Month Archives: May 2014
by Peter Sprigg
May 21, 2014
Federal judges seem to have entered into an echo chamber of political correctness in their recent rulings in support of the homosexual redefinition of marriage. They ignore or deny obvious truths (like the importance of procreation to the natural definition of marriage), while dogmatically asserting as true things which are either blatantly false or inherently unknowable.
The May 19, 2014 decision by U. S. District Court Judge Michael J. McShane (Geiger v. Kitzhaber), striking down Oregon’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, was yet another example. I will not bother going through his decision point by point to refute it, since it varies little from the similar decisions handed down by other judges in recent months. Those interested in why these judges have it wrong should refer to the recent FRC paper, Marriage on Trial: State Laws Defining Marriage as the Union of One Man and One Woman Are Valid under the Constitution of the United States.
In the case of the Geiger decision, I would just like to point out Judge McShane’s maddening sense of certainty in asserting things which are either a) blatantly false, or b) inherently unknowable.
In the former category (blatantly false) is virtually everything McShane says about the research on children raised by homosexual parents. The judge first notes that under Oregon law, the “relationship between child and parents is the same regardless of parents’ marital status,” and regardless of how the child was conceived.
“Oregon’s policies accept that children fare the same whether raised by opposite-gender or same-gender couples,” McShane then declares.
He cites a judge in Michigan who declared that “there is simply no scientific basis to conclude that children raised in same-sex households fare worse than those raised in heterosexual households.” He cites the decision of Judge Vaughn Walker (who, like McShane, is himself homosexual) in the California Proposition 8 case, saying, “Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful, and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.”
McShane concludes, “The realization that same-gender couples make just as good parents as opposite-gender couples is supported by more than just common sense; it is also supported by ‘the vast majority of scientific studies’ examining the issue.”
It is hardly “common sense” to conclude that there is no advantage whatsoever to a child being raised by the man and woman who united to create it, nor to assert that homosexual couples constitute the lone exception to the overwhelmingly body of evidence that children do best when raised by their own biological mother and father who are committed to each other in a life-long marriage.
It may be true that the numerical count of “studies” purporting to support homosexual parenting is larger than the count of those questioning it; but this lack of “serious debate” is not because of the weight of scientific evidence, but because violating the ideological dictates of the pro-homosexual academy is likely to destroy a scholar’s career.
A summary of the older (pre-2004) evidence on children of homosexual parents can be found online in the FRC book, Getting It Straight. A more recent landmark was the 2012 publication of data from the New Family Structures Study of sociologist Mark Regnerus, which “show rather clearly that children raised by gay or lesbian parents on average are at a significant disadvantage when compared to children raised by the intact family of their married, biological mother and father.”
Almost as important, if not more so, was the article by Loren Marks in the same issue of Social Science Research, in which he pointed out the serious methodological weaknesses of the pro-homosexual parenting studies that are usually cited, saying, ““[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced … compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children.”
FRC previously published an overview of these studies, as well as a more detailed summary of the findings of the New Family Structures Study. (Homosexual activists are fond of referring to the Regnerus study as “discredited,” but this is simply untrue. Regnerus was completely exonerated of charges of academic misconduct by his employer, the University of Texas; and while an “internal audit” commissioned by Social Science Research was highly critical, the journal did not withdraw the paper.)
The Regnerus study does not stand alone in raising concerns about children of homosexual parents. Since it was published, there have been at least two other major studies using large sample sizes which have found similar deficits for such children on specific outcomes. One using U. S. Census data found, “Primary schoolchildren in married heterosexual households are 35 percent more likely to make typical school progress than peers in same-sex households.” Another based on the Canadian census reported “that the children of gay and lesbian couples are only about 65 percent as likely to have graduated from high school as the children of married, opposite-sex couples.”
While Judge McShane devoted a page to claims about what “the vast majority of scientific studies” say about homosexual parents, perhaps he was actually driven more by his own experience. McShane, an Obama appointee who has only been on the federal bench for a year, is openly homosexual and “is raising a child in a same-sex relationship,” according to USA Today.
Although making no comment about his partner, McShane did write about his son:
Even today I am reminded of the legacy that we have bequeathed today’s generation when my son looks dismissively at the sweater I bought him for Christmas and, with a roll of his eyes, says “dad … that is so gay.”
Will he declare eye-rolling to be unconstitutional next?
by Nick Frase
May 21, 2014
If there’s one thing the Family Research Council and the Poker Player Alliance agree on it’s that a state by state patchwork of online gambling laws and regulations serves no one. In the words of their National Director, John Pappas, “There needs to be some sort of national standard.”
We agree. That’s why FRC supports legislation that would restore the decade’s old prohibition of online gambling nationwide known as the Wire Act. And that’s why it’s confusing when the National Governors Association releases a letter as it did earlier this week saying it opposes a national online gambling ban because it “challenges the federal-state relationship” and interferes with state’s ability to bring their own bureaucratic brand of regulations to online gambling vendors within their borders.
Both sides of the debate (but apparently not the governor’s association) understand a patchwork won’t work. The internet does not reside in a state nor does it respect state’s laws or borders. Tenth Amendment arguments for protecting state’s rights may sound conservative but in situations like this they help no one. It is just as valid to argue a national prohibition protects state’s rights in preventing gambling.
Indeed, Governors Haley (SC), Scott (FL), Jindal (LA), Pence (IN) and Perry (TX) have come out in opposition to their own Governor’s association on this issue. They equally want to protect their state’s interest in prohibiting online gambling. Add to that the Attorneys General of 15 states and Guam who have already signed a letter in support of reinstating the Wire Act for this purpose.
It’s not only the internet that has revolutionized internet gaming, it’s the near ubiquitous use of tablets and smart devices, items that we carry around everywhere that have the ability to function as virtual casinos that have become the real game changer. Legalizing online gambling on every hand held device would unleash near unfettered access to gambling on untold numbers of vulnerable Americans, including the elderly, the young and struggling problem gamblers.
This alone is more important than a faux state’s rights argument. It’s upsetting that a Governor like Governor Bentley of Alabama, who claims he is personally opposed to gambling for religious reasons, would sign onto a letter that only weakens his position the positions of other likeminded governors.
by Leanna Baumer
May 20, 2014
Today, the House of Representatives passed five bipartisan bills strengthening our national response to the growing crisis of human trafficking. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte summed up the issue clearly on the House floor during legislative debate. He stated that the House has undertaken this policy discussion in order to address the reality that our society allows the “rape of children by adults for profit” to go unpunished. Adults too are caught in the slavery of sexual exploitation, and the measures considered today emphasize that the coercion of either children or adults for economic gain is a fundamental assault on human rights and human dignity.
The five bills approved this evening address various aspects of this crisis, advancing reforms to our foster care system, encouraging greater federal and state coordination and partnerships in programs to provide intervention and after care for victims, giving new tools to law enforcement, and focusing on treating those trapped in commercial sexual activity as victims. These efforts are important and needed, and the bills’ sponsors, including Congresswoman Ann Wagner of Missouri, Congressman Ted Poe of Texas, Congressman Eric Paulsen of Minnesota, Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, and Congressman Dave Reichert of Washington, are to be commended for their work to craft legislative responses to problems in our justice system.
However, in the ongoing discussion about increasing penalties for pimps and predators, we cannot lose sight of the prevailing individual and cultural belief that “anything goes” and sexual fulfillment and pleasure are to be pursued at any cost. Such beliefs contribute to the rising national consumption of pornography, a product increasingly dependent on the labor of trafficked women and children. Our society by and large continues to turn a blind eye to an industry built upon the exploitation of human beings for profit because we are uncomfortable confronting the reality that our own addiction to sexual entertainment makes us culpable in this national crisis.
Fortunately, law plays a role in shaping cultural values, and today’s proposed changes to federal law clearly convey the House’s firm belief that the dehumanization of women and children through trafficking cannot ever be justified or defended. That’s a message we need to repeat over and over again. For more information about how trafficking affects your community, download FRC’s brochure “Modern Slavery: How to Fight Human Trafficking in Your Community.”
by Travis Weber
May 15, 2014
In USA Today, Kirsten Powers has noted (accurately) that the censorship police of public thought are stepping up their surveillance activities once again, to the point that the “guidelines” for what is deemed “acceptable” are becoming incoherent. She states: “Don’t bother trying to make sense of what beliefs are permitted and which ones will get you strung up in the town square. Our ideological overlords have created a minefield of inconsistency. While criticizing Islam is intolerant, insulting Christianity is sport.”
Among a number of illuminating examples of this ridiculousness, Ms. Powers cites the Benham brothers having their HGTV show cancelled, and Brendan Eich being forced to resign from Mozilla, simply because they both politely, respectfully, took positions in support of what the Bible says about marriage, and refused to budge from those positions. The censors are infuriated that anyone would dare have such opinions (never mind they are politely and respectfully articulated).
It is heartening to see Ms. Powers bring attention to people being marginalized merely for holding such views. During the furor over HB 1062 which would have amended the Arizona RFRA to protect business owners of conscience from having such censorship rammed down their throats, Ms. Powers opposed the bill and claimed it was in essence a right to discriminate. As I stated then and as I hold now, HB 1062 was falsely characterized as such and this error was repeated through outlandish levels of media hype and venting without much considered thought. In truth, the bill merely extended constitutional free exercise protections explicitly to businesses, and to individuals facing the impact of nondiscrimination laws in lawsuits to which the government is not a party. The courts would always have decided (and still do decide) the merits of such claims. Such a bill was (and is) needed in the face of public opinion that is simply intolerant of anyone who stands up and says (respectfully or not): “I believe what the Bible says about marriage is true.” The wave of intolerance of such a view will not voluntarily cease upon achieving legal or political goals. It will stamp out all dissent, and laws are needed to protect dissenters (which now includes Christians holding to the view that marriage should be between a man and a woman).
Ms. Powers may disagree with my suggestion that her recent column reveals her support for the principles behind HB 1062. It could be that she views her recent column as arguing for individual rights and the right to object, while she opposed HB 1062 as a majority imposition (in her view) on individual rights. However, as I suggested above, the bill is not and never was a majoritarian imposition of any views. Perhaps Ms. Powers was proceeding (as many were) under the mass media’s snow job misrepresenting the Arizona bill, and really didn’t understand that it protects the very people she defends here. But I know she’s sharp, and could have investigated the bill’s application of constitutional strict scrutiny a bit more before expressing her views. It could also be that her views are genuinely changing, as she observes the culture and filters it through her moral compass to conclude how law should apply (if only all Americans would do this). Again, all this is speculation, as I have not had the opportunity to ask her about her views directly. But Ms. Powers’ recent recognition of the very troubling issues regarding tolerance in our democracy is heartening. More need to make the same recognition.
Recently, in the City Journal, Michael Totten describes the laparoscopic invasion of citizens’ private lives by Cuba’s communist government which he observed during a visit to that country. He finds his view of Havana consistent with that of Cuban dissident author Yoani Sánchez, who sarcastically notes: “Buses are stopped in the middle of the street and bags inspected to see if we are carrying some cheese, a lobster, or some dangerous shrimp hidden among our personal belongings.”
The United States has not reached that level of overt government intrusion. Indeed, its citizens would revolt. But our culture is reaching dangerous levels of “tolerance” for intolerance. As discussed in the Wall Street Journal, and as noted by Ms. Powers, Christine Lagarde, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, recently withdrew as the Smith College commencement speaker after students started a petition objecting to her invitation. The offense? Ms. Lagarde’s “work directly contributes” to “imperialistic and patriarchal systems that oppress and abuse women worldwide.”
Christians holding to Biblical views have long been unwelcome in certain spheres. The intolerance is increasing, however. And as those who hold to Biblical truth find themselves ousted from more and more areas of society, they will naturally be forced to coalesce together in an opposition to the Orwellian views espoused by many today.
If the antics surrounding Ms. Lagarde and others accurately demonstrate the level to which “tolerance” has become intolerance, our America — what used to be a classical liberal democracy — is in need of serious help. It’s all hands on deck. Thankfully, Ms. Powers is on board.
by Robert Morrison
May 15, 2014
I’ve just completed three weeks of commuting with George W. Bush. I’ve been listening to his memoirs, Decision Points, on audio disc. It’s been an amazing journey. Ron McLarty reads the former president’s book. And he’s so good at capturing “W’s” accent and intonation that you soon think the Texan is riding shotgun through Washington, D.C. traffic with you.
I had not expected such a frank and funny book. Most presidential memoirs, to be candid, are rather like marble doorstops. They’re intended to be the author’s dignified and not-too-defensive statement of his case for history. And some of them are deadly dull.
Not so these memoirs. George W. Bush is amazingly honest about his drinking problem. He never says he was an alcoholic, for he may not have been. But he drank too much, too often. And it affected his relationships. It got him into some ugly scenes. His loving, faithful wife stood by him all the while and gently nudged him onto the right path. His parents showed him the meaning of unconditional love. For those of us who have loved someone with a drinking problem, this part of the book is worth the whole volume.
George on his fortieth birthday doesn’t go in for a twelve-step program. It’s more of a one-step program. He takes seriously what Billy Graham has been saying about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He invites Jesus into his heart. And Jesus comes in.
Of great interest to us who deal with policy analysis in Washington are the parts of the book — the greater part — in which the former president deals with various issues. He teases them out and handles them thematically. Stem cell research. Iran. North Korea. Education (No Child Left Behind). Tax cuts. Hurricane Katrina. The Harriet Miers Surpeme Court nomination. And above all, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
By handling each topic separately, we get a sense of the complexity and considerations that go into presidential decision-making. But it also occasions some confusion as we jump around from the economic meltdown of late 2008 back to “A Day of Fire” on 9/11, early in the first term. The reality of the presidency, of course, is that issues come rushing at you from Day One. That’s why Harry Truman put a sign on his White House desk: The Buck Stops Here.
George W. Bush is most like Truman in his crisp, decisive manner. He once said: “I’m the decider.” It was seen as Texas bragging. And it didn’t play well in the too often hostile press. But that is what Harry’s sign meant. That’s why we elect presidents — to decide.
Like Harry Truman, George W. Bush was derided by many in the Eastern Establishment.
(“To err is Truman,” they jibed.) Truman was the last president not to go to college. But he had a keen mind and reportedly had read every history book in the Independence, Missouri Public Library. Harry was well prepared. And Harry identified with the American people. If Franklin Roosevelt was for the people, commentators said in those days, Harry Truman is the people.
George Walker Bush was not only the son of a president, and the distant relation of another (his mother traces her lineage to Franklin Pierce), he was also the first MBA to sit in the White House. His Yale and Harvard degrees made him one of the best-educated presidents in our lifetime.
Even so, “W” never lacked the common touch. And these memoirs prove it. Once asked what made him different from his much-loved Dad, W. answered without hesitation: Midland.
Those differences become clear in reading this self-deprecating and honest memoir. I had not expected to be moved to tears. But no one can read his heart-rending story of the death of little sister Robin from leukemia and not want to embrace this sensitive and decent man.
Despite my deeper admiration for this good and honorable man, I find myself flinching when he describes his thoughts on bringing democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq. Our own State Department insisted, I have learned, on putting so-called Repugnancy Clauses in the constitutions of both of these “liberated” countries. Those Repugnancy Clauses say, in effect, notwithstanding anything else in this constitution, nothing shall be done by this government that is repugnant to Islam.
Who decides what is repugnant to Islam? The mullahs do! What if the mullahs disagree? Then the mullahs with more firepower win the argument. The mullahs agree with Napoleons’ dictum: God favors the side with the heavier artillery.
Because of these fatal flaws, democracy never had a chance in Iraq or Afghanistan. George W. Bush sincerely believes that everyone desires freedom. That may be true. But unless you desire that your neighbor who worships differently will also have freedom, you are unlikely ever to know freedom yourself.
It is good for Afghan women to join Afghan men in voting for a new government. But if they elect politicians who want to murder Abdul Rahman for converting to Christianity, you have no democracy. And virtually every elected official in Afghanistan did call for Abdul Rahman’s blood in 2006.
Enduring Freedom? Abdul Rahman had to be spirited out of that homicidal country under cover of darkness to save his neck. And even that might not have happened had not Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, and many other Evangelical leaders raised a loud cry to spare his life.
Hundreds of thousands of Christians have been driven out of Iraq since the U.S. commenced “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” The regime of Nouri al-Maliki is in league with the mullahs of Tehran, whom we have designated as the leading terrorists in the world.
When Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai met with Iran’s mullahs for a “future of the region” summit, President Obama’s late envoy Richard Holbrooke thought that was entirely appropriate. Really? Then what are we fighting the Taliban for?
Karzai is on record admitting to taking bags of gold from Tehran. And from us. Afghanistan has cost American taxpayers one trillion dollars.
President Bush acknowledges that he campaigned against U.S. attempts at “nation-building” in the 2000 campaign. He argues, though, that 9/11 changed all that. His Bush Doctrine said: 1. We will carry the fight to the terrorists. 2. We will regard those who harbor terrorists as equally guilty and go after them, too. 3. We will establish governments that respect the rights of their own people and do not threaten their neighbors.
It’s Point Three that is most vexing. You cannot plant democracy with bayonets. Facile comparisons to our post-WWII occupations of Germany and Japan obviously fail. We took the unconditional surrender of both countries. We forced Germany to de-Nazify and Japan to give up Emperor Worship.
Even Point Two of the Bush Doctrine is problematic. If Pakistan was not harboring Osama bin Laden for a decade, how was he allowed to build a top-secret ziggurat under the very noses of Pakistan’s military brass? If Saudi Arabia is really our ally in the War on Terror, why did that desert despot Abdullah refuse us access to Madani al Tayyib, the al Qaeda finance chief (see p. 122. of the official 9/11 Commission Report)?
Americans increasingly believe we are being played for suckers by treacherous allies. When I traveled by bus around America in 2012, I would make a point of saluting veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and asking them their level of trust for the national forces in both countries. The answer from our own brave warriors was always the same: Zero.
This substantial portion of the Bush memoirs must be read as tragedy. A good Christian man with a fine mind and a great heart pursues a flawed policy, with grave consequences. It costs thousands of brave young Americans their lives. He built his freedom house on sand. Too bad.
His discussion of stem cell research shows him honorably struggling to find a middle path. He is a nuanced thinker, a man with a heightened ethical sense. In the end, he crafts a policy that unfortunately provides federal funding to the killers of embryonic humans even as it denies funding for killing these nascent humans.
In these pages, the president never answers the obvious question: By funding experimentation on only a limited number of stem cell lines — on those embryonic humans whose lives have already been condemned — what if some treatment or cure should be found? How then would he or any future president resist the deafening cries in the media for experimentation-on-demand?
It’s worth noting here that no such treatment or cure has been found in the thirteen years since President Bush announced his restricted funding policy. (Nor, even more significantly, in the five years since President Obama cast aside all ethical restraints.
President Bush was hailed by pro-lifers, including this one, for signing such important legislation as the Infant Born-Alive Protection Act (which state Sen. Barack Obama managed to kill in the Illinois legislature), the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA — that President Obama’s administration declined to apply against Fort Hood killer Nidal Hasan), and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Bill Clinton had vetoed that legislation twice in the 1990s. One of the leading pro-abortion lobbyists later admitted “I lied through my teeth about [the numbers and instances of partial-birth abortions] and felt sick to my stomach about it.” Bill Clinton was never so distressed about lying on this or other topics.
President Bush appointed many strong constitutionalists to the courts and many pro-lifers to mid-level administration positions. This is something for which we should always be grateful. Nonetheless, in these memoirs, it becomes clear that George W. Bush is the only pro-life person in his White House circle of advisors. The only one. And this matters.
Thus it was that billions of federal dollars continued to flow uninterrupted for eight years into the coffers of Planned Barrenhood (Parenthood). They are the world’s largest trafficker in abortion. This outfit last year admitted killing 374,000 unborn children. As with his stem cell policy, President Bush never funded the killing of the unborn, only those who do the killing.
One of the least convincing portions in this book is his discussion of the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court. Columnist George Will spoke for all of us when he said that you could poll the one hundred top conservative constitutional thinkers in America (are there that many?) and ask each one to provide a list of one hundred names, with no duplicates. On the resultant list of ten thousand names you would not find Harriet Miers.
FRC’s Tony Perkins worked this issue with the greatest of care. Always respectful of the president and his nominee, Tony nonetheless publicized Miss Miers speeches. Lacking a “paper trail” of serious judicial wrestling with weighty constitutional matters, we had to go with what we had.
Her speeches were simply deplorable. How could she possibly think the Business and Professional Women’s Club of Greater Houston would react well to her quoting with approval the radical feminist Gloria Steinem?
Those strong Texas women were achievers, not whiners. Did Miss Miers share Steinem’s man-hating views? (A Steinem sampler: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” “We have become the men we wanted to marry.”) If she did, we certainly didn’t want her to have a lifetime appointment to the High Court.
Or worse, did she simply think she would ingratiate herself with her audience? If so, is there a worse place in the entire U.S. government for such toadying than the U.S. Supreme Court?
For millions of Americans, George Bush’s handling, or mishandling, of the Hurricane Katrina crisis was the occasion of their disenchantment with his leadership, but for the conservative movement, surely the abortive nomination of the manifestly unqualified Harriet Miers broke the bonds of trust.
His chapter on education, and his ill-fated No Child Left Behind program, deserves attention. George W. Bush and his father were always sincere supporters of civil rights. The false, defamatory and contemptible charges of racism lodged against both men wounded them deeply.
But it was just as wrong to craft a policy based on racial disparities in academic achievement. As David Armor, one of our best academic researchers of education has noted, the test score disparities of black, white, Hispanic, and Asian students do not entirely equal out when family structure is accounted for, but they are greatly diminished.
The best thing George W. Bush could have done if he sought to address the lower academic performance of black and Hispanic students, as well as that of lower middle class whites, would have been to address the marriage crisis. As the work of Charles Murray has since shown, it is the collapse of marriage and the loss of church attendance among working class whites that has led to impoverishment. The collapse of marriage has as well harmed minorities. And the classic study of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) titled “Who Escapes?” showed that for the black community, students who regularly attended church had far better outcomes for school and work.
How are church and synagogue attendance related to the marriage crisis, if at all? AEI Scholar Mary Eberstadt’s compelling new book, How the West Really Lost God, argues that family breakdown has led to loss of religious practice. If she is right, the old 1950s Ad Council slogan is true, after all: “The family that prays together, stays together.”
It is painful for me to realize the errors of my much-admired George W. Bush. My wife and I watched his 2001 inauguration in our own family room. She was then a high-ranking naval officer. When those Hundred and One guns of the Presidential Salute Battery rent the air with their booming to signal the peaceful transfer of power, we both wept with joy. We were relieved for we believed our country had been saved.
I would go on to campaign for George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004. I was in Pittsburgh to hear him address a large, enthusiastic rally the day before the election. In front of me sat a big family of supporters. These home schoolers had gotten up before dawn to crowd into the stadium. The metal detectors we passed through reminded us of the changes we had seen in our country under this good man’s leadership. Johnny was a fifteen-year old member of this family.
When President Bush made has rousing speech, the whole crowd roared its approval. Johnny was standing on top of his folding chair, yelling loudest when the W. spoke of the right to life and the defense of marriage. Johnny has Down Syndrome.
The next day, George W. Bush was re-elected President of the United States. He carried the critical state of Ohio on the strength of the marriage referendum that had brought half a million more voters out than in 2000. And his percentage of the black vote in Ohio was his highest anywhere.
I never heard him speak in public about the right to life or the defense of marriage again.
Nor have I heard him speak of either vital question in the five years since he left office. We know where his family is on these questions.
George Bush is avoiding political issues, he says. He hikes and rides with Wounded Warriors, which is nothing less than noble of him.
But he could still do more. He is a young and fit retiree. He could begin giving speeches at fundraisers for Pregnancy Care Centers. Many of these volunteer-staffed, faith-based groups he recognized during his White House years.
He doesn’t have to criticize anyone or do anything other than lend them his presence — and his heart. Those who sincerely say they are pro-choice cannot object if George W. Bush were to help young women and their boyfriends choose life for their unborn children.
In 2006, I had lunch with a conservative talk show host in Bethesda, Maryland. We enjoyed a hearty meal and a good conversation. “What should I thank President Bush for,” my friend asked? It was a time of some deep disillusionment among conservatives with the Bush second term.
I answered: “We are having this lunch on a quiet Saturday. And when we go to our cars, they probably won’t blow up. We can thank George Bush for that. It’s no small achievement.” I still believe that. Thank you, Mr. President, for protecting us. And may God preserve you.
by Chris Gacek
May 15, 2014
There seem to be more legal challenges to state laws proclaiming natural marriage than there are stars in the sky. One of these, DeBoer v. Snyder, arises out of Michigan. In DeBoer, a federal district court declared Michigan’s natural marriage definition to be unconstitutional. The decision was appealed by Michigan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the Family Research Council has filed a friend of the court brief in this appeal. The brief was written by Paul Linton, a highly regarded constitutional appellate attorney, who submitted the brief on FRC’s behalf last week on May 9th.
The amicus brief focuses on two general arguments. First, it maintains that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not create a fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex. Second, Michigan’s definition of marriage is reasonably related several legitimate state interests, most notably, its promotion of responsible procreation. Thus, Michigan marriage law satisfies the “rational-basis” review required by constitutional equal protection analysis. For these reasons, the district court’s decision should be reversed.
by Rob Schwarzwalder
May 13, 2014
In a biting, perceptive, and troubling-because-it’s-true op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, Eliot Cohen writes of an Executive Branch governed as much by immaturity as Left-wing conviction. As he notes, “The Obama administration is not alone. The teenage temperament infects our politics on both sides of the aisle, not to mention our great universities and leading corporations.”
The particular danger imposed by the Obama Administration is that it leads (or is supposed to lead) the greatest nation in world history; such leadership demands what Cohen calls “the old, adult virtues—gravitas, sobriety, perseverance and constancy.”
A President who takes a “selfie” at the funeral of an international statesman and who sniffingly refers to the burgeoning Russian threat as “a regional power” simply doesn’t know how to take American foreign policy and national security seriously. In fairness, of course, when you’re busy transforming America, who has time for international affairs?
Read Cohen’s insightful piece here
by FRC Media Office
May 9, 2014
On Friday, May 9, 2014, Ken Blackwell, FRC’s Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment appeared on MSNBC’s “The Daily Rundown” to discuss Ohio’s ban on same-sex “marriages.”
by Arina Grossu
May 9, 2014
NARAL recently made headlines with claims that Google removed ads from pregnancy centers that were “deceptive.” As it turns out, the claims were just hype. Jill Stanek confirmed a few days ago: “All major national pregnancy care center organizations have confirmed to myself or fellow pro-life journalists that not one of their PRC ads has been pulled from Google. These groups cover the gamut and include CareNet, CompassCare, Heartbeat International, Heroic Media, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, Online for Life, and Vitae Foundation.”
NARAL also has some explaining to do. If anyone is being deceptive it’s the abortion industry. Why is it that when I did a Google search for “crisis pregnancy center,” one Planned Parenthood and another abortion facility came up? Those are definitely not crisis pregnancy centers. Note that Planned Parenthood has “Crisis Pregnancy Center” as its descriptive. Isn’t that a little hypocritical and ironic, NARAL? The deception that you try to blame on pregnancy centers points right back to you and your cronies.