I applaud Indiana Governor Mike Pence for taking a courageous stand in defense of our first freedom—religious liberty. Gov. Pence has been on the hot-seat ever since he signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into Indiana law last week. Not only did he sign the bill into law, but he also had the moxie to go on national television to defend the law in the face of scurrilously unfair criticism (see video above). Continue Reading →
Heather Barwick was raised by her mother and her lesbian partner, and Barwick loves them both. Nevertheless, she says that her childhood left her “hurting.” In a poignant piece for The Federalist, she writes:
Growing up, and even into my 20s, I supported and advocated for gay marriage. It’s only with some time and distance from my childhood that I’m able to reflect on my experiences and recognize the long-term consequences that same-sex parenting had on me. And it’s only now, as I watch my children loving and being loved by their father each day, that I can see the beauty and wisdom in traditional marriage and parenting.
Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn’t matter. That it’s all the same. But it’s not. A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting. My father’s absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.
I predict that we will be hearing more stories like these going forward. The sexual revolutionaries have been telling us that there is no need to worry about kids growing up apart from their mother or father. “Nothing to see here. Move along.” And I am sure that they really believe the line they have been selling.
But thinking doesn’t make it so. And no matter how much the revolutionaries protest to the contrary, children do still need a mom and a dad. As surely as water will wet us and as fire will surely burn, children need what same-sex parenting by definition deprives them of. And it is a fool’s errand to think that our culture can somehow sow to the wind without reaping the whirlwind. Articles like this one are but the initial breezes of a looming storm.
[World Magazine featured Barwick in a recent story about the impact of same-sex parenting. Read it here: “The Kids Are Not Alright.”]
I was reading an Op-Ed in The New York Times this morning about Alabama’s legal battle over gay marriage and was stunned to read this paragraph (underline mine):
Since the United States Supreme Court will rule on gay marriage in June, it’s easy to dismiss the Alabama court’s ruling as quixotic. But it raises a real issue: not what state courts can do, but rather what they should do. Because state and federal courts operate on entirely separate tracks, the state court’s position that it need not follow lower federal court rulings is technically correct. Yet if our judicial system is to function smoothly, both court systems must, from time to time, refrain from exercising their legal discretion to ignore the other’s handiwork.
Don’t ask me to weigh-in on the legal analysis. I’m not prepared to do that in a way that could either gainsay or confirm the argument presented here. Still, I have been under the impression that a federal court’s ruling always trumps that of a state court. The law professor who wrote this piece says that is incorrect, even though he believes state courts should ordinarily defer to federal court rulings. Read the rest here.
NPR hosted a fascinating debate at George Washington University on this proposition: “Liberals are stifling intellectual diversity on campus.” All four debaters were liberal, but two of them argued in favor of the proposition (Greg Lukianoff, Kirsten Powers) and two of them against (Angus Johnston, Jeremy Mayer). Students in the audience were polled before and after the debate about their agreement with the proposition. This allows everyone to see what people’s views were coming in and whether they were persuaded to adopt a different view as a result of the debate. Here are the results:
On Friday, I gave an update on Barronelle Stutzman’s case. She is the Christian florist who is risking everything to stand for religious freedom. Yesterday, she gave her first interview since the court ruled against her. You can watch it above.
In the larger debate over gay marriage, progressives have typically resisted the conservative argument that gay marriage “redefines” marriage. That is why they dismiss natural law arguments about the meaning and nature of marriage. They regard such arguments as irrelevant to the question.
From Graeme Wood in The Atlantic:
The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.
Continue Reading →
Secular journalist, Matt Lewis, tries to explain to secular people why President Obama’s lie about gay marriage is such a big deal to real believers. In short, it is because the President wrapped his lie in a cloak of faith. Lewis writes:
Consider this imperfect analogy. You say, “On the life of my daughter, I’m telling the truth…” and I find out that you lied. The lie itself might be about something terribly minor. But what kind of person would do that?
That’s the problem here. Obama cited his belief in something sacred to buttress an argument he apparently didn’t actually believe. By making his faith an accessory to a lie, he subjected something sacred to something profane.
For the faithful, this really is a damning revelation.
I’m less interested in how Obama feels about gay marriage than I am in the fact that he’s the kind of person who would cite his faith to justify a lie.
Ravi Zacharias has a sharp response to President Obama’s reference to the Crusades last week. I was surprised to see this–mainly because it’s unusual to see Zacharias get so close to the political wood-chipper. But he does it here. For that reason alone, it’s worth passing it along to you. Here’s an excerpt:
For those who did not hear the talk, it is sufficient to say that it was the most ill-advised and poorly chosen reprimand ever given at a National Prayer Breakfast. I have been to several and have never, ever heard such absence of wisdom in a setting such as this. I wasn’t at this one but have heard the speech often enough to marvel at the motivation for such thoughts. President Obama basically lectured Christians not to get on a moral high horse in their castigation of the ISIS atrocities by reminding them that the Crusades and slavery were also justified in the name of Christ. Citing the Crusades, he used the single most inflammatory word he could have with which to feed the insatiable rage of the extremists. That is exactly what they want to hear to feed their lunacy. ?In the Middle East, history never dies and words carry the weight of revenge.
Over the weekend, Russell Moore weighed-in on President Obama’s remarks comparing ISIS to the Crusades. Moore’s words were spot-on and hilarious. In the video above, his part begins at 2:00.