Apple CEO Tim Cook has taken to the Washington Post to tell the nation that, in the words of the headline, "Pro-discrimination 'religious freedom' laws are dangerous."
News about court cases that involve same-sex marriages usually travels fast. But when a judge in Tennessee recently upheld that state's constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, it went almost unnoticed.
On Monday, President Obama issued an executive order barring federal contractors from what it describes as "discrimination" on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Employers should respect the intrinsic dignity of all of their employees, but as I explain in greater detail at the Heritage Foundation's Daily Signal, today's executive order undermines our nation's commitment to pluralism and religious liberty.
Some say we should abandon the defense of marriage and retreat to only protecting religious-liberty exemptions. They argue that this is the best course of action in light of what they take to be an inevitable defeat. Others go further and suggest that we should simply disengage with politics entirely, retreat to our own communities, and rebuild a marriage subculture there. As tempting as these plans may be, they aren't the right answer.
Marriage plays a fundamental role in civil society because it is characterized by sexual complementarity, monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence. These marriage norms encourage men and women to commit permanently and exclusively to each other and take responsibility for their children.
Just as families were getting ready to head out the door for a long holiday weekend, the Obama Administration has rolled out new policies that disregard states' authority over marriage and redefine marriage for a variety of federal purposes.
The Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled Aug. 22 that the First Amendment does not protect a Christian photographer's ability to decline to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony -- even when doing so would violate the photographer's deeply held religious beliefs.
In a 5–4 majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Windsor struck down section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage in federal law for federal policy as the union of one man and one woman. The Court held that the federal government has to accept state redefinitions of marriage for federal policies.
The Supreme Court announced disturbing decisions today on two important cases dealing with marriage law. The Court refused, however, to create a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
A new Pew opinion poll shows that a majority of Americans believe the redefinition of marriage is "inevitable." We've heard "inevitable" language before, particularly from statists of all stripes. History is filled with supposedly "inevitable" causes that turned out not to be so. So, too, on marriage.
Same-sex marriage never will be widely accepted in America for a simple reason: It's based on a lie. But don't take my word on this; leading LGBT scholars and activists say as much.