You have seen me write, time and time again, that it is funny how those among us who claim to be the most tolerant, are actually the least of all.

The “Gay Mafia” is a prime example.

As with any liberal, as long as you believe what they believe, you’re one of the smartest people in the room. However, as soon as you cross them, and stand up for your own Christian Heritage of Faith, you are labeled a stupid “Christianist” and/or an inbred hillbilly.

Additionally, when the voters of a state get together to express their opposition to homosexual marriage through their right to vote, the Gay Mafia finds a sympathetic judge to rule that marriage is a “Civil Right”, instead of a Holy Sacrament…a bond between a man and a woman, ordained by God.

The problem that Christians and Conservatives alike face is the fact that being Pro-homosexual marriage is the “cool” thing to be now.

Even if it is at the expense of the First Amendment.

Speaking of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is scheduled to address this very subject next week.

The Christian Post reports that

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments next Tuesday on whether states will continue to be free to define marriage for their own citizens, a number of amicus briefs have been filed arguing that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.

Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Ryan Anderson and prominent attorney and constitutional law expert Gene Schaerr recently co-authored their own amicus brief that asserts that the U.S. Constitution does not require states to redefine marriage to allow for two individuals of the same gender to get married.

Speaking at a Heritage Foundation discussion on Monday, Anderson and Schaerr, a former associate counsel to President George H.W. Bush, explained their brief in detail and offered more reasons as to why the Supreme Court should not force a decision in favor of same-sex marriage on all 50 states to uphold as law.

Anderson, who co-authored the book What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, explained that governments did not originally get into the “marriage business” because they wanted to be involved in their citizens’ romances. Rather, state governments got involved in marriage so that the children who were born from marriages would have the best chance of having a stable family environment to grow up in, which included both a mom and dad.

“There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires all 50 states to redefine marriage,” Anderson asserted. “The Constitution is simply silent on whether the consent-based vision of marriage or the comprehensive vision of marriage is the true definition of marriage. It is silent on whether the states should devise their marriage policy to serve.”

Schaerr discredited a notion that a person has a constitutional right to get married to the person they love as long as they are two consenting adults.

“The bottom line is … there has never been any right to marry the person you love and so a states’ rejection of that claimed right couldn’t possibly be a denial of due process under the plain language of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Schaerr asserted. “If we turn to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the argument that same-sex marriage is based on, that clause also has holes in it.”

Schaerr also discredited a widely portrayed notion that bans on same-sex marriage are discriminatory against gays and lesbians.

“Unlike the old Jim Crow laws that prohibited mix-raced marriages, the man-woman definition of marriage doesn’t offend the equal protection guarantee because it allows any otherwise qualified man and woman to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation,” Schaerr said.

“The state man-woman marriage laws do not deny anybody the ability to marry based on their sexual orientation. There is no question on the marriage application that asks are you gay or lesbian,” Schaerr continued. “The law doesn’t care. The law just says that there are certain requirements for marriage and if you are willing to comply with those requirements, then we will give you a marriage license.”

Anderson argues that redefining marriage as a union between two consenting adults would have drastic societal consequences.

“If you redefine marriage to say that it is the union of any two consenting adults, irrespective of sexual complementarity, how will we as a community insist that fathers are essential when the laws redefine marriage to make fathers optional?” Anderson asks. “That is the challenge that faces the society that redefines marriage as consenting-adult romance and care-giving. It eliminates the public message of marriage as about uniting a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mom and a dad.”

With unelected federal judges overturning a number of states’ gay marriage bans in the last year and many people thinking the Supreme Court could do the same a national level, Anderson said that just because the court has the power of judicial review, that does not mean the Supreme Court reigns supreme.

“I think it is important here to say that judicial review is not the same thing as judicial supremacy,” Anderson said. “The Supreme Court is not supreme. Judicial supremacy is a problem when it claims to be the only branch of government that has the obligation the defend and uphold the Constitution. All branches of government, the three federal branches and the state governments, take that oath to defend the Constitution. All branches of government are co-equal in interpreting what the Constitution means.”

Although many are confident that at least five justices will rule in favor same-sex marriage, Schaerr explained that no Supreme Court justice has ever written an opinion that held that there is a constitutional right for same-sex couples to get married.

“In fact, there are three justices that have written or have joined opinions that clearly say there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage and Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion in the Windsor case goes at least half way there,” Schaerr stated. “So as of right now, in terms of Supreme Court Justices, its three-and-a-half on our side and nobody who’s committed to recognizing a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

Obama and his one-minded collective have been desperately trying to desensitize Americans, regarding the Hot Button Issue of “gay marriage”, lately.

Even though, those who practice the sexually deviant behavior of homosexuality only compose around 3% of our population, those advocating defiling of the sacrament of marriage would like us to all believe that they number many, many more. And, those who rig polls for a living would like us to believe that the majority of Americans believe it is okay for homosexuals to imitate the union of a heterosexual couple.

If that were the case, the overwhelming majority of states would not have voted against “Gay Marriage”. And, “Activist Judges” would not have had to overturn the will of the people in several of those states.

In their desperation, Liberals have even tried to rewrite God’s Word regarding Homosexuality, labeling anyone who does not agree with them, into a “Hater”.

Recently, Liberals have even become “Biblical Experts” regarding the issue, bringing up the fact that Jesus Christ hung out with people “of all kinds”.

They are correct. He did.

What they are incorrect about, is their belief that he somehow condoned their sins.

He did not.

Christ “hung out” with those people out of love , a love whose purpose was to convict them of their sins and lead them to repentance, and then, to personal salvation.

Remember John 8: 1-11?

1but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”]]

Please notice that He did not tell her to go do whatever she felt like doing to whomever she felt like doing it to.

Sin still carries consequences.

Next week is going to be an important week in our nation’s history.

Pray for the Supreme Court Justices.

Until He Comes,

KJ