Matthew J. Franck is the Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute.
What the State essentially does, when it requires us to be parties to the lie that a man can marry a man, is to deny the anterior reality of marriage itself. It says, “Marriage is what we say it shall be,” and that implies, “Families are what we say they are,” and that implies, “There are no zones of natural authority outside the supervision and regulation and management of the State.”
Date posted: 2015-01-11
A New Jersey judge's contorted and nonsensical decision that the state is responsible for the federal government's failure to recognize same-sex marriage highlights the irrationality that permeates the campaign for "marriage equality."
Date posted: 2014-03-19
Marriage and religious freedom will stand or fall together.
Date posted: 2013-10-15
Kermit Gosnell has been the equivalent of the American slave-dealer--someone who has done work rendered absolutely necessary by the twisted laws of his regime, but who has nevertheless been ignored or regarded with unease, and even repulsion, by his fellow citizens.
Date posted: 2013-07-19
Michael Klarman's history of the push for same-sex marriage shows just how recently it's developed and how its leaders lack substantive arguments for the nature and purpose of marriage itself.
Date posted: 2013-02-12
The case for same-sex marriage, as articulated in a new book that debates the issue, still refuses to recognize that civil society needs real marriage, as it has always existed, to preserve itself.
Date posted: 2012-12-13
If tradition is not a good reason to limit marriage to a man and a woman, it is also not a good reason to limit it to only two people.
Date posted: 2012-02-20
Race and sex play qualitatively different roles in our interactions with each other, making sex rationally relevant to our social and political policies in a way that race is not.
Date posted: 2011-08-25
After publishing articles recently in the Washington Post and First Things, both arguing that the defenders of conjugal marriage between a man and a woman should not be tarred as irrational bigots, "haters," or "theocrats" by the advocates of same-sex marriage, I received e-mail messages from likeminded friends hailing me for my "courage." I was grateful for their appreciation, but a little mystified at what I took to be overstatement. I find little reason to hail the "courage" of someone who defends the consensus view of the whole history of human civilization -- that marriage is a bedrock social institution that unites a man and a woman in order to make a family -- as rational and well intended.
Date posted: 2011-06-20