Sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) antidiscrimination laws are unjustified, but if other policies are adopted to address the mistreatment of people who identify as LGBT, they must leave people free to engage in legitimate actions based on the conviction that we are created male and female and that male and female are created for each other.
Donald Trump should commit to protecting the free exercise of religion for all Americans of all faiths.
No American should be forced to violate his or her moral and religious beliefs, especially when it comes to morally fraught issues in health care.
Big Business and Big Law are using Big Government to impose their cultural values on small businesses and ordinary Americans. Indiana does not need to create new laws on sexual orientation or gender identity for people who identify as sexual minorities to be treated justly. The best way to protect all Hoosiers is for Indiana not to adopt a SOGI policy at all.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is a significant setback for all Americans who believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, democratic self-government, and marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Will the right of Americans to speak and act in accord with the truth of marriage be tolerated?
Rather than rush to a fifty-state “solution” on marriage policy for the entire country, the Supreme Court should allow the laboratories of democracy the time and space to see how redefining marriage will impact society as a whole.
Sexual orientation and gender identity are conceptually different from race, and beliefs about marriage as the union of man and woman are conceptually and historically different from opposition to interracial marriage. Adapted from testimony delivered on Monday March 16 before the United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Monday’s action from the Supreme Court is a setback for sound constitutional self-government and for a healthy marriage culture. So where do we go from here?
Provided agencies meet basic requirements protecting the welfare of children, they should be free to operate according to their values, especially their religiously informed beliefs about marriage. New legislation introduced this week would protect this right.
Opportunity is not merely the absence of artificially imposed impediments. It is also the capacity to pursue happiness, individually and in community. Adapted from the 2014 Index of Culture and Opportunity.
The right to religious freedom is for everyone, not just those with the “right” beliefs.
Yesterday’s decision demonstrates that the Supreme Court understands what Congress set out to do when it passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Religious freedom is for all, regardless of the popularity of the belief. Congress, in passing RFRA, has said that if the belief can be accommodated, then it must be.
What is marriage, why does marriage matter for public policy, and what are the consequences of redefining marriage? Adapted from testimony delivered on Monday, January 13, 2014 to the Indiana House Judiciary Committee.
Prof. Charles Reid thinks love makes a marriage. He claims we think sex makes a marriage. In truth, comprehensive union makes a marriage. And getting marriage right matters for everyone.
What happened yesterday at the courthouse matters, and we must keep up our witness to the truth about marriage, by word and deed, until it is safely beyond judicial overreach.
The Regent University 2013 Commencement Address, delivered May 4, 2013.
Good public policy can meet the needs of all Americans without redefining marriage.
Witness to the truth matters for its own sake, but persistent, winsome witness also tends to bear good fruit, even if it takes 40 years and counting.
How successful can a “new conversation on marriage” be when its leaders can’t even say what marriage is?
The controversy over the HHS mandate is not a spat about wonkish detail or tribal privilege. It remains a struggle for the principle of religious freedom, the soul of civil society.
Charles Murray argues we’ve come apart, but can therapeutic Deism and the sexual revolution put us back together?
Neither liberal nor libertarian, a principled conservative way of helping the poor.
Conservatives shouldn’t ignore or attack social justice, but must articulate sound principles of social justice.
Rawlsian “public reason” approaches to human capabilities are insufficient bases for social justice.
Introducing a Public Discourse symposium on the 2012 election.
How and why considering distribution will yield a complete economic science. The second in a two-part series.
A new book challenges us to rediscover the missing element of our economic science. The first in a two-part series.
Do pro-lifers care about life after birth?
A reply to Northwestern Law Professor Andrew Koppelman's second critique of "What is Marriage?"
A reply to NYU Law Professor Kenji Yoshino’s second critique of “What is Marriage?”
A response to FamilyScholars Blogger Barry Deutsch.
A response to Northwestern Law Professor Andrew Koppelman.
A response to NYU Law Professor Kenji Yoshino.
Obama’s stem-cell policy is not only contrary to sound reason and good science, it violates the law.
Are market economies friends or foes of the environment?
Recently, the editor of Public Discourse sat down with Robert P. George to discuss the state of the marriage debate. While supporters of same-sex “marriage” claim that history is on their side, it turns out that supporters of traditional marriage have more reasons for hope than they may realize.
A recent compromise on the same-sex ‘marriage’ debate granted too much to revisionists and too little to traditionalists. A better compromise will respect the societal importance of marriage while also providing for the real needs of domestic partners.
Every fall, kids arrive on college campuses and learn that their basic moral intuitions on sexual matters don’t square with the reigning ideas. Thanks to debased campus culture and overreaching on the part of administrators and professors, students are beginning to respond systematically—and they’re having an impact. Here’s how.
The Obama apologists are at it again, this time attacking Archbishop Charles Chaput for speaking out against their candidate's pro-abortion views. But the latest salvo from Doug Kmiec is a tangled web of falsehoods and fallacies.
An introductory letter from the founder and editor of Public Discourse.