Both CNN and FOX News whiffed it today in their coverage of the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare. CNN’s correspondent was breathless in her exclamation that the Supreme Court had struck down the law. I’ve seen this happen before when reporters try to break news about a Supreme Court decision before actually reading the majority opinion in full. I watch MSNBC, so I missed this while it was happening. But I did see the confusion on Twitter, and it was quite the spectacle as people tried to get their stories straight.
-
-
Chief Justice Roberts on Upholding Obamacare
I’ve been watching conservative and liberal pundits alike puzzling over the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal wing of the Supreme Court to uphold President Obama’s healthcare law. I think Chief Justice Roberts gives us a glimpse into his rationale in his majority opinion. Read the following excerpt carefully, especially the underlined portion at the end. Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders. “Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if “the lack of constitutional authority to pass…
-
HuffPo Calls Martin Luther King “Too Prejudiced”
The Huffington Post has a brief article about gay rights and civil rights. Commenting on the Martin Luther King’s support for interracial marriage, the author says that King was “too prejudiced” to endorse gay marriage. Did you get that? Martin Luther King was “too prejudiced” to embrace same-sex marriage according to this article. Mark it down, folks. It’s not too often that you’ll hear Dr. King spoken of as a bigot at the Huffington Post, but there it is. It just goes to show that the advocates of same-sex marriage are adopting civil rights rhetoric for a reason. They mean not merely to redefine marriage. They mean to marginalize and…
-
The Blankenhorn Defection on Gay Marriage
David Blankenhorn was a key witness in California’s “Proposition 8” trial. As an author and expert on marriage, Blankenhorn made his case for marriage in that trial, and he was pilloried by David Boies on the stand. After the trial, advocates of gay marriage heaped scorn and ridicule on Blankenhorn for his views and his defense of Proposition 8. As it turns out, their jeering had its intended effect. Blankenhorn has caved and has decided to accept gay marriage.
-
A Newspaper Misrepresents John Piper
Last week I had a chance to read through John Piper’s sermon manuscript about same-sex marriage. I thought it was very well-done and particularly insightful in instructing Christians about their responsibility to press for public policies that promote the public good. At the beginning of the sermon, Piper explained that he wanted to address the issue of same-sex marriage in light of the Minnesota Marriage Amendment that will be voted on this November. The amendment would define marriage as between one man and one woman. Piper brought the Bible to bear upon the issue, and again it was very well done.
-
Explosive Study on Children of Homosexual Parents
In the debate over gay marriage in our country, one of the chief bones of contention has to do with the effects that gay marriages have on child-rearing. There have been many studies in the past showing that children of intact biological families fare better than those of single or cohabitating families. But there have not been very many studies showing how children of homosexuals fare. Indeed in 2008, Robert George et al. observed that, The current research on children reared by them is inconclusive and underdeveloped—we do not yet have any large, long-term, longitudinal studies that can tell us much about how children are affected by being raised in…
-
Robbie George Issues Bi-partisan Rebuke
Robbie George is rightly outraged about the failure of the U.S. House Representatives to pass a bill outlawing sex-selective abortions. He writes: Shameful deeds are almost always accompanied by shameless lies. Some members of Congress who shamefully voted against the prohibition of sex-selective abortions are shamelessly claiming (or permitting their spokesmen or surrogates to claim) that the proposed legislation was unnecessary because sex-selective abortions don’t occur in the United States or are so rare as to make legislation unnecessary. The National Right to Life Committee has helpfully provided a link to the most up-to-date (2011) research paper on the question.
-
Now, President Obama Should Defend Polygamists
Angel Castillo writes for the “Florida Voices” opinion page: Now that President Obama has “evolved” into a public supporter of gay marriage, the former constitutional law professor should turn his attention to another minority persecuted because of their marital preferences: polygamists. If Obama is intellectually honest, he should also support “marriage equality” for “plural families” that choose to follow the example of Old Testament polygamists Abraham, David, Jacob and Solomon. I am, of course, speaking only of plural marriages for consenting adults, just as in the case of same-gender marriages. The president should articulate what the difference is – if he sees any – between marriages formed between one man…
-
Entering the Fray with Merritt and French
Jonathan Merritt has responded to David French’s “An Open Letter to Young, ‘Post-Partisan’ Evangelicals.” If you still haven’t read French’s letter, do so now. It’s provocative, good, and right. It’s no surprise, however, that Merritt disagrees with that assessment. Instead, he says that French has put forth a false choice. Merritt writes:
-
An Open Letter to Post-Partisan Evangelicals
Since Justin Taylor linked David French’s “An Open Letter to Young, ‘Post-Partisan’ Evangelicals“, chances are that you have already seen this. But this open letter is so well done and so worth the read, I want to link it here too. I also want to add a hearty “amen” and “hear, hear” to what French is saying in this letter. The bottom-line is this. It’s hard to be cool in the world’s eyes when you’re a pro-life and pro-family Christian. Those beliefs have public policy implications that will not win you friends among the cultural elites. Here’s an excerpt: