Category archives: Misc.

Architecture, Values and the March for Life

by Rob Schwarzwalder

January 8, 2015

It is difficult to look at scenes of great universities and historic colleges and not be moved by the architecture portrayed. Traditionally, institutions of higher learning have wanted to display their seriousness of purpose and devotion to great thought and leading-edge research in the buildings they have constructed. Thus, some of the most beautiful public spaces in our country, and indeed the world, are found on American college grounds.

Architecture is important. As Winston Churchill said to the House of Commons during the peak of World War II, “We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us.” So consider what contemporary architecture says about today’s halls of knowledge. Edifices crafted out of shiny glass and sharp edges, boxes in which people are warehoused instead of buildings that invite contemplation or ennoble creativity.

What does this say about our culture’s view of human dignity in our time? Of the pursuit of knowledge and the purpose of research?

There’s nothing wrong with utility, but utility without beauty is a form of reductionism: Man as machine whose chief end is output rather than man as image-bearer of God whose chief end is to glorify Him through noble pursuits. The architecture of one’s time displays that time’s values. And the values of our time are deeply troubling.

As is widely recognized, much of modern academic life either is actively and unapologetically anti-Christian or at least so “tolerant” it welcomes the debased and debasing. Yet thankfully, these approaches to truth have not penetrated the hearts and minds of many brave academics and their students.

For example, later this month thousands of college students will mark the grim 42nd anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling. They will meet to remember the 57 million Americans destroyed in their mothers’ wombs due to the reduction of human value to one of preference, convenience and radical personal and sexual autonomy. Family Research Council will be joining many of them as, together, we participate in the March for Life on the National Mall here in Washington, D.C. on January 22.

If you can’t join us on the date, watch our 10th annual “ProLifeCon” online. ProLifeCon is “the premier conference for the online pro-life community. With new pro-life majorities in both the House and Senate, legislative momentum at the state level, and Americans increasingly identifying with the pro-life movement” FRC believes 2015 will be a year for hope. Listen to pro-life leaders like FRC president Tony Perkins, Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life and many others as they discuss the year ahead and what the pro-life community can do to advance the human dignity agenda in the new year.

At FRC, we celebrate the eternal truth that in His grace, God has made all men and women, from conception until natural death, “a little lower than the angels” (Psalm 8). The architecture of our building – stately but warm, an edifice designed to remind all who see it of human dignity and personal warmth - is a daily reminder of it.

Ten articles that were worth reading in 2014

by Peter Sprigg

January 8, 2015

I spent my final work day of 2014 doing some long-overdue filing—and decided to share links to some of the articles that earned from me the coveted (?) designation of “KEEP.”

These are not all articles I agree with. Some are by authors with whom I vigorously disagree, but they reveal something interesting or important about the “culture wars” in which we are engaged.

These are (roughly) in chronological order:

April 8, 2014

The Rise of the Same-Sex Marriage Dissidents,” by Mollie Hemingway, The Federalist

Quote:

This is what marriage law was about. Not two friends building a house together. Or two people doing other sexual activities together. It was about the sexual union of men and women and a refusal to lie about what that union and that union alone produces: the propagation of humanity. This is the only way to make sense of marriage laws throughout all time and human history. Believing in this truth is not something that is wrong, and should be a firing offense.”

April 22, 2014

Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both,” A Public Statement, Real Clear Politics

Quote:

… [W]e are concerned that recent events, including the resignation of the CEO of Mozilla under pressure because of an anti-same-sex- marriage donation he made in 2008, signal an eagerness by some supporters of same-sex marriage to punish rather than to criticize or to persuade those who disagree. We reject that deeply illiberal impulse, which is both wrong in principle and poor as politics.”

May 5, 2014

Freedom to Marry & Dissent, Rightly Understood,” by Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P. George, Real Clear Policy

Quote:

The government should not discriminate against or coerce those who speak and act on the belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.”

April 24, 2014

Opposing Gay Marriage Doesn’t Make You a Crypto-Racist,” by Jonathan Rauch, The Daily Beast

Quote:

Lots of people compare the opposition to gay marriage and the resistance to interracial relationships. It’s a flawed analogy.”

May 17, 2014

The Evolution of Marriage,” by Ryan T. Anderson (review of Marriage and Civilization: How Monogamy Made Us Human, by William Tucker), National Review Online

Quote:

It is our sexual repressions that have made us human.”

May 27, 2014

Were Christians Right About Gay Marriage All Along?” by Jay Michaelson, The Daily Beast

Quote:

According to a 2013 study, about half of gay marriages surveyed (admittedly, the study was conducted in San Francisco) were not strictly monogamous.This fact is well-known in the gay community—indeed, we assume it’s more like three-quarters… . [T]he future of marriage, in fact, may turn out to be a lot like the Christian Right’s nightmare . . .”

August 11, 2014

Tracking Christian Sexual Morality in a Same-Sex Marriage Future,” by Mark Regnerus, Public Discourse

Quote:

Churchgoing Christians who support same-sex marriage are more likely to think pornography, cohabitation, hook-ups, adultery, polyamory, and abortion are acceptable.”

October 1, 2014

The American Family Is Making a Comeback,” by Michael Wear, The Atlantic

Quote:

As the costs of family breakdown become even more apparent, Democrats’ no-judgment approach may seem insufficient in the face of a demographic and sociological tidal wave.”

December 1, 2014

The Myth of Homosexuality in Nature,” by James B. Connelly, BarbWire

Quote:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals…. For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality.”

December 10, 2014

Seven Things I Wish My Pastor Knew About My Homosexuality,” by Jean Lloyd, Public Discourse

Quote:

Continue to love me, but remember that you cannot be more merciful than God. It isn’t mercy to affirm same-sex acts as good. Practice compassion according to the root meaning of ‘compassion’: Suffer with me. Don’t compromise truth; help me to live in harmony with it.”

On the Death of Eric Garner and Race

by Rob Schwarzwalder

December 5, 2014

Christianity Today has assembled a thoughtful collection of observations by Evangelical leaders on the tragic death of Eric Garner. I encourage readers of the FRC blog to take a few moments and read through it. Probably no one will agree with everything each of the contributors has written, but surely we can all agree that the Body of Christ must more actively pursue racial reconciliation.

Paul the apostle teaches us that God “made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). Faithful Christians believe this, and at FRC we have long affirmed it; most Christians I know practice it. At my racially diverse suburban church, I’ve seen wonderful evidence of how people of “every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” (Revelation 7:9) can serve the living King together with joy.

But the pain of the African-American community concerning the deaths of Eric Garner and, earlier, Michael Brown, is palpable. The wise words of Lifeway’s Ed Stetzer capture the point well: “I wasn’t in the grand jury room, and I don’t know the evidence, but many godly African American leaders are hurting and they are explaining why. I think we should listen to them.”

Listen to FRC President Tony Perkins’ interview with Bishop Harry Jackson, Senior Pastor at Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Maryland on the Bishop’s meetings and experience on the ground before and after the Ferguson Grand Jury decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson, and check out the racial roundtable dialogs hosted by Pastor Darrin Patrick (of The Journey church in St. Louis) for some probing thoughts about the church, race and reconciliation.

Trending Massively: The Counter-Cultural Movement for Modest Fashions

by Chris Gacek

December 2, 2014

Perhaps it is just me, but recently I seem to have run across a good number of stories about religiously-inclined or conservative women promoting “modest fashions” with new businesses and websites. Of course, this has happened before, but there seems to be something different going on this time.

I noticed this recent manifestation when reading an article in the daily newspaper, The Times of Israel, which observed that of the many style websites and Jewish websites “Fabologieis unique in being a lifestyle website that blends chic Jewish living with high fashion.”

The article discusses the company, Fabologie, and its founder, Adi Heyman and describes her as being “as unashamed to flaunt long hemlines and sleeves as she is to post missives linking trends to the weekly Torah portion.” A recent story (and video) on Refinery29.com is entitled “Meet Brooklyn’s Hasidic Hipsters” and discusses two Hasidic clothes designers living in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. Not surprisingly, some of their best customers are Muslim women.

While looking around the Fabologie site, I found this article, “Seize the Dough,” that addresses baking my favorite bread, challah. Apparently, an international challah-baking event took place in late October to bring Jews together religiously and culturally. The interesting development here is how this appears to be another instance of how the Internet allows communities to develop quickly and host world-wide events at relatively little cost. (See the theory of the Internet and the “long tail.”)

In 2013 down in Louisiana, Sadie Robertson, a teenage grand-daughter of Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the TV show Duck Dynasty, set out to create a line of dresses to be marketed mostly to teenagers wishing to dress conservatively but fashionably. Robertson teamed up with highly-regarded designer Sherri Hill to produce her dress line called “Live Original.”

So, why shouldn’t Christians in the South and orthodox Jews in Brooklyn be able to get together to escape the tyranny of fashion mandates they find morally unacceptable? Given the huge populations of religious women who would value this market, it is surprising this hasn’t happened more quickly. Hopefully, it won’t be too long before we hear about collaboration along these lines, fashion shows in NY (Brooklyn, of course), and televised awards shows from Nashville and Tel Aviv. Why not?

To the business community: Religious freedom and you - perfect together

by Travis Weber

December 1, 2014

Writing at the Berkley Center’s Religious Freedom Project blog, Samuel Gregg explores the idea – and idea for which new evidence is consistently emerging – that religious freedom is good for business.

Gregg begins by noting historically that as certain religious groups have been marginalized in political life, they have turned their energies toward commerce – and prospered. In other cases, certain groups have been marginalized in their nation’s financial life – thus handicapping the economy. This isn’t good for growth, obviously. Gregg then focuses his attention on the more recently discovered correlation between economic growth and religious freedom:

[T]here is growing evidence that respect for religious freedom tends to correlate with greater economic and business development. One recent academic article, for instance, found (1) a positive relationship between global economic competitiveness and religious freedom, and (2) that religious restrictions and hostilities tended to be detrimental to economic growth.”

Moreover, other rights and freedoms are not entirely unaffected:

[T]he strongest interest that business has in being attentive to the religious freedom of individuals and groups is the fact that substantive infringements upon one form of freedom often have significant and negative implications for other expressions of human liberty. If, for instance, governments can substantially nullify religious liberty, then they are surely capable of repressing any other civil liberty. This included rights with particular economic significance, such as the right to economic initiative and creativity, property rights, and the freedom of businesses to organize themselves in ways they deem necessary to (1) make a profit and (2) treat employees in ways consistent with the owner’s religious beliefs.”

He concludes by noting that, nevertheless:

[M]ore work needs to be done in this area. Correlation is not causation. While there do seem to be significant correlations between restrictions on religious liberty and the economic freedom of individuals and corporate bodies, the case for causation requires further elaboration.”

But, businesses take note!

If … the various forms of liberty are as interdependent as they seem to be, business surely has at least a high degree of self-interest in seeing substantive conceptions of religious liberty and the rights and protections associated with religious freedom prevail.”

Businesses take note, indeed.

How Important is Election Day Turnout? Ask Anthony Brown.

by Peter Sprigg

November 11, 2014

On Election Day (or, with early and absentee voting, during election season), not every citizen who is registered to vote will actually vote. There are a variety of reasons. Some have not put in the time and effort to educate themselves about the people and issues on the ballot. Some don’t believe their vote will make a difference. Some may be confident that their favored candidate(s) will win anyway; some may be fatalistic that their favored candidate(s) will lose anyway. Some may have logistical problems getting to the polls; some may simply forget.

Because of all these factors, it is a given for anyone who has ever been involved in a political campaign that “turning out your voters” is a key to victory. Success hinges not just on persuading a majority of your fellow citizens that you are the best candidate; it also hinges on success in motivating those voters to actually vote.

It should be no surprise that the highest voter turnout generally comes in presidential election years. That is when the media coverage of politics is at its most intense. Even people who pay no attention to local or state legislative races, or even races for Congress or Governor, will generally form an opinion on which candidate should be the next President of the United States, and will make an effort to express that view at the ballot box.

That means, however, that in a non-presidential year, like the 2014 mid-term elections, fewer votes will be cast, and therefor “turning out your voters” is even more crucial.

Anthony Brown learned that the hard way.

Brown has served two terms as Lieutenant Governor of Maryland under Gov. Martin O’Malley, the former mayor of Baltimore. O’Malley is leaving office and is considered a dark horse candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. Brown was his designated successor for the governor’s mansion, easily winning the Democratic nomination.

The election should have been a shoo-in for Brown. Maryland is one of the bluest of deep blue states. President Obama carried the state in 2012 with 61% of the vote.

In one of the biggest (and most under-reported) upsets on election night, however, Brown lost to his Republican opponent, Larry Hogan, 51%-47%.

I was curious as to how big a role turnout played in this surprising outcome, so I went back to look at some vote totals I compiled after the 2012 election. (I had written a blog post then about how even in the four states which did not vote to defend the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the pro-marriage vote had well exceeded the vote received by Republican nominee Mitt Romney.)

Comparing those votes with this year’s governor’s race confirmed the importance of turnout. Although Hogan won in 2014 with 51% of the vote, and Romney lost Maryland badly in 2012 with only 36% of the vote, the raw number of votes Hogan received in victory was only 91% of the number of votes Romney received in defeat.

What does that say about Brown? He received less than half as many votes as President Obama did in 2012—only 792,000 compared to Obama’s 1.6 million.

A similar trend probably prevailed across the country. Masses of Obama voters just stayed home on Election Day—leading to the Republican wave we saw on Election Night.

The Ghost on the Wall

by Robert Morrison

November 10, 2014

I remember the incident in August, 1962. It was televised all over the world. A 17-year old carpenter’s assistant named Peter Fechter from East Germany was trying to escape across the plowed earth separating the inner and outer structures of what had become known as the Berlin Wall. Communist border guards known as Volkspolizei (People’s Police, or VoPos, for short) shot Peter in the back. He bled. And he cried. And cried. He begged someone to come and help him. He lay there for hours, whimpering like a child. This video clip says it was as if his life was ebbing away. No, it wasn’t as if. His life was ebbing away. I saw it. I hated Communism because of that. I never wavered in my belief it was fundamentally evil.

Those were happy days in America. I remember the carefree days at the beach that summer, going sailing on the Great South Bay, and the almost new Oldsmobile my parents helped me buy. Like Peter Fechter, I was just 17. Happy as I was then, I never forgot witnessing Peter Fechter’s real-life murder on TV.

Ronald Reagan never forgot Peter Fechter, either. He spoke of the Berlin Wall for many years thereafter. He always personalized that grim gray obscene concrete Wall (“die Mauer”) by including the story of Peter Fechter.

While President Richard Nixon went to Moscow in 1972 and gave Soviet Communist Party boss brand new American-made cars as gifts, Reagan continued to speak out against the inhumanity of a system that could build a Berlin Wall and shoot down teenagers who simply sought to escape Communism’s “Workers’ Paradise.”

After Nixon’s disgrace, President Jimmy Carter went to Vienna to meet with Brezhnev in June, 1979. He let Brezhnev kiss him on their first date! Brezhnev took the measure of the man. Six months later, he kissed off Carter when he sent Soviet troops into Afghanistan.

President Carter went on national TV to explain that he had learned more about the USSR in the previous three days than in the previous three years.

I later interviewed Amb. Malcolm Toon, the career diplomat whom Carter had sent to Moscow. Amb. Toon told me that no elected leader in Western Europe could have made such a stunning statement. If he had admitted to such incompetence, that Prime Minister or Chancellor would have been voted out of office the very next day in parliament!

As President, Ronald Reagan remained true to his convictions. In 1987, the American press corps was in its full-gush mode over Soviet Communist Party boss, Mikhail Gorbachev. The chin-pulling opinion writers who pass for serious analysts in our prestige press were all agog over Gorbachev’s new liberalization schemes for the USSR and the Soviet bloc. They repeated Gorbachev’s spin with practiced ease.

President Reagan wasn’t buying it. He went to the Brandenburg Gate, in the shadow of the Berlin Wall, on June 12, 1987.. He took with him the speech text he and Peter Robinson had crafted, the one our State Department had rejected three times. Sec. of State George Schulz, White House Chief of Staff Howard Baker, and National Security Advisor Gen. Colin Powell all tried to dissuade the President from saying anything that might upset U.S.-Soviet relations. Reagan was quiet, but firm, with his staff. “I think I was elected,” he mildly told Peter Robinson and that line “Tear Down this Wall” stayed in the speech.

Today, we are celebrating twenty-five years of freedom for the people of Germany and Eastern Europe. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the crumbling of that Evil Empire began this day in 1989. Reagan never claimed to have been the one who brought about this stunning change. But he was the one Western leader who never lost faith that Soviet Communism could be brought down. He told his aides: We win; they lose.

The Atlantic’s website provides this helpful remembrance of the Berlin Wall. It contains, unfortunately no references to President Kennedy’s great speech there in 1963, or President Reagan’s inspirational address of 1987.

This most interesting monument—is called the “Lichtgrenze” or Light Border. It’s well worth seeing. Thanks to the liberal editors of The Atlantic, the former Soviet dictator, Gorbachev gets a bit part in the photomontage. Thank you, General Secretary Gorbachev for not shooting any more of Peter Fechter’s countrymen!

Today, I will remember the Berlin Wall and the joy of the Germans—and all of us—when we heard young people there exclaim “Die Mauer ist Gefallen!” The Wall is Down!

My friend and colleague, FRC Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg was in Germany when the Wall came down. Then a young liberal, our Peter was honest with himself and his friends. “This is Reagan’s doing,” Peter Sprigg said then. Peter has been a recovering liberal ever since.

Ronald Reagan never claimed credit for the Fall of the Wall. But he did go there and challenge Gorbachev to prove his liberalization schemes by tearing down the Wall. Reagan was the first President since John F. Kennedy to draw a bright line between freedom and tyranny. “Lass’sie nach Berlin kommen” the young President had said—Let them come to Berlin.

President Reagan did something there that even brave young Kennedy did not do. He described a radio tower built by the East German Communists to overshadow all of Berlin’s church steeples. The President noted that the tower had a defect that the atheist rulers of East Germany had desperately tried to etch out with acid, sandblast, or paint over.

Still, Ronald Reagan said, when the sun struck the globe on that tall tower, it reflected the Sign of the Cross.

ISIS: and the New Damascus Road

by Nathan Oppman

November 6, 2014

The New Testament book of Acts tells us that Saul’s persecutions scattered the church throughout Judea and Samaria. Saul later converted to Christianity, on his way to Damascus to eradicate Christians, and began planting churches throughout the Mediterranean region

Today a new scattering in the Middle East has begun and a new group of persecutors on the road to Damascus has risen up. The new so-called caliphate, ISIS, which has emerged in the Middle East is seeking to remove from its borders all those who claim allegiance to the Jesus Christ. The slaughter of Christians has been one of the most troubling aspects of the rise of ISIS among many horrific stories coming out of Iraq and Syria.

While persecution is not new to Christians in the Middle East, many communities which have existed for millennia are in danger of being eradicated. You can read some of the troubling news in a recent article published by the Gatestone Institute.

Christians can pray for the persecuted by asking for God’s protection of them and for their boldness in sharing the Gospel. We should also pray that the Lord would change the hearts of the persecutors like He changed the heart of Paul and in so doing stop their evil rampage. May God turn this wave of persecution into one that turns the heart of a great persecutor into the heart of a great missionary, and one that uses the scattering of the faithful to spread new hope in Christ wherever they are driven.

Washington Post asks: “What went wrong for President Obama?”

by Robert Morrison

November 4, 2014

We are all waiting for today’s critical election returns and for the post-mortems that will inevitably follow. But our hometown newspaper, the Washington Post, is not waiting for the ballots to be reported tonight (and maybe some to be cast in Louisiana on December 6th with, perhaps, some even to be brought in by dogsled in Alaska!)

No, the Post is doing a pre-mortem. They printed this headline an amazing headline in this morning’s edition. This reliably liberal house organ is jumping the gun with analysis of the President’s failure and the “many crises [in his second term] and less faith in his [Mr. Obama’s] ability to respond.”

Finally, the liberal editors are asking themselves a question I can answer for them.

Here’s what went wrong for President Obama:

  1. He allowed himself to become the willing accomplice of Planned Parenthood. He told Speaker Boehner he would veto any Continuing Resolution of Congress that takes away even one dollar from this evil enterprise that dismembers a thousand unborn American children every day.
  1. His Obamacare legislation will force millions of Americans to pay for the killing of unborn children. This will be the greatest expansion of abortion since the infamous Roe v. Wade ruling.
  1. He has “evolved” into the nation’s most powerful marriagender. Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, a law we could have passed through Congress without a single Republican vote. Just 18 years ago, Democrats joined Republicans in supporting marriage. As recently as 2008, Barack told voters he believed “marriage is between a man and a woman and God is in the mix.” [emphasis added.]

Apparently, if you like your God you can keep Him. But President Obama has moved on on marriage. He has suddenly become aware that the Constitution all along has required every state to recognize counterfeit marriages. For a man who proudly tells us he taught Constitutional Law, this is an amazing, if tardy, discovery.

  1. He presides over the most anti-Christian administration in U.S. history. Never before have so many churches, pastors, priests and Christian citizens found their religious freedom so gravely endangered. Liberal reporters think this is rightwing hysteria and respond: “What about those Bible riots in Philadelphia in the 1840s?” Gotcha, they say. NO. Those Bible riots—deplorable as they were—were never instigated by the President and backed by the full power of the federal government. Today, Catholic bishops, Lutheran church body leaders, Evangelical pastors, Mormon officials, and rabbinical association spokespersons are united as never before in our nation’s history to push back against President Obama’s threats to religious freedom.
  1. His is the first administration in our history openly hostile to Israel. Woodrow Wilson, Democrat, favored the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine. Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt met with the Saudi king in 1945 in an effort to persuade him to accept a Jewish State. Harry Truman boldly recognized Israel 11 minutes after it declared its independence in 1948. But President Obama is pressuring Israel to permit the creation of a PLO Terroristan on the West Bank of the Jordan River. President Obama refuses to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, but he went to reunited Berlin to bask in the adulation of German crowds.

For these and a host of other, lesser, reasons, this president has lost what the Chinese call “the Mandate of Heaven.”

Barbara Walters spoke to this world-weary sense that liberals have about the Obama Presidency when she sighed: “We thought he was going to be the Messiah.”

And Newsweek editor Evan Thomas cooed early in this administration that President Obama at Normandy “hovered over the nations like a sort of god.”

Can Mr. Thomas tell us what his god said at Normandy? Can President Obama remember what he said there? In 2009? In 2014?

Our God speaks. And through His Word, we learn of his tender concern for children, even those in the womb. We learn that He created marriage because it is not good for man to be alone. And we learn that when it comes to speaking His Word, we are to obey God and not men.

Our Founding Fathers believed that religious freedom was essential for political liberty. That’s why they guaranteed it in the Constitution they gave us. Socialist governments have always been hostile to three institutions—the family, the church, and free enterprise.

So we should not be surprised that President Obama is having mounting difficulty. It is a sign of a healthy body politic that the immune system is starting to reject his ruling philosophy.

Candidate Obama shocked Clinton Democrats when he said, “Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not. And in a way that Bill Clinton did not.”

Barack Obama was promising liberals he would be their Ronald Reagan. But Reagan quoted the Founding Fathers’ wisdom more than any of his four predecessors and more than any of his four successors.

Perhaps that is why, respecting this country’s foundation and not seeking to “fundamentally transform this nation,” as Mr. Obama has, that Ronald Reagan was a success and this president is not.

FRC Files Amicus Brief in Fifth Circuit Marriage Appeal

by Chris Gacek

November 3, 2014

Today, the Family Research Council filed an amicus, or “friend of the court,” brief in the case of Robicheaux v. Caldwell, an appeal of a marriage definition case arising out of Louisiana. On September 3rd, Judge Martin Feldman of the Eastern District of Louisiana issued a decision upholding the constitutionality of Louisiana’s male-female definition of marriage. Subsequently, the plaintiffs, seven same-sex couples, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”) in New Orleans. It was with the Fifth Circuit that FRC filed its amicus brief today. Paul Linton, a constitutional appellate lawyer from Illinois, wrote the brief. Mr. Linton has worked with FRC previously in numerous marriage-definition cases.

The FRC amicus brief focuses on two main arguments. First, the brief demonstrates that Louisiana’s marriage definition does not contravene the fundamental right to marry that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. After the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision a number of federal courts have attempted to claim that there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. As an institution, same-sex marriage is younger than Google and Facebook. It cannot satisfy the requirement the Court laid down in Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997), that such rights must be firmly rooted in “the Nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices.”

Second, the brief makes clear that Louisiana’s marriage definition does not discriminate on the basis of sex or gender because males and females cannot marry members of the same sex. On the contrary, every male and every female may marry. The requirement, however, is that one’s marriage partner be a member of the opposite sex. There is no “facial” discrimination in Louisiana’s marriage definition that targets either males or females for worse treatment than member of the opposite sex.

Male-female marriage is the bedrock of social life and civilization. It is the institution by which the complementary sexual attractions of males and females are yoked together in an enduring, supportive relationship that has the potential to produce children. Same-sex unions can reproduce neither the relational nor the procreative capacity. As such, the union of one man and one woman for life in marriage is rationally related to these dual purposes.

Archives