Austin R. Nimocks is senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that has defended marriage and religious liberty in courts throughout the U.S.
Much of the debate surrounding same-sex marriage asks about societal harms. Many advocates of the change quickly dismiss the question and insist that a redefinition of marriage won’t hurt anyone. But that conclusion proceeds from a misperception about what marriage is—a failure to grasp marriage’s role as a public institution that shapes our thoughts and actions.
From the moment the push to redefine marriage began, the most militant of the would-be redefiners deployed a “scorched earth policy” toward marriage to achieve their goals.
For the last two decades, proponents of same-sex “marriage” have tirelessly worked to convince average, everyday citizens that same-sex relationships and same-sex “parenting” are no different than traditional relationships and parenting, and in some cases, have even advocated that they are better.
You think you’ve seen and heard every argument regarding same-sex “marriage,” and then the Baltimore Sun writes an editorial that divorce has now somehow strengthened the case for same-sex “marriage.”
Anchorage’s Proposition 5 is being watched by many around the nation and provides the perfect example of why not everyone can be expected to grasp the complex ramifications of a proposed legal change.
Throughout the push for the judicial overthrow of California’s marriage amendment, arguments were made about how it was time to quit peeking into people’s bedrooms, or allegedly singling out those who practice homosexual behavior. Sexuality was a private matter, some argued, and that shouldn’t affect public decisions, or so the argument went.
On February 8th, the Washington state legislature completed its process to allow same-sex couples to “marry” beginning this summer.
A fundamental assumption of the ongoing debate on the definition of marriage is that it is.
On the whole, there shouldn’t have been a surer thing than the defeat of Proposition 8 in the California elections last month.
We all love and appreciate honesty, and it’s finally coming from the most unlikely of sources—the homosexual agenda.
I pray that the Rhode Island Supreme Court will understand the ramifications of granting a “divorce” to the same-sex couple and will keep marriage what it has always been in Rhode Island since 1636—one man and one woman.
While Washington, D.C., and the American media have seen fit to take Idaho Senator Larry Craig to task for his misdemeanor guilty plea and subsequent attempt to withdraw it, there seems to be a convenient lack of discussion on why an otherwise seemingly well-adjusted, successful politician, who is married with children, would proposition a same-sex encounter in a public restroom.
Showdown in Jackson Hole: The Fed Challenged on its Own Turf in Wyoming by Group Likely to Finally Start Dismantling it | Rachel Alexander