Everything could change this week if Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage

Your livelihood, the way you work, the way you pray, how you associate with others, could radically change this week. Why? Because the Supreme Court will rule on a gay marriage case, and it has the potential to completely change the country. To help explain just how dire the situation is, Glenn invited Kelly Shackelford from the Liberty Institute onto the program. Once you hear this conversation, you’ll understand why this issue goes far beyond traditional marriage vs. equality.

Listen to the interview from Wednesday’s radio show below:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment:

GLENN: When Barack Obama said the fundamental transformation of the United States of America begins in five days, he was five days away from his -- his election in -- in 2008. And we have seen a fundamental transformation of America, but I believe we haven't seen anything yet. I believe everything leads to the Supreme Court decisions. Your -- your livelihood, the way you work, the way you pray, how you associate with others, everything is at stake now. We're talking about the Supreme Court's decision as it comes out probably on Monday. It could come out tomorrow. On gay marriage.

People are talking about this ruling as if, oh, you know, we have to defend traditional marriage. Or, hey, finally equality. They've tried to make this into an argument about, who are you to say if I love somebody else?

I think most Americans are fine with that. I think most Americans are like, look, I don't need to celebrate your marriage. I don't need to agree with your marriage, whether you're straight or gay. And I don't want to be in your bedroom, and I don't want to be talked to you about love. That's none of my business. That's your business.

But also most Americans, because we are tolerant, we feel this way, but we expect tolerance to go the other way. We expect if you're saying, celebrity diversity, that you understand that I might disagree with you.

Our churches are about to come under attack. And I had one of the most sobering conversations I have had in a very long time last night on the TV show. Because I had Kelly Shackelford with me from the Liberty Institute. Kelly joins me on the phone now, and we're going to talk a little about this because you need to wrap your arms around how your country could change in the next five days, dramatically so.

Kelly, welcome to the program. How are you?

KELLY: Great. Thanks for having me, Glenn.

GLENN: Kelly, tell me first of all what your institution does.

KELLY: Liberty Institute is the largest legal organization in the country that exclusively, solely handles religious freedom, you know, First Amendment cases all across the United States, free of charge for people of all faiths.

GLENN: Okay. And you've been doing this for a long, long time. And you've seen all kinds of cases, but you've never seen cases like the cases that are coming across your desk now. And this is only the beginning.

KELLY: Yeah. I think you hit it on the head when you said -- most people look at the case coming up -- let's say on Monday, is when most people think they're going to hand down the same-sex marriage decision, and they just think about it just affecting marriage. They don't think about the impact that it will have on the First Amendment and religious freedom. We filed a brief on behalf of, you know, all kinds of national groups. National religious broadcasters. Big ministries that people would know about. We've seen what happens in other countries when they do this. And the First Amendment -- Canada took no time to have hate speech laws and other things. And now Christian organizations can't even -- can't even come into existence and be like law schools or things like that because they violate the new right.

So I just want people to think about -- and I can run through real quickly -- if there is a new federal constitutional right created by the Court -- and that's two of the three arguments -- that's what they're asking that they do, then this new federal constitutional right for same-sex marriage will be -- you know, immediately, the question will be, well, all right, how does this constitutional right compare to this other constitutional right of freedom of religion or free speech? And we don't have to wonder -- I mean, some of this came out in the oral argument. The solicitor general of the United States was asked, hey, look, if this is a new federal constitutional right and if people are discriminating, in the past, we've taken away tax-exempt status from religious groups, for instance, who discriminated on the basis of race. So won't we have to take away the tax-exempt status of all the nonprofit groups that disagree with this new federal constitutional right. And everybody thought that the solicitor general would say, oh, we're not going that far, et cetera.

His answer was: That will be an issue. So you can start with tax-exempt status of all nonprofits who disagree with this new federal position will be open for discussion. Christian colleges, school accreditation will be under question and attack. Faith-based adoption organizations, foster providers. Federal contractors and grantees, including with those with just loans at religious schools. Religious staffing at faith-based organizations will now be under attack. Those in the military, you don't follow this new agenda will suffer the consequences as well. We're already seeing those cases

PAT: Kelly, are you saying -- are you saying that a student who gets a loan to go to a school like BYU, for instance --

GLENN: Or Liberty University.

PAT: Or Liberty University would not be able to get the loan based on this ruling? Or the school would be under pressure to, what? How does that work?

KELLY: Yeah, absolutely. And let me say something. I'm not saying that we will have lost all these. I'm saying, there's like a -- a battle line opens. One way to put it is, it's not that this case will be the end of the battle. It will be the beginning of the battle, and all these things now are going to be attacked. So they, yeah, it could say, we can't allow you to get a federal loan to go to an institution that engages in discrimination.

PAT: Wow.

KELLY: And it goes further. Faith-based businesses, which you've already seen, will certainly be under attack. There's all these federal laws that triggers will into place now when they change the definition of marriage. Things like Title VII, which covers employment of anybody who has 16 or more employees. Housing and Urban Development. Department of Labor. Think of education. The SCC, I mean, there's a lot of people that are thinking about this case that they're not even thinking about, hey, this might impact my minister that I listen to or watch on TV or something. Do you think the FCC will allow a license to people who engage in discrimination against this new federal constitutional right?

GLENN: So, Kelly, let me ask you this. Let's go through a couple of things.

First of all, there already is a case that you guys are handling of a guy who was -- a person who had a scripture taped to the bottom of their monitor of their computer. Tell that story.

KELLY: Yes. This is a marine who was actually court-martialed. And by that, I don't mean they were charged. I mean, they were convicted. Court-martialed for having a scripture verse taped to the bottom of her computer at her workspace. We're now appealing that. We weren't involved. And when we saw it, we immediately jumped in to get involved. Because this kind of precedent will affect everybody in the military. And so we've now appealed to what's called the Court of Military Appeals, which is sort of the military Supreme Court.

But, you know, Glenn, that's just one of many examples. We have a chaplain we're representing who after 19 and a half years of incredible service for our country -- he was not just a chaplain. He was like a chaplain to SEAL Team 6, to Special Forces, and after an impeccable record for 19 years, he's been essentially -- you would call -- it's called detached for cause. But he's essentially been fired because he was asked in 101 Counseling what the biblical answer was to sex outside of marriage and what the Bible would say about that. He answered according to his faith, and that person complained that he was intolerant. And a commander has literally fired him from doing his job. Now they're considering kicked him out of the entire Navy. Losing his pension and everything. So this is the kind of thing that is already happening before the decision -- when it becomes a federal constitutional right, you can imagine how that goes on steroids.

GLENN: Then it's done. Let me ask about the pastor that was fired from I think his second job because somebody went back and looked at sermons that he had online. Can you tell me that story?

KELLY: Yeah, this is a wonderful guy. Eric Walsh. He was the director of public health for the city of Pasadena, California. And the state of Georgia said, hey, we'd like you to come be our director of public health for about a third of the state, an area director. He accepted. Then the next thing he knew, some activist from California called the state of Georgia, said, hey, you need to check out what this guy believes about marriage. And he goes to a church where he's allowed to preach. You need to review his sermons.

We now have the copies of the emails from the Georgia government officials, back and forth, divvying up his sermons to decide which government official is going to review which sermon. The next day they fired him. Again, not for anything he ever did at work, but because of what he said at his own church on a Sunday on issues. So that's an example.

Unfortunately we're having a number of these kind of cases now where people are losing their jobs, not because of what they do at work, but because of what they believe and the intolerance, like you mentioned, that's now coming out against those of faith and not want allowing them to hold their own beliefs.

PAT: That's a lot like the Firefox CEO. Right? The web browser CEO because he contributed to --

GLENN: But that is political pressure being applied. Those are these people -- yeah, this actually will be enforced by law. So, in other words, you want to be a firefighter, you want to be a police officer, you want to be a lawyer, you want to be a doctor, a psychiatrist, any of these things. You're not going to be allowed because you will be defined as somebody who is a bigot. And so you will not -- how are you going to be a doctor if you believe in traditional marriage? You're a bigot. How could you possibly be a -- a lawyer? You're a bigot.

So you will start -- you will see people lose their jobs because of what they believe. The right of conscience is about to go away. Am I overstating this, Kelly?

KELLY: No. This has not only started -- it will happen if what we think the Supreme Court does -- if they do.

But this is the battle line that is opening. I mean, currently what should happen if you lose your job, there are federal laws and state laws that protect religious freedom in the workplace. And those corporations, those entities should not only lose. But they should pay a painful penalty for engaging in that type of religious discrimination. This will be an attempt to now change that.

So what I'm saying, not that we'll lose all these religious freedoms and First Amendment rights overnight, but there will now be a weapon to attempt to lose -- there will be lawsuits in all these things I mentioned. I can guarantee you. It's just a matter of us winning. We have to win these cases. We have to preserve how this country was founded. Which is on the right to dissent. The right to disagree with the government and hold your own conscience and religious beliefs

GLENN: If we -- I'm a Libertarian so I believe you have a right to be married, but you also do not have a right to tell another person how they have to live their life or how they need to worship or what can be done in their church. Libertarians slowly take over the world and then leave everyone alone. But I believe that there is so much hatred out there that people even like me, people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, all of us will be off the air because we're on federally held license. Our radio stations, they will lose their license if you have a -- a hatemonger or a bigot that is defined now by the Supreme Court as bigotry. We won't be able to broadcast. Would you agree with that?

KELLY: There's no doubt in my mind that that attack will come. That there will be an attempt to get Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh off the air. This is the exact argument they will try to make. These are the kinds of battles that I talk about are coming. I certainly hope and pray for our country that we will win those battles. But nobody can say because, again, this whole group of attacks is about to come into existence. So we haven't all these battles yet, but we're about to. We've seen the rumblings. We've seen the bakers and the florist and all those cases where the government is punishing people because they won't do something that's against their faith with regard to same-sex marriage. We've seen it with chaplains. We've seen it in a lot of different ways. I can give you examples of almost all these things where certain things have happened, certain cases. But this is about to be on a whole new level, and it will be across the country.

GLENN: Kelly Shackelford, he is the president of the Liberty Institute. LibertyInstitute.org. They take on religious freedom cases, pro bono, to try to set things right. I appreciate all of your hard work. We pray for you, Kelly. And we'll talk to you again soon with all these rulings coming down, I'd like to get some more advice from you and insight from you.

KELLY: Glenn, thank you for having me on. I did neglect to mention. Anyone who is a church or nonprofit, we have online things they can put in their policies if they have those beliefs to put themself in a position to be better protected if they are attacked. So I want to make sure that people know about that as well. That many churches are getting calls. They're getting the setup calls, where they'll probably be sued for not marrying two men or two women. They need to have those things about their beliefs and their doctrine in their legal documents that will help them out, if that ever happens.

GLENN: And you can get that at LibertyInstitute.org?

KELLY: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: Thank you very much, Kelly. I appreciate it. I talked to him yesterday for quite some time. We had him on TV for an hour and talked to him about these things. I highly recommend that your church prepares. And I highly recommend that you prepare. We'll have more on that coming up in just a second.

The double standard behind the White House outrage

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A new Monroe Doctrine? Trump quietly redraws the Western map

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.