Nevada’s governor and attorney general have engaged in a cynical political ploy to undermine a decision by the people of Nevada to retain a sound understanding of marriage.
467 search results for: same-sex marriage
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.”
More evidence from Canada of the danger of allowing the endorsement of same-sex marriage to become a prerequisite to participation in public life.
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.
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.
After the French protests against same-sex marriage, we can no longer speak of redefined marriage as inevitable or enlightened.
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.
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 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.
Michael Klarman’s history of the push for same-sex marriage shows just how recently it’s developed and how its leaders lack substantive arguments for the nature and purpose of marriage itself.
Young adult men’s support for redefining marriage may not be entirely the product of ideals about expansive freedoms, rights, liberties, and fairness. It may be, in part, a byproduct of regular exposure to diverse and graphic sex acts.
The effects of same-sex civil marriage in Canada—restrictions on free speech rights, parental rights in education, and autonomy rights of religious institutions, along with a weakening of the marriage culture—provide lessons for the United States.
The case for same-sex marriage, as articulated in a new book that debates the issue, still refuses to recognize that civil society needs real marriage, as it has always existed, to preserve itself.
Given the legal principles involved in recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages, it’s hard to see any coherence in President Obama’s statement.
The law cannot be divorced from reality, from nature. The moment this happens, law becomes arbitrary, the whim of the ruling power: it becomes tyranny.
If marriage is to be preserved in the present struggle, our task is to sort through the influential kinds of arguments about same-sex marriage and abortion that have been introduced by Justice Kennedy.
Senior citizens are less likely to support same-sex marriage than younger Americans, but that does not mean that they are anti-gay.
If tradition is not a good reason to limit marriage to a man and a woman, it is also not a good reason to limit it to only two people.
Political legitimization of “private” sexual and marital choices causes much public harm. We have been personally harmed by the regimes of abortion and easy divorce.
Public recognition of unions contrary to human flourishing will hurt, not help, the happiness of those who participate in them.
The King & Spalding skedaddle is a blow to the institutional integrity of our legal system. Intimidation is now the default tactic of same-sex marriage advocates.
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.
Even same-sex marriage advocates should recognize the bad logic in the ruling overturning Proposition 8.