The Supreme Court considers whether to force Americans to celebrate activity they consider sinful.

The White House makes its push for big tech censorship and moderate Republicans consider

whether to give Democrats a deal on immigration.

I'm Ben Chbrew.

This is The Ben Chbrews Show.

The Bench Bureau show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.

I talk about them every single show. Why haven't you gotten a VPN yet? Get ExpressVPN right now at ExpressVPN.com slash Ben. Well, the Supreme Court is taking up the question of same-sex marriage once again. All of these questions follow hard upon the Supreme Court declaring in the Obergefell case, of course, that same-sex marriage must be elevated to the level of

traditional marriage. In fact, marriage must be redefined as not between a man and a woman

or the purposes of producing children. Instead, marriage will now be defined as two people of any

sex living together under the boundaries of the law, essentially. Monogamous, non-m-knock,

doesn't really matter as long as it is two people of any sex. That is the new definition of marriage, according to Justice Anthony Kennedy and a 5-4 majority in the Obergefell case. Well, this bears a lot of consequences, because when you redefine marriage, this now raises questions as to how much are people allowed to act in accordance with their own viewpoints on marriage?

Because once the Supreme Court has declared a redefinition of an institution as fundamental as marriage,

and once the Supreme Court has also declared that same-sex marriage is on a par with traditional marriage

and thus that anybody who does not believe that is in some sense a bigot,

what exactly do you do with people who don't believe that? in some sense a bigot. What exactly do you do

with people who don't believe that, which for nearly all of human history was nearly all humans?

What exactly do you do with all the people who do not go along with the idea that two men

or two women being married to one another is the same thing as a man being married to a woman?

What about religious people? Or what about people who aren't religious? We just believe that, for example, society has more of a stake in men and women being married to one another than it does in two men living together or two women living together, which is obviously and patently true. What exactly do you do with those people? And this has now raised its head at the level of the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court looks as though it is going to move along the lines of what has been

called the Utah Compromise.

The Utah compromises is set out in the state of Utah.

Essentially what it does, it creates a very strict non-discrimination law that includes

...