Sunday, July 26, 2015

Court decision diminishes meaning of marriage

From www.sourcenewspapers.com:

I’ve heard it said by some that when the U.S. Supreme Court rules on something, it is the “final answer” to any questions surrounding an issue and, therefore, must be good. But considering the Supreme Court has historically ruled in favor of slavery and the killing of the unborn, shouldn’t we scrutinize every court decision for its broader implications?

For instance, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on same-sex marriage, supporters took to the streets and social media with the slogan, “love wins”; and in rewriting the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Justice Anthony Kennedy said same-sex marriage allows two homosexuals to “find a life they could not find alone.”

It all sounds good because everyone deserves love and respect. But truth be told, the Constitution’s purpose is not to promote or legitimize love.

What the Supreme Court did was redefine marriage as an institution that existed for thousands of years primarily to benefit children, into one that primarily benefits adults. Marriage, as between one man and one woman, has been the only institution that can most closely guarantee a child’s right to unity with both his mother and father.

It is precisely because so many children benefit from growing up with a married mother and father – and ultimately how that benefits society -- that governments started supporting marriage. This support never had anything to do with the love between the man and woman. It had everything to do with the unique, complementary nature of the man and woman -- namely the potential ability to conceive a child, and the different and important qualities each gender offers that child.

But now in the name of love, we’ve abandoned that unique trait of marriage to make it whatever anyone wants it to be. Marriage has been reduced to nothing more than helping couples feel their love is now seen as legitimate, which is not the true point of marriage. If it were, then parents would need to "marry" their children to prove their love is legitimate.

Accordingly, if marriage is now defined solely by love, not gender, how can we deny the polygamist his many wives? How can we deny the sister marriage to her brother? The boundaries have been obliterated along with the meaning of marriage itself.

In fairness, plenty of heterosexuals have diminished marriage as well. Cohabitation, out-of-wedlock births and rampant divorce have all undermined the institution. The task at hand now is to reintroduce the worth of traditional marriage’s benefits to society in terms of bringing up children in stable homes with a mom and a dad whenever possible.

Unfortunately, same-sex marriage cannot benefit society in the same way. It only impacts the adults involved. As for children, of course the only way this is possible for homosexual couples is through adoption or surrogacy. But both automatically deny the child’s right to both a mother and a father, and surrogacy reduces women to the professional pimping of their own bodies. This is tragic in itself, but worse, it makes innocent children the guinea pigs in a wild social experiment geared mostly toward the satisfaction of adults.

Ominously, same-sex marriage also seriously threatens religious liberty in America. Though the Court justices suggested that religious dissenters of same-sex marriage may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views on marriage, they refused to acknowledge the right to “exercise” religious beliefs.

This is worrisome because now that homosexual marriage is the law of the land (as decreed by five unelected people in robes who ignored millions and millions of votes on the issue), on what grounds can someone choose his religious beliefs over demands that he participate in something that violates his beliefs?

We’re already seeing it, such as with the Christian Oregon bakers who were fined $135,000 and had a gag order placed on them for declining to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple whom they had served lovingly for years beforehand. Also, immediately following the Supreme Court's decision, activists announced they would now target religious institutions and Christian colleges that teach biblical views on homosexuality.

What remains to be seen, then, is the extent to which Christians will win their lawsuits, because that is what it will come to: The need to fight for religious freedom in the courts, rather than being able to enjoy the freedoms once guaranteed in our Constitution. And given today's increasingly liberal judges who decide base on their own political views, not the Constitution or other laws, how often do you think Christians will win their cases?

When our courts begin rejecting the Constitution to make up rights for some, while stripping others of theirs, we are no longer a nation of law. Sadly, in efforts to eradicate perceived discrimination against homosexuals, it seems the Supreme Court has succeeded only in legitimizing discrimination against Christians, while rendering meaningless an institution that exists primarily for the benefits of children and society.

As for love, we are all different and are all called to tolerate those differences and to love one another. There is no question about that. But it needs to go both ways. Undermining children and forcing people to act against their beliefs is not tolerance, it is not freedom and it certainly doesn't feel like "love wins", despite what the catchy slogan conveys.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary. 

Friday, July 24, 2015

Random questions of the day....

Since raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would raise product and service prices, how would this help low income people who will have to come up with more money to buy the things they need - especially when employers will have to reduce hours and numbers of employees in order to afford the artificial wage hike?

Why did President Obama waste no time illuminating the White House in rainbow colors following the Supreme Court's decision on same-sex "marriage", but took so long to lower the White House flag to half mast after four U.S. Marines were murdered in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil?

If Obama is serious that he doesn't want Iran to get a nuclear bomb, why did he lift sanctions against Iran, which will allow billions and billions of dollars to flow into the country to help it build its nuclear capabilities (and sponsor even more terrorism)? And why does the deal include giving Iran advanced notice of potential inspections?

If Hillary Clinton is so pro-woman and anti-racism as she claims to be, why then does she support Planned Parenthood, which was founded to eradicate the black race and to this day kills millions of future women?

If same-sex "marriage" means "love wins", as its supporters claim, does that mean traditional marriage was based on hate?

If Planned Parenthood wants us to believe an unborn baby is just a "clump of cells", why then do they refer to actual body parts in describing how they sell newly killed "unborn" baby body parts?

If Hillary Clinton is for the middle class as she claims, why then did she promise to destroy Uber - the brilliantly innovative mode of transportation that is putting money in the pockets of the middle class people who are offering Uber services?

If proponents of same-sex "marriage" say it won't affect anyone, why then did they promise to go after churches and Christian colleges once the Supreme Court legalized it?

How can wind turbines be such a great producer of energy if they have to be turned off when it gets too windy?

If 820,000 illegal immigrants in the US have criminal convictions, how can we say illegal immigration is not a problem?

How come Obama is importing Muslim refugees into America by the thousands, but is ignoring the Christian refugees who are being slaughtered by Muslim fanatics?

Just wondering.....

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Obama more loyal to drug felons than US prisoners of Iran

The President of the United States is making a big to-do about visiting a prison today for the first time. He wants to bring attention to unfair prison sentencing. He has already commuted the sentences of about 46 drug felons and personally wrote letters to them and/or their families in a show of support and encouragement.

Meanwhile, in Obama's disastrous, destructive and dangerous deal with Iran, the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, Obama didn't even mention the four US citizens being held by Iran as prisoners (one whose whereabouts are unknown) for made up crimes, including a Christian pastor there to build orphanages yet accused of undermining the Iranian government.

Obama has barely reached out to the families of these men. He did not demand the prisoners' release in exchange for giving Iran free rein to build nuclear weapons thanks to the money they will now have freely flowing into their country because Obama has lifted economic sanctions against them. No word in this Iran deal about the US captives and how their prison sentences are unjust. No comforting phone calls to their families after the deal with the devil was made. Only arrogant displays of self-congratulations as Obama visits convicted felons in US federal prisons.

Shame on this man.


What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary. 

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Abortion doc caught on tape selling baby parts: Watch

Planned Parenthood is at it again. The largest abortion mill in America - the one that claims to provide mammograms and adoption services, but doesn't; the one that turns a blind eye to the sex trafficking of minor-aged girls - has finally revealed itself for the diabolical entity that it is. 

As reported on LifeNews.com, new and utterly disturbing "undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted unborn children and admitting she uses partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts." She admits all this while slurping wine and chomping on salad, as if she is discussing nothing more than the weather.

Selling body parts is against federal law. But in today's culture of death, including a U.S. President who voted four times as senator to allow babies born alive after a late-term abortion attempt to be killed anyway - and who claimed his steadfast support of Planned Parenthood -- will this unfathomable woman and the organization she represents be prosecuted as she and it deserve to be? If elected president, would Margaret Sanger-fan Hillary Clinton simply decriminalize such actions? 

Watch the video and share your thoughts. And then please share it as widely you can on your social channels. It's time to expose Planned Parenthood once and for all. Enough is enough.



What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary. 

Thursday, July 9, 2015

Happening now: State-paid sex changes for kids without parental notification

Under a first-in-the-nation policy quietly enacted in January that many parents are only just now finding out about, 15-year-old children are now allowed to get a sex-change operation in Oregon without parental notification or consent. Bonus: Oregon will pay for it through its Medicaid program, the Oregon Health Plan.

Children, who in most states cannot drive, smoke, donate blood, get a tattoo, or even take an aspirin that's unsupervised by a school nurse, can get their genitals removed and or mutilated without their parents’ knowledge.

The decision to cover sex-change operations specifically was made by Oregon's Health Evidence Review Commission (HERC) - members of which are appointed by the governor and paid by the state of Oregon. With no public debate, HERC changed its policy to include cross-sex hormone therapy, puberty-suppressing drugs and gender-reassignment surgery as covered treatments for people with gender dysphoria, formally known as gender identity disorder.

Just for the record, gender dysphoria is classified by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental disorder (for now) in which a person identifies as the sex opposite of his or her birth. It is rare, affecting one out of every 20,000 males and one out of every 50,000 females.

And, according to a 2008 study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, "most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty."

Fifteen year-old kids are just barely past the phase of thinking the opposite sex has cooties, yet Oregon commission members think kids this young are in a position to make such an enormous decision on their own regarding their sexual identity. 

It's interesting how in the liberal worldview, an adult with no criminal history or history of mental illness should not be allowed to buy a handgun, but a 15 year-old  suffering from a proclaimed mental disorder should be allowed to single-handedly accept harmful and life-changing medical procedures without the consent and involvement of his parents.

As Lori Porter of Parents' Rights in Education put it, "It is trespassing on the hearts, the minds, the bodies of our children. They're our children. And for a decision, a life-altering decision like that to be done unbeknownst to a parent or guardian, it's mindboggling."

I think it's more than mindboggling. I think it's a profound sign of just how dark our country has become. All boundaries of right and wrong and common sense are simply disappearing in this haze of anything goes - especially regarding sexuality - in which we are now living. God help us. We need Him and prayer like never before.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.





Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Hatred being used for political gain

In murdering nine black Christians in Charleston, SC, a 21 year-old gunman claimed he hoped the massacre would start a race war. But instead he sparked something else: Christian forgiveness from the victims’ families and a promise that love would prevail. No riots, no looting, just mercy.

In contrast, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other leftists wasted no time exploiting the tragedy in the name of their own race war and used it to renew the call for tighter gun control. It’s interesting how today’s Christians are the ones considered hateful, when true hatred in the form of mass murder is used as a convenient tool for political gain.

Since promising to fundamentally transform America before taking office in 2009, Obama has actively worked at doing so, often by using race as a flashpoint to divide Americans. From Trayvon Martin to Michael Brown and others, Obama has used highly publicized incidents to exacerbate racial tensions, quick to blame any incident involving a black “victim” and non-black “offender” on racism, despite no proof of racism.

The fact that the Charleston murderer is a self-proclaimed racist dovetails nicely with Obama’s insulting claim last week that racism is in America’s DNA. In other words, according to our president, there is no changing us. We are hateful, bigoted people by nature. Where’s the hope in that?

Worse, in a complete show of disrespect to the black Christians brutally murdered, just days afterward Obama used the "N-word" in a speech, implying that just because people might not use it in public, doesn't mean they're not racist. Translation: they still use it in private and, therefore, are disgusting racists. What on earth...?

Barack Obama has taken us back to racial animosity and bitterness like no other president. In fact a recent CNN/ORC survey found that 84% of Americans feel race relations are worse since Obama took office. Instead of making our country more color blind, he has color coded it. He has poured gasoline on smoldering racial division and helped create the abyss across which black and white citizens now stare at each other with increasing anger, mistrust and incomprehension. 

As for other incidents, such as Sandy Hook, the Colorado theater shootings, etc., the president can’t claim racism, so must trot out his other favorite scapegoat, guns, and his desire to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to have them.

It doesn’t matter to the Left, though, that gun laws don’t keep people like the Charleston murderer from inflicting evil on others. It doesn’t sink in that where gun laws are most strict, such as in D.C. and Chicago, gun crimes are the most rampant.

What the Left cannot accept is that there are and always will be people who are very unstable, disturbed, or just plain evil, and they will continue to murder and hurt others, with or without guns. No gun law will ever fix that. But maybe a spiritual renewal in our country could help.

Instead of blaming racism or guns, maybe we should focus more on how to live moral lives. Perhaps we should look at the impact that divorce, violent videogames, pornography, and a culture that devalues unborn life has on people. Maybe we should consider how a progressive society that fights so hard to remove God and denounce Christianity can backfire, producing people who see no value in anything or anyone at all beyond their own self interests.

Commenting on the Charleston massacre, Obama said “there is something particularly heartbreaking about a death happening in a place in which we seek peace,” referring to the church where the murders occurred. True, but it’s an awkward proclamation from a president who has exhibited outright hostility toward Christians since taking office.

From forcing Christian taxpayers to fund the major abortion mill, Planned Parenthood (which, by the way, was founded specifically to “weed out” the black race), to making Christians pay for abortifacients through Obamacare; from supporting the crackdown on prayer and religious services in our military, to comparing Christians to ISIS terrorists, Obama can hardly claim a loving affinity with Christianity in America. As for the true Christianity exemplified by the Charleston victims’ loved ones, I’m not sure the president knows what to do with that, but perhaps it will change some hearts of those currently riding the “Christians-are-hateful” bandwagon.

What’s particularly surprising about this case is how seemingly willing our president and others are to ignore the obvious in favor of fanning the flames of racism. Murdering nine Christians at Bible study was the mark of a psychotically disturbed loner. But the ridiculous solution being put forth is to remove public displays of the Confederate flag, as though symbols incite people to commit mass homicide.

Rather, maybe we should consider the fact that the gunman was on the prescription drug Suboxone, reported by its users to cause extreme agitation and outbursts. In fact, the perpetrators of several heinous mass shootings in recent years, including Sandy Hook, Aurora, CO, Virginia tech and Columbine, were all on some form of psychotropic drug. This is completely ignored, however. Instead our president and presidential hopeful, Hillary, prefer to exploit crime to divide people and justify bigger government.

It’s gratifying though to see that the good people of South Carolina are not falling for it. Church bells across Charleston tolled in unity this past week for the victims, while strangers, black and white, joined hands in prayer and mourning. And unlike the rioters of Ferguson, MO, and Baltimore, MD, thousands from all races gathered on Charleston’s Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge in a peaceful expression of solidarity in response to the murderous rampage of a self-proclaimed racist. Whether everyone standing on that bridge was actually Christian or not, they exhibited the true Christian traits of peace, forgiveness and love.

None of this means criminal perpetrators should be let off the hook of course. But it does mean evil must be recognized for what it is and not used for political gain or to incite disharmony and distrust among Americans. In fact, imagine if our current leadership were to follow the loving example set forth by Christians who forgave a murderer, despite their agonizing pain. If we truly want healing and unity in America, it seems love, not inflammatory rhetoric, would be a good place to start.

Friday, June 26, 2015

Same-sex "marriage", the Constitution & religious freedom

By overturning millions and millions of Americans' votes to uphold marriage as the union between one woman and one man, “The Court’s decision (on same-sex marriage) fundamentally rewrites the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution to radically redefine the cornerstone institution of marriage, which is older than the Court itself,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel.

The decision also drew sharp criticism from the Court’s four dissenting justices. Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, rightly observed that the activist majority opinion hijacks the democratic process and is not based on the rule of law: “[D]o not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,” wrote Roberts.

Justice Scalia similarly called the ruling a “threat to American democracy.” The “pretentious” and “egotistic” decision, he railed, “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.”

In one aspect, the majority opinion emphasized that this newfangled “right” to “gay marriage” should not be construed to trump religious liberty.

“Finally," the Court wrote, "it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.”

We’ll have to see what this actually means in coming years, but when filtered through any honest reading of the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause, what it means is that Christians cannot be forced to violate their conscience through compulsory participation in, or recognition of, counterfeit “gay weddings” or “marriages.” Ever.

Of course there’s nothing honest about the five liberals on this court, though, and Chief Justice Roberts makes that point in his dissent. He expresses skepticism as to the majority’s sincerity: “The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach’ their views of marriage,” he writes. “The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise‘ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage,” he continues. “[W]hen, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court.” Little doubt indeed.

As many of us have long warned, all the “gay marriage” talk was never about “marriage equality.” It was, and remains, a spiritual battle camouflaged in the formal attire of judicial and public policy wrangling. It was always about forcing Christ’s faithful followers, under penalty of law, to abandon biblical truth and embrace sexual sin. The goal of “LGBT” activists and secular progressives has long been to pit the government directly against the free exercise of religion – Christianity in particular – and to silence all dissent.

One thing that stands out about this entire issue of the redefining of marriage, is that the same-sex marriage proponents refused to even debate the meaning of marriage. The entire issue was packaged solely as a want demanded to be met. It was based largely on sentiment and anyone who disagreed was - and is -- simply dismissed as a hater, a homophobe, a bigot -- words designed solely to marginalize and silence dissenters. But had we had that debate, we could have covered very logical issues, such as the fact that the Supreme Court ruling now opens the door for all sorts of things that we as a society really ought to have considered for the long term.

For example, key to the marriage argument is that 
marriage is the only institution in existence that guarantees the rights of children to to be united with their mother and father. For the thousands and thousands of years marriage has existed as a social and legal institution, marriage has been understood as the institution that unites a man and a woman to each other and any children born from their union.  No other social structure does that. Marriage has been supported by government precisely because of its fundamental role in creating a positive environment for children and the positive impact that has on society in general.

What should also be considered is how gay-marriage proponents themselves define marriage. After all, President Obama said of the Supreme Court ruling, “love is love.” If gender no longer matters for marriage, and love is all that matters, then who is to say numbers matter? On what grounds can anyone truly resist issuing marriage licenses to three men or four women, or family members? Really, who can argue against love if that is the only basis for marriage? What boundaries do same-sex marriage proponents put on marriage? Any at all? And if so, on what grounds? The Supreme Court has thrown boundaries out the window.

And not surprisingly, homosexual activists are not content with the redefining of marriage that has been around for millennia. Immediately following the Supreme Court's decision, activists announced they would now target religious institutions. In other words, overhauling the true meaning of marriage is not enough. Activists are not content to just live their lives and let religious believers live theirs. Instead, homosexual activists want to force believers to give up their deeply held beliefs rooted in God by being active participants in their actions. But to all believers, stand strong. God still rules supreme. This decision will not undo the Church (though it could very well undo the nation).

As for those who believe the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, and therefore conclude that same-sex "marriage" must be good, remember one thing: The Supreme Court also ruled that slavery was okay. Should we have believed them then as well? 

Homosexual persons do not deserve to be treated with scorn, disrespect, or bigotry.  They are persons deserving of our love and respect just like anyone else.  But extending love and respect to our homosexual brothers and sisters does not extend to redefining marriage so that it becomes socially and practically meaningless.

This is not a day to celebrate. What the five Supreme Court justices did is institutionalize and validate discrimination against people of faith while severely undermining, if not outright tossing out, our Constitution. It also seriously undermined an institution that existed primarily for the benefit of children and turned it into something that is only about adults. 

This issue is much, much more complicated than the simple treatment it's getting in the media. It's not a day to celebrate, but one to pray very deeply about. Pray for those in bondage to homosexuality who are being deceived, pray for our religious freedom, and pray that God will restore our country to genuine law, truth and common sense.

More below from other sources.......

from American Family Association:

Without question, the Supreme Court’s decision to impose homosexual marriage as a constitutional right is disappointing. There was a time when the Court rightly bestowed a great respect for America’s Christian heritage and to the Creator on which the Declaration of Independence was based. Sadly, those times are passed.

As Christians, we know God, in His great wisdom, established the institution of marriage as only between one man and one woman. Not even the Supreme Court can change that.

Because of judicial activism, Christian ministries can and should take steps to protect their religious freedoms. No longer can even churches believe they are immune to the compulsive and aggressive nature of the homosexual agenda.

American Family Association strongly urges churches and other Christian ministries to consider three recommendations immediately:
·         Adopt a clear statement of faith regarding human sexuality and marriage.
·         Clarify that weddings in your church are Christian worship services.
·         Adopt a policy that clearly restricts the use of ministry facilities to the ministry’s religious purposes.
AFA makes several resources available to aid church pastors, leadership and ministry in protecting itself against the coming storm of homosexual activism.
1.       American Family Studios has produced a short documentary that provides legal analysis of the dangers posed to religious liberty by the ruling. Watch it here.
2.       Read and print this article written by AFA General Counsel Pat Vaughn. It will help your church understand the dangers of doing nothing. Gay marriage ... your church
3.       Alliance Defending Freedom has produced a handbook that will walk your church through every step of adopting strong marriage policies, including sample resolutions and statements. A Legal Guide for Churches, Christian Schools, and Christian Ministries
As Christians, we can and must guard our religious freedoms while showing Christ’s mercy to people in bondage to homosexuality. Avoiding problems in the future depends on what we do today.
Please use the resources provided to insure your church or ministry is ready for the certain dangers ahead. May God bless our efforts, as we stand on His word.


Conscientious dissenters weigh in on Supreme Court ruling:

Tim Wildmon, president of American Family Association:
"We're not surprised but extremely disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision. I fear for our country, quite frankly, because this is a spiritual 9/11, I believe. We have said to God Almighty, We don't care what you say about marriage and your definition of what's natural and normal.

"If you look in the scripture, often times when God's people rebelled against Him, He turned them over to destruction. Christians need to pray for mercy and we need to pray for a revival in the land.

"I think the next line of defense is religious freedom. We must take a stand for religious freedom in this country and fight back in the courts and in the state legislatures, if not the federal legislature, to uphold religious freedom."

Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin:
"I believe this Supreme Court decision is a grave mistake. Five unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage, an institution that the author of this decision acknowledges 'has been with us for millennia.'

"In 2006 I, like millions of Americans, voted to amend our state constitution to protect the institution of marriage from exactly this type of judicial activism. The states are the proper place for these decisions to be made, and as we have seen repeatedly over the last few days, we will need a conservative president who will appoint men and women to the Court who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our land without injecting their own political agendas.

"As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage."

Brian Brown, president of National Organization for Marriage:
Well, obviously it's a profound disappointment. This is an illegitimate decision – a decision that the Supreme Court never should have made, never had the right to make. And now we have to move forward and fight on. "This does not end. People of faith need to stand up for the truth and absolutely reject this decision and work to elect individuals who will overturn it through a constitutional amendment and will not except this as a legitimate decision."

Ken Blackwell, senior fellow with Family Research Council:
"Just as we did not accept the court's decision [in Roe v. Wade] in 1973 where they in fact [decided] it was now a woman's right to take the life of an innocent child, we in fact stayed together, we fought the fight every place that we could fight it – and we now have won the day culturally and we have won the day legislatively, and we will do that on marriage. This is an illegitimate decision by the Supreme Court."

Russell Moore, president of SBC's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission:
"I am a conscientious dissenter from this ruling handed down by the Court today, believing, along with millions of others, that marriage is the sacred union of one man and one woman and that it is improper for the Court to redefine an institution it did not invent in the first place.

"I believe this action of finding some illusory Fourteenth Amendment right to same-sex marriage will have wide-ranging and perilous consequences for the stability of families and for freedom of religion."

Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com:
"The Supreme Court got this wrong because a narrow majority of justices do not fear God and have rebelled against their promises to 'support and defend' the clearly written words of the U.S. Constitution, which does not contain the word 'marriage' but explicitly honors states' rights.

"The Fourteenth Amendment is not about marriage but about race; not about couples but individuals -- essential distinctions one must recognize in order to be loyal to the Constitution."

Chief John Roberts:
 “Today's decision ... creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is – unlike the right imagined by the majority – actually spelled out in the Constitution. From dissent written by Chief Justice John Roberts

And even a SC Justice who voted yes on the ruling dissents in his own way:
"Finally it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned."

The First Amendment ensures protection for religious organizations and individuals as they seek to teach the principles "that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths" and to "their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered." From majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy