This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A shouting match erupted in a hearing of the House Oversight Committee when Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., was acknowledged for a unanimous consent request, but then veered far afield into politics, destroying the committee's standing rules of order and demanding that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem be subpoenaed.
She was on the other side of the country at the time, having made news when Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., was manhandled out of her news conference after he barged onto the stage demanding to question her.
The fights there are over the Trump administration's decision to serve warrants and make arrests in a cartel criminal conspiracy apparently involving money laundering.
Leftists and other supporters of criminal illegal aliens in the country then created riots against the president's border security agenda.
Frost ranted over and over about Noem, trying to talk, against the rules, over the chairman, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., whose time was being consumed by his rant.
The Gateway Pundit explained, "It began when Frost made a Unanimous Consent Request to enter three news articles about Senator Alex Padilla D-CA being physically restrained and removed for heckling DHS Secretary Kristi Noem while she was giving a briefing on the Los Angeles riots into the record."
Frost's demanded over and over, that the committee subpoena Noem.
"He then ignored Chairman Comer's demands for him to be quiet and give the floor to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who began shouting back at Frost. He then began screaming at the Republican that Noem needs to be subpoenaed 'because a US Senator was just thrown to the ground and detained," the report said.
Chariman Comer eventually shouted, "Shut up!" to which Frost shouted back, "No, you're not going to tell me to shut up!"
Comer eventually called a short break in the year, after saying, "He's trying to get on MSNBC."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The transgender ideology has been around for years but it took Joe Biden pushing it from the Oval Office desk in the White House to really give it traction.
While he was in office, Biden tried to install the agenda in schools, the military, social programs, education programs, benefits programs, entertainment and much more, even around the globe through America's aid efforts for needy nations.
But now he's out, and his campaign is losing traction.
That's according to a new polling from Gallup that was documented by the Washington Stand.
In fact, the polling shows fewer Americans now believe trying to change one's gender is "morally acceptable" than when Biden took office in 2021.
Actually, following the science, transgenderism doesn't happen, as being male or female is embedded in the human body down to the DNA level, and no chemicals or even surgical intervention changes that.
"The current 40% of U.S. adults who believe that changing genders is morally acceptable is down six points from 2021, while the latest 54% who think it is morally wrong is similar to prior readings," Gallup explained.
"Partisans' opinions differ significantly, with 71% of Democrats, 45% of independents and 9% of Republicans saying that changing one's gender is morally acceptable. Republicans' opinions have changed the most since 2021, falling by 13 points."
Democrats still are on Biden's bandwagon, with support there rising, but independents align with Republicans in dropping their support, by three percentage points.
"Gallup similarly found Republican support for same-sex marriage crumbling," the Washington Stand said.
"The poll is one of many showing the LGBT agenda losing support in recent years. The percentage of Americans who believe same-sexual relationships are 'morally acceptable' fell by 7% last year, the largest decrease of any of the moral issues posed by Gallup pollsters in their annual Values and Beliefs poll, released last June. A Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released last Friday found that 82% of parents favor 'legislation that would strengthen parental rights over their children'; 77% oppose transgender injections or surgeries for minors (including 67% of Democrats and 77% of Independents); and 70% say schools should not teach children their gender is a choice (including 54% of Democrats)," the report explained.
Other findings included that since 2022 Americans are:
Joseph Backholm, of the Family Research Council, told the publication, "First, the mood of the country has changed, so people probably feel more free to say what they actually believe. Cancel culture has lost much of its power so people don't perceive the same risk from saying there are only two sexes and they can't be changed. Second, people understand it's not just a matter of personal choice. There are consequences for what we believe, and pretending we can be anything we want is creating cultural chaos."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrat Sen. Alex Padilla, from California, has been forcibly removed from a press conference featuring Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for heckling.
The video shows multiple security officers restraining Padilla, then removing him from the room.
He shouts, "Hands off!" after being moved through double doors that partition off an entry area from the news conference room. Earlier, he is heard saying, "I'm Sen. Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary."
The Hill reported Padilla's office did not immediately respond to questions, but Noem confirmed she would visit with him.
"When I leave here, I'll find him and visit and find out really what his concerns were. I think everybody in America would agree that that wasn't appropriate, that if you wanted to have a civil discussion, especially as a leader, a public official, that you would reach out and try to have a conversation," she said.
She continued, "For instance, I have left voicemails for Gov. Newsom wanting to have a conversation. Has he returned them? No, he hasn't."
The strident encounters have developed as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have conducted raids across Los Angeles as part of their work to deliver warrants and make arrests in a probe of criminal cartel activity, including money laundering.
However, activists supporting illegal alien criminals and their presence in the U.S. have responded with riots over the president's overall agenda to secure the border, deport illegal alien criminals, and more.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new state law recently signed by Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte will eliminate "onerous regulations" for homeschooling families.
"For Montana families who homeschool, HB 778 is more than just a policy update, it's a shift toward recognizing and respecting the unique nature of home education," explained Traci Taylor of Mix 97.1. "By cutting unnecessary red tape and clearly separating homeschools from nonpublic schools, the law supports educational freedom while still ensuring students get a solid education."
A report at LifeSiteNews explains the plan repeals the demand that homeschool parents keep immunization records for their children and submit them to officials.
It also explains that family homes are not required to meet the same health and safety codes as school buildings. Further, it makes homeschoolers and private schools separate categories.
The report noted about 3.1 million students were homeschooled in the United States as of 2022. On average, the National Home Education Research Institute pointed out, they scored on average "15 to 25 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests."
While home schoolers sometimes face little regulation, a common tactic among leftists is to create rules specifically for them, especially among those radicals who hold the mindset that children actually belong to the state.
Radical sexual, diversity and racial ideologies long have been a major concern for parents regarding the content of public school classrooms and libraries.
A recent development has been for extremists to impose transgender ideologies on schools, insisting that boys be allowed to change clothes and shower with girls.
Those factors have been pushing the number of homeschoolers up each year.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Just a day after America's largest Protestant group, the Southern Baptists, called for the Supreme Court to overturn the same-sex marriage "right"-creating Obergefell decision, the legal team already working on that project issued a statement that the ruling, biased because at the time two justices had publicly advocated for the creation, is "vulnerable."
The decision, unleashed on Americans in 2015, had no connection to, or foundation in, the U.S. Constitution, the dissent from the bare 5-4 majority said. In fact, although it cites the 14th Amendment, that doesn't mention marriage. The Constitution doesn't mention marriage, meaning that the issue legally needs to be left to the states, under the 10th Amendment.
It is lawyers with Liberty Counsel who have fought for years already against the imposition of the leftist, radical, and anti-Christian ideology.
"As the 10th anniversary of the 2015 Obergefell opinion approaches on June 26, 2025, where 'five lawyers' on the U.S. Supreme Court abused their duty to interpret the Constitution and invented a so-called 'right' to 'same-sex marriage,' there is one legal case that could challenge it," the team explained.
The case involves former Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis, the first victim of this disastrous opinion, who was sent to prison for six days for refusing to issue marriage licenses while waiting for a religious accommodation.
The organization said besides the Southern Baptists' actions, there already is a growing consensus to overturn the opinion, even support from the high court.
"In his concurring opinion in Dobbs that overturned Roe, Justice Thomas stated that the rationale the High Court used to reverse abortion rights should be the same in overturning other court-established rights, such as 'same-sex marriage,'" Liberty Counsel said.
And lawmakers in at least four states have introduced resolutions calling for Obergefell to be overturned.
Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver said, "The U.S. Constitution provides no foundation for 'same-sex marriage.' Obergefell was wrongly decided whereby the Court created a right that is nowhere to be found in the text. We will petition the U.S. Supreme Court because Kim Davis' case underscores why the High Court should overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. Obergefell threatens the religious liberty of Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman."
Liberty Counsel's case is Davis v. Ermold, in which Davis, a former Rowan County Kentucky clerk has been held personally liable for not issuing a "marriage" license to David Ermold and David Moore.
On release of the radical Supreme Court ruling, Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses, instead referring same-sex duos to other locations, and never blocked any person from getting such a document.
Since the ruling violated her personal religious beliefs, she was awaiting a procedure that would protect her constitutional rights with an accommodation.
"However, she became Obergefell's first victim serving six days in jail, and now has a $100,000 jury verdict levied against her personally. Adding to that amount, the judge tacked on $260,000 in attorney's fees and costs, for a total of $360,000," Liberty Counsel said.
The ruling from the 6th Circuit denied her request to throw out the verdict, but it cited the dispute as a case of "first impression," "meaning that Davis presents a novel or unique question of law which the courts have not settled," a question Liberty Counsel now is presenting to the Supreme Court.
In fact, does the First Amendment protect Davis from liability for damages for "hurt feelings" that erupted as state laws abruptly were trashed without any guidance on procedural changes.
"By taking the case, SCOTUS can do two things – affirm religious freedom for all people and also correct the Obergefell mistake by overruling the 2015 opinion. SCOTUS can return the religious and governmental institution of marriage back to the states in similar fashion as it did when it found no right to an abortion in the Constitution in the 2022 Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade," Liberty Counsel said.
It was Chief Justice John Roberts who wrote, at the time: "Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent."
And Justice Samuel Alito said, "To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has [previously] held that 'liberty' under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.' And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights."
Justice Clarence Thomas said, "In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court read a right to same-sex marriage into the Fourteenth Amendment, even though that right is found nowhere in the text. Several Members of the Court noted that the Court's decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. The Court has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have 'ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'"
Liberty Counsel pointed out that a majority of those leftists who fabricated same-sex marriage, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, no longer are on the court.
The SBC resolution is, On Restoring Moral Clarity through God's Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family," calls for the overturning of "laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God's design for marriage and family."
It seeks "laws that affirm marriage between one man and one woman, recognize the biological reality of male and female, protect children's innocence against sexual predation, affirm and strengthen parental rights in education and healthcare, incentivize family formation in life-affirming ways, and ensure safety and fairness in athletic competition."
The dissent to Obergefell had warned it would be used to attack the religious rights of Americans, and it has.
For example, officials in just one state, Colorado, have gone to the Supreme Court twice already trying to impose a state-adopted religious belief, which is anti-Christian, on its residents.
Officials there, led by homosexual Gov. Jared Polis, first tried to punish a Christian baker for declining to promote anti-Christian beliefs with his work. The state lost at the Supreme Court, and got scolded for its "hostility" to Christianity. The same thing happened when Colorado officials tried to force a Christian web designer to promote anti-Christian religious beliefs with her work.
Incredibly, officials in that state, after costing taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees for their ideological warfare, have gone to the Supreme Court yet a third time, this time trying to impose their religious beliefs on every counselor in the state.
At the time of the Obergefell ruling, same-sex marriage was illegal in many states.
The pro-marriage Mass Resistance organization said, "The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was passed by a slim 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices. It has caused immense societal havoc across the country. States have been forced to ignore their legitimate laws and constitutional amendments regarding marriage. Governments, businesses, and even schoolchildren have been forced to accept same-sex 'marriage' – and by extension homosexual behavior – as normal, under pain of punishments, fines, and even imprisonment."
The problem with that ruling?
"The First Amendment guarantees free speech, freedom of assembly, religious liberty, and the right to petition government for redress of grievance. By forcing same-sex 'marriage' on the country in this way, Obergefell challenged all those rights," the group reported.
"In order to invent a previously unknown constitutional 'right' to same-sex marriage, the 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices used a strategy concocted by the LGBT lawyers. They redefined the Fourteenth Amendment to allow them to effectively change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to 'two people who love each other,'" the group reported.
But the 14th Amendment actually states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," and does not mention marriage.
The Obergefell promoters at the time also cited "substantive due process," which is not in the Constitution.
The decision was biased because two justices, Ruth Ginsberg and Elena Kagan, who joined in creating the new right, already had officiated at same-sex weddings, indicating they had a clear bias in favor.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One member of Congress has torn into another, publicly, for an on-floor confrontation that didn't go well.
It is Fox News that reports Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., bashed Rep. John Mannion, D-N.Y., after he shouted at Lawler he was on the "wrong side" of the House floor.
The report said, "Democrats and Republicans traditionally sit on opposite sides of the chamber, but it's not unusual for lawmakers of either party to enter through any door and cross to their side."
Lawler entered, and Mannion attacked him with, "Get over there and tell them the country is falling apart."
Lawler responded on social media, "John Mannion was entirely unhinged and unprofessional. That was a shameful display that exposed his complete lack of temperament.
"No wonder numerous staffers have previously alleged a toxic work environment. He should go seek help for anger management," The social media statement is linked, not embedded, because of language that followed.
Mannion, ahead of the dust-up, "was heard shouting at reporters," the report said: "We need you. We need you to hold them accountable. Media, it's your country too."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Amid a Trump administration war on anti-Semitism, which has moved from a number of universities with such policies to the broader scope of American society, a lawsuit has been filed by the Department of Justice over the alleged actions at a California coffee shop.
And the action was accompanied by a warning from Attorney General Pam Bondi.
"You can't do that. And so we've sued them, and we're going to stop this from happening. And anywhere in the country, if you do this, we're coming after you," she said.
Newsweek reports that a lawyer, Glenn Katon, for the "Jerusalem Coffee House," denied all the accusations it refused to serve Jews.
"Neither the owner nor staff are anti-Semitic, and they would not tolerate anti-Semitism in their cafe," Katon said.
The action alleges the coffee shop denied service to two customers wearing the Star of David, which the owner denied.
"According to the civil complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, one customer visited the coffee shop while scoping out a nearby venue for a workplace event. He was wearing a baseball cap with the Hebrew words 'Am Yisraeli Chai,' which translates to 'The people of lsrael live,'" the report said.
He was confronted by a man who accused him, as a Jew, of being complicit in Israel's defense of its own population following the Hamas terror attack on Israel on Oct. 7.
The customer returned later, to be told he was not welcome, with "owner Fathi Abdulrahim Harara then allegedly joining yelling 'Jew' and 'Zionist' at him in the street," the report said.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, said, "It is illegal, intolerable, and reprehensible for any American business open to the public to refuse to serve Jewish customers. Through our vigorous enforcement of Title II of the Civil Rights Act and other laws prohibiting race and religious discrimination, the Justice Department is committed to combatting anti-Semitism and discrimination and protecting the civil rights of all Americans."
The report said a similar circumstance happened to another Jewish customer, who allegedly was told to leave.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley said the events also have triggered a private lawsuit by the Anti-Defamation League.
"The federal lawsuit notes that, on the first anniversary of the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel, the Jerusalem Coffee House announced two new drinks: 'Iced In Tea Fada,' an obvious reference to 'intifada.' It also introduced as drink, 'Sweet Sinwar,' an apparent reference to Yahya Sinwar, the former leader of Hamas who orchestrated the massacre," he explained.
The complaint also charges the coffee house's exterior side wall displays inverted red triangles, a symbol of violence against Jews that has been spray-painted on Jewish homes and synagogues in anti-Semitic attacks, he noted.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A rescission package that installs into law President Donald Trump's agenda to cut spending on foreign aid and PBS has been adopted by the U.S. House.
The package cancels money that already had been allowed by Congress in furtherance of the savings plans launched by the Department of Government Efficiency.
Among the billions of dollars being cut is hundreds of millions for PBS and NPR, which Republicans have described as leftist propaganda machines.
A report from Just the News explains the total spending eliminated is $9.4 billion.
It was adopted on a 214-212 vote, and now must go to the Senate.
"The package includes $1.1 billion in cuts for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as the White House has said that NPR and PBS have 'spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news," and $8.3 billion for the United States Agency for International Development, as well as other international assistance programs," the report said.
It Rescissions Act of 2025 slashes not only PBS, NPR and USAID, but other aid programs.
There was concern for the funds being cut from PBS and NPR, with Rep. Mark Amodei, a Republican from Nevada worrying that while he understood cuts to "national stations for their editorial stances against the president," the funding cuts also hit local stations, the report said.
In the Senate, Trump's agenda will need only a simple majority of 50 votes to pass, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has explained his body will do a reconciliation package first, then address rescissions.
"For decades, Republicans have promised to cut NPR, but have never done it, until now," said Trump, on social media.
"NPR and PBS are a Radical Left Disaster, and 1000% against the Republican Party!"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has offered some stunning advice to residents of his state, should California's pro-illegal alien riots encompass the streets there.
'You don't have to sit there and be a sitting duck."
His comments came in an interview on the Rubin Report.
"And we also have a policy that if you're driving on one of those streets and a mob comes and surrounds your vehicle, and threatens you, you have a right to flee for your safety.
"And so if you drive off and hit one of these people, that's their fault for impinging on you. You don't have to sit there and be a sitting duck, and let the mob grab you out of your car and drag you through the streets. You have a right to defend yourself in Florida."
Multiple nights have been violated by mobs in California who have been protesting federal enforcement of immigration laws. They actually erupted last weekend when federal agents were delivering warrants and making arrests in a cartel crime investigation that involved money laundering.
Since then, officers have been hurt, vehicles torched and buildings vandalized by the pro-illegal alien radicals.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A resolution has been adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant group in America, that seeks the reversal of the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in which a single-vote majority created without a link to the U.S. Constitution the "right" to same-sex marriage across the nation.
A resolution, "On Restoring Moral Clarity through God's Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family," calls for the overturning of "laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God's design for marriage and family."
It seeks "laws that affirm marriage between one man and one woman, recognize the biological reality of male and female, protect children's innocence against sexual predation, affirm and strengthen parental rights in education and healthcare, incentivize family formation in life-affirming ways, and ensure safety and fairness in athletic competition."
The Supreme Court, at the time it unleashed the stunning creation of rights not mentioned in the Constitution, admitted it was unrelated to America's founding document. The minority on the court, taking a more conservative position, warned, too, that the ruling, even though it "recognized" the rights of Americans to not support the alternative sexual lifestyle choice, would be used to attack Christians in America, which it has.
For example, officials in just one state, Colorado, have gone to the Supreme Court twice already trying to impose a state-adopted religious belief, which is anti-Christian, on its residents.
Officials there, led by homosexual Gov. Jared Polis, first tried to punish a Christian baker for declining to promote anti-Christian beliefs with his work. The state lost at the Supreme Court, and got scolded for its "hostility" to Christianity. The same thing happened when Colorado officials tried to force a Christian web designer to promote anti-Christian religious beliefs with her work.
Incredibly, officials in that state, after costing taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees for their ideological warfare, have gone to the Supreme Court yet a third time, this time trying to impose their religious beliefs on every counselor in the state.
The support for overturning Obergefell has been developing every since it was released, and, in fact, there's a court fight already in the pipeline that justices on the bench, now far more conservative than in 2015 when radicals like Ruth Ginsburg were in control, could use to overturn it.
That case involves former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis.
She refrained from issuing any marriage licenses under her name for a short time after the Obergefell opinion, as the ruling infringed on her religious beliefs. She asked for and eventually got an accommodation, but not before a biased federal judge excoriated her for having her Christian faith and sent her to jail.
She later was sued by two same-sex duos for "damages" when she didn't immediately grant them licenses. One jury awarded $50,000 in damages to both David Ermold and David Moore for "emotional distress" based on "hurt feelings," while the other jury considering the same facts announced there was no evidence of damages.
While Davis' case now is being presented to the Supreme Court, a ruling from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals already has confirmed it is "a case of 'first impression,' where a question regarding an interpretation of the law that has never arisen before is first presented to the court."
Liberty Counsel is representing Davis, and said, "The 6th Circuit affirmed the jury verdict against her, but did so in a way that provides Davis with excellent grounds to appeal the decision to the full 6th Circuit and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States.
"On appeal, Davis argued that she was entitled to First Amendment protections in her position as county clerk, and that the jury was prohibited from issuing any damage award against her. According to legal precedent, the First Amendment prohibits imposing liability on an individual for the exercise of their sincerely held religious beliefs. While most of the cases … establishing this position were based on the Free Speech Clause, there is no reason to make a distinction between the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses for this purpose," the legal team explained.
The court claimed, "Writing on this blank slate, we are wise to tread lightly. To that end, the fact-specific nature of our holding again bears emphasis: a government employee, acting in the scope of that employment, does not have a unilateral free exercise right to use an arm of the state to infringe on a clearly established equal protection right of the public. Change the factual setting, and a free exercise defense to a civil rights lawsuit may have more traction. It is always the case that '[a] later court assessing a past decision must . . . appreciate the possibility that different facts and different legal arguments may dictate a different outcome.'"
That decision, now on appeal, threatened that government officials lose their conscience protections when they are government officials.
Liberty Counsel explained, "The court found that the 2015 Obergefell 5-4 opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Friday, June 26, 2015, 'clearly established' that Davis as the Rowan County Clerk in Kentucky must issue licenses to same sex couples when she commenced work on Monday, June 29. The problem with this ruling, however, is that Davis' function is totally defined by state law. To issue a license to someone not authorized to receive one under state law could subject Davis to criminal prosecution."
At the time of the Obergefell ruling, same-sex marriage was illegal in many states.
Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel chief, said the reason Obergefell must fall is that the decision "threatens the religious liberty of many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. The First Amendment precludes making the choice between your faith and your livelihood."
The legal team previously has noted the path to overturning Obergefell could follow the same path as that was used to overturn Roe: that the Constitution does not even mention same-sex marriage and thus, under the Constitution, the issue must be left to states.
The pro-marriage Mass Resistance organization said, "The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was passed by a slim 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices. It has caused immense societal havoc across the country. States have been forced to ignore their legitimate laws and constitutional amendments regarding marriage. Governments, businesses, and even schoolchildren have been forced to accept same-sex 'marriage' – and by extension homosexual behavior – as normal, under pain of punishments, fines, and even imprisonment."
The problem with that ruling?
"The First Amendment guarantees free speech, freedom of assembly, religious liberty, and the right to petition government for redress of grievance. By forcing same-sex 'marriage' on the country in this way, Obergefell challenged all those rights," the group reported.
"In order to invent a previously unknown constitutional 'right' to same-sex marriage, the 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices used a strategy concocted by the LGBT lawyers. They redefined the Fourteenth Amendment to allow them to effectively change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to 'two people who love each other,'" the group reported.
But the 14th Amendment actually states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," and does not mention marriage.
The Obergefell promoters at the time also cited "substantive due process," which is not in the Constitution, a maneuver that was caught by Justice Clarence Thomas, who said that use in Obergefell, like Roe, "is faulty, and a basis for revisiting those cases."
He said, "We should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."
The decision was biased because two justices, Ruth Ginsberg and Elena Kagan, who joined in creating the new right, already had officiated at same-sex weddings, indicating they had a clear bias in favor.
In fact, WND later reported that the Davis case got a "Told you so," from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas after the high court declined to review one issue of the attacks on Davis.
In a statement then, Thomas said Davis "may have been one of the first victims" of the Supreme Court's "cavalier treatment of religion" when it issued its same-sex marriage ruling, "but she will not be the last."
Thomas called Davis a "devout Christian" who "found herself faced with a choice between her religious beliefs and her job."
"Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws," Thomas wrote. "Moreover, Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss."
Thomas said, "Several members of the court noted that the court's decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. If the states had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs. The court, however, bypassed that democratic process. Worse still, though it briefly acknowledged that those with sincerely held religious objections to same-sex marriage are often 'decent and honorable' … the court went on to suggest that those beliefs espoused a bigoted worldview…"