Americans are confused about the true nature of marriage “because we live in an era of big government,” said Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, an economist who studies love and marriage and the founder of The Ruth Institute.

“Big government did not create marriage,” said Morse, who recently spoke to students at The King’s College in New York City, as part of the school’s Distinguished Visitors Series. “Government does not create marriage. Marriage is a natural reality that preexists the state.”

Morse has spent her career actively speaking against a declining understanding of lifelong, committed marriages in America. “The human is wired for community with others,” she said. “Christianity teaches us that man is not made to be alone. The human is made for love.”

Through her work, Morse strives to show Americans that civil society requires a traditional understanding of marriage. In fact, she said, “Statistically, the most dangerous situation for the child is to live with a cohabitating, single parent.”

Morse stressed that same-sex relationships are likewise unsuited to proper parenting, adding that different sexes are not interchangeable in a relationship. “A two-male couple is different from a two-female couple is different from a man-and-woman couple,” she said, pointing out that each mix has different properties, a fact that must be taken into account from the child’s perspective.

Expressing concern that a redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples is “a step too far,” Morse said, “For the state to make a proclamation that mothers and fathers are intrinsically interchangeable and that nobody’s allowed to say otherwise, that’s not really true.”

According to Morse, marriage is a natural reality, which “every society has known.” To believe that government can give or take away marriage, she said, is “statist hubris.”

“Libertarian theory and conservative theory,” Morse said, “generally has been very weak in its understanding of civil society.” She added that though the proponents of these philosophies can speak about the free market or constitutional division of powers, “What we don’t understand is how the civil society functions on its own.”

Marriage creates a structure for civil society, Morse told students, because “when a man and a woman have a child together, what you’re asking is that they invest a long period of time cooperating in order to bring that child up into adulthood.”

Chris Ross is a student at The King’s College.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton is taking it from all sides now.

Throckmorton, an associate professor of psychology at Grove City College, has long been outspoken on the subject of homosexuality. He has been one of the few voices in academia and in professional associations such as the American Psychological Association to uphold the biblical view on homosexuality. For these positions, he is something of a pariah in those academic and professional circles—all the while continuing to participate in their conferences and publish in their journals.

(Disclosures: Warren Throckmorton has written for WORLDmag.com, my daughter graduated from Grove City College, and I have served on the board of an Exodus-affiliated ex-gay ministry.)

Now, however, he is taking shots from the conservative side. When Uganda considered a law that would punish homosexual behavior with the death penalty, Throckmorton spoke out against it. Some conservative activists in this country spoke out in favor of the law, or said that Americans should be silent on the issue and let Ugandans decide without U.S. interference. These same activists saw Throckmorton’s opposition to the law as an indication that he was going “soft” on homosexuality, a charge Throckmorton denies. He told me, “I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, but I simply think it is wrong to execute people for engaging in homosexual behavior.”

Throckmorton’s position upset conservative activist Peter LaBarbera, who told OneNewsNow, the news service of the American Family Association, that Throckmorton has lost his faith in “God’s ability to change people.”

Again, Throckmorton denies the charge. He said LaBarbera’s accusation is “flat wrong” and “ignores the body of my work and efforts to bring evangelical concerns to the professions. I have been working to make the professional bodies aware that religious identity is powerful and for many evangelicals so vital that it overwhelms all other considerations.”

But Throckmorton’s position is nuanced. He does believe in change, but added that the data are clear that change comes more easily for some than for others. Throckmorton also said he knows there are many people who have ceased homosexual behavior and are now either celibate or live in faithful, married, heterosexual lives. But he added that even these people sometimes experience same-sex attractions.

“Homosexual behavior is sin,” Throckmorton said. “All sexual behavior outside of marriage violates God’s teaching. But acknowledging this doesn’t mean that all desire and temptation suddenly go away. An honest look at the scientific data simply don’t support that conclusion.”

I have served on the board of an ex-gay ministry, I have written about the issue for almost two decades, and I have many gay friends and ex-gay friends. I have looked at this issue from many sides, and I have come to appreciate the position of men like Peter LaBarbera, who believe that there is a “gay agenda” and a very fierce and ugly ideological and political and cultural war underway. This is the fight that LaBarbera is waging.

But it is also true that there are many wounded and struggling gay people and their families. They are not fighting a cultural war; they are fighting a war against depression, suicide, and emotional and spiritual pathologies. This is the fight that Warren Throckmorton is waging.

I’ve been involved in both fights. They are both important fights. And they are related fights. But they are different fights.

The Peter LaBarberas of the world want the Warren Throckmortons to say things like: “Quit your homosexuality and embrace Jesus. It’s as simple as that.” The Warren Throckmortons of the world respond: “It may be as simple as that, but it’s not as easy as that.”

I’m not vouching for every jot and tittle of what Throckmorton thinks, has written, or believes, but I interviewed him at some length after this controversy broke, and in addition to the statements I have already cited, he concluded with this: “There is no way you can look at my plain statements on biblical orthodoxy and call me gay-affirming. But I believe that many who engage in the culture war regarding homosexuality stigmatize and demonize struggling homosexuals. They are hurting our ability to reach gay people for Christ. I believe homosexual behavior is sin. But so is failing to tell the truth. So is blaming every conceivable social pathology on gays.”

Again, I appreciate the work of Peter LaBarbera and others who have fought the “gay agenda” for years. But I don’t know how much more a biblically orthodox person could want from Warren Throckmorton than these clear and unambiguous statements. Peter LaBarbera and his fellow travelers in the “pro-family movement” are picking on the wrong guy.

Many questioned the wisdom of Focus on the Family spending tons of money on Super Bowl ads. Similarly, many wondered whether the indirect pro-life message and the playful banter between Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam, could possibly make a difference in someone’s life.

Ted Slater shares a letter Focus received from a woman named Susan, who had been considering an abortion:

“I saw the ad during the Super Bowl and it stuck in my head. I feel like that commercial was made to reach out to me.

“Later that week I googled it and watched the ad over and over. Then I went to your website and watched the related interview. I felt drawn to reach out to you and I am so glad that I did. You may think that all you did was email me back, but you did so much more than that!!! You gave me hope and encouragement. You let me know that if I need help it’s out there. (I went to the related website you suggested in your email.) You reminded me that I can’t be perfect, but God loves me.

“You also gave me a wake up call. Why was I worrying about what the baby’s father wanted me to do? I am always trying to make other people happy. I kept thinking that unless I have an abortion, he won’t be happy. Well, you put the focus back where it belongs. It doesn’t matter what makes him happy, or me happy for that matter. It’s about what will make God happy.”

Read Susan’s entire letter here.

Slater, who is the editor of Focus on the Family’s Boundless, also pointed out that Susan’s story was just one of many: “Because of the Super Bowl ad, more than 1.5 million people have visited FocusOnTheFamily.com to watch a video of the full story hinted at in the ad.  And surprisingly (to me, at least) the ad itself — a light and friendly affirmation of life — has ‘caused over 5 million viewers to reconsider their view of the legality/morality of abortion.’”

HT: Tim Challies

A new study suggests that today’s white women seem less interested in having children than previous generations. According to the figures analyzed by the University of New Hampshire in a new demographic study, white women increasingly are delaying having children and having smaller families, while growing numbers of Hispanic women are having large families at conventional childbearing ages. As these trends continue, America will likely have a white minority by 2050.

“Census projections suggest America may become a minority-majority country by the middle of the century,” said Kenneth Johnson, a sociology professor at New Hampshire. According to the report, whites currently make up two-thirds of the total U.S. population, but the number of white women of prime childbearing age—20-39 years old—is in decline, dropping 19 percent from 1990.

“It looks like ‘majority’ births would drop below 50 percent around 2012,” said Carl Haub, senior demographer for the Population Reference Bureau.

The researchers also discovered that fertility rates were higher among Hispanics, averaging three children per woman, compared to non-Hispanic white women, who average of just under two children each (1.87).

The research should serve as a “wake-up” for denominations, churches, and Christian ministries serving predominantly white communities. If those institutions do not begin to reach Latinos and Hispanics successfully they are headed for significant decline or extinction. On Sunday mornings or Wednesday nights or at your campus ministry, if you look out at the audience and it’s predominantly white your are looking at an end of era if these demographic trends hold.

The study also indicates that birth rates among black women have declined as well. Black women are now averaging 2.13 children per woman. The sad truth is that black birth rates have been assaulted by an abortion genocide that the black church has been unaware of until recent years.

The interesting question is why do white women seem less and less interested in having children in America? Based on my anecdotal observations from my travels to Christian colleges and involvement with youth ministries, there does not seem to be any difference in how young Christian women think about children and family than non-Christians of the same age and class. Has the backlash against women’s subjugation in the past created a new problem for the future?

Delaying having children and having small families for Christians seems to come into conflict with how many Christians have historically reflected on God’s design for marriage as a sex-based institution between a man and woman for the purpose of uniting the couple as “one flesh” and procreation (”be fruitful and multiply”). This may seem like a stretch but the birth rate decline among white women has a simple marital solution if people are willing to make different lifestyle choices.

As of this morning, Angie Jackson’s RU-486 induced abortion has been viewed on YouTube more than 140,000 times. She said she filmed herself in the midst of an RU-486 abortion to demystify the procedure. Four weeks pregnant, she signed off saying, “I hope everyone has a great and godless day. Peace.”

Developed in 1980 by the French pharmaceutical firm Roussel Uclaf, RU-486 is the early name for mifepristone, which is taken in pill form to induce abortion up to nine weeks following a woman’s last menstrual cycle prior to conception. Mifepristone accounts for approximately 2.5 million abortions in China each year. With aid from the Rockefeller Foundation, the Chinese firm Hua Lian Pharmaceutical Company upgraded its production facilities and won U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval in 2000 to sell the drug in the United States. The non-profit Population Council Inc., founded by John D. Rockefeller III in 1952, licenses Danco Laboratories to distribute mifepristone in the United States as Mifeprex.

According to Jackson’s YouTube video, she received help from Planned Parenthood in obtaining her RU-486 abortion. A federal aid recipient, Planned Parenthood calls these “medication abortions” and has a web page featuring a video with soothing music to describe the procedure. Jackson said, “I want people to know that it’s out there, that if you need this, there’s non-surgical options available especially in the earliest stage of pregnancy.”

Thanks to an Obama administration order last week, a non-surgical option will now be available on all U.S. military bases at taxpayer expense in the form of the “morning after pill,” which keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. Opponents fear this is a slippery slope toward eventually providing RU-486 abortions on military bases.

The Rockefeller Foundation, the Population Council, and Planned Parenthood have long been associated with progressive policy-making going back to the eugenics movement (i.e. efforts to improve the “quality” of the human population through efforts like involuntary sterilization). Following World War II and the revelation of Hitler’s horrific eugenics activities, the U.S. eugenics movement shifted focus. In “Morons, Imbeciles, and Idiots: A History of Modern Eugenics,” a paper submitted for an upcoming conference at Grove City College,” Dr. Jason Edwards wrote, “[I]t is worth noting at least two contemporary arenas linked to America’s eugenic past: the modern birth control movement and genetics.” Obama’s order is a descendant of America’s eugenic past.

So too is Angie Jackson, who calls herself “Angie the Anti-theist.” Please pray for her.

Breaking news this afternoon:

A federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld the use of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments on Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who claimed the references to God disrespect his religious beliefs.

“The Pledge is constitutional,” Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. “The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded.”

Upon hearing of the decision, Newdow’s response was, “Oh man, what a bummer.”

The Supreme Court has decided to take a case that may change the boundaries for types of speech protected by the First Amendment.

The case was brought by a Maryland man whose son’s 2006 funeral was picketed by members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan. Members of the “church” consist of “pastor” Fred W. Phelps Sr. and his family who preach a false doctrine that basically claims American soldiers are dying in combat because of this country’s increasingly tolerant attitude toward homosexuals. “Thank God for dead soldiers” is just one of the more outrageous signs displayed by members of the Westboro church at services for some of our war dead.

I put “pastor” and “church” in quotations on purpose. Others—one thinks especially of “pastors” who preached segregation and barred blacks from their “churches” at one time—have caused ridicule to be directed at believers in God, but the Phelps case may descend to an even lower level of evil.

The history of the case is this: A jury in Baltimore awarded Albert Snyder more than $10 million in damages. The amount was reduced on appeal and the case was eventually thrown out by the 4th Circuit Court in Richmond, Va. That panel of three judges said the picket signs could not be reasonably understood to be referring directly to Snyder and his late son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder. The court said as distasteful as Phelps’ rhetoric is, the expressions are part of a national debate on homosexuality and so it is protected speech.

I called Nat Hentoff, who is regarded by many as an authority on the First Amendment and a fierce defender of all sorts of outrageous speech. Hentoff believes speech that might be construed as leading a person to act “is a clear disturbance of the peace at a religious or any kind of event” and thus “is not protected by the First Amendment.”

Hentoff is right. The venue for military funerals is not a college campus or a political rally. Very often it is a church or synagogue. Even if it is a secular venue, the sexual behavior or orientations of dead soldiers and their families are unknown to the Phelpses, who are using a family’s grief to advance a judgmental attitude that is rejected in the Scripture in which they claim to believe. Someone should remind them that the Devil could quote Scripture, too.

Several years ago, members of the Phelps family picketed a prayer breakfast in Topeka, Kan., at which I was the main speaker. Sitting next to me was then-Kansas Gov. (now Health and Human Services Secretary) Kathleen Sebelius. I was vaguely familiar with the Phelpses but had never seen them up close and I asked the governor about them. I recall her saying, “Oh, don’t worry about them. They picket everybody.” At first I found them faintly amusing, but upon reflection I consider them deeply offensive, un-American, and anti-Christian.

My speech was not curtailed and neither was theirs. The big difference was that the event at which I spoke was quite different from a funeral. Suggesting that a member of the military died because God is judging America for the way it treats homosexuals is worse than outrageous. It is the moral equivalent of crying “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire, which by the way is not protected speech.

The Supreme Court was right to take this case. It should rule in favor of the Snyder family and put a stop to Fred Phelps and his spiritually corrupt family. They are by no decent standard serving God. In fact, quite a good case could be made that they are in service to God’s adversary.

© 2010 Tribune Media Services Inc.

Given the large number of private and parochial schools in the U.S., this type of story is sure to be played out repeatedly:

The archbishop of Denver on Tuesday defended a decision by a Catholic school not to allow two children to continue as students because their parents are a lesbian couple.

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput said it was a “painful situation,” but the decision by Sacred Heart of Jesus parish school in Boulder was in line with church teachings.

Chaput said the school told the parents that one of the children could complete kindergarten and the other could complete preschool, but neither could continue after that.

…In his written statement Tuesday, Chaput said the parents of Catholic school students are expected to agree with church beliefs, including those forbidding sex between anyone other than married, heterosexual couples.

“The church cannot change these teachings because, in the faith of Catholics, they are the teachings of Jesus Christ,” he said.

I would have thought that when Big Brother finally came it would be against our wills.

On the other hand, I do remember in third grade when Soeur St. Edouard de la Croix told us the following story about our counterparts in the Soviet Union schools.

She said the teachers there would put the little Soviet tykes through an instructional exercise. They would tell the children to pray to God for candy. Then they would have them close their eyes at their desks, as teachers quietly went around the room putting a piece of candy on each desk. Then, the teachers would exclaim, “Open your eyes! Look, God answered your prayer!”

Some clever child would inevitably say, “No, teacher. I peeked and saw you put the taffy on my desk.” The teacher would close in for the kill: “That’s right, little Igor Ivanovich. Now you understand that everything good that we have comes from ourselves—there is no God.”

The surrendering of freedom and privacy is not that hard fought after all. Last week’s Newsweek has at least two articles that demonstrate the trick. One shows how our cell phones are “snitching” on us: Federal agents are almost routinely accessing our personal data and monitoring our comings and goings via the handy gadgets we keep in our pockets. Nobody likes this, but nobody is about to give up his or her cell phone, either.

A second example of easy surrender is the Google and Facebook phenomenon. No one has to pry personal information from us. We are not only sharing it outright with strangers but prostituting it to pay for the online services we received. Googling and social networking are free—but the Faustian price is that these services read everything about you so that they can target their ads to you with laser precision. We let them do it because it makes shopping so easy. Like Esau, we sell our souls for potage.

I have always assumed that when the time came we wouldn’t be able to buy or sell without the mark of the beast (Revelation 13:17-18), and it would be under duress. But maybe not. Maybe we will smile and say, “This is so convenient.”

To hear commentaries by Andrée Seu, click here.

Same-sex marriage was legalized today in the nation’s capital, making it the sixth US jurisdiction where the practice is legal.

The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act, which allowed same-sex couples to marry in Washington, was passed in December 2009, but because Washington is a federal district, the law had to undergo a congressional review until now.

Opponents of the bill filed court papers with Chief Justice John Roberts asking the Supreme Court to stop the law from taking effect so that they could hold a referendum on the issue. Roberts, however, denied the request, concluding that the “high court should defer to local matters in the federal district of Washington,” CNN reported.  He also stated that opponents can pursue a ballot initiative to give D.C. voters a chance to repeal the marriage act after it becomes law.

Currently, same-sex marriage is also legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont.