.

.

A Time for Heroism

by    within Abortion, Culture, Marriage  August 6th, 2014
If we hope to protect the unborn, promote sexual integrity, preserve the truth about marriage, and defend the freedom of religious conscience in our country, we cannot simply live good lives—we must live heroic ones.
Perhaps there are times and places in the history of the world in which it is possible to go through life as just an ordinary, good person—a faithful spouse, a loving parent, a concerned citizen, a regular church-goer, an honest and industrious professional—leading a normal, quiet life, not making waves or standing out in any way. Perhaps. But the United States of America in the year 2014 is not one of those times and places. Rather, in our contemporary society, the only way to be good is to be heroic. Failing to act with heroism inevitably makes us complicit in grave evils.
Human life has been seriously devalued in our society. Millions of innocents are cruelly killed before they ever see the light of day. Other children are conceivedin ways that reduce them to commodities, in which only the strongest and fittest are given a chance while those passed over are stored in freezers or used for research and killed in the process. There has been a denigration of the great gift of human sexuality into an instrument for hedonistic self-satisfaction.
These trends have brought devastation and tragedy in their wake: deep psychological wounds and physical illness wrought by the hook-up culture; a drastic rise in poverty among single mothers and their children caused by permissive divorce laws and the attitude that sex and babies are completely unrelated; and finally, profound and pervasive harms to children who are the voiceless victims of family breakdown.
Click here to read the entire article

Abraham Lincoln, the Supreme Court, and the Defense of Marriage Act

by   within Constitutional Law, Marriage  July 1st, 2013

Just as Lincoln rejected the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Dred Scott decision, so too conservative leaders need to reject the Court’s faulty reasoning about DOMA. Anti-democratic judicial activism has become habitual only because our elected leaders have declined to respond to it with Lincoln’s clarity and firmness.

Click here to read entire article

Marriage, Marketing, and Intimidation: "It is up to you, fearless reader, to act.

by  on June 9th, 2014
Proponents of same-sex marriage haven’t won in the arena of ideas—they have won through manipulation and intimidation. Those who oppose them must speak up.Marriage, Marketing, and Intimidation: "It is up to you, fearless reader, to act."

Click Here to read entire article

Government to Farmers: Host Same-Sex Wedding or Pay a $13,000 Fine

Leslie Ford /  / Ryan T. Anderson /  /  / 

Should the government be able to coerce a family farm into hosting a same-sex wedding?
In a free society, the answer is no. Family farms should be free to operate in accordance with the beliefs and values of their owners. Government shouldn’t be able to fine citizens for acting in the market according to their own—rather than the government’s—values, unless there is a compelling government interest being pursued in the least restrictive way possible.
But the New York State Division of Human Rights doesn’t see things this way. On August 8, it fined Cynthia and Robert Gifford $13,000 for acting on their belief that marriage is the union of a man and woman and thus declining to rent out their family farm for a same-sex wedding celebration. The Human Rights Commission ruled that “the nature and circumstances of the [Giffords’] violation of the Human Rights Law also warrants a penalty.”
Click Here to read entire article

The Evolution of Marriage - a book review

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378146/evolution-marriage-ryan-t-anderson

From the May 19, 2014, issue of National Review  By 
‘A girl for every boy, a boy for every girl”: That’s the main thesis of William Tucker’s engaging new book. With polygamy, you see, there isn’t a girl for every boy, and the leftover boys must find some other — usually disruptive and frequently violent — way to pass their time. But the “unique social contract of monogamy — a male for every female, a female for every male — lowers the temperature of sexual competition and frees its members to work together in cooperation. It is at this juncture that human societies — even human civilizations — are born.”
Tucker is not himself an academic, but he is a smart journalist, and Marriage and Civilization: How Monogamy Made Us Human is the result of some 20 years of reading through the scholarly literature on marriage and thinking through the implications. It’s written for “the average reader,” and covers some “subjects that many scholars and academics in the field seem to find uncomfortable.” Indeed, Tucker comes to some rather politically incorrect views. His work is a clear-headed presentation of a “biological, anthropological, and historic understanding of the role that monogamy has played in the evolution of human society” — and by monogamy Tucker doesn’t simply mean any old union of two people, but an exclusive and more or less permanent union of a man and woman, husband and wife, father and mother.
Monogamy so understood doesn’t happen by chance. In a certain sense, “human monogamy — the pair-bonding of couples within the framework of a larger social group — is not entirely a natural institution.” After all, “monogamy does not sustain itself ‘naturally.’” And yet, when monogamy is lived out, human civilization flourishes. As Tucker puts it, “The rule is: those who form traditional families succeed; those who don’t fail.”
Because monogamy doesn’t grow on trees, “it requires rules — rules that must be continuously enforced by the members practicing it.” So, while “monogamy is manifestly a more equitable and successful way to organize a society, it is always under siege and forever fragile.” And if a society “becomes lax or indifferent about upholding its norms, the advantages will quickly unravel — as we are plainly witnessing in the America of today.”

CLICK HERE to read entire article

Putting to Rest a Bad Argument: Marriage Law and Sex Discrimination

by  
within Constitutional Law, Marriage  October 21st, 2014

When will the Supreme Court rule on marriage laws? While that question is debated, another brews beneath the surface. It may affect not just the outcome of any ruling, but how we think of support for marriage—and related policies—whatever the Court decides.
The question—which can determine who has the burden of proof in marriage cases—is whether laws defining marriage as a male-female union should be treated as forms of sex discrimination.
Some background first. Courts have created tests to enforce the constitutional right to equal protection of the laws. One asks if a policy involves a “suspect classification.” If so, it’s presumed unconstitutional, and the government has to show that it clears one of two bars.
Policies that classify by race or ethnicity, for example—like school segregation and interracial marriage bans—are struck down unless they’re narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests. Those that classify based on sex get “intermediate scrutiny”: they have to be “substantially” related to an “important” state interest.
Other policies just have to have some conceivable rational basis—a very low bar that effectively shifts the burden of proof to the policies’ opponents.
Click Here to read entire article

Family is Crucial

A conference on family by the Wheatley Institute   October 20, 2014


This excellent presentation provides a good foundation for discussing
the culture of marriage from the legal and social science viewpoint.
Expert speakers include Richard Williams, Sherif Girgis, Ryan T.
Anderson, Mark Regnerus, Jenet Erickson and Jason S. Carroll.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)