By Maggie Gallagher| National Review Online| SEPTEMBER 26, 2014 4:00 AM

The Pew Forum just released a fascinating new poll on religion in public life. Among the headlines: 72 percent of Americans say the influence of religion on politics is declining, and the vast majority of these people say that’s a bad thing. Most Americans do not want churches to endorse candidates for office, though support for the idea is growing, rising from 24 percent in August 2010 to 32 percent today. By a wide margin, Americans are more likely to see the Republican party (47 percent) as friendly to religion than they are the Democrats (29 percent), but it is noteworthy that less than half of Americans see the GOP as religion friendly.

The proportion of Americans who perceive the Obama administration as “unfriendly” to religion has jumped from 17 percent in 2009 to 29 percent today. Among Americans who are Republican or lean Republican, the proportion who now view Obama’s administration as hostile to religion has jumped 22 points, from 32 percent to 54 percent. But even among Democrats there has been a 4-percentage-point increase in those who perceive hostility to religion, and among black Protestants the increase is 7 percentage points.

To me the most surprising news in the poll is that 36 percent of American voters actually list “Birth Control” as among their top concerns. Between a stagnant paycheck, rising debt, and the Islamic State, don’t we have enough things to terrify us without making stuff up?

But the poll was also remarkable for showing a rather dramatic drop in support for gay marriage in one year, after years of uninterrupted rises. Do you favor “allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally” is an imperfect question, but it does allow tracking across time. Overall support for gay marriage dropped from 54 percent to 49 percent.

A Salon writer, Gabriel Arana, was quick to dismiss the poll: “It seems pretty likely support for gay marriage is leveling off; you simply can’t expect it to jump 10 percentage points every two years. But it’s unlikely that the trend line is dipping. Individual poll results matter less than they do in the aggregate, and this is the only one thus far showing support for marriage equality dropping. It may very well be an outlier.”

It may well be an outlier, but here is why I suspect not:

White Evangelical support for gay marriage dropped 4 percentage points, from 22 percent to 18 percent; Catholic support dropped 9 percentage points, from 61 percent to 52 percent. (White mainline Protestant opinion was virtually unchanged, rising from 56 percent support to 57 percent support.) Unaffiliated support for gay marriage continued its rise — from 71 percent to 76 percent in just one year.

But something happened over the last year to give traditional Christians second thoughts about what gay marriage would mean. What could that be?

The most likely candidate is A&E’s decision to suspend Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson, after he expressed, rather colorfully, rather standard orthodox Christian views on gay sex.

The Duck Dynasty incident was not, of course, alone. In the spring of 2014, 65,000 people signed their names to a petition stating that Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich must either recant his opposition to gay marriage or be fired. The firestorm caused him to step down. The Eich case is salient for gay-marriage opponents because he had done nothing to deserve a public tarring and feathering except contribute once to the Prop 8 campaign in California. And yet his position alone was clearly reason enough for many gay-marriage advocates to say he should be fired. And according to Breitbart this continues to have a stigmatizing and silencing effect in Silicon Valley.

Mozilla’s statement on his forced retirement was particularly telling:

Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.

Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.

We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard.

Translation: The purpose of free speech is to promote equality. We morally superior beings understand the tension and pat ourselves on the back for embracing both values. Except for opponents of Prop 8 — they do not deserve tolerance or equality.

Other cases have not received the same widespread attention as Duck Dynasty and Mozilla, but they are beginning to mount, raising fears that gay marriage means tolerance for thee and persecution for me.

We saw this kind of polling effect once before, back in 2009, after Carrie Prejean became the object of widespread public hatred (including calls for her to lose her Miss California crown) simply for saying, in response to a question at the Miss USA pageant, that she believed in opposite-sex marriage. I dubbed it the Carrie Effect: “Gay marriage advocates are no longer persuading people they are right on marriage; they are suppressing the expression of opposing opinions by raising the cost of speaking up in favor of marriage, while at the same time attempting to make Americans believe that gay marriage won’t have any consequences. Carrie’s ordeal made the first process visible and the second idea hard to swallow.”

The Pew poll shows that 50 percent of white Evangelicals now perceive that there is “a lot” of discrimination against Evangelical Christians. Thirty-four percent of Evangelical Christians say it has become more difficult to be an Evangelical in the U.S. in recent years, while just 8 percent say it has become easier — almost the exact reverse of what people with no religious affiliation say about being a non-religious person (8 percent say it has become more difficult, 31 percent that it has become easier to have no religion). Fifty percent of all Americans say homosexual behavior is a sin, back up from 45 percent in May 2013.

Salon may be right — this polling result may well be temporary or an outlier. But if my analysis is right, the future depends on two things: whether gay-marriage advocates continue to press the idea that supporters of the Christian and traditional understanding of marriage should be treated as bigots in the public square — and whether stories of the oppression of opponents of gay marriage “break through” the media blockade.

That will in turn depend in part on whether political champions of supporters of classic marriage emerge to make oppression visible.

I am not necessarily either optimistic or pessimistic, but I would say this: In previous articles and essays I have discussed the political effects of the GOP’s decision to silence itself on so-called “social issues.” If your goal is simply winning elections, this mute strategy, while I think it demonstrably unwise, could be arguable.

What is not arguable is that if you are one of the people who actually care about these issues — for whom protecting life, marriage, and religious liberty is not a political strategy but a reason for being in politics — the candidates’ silence will hurt your cause. You donate to or otherwise support candidates who adopt a mute strategy at your own peril.

In a culture war, the single most effective thing you can do is persuade your opponents to stop talking. When only one side speaks, the polls will move, and its victory will become inevitable.

by Edward Ridenour | THe Christian Post| 8/19/12 at 05:42 PM

Marriage is unique, because it is confined to human beings alone. It was intended by God to be unique and unmatched. As God designed it, there is nothing earthly that compares to it, and there is nothing in heaven or earth that can change or dismiss it from existing.

Biblical marriage is sacred and is a witness to the sacredness of God, because like God it is absolute, exclusive, pure, and unchangeable, demanding respect and adherence. It is a sacred law established by God, whereby, He is the designer, ruler, and judge over, possessing consequences (Hebrews 13:4). Any law established by man can never supersede nor alter it.

This marital law of God is one of the simplest of His laws established at the very beginning of creation, which Jesus clearly defined to all when He declared “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife: And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mark 10:6-9, KJV).

Notice that in Christ’s simple legal marital description He made no allusions to any civil document, covenant commitment, vow, public demonstration, or anything else, which so many declare as a necessary ingredient(s) for making a marriage. However, the one very important allusion that he referenced was the sexual make-up of the two humans created. When these two sexes become physically intimate, they then have an individual knowledge of the other (discovering each other’s sexual identity), making a marriage. The male and female become what Jesus said – “one flesh,” which equals marriage. As I have declared in the past, it will either be a legitimate marriage or an illegitimate one.

Also, notice, Christ (God) did not say man and woman. The term “woman” was given to the female by Adam and not God. “Male and female” was God’s description of the man He created, which shows the significance of each and how their sex factored into the making of a marriage, making one man.

Within this unique creation of the male (man) and female (woman) a law of sexual joining exists, which does not exist within the sexual joining of other species. For within the creation of the male man was also the female – for she was formed from man and not created from the dust of the earth as was every other female species. Eve was already in Adam. “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created” (Genesis 5:2). Just an aside: Would a child from them portray a trinity of one?

I believe this means that Adam and Eve were automatically married, because Eve was naturally a part of Adam in creation. She was naturally his “helpmeet.” Every person born from that point on is an incomplete man until they marry another. Each sex holds a half part of the whole physical created man. Each sex possess’ their own soul. There is no celestial marriage. Understand, our earthly marriage is not spiritual, regardless what others may try to insinuate. The Scripture is clear on this point.

Neither does marriage make us holy as some suppose. Holy men and women make marriage holy. “Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled,” because holy men and women engage and abide in it, as designed by God, physically. This, then, makes marriage holy, hence, the exclusivity of Christian marriage.

The purpose of a marriage of one male and one female is to make that complete man physically. Adam was a complete man in his creation until God removed woman from him, whom Adam described and named her Eve. Adam, then, proceeded to “know” (be sexually intimate with) his wife Eve. He understood their purpose of marriage and the purpose of marriage for all generations thereafter. Adam through the Spirit of God said, “for this cause,” exclusively, a man was to “leave father and mother.”

The law of the natural marriage is a woman being united through sexual intimacy with a man to make one complete man. It is called “a wife by marriage” - man acquiring his gift from God – “a help meet.” This is why a father gives his daughter to a man to marry. “Men marry; women are given in marriage.” They are given because God gave Eve to Adam, “And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me… (Genesis 3:12). By nature, a woman can never take a man and a man can never be given to a woman.

Biblically, a man never made a vow with a woman to marry as is practiced and accepted by the church today. If men of old did not just take a woman and marry (sexual intimacy) her, which didn’t happen often, because there were generally certain restrictions that protected women from males having access to them, then a covenant for acquisition of the woman (agreement generally with conditions) was transacted with her father or those male figures over her, if there were any. This is an espousal, a betrothal. Once a covenant existed between the men, the man would proceed to “know” (sexually intimate) his espoused wife, marrying her. She, then, no longer was a “wife by covenant,” but became a “wife by marriage.” This arrangement, when used, was how a true covenant initiated a true marriage (sexual intimacy).

However, marriage can and does exist even without a covenant or vows, whether those who profess to be Christians want to acknowledge it or not. The Bible, God’s own Word, confirms this to be factual. And as I said at the beginning, nothing can change it or replace it. It is unique, and in Christ “exclusive”.

This earthly Biblical marriage is an absolute natural law, which depicts the absolute spiritual law of Christ being one with God’s redeemed. A woman is married, joined to a man naturally as a true born again believer is married, joined to Christ spiritually. Each becomes one with the other and is not to be intimately joined to another.

One marriage is created by the law of a physical sexually intimate knowing and the other is through a spiritual regenerated intimate knowing. The one becomes a “helpmeet” together with the man, while the other becomes a “laborer together with Christ.” As the Christian is in the business of progressing the will and glory of Christ and His kingdom (Spiritual dominion), the wife is in the business of progressing the will and glory of her husband and his kingdom (earthly dominion).

Both marriages consist of a joining where, though two are joined as one, both entities still exist. The woman is still herself and the man is still his self, yet they have become one flesh. The born again believer is still their self while Christ is still His self, yet they are one Spirit.

As I have alluded to, there is one aspect of this oneness that is shared both in natural marriage and spiritual marriage that qualifies their uniqueness; that is having an intimate “knowledge of each other.”“And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived...” (Genesis 4:1).   “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true; and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ…” (1 John 5:20). “…The Lord knoweth them that are his…” (2 Timothy 2:19).

Note: This “intimate knowing,” intimate relationship both naturally and spiritually, is independent and does not occur through a covenant. A covenant only can initiate the intention of an intimate knowing. One can have all the covenants in the world and still never have the knowledge of knowing. If a covenant exists, once knowledge is acquired, the covenant is superseded by the “knowing” and plays no role in the relationship. The sacred law of the oneness of “knowing” now takes precedent over the covenant.

Knowing the living Christ intimately in the Spirit is holy and, once joined, knowing another spirit is fornication (idolatry). Knowing just one intimately of the opposite sex is holy and, once joined, knowing another physically is fornication (idolatry). We are to know one Master, one God, one Christ, one Lord, one Spirit; one wife, one husband; one head, one body.

The Apostle Paul alluded to an aspect of the sacred law of marriage in Romans 7:2&3 in his exposition and illustration comparing the binding and unbinding of the old Jewish Law to that of marriage. The correlation of the binding of the natural law of marriage and the spiritual law of the soul, their unbinding, and violation, is revealed in his full discourse.

Biblical marriage is completely hinged upon sexuality and is even negatively affected by it as well. Again, it is all about “knowing.” All the divorces and disavows in the world can never undo a legitimate Biblical marriage. Yet, through the death of or a sexual illegitimate intimate knowing by one spouse can undo it decisively.

The Apostle Paul knew this fact when he was writing in Romans 7:2&3 when referencing those two effects that will unbind a natural marriage, “death and adultery,” yet, in his illustration, THEY DO NOT INCUR THE SAME RESULT!

Shall we take a peek and see?

The Scripture states, “For the woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”

The first occurrence where a legitimate marriage no longer exists is through the death of one spouse. Paul states that this death while abiding in a legitimate marriage allows the living spouse to be free to legitimately marry again.

The second occurrence for a legitimate marriage to not exist is through adulterous fornication by one spouse. As I pointed out in a previous article, the adulterer, where in this case is the woman, is no longer a wife but an adulteress. Adulteress describes a woman who is a wife to more than one man, under more than one marital law, which is a violation of the sacred law of the created joining from the beginning. This also applies to the man who takes more than one wife – an adulterer.

I want to make this very clear, however. Paul is not stating that the death of the spouse, after one has committed adultery, will make the adulterer free from their adulterous distinction. Once defiled, always defiled. Once defiled, the legitimate marriage is void, so the death of the first spouse has zero effect on the adulterous action distinction incurred while the legitimate spouse was still alive. They cannot have a sacred marriage ever again. Do not be deceived into thinking otherwise. Freedom to remarry only applies to one living in a legitimate marriage and their spouse dies or commits fornication as is revealed in the woman’s adultery.

Even if the person they committed adultery with dies does not cause or permit them to be reunited legitimately with their first spouse. The violator is still defiled. This is made clear in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 regarding the “Bill of Divorcement.”

In this Scripture it is clear that even though a woman was given a bill of divorcement, she was still defiled, because of her adultery with the second husband. The BOD was prescribed to protect the woman from horrible treatment, disapproval, and/or abandonment of her legitimate husband or any thereafter, because of “the hardness of his heart” toward her. However, all it did was to provide her and her new husband with an instrument that would protect them from being stoned for adultery. Yet, as Jesus said, this “was not so in the beginning.” The BOD did not procure a legitimate marriage. Neither did the instrument free the husband to remarry and not be committing adultery, which the Pharisees had deceived themselves into believing.

Now, my point of reference is in verses three and four, where if her second husband puts her away with a BOD, or even “DIES,” her first husband ”may not take her again to be his wife.” Why???? Because Scripture says, she is “defiled” and it would be an “abomination.”
Another point as to why you don’t take back a fornicated spouse.

So, “the death of a spouse severs a legitimate marriage, but does not incur the same result regarding remarriage if fornication (in this case adultery) occurred beforehand.

Finally, I want to point out, even though Paul in Romans spoke exclusively about adultery being committed, it also applies to any act of fornication. And since the death of a spouse in a legitimate marriage would never set one free to commit any act of fornication, the context of his teaching is marriage, remarriage, or adultery, which can only happen between a male and a female.

Pretty awesome, isn’t it? One is not wise to take this lightly and disregard

By Chelsen Vicari| Sep. 23, 2014 1:00pm| The Blaze |

Telling the public that you’re an evangelical who believes the Bible is God’s infallible word, while advocating for same-sex marriage, doesn’t act as a trump card to avoid accountability. The Gospel doesn’t bend to accommodate our whims or the feelings of others.

With that in mind, I admit as a millennial evangelical that it is hard to be counter-cultural for Jesus Christ. It isn’t easy to oppose same-sex marriage in public policy, arguably the most hostile debate of our time. We stick out. We’re called names. We’re discriminated against. So when a new organization like Evangelicals for Marriage Equality (EME) appears, for many millennials, it is just the type of cafeteria-style Christianity we’ve been waiting for.

Founded by two millennial men, EME’s statement of belief declares, “As Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, we believe you can be a devout, Bible-believing evangelical and support the right of same-sex couples to be recognized by the government as married.”

As evangelicals it is our responsibility to not only speak boldly and lovingly about same-sex marriage, but truthfully and intelligently. It is disappointing then that in its mission statement, EME dodges all mention of scripture about sexuality and marriage in order to accommodate civil same-sex marriage.

Scriptures on sexuality aren’t hard to find. In Genesis 2:18-25, God created the institution of marriage between one man and one woman. In the New Testament, Jesus affirmed God’s marriage model in Matthew 19:3-6 and Paul outlined sexual immorality in Romans 1:26-27.

Instead of scripture, popular liberal buzzwords like “equal,” “support” and “compassion” are used to call compassionate Christians to action by appealing to our sensitivities. This is an unsurprising strategy, since EME falls in line with the evangelical left as they cloak their political agenda in Christianity.

EME strategically declares that their work to advance same-sex marriage does not mean they are disrespecting Biblical orthodoxy and marriage. My friends, words are empty when actions are missing.

In fairness, EME would suggest that they don’t want to push their Christian values on non-believers. This is a dangerous approach. Sincerely I caution the folks over at EME to recall what the Apostle Paul said about those who “suppress the truth.”

According to Romans 1:21-22, “For though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became nonsense, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools.”

Thankfully, EME isn’t fooling faithful, seasoned Christians. But millennial evangelicals, sadly, are especially susceptible to this twisted theological worldview.

“I represent a growing number of millennial evangelicals that believes it’s possible to be a faithful Christian with a high regard for the authority of the Bible and a faithful supporter of civil marriage equality,” wrote Brandon Robertson, spokesman for the EME in his Time op-ed.

But what millennial evangelicals like Robertson need to know is that love and support of our neighbors doesn’t mean accepting the things we know Jesus taught are morally wrong.

EME has declared that we cannot defend truth in the public square and still show our same-sex attracted neighbors love and compassion. Nothing is further from— you guessed it— the truth. At one time I too wrestled with applying Ephesians 4:15, which instructs Christians to “speak the truth in love,” to my life. I thought, okay, if I speak about God’s moral values, then I’m considered hateful, too political or against so-called “equality.” On the other hand if I only show love, then I’m failing to be an authentic follower of Christ.

Finally, as I delved deeper into scripture it became clear that defending God’s truths in love looks like this: start where I am and courageously share God’s moral truths with my neighbors even if it hurts their feelings, because I love them too much not to.

This in-church debate isn’t about partisan politics. It’s about deception. Accommodating sin in the name of Christ does not show compassion to our neighbors. It hides truth and only deceives them more. In the famous words of Francis Schaffer, “accommodation leads to accommodation, which leads to accommodation.”

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — People seeking clues about how soon the Supreme Court might weigh in on states' gay marriage bans should pay close attention to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a Minnesota audience Tuesday.

Ginsburg said cases pending before the circuit covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee would probably play a role in the high court's timing. She said "there will be some urgency" if that appeals court allows same-sex marriage bans to stand. Such a decision would run contrary to a legal trend favoring gay marriage and force the Supreme Court to step in sooner, she predicted.

She said if the appeals panel falls in line with other rulings there is "no need for us to rush."

Ginsburg didn't get into the merits of any particular case or any state's gay marriage ban, but she marveled at the "remarkable" shift in public perception of same-sex marriage that she attributes to gays and lesbians being more open about their relationships. Same-sex couples can legally wed in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Bans that have been overturned in some other states continue to make their way through the courts.

"Having people close to us who say who they are — that made the attitude change in this country," Ginsburg said at the University of Minnesota Law School.

The Supreme Court returns from a summer recess in early October. Ginsburg wasn't the only justice on the lecture circuit Tuesday; Justice Clarence Thomas was addressing a gathering in Texas.

Thomas, one of the court's conservatives, expressed his firm belief in the strict construction of the Constitution during his appearance at the University of Texas at Tyler. As a judge, Thomas said, he's "not into creative writing," the Tyler Morning Telegraph reported.

And Thomas said he's motivated by the belief that if the country "is not perfect, it is perfectible."

Fifteen months ago, the high court struck down a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that denied a range of tax, health and veterans benefits to legally married gay couples. Rulings invalidating state gay marriage bans followed in quick succession.

Ginsburg spent 90 minutes before an audience of hundreds discussing her two decades on the Supreme Court as well as her days as an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer. In a question-and-answer period, she predicted that cases dealing with the environment and technology would make for watershed decisions in years to come.

Privacy of information carried on smartphones in the context of criminal searches could be particularly big, Ginsburg said. "You can have on that cellphone more than you can pack in a file cabinet," she said.

The liberal justice said the court is the most collegial place she has worked as she fondly described her close relationship with conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. She made sure to plug a comic opera about the two of them — "Scalia/Ginsburg" — that will debut next year in Virginia.

And the 81-year-old Ginsburg elicited plenty of laughter by highlighting a Tumblr account about her called the "Notorious R.B.G." and a never-realized dream job.

"If I had any talent God could give me, I would be a great diva," she said.

By Cheryl Wetzstein - The Washington Times - Wednesday, September 10, 2014

The Supreme Court Wednesday gave the clearest signal yet it is ready to wade once again into the legal war over gay marriage, formally adding a slew of gay marriage cases to the justices' agenda for their closed-door conference on Sept. 29.

Seven same-sex marriage cases from five states met the high court's Wednesday filing deadline, which means the justices could take up one or more of the cases in its 2014-2015 term, which formally starts Monday, Oct. 6.

The petitions from Virginia, Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah and Wisconsin are expected to be presented to justices at the conference at the end of the month.

The Supreme Court memorably last tackled the issue in June 2013, striking down a federal law recognizing only traditional man-woman unions and seeming to invite the states to decide their policies of gay marriage individually. But since then, gay marriage advocates have won a series of battles to overturn legislative and voter-approved bans on same-sex marriages as unconstitutional, citing in part the legal logic of the Supreme Court decisions.

The lower courts remain divided, however, with the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down prohibitions from Indiana and Wisconsin just last week.

Both sides will be watching closely to see which — if any — of the state-level petitions the Supreme Court agrees to hear. Some state officials are asking for confirmation that they can continue their traditional marriage laws, while gay plaintiffs are asking the court to essentially force states to permit gay marriage based on their Constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.

The cases on the September 29 agenda are from Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana, Wisconsin and three cases from Virginia. All five of the states have seen their traditional laws refusing to sanction gay marriage struck down by district and appellate courts.

Cases are accepted when four justices agree to do so; there is no requirement that the justices immediately act on the requests for review.

The justices could also choose to delay action until January and still issue a decision by late June.

The clamor for the Supreme Court to take up the gay marriage issue has been growing louder since June 2013, when the high court ruled that a part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. That law blocked the federal government from recognizing legal gay marriages from other jurisdictions for most federal programs

Gay rights groups argue that if DOMA is illegal, so are state-level anti-gay marriage laws.

State officials, however, say that states have the rights to set their domestic relations laws, and even the Windsor ruling pointed to giving states the right to decide who can marry.

"My responsibility is to defend the state constitution and its amendments as Utah citizens have enacted them," said Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes, a Republican, when that state filed its writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. "All Utah citizens will benefit when the Supreme Court provides clear finality on the important issue of state authority to define marriage."

In Virginia, an official with the group that brought one of the gay marriage challenges there also urged the high court to take up the issue.

"Gay and lesbian couples in Virginia should not have to wait another day to enjoy their right to marry," said Adam Umhoefer, executive director of American Foundation for Equal Rights.

The current group of gay marriage cases include rulings from the 4th, 7th and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeal, which all ruled for gay marriage, and struck down state man-woman marriages in states around the country.

Rulings are expected in the near future from the 6th and 9th Circuits, which also affect Midwestern and Western states.

Oral arguments are also expected to be heard soon by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in cases from Texas and Louisiana. The latter case is distinctive because it marks the first ruling in recent months where a federal judge upheld a state's traditional-marriage law.

Currently, 19 states and the District permit gay marriage.

Published September 07, 2014 |Associated Press |Fox News| 

SALT LAKE CITY –  The Mormon church and four other religious organizations are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and settle once and for all the question of whether states can outlaw gay marriage.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in a statement Friday, said it joined a friend-of-the-court brief asking the high court to hear Utah's marriage case.

Also taking part in the filing were The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Ethics & Religious Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

Each teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman.

"The time has come to end the divisive national debate as to whether the Constitution mandates same-sex marriage," the brief states.

Multiple organizations and governmental entities on both sides of the debate have filed similar briefs asking the court to take up the issue.

The religious groups urged the Supreme Court on the basis of tradition and religious freedom to uphold a state's right to disallow gay and lesbian couples to wed.

"Legal uncertainty is especially burdensome for religious organizations and religious believers increasingly confronted with thorny questions," the brief says. "Is their right to refrain from participating in, recognizing or facilitating marriages between persons of the same sex, contrary to their religious convictions, adequately shielded by the First Amendment and other legal protections? Or is further legislation needed to guard religious liberties in these and other sensitive areas?"

Last month, attorneys for three Utah gay and lesbian couples formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take Utah's appeal of a favorable gay marriage ruling.

The plaintiffs said they asked for the review even though they won at the federal appellate court level because they want the Supreme Court to weigh in on whether state same-sex marriage bans violate the Constitution.

The high court is under no obligation to take Utah's case or the others.

The attorneys general of 17 states, led by Colorado, have urged the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the U.S. Constitution includes a right to same-sex marriage. The Mormon church and a few Christian groups have also filed a friend-of-the-court brief.

"There are scores of cases requiring thousands of hours to litigate the same legal question presented in this petition," the filing by 17 statesreads, asking the high court to take up the cases challenging gay marriage bans in Oklahoma and Utah, noting that 89 ongoing cases across the country challenge traditional marriage laws.

"These cases are divisive and costly, not only in terms of money and manpower, but in terms of respect for the democratic process and deliberation undertaken by millions of voters where the nature of marriage has recently been debated," adds the brief, filed Thursday. "Once resolved, the legal issues presented in the Utah and Oklahoma petitions are well positioned to provide the necessary guidance to the other states with traditional marriage laws."

The 17 states include: Colorado, Oklahoma, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

The Associates Press reports that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and four Christian organizations have also asked the Supreme Court to settle once and for all whether states can outlaw same-sex marriage.

The friend-of-the-court brief — joined by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Ethics & Religious Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod — urges the high court to hear Utah's marriage case.

"The time has come to end the divisive national debate as to whether the Constitution mandates same-sex marriage," the brief states.

"Legal uncertainty is especially burdensome for religious organizations and religious believers increasingly confronted with thorny questions," the brief adds. "Is their right to refrain from participating in, recognizing or facilitating marriages between persons of the same sex, contrary to their religious convictions, adequately shielded by the First Amendment and other legal protections? Or is further legislation needed to guard religious liberties in these and other sensitive areas?"

Federal judges in many states have struck down state amendments and laws banning same-sex marriage as unconstitutional since the U.S. Supreme Court last June squashed a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA.

Same-sex marriage is currently recognized in 19 states: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.