added, “We will reassert sex-based realities, insisting that family law reflect the fact that sexual difference is essential to child development. We seek to give biological parentage primacy, recognizing the natural parent-child bond as a child’s first and most reliable safeguard, while requiring adoption screening for any unrelated adults who seek parental status. Above all, we work to center children’s rights across parentage law, birth certificates, divorce, and marriage policy, so that a child’s objective right to his or her mother and father supersedes subjective adult preferences.”

 

“Greater Than” is a powerful call to change. Children have been the unwilling and miscounted victims of leftist social experiments. They have been turned into commodities. It’s time that we address their rights as a culture and change course.

 

Copyright © 2026 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

 

Our Mission

The Patriot Post is steadfast in our mission to extend the endowment of Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We are a rock-solid conservative touchstone for the expanding ranks of grassroots Americans Patriots from all walks of life. Our mission and operation budgets are not financed by any political or special interest groups, and to protect our editorial integrity, we accept no advertising. We are sustained solely by you. Please support The Patriot Fund today!


Friday, September 11, 2015

A Heaven or Hell Decision


Intro to Smith ‘A Heaven or Hell Decision’
Intro by John R. Houk
Author: Justin O. Smith
Posted September 11, 2015

Kim Davis should contemplate changing her political affiliation from a Democrat to a Republican or Independent. Ms. Davis was recently incarcerated for being in contempt to a judicial order to issue same-sex Marriage Certificates to homosexual couples. She refused to violate the conscience of her Biblical faith. Ms. Davis’ Democrat political party’s platform is supportive of various Biblically ungodly stands including the Dem’s homosexual rights stand (1980 and 2012).

Justin Smith addresses the constitutional issues and judicial activism in relation to Kim Davis’ persecution for her Christian convictions. In relation to the Christian faith Justin looks at the majority opinion of Justice Hugo Black (examining Justice Black through the lens of Everson v. Board of Education – looks at consistency more than criticism) in the 1947 decision attached to Everson v. Board of Education. That SCOTUS case made words written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church pertaining the separation of Church and State as part of America’s rule of law over 150 after the U.S. Constitution was ratified. The thing is there is NO SUCH LANGUAGE in the U.S. Constitution including the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights.

Justice Hugo Black tossed out constitutional Original Intent in favor of the fallacious concept of a Living Constitution that can be judicially modified to fit any court’s concept of what is a valid right for the present. The Living Constitution concept essentially circumvents the Constitution’s paradigm for alterations to said Constitution. Understand this: The Constitution does not empower the Judicial Branch to create law on any level including the Supreme Court.

The Christian Answers Network takes a brief look at judicial case law that led up Justice Black’s 1947 decision in Everson v. Board of Education. If you at that web page you will notice how SCOTUS slowly began to assert Judicial Activism for creating law ex nihilo. Here is a great quote on SCOTUS judicial fiat/law ex nihilo:

In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the Judiciary would be the weakest of the three branches of government, but over time and with the expansion of the power of judicial review it has arguably become the strongest. The problem with this is that justices now routinely substitute their own personal judgment for what is equitable rather than deferring to the Constitution. What has resulted is unelected, unaccountable judges making policy decisions for the country. Far from the intent of the Founders, this is neither democracy nor representative government; it is five judges imposing their desire for social change on the country by judicial fiat. READ ENTIRETY (The Same-Sex Marriage Decision: Ruling by Judicial Fiat; By Zack Pruitt; Acton Institute - Power Blog; 6/26/15)

The Zack Pruitt quote above was inspired by five Justices forcing same-sex marriage upon the all the States of the Union by fabricating meanings from words in the Constitution that plain and simply DO NOT match the judicial logic of the SCOTUS majority; viz. Obergefell v. Hodges.

It is this Judicial Fiat by five Justices that another Judge in a lower court jailed Kim Davis for her Christian refusal to issue Marriage Licenses to homosexuals.


JRH 9/11/15
***********************
A Heaven or Hell Decision

By Justin O. Smith
Sent: 9/10/2015 12:12 PM

"To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision." - Kim Davis

America was founded on religious freedom and the right to sustain and protect one's beliefs and conscience, and yet, the American people were recently forced to bear witness to one of the most ignominious and unconscionable acts perpetrated by the third branch of government, the judiciary, in over 150 years, as a U.S. citizen was jailed for staying true to her own Christian belief and her conscience.

With the Ten Commandments still carved in stone above the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court, Kim Davis, a Christian Democrat and Rowan County Clerk (Kentucky), was jailed by U.S. District Judge David Bunning on September 3, 2015 for contempt of court. He erroneously asserted that Mrs. Davis "arguably violated the First Amendment by openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expense of others," because she steadfastly has refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals.

Keeping in mind that religious liberty is protected by the First Amendment; that marriage is defined in the Kentucky Constitution as being between "one man and one woman"; and that over 75% of voters in Kentucky passed the Kentucky Religious Freedom restoration Act (2013), which provides for accommodations to be made for just such religious objections as Kim Davis holds, one must ask the following question: Aren't the courts "adopting" their "policy" and agenda when they magically create "law" based on mythical "rights" that cannot be found and are not presented anywhere within the U.S. Constitution?

Instead of deciding an issue with any new law through the actual text of the U.S. Constitution and through logical and full consideration of all available historical evidence, the Supreme Court, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and judge Bunning have perpetuated the same bad law and judicial activism that started with the abuse of the Constitution by Justice Hugo Black in Everson v Board of education (1947) and has not yet ended with Obergefell v Hodges (2015). Through their hubris and their ignorance or contempt of the U.S. Constitution, they have advanced a fallacious understanding of the Constitution and the First Amendment, which has resulted in judicial tyranny.

Before Everson, the states were not prohibited under the First Amendment from establishing religion, and nowhere in the debate on freedom of religion in the first Congress is there any mention of "separation of church and state." Our Founders own writings clearly show that they never intended for public officials to check their convictions and beliefs at the door to their offices. They would have been shocked by the Court's excessively broad interpretation of the First Amendment, given the language the Founders crafted with the belief it would protect open expression of religious beliefs in America. The Founders most certainly would have rebelled against the idea of an absolute "separation of church and state" and the use of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to eradicate all Judeo-Christian references to God from the public square, because these ideas are incompatible with the Original Intent and unalienable rights granted to each of us by our Creator, thus making them erroneous and historically unsupportable.

On New Year's Day 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists to assuage their fear that the federal government might one day attempt to condition religious freedom as a right granted by the state. Jefferson, an anti-Federalist, clearly stated his intention to keep government out of religious affairs rather than empower it to remove religion from the public arena: "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in the behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties."

If anyone's First Amendment rights have been violated, they were Kim Davis's rights, as she was jailed illegally and denied habeas corpus, in order to coerce her to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals. This violated her right to freedom of religious conscience.

Kim Davis asked the perfect question before she was jailed in Carter County detention Center: "Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?"

Only Congress can make law according to the U.S. Constitution, so exactly what "law" did the Supreme Court make with its ruling on Obergefell v Hodges? No law has been written and passed that allows same-sex couples to marry, although the Supreme Court and five black-robed tyrants are claiming this is "the law" after Justice Kennedy "found" this imaginary "right" to homosexual marriage in the 14th Amendment, which dealt with states' rights, citizenship for freed slaves and ending the Civil war.

During her incarceration, Kim Davis's lawyer, Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel founder, worked towards her release, since the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act already provided for accommodations that should have been immediately sought in order to save her from Bunning's abusive order. Massive crowds of supporters arrived in Grayson, KY to protest her confinement, and presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz came to her aid, and they all stood by her side on the day of her release.

Bunning released Mrs. Davis, because her deputy clerks were signing marriage licenses with "Rowan County," thus satisfying "the law"; however, Mat Staver's comments before the crowd seemed to suggest that this fight may not be over until these "marriage" licenses for homosexuals are issued through a different office and someone else's authority, which the Governor could handle by executive order. Both Staver and Davis reiterated her intent to do her job without violating her Christian beliefs and conscience.

On a larger front, this battle over the definition of "marriage" and against homosexual marriages is far from over, all across the nation. Millions of other Americans, such as Nick Williams - a probate judge in Washington County, Alabama and Molly Criner - a clerk in Irion County, Texas, are declaring that "natural marriage cannot be redefined by government," and currently, numerous counties across America are following the example set by Kim Davis, including eleven counties from Alabama alone.

Judge Williams told the New York Times: "When you're elected you don't check your beliefs at the door. If you're a true believer, you can't separate that from who you are." Judge Williams was evidently well versed, by someone in his youth, on the Founding Fathers' beliefs.

Even though Kim Davis was released on September 8th, she never should have been arrested it the first place. She broke no Kentucky law. She broke no federal law in her efforts to uphold her Christian convictions. And never again, for all times hereafter, should any American be jailed simply for standing by their religious conscience.

With traditional Christian and Jewish faith and their civilizing principles under increasing attack by black-robed tyrants, who have shown a willingness now to jail people of deeply held religious beliefs, all God-loving Americans must stand in defense of religious liberty and the right to one's freedom of conscience in the manner envisioned by our Founders, otherwise all Americans will suffer terrible consequences. we must refuse to obey unjust and unConstitutional "laws", that seek to silence and punish religious speech and diminish the God-ordained institution of marriage and the family to a distant memory, just as prescribed by St. Augustine, rather than allow our society to be reduced to the shambles of a secular and humanist cesspool of sick, demented, twisted criminal and immoral perversion ___ Hell on Earth.

By Justin O. Smith
____________________________
Edited by John R. Houk

© Justin O. Smith



Monday, September 7, 2015

Islam, Elsa and I


Traditional Biblical Faith and Non-Traditional Thinking

John R. Houk
© September 7, 2015

I had cross posted an email from Elsa Schieder by some thoughts her email inspired. The title of that post is “My Thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage & Nobel for Pastor Mulinde”. The subject title of Elsa’s email was “Honor Umar Mulinde - we stand with this man”. If you don’t know, are uniformed or are multiculturally brainwashed here are some quotes on Islam from experts and Muslims alike – HERE and HERE.

The reason I added some personal thoughts on same-sex marriage is because after promoting Pastor Umar Mulinde for a nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize for being a Christian Pastor persecuted for his faith with a Muslim acid bath Elsa addressed some flak on her position on same-sex marriage. Evidently she lost a huge amount of subscribers who looked forward to her Counterjihad newsletters.

Here is an excerpt of the email addressing the cancelling subscribers:

And now I will come back to the response to my piece saying that I don't see how permitting gay marriage threatens marriage. A few people wrote comments like, brilliant! They were in the minority. I also had a couple of thoughtful responses against gay marriage. Again, these were in the minority. I've never had so many people cancel - including people who have been getting the updates for 3 years, since I started the initial interview series. Several cancelled with comments like: "God says homosexuality is a sin. Just what don't you understand?" 

I could have answered that we don't all believe in the same god. Quite a few of us don't believe in any cosmic force. 

But that would have been a response to the words, not to the emotion. 

What I saw most was that my not being against gay marriage touched what I might call a hot button, often a hot anger button. Game over. Get out now. No more updates ever. (Found in post “My Thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage & Nobel for Pastor Mulinde”)

I have to admit I did not read Elsa’s supportive email for same-sex marriage. Nonetheless, if I had read it I would have gone through that inner search that weighs what I am acutely aware about Islam as anti-Western and anti-Christian (and numerous anti-this or that which should alarm the full scale of the political spectrum) in its revered writings measured against the Biblical principles that homosexuality is a sinful abomination. Here are a couple of blog posts that will give some insight into my stand on the Bible pertaining to homosexuality:


o   Introductory portion to “This is Why we Call the Gay Lobby Fascist!

I responded to Elsa with surprise that subscribers left a Counterjihad subscription because of a stand that Conservative Americans (including myself) would disagree. I still believe in her role as a Counterjihad writer regardless of disagreeing with her stand on same-sex marriage. Here is an excerpt from what I wrote about same-sex marriage:

In the matter of same-sex marriage: For me there is no way around the fact that marriage is a religious oath of fidelity. As far as the Bible informs then, same-sex marriage should not be performed or accepted by Christians. However, a civil union as in a defined and binding contract is Constitutional according to even [Constitutional] Original Intent and a matter of choosing Life in Christ or death in the Last Judgment with Satan and his deceived minions. Christians should never give up on showing a person lost in sin the Light of Christ and the path to eternal redemption. (I added “Constitutional” for clarity - John R. Houk; My Thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage & Nobel for Pastor Mulinde)

I am fairly certain that some fellow believers will find the “civil union” concept as something still unacceptable. Nevertheless we do live in a nation of laws. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are central to American culture. It is our Constitution that allows some sort of agreeing harmony among Leftists, Conservatives, religious adherents, Secular Humanists and atheists pertaining to the respect for law and order. Constitutional interpretation is becoming a wider gap in the American political spectrum. I have come to the conclusion that Multiculturalism and politically correct Left Wing thinking has eroded the American harmony into more and more conflict.

Elsa’s email response to my thoughts on same-sex marriage relate to the point that not all people have my perspective on the supremacy of a monotheist God from the Judeo-Christian Holy Bible. She wrote as follows:

Hello John, 
 Thank you for writing. I don't see anyone as insignificant. 
  I have also noted your many efforts on google plus. Not insignificant. 
  Much more, I know we are not insignificant as ourselves, who we are. 
  Yes, we disagree on gay marriage - however, like you I want to do this respectfully. 
  On my side, as you must know, my spirituality, and also my beliefs about the more-than-5-sense-world, are different from yours. So what for you is sin and death, for me is fine - freedom unless you are hurting someone (hitting, insulting, etc.). 
  The most amazing thing for me: this experience with traditional Christians is something new for me - except for some encounters with Jehovah's Witnesses as a mid-teen. Yours is an alien inner landscape for me. 
  My sense is we come to counter-jihad from different angles - for me Islam is against freedom, the right to flourish. 
  And now I want to tell you about a strength of the traditional Christians I have noticed (and you most likely know). 
 I've had to hold out against political correctness on my own - through thinking. Most people around me have gone the brain-wrecked route of political correctness. 
  Traditional Christians have more tools - starting with being encouraged to stand strongly for the truths they believe in, not caving in if someone else is offended. 
  And yet, like the non-religious politically correct people, so many of them have caved in as well. 
  Anyway, I find it vital that we can stand for our beliefs - and also learn - and discuss. 
  From my "experience" (meaning, one can't verify as one can verify the experience of a sunset) of the "cosmic" (or however one might designate it), I don't see that my view on gay marriage will ever coincide with yours.  By the way, re-marriage - I think you read my viewpoint: the different religions should have the option to marry (or not marry) in accordance with their beliefs, except when this violates the law (like marrying a child). I know, for instance, that the different branches of the Lutheran church have very different understandings of the biblical texts – re: women, gays, etc. (I am not going to mix into this argument - not mine.) 
 A big thing, for me: respecting each other, even when there is disagreement. 
 Again, thank you for writing, 
 All the best, 
 ElsaOn 2015-09-01, at 2:18 PM
                                         

When I asked for permission to use Elsa’s permission to post her email, she gave permission and responded thus including a quote from my intro to her promotion of Pastor Umar Mulinde for the Nobel Peace Prize (“My Thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage & Nobel for Pastor Mulinde”):

I agree: 
 “(E)ven in disagreement there is still ground for agreement. Christians (of all Denominations), atheists, Secularists and other religions not Islamic should unite and agree that Islam is a threat to all of our lines of thought and beliefs.” 
 All the best to all of us on the side of life, love, freedom, 
 Elsa

There is a time when political and social disagreements need to be set aside in Western Culture. The theopolitical tenets of the revered writings of Islam inspiring Sunni and Shia aspirations for a global Caliphate at the expense of the Liberties and Freedoms that have come to pass in West should/MUST unite a common goal to stop the un-Western concepts of Islam from finding any kind of ascendance. Since I am an American this unity must especially coalesce insuring the efficacy of the United State Constitution.

JRH 9/7/15