This just in: The Supreme Court of the United States has sided with the LGBT movement and stated that all 50 states must recognized same-sex marriage and grant licenses to gay couples seeking it.
I will update this as I learn more details:
The case of OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL has opened the doors for so-called “same-sex marriage” to be legal in all 50 states. The case began when Obergefell sued the state of Ohio for refusing to place his name on the death certificate of his partner who passed away. Justices KENNEDY, J., GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN all sided with the opinion that bans against so-called “same-sex marriage” were unconstitutional. They cited the 14th amendment in this regard. Those against the decision (Justices, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) filed dissenting opinions. In his opinion, Justice Kennedy acknowledged the importance of marriage, he writes:
“From their beginning to their most recent page, the
annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance
of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a
woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all
persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage
is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers
unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular
realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that
could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater
than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic
human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound
hopes and aspirations.
The centrality of marriage to the human condition
makes it unsurprising that the institution has existed for
millennia and across civilizations. Since the dawn of
history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives,
binding families and societies together. Confucius
taught that marriage lies at the foundation of government.
2 Li Chi: Book of Rites 266 (C. Chai & W. Chai eds., J.
Legge transl. 1967). This wisdom was echoed centuries
later and half a world away by Cicero, who wrote, “The
first bond of society is marriage; next, children; and then
the family.” See De Officiis 57 (W. Miller transl. 1913).
There are untold references to the beauty of marriage in
religious and philosophical texts spanning time, cultures,
4 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES
Opinion of the Court
and faiths, as well as in art and literature in all their
forms. It is fair and necessary to say these references
were based on the understanding that marriage is a union
between two persons of the opposite sex.
That history is the beginning of these cases. The respondents
say it should be the end as well. To them, it
would demean a timeless institution if the concept and
lawful status of marriage were extended to two persons of
the same sex. Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a
gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view
long has been held—and continues to be held—in good
faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout
the world. “
Kennedy then presents a summary of the cases and offers the arguments that support Obergefell et al. He argues that marriage is not unique to a “male and female” union by stating that “it does not end there.” The Justice then cites from psychological journals from the mid 1970s highlighting that, “only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.” Kennedy uses this to present the argument that homosexuals are “normal” and therefore deserve equal rights just like heterosexuals. He also makes the case that children of homosexual couples suffer “stigma,” he writes:
“…children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.”
The opinion concludes with these words arguing that homosexual couples are not disrespecting marriage, but respect it so much that they do not want to be excluded from it.
“The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples
may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all
States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it
now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to
refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed
in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
* * *
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies
the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice,
and family. In forming a marital union, two people become
something greater than once they were. As some of
the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage
embodies a love that may endure even past death. It
would misunderstand these men and women to say they
disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do
respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its
fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned
to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s
oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the
eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.”
Following the written decision, the dissenting opinions from Roberts et. al offer different points as to why the majority decision to allow so called “same-sex” marriage was erroneous and not supported by the Constitution. Justice Roberts writes that the court’s job is not to legislate nor decide what is a “good idea.”
“But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex
marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.
Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what
the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified
the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither
force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No.
78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization
Justice Roberts continues stating that arguments in favor of so-called “same-sex marriage” are compelling, but their legality is weak. He argues that right to marriage does not trump the right of States to define it. Moreover, he states that the Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage and therefore those in favor of so-called “Same-sex marriage” cannot cite it in their favor.
“Although the policy arguments for extending marriage
to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments
for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental
right to marry does not include a right to make
a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s
decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has
persisted in every culture throughout human history can
hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does
not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a
State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex
couples, or to retain the historic definition.”
Roberts continues making his case and ends stating that those in favor of “same-sex marriage” should celebrate their victory, but should refrain from celebrating it as a victory supported by the Constitution.
“If you are among the many Americans—of whatever
sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage,
by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate
the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity
for a new expression of commitment to a partner.
Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not
celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
I respectfully dissent. “
Justice Scalia then offers his dissenting opinion where he focuses on this decision as a “threat to democracy.” He writes:
“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and
the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a
majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The
opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—
and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the
Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution
and its Amendments neglect to mention. This
practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee
of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant
praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important
liberty they asserted in the Declaration of
Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the
freedom to govern themselves.”
Scalia feels that the court is overstepping its boundaries by “creating ‘liberties’ that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.” He argues that this was done by a committee of nine unelected lawyers and that these lawyers are not representative of the entire United States. Moreover, he writes that this decision is reminiscent of the “no taxation without representation” dilemma in America’s infancy where Americans were taxed by the British without having representation. Scalia alters it by stating that today’s decision is like a “no social transformation without representation” situation.
“Take, for example, this Court, which consists
of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers18
who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four
of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them
grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails
from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner
or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner
(California does not count). Not a single evangelical
Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of
Americans19), or even a Protestant of any denomination.
The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body
voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if
they were functioning as judges, answering the legal
question whether the American people had ever ratified a
constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe
the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the
Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis;
they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of
same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a
select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is
to violate a principle even more fundamental than no
taxation without representation: no social transformation
Justice Thomas then makes his dissent arguing that the court’s decision is at odds with the Constitution and the principles of freedom and liberty. He writes:
“Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a
“liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to
the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along
the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of
Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests
instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion
of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts
the relationship between the individual and the state in
our Republic. I cannot agree with it.”
Finally, Justice Alito argues that the Constitution has nothing to say about marriage rights and that the decision is based not on law, but on the postmodern view points of the justices voting in favor of so called “same-sex marriage.” Moreover, he states that the will of the people was trumped and that those who hold a contrary view will be considered villains.
“The Constitution says nothing about a right to same-sex
marriage, but the Court holds that the term “liberty” in
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
encompasses this right. Our Nation was founded upon the
principle that every person has the unalienable right to
liberty, but liberty is a term of many meanings. For classical
liberals, it may include economic rights now limited
by government regulation. For social democrats, it
may include the right to a variety of government benefits.
For today’s majority, it has a distinctively postmodern
“Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the
people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional
understanding of marriage. The decision will also have
other important consequences.
It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to
assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion,
the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws
that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and
women. E.g., ante, at 11–13. The implications of this
analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to
stamp out every vestige of dissent.”
Homosexuality, Children & Psychology
There you have it. Kennedy and the dissenting justices offered their opinions on the case. The dissenting opinons are correct. While Kennedy does make good arguments, he does not acknowledge that homosexuality was removed from the DSM after politicking. No strong research was ever presented to the American Psychological Association and other bodies that work in this science presenting homosexuality as a normal behavioral aspect of the human being. To date, any psychologist who dares question the status quo may face repercussions for doing so. This intimidates honest researchers who sincerely want to research homosexuality. Furthermore, studies show that children needs a father and mother, not an imitation. Children who grow up without a parent (usually a father) tend to do poorly in school and in many instances, end up in prison. Justice Kennedy claims that there is a “stigma” with children of homosexual couples, however, he fails to explain how. Moreover, he fails to take into account the bullying these children will face from other children who will call them names and mock the fact that their parents are of the same gender. Children of homosexual parents will grow up confused, especially when they learn that reproduction only takes place when parents of the opposite gender perform sexual intercourse. They will wonder why they are a part of a “family” that is not the natural norm. This will cause self-esteem issues, depression and a sense of being socially awkward or weird.
American History & the 14th Amendment:
Moreover, Kennedy does not make any argument stating that the Constitution does support “same-sex marriage.” The 14th amendment is cited, but when one reads it one will find that it does not mention marriage at all as something that has “equal protection under the law.” As the dissenters argued, the power to define marriage and protect it belongs to the people and the States they form. According to my former history professors at CUNY, when the Constitution was written, it was done so to protect White Male slave owners. This is why African Americans, Woman and others were left out, prompting amendments to be made in order to protect these classes of people and expand their rights. The writers of the Constitution did not mention marriage because at the time, there was no need to. There were no LGBT activists protesting and demanding “equal rights.” Our Founding Fathers were Christian men who naturally would adhere to the understanding of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This understanding was expected to be adopted by Americas at the time, so there was no need to “put it in writing,” so to speak. Not even the prolific writer and promoter of liberty, Thomas Paine wrote on marriage as a fundamental right for anyone or any union. The topic was just not on the table at the time. If Paine and the Founding Fathers were alive today or could see how America turned out, they would most likely be upset and disgusted.
Power to the People
The 10 amendment clearly states that:
“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.” –https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment
It is not up to the branches of the government to decide social norms, but to the people and the states that they reside in. By deciding that marriage is a right to same-sex couples against the will of the people and the states, the Supreme Court is taking on power it does not have. The Supreme Court is NOT a legislative body.
The Constitution states the power the Supreme Court has:
“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.” –https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
In light of what the Constitution states, the Supreme Court’s decision should have been either not to hear the case or to send it back to the States for resolution. The justices in favor of so called “same-sex marriage” decided prima facie respectively of their personal views and not the Constitution.
The Supreme Court failed to understand the ramifications of their decision in regards to religious freedom. The United States of America was founded because of religion. Pioneers to this nation from Europe sought new territory from which they could practice their religious beliefs free from oppression from other ecclesial bodies or monarchies who wished a specific religion be practiced by their subjects. We have already seen with the many lawsuits against Christian businesses for refusing to provide service on grounds that their religious beliefs and conscience would be violated how the promotion of the LGBT agenda is effecting religious liberty. Many Christians have had to shut down their businesses and have faced the backlash and abuse from LGBT supporters. Religious denominations are now being labeled as institutions of hate because they promote certain teachings or Biblical statements which disagree with the LGBT agenda. This opens the door for litigation against religious bodies for simply exercising their first amendment rights. Moreover, with the legalization of so called “same-sex marriage” in all 50 states, religious bodies can now be coerced to cater to the LGBT agenda or face fines, removal of their tax exemption status or even prosecution. We are already seeing Christians attacked in public and on social media. One Catholic priest was even spat on by gay men:
Walking down Broadway and 22nd St just now, I ran into gay marriage parade. Two men walked by and spat on me. Oh well… I deserve worse.
— Fr. Jonathan Morris (@fatherjonathan) June 28, 2015
The USCCB published a statement calling the decision a “tragic error” and rightfully so.
Supreme Court Decision On Marriage “A Tragic Error” USCCB President @ArchbishopKurtz http://t.co/Xr0GBHWemg pic.twitter.com/q6Zo8WJFWC
— USCCB (@USCCB) June 26, 2015
A Little too Late
Republican candidates for the presidency also voiced their concern regarding this “judicial tyranny.” They are calling for an amendment to the Constitution, however, this should have been done decades ago. Now it will be extremely difficult to get such an amendment passed. If it does pass, most likely it will be challenged by the same Supreme Court who made this awful decision legalizing so called “same-sex marriage” since they are on the bench for life.
Pusillanimous Catholic Clergy
This decision and the claims that the majority of Catholics and Americans support so called “same-sex marriage” could have been avoided if Catholic clergy educated the people on the sanctity of marriage and why any other union that is not one man and one woman cannot work. Instead, we hear “wishy washy” homilies that are humanistic in tone and scarce on Church teaching. For example, Jesuit priest James Martin who is popular online did not even condemn the decision, but instead asked Catholics to only recall what the catechism says about treating gays with “respect, compassion and sensitivity.”
Catholics who disagree with the Supreme Court decision should treat gays with “respect, compassion and sensitivity,” as the Catechism asks.
— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) June 26, 2015
He ignored the rest of it which reads as follows:
“Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.“141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” –http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P85.HTM
The Church clearly states that homosexuality is not something that should be celebrated or promoted as a norm. Those with homosexual tendencies are not called to “come out of the closet” ride on floats in “Pride parades;” rather, they are called to be chaste! Father Martin ignores this part and it is unfortunate. Furthermore, had our clergy emphasize this teaching to our people, we would not see these polls alleging that the majority of Catholics support so called “gay marriage.” Our people would understand that while we must love the sinner, we must detest the sin and do all in our power to keep that sin “in the closet of the devil.” Sacred Scripture and the Church Fathers are clear on the matter as well:
Leviticus 18:22 – You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 – If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Deuteronomy 22:5 – A woman shall not wear a man’s apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does such things is abhorrent to the Lord your God.
Romans 1:26-27 – For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9 – Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, effeminate, nor homosexuals.
1 Timothy 1:10 – fornicators, homosexuals, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching
“You shall not commit fornication; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not be a corrupter of youth.” Letter of Barnabas 10 (A.D. 74).
“You shall not be a corrupter of boys, nor like unto such.” Letter of Barnabas 10 (A.D. 74).
“You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born.” Didache 2:2 (A.D. 90).
“[W]e have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. And any one who uses such persons, besides the godless and infamous and impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods.” Justin Martyr, First Apology 27 (A.D. 151).
“All honor to that king of the Scythians, whoever Anacharsis was, who shot with an arrow one of his subjects who imitated among the Scythians the mystery of the mother of the gods . . . condemning him as having become effeminate among the Greeks, and a teacher of the disease of effeminacy to the rest of the Scythians.” Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks 2 (A.D. 190).
“[According to Greek myth] Baubo [a female native of Elusis] having received [the goddess] Demeter hospitably, reached to her a refreshing draught; and on her refusing it, not having any inclination to drink (for she was very sad), and Baubo having become annoyed, thinking herself slighted, uncovered her shame, and exhibited her nudity to the goddess. Demeter is delighted with the sight–pleased, I repeat, at the spectacle. These are the secret mysteries of the Athenians; these Orpheus records.” Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks 2 (A.D. 190).
“It is not, then, without reason that the poets call him [Hercules] a cruel wretch and a nefarious scoundrel. It were tedious to recount his adulteries of all sorts, and debauching of boys. For your gods did not even abstain from boys, one having loved Hylas, another Hyacinthus, another Pelops, another Chrysippus, another Ganymede. Let such gods as these be worshipped by your wives, and let them pray that their husbands be such as these–so temperate; that, emulating them in the same practices, they may be like the gods. Such gods let your boys be trained to worship, that they may grow up to be men with the accursed likeness of fornication on them received from the gods.” Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks 2 (A.D. 190).
“[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities.” Tertullian, Modesty 4 (A.D. 220).
“[God forbid the Jews to eat certain foods for symbolic reasons:] For that in fishes the roughness of scales is regarded as constituting their cleanness; rough, and rugged, and unpolished, and substantial, and grave manners are approved in men; while those that are without scales are unclean, because trifling, and fickle, and faithless, and effeminate manners are disapproved. Moreover, what does the Law mean when it…forbids the swine to be taken for food? It assuredly reproves a life filthy and dirty, and delighting in the garbage of vice…Or when it forbids the hare? It rebukes men deformed into women.” Novatian, The Jewish Foods 3 (A.D. 250).
“[T]urn your looks to the abominations, not less to be deplored, of another kind of spectacle…Men are emasculated, and all the pride and vigor of their sex is effeminated in the disgrace of their enervated body; and he is more pleasing there who has most completely broken down the man into the woman. He grows into praise by virtue of his crime; and the more he is degraded, the more skillful he is considered to be. Such a one is looked upon–oh shame!–and looked upon with pleasure…nor is there wanting authority for the enticing abomination…that Jupiter of theirs [is] not more supreme in dominion than in vice, inflamed with earthly love in the midst of his own thunders…now breaking forth by the help of birds to violate the purity of boys. And now put the question: Can he who looks upon such things be healthy-minded or modest? Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion.” Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 1:8 (A.D. 253).
“Oh, if placed on that lofty watch-tower, you could gaze into the secret places–if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight–you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people embruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do–men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them.” Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 1:9 (A.D. 253).
“[T]he mother of the gods loved [the boy Attis] exceedingly, because he was of most surpassing beauty; and Acdestis [the son of Jupiter] who was his companion, as he grew up fondling him, and bound to him by wicked compliance with his lust…Afterwards, under the influence of wine, he [Attis] admits that he is…loved by Acdestis…Then Midas, king of Pessinus, wishing to withdraw the youth from so disgraceful an intimacy, resolves to give him his own daughter in marriage…Acdestis, bursting with rage because of the boy’s being torn from himself and brought to seek a wife, fills all the guests with frenzied madness; the Phrygians shriek, panic-stricken at the appearance of the gods . . . [Attis] too, now filled with furious passion, raving frantically and tossed about, throws himself down at last, and under a pine tree mutilates himself, saying, `Take these, Acdestis, for which you have stirred up so great and terribly perilous commotions.'” Arnobius, Against the Pagans 5:6-7 (A.D. 305).
“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: `Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24-25].” Eusebius of Caesarea, Proof of the Gospel 4:10 (A.D. 319).
“He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers.” Basil the Great, Letters 217:62 (A.D. 367).
“If you [O, monk] are young in either body or mind, shun the companionship of other young men and avoid them as you would a flame. For through them the enemy has kindled the desires of many and then handed them over to eternal fire, hurling them into the vile pit of the five cities under the pretense of spiritual love. At meals take a seat far from other young men. In lying down to sleep let not their clothes be near yours, but rather have an old man between you. When a young man converses with you, or sings psalms facing you, answer him with eyes cast down, lest perhaps by gazing at his face you receive a seed of desire sown by the enemy and reap sheaves of corruption and ruin. Whether in the house or in a place where there is no one to see your actions, be not found in his company under the pretense either of studying the divine oracles or of any other business whatsoever, however necessary.” Basil the Great, The Renunciation of the World (A.D. 373).
“[The pagans] were addicted to the love of boys, and one of their wise men made a law that pederasty…should not be allowed to slaves, as if it was an honorable thing; and they had houses for this purpose, in which it was openly practiced. And if all that was done among them was related, it would be seen that they openly outraged nature, and there was none to restrain them… As for their passion for boys, whom they called their ‘paedica,’ it is not fit to be named.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Titus 5 (A.D. 390]).
“[Certain men in church] come in gazing about at the beauty of women; others curious about the blooming youth of boys. After this, do you not marvel that [lightning] bolts are not launched [from heaven], and all these things are not plucked up from their foundations? For worthy both of thunderbolts and hell are the things that are done; but God, who is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forbears awhile his wrath, calling you to repentance and amendment.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 3:3 (A.D. 391).
“All of these affections [in Rom. 1:26-27]… were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored than the body in diseases.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 4 (A.D. 391).
“[The men] have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more shame than men.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 4 (A.D. 391).
“And sundry other books of the philosophers one may see full of this disease. But we do not therefore say that the thing was made lawful, but that they who received this law were pitiable, and objects for many tears. For these are treated in the same way as women that play the whore. Or rather their plight is more miserable. For in the case of the one the intercourse, even if lawless, is yet according to nature; but this is contrary both to law and nature. For even if there were no hell, and no punishment had been threatened, this would be worse than any punishment.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 4 (A.D. 391).
“[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way.” Augustine, Confessions 3:8:15 (A.D. 400).
“[Christians] abhor all unlawful mixtures, and that which is practiced by some contrary to nature, as wicked and impious.” Apostolic Constitutions 6:11 (A.D. 400).
Jesus On Marriage
Some state that Jesus was silent on “gay marriage.” While He may have not used the words, He did reaffirm to the crowds gathered that marriage is between a male and female:
Matthew 19:4-6 – He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
As you can see, there is no way a Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or anyone who calls him or herself Christian can justify homosexual behavior and so called “same-sex marriage.” Catholics who support so called “same-sex marriage” should refrain from reception of Holy Communion and from identifying as a Catholic. Moreover, other quasi representatives of the Catholic faith wrote articles focusing more on how Catholics should respond to the LGBT rather than reaffirming Church teaching. Franciscan Friar Daniel Horan writes in a column,
“As a Christian, the “joys and hopes” of the LGBT women and men who have cried out for the recognition of their human dignity and value, these are the “joys and hopes” of me today.” –http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/how-should-christians-respond-courts-decision-marriage
Is he serious? Would the seraphic father St. Francis of Assisi really state this? The answer is no. St. Francis of Assisi was about love and the promotion of the Gospel truths. He was so firm on this that he even dared to covert the Muslims knowing he could have been martyred. Franciscan Friar Horan clearly does not understand the Gospel, Church teachings nor the application of the aforementioned. Then again, he is part of an order that has squandered hundreds of millions of dollars and that claims to live a vow of poverty yet own beautiful expensive properties, vehicles and even allow their members to have their own private apartments. St. Francis would not recognized the Order of Friars Minor today as his order. They are the Order of Fraudulent Men. Unfortunately, young Daniel Horan is a product of this group which has gone apostate decades ago and is dying out due to their departure from the Gospel.
Social media, many businesses and even government buildings seemed to all know beforehand that the Supreme Court would decide in favor of so called “same-sex” marriage. Within seconds of the announcement, may social media platforms, corporations and businesses, government buildings including the White House all had rainbow imagery and lighting. What struck me the most as disturbing were the White House lights. The facade of the building was lit up in rainbow colors. I have never seen the White House in any other color than its white paint. Never to my knowledge has the White House displayed on its facade the colors of our flag, Red, White and Blue. Yet it was lit up in the rainbow Gay Pride colors. On Twitter, the hashtag “LoveWins” was trending. Anyone who used it had a rainbow colored heart appear in their tweets! This “gay pride” was forced on all of us. Even as I was editing my Sunday post on WordPress, a rainbow appeared!
|White House lit up in Pride colors. Never lit up in Red White or Blue|
|White House Facebook changes avatar|
|Hashtag promoted by White House is decorated with a rainbow heart|
|Some of the many companies changing their logos to Pride rainbows|
|Those on Facebook could add “twibbons” on their faces with a rainbown|
|As I edited my WordPress post, a rainbow shows up.|
In all my years on this Earth, I have never seen such indoctrination publicly visible and so forcefully presented. It is just disturbing to think the power this LGBT agenda has and how it controls corporations, social networks and the government. Is this the new “Nazi” movement?