fbpx
Search Results For:

Search Results for: rear – Page 11

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 NYU Law Professor Kenji Yoshino.
Abortion law is usually seen as a matter of constitutional law. Is it time for that to change?
The Tea Party taps into the full social and cultural power of transcendent moral appeals in a way that social conservatives have never been able to do. The first in a two-part series.
Americans appear to accept same-sex marriage more than they really do, perhaps because they believe it to be more widely accepted than it really is.
Re-examining the essential characteristics of marriage.
In a series of recent cases, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices have abandoned judicial restraint.
The latest decision from our judicial overlords on same-sex marriage spells trouble for republican constitutionalism and the institution of marriage.
Calls for health-care reform confuse the basic right to healthcare and a desire for healthcare that is in all ways equal.
If we are to restore confidence in free markets, we need a robust explanation of their moral value.
Can the divide between the Liberal Arts and the Sciences be bridged by beauty?
If we take seriously what is said by Plato and Aristotle, then we must also pay attention to what is being said by the likes of Taylor Swift and Kanye West.
Judicial supremacy is inimical to the separation of powers, to republicanism, and even to constitutionalism and the rule of law. The upcoming confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor should force citizens to reconsider the place of the Court in our political life. The first in a two-part series.
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.
Same-sex marriage fundamentally alters the idea of marriage, expands government control of marriage, and ignores a child’s right to a mother and father.
Regardless of who prevails in the argument over marriage, the politics of denunciation practiced by same-sex marriage supporters will have damaged the public discourse.
The Iowa court’s recent decision does not simply broaden marriage, it radically changes its nature. While marriage previously served public purposes of attaching mothers and fathers to their children and one another, now marriage merely serves as affirmation of adult feelings.
Public transit and walkable neighborhoods are necessary for the creation of a country where families and communities can flourish.
The Supreme Court of Iowa’s decision to redefine marriage abandons reason and replaces it with feelings as the standard of public consensus.
Far from settling the marriage debate, ‘getting the state out of marriage’ will reduce liberty, leave cultural questions simmering, and harm our nation’s children.
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.