Accuracy in Media

With media coverage slanted in favor of gay marriage by a five-to-one ratio, it’s unlikely that the legal documents being filed before the Supreme Court in favor of a traditional one man and one woman marriage will ever be covered in an objective fashion.

Yet, some of the legal briefs carry ominous warnings about what could happen to the American system of democratic self-government and its Christian heritage if the Supreme Court unilaterally decides to impose same-sex marriage on the states. They also warn about freedom of the press and religion being threatened by a powerful pro-homosexual movement that requires obedience to its desires and demands.

The court will hear arguments on April 28 and rule in June.

A powerful brief filed by the firm of William J. Olson, P.C., Attorneys at Law, and the U.S. Justice Foundation cites the late conservative journalist M. Stanton Evans in his book The Theme of Freedom as saying that homosexuality constitutes “a reversion to pagan ways of thinking,” and that putting the United States on the road to paganism could lead to a government “with totalitarian powers.”

Examining the nature of the homosexual movement and where it is driving the nation, the legal brief notes that sexual categories once limited to heterosexual and homosexual have now been expanded to include more than 50 gender options, as defined by Facebook, and that “some consider pedophilia to be a legitimate sexual orientation, returning us to the pagan pederasty of ancient Greece.”

With the court affirming same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, the lawyers see the culture sliding further into debauchery. “Television no doubt will become even more pro-homosexual,” the attorneys argue, “making it more difficult for persons adhering to traditional values to live their lives and raise their children in an increasingly debased culture.”

“In this brave, new, homosexual-friendly world,” they go on, “every licensed professional would be required to embrace the new orthodoxy, to bow down to the idol of ‘non-discrimination,’ or be cast out of his profession. People who first claimed only to want tolerance of their behavior will allow no toleration for other views.”

The Olson brief says a Court decision in violation of America’s founding principles could directly affect the free press rights of those offering information about withdrawing from homosexual behavior. Websites offering such counseling could be outlawed as “hate speech,” the legal document says.

“In California,” the document notes, “it is already a crime” to counsel minors that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. It says New Jersey passed a similar statute, which was recently upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This statute was signed into law by New Jersey’s Republican Governor Chris Christie.

“Newspapers likely will be forced to publish homosexual wedding announcements, in violation of their existing editorial control over what they publish,” the attorneys assert.

A decision in favor of same-sex marriage could also result in Christians being “driven from public office” for objecting to participation in gay marriage ceremonies, the brief says.

The Olson firm and the U.S. Justice Foundation filed the brief on behalf of Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, U.S. Justice Foundation, The Lincoln Institute, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Pastor Chuck Baldwin.

The brief says that a constitutional right to homosexual marriage could supersede the religious freedom of churches, ministries, Christian schools and colleges, and that these entities “would be placed in jeopardy of losing their federal tax-exempt status.” The loss of federal income tax-exempt status “could lead to loss of contribution income, and forfeiting of church properties to pro-homosexual charities,” the brief says. In addition, it goes on, “criminal penalties might be imposed on church leaders. In Idaho, two pastors recently were threatened with fines and jail time unless they performed homosexual marriages at their wedding chapel.”

In addition to the threat posed to the First Amendment rights of a free press and religious expression, the conservative public interest law firm Judicial Watch has filed a brief noting that the will of the American people through the voting process has already been subverted by liberal judges.

The group points out that “most of the States where the traditional definition of marriage has been changed has been done through judicial actions and not the will of the people. And in fact, several States including California and Virginia where the voters clearly desired to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, state administrators and federal courts denied their collective voices.”

“The right to vote is clearly defined in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution,” Judicial Watch points out. Yet, courts have declared through “judicial fiat” that “the millions of voters who democratically adopted the marriage amendments were wrong,” thereby abridging “the right to vote of each and every one of those citizens.”

The brief goes on to say that “The message sent to these citizens is that, despite engaging in the democratic process and debate regarding issues predominately within the state sphere and casting their constitutionally protected votes, when a federal court decides it knows better, their votes will mean nothing. The inevitable consequence of this type of federal interference will be voter disenfranchisement. How can we beat the patriotic drum of voter involvement when the ultimate end can be erased by a few federal judges?”

The Olson brief also takes up the theme of the American people being denied their say in these matters, noting cases of judges who “have treated challenges to traditional marriage as an opportunity to exercise raw political power…”

Inevitably, the lawyers warn, the nation could witness the legalization of multiple-partner and incestuous marriages.




Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

  • John Cunningham

    It’s not just gay Rights, it’s rights of all Americans. Barack Obama has used the Justice Department to shake down American businesses for any discretion at all. Whether it is political or ideological, companies and individuals have had their !st Amendments rights stripped and where is the out rage? Gay Rights, is just one of many things this horrible Administration has done in the name of hatred of another. Someway or another the Barack Obama Amendment should be a part of the Constitution in which an elected president can’t turn around and attack Americans just because they disagree. Barack Obama and many in his administration should be locked up.

  • stlouisix

    The stakes are very high in terms of the survivability of the Republic, i.e., we’re talking about nothing less than “liberty vs. tyranny”.

  • Ted

    Whether on Republican issues or Democratic issues, the governance of this country now operates on the basis of money and, most particularly, monied special interests, rather than on the basis of majority rule of, by, and for the people. And, every high-powered monied interest … especially including those supported by the media and the infernal “political correctness” … has created its own new mini-minority, e.g., LGBT interests, Jewish interests, atheist interests, Muslim interests … blah, blah, blah … that the rest of us have to accede to.

  • john robel

    Ramming homosexuals up my ass and down my throat not only equates rape, it destroys the principle that, “your rights end, where mine begin”. This isn’t about being homosexual, this is about in your face discrimination bolstered by trial lawyers, and supported by despicable politicians. Double negative wasn’t it?

  • john robel

    Yup, time to clean, polish and oil your 2nd amendment.

  • jonno99

    People of faith are losing the battle because they are not properly defining the
    issue. The issue is not about serving homosexuals per se; it is about having the choice of whether or not to promote an ACTIVITY.

    The question should be: should anyone be forced to participate in an ACTIVITY – promoting what they believe to be objectionable?

    I doubt there is much disagreement that If I’m a baker, any respectful customer wearing a shirt & shoes should be permitted to purchase whatever is generally for sale at my store.

    However, if the customer wants something “special” – that is, something I don’t generally offer to the public, then I should have a say in what it is that I produce. Why is this a problem? (the answer has to do with control)

    It’s very simple. We are not about refusing people – we are about refusing to participate in or promote activities that we find objectionable.

  • DrLager

    the nice thing about bigots like you, and your fake god gary, it that your kind are dieing off…

  • dtsmith21

    We’ve already lost our children. Public schools often conflict and override reasonable parental influence in matters of morality, social interaction, religion and personal standards. Granting suffrage to 18 year old children instead of raising the draft age was a disaster for in terms of the wisdom of the electorate.

  • DrLager

    religious freedom of churches, ministries, Christian schools and
    colleges, and that these entities “would be placed in jeopardy of losing
    their federal tax-exempt status.” The loss of federal income tax-exempt
    status “could lead to loss of contribution income

    how dare the government use the Constitution to stop you Christian bigots!

  • BillWestern

    I read the amicus brief and as an attorney who has argued at the state Supreme Court level find it utterly laughable. Any attorney who would put their name on this ridiculous screed should go back to first year law school. There are decent LEGAL arguments and briefs before the Court in opposition to legalizing ss marriage, this isn’t one of them. The Justices will ignore it.

  • Al Peuster

    Wait a minute—This article sounds like one that the Pharisees in the New Testament would have written about Christ as they saw Him allow His disciples to “pluck” corn on the Sabbath, or saw Him heal on a day where work was not to be done, or quote to back all these practices up how King David broke an OT law letting his soldiers eat the bread that was only for the priests. Christ said the law was made for man (to help him) andnot man for the law (bow down in blind obedience)!. Recall how many rules in the OT and in the NT have been replaced with even more Christian views: stone your son, give rules how to treat your slaves in OT. St.Paul made a gigantic statement when he told slaves and masters to love each other like Christ, yet if we see slavery today (it rampant) we don’t stop with that instruction! No, we call the police! If we can have a more Christian approach on this,can we not also have a more Christian approach on gays and gay marriage. God has given us so much more wisdom as to origin of different life styles, we cannot play ignorant. Christianity for long time quoted the Bible to condemm Indians as savages helping to allow for their eradication and Blacks and not human allowing for their being slaves. (And even today there are some churches who will not let black people bemembers). Explain that in the light of Christ! Peace!

  • stringman

    That ‘fake God’ has stood the test of time for 5000 years of human history and, lead directly to the creation of this free nation where you have the right to speak your nitwitery freely and not be legally punished for it. That you have no appreciation for the fortune that you so readily take for granted is evidence for your complete ignorance and arrogance. Dr. of militant homosexuality and dingbatery, maybe. Dr. of anything useful? No.

  • stringman

    Just in time for Easter, I’m really struggling with that whole ‘love thy enemy’ thing. I don’t mind giving up a pray for them while I’m at it but, when they come for me, my family, or my country, I don’t think I’ll be able to open my arms and offer a loving embrace. Just saying.

  • stringman

    ‘Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor the free expression there of.’ Maybe you should read the Constitution before go making pronouncements about it. Telling Christians or anyone that they have to change their definition of holy matrimony is the same as establishing a new religion (Because it certainly isnt the same religion). Congress shall make no law on that matter.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    The Bible says that God created man in His own image. According to the Bible, you will never die. It is simply a matter of which of two places you will be spending eternity.

    You can jump out of an airplane at 20,000 feet and deny gravity all you want. Sooner or later you are either going to the meet truth or the truth is going to meet you.

    The term “bigot” comes from marxism and no other place.
    And yet there were more people slaughtered in the 20th century from marxist ideology, then all of the previous centuries combined!

    There is not a clearer example of “hate,” than marxism and its blind followers. In ALL of history. Those who use the term “bigot” are liars and thieves. As if a bunch cursing reprobates are not bigots themselves. As if a bunch cursing reprobates hold the title on “love.” How unbelievably self delusional.

  • Dragana Kislovski

    There are various consequences to same sex marriages. spiritualresearchfoundation.org/spiritual-life/same-sex-marriage-debate

  • 2up

    Lots of other countries have marriage equality written in law and their democracies seem to be just fine. Sky didn’t fall, everyone just goes about their business as usual.

  • DrTJEckelberg

    The definition of “bigot” is “one who is intolerant toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.” You’re a bigot too! Awesome! Oh, and you spelled “dying” incorrectly, Dr.

  • Leo Toydog

    Homosexual men are possessed by female demons? Seriously?

  • Leo Toydog

    Hope the justices ignore this thing, it’s laughable. Well, you either want to laugh or cry I guess.

  • Leo Toydog

    Put your mind at rest, no one will force you to enter into a same sex marriage, you’re safe.

  • thomas daniel

    you are a bigot if dont agree that two men having sex is ok amazing so much for tolerance

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    John 3:36 King James Bible:

    “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

    I could care less what you call me, sodomite.

  • Eric Bryce

    Note that the brief outlined in this article uses words designed to shock the reader. pagan, pedophilia, debauchery, idol of ‘non-discrimination, multiple-partner and incestuous marriages.

    (Pagan) Historically same sex marriage has never been legal not even in ancient times so the term “pagan” could never apply.

    (pedophilia) Same sex couples wanting to marry don’t have an agenda to molest children. They simply want to marry a person that they love.

    (debauchery) The definition of debauchery is “in sensual pleasures; scandalous activities involving sex, alcohol, or drugs without inhibition” which mainly applies to heterosexuals.

    (idol of ‘non-discrimination) That’s a stretch. The right to not be the object of discrimination is a basic human right and universally seen as something that enlightened people everywhere aspire to.

    (multiple-partner and incestuous marriages) The use of this phrase is too ridiculous to even address.
    )