Is the sky falling? Are the nation’s moral foundations so eroded that they are on the verge of collapse?

For two reasons, I will answer no. In the past year, in states across the country, there have been wonderful wins for the cause of life and family. Ultra-sound bills and abortion clinic regulations have been enacted and polls show that Americans are more troubled than ever by abortion-on-demand. There have even been some Supreme Court judicial rulings (e.g., Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC and Spencer v. World Vision) favorable to religious liberty.

These things should inspire us to keep working for faith, family, and freedom in the public square. Although the assaults on the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, the very nature of the family, and the religious and economic liberty we cherish are manifold, not to fight them would be to surrender our biblical obligation to work for justice and stand for the oppressed (Proverbs 31:8-9). For the sake of the Just One Himself, this we must never do.

Second, Jesus Christ is Lord of time and eternity. He is Lord when we rejoice and when we weep. He is the sovereign before Whom every knee shall bow (Philippians 2:9-11). Who sustains all things by the word of His power (Hebrews 1:2). And according to the Psalmist, God is unthreatened by the machinations of political man: “(Though) the kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed … He who sits in the heavens laughs, the Lord scoffs at them” (2:2-4).

In other words, God is accomplishing His will in ways our limited human understanding might find puzzling but which are fully commensurate with His character and plan for humanity.

“The Most High rules in the realm of mankind,” we read in Daniel’s prophecy (4:2). He has called us to stand for righteousness and human dignity in every sphere of life. Whatever external wins or losses we might experience in the moment, these truths should sustain us in our efforts at all times.

You read that right.  Newsweek – the repository of condescending liberalism, the magazine of record of the self-annointed Center-Left elite – has published a compelling piece by a bona fide “person of the Right.”

Why?  Because even the Left has to acknowledge that Christians are under the gun – quite literally – throughout the developing world.  To read about the latest, and ever-expanding, attacks on Christians in nations where they are a minority (and that would be all of Asia and the Middle East and most of Africa), go to the International Christian Concern’s www.persecution.org and Voice of the Martyrs’ www.persecution.com.  From Nigeria to Pakistan to China, the attacks on those who profess the Name of Christ are numerous and brutal.  As summarized by Dr. John Eibner, president of Christian Solidarity Worldwide,

A student beaten to death for wearing a cross necklace.  A pastor sentenced to death for the “crime” of leaving Islam.  Peaceful Christian protestors run over by tanks.  This is the reality for Christians in North Africa and the Middle East today.  Christians are under attack from radical Islamist groups and, in some cases, their own governments.

Yet as the distinguished scholar and diplomat Dr. Tom Farr, who was the first director of the State Department’s Office of International Religious Freedom and who has spoken here at FRC, said recently, “The administration has invested far more energy and resources in the international advancement of LGBT rights than it has the advancement of religious freedom.”

The Obama Administration is willing to abrogate religious liberty here at home for the sake of an extreme political and social agenda (for example, visit our website to learn how President Obama is willing to violate historic conscience rights to bolster his political base and advance abortion-on-demand).  After all, who really needs the First Amendment, right?

It is little wonder federal efforts to defend religious liberty abroad are so tepid.  We cannot defend abroad what we are diminishing here at home.

Ronald Reagan did not play by the playbook described on the front page of Sunday’s Washington Post. The liberal voice of the nation’s capital headlined this thought:

Tricky pivot for Romney to the center.

Senior reporter Karen Tumulty led off the story with this:

“The playbook for Republican presidential contenders goes at least as far back as Richard Nixon: Run hard to the right in the primaries; steer back to the center for the general election.”

In other words, be as cynical as Nixon and take our advice: Sucker the voters of your own party into backing you. Then, once you’ve gulled enough of them to gain a first-ballot nomination at the convention, tack to the left to attract the broad middle of the electorate. 

Reporter Tumulty did not list Ronald Reagan in her widely-read story because he did no such thing and, gee, he only won two back-to-back landslides, carried only 44, then 49 states, and won only a total of 1,014 Electoral Votes. Of course, reporter Tumulty’s friendly advice on tricky pivoting is given to candidates she would never back in any event.

Why didn’t Reagan pivot? Why wasn’t he tricky? I remember a staff meeting at the U.S. Department of Education early in his second term. Five different proposals were on the table for discussion. “Well, we know we can’t do numbers 3 and 5,” said Patricia Hines, one of my favorite colleagues. “Why not?” I asked innocently. “Because,” she patiently explained to this slower student in the class, “the platform on which Ronald Reagan was twice elected specifically condemned those policies. President Reagan may not be able to achieve all he endorsed in that platform, but he would never, never go against his platform.”

I soon learned the high ideals and the deep commitments of the Reagan movement from Mrs. Hines and many other Reaganauts.  We never called ourselves “Reaganites.” (Leave “iting” for the Trostkyites and the Castroites).

President Reagan had a strong sense that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. And it was not only dishonorable to “pivot,” or to engage in tricky maneuvers to gain that consent of the governed under false pretenses. Worse, it was corrosive of free government to do so.

Take Richard Nixon. Please. He came into office a staunch anti-Communist. He had waged political battles all his life against liberals and Democrats he accused of being “soft on Communism.” Then, in office, he abandoned Taiwan and flew to Red China. He toasted Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong, wishing the bloody dictator a long life. Mao had shortened the lives of some 60 million Chinese.

Could there be a better example of bottomless cynicism? And how did that tricky pivot work out for Mr. Nixon? Did any of the liberals who applauded his unprincipled flight to Beijing vote for him or defend him against impeachment?

Or, take George H.W. Bush. As Reagan’s vice president, he had to convince some skeptical conservatives he had truly learned his lessons, and overcome his moderate background. “Read my lips, no new taxes,” Bush told cheering conservatives at his party’s 1988 convention. Elected not by tricky pivoting or tacking to the center, but by emphasizing his differences with the ultra-liberal Michael Dukakis, the senior Bush raised taxes and split the Reagan coalition. Columnist George Will said Bush had “turned a silk purse into a sow’s ear.” That coalition of social, defense, and economic conservatives has not been reassembled to this day.

Writer Andrew Busch notes that Ronald Reagan quoted the Founding Fathers more than any of his four predecessors (Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter) combined. I would point out that Reagan also cited the Founders more than any of his four successors combined (George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama).

Quoting George Will again, “Ronald Reagan spoke to the future in the accents of the past.” He was well-grounded. He didn’t need fancy footwork or clever “positioning.” He knew who he was and what he stood for. And so did we.

Faith in God, faith in the America as “A Shining City on a Hill,” a deep and abiding love for the American people, and a determination not to give in to threats or blandishments.  These were the sources of his strength. He called for a Banner of Bold Colors, not one of “pale pastels.”

“Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair,” said George Washington at the close of the Constitutional Convention. That, too was a Banner of Bold Colors.

It’s not surprising that so many candidates today want to emulate Reagan’s success. Then they should reject tricky pivoting and tacking toward the Washington Post. Instead, let them rally to Reagan’s Banner of Bold Colors.

Family Research Council Senior Fellow Bob Morrison served in the Reagan Administration and is the author of “Reagan’s Victory: How He Built His Winning Coalition.” This book will soon be available in pdf and audio formats on this website.

Thayer made the following observations about telemed abortions:

….  Telemed abortion is the practice by which an abortion doctor from a remote location simply presses a button, which opens a drawer containing the dangerous abortion pill, after a brief teleconference call with the woman.

Telemed abortion doesn’t only result in the death of an unborn child; it strips women of their dignity by denying them the courtesy of an in-person visit from a doctor concerned for their health and well-being. It risks their lives by sending them away with no support and a drug that has led to massive bleeding and hemorrhaging, infection and even death.

So what does Planned Parenthood, the “trusted friend of women,” love so much about telemed abortions? Low overhead costs.

My superiors justified telemed abortions, lauding the financial benefits of not having to worry about or pay for specialized equipment, staff and a traveling physician – all required with surgical abortions.

When I expressed my concerns, I was “let go,” supposedly because of “downsizing.”

So far, four Christian organizations on campus have been told by the university that they are in violation of the policy, and they are in danger of losing their registered student group status.  This comes after Vanderbilt University conducted an investigation of a Christian fraternity, Beta Upsilon Chi, and found the organization discriminated against a student based on sexual orientation.  Additionally, another group, the Christian Legal Society, was asked to remove Bible verses and the words, “Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior” from their constitution.

The real issue at stake here is religious liberty.  Denying an organization the right to worship freely or being able to stand up for what their faith teaches them is wrong, and it is persecution.  According to Professor Carol Swain, who advises the Christian Legal Society:

“There are people on campus who are very threatened by the idea of religious freedom and they would like to create an environment where no one hurts anyone else’s feelings – unless it’s Christians.”

What would our founding fathers think of what is happening at Vanderbilt?  They would probably think this is a travesty.  After all, they fled from the religious persecution in England by coming to America, where they could worship freely without being forced to attend the King’s church.

In fact, when our founding fathers drafted the Constitution, they made certain that religious liberty would be protected in our country.  The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Bold, emphasis mine)

Vanderbilt’s decision to ban student religious organizations is a violation of the First Amendment, but it is limiting the group’s ability to worship freely, as our founding fathers envisioned.

Dear Friends,

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) is one of America’s most respected and learned journals. It is a forum in which some of our finest minds publish articles on everything from “Evidence for the extraterrestrial origin of a natural quasicrystal” to “In-feed antibiotic effects on the swine intestinal microbiome.” To a non-scientist like me, even the titles are intimidating.

In the most recent edition of PNAS, three Stanford University scholars argue that both liberals and conservatives engage in a “dramatic projection of one’s own views onto those of Jesus.” While it is only human for us to want the Savior to confirm our own predilections, there can be no doubt that, objectively, Jesus affirmed the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, Old Testament teachings about human sexuality and personhood within the womb, or the dignity of every person such that liberty — religious, political, and economic — should be the normal state of society.

As theologian Andreas Kostenberger wrote in his recent FRC booklet, “The Bible’s Teaching on Marriage and the Family:”

Marriage and the family were God’s idea, and as divine institutions they are not open to human renegotiation or revision … the Bible clearly teaches that God instituted marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman, a lifelong union of two partners created in God’s image to govern and manage the earth for him. In keeping with his wonderful design, the Creator will normally bless a married couple with children, and it is his good plan that a family made up of a father, a mother, and several children witness to his glory and goodness in a world that has rejected the Creator’s plan and has fashioned a variety of God-substitutes to fill the void that can properly be filled only by God himself.

We all like it when people agree with us. Yet it’s more important that we agree with the God of the Bible, Whose path for human relationships and sexuality is clear in His written Word and evidenced in the natural order.  It’s up to each of us to choose whether or not to take it.

Sincerely,
Rob Schwarzwalder
Senior Vice President
Family Research Council

P.S. FRC President Tony Perkins has been offering some sage counsel about the current state of American politics in a series of recent television interviews. To view Tony’s comments, click here.

Educational Freedom and Reform
Homeschooling

• “Why Urban, Educated Parents Are Turning to DIY Education,” Linda Perlstein, Newsweek
• “‘Tim Tebow homeschool law’ gains momentum in Virginia,” Valerie Strauss, The Washington Post
• “Catholic Homeschool Group’s Appeal will be Argued Before the Indiana Civil Rights Commission (ICRC),” Christian NewsWire

Legislation and Policy Proposals

• “College Debt and 2012,” Chris Gacek, Family Research Council
• “The State of Education,” Chester E. Finn, Jr., National Review Online
• “Why You Should Postpone College,” Brett Nelson, Forbes
• “Jindal’s Education Moon Shot,” The Wall Street Journal
• “Golden Missed Opportunity,” Larry Sand, City Journal
• “Redeeming Higher Education,” James R. Stoner, Jr., Claremont Review of Books
• “Our Inequality,” Peter David Gross, The Examined Life

Government Reform
Regulation

• “Geithner Says ‘Basic Elements’ of Finance Reform Done This Year,” Ian Katz, Bloomberg
• “Obama Comes Around on U.N. Reform,” Brett Schaefer, National Review Online
• “Trust-Busting and Trusting in the Administrative State,” Michael Fragoso, The Public Discourse
• “It’s Working in Walker’s Wisconsin,” Christian Schneider, City Journal

Waste/Fraud/Abuse

• “Average federal pay matches Microsoft,” Andrew Biggs, The Enterprise Blog
• “The Debt Trap, Part (1),” Michael S. Greve, Library of Law and Liberty
• “Is President Obama Creating A Nation Of Dependents?,” John Merline, Investor’s Business Daily
• “Dining with Vultures: Rent-to-Own, the Feds, and the Housing Sector,” Jay Weiser, The American

Health Care
Abstinence

• “Abortion-contraception arguments are really about teen sex,” Sarah S. Brown, The Washington Post
• “New sex education standards released,” Kimberly Hefling, Associated Press
• “‘Safe sex’ is a myth, & CDC stats prove it,” Kelly Boggs, Baptist Press

Conscience Protection

• “ObamaCare and Religious Freedom,” Timothy M. Dolan, The Wall Street Journal
• “Respecting religious exemptions,” Editorial, The Washington Post
• “An Unconscionable Threat to Conscience,” Donald P. Condit, The Acton Institute
• “Ruling on Contraception Draws Battle Lines at Catholic Colleges,” Denise Grady, New York Times

Health care reform: Political and Legislative efforts

• “The Wyden-Ryan proposal-a foundation for realistic Medicare reform,” Joseph Antos, The New England Journal of Medicine
• “If we knew then what we know now about healthcare reform,” Andrew Biggs, The Enterprise Blog
• “The HHS Contraception Mandate vs. the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” Ed Whelan, National Review Online
• “Free Birth Control vs. Freedom of Religion,” Wesley J. Smith, National Review Online
• “The Obama Mandate to Catholics: “To Hell With You?”,” Paul G. Kengor, The Center for Vision and Values

Homosexuality

• “Gay marriage gaining momentum in WA Legislature,” Rachel La Corte, Associated Press
• “Catholic Conference chides same-sex marriage supporters,” John Wagner, The Washington Post
• “The Same-Sex “Marriage” Proposal is Unjust Discrimination,” Patrick Lee, The Public Discourse
• “Reclaiming the Rhetoric of ‘Family’: 3 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Recognition in the Military Matters,” Katie Miller, The Huffington Post
• “UN Secretary General Tells African Nations to Stop Discriminating Against Homosexuals,” Stefano Gennarini, J.D., Turtle Bay and Beyond
• “Vulgarity and Vengeance,” Anthony Esolen, The Catholic Thing

Human Life and Bioethics
Abortion

• “Feathers Ruffled at Greater DC Girl Scout Council,” Cathy Ruse, Family Research Council
• “A New Study Finds Abortion Safer than Giving Birth,” Krystle Weeks, Family Research Council
• “Roe v. Wade: A Constitutional and Moral Tragedy,” Sen. Orrin Hatch
• “The mental toll of abortion,” Jeanne Monahan, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
• “Roe v. Wade and Equal Opportunity,” Ken Thomas, The Ashbrook Center
• “The Mounting Tragedy of Missing Baby Girls,” Matt Ridley, The Wall Street Journal
• “The Vision of a Pro-Life Generation,” Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review Online
• ” Pro-Life Is Prettier: Beauty in the Pro-Life Movement,” Katrina Fernandez, Patheos
• “The Unbearable Wrongness of Roe,” Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Public Discourse
• “Two Cheers for Pro-Life Europe,” Austin Ruse, The Catholic Thing
• “Focusing on the fetus changes abortion debate,” Margaret Somerville, The National Post

Bioethics and Biotechnology

• “Archbishop Chaput Blasts Growing Eugenics in Fetal Medicine,” Gerard Nadal, LifeNews.com

Euthanasia and End of Life Issues

• “Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists,” Michael Cook, BioEdge
• “‘Incompatible with Life’ is a judgment not a diagnosis,” Nancy Mayer-Whittington, LifeSiteNews.com

Stem Cell Research

To read about the latest advances in ethical adult stem cell research, keep up with leading-edge reports from FRC’s Dr. David Prentice, click here.

• “The Stem Cell Debates,” The New Atlantis
• “The End of Embryonic Stem Cell Research?,” Nathaniel Peters, First Things
• “Stacking the deck on the stem-cell program,” Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times
• “Politics obscure science of stem-cell debate,” David Baugher, The St. Louis Beacon

Human Trafficking

• “The Human Face Of Modern Slavery,” Corban Addison, The Huffington Post
• “Human trafficking: Hunting the predator,” Elizabeth Prann, Fox News
• “‘All I Was Good for Was Sex’,” Nathan Clarke, Christianity Today

Women’s Health

• “When the State Took Away My Life: North Carolina Grapples with Sterilization Practice,” Karen Swallow Prior, Christianity Today
• “How the CDC is overstating sexual violence in the US,” Christina Hoff Sommers, American Enterprise Institute
• “The Vitrification Fertility Option,” Rebecca Dana, Newsweek

Marriage and Family
Adoption

• “The Joy of Pretty Things,” Nancy French, National Review Online
• “Va. legislators to consider gay adoption issue,” Zinie Chen Sampson, Associated Press
• “‘Too old to keep baby’,” Linda Fort, Get Reading
• “Utah adoption bill aims to give unwed fathers more protections,” Brooke Adams, The Salt Lake Tribune

Family Economics

• “The Keystone Pipeline, Energy, and Family Economics,” Chris Gacek, Family Research Council
• “The Tax Rate Scandal,” Mark W. Hendrickson, The Center for Vision and Values
• “Beyond Blue Part One: The Crisis of the American Dream,” Walter Russell Mead, Via Meadia
• “The “Immobile Class”: On College and Work in the New America,” Owen Strachan

Family Structure

• “The New American Divide,” Charles Murray, The Wall Street Journal
• “The Untapped Potential of the At-Home Mom,” Suanne Camfield, Christianity Today
• “Child’s Play,” Carrie Lukas, National Review Online

Media
Pornography

• “House of Lies’ and Mainstream Pornography,” Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic
• “Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act: 5 Things to Know About H.R. 1981,” Connor Adams Sheets, International Business Times
• “Should I Marry a Man with Pornography Struggles? My Response,” Russell D. Moore, Moore to the Point

Internet

• “SOPA Pro and Con,” Justin Shubow, FedSoc Blog

Media

• “Nudity on the Rise in Broadcast TV,” Parents Television Council
• “Damsels in Undress,” Sean Daly, New York Post

Religion and Public Policy
Religious Liberty

• “Christians Say Obama is Trampling Religious Liberty,” Todd Starnes, Fox News
• “On Religious Freedom, Years of Battles Ahead,” David Skeel, The Wall Street Journal
• “Parochial Schools And Peyote: How Illegal Drugs And Christian School Teachers Are Related,” Kevin Theriot, Alliance Defense Fund
• “Vanderbilt Univ. Christian Group Says It’s Being Forced Off Campus,” Stephanie Samuel, The Christian Post
• “Religious Liberty and Civil Society,” Yuval Levin, Ethics and Public Policy Center

Religion in America

• “John 3:16: Tim Tebow’s Verse?,” Robert Morrison, Family Research Council
• “What Will It Take To Transform The Mountains Of Culture?,” Chris Robertson, The Acton Institute
• “What the Bible Teaches About Capitalism,” Aryeh Spero, The Wall Street Journal
• “Anger, Bad-And Good?,” Austin Ruse, The Catholic Thing

Secularism

• “Stubborn Amish and Stubborn Atheists,” Peter Berger, The American Interest

International
Israel

• “Column One: The Zionist imperative,” Caroline Glick, The Jerusalem Post
• “Israel’s future: Risks or opportunities?,” Uri Dromi, The Miami Herald

International Economy and Family

• “The (Almost) Triumph of Offshore Balancing,” Christopher Layne, The National Interest
• “Why Growth Matters More than Debt,” Steve Conover, The American
• “Will German Politicians Wreck Europe To Save Their Own Skins?,” Walter Russell Mead, Via Meadia

Religious Persecution

• “Responding to Islamism and Persecution of the Church,” Rob Schwarzwalder, Family Research Council
• “The Muslim-American Muddle: Where Do Muslims Fit in American Society?,” Lecture, American Enterprise Institute
• “The Church Persecuted – 2011,” George J. Marlin, The Catholic Thing

Sharia law — U.S., foreign

• “Aquinas on Islam,” Matthew Hanley, The Catholic Thing
• “Slaughterhouse Rules,” Elli Fischer, Jewish Daily Ideas
• “Opposition mounts to growing use of sharia law in Britain,” Barnabas Aid

The Courts
Constitutional Issues

• “Wagner’s cautionary tale of latest example of political bias,” Chris Gacek, The Cedar Rapids Gazette
• “Liberty Forum on the Constitutional Amendment Process,” Mike Rappaport, Library of Law and Liberty
• “Beyond Originalism: Conservative Declarationism and Constitutional Redemption,” Ken I. Kersch, Maryland Law Review

Other News of Note

• “The King’s Summit,” Robert Morrison, Human Events
• “Social Justice, Institutions, and Communities,” Adam J. MacLeod, The Public Discourse
• “Patrick Henry, Patriot,” Gary S. Smith, The Center for Vision and Values

Book reviews

• “Trials and Tribulations of Girl Land,” Krystle Weeks, Family Research Council
• “Talking About REAL Marriage,” Susan Wise Bauer, Christianity Today
• “Eden’s Bridge:  the Marketplace in God’s Kingdom, a Partner Spotlight,” Elise Hilton, PovertyCure
• “The Humanity of Christ Matters,” Russell D. Moore, Moore to the Point

Under the Wikipedia entry “What would Reagan do?” one can find the following summary:

The phrase on occasion has been used by iconoclastic conservatives to claim the mantle of Reagan as they criticize mainline conservatives, by some liberal commentators as a way of chastising Republicans whom also they believe fall short of Reagan’s ideals and also by non-partisan public policy organizations that seek to emulate aspects of Reagan’s leadership.

But one Reagan historian doesn’t find that surprising at all. Professor and author Paul Kengor notes that Reagan won the presidency in 1980 by defeating an incumbent in a landslide, winning 44 of 50 states, and then got reelected in 1984 by sweeping 49 of 50 states. Few presidents enjoyed such decisive success at the ballot box and, more broadly, in changingAmerica and the world for the better.

Tomorrow, Dr. Paul Kengor will address the question, “What did Ronald Reagan believe?” Or, even more specific: What would Reagan do if he were president right now?

Dr. Kengor will lay out the underlying thinking that formed the basis of Ronald Reagan’s political philosophy and the policies (foreign and domestic) that he pursued. Dr. Kengor will share what he calls his “Reagan Seven;” that is, seven beliefs that undergirded Reagan’s actions as president and as a public figure. These core principles get us closer to the crux of what Ronald Reagan’s conservatism was about, and what his GOP emulators today might take to heart.

To RSVP for tomorrow’s event, click here: What is a Reagan Conservative?

There is little doubt that the legislature has the power to engage in such social engineering if it chooses to do so. Such official affirmation of homosexual conduct would be a way for politicians to appease the two to three percent of the population who self-identify as “gay” or “lesbian” and placate others who do not grasp the implications of this massive social change.

But same-sex “marriage” is not being sold as a political payoff, or even (primarily) as a social service providing a package of legal and financial benefits to this population. Instead, advocates of redefining marriage argue that a belief in “civil rights” and “equality” actually compel such a radical redefinition of our most fundamental social institution.

Yet it was only six years ago that the state’s Supreme Court, in the case of Andersen v. King County, rejected such arguments in upholding the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act.

Justice (now Chief Justice) Barbara Madsen pointed out in her majority opinion that while the U. S. Supreme Court has declared marriage to be a “fundamental right,” it has done so only in the context of marriages between a man and a woman, since they relate to “procreation and the survival of the human race.”

In his concurrence, Justice James M. Johnson noted that the only “inequality” in the current law is between different types of couples, not individuals. “Professed homosexuals, like all Washingtonians, are clearly allowed to marry in Washington.” Yet all individuals also face limits on their choice of marriage partner: “A person may not marry someone under age 17, may not marry if already married, may not marry a close relative, and may not marry if ‘the parties are persons other than a male and a female.’ The last prohibition, like the bigamy/polygamy prohibition, is definitional.”

There is no question that opposite-sex couples are unique; as Justice Madsen noted, “[N]o other relationship has the potential to create, without third party involvement, a child biologically related to both parents.” The link between marriage and procreation “is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate,” nor by the fact that some same-sex couples raise children; “Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis” for treating opposite-sex couples uniquely.

Marriage serves not only to encourage the potentially procreative relationships of opposite-sex couples, but also to regulate them. Justice Madsen quoted a 2005 Indiana court decision which noted that procreation is sometimes accidental: “[The] institution of opposite-sex marriage both encourages such couples to enter into a stable relationship before having children and to remain in such a relationship if children arrive during the marriage unexpectedly.”

Not only are opposite-sex couples the only ones capable of natural procreation, but they also provide the best environment for child-rearing. As Justice Johnson wrote: “The legislature was offered evidence that children tend to thrive best in families consisting of mothers, fathers, and their biological children. … Direct comparisons between opposite-sex homes and same-sex homes further support the former as a better environment for children. For example, studies show an average shorter term commitment and more sexual partners for same-sex couples.”

Advocates of same-sex “marriage” regularly confuse one of the personal reasons why individual couples choose to marry – to express love and commitment – with the public purposes of marriage as a social institution. Justice Madsen was blunt in noting that “the right to marry is not grounded in the State’s interest in promoting loving, committed relationships. While desirable, nowhere in any marriage statute of this state has the legislature expressed this goal.”

Some people argue that other changes in the institution of marriage, as well as technologies which have separated sexual relations from procreation, mean that the historic definition of marriage can be abandoned. But as Justice Johnson noted, quoting a brief submitted by Families Northwest, “[W]idespread contraceptive and abortion rights may actually make more salient, not less, the traditional role of marriage in encouraging men and women to make the next generation that society needs. The more … choice individuals have about whether or not to have children, the more need there is for a social institution that encourages men and women to have babies together, and creates the conditions under which those children are likely to get the best care.”

In 2006, Justice Madsen said for the court, “We conclude that limiting marriage to opposite sex-couples furthers the State’s interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both.”

The legislature would be wise to conclude the same today.

Kristal Dahlager, now a third year law student at Liberty University, has a remarkable story. Her mother was advised to essentially abort her because of a serious prenatally diagnosed problem. Yet Kristal, a thriving, beautiful and joyful young woman, survived and thrived. Click the ‘play’ button below to see to her tell the story: