The June 2015 controversial decision by a divided (5-4) Supreme Court to invent (basically out of nothing) a constitutional "right" to so-called homosexual "marriage" won't be the last word on the subject. The ideologically based, politically biased decision, which basically puts heterophobic homosexuals on the same level as normal heterosexuals, so flies in the face of reason that it will eventually be overturned by more intelligent, less biased judges.
Five pro-homosexual judges basically just got on their high horses and autocratically decreed, with no logic to back them up, that homosexual "marriage" was equal to heterosexual marriage and should be treated equally under the law. In other words, five pro-homosexual justices imposed their pro-homosexual prejudices on the country; five justices let their prejudices and ignorance prevail over reason.
Their decision is so absurd it almost rivals the absurdity of a previous Supreme Court's decision on slavery, the so-called "Dred Scott Decision." In both cases, you have bigoted justices imposing their (different) prejudices on the general public. The 2015 decision is so illogical that it seems to be motivated by little more than strong animus against decent, moral people. Let's recall who appoints Supreme Court Justices (they are appointed by politicians); and let's recall who gives big bucks to politicians so they can get elected (for example, millions of dollars are given to politicians by sleazy Hollywood actors, actresses, producers, directors, by some morally challenged businessmen who expect political favors in return, etc., etc.); and let’s note that the credibility of politicians in this country has been embarrassingly low for years. If we wind up with some morally challenged judges who are essentially liberal bigots trying to impose their liberal prejudices on everyone, we shouldn't be surprised. The justices' ridiculous decision on homosexual "marriage" won't end the debate on homosexuality, just like a controversial decision on abortion by a previous Supreme Court didn't come close to ending the debate on abortion. The truth will eventually win out.
The world these justices are trying to create is so upside-down and backwards that decent, moral people are now being discriminated against and penalized because they didn’t cater to the immoral! For example, businesses that don’t want to rent apartments to openly homosexual people or businesses that don’t want to provide wedding cakes for homosexuals have been discriminated against and penalized in some perverse, extremist states. Liberal bigotry and discrimination are now quite alright with the benighted “politically correct” crowd. Hypocrisy reigns.
The Supreme Court's offensive decision on homosexual "marriage" will ultimately be reversed by better minds. (It’s offensive because---just like millions of black people are offended when liberals compare them to sexual deviates, when liberals compare their fight for freedom to the homosexual fight for sexual license---so decent and moral people are offended when people compare homosexual “marriage” to heterosexual marriage. That’s one bogus comparison, kind of like comparing or equating morality with immorality.) It's just a matter of time before this bizarre decision is overturned. Until then, we need to keep fighting the good fight.
And while we’re on the subject of odd judicial decisions, some judges have actually ruled that a state's sodomy laws are unconstitutional if those laws only target homosexual sodomy and not heterosexual sodomy. Those judges apparently are not discerning enough to see a significant difference between the two.
Next I suppose those "brilliant" judges will rule that a French kiss between a non-blood-related man and woman is no different than a French kiss between an adult brother and adult sister or a French kiss between a father and his adult son/daughter or a French kiss between two men or a man French kissing a little girl or, to get a little ridiculous---and to illustrate the absurd with the absurd---a human French kissing an animal. Clearly, not all French kisses are equal, even if the physical features of them---lips on lips, tongue in mouth---are identical. Similarly, not all sodomitic acts are equal either.
There are big and obvious differences between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity (and incestuous activity and pedophilic activity and human-animal sex). We seem almost forced to conclude that judges who cannot see those obvious differences must be blinded by pro-homosexual prejudices. Why else would they make such irrational and ridiculous declarations? Why else would these regressive judges be trying to take this country back thousands of years to the primitive Roman and Greek societies which valued homosexual activity? Pro-homosexual judges are a national embarrassment.
Incidentally, we do not mean to imply by the above that we recommend heterosexual sodomy. To the contrary. The anal cancer rate for homosexuals is way above normal because of homosexual sodomy. Sodomy can damage the anus and rectum. We are just stressing the difference between heterosexual sodomy and homosexual sodomy, and stressing that heterosexual activity is not illegalizeable---generally speaking---while homosexual activity is definitely illegalizeable as we explain cogently in the section of our website titled “The Case Against Homosexual Activity.”