Tag Archives: Robert P. George

News

What is marriage? A lecture with Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P. George

4 Comments

When it comes to defending marriage, there are two ways to argue. My way is to argue using evidence that same-sex marriage harms society by harming children, by harming public health and safety and harming liberties, especially religious liberty. But there is another way to argue, a more philosophical way. And that’s the way that three scholars have argued in a new book called “What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense“.

Here are the authors:

Sherif Girgis is a Ph.D. student in philosophy at Princeton University and a J.D. candidate at Yale Law School. After graduating Phi Beta Kappa and summa cum laude from Princeton, where he won prizes for best senior thesis in ethics and best thesis in philosophy, as well as the Dante Society of America’s national Dante Prize, he obtained a B.Phil. in moral, political, and legal philosophy from the University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.

Ryan T. Anderson is William E. Simon Fellow at the Heritage Foundation and the editor of Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute. A Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude graduate of Princeton University, he is a Ph.D. candidate in political philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. He has worked as assistant editor of First Things and was a Journalism Fellow of the Phil­lips Foundation. His writings have appeared in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, First Things, the Weekly Standard, National Review, the New Atlantis, and the Claremont Review of Books.

Robert P. George is a Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School and McCormick Profes­sor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institu­tions at Princeton University. He is a member of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, and previously served on the President’s Council on Bioethics and as a presi­dential appointee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He is a former Judicial Fellow at the Supreme Court of the United States, where he received the Justice Tom C. Clark Award. He is a recipient of the United States Presidential Citizens Medal and the Honorific Medal for the Defense of Human Rights of the Republic of Poland.

And here is an academic publication that they wrote previously, which was the basis for the new book.

And here is a lecture they did explaining the book, in 3 parts.

Part 1 of 3:

Part 2 of 3:

Part 3 of 3:

This book is probably the most important book to come out in opposition to same-sex marriage so far, so it makes sense to watch the lecture and get an idea of how scholars at the very top of the academic tower make the case for natural marriage. If you leave marriage to the Comedy Channel leftists, you will never hear a real discussion of the issues.

News

Canadian student union leader says pro-lifers are all potential murderers

14 Comments

Story from Life Site News.

Excerpt:

Lakehead University Life Support (LULS), the Canadian campus pro-life club that recently lost its hard-won club status, is facing harsh opposition from board members of the Student Union (LUSU) – one of whom has compared the group to the murderer of late-term abortionist George Tiller – as the club seeks to regain its status.

The student union voted 7-6 on October 29th in favor of denying the pro-life group club status. The club had only won its status in February after fighting for two years to gain it.

On November 6th, LUSU Vice President of Finance Josh Kolic released a statement in which he called the effort to overturn the union’s decision an attempt to ‘hijack’ the democratic process.  He went on, further, to claim that the pro-life club “represents … the same mentality of those who gunned down Dr. George Tiller.”

[…]In Kolic’s statement, he claimed that denying the pro-life group club status was a “great victory for human rights.”  In his view, “the neutral stance is simply one that allows the individual woman herself to choose,” and, as such, he says this is the position that LUSU itself should take.

He went on to ask the student body for “help [to] restore democracy and the spirit of human rights to the Lakehead University Student Union” by attending their next meeting or emailing “a deputation to the board as to why a woman’s right to choose is important to you.”

How ironic: a pro-abortion person calling pro-lifers murderers. It seems to me that it is pro-abortionists who advocate the actual murder of hundreds of millions of innocent unborn children. And remember the recent murder of a pro-life activist by a pro-abortion zealot. And here’s a recent attempted murder of a pro-lifer. Those are from the last few months alone.

Let me ask you a question. How many pro-abortion people do you suppose have read a book like “Defending-Life-Against-Abortion-Choice” by Dr. Francis J. Beckwith, published by Cambridge University Press, or a book like “Embryo: A Defense of Human Life“, published by Princeton University’s Robert P. George? Are pro-abortionists informed about the case for the pro-life position?

Well, consider how they censor the pro-life clubs on campus. Do you think they are open-minded and tolerant of opposing views? I can probably make a more persuasive case for the pro-abortion view than militant pro-abortionists like Josh Kolic can. I’ve actually heard their arguments presented in debates that I chose to listen to. Josh wants to censor opposing views. That is pure intolerance.

Further reading

Suppression of pro-lifers is quite common in Canada.

Here are some resources on the topic of abortion.

Notice how pro-lifers focus on reason and evidence, while pro-abortionists focus on the use of force, to one degree or another, in order to get their way.

Commentary

Robert P. George explains why same-sex marriage is morally wrong

1 Comment

Famous Princeton University professor writing in the Wall Street Journal. (H/T ECM)

This is the best single article I’ve read on same-sex marriage.

Excerpt:

If marriage is redefined, its connection to organic bodily union—and thus to procreation—will be undermined. It will increasingly be understood as an emotional union for the sake of adult satisfaction that is served by mutually agreeable sexual play. But there is no reason that primarily emotional unions like friendships should be permanent, exclusive, limited to two, or legally regulated at all. Thus, there will remain no principled basis for upholding marital norms like monogamy.

A veneer of sentiment may prevent these norms from collapsing—but only temporarily. The marriage culture, already wounded by widespread divorce, nonmarital cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing will fare no better than it has in those European societies that were in the vanguard of sexual “enlightenment.” And the primary victims of a weakened marriage culture are always children and those in the poorest, most vulnerable sectors of society.

Candid and clear-thinking advocates of redefining marriage recognize that doing so entails abandoning norms such as monogamy. In a 2006 statement entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” over 300 lesbian, gay, and allied activists, educators, lawyers, and community organizers—including Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and prominent Yale, Columbia and Georgetown professors—call for legally recognizing multiple sex partner (“polyamorous”) relationships. Their logic is unassailable once the historic definition of marriage is overthrown.

You know, there’s no law that says that we could not strengthen marriage if we wanted to. Just saying. Children do better when conceived and raised in stable environments with a strong exclusive bond between two opposite-sex parents. Do we care about children’s welfare? If so, then we need strong marriages.