Twitter icon

Facebook icon

About this site
About us
Our beliefs
Is this your first visit?
Contact us
External links

Recommended books

Visitors' essays
Our forum
New essays
Other features
Buy a CD of this site
Vital notes

World religions
Christian def'n
 Shared beliefs
 Handling change
 Bible topics
 Bible inerrancy
 Bible harmony
 Interpret the Bible
 Beliefs & creeds
 Da Vinci code
 Revelation 666
Other religions
Cults and NRMs
Comparing Religions

Non-theistic beliefs

About all religions
Main topics
Basic information
Gods & Goddesses
Handling change
Doubt & security
Confusing terms
End of the World?
True religion?
Seasonal events
Science vs. Religion
More information

Morality & ethics
Absolute truth

Attaining peace
Religious tolerance
Religious freedom
Religious hatred
Religious conflict
Religious violence

"Hot" topics
Very hot topics
Ten Commandments
Abortion access
Assisted suicide
Death penalty

Same-sex marriage

Human rights
Gays in the military
Sex & gender
Stem cells
Other topics

Laws and news
Religious laws
Religious news



Religious Tolerance logo

Religious freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

Part 3 of 3:
2015-JUL: Conservative Christian leaders issue
statements opposing the gay marriage decision
of the U.S. Supreme Court during 2015-JUN.
Rebuttals included.

horizontal line

This topic is a continuation from the previous essay.

horizontal line

A press conference by conservative Christian groups opposing the High Court ruling (Continued):

On 2015-JUL-01, representatives of eleven conservative Christian groups held a press conference on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. All were critical of the recent decision by that court in Obergefell v. Hodges. That ruling legalized same-sex marriage across the United States.

horizontal rule

Some leaders of other conservative Christian groups were not present at the press conference, but provided statements opposing marriage equality:

  • 9. Professor Roberto Oscar Lopez and five other people raised by same - sex parents. Professor Lopez is a professor of English at the University of California State Northridge, and is a member of the International Children's Rights Institute:

    Professor Lopez’s statement was co-authored by himself and five other people raised by same-sex parents who filed amicus briefs against redefining marriage with the Supreme Court:

“Children of same - sex couples had serious standing in this case. Gay couples themselves might get a marriage rather than a civil union, but they are nonetheless able to get a divorce and change their identity to heterosexual again, if they feel so inclined.

The right to a relationship with one’s own mother and father is more universal, lifelong, and fundamental than the right to marry, yet the Court has given an adult class the latter at the expense of the former for a group that truly needed equal protection and due process (children). The complete disregard for the research and testimony from children of gays in both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinions is as chilling as it is ominous. The Supreme Court will be haunted by the grievances of citizens forcibly estranged from their parents and deprived of their heritage because of this ruling, for decades if not centuries to come.”


Many same-sex couples adopt children from and give them their wish: to have a "forever home." Some of these children would otherwise have to wait for years for stability; some "age out" of the system on their 18th birthday, without having been able to live in a permanent home.

Meanwhile, many opposite-sex couples who are infertile use services of fertility clinics: in-vitro fertilization or artificial insemination using donated sperm. There do not seem to be any legal prohibition of these services, and so it can be argued that same-sex couples should be able to exercise them as well.

While married same-sex couples can obtain a divorce, over a decade of experience in the Netherlands indicates that their marriages are much more stable than those of opposite-sex couples.

horizontal rule

Sponsored link:

horizontal rule

  • 10. Father Shenan J. Boquet, President of Human Life International -- a pro-life group:

“Let this be remembered as the day that it became official: The United States is no longer a nation of laws, but a nation of the will of the powerful. When duly passed state laws can be reversed on a whim, giving the government power to redefine an institution that preceded it by thousands of years, we are a deeply, and now perhaps irrevocably, broken nation.

With the same political powers who have been forcing this absurd redefinition of marriage now openly expressing their unwillingness to protect religious freedom, the stage is set for a cold civil war, with the battle lines running not from north to south, but through families, communities, businesses and institutions. This is not the first time the courts have rejected the law of nature and nature’s God, but it is perhaps the most flagrant such rejection, and it is time for Christians to realize that if they do not unite and fight now, that their very beliefs will be outlawed.

“The government cannot redefine marriage, regardless of what some court or some law says. With peaceful and joyful hearts we affirm that it is time to fight, not to despair. This has only just begun."


The ultimate power in the United States belongs to the people and their freedom to elect government representatives. It could be argued that the U.S. Supreme Court did actually issue a ruling that corresponds with the "will of the powerful." In excess of 60% of "the powerful' -- U.S. adults -- favor gay marriage and marriage equality. The same 60% presumably do not refer to marriage equality as "absurd."

There have been many other instances through the lifetime of the United States that old traditional institutions were ended and where a portion of the public attained equal rights. Slavery was an institution that had existed for many millennia and was ended in the 1860's. This redefined marriage so that former slaves were allowed to freely marry.

The United States is not a "broken nation." It is merely a little farther behind other major English speaking nations in its treatment of sexual minorities. Canada legalized same-sex marriage a decade before the U.S., Ireland and the UK legalized it more recently. Northern Ireland and Australia are expected to follow suit shortly.

Many would agree that the majority of Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court did not issue their ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges "on a whim." Reading the majority and minority readings illustrates this.

State laws sometimes get reversed by court decisions. Most of the states that legalized gay marriages in the past were the result of individual decisions by state, federal District or Circuit Courts of Appeals.

As mentioned before, the religious beliefs of all citizens are protected by the "wall of separation of church and state" that is invoked by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

This is not the first time that governments have redefined marriage. In the mid-19th Century, former slaves were allowed to marry for the first time. In the early 20th centuries state laws that banned profoundly deaf couples from marrying were repealed. In 1967, laws in 16 states banning interracial marriage were declared unconstitutional by the U.s. Supreme Court. In 2015, laws in 13 states and in at least four of the five territories were overturned and marriage equality has become the law of the land.

The previous redefinitions of marriage cited above have all worked in the direction of improving individual and couple's human rights. They have all "stuck." I expect that this will continue in the future with gay marriage. If the Republican Party retains control of both the House and Senate, and gains control of the Presidency, there is a high probability that the new President will pack the U.S. Supreme Court with Justices that hold a conservative ideology. This might well result in a reversal of Obergefell. However that reversal will eventually be reversed and marriage equality restored.

horizontal rule

Sponsored link:

horizontal rule

References used:

The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.

  1. "Religious and cultural leaders: Supreme Court marriage decision imperils religious liberty, undermines Constitution," Life Site News, 2015-JUL-01, at:
  2. "Quotes from Press Conference," 2015-JUL-01, at:

horizontal line

How you may have arrived here:

Home > Religious info. > Basic > Marriage > Same-sex marriage> same-sex marriage sub-menu > Kentucky > Supreme Court > here

horizontal line

Copyrights held by the ten speakers.
Original posting: 2015-AUG-24
Latest update : 2015-AUG-24
Complied by: B.A. Robinson
Rebuttals by: B.A. Robinson

line.gif (538 bytes)
horizontal rule

Go to the previous page, or to the "Supreme Court accepts appeals from 4 states" menu, or choose:


Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Hot, controversial topics

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?

Twitter link

Facebook icon

Google Page Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.

Sponsored links