The home and the office pull in opposite directions, but modern mothers can assemble a team on both ends of the rope to help them manage that tension—and they can learn to thrive in the process.
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.
Jonathan Rauch, in his memoir Denial, argues that only access to the institution of marriage can make gays and lesbians whole. In doing so, he purposefully suppresses the truth that there are many other options available to those who are attracted to persons of the same sex.
One Body, by Alexander Pruss, melds rigorous philosophical analysis and insightful moral theology to advance a clearly-articulated system of sexual ethics based on the call to love.
Although it can be tempting to jump to conclusions, more studies with large, randomly-selected samples must be conducted before it will be clear whether there are differences between same-sex and opposite-sex parenting.
Underground movements in England and France are beginning to counter the global LGBT ideology that has entrenched itself in the governments of First-World nations.
While US conservatives are distracted by internal debates, the wealthy and powerful international movement for LGBT rights is aggressively targeting nations that are poorer and less powerful.
A New Jersey judge’s contorted and nonsensical decision that the state is responsible for the federal government’s failure to recognize same-sex marriage highlights the irrationality that permeates the campaign for “marriage equality.”
A new academic study based on the Canadian census suggests that a married mom and dad matter for children. Children of same-sex coupled households do not fare as well.
Young Americans have come to believe that they can only achieve “good” marriages through professional success and economic prosperity.
Laws in Massachusetts and California requiring that sex-segregated facilities be open to both sexes will undermine equal protection for women.
Marriage connects more than just a man and a woman: it creates and sustains the fabric of society as a whole.
To defend marriage, we must reframe the narratives that shape our culture and our minds.
Redefining marriage will bring profound and perhaps unintended consequences for the ways in which we think of ourselves as men and women, and for the kind of society we live in. Adapted from the Foreword to The Meaning of Marriage (2006).
In her new book, Mary Eberstadt argues that the West started losing God when it started losing the natural family. If she is right, then churches need to encourage and promote family formation, and religious believers need to form families.
The city council of Washington, DC should consider the psychological damage to children that would come of a new bill legalizing surrogacy contracts.
More evidence from Canada of the danger of allowing the endorsement of same-sex marriage to become a prerequisite to participation in public life.
The process that killed Prop 8 in California should concern anyone who cares about democracy and the rule of law. The cheaters won.
Those of us who value life over death, vibrant religious exercise, and the good of natural marriage need to find our voice again even though the powers-that-be are redefining words arbitrarily and avoiding reason.
Future historians will probably marvel that LGBT activists—a small, well-organized, and wealthy segment of the population—successfully deployed civil rights language for material benefit, especially at a time when national economic inequality only continues to worsen.
Single-parenting and divorce have always been understood as a breakdown of the married mom and dad ideal, but the demand to view same-sex parenting as “normal” imposes a silence on children about the wound caused by the loss of one parent or the other.
What future does democratic self-government have in our country if same-sex marriage supporters are willing to undermine it through the courts?
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.
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.
Conservatives need to argue as lovers: As we woo the person across from us, we are funny, self-effacing, merciful, and confident.
Marriage and religious freedom will stand or fall together.
To demand that we recognize same-sex romantic relationships as marriages, and teach our children so, is to prevent them from discovering reality.
Redefining marriage will make it harder for our children to develop their self-understanding and will sanction procreative methods that treat children like commodities.
The sexual permissiveness of men will emerge a winner in the contest of ideas as same-sex marital norms begin to shape the larger institution of marriage.
After the French protests against same-sex marriage, we can no longer speak of redefined marriage as inevitable or enlightened.
The just way to settle the marriage debate is to delink from marriage any benefits that apply to any group of people who cohabit and comingle assets, while preserving marriage as a permanent and exclusive union of a man and a woman to provide the optimal setting for raising children.
No-fault divorce hurts women, men, and children. So why is it still legal?
During oral arguments on Prop 8, Justice Kennedy alluded to the views of children of same-sex couples as if their desires and concerns are identical to and uncritical of their parents’ decisions. But the reality is far more complicated.
Proposition 8 does not, contrary to Judge Vaughan Walker’s claims, treat equals unequally.
Media voices and progressive activists for same-sex marriage are appealing to judicial fiat because they know they won’t always have public opinion on their side.
It remains unclear whether sexual orientation is genetically determined. Even if it is, that doesn’t justify advocacy for same-sex marriage.
Young adults desire stable marriage and family life even while they engage in unmarried sex and parenting. We should encourage and help young adults achieve these goals instead of trying to make birth control “sexy.”
The oral arguments on Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court suggest that there is very good reason to believe that the declaration of a “right” to same-sex marriage will set us on the path to polygamy.
When we define our terms based on the results we want, rather than on the reality of the thing being defined, all hell breaks loose.
It’s a myth that marriage law “bans” same-sex relationships because it treats marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Debates about marriage will only be cluttered up, and decisions confounded, if the issue is framed in the question-begging terms of “marriage equality.”
Just as chess requires players to seriously consider every possible consequence of their moves, we need to seriously consider every possible consequence of the push for same-sex marriage, especially for children.
We cannot embrace same-sex marriage and live in continuity with our past as a civilization. To embrace it is to deny that tradition, revelation, reason, and nature have any authority over us.
While there is something noble in economists’ assumption that social life is based on mutually beneficial exchange, rather than coercion and plunder, this fails to account for what philosophy, theology, and literature reveal to us about the true substance of marriage.
Good public policy can meet the needs of all Americans without redefining marriage.
The Supreme Court first put marriage on its track of decline forty-one years ago, when it ruled that states could not limit the sale of contraceptives to unmarried couples.
While religion and tradition have led many to their positions on same-sex marriage, it’s also possible to oppose same-sex marriage based on reason and experience.
Since redefining marriage requires us to deny sexual differences, even school children now have to conform to that principle at the risk of punishment.
Marriage as a human good, not marriage law, has an objective core whose norms the state has an interest in tracking and supporting—in a way that respects everyone’s freedom.
With money as the biggest incentive for sperm donation, donors are set up to be absent fathers. Politicians, charitable organizations, academics, and donors themselves should counter the ills of sperm donation through law, journalism, and funding for anti-sperm donation advocacy. The second of a two-part series.