By Sarah Terzo – This is where Texas pro-lifers need to step up to the plate. There are women who will be having their babies who are no longer able to abort. This is a good thing. But we as pro-lifers need to be there for these women and children.
On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two highly anticipated rulings in same-sex marriage cases. First, the Court ruled that the federal government has to legally recognize the marriages of same-sex couples in those states that have legalized them. In a second decision, the Court declined to hear an appeal in defense of a California ballot initiative that had banned same-sex marriage on grounds that the nongovernmental party bringing the appeal lacked standing. For reasons discussed below, both decisions represent incremental steps that will ultimately lead the Court to consider whether same-sex marriage should be a right nationwide.
In order to force the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a ruling on the merits of same-sex marriage, advocates have filed lawsuits in Utah and Michigan.
Yesterday, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect a photographer’s decision not to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony even if it would violate the photographer’s deeply held religious beliefs.
In a world of religious diversity coupled with a common system of of commerce, the institution of a common day of rest and its enforcement would necessarily require coercive methods to prevent individuals from carrying out interpersonal business activities, and place greater pressure on observers of other days of rest to violate their conscience by working on their rest days.
On November 6, 2012 voters in many states had the opportunity to make decisions on a number of state laws through ballot measures. Voters in Maine, Maryland, and Washington voted in favor of measures that would legalize same-sex marriage. Voters in Minnesota rejected a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and voters in North Carolina voted to define marriage as solely existing between one man and one woman.
Sometime in the 4th Century BC, Aristotle wrote Nicomachean Ethics. The broad question of the book is how to achieve happiness.
My easily excited cousin, also a pastor’s son, would climb on the outdoor wall of the church and sing improvisational reggae in a Jamaican accent to the passerby, while dancing a little jig, repeating “Come to our church and be baptized! Be baptized in the name of the Lord!” Strangers would stare, but we would duck and hide,
The California Senate today voted in favor of a groundbreaking bill designed to prohibit counselors and therapists from telling young people it is possible to change same-sex attractions.
The real sleeper issue here, as it is with much of the political warfare of the present day, is money. Liberty magazine has consistently warned church organizations against taking state money. We have from the very beginning of the Faith-Based Initiative of the previous administration (an initiative still alive and kicking against the First Amendment establishment prick) warned that it is inimical to church-state separation for public monies to be used to advance any particular faith view. So it would seem a little ungrateful to the public purse for a church to object when the state applies generally applicable regulations to an operation it might tend to see as its pocket money project.