E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Yesterday's SCOTUS decision on homosexual marriage

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 5:30 PM (#)

With yesterday's decision by the United States Supreme Court, here are three editorials I wrote about how government recognition of homosexual marriage threatens religious liberty:

Below is a press release from the American Family Association of Indiana. Reprinted with permission.

For Immediate Release 11/6/14 (4:25 pm EST)

The following is a statement from Micah Clark, Executive Director of the American Family Association of Indiana on the news today of the Supreme Court's refusal to consider the future of natural marriage and voter referenda in America. The Supreme Court surprised most observers when they refused the consider an appeal of lower court rulings from Indiana and four other states.

"This is not the final resolution to this issue. The 5th, 6th, 8th, and 11th Circuits can still rule for natural marriage or state's rights. The Supreme Court could, and would likely, take this matter up, if any of these circuits recognized marriage as a gendered institution deserving legal protection from the legislature or the ballot box.

It is worth noting that the Supreme Court did not rule on this issue, they simply took a pass for now. In the end, however, no matter what any court says, the needs of children to both a mother and a father will never change. Marriage is an institution that protects the interests children and society. It predates Indiana law and US law. It is not a tool for applauding the desires of activists attempting to use the courts to rewrite what marriage has always been.

Marriage is not merely the union of any two people, but the special union of a man and a woman that benefits children and society like no other relationship. No court can ever change that truth.

No judge in the world can override the Judge of the Universe. God designed marriage as the special union of both genders. He created men and women as complimentary human beings and scolded against anyone separating them in marriage. We enter uncharted territory as a nation if we allow less than 2% of the population to force a new definition of marriage upon every person, institution, business, and church.

In states impacted by the court's notice today, legislators should consider protecting the freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of association of those millions of individuals who hold to the traditional view of marriage which has served children and societies well since the beginning of time."

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.