This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

When the U.S. Supreme Court, with the extremist liberal votes of several justices no longer there, fabricated "same-sex marriage" for all of American in 2015, there were warnings about how the ruling would be used against people of faith, those the values of family that have endured for millennia, and more.

All of those warnings were rejected by progressives and other leftists as likely not to exist, or be extremely rare.

Now that those observations have been proven wrong, there is a new movement, a new sentiment, that the precedent fabricated in Obergefell, a precedent that even dissenters on the Supreme Court warned was unrelated to the Constitution, should be overturned.

It's in a report in the Federalist that experts now confirm, "We can either recognize gay marriage or recognize children's right to their mother or father. We can't have both."

That's according to Katy Faust, of Them Before Us, an organization that advocates for the right of children to their biological parents.

"Marriage has, throughout our country and nearly every other culture throughout history, been the pathway to secure that right. But as every one of the 38 countries which have legalized gay marriage has learned, when you make husbands and wives optional in marriage, you make mothers and fathers optional in parenthood. The problem is, from the child's perspective, their own mother and father are never optional. Not in terms of their identity, their development, their safety, or their rights," she said.

The report in the Federalist warns the "tentacles" of the decision now are "in media, schools and curricula."

"The decision has left in tatters the single most important institution in society — marriage and family — while ushering in an LGBT indoctrination agenda, annual state-enforced homosexuality, a boost to the rent-a-womb industry, and a burgeoning acceptance of eugenics to service the rent-a-womb industry," the report warned.

The backlash has been developing for some time already. The report noted support for "gay marriage' among Republicans has dropped 14% since 2021, when it reached its high.

Faust is going to be part of a panel explicitly calling for the overturn of Obergefell at National Conservatism's fifth annual conference in September, the report said.

She will be joined by Claremont Institute senior fellow and constitutional lawyer Dr. John Eastman and Hale Institute Director Jeffrey Shafer.

The fight already has been pending at the Supreme Court, where several justices have pointedly noted the precedent should be reviewed. It is Kim Davis — the former Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk known best for refusing to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple in the aftermath of Obergefell, who has asked the high court for a resolution.

It was Justice Clarence Thomas in the Dobbs decision that overturned the faulty Roe decision creating a "right" to abortion that didn't really exist in the Constitution who said Obergefell was endangered, because it was presupposed on the same faulty groundwork, substantive due process, as Roe.

"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [right of married persons to obtain contraceptives], Lawrence [right to engage in private, consensual sex acts], and Obergefell," he wrote.

He noted any substantive due process decision is "demonstrably erroneous," so the court needs to "correct the error."

Eastman told the Federalist how Obergefell has damaged American law.

"There is no question that the ability to 'marry' someone of the same sex was never any part of the history and traditions of this, or any other, country. Normally, when articulating new unenumerated rights, the Court looks to whether the asserted right was part of the history and traditions of this country."

The Obergefell activists on the court did no such thing.

Which opens "the door to other novel claims, such as a 'right' to polygamous marriages, to polyamory, even bestiality — claims which followed on the court's decision in fairly short order," he noted.

Justice Samuel Alito also expressed concern when Obergefell was argued, and in his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out the problems.

Anthony Kennedy wrote the Obergefell decision, ignoring the dangerous social experiment he was mandating.

But even he allowed that people of sincere belief and good faith would continue to advocate against gay marriage, and he said they should be allowed to do so.

But the Davis case showed how wrong that has been: "For in adhering to and advocating for her sincerely-held religious view, [Davis] was hounded out of office, prosecuted, and financially ruined. Her First Amendment rights of speech and the free exercise of religion have been trampled beneath the foot of the LGBTQ+ agenda," Eastman said.

Faust warned, "In the post-Obergefell world, it's not just marriage that has been redefined. It's parenthood, infertility, and natural familial relationships. Children are now regarded as objects to be awarded to whichever adult has the money and means to assemble them. But children are not commodities. They are humans. With fundamental natural rights. The first of which is their right to life. But a close second is their right to be known and loved by both mother and father."

The Syracuse Law Review has explained that the arguments used to overturn Roe also could be used against "same-sex marriage." Neither abortion nor marriage actually is in the U.S. Constitution, so justices over the years have manufactured reasons to support both "rights."

The analysis, from several years ago, cited the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe for being based on "substantive due process," a doctrine adopted by some justices over the years to create "implied fundamental rights."

"Through various opinions, the Court has recognized a right of personal privacy, which has been extended to other activities such as inter-racial marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing," the analysis said.

To manufacture same-sex "marriages," the court relied on "substantive due process" to claim same-sex "marriage" is constitutionally protected.

And the analysis said, "The aftermath of the Dobbs decision spans beyond abortion by calling into question other decisions that were decided on similar grounds to Roe — Obergefell (same-sex marriage), Lawrence (same-sex sexual conduct), and Griswold (contraceptives)—and whether the overturning of Roe presents a similar fate for these decisions."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The all-Democrat government in Colorado – governor's office, state House, state Senate and state Supreme Court – for years has had an agenda to eliminate the rights protected by the First Amendment.

It has tried over and over to set state requirements for speech that try to control the messages that people and organizations are allowed to express.

And now it's getting sued for its latest scheming.

NetChoice, a social media corporation trade organization, sued the state "to stop the government's attacks on websites that host free speech."

The organization said in an announcement the state law, HB 24-1136, "mandates that websites display state-approved 'warning' messages to deter users from using online services and to promote the government's controversial views on social media."

"States can't do by 'warning label' what they can't do by outright ban. Trying to chill speech through stigma is still unconstitutional censorship, and we're fighting to stop it in NetChoice v. Weiser," the organization announced.

"At its core, this case is about one thing: compelled speech. Colorado is trying to force private websites to act as a mouthpiece for its preferred message," said @Paul_Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center.

"The state is free to share its view on any topic it wishes, but it cannot force private businesses to speak for it. When the government speaks for itself, there is no problem, but when it coerces others to speak, the government plainly violates the First Amendment."

The state's latest battle against constitutional rights involves its scheming to force websites and online publishers to state the state's messages, whether they agree or not.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Los Angeles, its mayor and chief of police are being sued in a case that accuses them of operating in violation of the U.S. Constitution by imposing a system of viewpoint discrimination that simply takes away the rights of some parts of the city's population.

The case comes from Liberty Counsel, which alleges that the defendants denied a permit for a peaceful assembly because it was from Mayday USA, a grassroots organization that advocates against abortion, pornography and human trafficking.

Yet, the charges say that the city, Mayor Karen Bass and Police Chief Jim McDonnell just "days later" provided that same permit for the LA Pride Parade, which advocates for positions opposite to what Mayday USA endorses.

Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver said, "The city of Los Angeles may not pick and choose which groups are allowed First Amendment rights of free expression or religious freedom. The Constitution is clear that religious freedom is inalienable.

"Liberty Counsel is defending these ministries because silencing the peaceful public expression of Christian viewpoints cannot be tolerated. The city's unconstitutional permitting scheme cannot withstand First Amendment scrutiny and causes irreparable harm to religious liberty. Los Angeles city officials must be held accountable."

The legal team charged, "The city unconstitutionally denied the organizers a permit to peacefully assemble even though a few days later the city permitted the LA Pride Parade in the same location."

It represents Jenny Donnelly, founder and president of Her Voice Movement, Inc., lead organizers Robert Donnelly, Ross Johnston, and Russell Johnson, lead pastor of The Pursuit, a Christian church in Washington.

They requested access to Hollywood Boulevard, a traditional public forum, for a May 31 event to worship, and to speak against abortion, pornography, and human trafficking.

City officials refused, and then went further by creating a long list of administrative hurdles and technical permitting requirements.

Yet, the same officials quickly granted permission at the same location for events such as the 55th Annual LA Pride Parade, the Thai New Year Songkran Festival, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement protests.

The plaintiffs are asking the court for an injunction to halt the city's "unlawful permitting process that violates the rights to free speech, religious exercise and equal protection."

The rights advocates had set up events in LA, New York, Miami, Seattle and Houston in May, a "Mayday" call for Christian revival.

"The events were permitted and held in the first four cities, though the city of Seattle conspicuously denied organizers their location of choice and only granted it to be held in a predominantly LGBTQ neighborhood," Liberty Counsel reported, where "gender-confused and antifa rioters dressed in black and wearing face masks assaulted the Christians in attendance," forcing police to intervene.

Los Angeles, for example, insisted organizers conduct a petition of Hollywood Boulevard's business owners and vendors to ensure at least 51 percent approved of Mayday's expressive activity and speech, they hold an event without a stage, and refused to allow reasonable times for the permit application, none of which is found in the city's code.

The filing quotes the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Shurtleff v. Boston, which rules, "When the government does not speak for itself, it may not exclude speech based on 'religious viewpoint;' doing so 'constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.'"

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A man has been arrested for expressing his affinity for the traditional English breakfast that includes bacon.

Perhaps it's a good thing he didn't mention sausage.

The scenario developed in Cumbria, England, where townsfolk were objecting to yet another Islamic mosque being erected adjacent to their small town.

Cumbria police have increased their patrols and are monitoring online comments so they can investigate potential thought crimes that could develop during the towns' objections.

They've also been on hand at the construction site to makes sure no one offends Muslims by saying "bacon."

Viral footage confirms a man saying, "We love bacon" and being cuffed and arrested.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Dear Netflix producers and creative team,

As someone who speaks daily to millions of Christians across America – through sermons, social media and broadcast platforms – I want to extend both a challenge and an invitation.

The Christian community is not a niche. It is a vast, values-driven audience that is hungry for stories that reflect their worldview, honor their convictions and stir their souls. With over 62% of American adults identifying as Christian in 2025 and 33% attending religious services monthly, this is not just a spiritual demographic – it's a formidable market segment. Faith-based movies designed for a broad audience like "THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING" ($382 million), "THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST" ($370 million), "HOME ALONE" ($286 million), "THE GRINCH" ($272 million) and "THE BLIND SIDE" ($256 million) have proven that when Christians see a Christian worldview represented with reverence and authenticity, they show up in droves and become a key element in the marketing campaign of such movies. Even secular titles, such as "TOP GUN: MAVERICK" or "AVENGERS: ENDGAME," that are careful not to include content antagonistic to Christian sensitivities tend to do far better than those that ignore this word-of-mouth promotion in favor of praise from peers.

Too often, adaptations of spiritually rich works, such as "THE MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW," veer into tones that feel ironic, irreverent or campy. These choices may appeal to critics, but they alienate the very audience that would champion the movie, and prevent it from becoming an unprecedented success if it honors the sacred themes embedded in the story.

If your adaptation of "THE MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW" broadly meets the following criteria, ensuring that Christians can find only content that supports their worldview, I will personally promote it to my subscriber base of over 69 million followers across our platforms. This includes email campaigns, livestream interviews and coordinated screenings through churches and Christian schools nationwide.

Here are the key criteria we believe are essential to resonate with the faith-based audience:

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

President Donald Trump on Monday said he'll sign an executive order doing away with mail-in ballots while fighting to eliminate "seriously controversial voting machines" that he says "are a complete and total disaster."

In a lengthy post on Truth Social, Trump said: "I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, and also, while we're at it, Highly 'Inaccurate,' Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES, which cost Ten Times more than accurate and sophisticated Watermark Paper, which is faster, and leaves NO DOUBT, at the end of the evening, as to who WON, and who LOST, the Election.

"We are now the only Country in the World that uses Mail-In Voting. All others gave it up because of the MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD ENCOUNTERED.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The U.S. military trains its personnel on virtually everything under the sun, yet fails to provide any training at all on the fundamental legal document of the United States of America – and the one every service member swears an oath to "support and defend."

WorldNetDaily spoke to Dr. Chase Spears, a retired U.S. Army public affairs officer, writer and host of the Finding Your Spine podcast about this blatant oversight.

A service member's sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution dates back hundreds of years in American history, Spears noted. He described the commitment as "a good and noble thing." For while other militaries around the world swear allegiance to a ruler or a particular ruling party, Spears said, "the American military is set apart because we swear to our Constitution."

Interestingly, he admitted that over the course of his two decades of service to his country, "it was hard to find anyone who actually read it." As a result, "hardly anyone knows what's actually written in the nation's foundational document."

Why don't service members know the Constitution? Why don't Americans, in general, understand it? These are two questions that heightened Spears' interest in the topic, compelling him to write an article titled "The Case for a Constitutional Training Culture in the Military." For Spears, the answer lies in a lack of "institutional instruction."

He explained to WND, "Many schools are deliberately not teaching civics in elementary education, and the worst offenders are in the public school system."

"That's very much by design," he added.

"They don't want Americans to know civics because the public is much easier to control when isolated from their history," Spears argued.

Specific to the military, he added, "We train them how to shoot, how to manage equipment, how to plan maneuvers, and so much more, but you won't find a single line of instruction about the Constitution and how to uphold an oath to it."

"There are also 'equal opportunity' trainings and 'sexual harassment and prevention' trainings that are mandated," he shared.

"These all sound good on the surface, but through the years, they've become Trojan horses for hard leftwing Marxist ideologies to infiltrate unit culture." Thus, the military has been influenced on how to think about "highly contentious political partisan issues," but its personnel have not been trained on the Constitution that they've actually sworn to defend.

"This is extraordinarily problematic," Spears lamented. "Ignorance to the military's true purpose is how you get a military that has members who will say, 'Of course you should take this experimental jab and lay aside your moral beliefs because you ceded your rights when you joined the military.'" But for Spears, this couldn't be further from the truth.

"There is no such clause in the very Constitution we swear to," a point also noted in the book titled "Defending the Constitution Behind Enemy Lines" by Navy Commander Robert A. Green, Jr.

"Leaders who ignore a service member's constitutionally protected rights are the kind of people helping separate soldiers from their history, and making the Pentagon and partisan whims of Washington, D.C. the ultimate authority," Spears argued.

He encourages Defense Department leadership to strongly consider his words, paving a way to include training service members to know and understand the U.S. Constitution.

"Our military has to get concerned about the constitutional illiteracy filling its ranks," he asserted.

"While there's already precedent to train soldiers in basic reading, writing and arithmetic skills, we should also be educating them to know the very document they swear to support and defend."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Another "Russia collusion hoaxer" has had her security clearance canceled by the federal government.

Those involved in the "Russia collusion" lies ran to the dozens of officials under the Barack Obama administration, and were responsible for creating the conspiracy the theory, apparently launched by Hillary Clinton, that tried to link then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia.

It failed to prevent him from being elected to his first term, and eventually was debunked completely.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Despite some media claiming President Trump ought to be worried about "falling" poll numbers, when compared with two recent U.S. presidents, he's actually doing better.

The RealClearPolitics Poll Average shows Trump with 45.9% approval rating as of Aug. 12.

At the same point in their second terms, Presidents Obama and Bush Jr. were at 43.8% and 43.2%, respectively. RealClearPolitics takes the results of several polls and averages them.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

While legacy network late-night TV hosts are losing viewership, respect and, in some cases, their jobs, one of them is so upset over the current U.S. president, he has obtained citizenship in Italy.

Jimmy Kimmel spilled the beans during a recent episode of "The Sarah Silverman Podcast," as he was interviewed by comedian and host Sarah Silverman, his ex-girlfriend.

As the Blaze reported, on the episode, Kimmel revealed that he dislikes Trump's second presidency so much that he sought out foreign citizenship.