Alito calls same-sex marriage a 'decisive' turn 'against religious liberty' in new book

ABC News ^ | October 6, 2026 | Devin Dwyer

[fwdude]

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, the devout Catholic conservative who has long warned of animus against religion in America, says in a new book that he believes the court's landmark decision extending marriage rights to same-sex couples was "perhaps the decisive point in our nation's turn against religious liberty."

...

"In dissent from that ruling," he said in the 2018 address, "I expressed my worry that equating the expression of certain views with bigotry -- or, if you like, with dignitary harm -- would drive believers out of public life."

Alito suggests that his prediction has come to pass.

---

TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; justicealito; samesexmarriage; samuelalito

[fwdude]

Justice Alito is exactly correct.

[gibsonguy]

It was and it opened the gates to the insanity we have now including sterilizing and mutilating children. All because Justice Kennedy bent to pressure from his lesbian niece.

[WhiteHatBobby0701]

All started with Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, and Joe Biden

[Skywise]

Yup - agreed with him then too. I was all for getting government OUT of marriage because it’s an obvious RELIGIOUS concept. But that’s not what the socialist Marxists wanted…

[fwdude]

University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock suggests that Alito and others are overestimating the likelihood of seeing attempts to deny religious schools and institutions tax-exempt status on the basis of their views on homosexuality in the immediate future, saying that only once “gay rights looks like race does today, where you have a handful of crackpots still resisting,” will this become more likely. [emphasis added]
(https://tif.ssrc.org/2015/07/02/how-will-the-same-sex-marriage-ruling-affect-religious-liberty/)

Here we have explict evidence to support Alito's contention.

We are now depicted as "crackpots."

[fwdude]

Government is only "in" marriage to record it, nothing more. It's is a legitimate and useful function of government, to shore up cases were marriages are contested or denied by one party in them.

Government recording marriages has not been a problem until the very recent sliver of history. THAT wasn't the problem, the fag revolution was.

[gibsonguy]

It did but Kennedy was the swing. During arguments he actually expressed misgivings about upending 1000 years of tradition. He discussed the fact his niece leaned on him hard to say yes to gay marriage. So we have all of this BS because Kennedy was afraid of not being invited to Thanksgiving dinner.

[Antoninus]

What that decision demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt is that societal depravity had leeched so far into the elite classes that it became the new normal. Anything that goes against the new normal -- like the old normal for +1,700 years or so -- is now to be considered unacceptable.

The problem is, the new normal requires a 24-7-365 propaganda effort to keep it going. Eventually, the depraved will get worn out trying to keep up the pretense.

[WASCWatch]

This all goes back to Lawrence v. Texas where the majority said it would never lead to same sex marriage.

[Carry_Okie]

It was an even more decisive turn against federalism.

[fwdude]

Justice Kennedy wasn't the deciding vote in only the "gay marriage" debate. He was THE lynchpin for the gays going back over 3 decades where he wrote the majority opinion for four cases benefiting the Gaystapo.

Romer v. Evans (1996)
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
United States v. Windsor (2013)
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

[Responsibility2nd]

Joe Biden pressured Obama into supporting same sex marriage as legal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes—Joe Biden put public pressure on Barack Obama to announce his support for same-sex marriage in 2012. But the key distinction is timing: the evidence indicates Biden accelerated Obama’s announcement, rather than persuaded an otherwise opposed Obama to change his mind.

What happened
May 6, 2012: While serving as vice president, Biden said on NBC’s Meet the Press that he was “absolutely comfortable” with men marrying men and women marrying women having “the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties” as heterosexual married couples. Obama was still publicly describing his position as “evolving.”

May 9, 2012: Three days later, Obama told ABC’s Robin Roberts, “I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” He became the first sitting U.S. president to publicly support same-sex marriage. Administration officials acknowledged that Biden’s comments had expedited the announcement.

Obama’s explanation: He said he had already decided to announce his support before that year’s election and Democratic convention. Of Biden, he said he “got out a little bit over his skis,” adding that he would have preferred to announce the decision “in my own way” and “on my own terms.”

Did that make same-sex marriage legal?
No. Obama’s announcement expressed his support; it did not itself legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. Moreover, his initial position still left the marriage decision to individual states rather than insisting that every state be required to allow it. Nationwide marriage equality came through the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling.

So your description is substantially correct if “pressured” means Biden’s public remarks forced Obama to declare his position sooner. It is less accurate if it means Biden single-handedly changed Obama’s underlying belief or that their statements themselves changed the law.

[NorthMountain]

America was a better place when sodomy was illegal, fags were in the closet, and everybody knew the definition of “woman”.

[fwdude]

...societal depravity had leeched so far into the elite classes that it became the new normal.

The sexual revolution, with all of its attendant fallout - easy, no-fault divorce; "swinging"; shacking up; accepted promiscuity and out-of-wedlock births - certainly softened up society for "gay marriage" over decades. In a way, we were ripe for it. And I don't mean that in a positive light whatsoever.

[Responsibility2nd]

I was all for getting government OUT of marriage because it’s an obvious RELIGIOUS concept. But that’s not what the socialist Marxists wanted…

 

Looks like you and socialist Marxixts got your wish. Opposing governmental support of traditional marriages is the same as supporting same sex marriages.

Both foolish concepts have only accelerated the moral, social and economic decay of America.

As goes the American Family - so goes America. Any brain damaged idea that the State should not support traditional marriages is retarded.

[fwdude]

Did that make same-sex marriage legal? No. Obama’s announcement expressed his support; it did not itself legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.

There were a lot of passive actions by Obama that had the effect of positively pushing the issue. He directed his Justice Department to DROP the legal fight defending DOMA, against which the pro-gay side was actively fighting to have a court nullify. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed in 1996 by a sizable majority of both houses of the legislature, in a bi-partisan nature, and signed into law by Democratic Pres. Clinton. Obama effectively reversed that bulwark.

As a result of Obama abdicating his sworn constitutional duty to defend the laws of the U.S., Congress was tasked with the defense in the cases defending DOMA as the body which passed it. This sullying of the law through disrespectful abandoning of it went a long way toward influencing Courts, probably decisively.

Nationwide marriage equality came through the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling.

Actually, it came two years before that with United States v. Windsor. That case, also decided 5-4 with Kennedy writing the majority opinion, nullified the part of DOMA that forbade the Federal government of recognizing same sex marriages. It allowed federal recognition ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY, where federal jurisdiction held sway, although it did not force marriage ceremonies to be allowed where states forbade it.

Still, there were active lower court cases at the time which had already forced states to perform same-sex marriages against the will of their citizens, and states were coerced to accept same-sex marriages performed in other states where it was allowed through federal nexus. (tax returns, inheritance, etc.)

[pierrem15]

Sexual behavior and marriage have been considered so important to the foundations of society that they have been subject to legislative control for as far back as we have any records.

The Lawrence decision was yet another fundamentally dishonest opinion in which the Court's majority wrote elite depravity into the Constitution, just like the entire "penumbra" of the Court's right-to-privacy pseudo-jurisprudence that gave us Roe.

Looking back over 60 years of this nonsense, the most striking thing is the utter supinity of the other branches and the American people.

[Responsibility2nd]

I always thought that was a hoot: Clinton supported DOMA.

[fwdude]

America was a better place when sodomy was illegal, fags were in the closet, and everybody knew the definition of “woman”.

Amen.

Actually, fags were never healthier than when their behaviors were universally condemned in society. It wasn't until the beginnings of acceptance in the 70's that AIDS came on the scene as well as a host of other pathologies.

[fwdude]

I always thought that was a hoot: Clinton supported DOMA.

Yeah, and then ask the left, "who moved?"