The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments in an historic case.  This case will decide whether states have the right to decide upon the definition of marriage as a man and a woman only, as 31 states have already done, or if they will be forced by the Supreme Court to accept a definition of "marriage" that includes two men or two women.  Forcing the acceptance of a definition of marriage that goes against nature and nature's God is an outrageous abrogation of religious freedom

Martin Luther King, Jr. said in "A Letter from a Birmingham Jail”:

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman only is not discriminatory. This definition is an extension of natural law, and that is why this definition has been in existence since the beginning of human history.

Natural law stems from God-that is where rights are derived. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Rights are given by God, and codified into law.  Rights are not given by others who think that you may or may not be entitled to them.

Washington Times columnist Tammy Bruce wrote in an op-ed piece on April 29, 2015:

Now gays and lesbians have an opportunity to demonstrate their generosity by accepting the fact that people of good will disagreeing about the issue isn’t “homophobia.” Because even with an issue like this, it’s not always about us.

It is an outrageous reversal of proper order that homosexuals will grant us the "right" to practice our religious beliefs.  That right comes from God, and is firmly ensconced in the Frist Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No one asks what someone's sexual orientation is when they marry.  There is no inherent discrimination against homosexuals in marriage.  Rather, natural law defines marriage.  That is why the definition of marriage has not changed for thousands of years.

Paul Linton and Peter Spriggs write in an op-ed piece on April 27th in the Washington Times:

The usual assumption is that such laws “discriminate” on the basis of “sexual orientation.” That assumption, however, does not withstand scrutiny. The marriage laws say nothing about a person’s sexual orientation. So long as the couple applying for a marriage license meets the criteria for issuance of the license — that they are old enough, not close relatives, not currently married to anyone else, and one member of the couple is a man and the other is a woman, they can obtain a license, regardless of their sexual orientation.

The desire to codify homosexual "marriage" into law is by the design of man.  It is not an inherent right, such as those referred to in the Declaration of Independence and in Dr. Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

In fact, homosexual "marriage' It is not a "right" at all.  It is an aberration that will lead to the destruction of society.   Already we can see the unwelcome harbingers of the breakdown of society, such as the recent riots in Baltimore, where youth who by and large grew up without Fathers in their lives rampaged in the streets.

When the legal system attempts to codify as acceptable behavior that for centuries has been correctly deemed as being against nature and nature’s God, that shows a blatant disregard for natural law and the founding principles of our nation.

Two men or two women no more have the "right" to marry than two bolts or two nuts have the "right" to screw together.  They can never do so, and thereby are prevented from having that role by "natural law", i.e. going against the purpose of their creation.

Although you could glue them together with epoxy with difficulty, they will never have the same purpose as a bolt and a nut together, and cannot be used for the purpose for which a bolt and a nut were created.  Recognizing this is not "discrimination", but common sense.

The current case in the Supreme Court is lunacy.  How can the court grant a "right" to a manmade action that is against natural law?

That will turn the Declaration of Independence on its head and end the rule of law based on God given rights and natural law, as we have known it and as outlined by the founding Fathers.