Horowitz: Elevating homosexuality to a national religion

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

59% : The only way to answer these questions is to suggest that homosexuality is so cool that it was able to trump all legal definitions, social norms, and even religious liberty rights of business owners simply because it's popular.
55% : In fact, there are three reasons why the aforementioned relationships should have a stronger case in their quest for marriage recognition than same-sex lovers.
52% : Same-sex lovers, like anyone else who engages in a form of intimate relations deemed sinful (or otherwise) by the Bible, were fully able, before Obergefell, to indulge their desires unimpeded by government.
50% : Fast-forward to 2015 and the Obergefell decision, and the pendulum had already swung so much in favor of homosexuality over religious liberty that it was religious business owners and institutions who were being persecuted for wanting to abide by their religion - deeply rooted in our history and tradition - with their own property.
50% : There was no need for special protections for same-sex relationships, which is exactly what they were asking for by redefining a basic institution in order to accommodate a behavior that was in vogue.
50% : In fact, the redefinition of marriage - but only in a very specific culture - was always about grooming a population into submitting to every aspect of that culture, be it adoption into family units without a mother and father, transgenderism, drag queen story hour, and yes, the coming pedophilia trend.Which raises the question: At what point does homosexuality qualify as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment on account of establishing a national religion?
49% : "By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States," wrote the justice in asserting that the federal government could not define the parameters of marriage, even exclusively for federal benefits.
48% : "Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world.
47% : Indeed, this was never about "marriage equality," but about codifying homosexuality as a national religion in order to uproot all social norms and family structure and trample all other rights at its expense.
47% : Theoretically, the redefinition of marriage to accommodate homosexuality didn't need to lead to the trampling of religious liberty rights.
46% : During the House floor debate over the First Amendment on August 20, 1789, James Madison explained the purpose of the Establishment Clause as follows: "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience" (emphasis added).

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.