There once was a popular sitcom called "Murphy Brown." The title character, played by Candice Bergen, was a news anchor. The show had its moments, but it was also insufferably pleased with itself and its liberalism.
Last year while on a road trip with somefriends, we turned on the radio with the windows rolled down and let our hairfly, something everyone should do when they have the chance. A song came onwith lyrics that included What do I stand for? The same song popped into myhead yesterday and made me think of the challenge I and my generation arefacing: What do we stand for?
This week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on two of the most critical cases of our time. On Tuesday, March 26, attorneys will make the pitch both for and against California’s Proposition 8. This, of course, is the Golden State’s pro-marriage amendment. It maintained the timeless definition of natural marriage as between man and wife.
No matter how firmly we tell women to be more like men -- to shape, stretch, discipline and work to overcome biological determinants -- biology keeps emerging as a crucial factor. Like everything else in life, it affects the less privileged women in a different, downsized way.
You knew it had to happen sometime. A husband discovers that he and his wife have the same sperm donor father. (Both of them raised by lesbian parents.) That means he married his half-sister, who is now the mother of their three children. What should they do?
Recently, Steven Spielberg released his award-winning film Lincoln. In one scene, Lincoln saunters into the War Room and has one of those conversations, mixing philosophy with his thoughtful wit, with two young men.
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.
Many of us will recall the song from Sesame Street that begins, “One of these things is not like the other.” The song conveyed to viewers that not everything, or every relationship, is the same; we have different capabilities and purposes.
Disagreements and projections abound in the dialogue about marriage and its redefinition to include same-sex couples. But both sides agree on one issue: redefining marriage significantly jeopardizes religious freedom—the first liberty upon which our nation was founded.
Marriage between a man and a woman is a universal good that diverse cultures and faiths have honored and relied upon throughout history. An organic phenomenon of human society without parallel, it has emerged spontaneously and instinctively, as if in answer to a deep and abiding human need for order and stability.
Missouri House Bill 402 is a major step forward reducing gun violence, domestic violence, and other forms of serious violence. For decades, federal and state policy attempting to impact these growing problems failed because the policies were pointed in the wrong direction.
Dear General Powell: I was disappointed with the clear implication in your Meet The Press interveiw that those of us, in the GOP who defend life, protect traditional marriage and advance religious liberty are intolerant.
Much of the Internet exploded in wrath over Pope Benedict XVI’s Christmas greetings to the Roman curia. Delivered in those historic halls painted by Renaissance artists, the Pope’s address was given to those tasked with administering the Vatican State and serving the Catholic faithful worldwide.
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to tackle two gay marriage issues, those of us looking for some sweeping overall conclusions on the issue should temper our expectations.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but a serious case is now being made that our beloved Constitution gives us the right to have sex with donkeys.
My buddy, Glenn Beck, has made a great contribution to the TEA party movement and to a renewal of popular interest in our Founding Fathers and their ideals. For all that he deserves praise.
Discussing the role of single people in the election of 2012 on my weekly podcast with Jay Nordlinger "Need to Know" (available on Ricochet.com or Nationalreview.com), your humble columnist chose the insensitive way to address it. Chatting with Jonathan V. Last of The Weekly Standard about his piece "A Nation of Singles," I popped off that "Single mothers want the state to be their husbands and father to their children."
One significant development in the recent election was votes in four states approving same sex marriage initiatives. Until now, all previous state referenda to approve same sex marriage – 32 of them - failed.
Well, it's finally over. After 18 months of intense political conflict, the American people chose to give President Obama another four years at the helm. Not surprisingly, there is a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking happening within the ranks of the GOP.
President Obama is apparently tired of pretending he opposes gay marriage. Good.
When President Obama recently completed his “evolution” on homosexual marriage, he ambushed not only some of his friends, but the majority of Americans who still hold to the truth of heterosexual marriage.
Repeating what has been a rallying cry of gay activism for years, the cover of the December 16, 2008 issue of The Advocate announced, “Gay is the New Black: The Last Great Civil Rights Struggle.” Last week, on May 19th, headlines across the nation announced, “NAACP endorses gay marriage as ‘civil right.’” So, is gay the new black?
A lot of cultural commentators are confused these days. They believe that people’s views on same sex marriage are solely a reflection of their religious beliefs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Actually, some things could be further from the truth – like saying that Al Sharpton has integrity or that Dan Savage has class. But you get the point. The same sex marriage debate is about politics.
No sooner had I expressed my differences with the president’s announcement supporting same-sex “marriage” than a young man named Collin posted on my Facebook page, “You have to leave your stupid religious dogma behind when talking about state and national issues. You are basing your objection to homosexual marriage on the Bible which would be violating the American principle of separation of church and state.”
Oh, the irony of it all. For the past two years, the Republican establishment has been insisting that the only effective way to beat President Obama in 2012 is to set contentious social issues aside and focus like a laser on the economy. Who woulda thought that it would be the President himself who would catapult these issues to the fore just as campaign season enters full swing?