Amy Ziettlow at Family Scholars: More than a century and a half ago Alexis de Tocqueville made the striking observation that an individualistic society depends on a communitarian institution like the family for its continued existence. The family cannot be constituted like the liberal state, nor can it be governed entirely by that state’s principles. Yet the family serves as the seedbed for the virtues required by a liberal state. The family is responsible for teaching lessons of independence, self-restraint, responsibility, and right conduct, which are essential to a free, democratic society. If the family fails in these tasks, then the entire experiment in democratic self-rule is jeopardized.
- Posted: 11/14/2012
- |
- Category: Featured
- |
- Source: familyscholars.org
- Tags: Category: Marriage and Family, Topic: Culture, Topic: Divorce, Topic: Economics, Topic: Socialism
Jennifer Roback Morse at the Ruth Institute: The policy proposal known as “same-sex marriage” is actually a proposal to redefine marriage. Instead of being a gender-based institution oriented toward the procreation of children and the good of the spouses, what is called “same-sex marriage” makes marriage into a genderless institution, oriented toward the good of adults only. Any possible negative consequences for children, according to this way of thinking, are not worth considering. We, and the children themselves, must simply accept any negative outcomes as collateral damage on the road to the nirvana of “marriage equality.”
- Posted: 11/14/2012
- |
- Category: Featured
- |
- Source: www.ruthblog.org
- Tags: Category: Featured, Category: Marriage and Family, State: California, Topic: Homosexual Agenda, Topic: Parental Rights
Ryan Anderson at Double Think: Is there really “something highly contradictory,” as Kathryn Shelton argued here on Doublethink, about a position that “advocates the regulation of marriage, but rallies behind a platform for smaller government”? Or, on the contrary, is the promotion of marriage critical to limited government, as traditionalist conservatives—among others—regularly contend?
- Posted: 11/14/2012
- |
- Category: Featured
- |
- Source: americasfuture.org
- Tags: Category: Featured, Category: Marriage and Family, Group: Ruth Institute, Topic: Economics, Topic: Marriage, Topic: Philosophy
Turtle Bay and Beyond: Just elected or re-elected to the 47-member Human Rights Council are the US, Germany, Ireland, Argentina, Brazil, Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Gabon, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Montenegro, Pakistan, South Korea, Sierra Leone, the United Arab Emirates, and Estonia.
- Posted: 11/14/2012
- |
- Category: Global: Marriage and Family
- |
- Source: www.turtlebayandbeyond.org
- Tags: Category: Global, Global: Religious Liberty, Topic: Homosexual Agenda, Topic: United Nations
U.S. v. Laraneta, No. 12-1302 (7th Cir. Nov. 14, 2012) (Opinion by Posner joined by Williams and Sykes)
The court held that a possessor of child porn images is not jointly liable for the total amount of restitution owed to victims by distributors of such images, because the amount of harm caused by possession is less than that caused by distribution. The Court also held that there is no right of intervention for child porn victims where claims of restitution are denied, but rather the appropriate remedy is to seek mandamus at the court of appeals pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3).
- Posted: 11/14/2012
- |
- Category: Featured
- Tags: Category: Featured, Court: 7th Circuit, Topic: Child Pornography, Topic: Pornography, ZZ: U.S. Laraneta
LifeNews: Americans United for Life (AUL) filed a brief today in Nebraska v. Health and Human Services, a case initiated by the state of Nebraska and six other states challenging the Obama Administration’s “HHS Mandate,” which requires that employers provide insurance coverage for all forms of FDA-approved “contraception,” including life-ending drugs and devices classified as “emergency contraception.”
- Posted: 11/14/2012
- |
- Category: Religious Liberty
- |
- Source: www.lifenews.com
- Tags: Category: Religious Liberty, Category: Sanctity of Life, Group: Americans United for Life (AUL), Topic: Abortion, Topic: Conscience, Topic: Contraception, Topic: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Topic: Insurance, Topic: Obamacare, ZZ: Nebraska v. HHS
Paul Coleman at the Bell Towers: “A secular society is not an anti-religious one. Rather, it is one where fundamental beliefs that we disagree about – beliefs that provide strong motivation to some but mean little or nothing to those who do not hold them – are left aside in public debate about communal decisions.” So says the European Humanist Federation. Such a statement is no doubt intended to comfort the religiously minded that often hold the sneaking suspicion that the secular vision for society is, a contrario, anti-religion. But do the secularists really practice what they preach, and is secularism really neutral in matters of religion and belief, as it is claimed.
- Posted: 11/14/2012
- |
- Category: ADF in the News
- |
- Source: thebelltowers.com
- Tags: ADF: Media Clips, ADF: Paul Coleman, Alliance Defending Freedom, Country: European Union, Global: Religious Liberty, Topic: Culture, Topic: Secularism
|

Latest Posts
-
05/23/2013
Sadly, the Boy Scouts Executive National Council’s decision disregards not only the nearly 19,000 Americans who signed a petition urging BSA to ‘uphold the values that have defined the organization for over 100 years,’ but also the millions of Americans who have supported the program. Those promoting the agenda to change what the Boy Scouts have always been won’t rest until there is complete acceptance of any sexual preference for both leaders and members.
-
www.washingtonpost.com
05/23/2013
Washington Post: Jewish leaders in the media are in large part responsible for American acceptance of gay marriage, Vice President Biden said Tuesday night.
-
www.nationalreview.com
05/23/2013
Ed Whelan at National Review: There are two good reasons why the DOJ attorney’s argument that vindicating the RFRA rights of the business owners would violate the Establishment Clause was an “unexpected twist.” First, DOJ never made that argument in either of its Seventh Circuit briefs in the two cases. Second, there is good reason that it didn’t, for the argument is inane.

|