Alliance Defending Freedom: It’s days away: The Supreme Court’s marriage decision is expected to come down on June 29.
The Washington Post: Texas Republicans are pushing legislation to bar local officials from granting same-sex couples licenses to marry, launching a preemptive strike against a possible U.S. Supreme Court ruling next month that could declare gay marriage legal.
Public Discourse: Social science was never going to save marriage’s male-female infrastructure. What it can do—if the narrative the data reveals isn’t manipulated—is reveal what is really going on.
Religion News Service: “Science shows women are central to the spiritual development of children and that their sense of connection to a God or higher power is the cornerstone of psychological thriving and resilience across their life span,” Miller said in an interview.
First Things: After all, I explained, there were serious issues at stake, not only for Christians or even religious people, but issues of human rights and social justice. First of all, I noted, we were marching because every child has the basic, inalienable human right to a mother and a father. She made the point that there are plenty of children who already exist outside the boundaries of this right: children in broken families, with deceased or absent parents, and those with same-sex families. I agreed. Many people are tragically deprived of many inalienable human rights: life and liberty being among them. But should the Supreme Court vote that the freedom to deprive a child of basic human rights is protected under the Constitution?
Public Discourse: Redefining marriage increases the chances that children miss out on one of the greatest gifts any person can be given: being raised by the man and woman whose love brought them into existence.
Corporate Counsel: The federal government has entered the “bathroom wars” by joining an alliance to “ensure adequate access to workplace restrooms” for transgender workers. Some states, though, are taking an opposing side through legislation.
Public Discourse: If law can declare certain reasons for a private business owner to refuse service—such as sexual orientation—invalid, then it can also designate other reasons as valid—such as religious convictions about the nature of marriage.
World Magazine (Subscription Required): Marriage as it has always been understood had its day in court. But throughout the 2 1/2-hour oral arguments over same-sex marriage last week at the Supreme Court, neither side of the debate seemed to understand the real meaning of marriage, nor the Court’s role in defining it.
The Federalist: If the Supreme Court nationalizes gay marriage, as most expect, it will threaten tax exemptions for religious organizations and churches.
First Things: In a 2013 essay evaluating the Parliamentary bill on gay marriage, John Milbank observes that British “legislators have recognised that it would be intolerable to define gay marriage in terms equivalent to ‘consummation,’ or to permit ‘adultery’ as legitimate ground for gay divorce.”
Public Discourse: Although there were many good arguments and questions at the Supreme Court last week, there were also some significant errors.
The Federalist: It’s gay marriage season again at SCOTUS, just like the spring of 2013. You know what that means: the children of gays (COGs) need to be rounded up, airbrushed, and placed in the spotlight.
Commentary Magazine: A friend of mine, a minister, recently asked me about the concept of being on the “right side of history.” His concern is that being on the right side of history, as many people generally understand it, is not necessarily being on God’s side.
NBC News: Nearly three in five Americans want to see the Supreme Court legalize gay marriage throughout the United States, according to a new NBC News/ Wall Street Journal poll.
Religion News Service: My deepest identity will always be “child of God.” But identifying as a lesbian is a succinct way to honor my experiences in gay communities. In these places, I learned a lot, confronted my own privileges, and met some amazing people. I don’t want to reject those people or experiences. I also always think of the teenager just starting to acknowledge his or her feelings. Almost everybody in that position is going to think in terms like, “Wait–when people say ‘gay’ I think they mean me….” I want those people to know that there’s a life and a future for you within Christianity.
National Review: Smith College also claimed that the decision “affirms Smith’s . . . commitment to representing the diversity of women’s lived experiences.” But while it will admit men who identify as women, it won’t admit women who identify as men. So much for its “commitment to representing the diversity” of actual women.
Aleteia: The date is October 3, 2016. The Supreme Court of the United States had issued its landmark decision in favor of same-sex marriage in mid-2015.
The Hill: Last Tuesday’s Supreme Court arguments on same-sex marriage showcased the need for a new federal law to protect private organizations that hold a view on marriage different from our growing and increasingly powerful federal government.
Breakpoint: Chuck Colson always said we Christians must make our arguments winsomely. What happens if we get shouted down — again and again? We keep going. Winsomely.
The wrong kind of rights: Same-sex marriage, third-party reproduction, and the sexualization of children
Public Discourse: In our culture, there is a chasm between two irreconcilable conceptions of the meaning and purpose of human sexuality and equality. For children most of all, the wrong kind of sexuality and equality has devastating effects.
National Law Journal: Whatever the outcome, the historic U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments over same-sex marriage on April 28 turned out to be a riveting dialogue that fleshed out many of the contentious issues at stake.
Russell Moore: The villain had a messiah complex, complete with some cribbed lines from the actual Messiah. But what surprised me the most was the jarring centrality of the family in this film. And by family, I don’t mean the elastic, redefined concept of “families” but an undercurrent of pining for the stability of the natural, nuclear family.
American Thinker: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case to determine whether the Constitution requires states to issue same-sex marriage licenses and requires other states to honor same-sex marriages performed in those states. A primary argument by the plaintiffs is that gay marriage is covered under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and that if straights can marry, then so can gays.
World Magazine (Subscription Required): From an office in Brick, N.J., therapist Tara King counsels clients struggling with addictions, abusive pasts, broken relationships, and occasionally those dealing with same-sex attractions.
Public Discourse: If marriage were simply a form of sexual-romantic companionship or domestic partnership, then the equal protection clause of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment would require the Supreme Court to strike down state laws limiting marriage licenses to male-female partners.
World Magazine (Subscription Required): “Dr. Clark,” one of his students asked philosopher Gordon H. Clark during class one day, “why do you always answer our questions with more questions?”
Life Site News: Mary Bonauto, a Massachusetts lawyer who asked the justices to redefine marriage, began by making high claims on behalf of same-sex “marriage.”
Michigan approves bills that allow adoption agencies to refuse service based on sexual orientation and religion
World Religion News: There are three bills heading toward the Governor’s desk passed through the House on party line votes. Prior to the votes, two hours of opposition and supporting testimonies were given by a wide range of people, including parents of varying sexual orientation who have adopted children into their homes.
Deseret News: Just where the U.S. Supreme Court will come down on same-sex marriage isn’t readily apparent from the aggressive questions justices asked lawyers for both sides Tuesday.
Aleteia: If the Supreme Court rules that gay marriage must be legal across the nation, could religious colleges and universities lose their tax- exempt status?
National Review Online: There is a natural temptation on the part of Court-watchers to overread the import of snippets of oral argument.
One News Now: Throwing another monkey wrench in homosexual activists’ claim that there is a “gay” gene — that homosexual behavior manifests from a biological condition rather than from a choice — a prominent psychiatrist argues that gender confusion is a temporary mental disorder that leads to suicidal tendencies, if nurtured.
Christian News Network: During Tuesday’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito questioned an attorney if multiple consenting adults should be allowed to “marry” if those of the same gender are granted the same recognition.
Christian News Network (Yahoo News): In the same-sex-marriage oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, eight of the justices revealed their personalities and their very different approaches to marriage equality in particular and the Constitution in general. What follows are the most revealing quotes, in order of seniority, from each of the justices who spoke at the argument (Justice Thomas was silent), along with their central concern and contribution to the debate.
Family Studies: Online craft marketplace Etsy, which is powered primarily by women, joined the Nasdaq exchange on April 16. Market watchers greeted its early success with surprise—which speaks volumes about how they, as well as major media outlets and government officials, think about women. However, as the market launch demonstrated, some widely held assumptions, like mothers’ work-related preferences, are based more on presumption than fact.
The Daily Signal: The Supreme Court’s oral arguments on same-sex marriage drew supporters and opponents to Washington, D.C. Jeff Mateer, general counsel for the Liberty Institute, and Marc Solomon, national campaign director for Freedom to Marry, were inside the courtroom. After the court adjourned, they spoke to The Daily Signal about their perspectives on the case.
National Law Journal (Subscription Required): Columbia Law School Professor Suzanne Goldberg and Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law Professor John Eastman, authors of opposing amicus briefs on same-sex marriage, were in the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to hear oral arguments. Each had very different opinions about the persuasiveness of the lawyers and their effect on the justices.
Public Discourse: Rather than rush to a fifty-state “solution” on marriage policy for the entire country, the Supreme Court should allow the laboratories of democracy the time and space to see how redefining marriage will impact society as a whole.
Family Studies: The prevalence of divorce in contemporary American society means that divorce and its effects on adults and children are among the most frequently studied topics in the family sciences—and a growing segment of literature in this area suggests that the popular image of a failing marriage is wrong.
First Things: In order to get a sense of the therapeutic implications of this growing movement, First Things talked to Mark A. Yarhouse, professor of psychology and the Hughes Endowed Chair at Regent University.
Christianity Today: We will see more challenges to the florists, the bakers, and the pizza crust makers. And more opportunities for witness.
Christian News Network: The U.S. Supreme Court was divided on Tuesday as it heard oral argument over states’ rights surrounding the definition of marriage, with some justices expressing a hesitancy to change the definition for one particular type of relationship.
Public Discourse: Finding a right to same-sex marriage in the Fourteenth Amendment would threaten the religious liberty of citizens and organizations who support marriage and silence or chill the speech of dissenters.
The Daily Signal: Tuesday’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court were excellent. There were so many good points made about what marriage is and why redefining marriage would cause harms.
National Law Journal: The U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared cautious about changing thousands of years of tradition by requiring states to license same-sex marriage.
Public Discourse: According to a recent amicus brief by scholars of liberty, same-sex marriage is not only counter to the Supreme Court’s long line of personal liberty cases, it may even be prohibited by them.
The Wall Street Journal (Accessible via Google): If the Supreme Court holds that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, odds are Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, will cast the deciding vote.
The Gospel Coalition: As the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in DeBoer v. Snyder, it’s worth asking the question: Is there any reason a decent, rational, non-bigoted American might oppose same-sex marriage? Just as important: Are there any decent, rational, non-bigoted Americans who are willing to consider why other Americans might have plausible reasons for opposing same-sex marriage? This blog post is my way of saying “yes” to the first question and “let’s hope so” to the second.
The Federalist: I want nothing in this world more than to be a father. Yet I can’t bring myself to celebrate same-sex marriage.
The Washington Post: The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in the four cases consolidated under the title of Obergefell v. Hodges, to consider whether the Constitution requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states where they are legal. Justices appeared somewhat split along ideological lines in their questioning. (Audio may not work on all devices.)
Time: Tony Perkins, the head of the conservative Family Research Council, says that if the court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, the proper strategy is to mount a campaign against judicial overreach modeled after the pro-life campaign against the court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which found women had a constitutional right to an abortion.
The New York Times: The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed deeply divided about one of the great civil rights issues of the age: whether the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry.
Russell Moore: I am a conscientious dissenter from the Sexual Revolution. I don’t think the Court should redefine marriage, because I don’t think the Court invented marriage in the first place.
National Review: Religious institutions could be at risk of losing their tax-exempt status due to their beliefs about marriage if the Supreme Court holds that gay couples have a constitutional right to wed, President Obama’s attorney acknowledged to the Supreme Court today.
Daily Signal: Oral arguments at the Supreme Court today were fascinating. Over two and a half hours of discussion about whether the Constitution requires all 50 states to treat same-sex relationships as marriages highlighted one essential truth: There are good policy arguments on both sides of the marriage debate and the Constitution doesn’t take sides in it.
The Washington Post: The Supreme Court Tuesday considered whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, raising questions about how it would affect religious institutions.
Christian Today: Two churches in North Carolina were recently targeted by pro LGBT vandals who caused thousands of dollars’ worth of damages.
JTA: Jews are overwhelmingly supportive of same-sex marriage, according to a new survey by the Public Religion Research Institute.
Al Jazeera: A transgender teen will be allowed to return to the local DMV and take a new driver’s license photo wearing the makeup the teen puts on daily, after the teen’s lawyers struck a settlement with the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles on Wednesday.
Daily Signal: Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” Ryan T. Anderson, the William E. Simon senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, discussed the same-sex marriage case the Supreme Court will hear this week and Bruce Jenner’s interview announcing he is identifying as transgender.
The New York Times: In the months leading up to Tuesday’s Supreme Court arguments on same-sex marriage, teams of gay rights lawyers and their allies have held countless strategy sessions, drafted scores of briefs and participated in intense moot courts.
Christian leaders affirm support for traditional marriage ahead of Supreme Court case; pastors say marriage must be preserved for sake of children
The Christian Post: Religious leaders from a wide array of denominations have released a joint statement reaffirming their support for traditional marriage ahead of the Supreme Court’s hearing of oral arguments on Tuesday.
Al Jazeera: Opponents of same-sex marriage, however, would fight that, said former Chapman University Law School dean John Eastman, the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage. “If the only ground on which those marriage licenses were issued contrary to state law is the grounds that the state law was unconstitutional, a ground we would now know not to be true, those marriages were void under state law from the beginning,” he said.
Religion Clause: Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges and three related cases raising the question of whether states may constitutionally refuse to authorize same-sex marriages and, even if they may, whether a state may refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage validly performed in another state.
USA Today: My mother has been in a committed relationship with another woman for nearly 30 years. And I am the co-author of a Supreme Court amicus brief in favor of allowing states to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman in their laws.
The Daily Signal: As the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments about gay marriage Tuesday, it’s important to realize what the justices are actually being asked to settle.
PBS: Same-sex marriage is already legal in 36 states and the District of Columbia, but the Supreme Court will soon hear oral arguments that could make it legal in every state. “Christianity requires you to push back against the world,” says Collin Hansen of the Gospel Coalition. But author Matthew Vines suggests that once even some evangelicals are willing to change their position, then “it starts to significantly shift the dynamic.”
The Daily Signal: Jim DeMint, president of The Heritage Foundation, talks about why Americans should attend the March for Marriage in Washington, D.C., tomorrow.
Life Site News: Six days before the Supreme Court hears what may be the definitive marriage case for the United States of America, LifeSiteNews Editor-in-Chief John-Henry Westen and three other marriage experts described why the Court should rule in favor of marriage.
The Telegraph: At Dartmoor – one of 100 prisons now operating the Storybook Dads scheme – Billy was offered the chance to record bedtime stories for Maisie onto DVDs that the charity then forward to Billy’s mother. She in turn would play them for Maisie.
CBN News: Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear cases that will likely determine whether same-sex marriage will become a legal nationwide.
Christian News Network: A public school teacher in Canada recently explained at an educator’s conference how she convinces young children to accept homosexuality and same-sex households.