If healthy marriage is the basis of a strong society, it is worth every effort to strengthen it. Marriage education should supplement other efforts to address social problems.
Month: <span>May 2014</span>
Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Greece v. Galloway is the Court’s best piece of Establishment Clause work in decades—and a happy omen for religious liberty in our country.
What threatens human flourishing today are governments inspired by authoritarian progressivism.
The new world of civil rights turns the old one on its head.
Fusionism is not merely a form of coalition building. It provides a common language for the broader conservative movement and a positive vision for the future of the country.
A policy that disempowers university officials from prohibiting student events on the basis of the viewpoint they express demonstrates institutional genius.
The University of Notre Dame is unwilling to bear an “uncompromising witness,” as Pope Francis challenged it to do, to the moral truths of marriage and sexuality. This is a subtle but certain pastoral failure on the university’s part.
Dehumanizing others through censorship does not befit the academy, but the pigpen.
Ideas should never be banned from an academic community, even if some find them offensive. Yet some actions and events are so hateful that they tear at the fabric of a community.
Paradoxically, to speak intelligibly about the matters that concern them, contemporary intellectuals must appreciate the unintelligibility of the world in which those matters take place.
Conservatives must defend marriage for both principled and practical reasons. The Republican Party cannot surrender the cause of marriage without also surrendering the cause of life.
A low but predictable inflation rate is sound, just policy.
Abolitionism provides the example for how to fight for a cause: underscore the humanity of those whose humanity is denied, provide compassionate care for those affected, name the lies that dehumanize and kill, and tirelessly argue for the truth about “who counts.”
The only form of marriage that existed before the fall was between one man and one woman. The narrative trajectory of the Old Testament shows that all other versions were the result of sin.
To view practical agreements between Aristotelian-Thomist foundationalists and contemporary anti-foundationalist liberals as “progress” is to fiddle while Rome burns.
Balancing career and family should not be framed as a women’s issue. All people—male or female, married or single—must draw boundaries between their work and their personal life, for their own good and the good of society.
The lifelong, unbreakable chords of fealty and identity that family members possess for each other depend upon the biological matrix created by the marital union of man and woman.
To restore loving family life to the heart of our culture, we must begin with ourselves—one family, one person at a time.
When we make moral judgments, we implicitly and unavoidably acknowledge that there are objective standards of right and wrong to which we ought to conform our feelings and actions.
No one should prey upon vulnerable cash-strapped women, recklessly endangering their health and well-being in order to harvest their eggs.
Abortion is not, in the end, about “sin” or “redemption.” It is about human life and its extermination.