Author: Penna Dexter

Penna Dexter
According to statistics from George Barna, 41 million Americans who describe themselves as “born-again Christians” are “unlikely” to vote in the November elections. His research, conducted in August and September, dug deeper into the reasons for these Christians’ complacency. Family Research Council’s daily news publication, The Washington Stand, reports that 68 percent of them said they’re not interested in politics, 57 percent don’t like either of the presidential candidates, 52 percent don’t think their vote will make a difference, and 48 percent of respondents cited concerns about manipulation of election results.
It’s not just the presidency that’s at stake. FRC’s president, Tony Perkins, encourages believers to pay attention and weigh in all the way down the ballot, warning that: “Control of the House and Senate hangs in the balance.” He points out that “Governors, state attorneys general, local school boards, even comptrollers are amassing major victories in protecting children from radical gender ideology, pushing back on corporate America’s woke agenda, fighting the Biden administration’s lawless overreach, and passing sweeping pro-life and pro-parent laws.”
FRC brought several speakers and pastors to Washington DC last weekend for its Pray, Vote Stand conference. Cornerstone Chapel Pastor Gary Hamrick told the crowd, “Let me tell you what happens when we are not involved in the political process: We open the door for every evil ideology to fill the vacuum.”
In Romans 13, we read that government is created and established by God. In our nation, we have the opportunity to influence the government by choosing our leaders. Christians who do not vote shirk a crucial responsibility for stewardship. The Left is ready to pass laws that will entrench its power and make elections pointless.
Another pastor, Jack Hibbs, told the DC audience we must take every opportunity God gives us to advance His kingdom. “And,” he said, “voting is the easiest.”
If you’re not planning to vote, he says, “you need to repent.”

Penna Dexter
The New York Times recently reported on an “emerging truth” among Christians. Correspondent Ruth Graham writes, “For the first time in modern American history, young men are now more religious than their female peers. They attend services more often and are more likely to identify as religious.”
This dynamic applies only to Christians who are part of Generation Z. (Gen Z currently encompasses ages 12-27.) A survey of over 5000 Americans done last year by the Survey Center on American Life at the American Enterprise Institute found that, in every other demographic, men were more likely than women to describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated. But, the study shows that within Gen Z, the opposite is the case. As The Times’ Ruth Graham puts it: “The men are staying in church, while the women are leaving at a remarkable clip.”
A recent Wall Street Journal article outlined the metrics in which young men “keep falling behind” their female peers. Fewer are attending college. Fewer are employed. Fewer are looking for work or obtaining workforce training. Fewer feel needed.  More report being lonely. More commit suicide.
One reason more young men are in church may be that many churches are intentionally speaking to these trends. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat writes, “It may be, then, that churches that seem like home to young men are particularly well positioned to do that kind of work — stabilizing and elevating men who are currently adrift and making them more appealing as potential spouses than any currently available force in either ‘normie’ or very online culture.”
The AEI survey shows 61 percent of Gen Z women identify as feminist. Perhaps they’re not as onboard with this “macho Christianity.” Mary Harrington, author of Feminism Against Progress, coined the term and says young men are attracted to “a Christianity that is prepared to fight, to struggle, to refuse therapeutic winsomeness.”
Hopefully, these guys will invite the girls back to church.

Penna Dexter
In these days, do you sometimes find yourself struggling to discern truth from lies? Do you sense that bedrock principles regarding culture and politics are being mercilessly challenged? Do sources of information you once found reliable now seem shaky?
We’re being targeted by a powerful propaganda technique called reality suppression. In a recent Substack article, author and filmmaker, Christopher Rufo unpacks how the Left suppresses reality in order to maintain “its control over the discourse.”
Chris Rufo explains: ”the technique of reality suppression is designed to persuade your opponent not to believe what is in front of him.”
He gives three examples. One is COVID. Where did the pandemic come from? If the evidence had you convinced or at least suspicious, that it was from a lab leak, it was deemed racist or too antagonistic toward China to say so. Skepticism of the vaccine was dismissed as anti-science, The possibility of natural immunity was dismissed.
Hence, either by censorship or intimidation, reality was suppressed.
The second example of reality suppression is critical race theory. Chris Rufo brought CRT to public attention and surfaced a massive body of evidence to show how it was being taught in schools. But the Left employed its media outlets to deny that CRT even exists.   “Pure reality suppression,” says Mr. Rufo. “taking something that is obviously real, that is substantiated by evidence and just using a blanket denial to say something that exists does not exist.”
Chris Rufo’s third example is immigration — massive numbers of illegals flowing across the border and into the interior of the country. The establishment media ignores or plays down the danger of criminals, specifically Venezuelan gang members bringing murder, drugs, and human trafficking into sanctuary cities like New York, places like Aurora, Colorado, and even suburbs around the country.
To fight reality suppression, Mr. Rufo says trust your own observation and intuition.  And seek out reliable sources of information.

Penna Dexter
There’s a growing concern in the U.S. and many other countries that people are not having enough babies.
The fertility rate in the U.S. is now approximately 1.62 births per female. This is well below replacement level fertility which is 2.1 births per female.
Why should we care about this?
New York Times columnist Ross Douthat worries a lot about the declining birthrate. In his book, THE DECADENT SOCIETY, he laments that “amid all of our society’s material plenty, one resource is conspicuously scarce. That resource is babies.” He writes frequently about “the grim consequences of an aging, childless future.”
The concern is frequently highlighted in other major news sources including Bloomberg, CNN Business, The Wall Street Journal, BBC, and The Economist, with headlines like, “Global fertility has collapsed with profound economic consequences.” 
Propelled by falling birthrates, the U.S. population is rapidly aging. As the number of productive workers shrinks and the population of elderly rises, we’ll face a shortage of workers to support the older generations. This accelerates the economic pressures on childbearing-aged couples.
There are several reasons for the declining birthrate. Couples are marrying past the peak age for human biological fertility, which is 22-24. And, increasingly, people are not marrying at all. One in four 40-year-old American adults have never been married.
To many Millennials and Gen Z-ers, having kids is one of many lifestyle choices. John Stonestreet, host of Breakpoint, says that in our current culture, “we make the choice to have children or not based on convenience, enjoyment, and personal fulfillment.” For many young women, “motherhood often lands on the losing side of that evaluation.”
Elon Musk has touted the work of Kevin Dolan, organizer of The Natal Conference who describes to his audiences “a problem that will define the next century…predicated on one question. Will your children have children of their own?”
All too often, the answer is ‘no.’

Penna Dexter
It wasn’t a joke or an anomaly when, last December, a video series celebrating the Dual Income No Kids — or DINK — lifestyle went viral. Young American couples argued that their freedom to take European vacations and their ability to splurge on pets and bulk purchases at Costco are preferable to being tied down to parenthood. They said that for this reason, they likely won’t have kids.
Add to that, a new survey from the insurance company, MassMutual, which finds that nearly 1 in 4 Millennials and GenZ-ers plan to remain childless for financial reasons. Of the 1000 adults surveyed, all of whom were in the 18-43 age group, 23 percent don’t plan to have children. They said they prefer the financial freedom they’ll have by remaining childless or they think they simply can’t afford the cost of raising kids.
In July, the Pew Research organization published results of a study on childlessness. According to their report, “When asked why they are unlikely to have children, the top answer for adults younger than 50 is that they just don’t want to.” Forty-four percent of this group said, “they want to focus on other things.” And 36 percent said, “they can’t afford to raise a child.”
It does cost a lot to raise children. And the price is rising. But why?
Timothy Carney, father of six and Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute wrote a book with the title: Family Unfriendly: How Our Culture Made Raising Kids Much Harder Than It Needs to Be. Extras, like lessons, camps, travel sports, are enriching, but not crucial to childrearing. Some things we think are necessities may not be.
The baby bust resulting from our country’s below-replacement birthrate has dire financial repercussions. Our society needs those people. When millions of couples make the stark choice never to have children the country’s future and their own will certainly be impoverished.

Penna Dexter
South Dakota is one of the most pro-life states in America. Before Roe v. Wade was overturned, South Dakota had enacted 111 statutes restricting abortion, the most of any state. Under a trigger law that took effect after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in 2022, abortion is illegal in South Dakota, except to save the life of the mother.
The state’s pro-lifers work hard to elect legislators who will protect the sanctity of human life. Now they are battling a proposed constitutional amendment that could reverse much of the pro-life legislation on the books in South Dakota.
In states that allow Initiative and Referendum, activists can go directly to voters and sometimes use deceptive language and tactics to win the PR battle and undo the work of legislators.
Post-Dobbs, six states, including purple Kansas, have enshrined abortion rights into their constitutions via ballot measure. This November, voters in nine states will consider similar pro-abortion initiatives. Make that ten states, if an extreme pro-abortion amendment ends up on the ballot in South Dakota
The passage of Amendment G could legalize most late-term abortions and reverse protections and restrictions on abortion enacted over the past 20 years.
Life Defense Fund has filed a lawsuit alleging various instances of wrongdoing during the process of gathering signatures to place Amendment G on the ballot.
An army of pro-lifers blanketed the state, hitting farmers markets and other outdoor events where paid signature-gatherers were at work. Folks even wore body cameras to record arguments being used to get people to sign. Evidence showing that Amendment G operatives were breaking laws or lying to get signatures could augment efforts to invalidate the ballot measure.
There’s also a well-organized education campaign to inform people in every South Dakota county of the extreme nature of Amendment G.
South Dakota could be a test case for defeating these pro-abortion initiatives.
To help, go to lifedefensefund.com.

Penna Dexter
Because of a new rule the Biden-Harris administration issued last spring, students in nearly half the states face some disturbing changes as they return to their schools and colleges. The rule is the result of a rewrite of Title IX of the Education Amendments, enacted in 1972 specifically to protect women and girls. Title IX forbids discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program. The new rule expands the definition of sex to include gender identity.
Title IX was a hard-won feminist goal that has resulted in groundbreaking opportunities and protections for women.
In issuing the rewrite, U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona stated, “For more than 50 years, Title IX has promised an equal opportunity to learn and thrive in our nation’s schools, free from sex discrimination.”
With the stroke of a pen, the president erased this progress.
Attorney Sarah Parshall Perry is the Heritage Foundation’s expert in Title IX.  She explains that “In over half the nation, girls and women will no longer have any sex-separated bathrooms, locker rooms, housing accommodations, or other educational programs.” Despite disclaimers, Sarah Perry says “Women’s sports are likely on the chopping block too.”
On August 1, the new Biden rule went into effect with no celebratory statement from the White House. Perhaps the administration didn’t want to call attention to the rule’s unpopularity. Twenty-six states and several membership organizations and individual plaintiffs filed a total of 10 lawsuits against the new rule. The lawsuits describe the administration’s action as illegal, unconstitutional, and “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Sarah Perry says “Ultimately, the bulk of the litigation over the Title IX rule seems destined for resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court.” Meanwhile, in most of the lawsuits, the new rule is temporarily enjoined from taking effect. There’s going to be some uncertainty out there. Hopefully the Court stops this nonsense.

Penna Dexter
You’ve heard of sanctuary cities. These are municipalities that refuse to cooperate with the federal government in enforcing immigration law, thus providing a sanctuary, or safe haven, for illegal aliens, helping them to break U.S. law.
Now, a California coastal town has declared itself a “sanctuary city for parental rights.”
Huntington Beach is a great surfing spot. In WalletHub’s poll of “Best Places to Raise a Family,” it ranks number 10. The city’s school district is highly rated.
Huntington Beach Mayor, Gracey Van Der Mark is hoping to keep it that way. She has introduced an ordinance to make Huntington Beach a “Parents Right to Know” city. She wants to protect parents’ rights to be informed if their child is going through a gender “transition.”
Mayor Van Der Mark told The Daily Signal, “California is one of the most dangerous states to raise a child.” This summer, Governor Gavin Newsome signed AB 1955 which prevents school districts from enforcing any policy that requires schools to disclose  information related to a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression without the pupil’s consent.
AB 1955 requires schools to conceal gender transitions from parents, overriding school board policies that mandate transparency.
Some school boards have complied by enacting policies forbidding transparency. In Northern California, the Chico Unified School Board’s “parental secrecy policy” requires schools to socially transition students upon their request and states that school staff should not reveal a transgender student’s gender identity to parents. A lawsuit against this policy is pending at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
State law currently violates parents’ constitutional rights by giving ”perfect strangers” discretion to facilitate a child’s gender transition. Huntington Beach’s mayor hopes that her “Right to Know” ordinance will pave the way for parents to sue the state to overturn AB 1955.
May God raise up courageous parents to oppose this arrogant, godless government.

Penna Dexter
School choice is a 2024 election issue and we need to hear more about it from candidates seeking public office. Gaining educational freedom is an important goal for families who live in neighborhoods with sub-par public schools. This is why black voters, more than any other race, support school choice. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Joshua Robertson, senior pastor of the Rock Church in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, encourages the presidential candidates in both major political parties to “listen to these constituents when it comes to educational freedom.”
Pastor Robertson, who is also CEO of Black Pastors United for Education, points to Morning Consult survey data which states that nearly 80 percent of black voters endorse policies like education savings accounts and vouchers. These plans allow public education funds to follow students to the schools or services that best fit their needs. He says black communities “need courageous leadership that will equip our students to thrive.”
And yes — Democrat candidates do need courage to face the opposition. While 71 percent of all voters support greater access to better education options, teachers’ unions stand in the way, claiming that choice harms public schools financially. Pastor Robertson responds to that concern, stating: “We want properly funded public schools and education freedom at the same time. It’s possible if our leaders don’t play politics.”
In an interview before the presidential debate this past June, Donald Trump said, “I’m a big fan of school choice. I think school choice is a great thing.” He added, “School choice is a big deal, and we’re going to get it.”
Actually, we are getting choice in some states.  And the recently-adopted Republican platform endorses universal school choice.
As Kamala Harris courts the votes of black Americans, she hears the cries for educational freedom. Pastor Robertson says he’d like to see her party “earn our votes” by backing school choice.
It’s wise policy and smart election strategy. 

Penna Dexter
Last year, to coincide with Labor Day, Senator Marco Rubio’s office issued a report entitled, “The State of the Working (and Non-Working) Man.” Labor Day 2024 comes amidst presidential campaigns in which the American working class is a key constituency.
Senator Rubio’s report lays some groundwork by stating that “prime age men who are not in the labor force report feeling sad and purposeless at much higher rates than men with jobs.” These men spend more time alone than those who are working. More than two thirds of these non-working men “have never married” and nearly “a third live with their parents.” Almost half of them take painkillers daily. “And they are more likely to take their own lives.”
The report points out that “working men face a crisis of their own: their outcomes and prospects in work, education and family life are dimmer than their fathers” because “they face an economy and society that no longer rewards their efforts the way they once did.”
The report cites several contributing factors: One is “mass immigration.” Another is  deindustrialization with manufacturing being replaced by a “service economy.” Writer and consultant Aaron Renn publishes a Substack newsletter which tackles challenges unique to men in our society. Mr. Renn says that although Senator Rubio supports working to reindustrialize America, it’s not a panacea. He says this report wisely avoids overpromising what can be accomplished by reindustrialization.
We need more men in what the report calls “protector” professions like policing, border patrol, and the military — areas where, arguably, expansion is needed anyway.
The report recommends eliminating the marriage penalty in federal assistance programs.  And it wisely recommends making it mandatory that able-bodied men be actively looking for work in order to receive any public benefits.
Some of the report’s recommendations unwisely expand government. We must  adopt common-sense policies that encourage men to work — and to become independent, marry, and form families.

Penna Dexter
It would be nice if we could count on the medical community to emphasize excellence and evidence over woke ideology. When we learn of transgender interventions, including life-altering surgery, being prescribed as standard protocol for young people struggling with mental health conditions, we’re wondering where the sane doctors are.
Thankfully, there are still doctors making the case for protecting children against radical transgender ideology.  In a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, physician Travis Morrell filed a resolution with the Colorado Medical Society “based on the rise of transgender medical interventions both in Colorado and around the nation.”
In doing so, Dr. Morrell is drawing upon the Colorado Medical Society’s policy opposing genital mutilation. He points out that “transgender surgeries often involve mutilation.” Dr. Morrell began his medical career in gynecology and says that transgender treatments “can ruin healthy sexual function and damage reproductive ability, potentially leading to a lifetime of physical and mental ailments.” His fellow members of the society overwhelmingly stood with him.
Dr. Morrell’s resolution came before the general membership in mid-May. Members were given four weeks to vote on it and as the votes came in, passage looked likely. “But,” Dr. Morrell wrote, “by June 12 — the day before voting ended — the tide had dramatically turned, thanks to a sudden influx of votes by medical students.”
It turns out that an assistant professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine asked the medical students to quickly join the Colorado Medical Society and vote against Dr. Morrell’s resolution. One hundred fifty of them did, resulting in its rejection.
Dr. Morrell is disappointed that the students so easily switched away from supporting his protective referendum, instead siding with “unproven, unethical and unscientific medical interventions.”
He’s right to conclude that “Americans should worry that when today’s trainees become tomorrow’s doctors, they’ll put political activism ahead of patient health.”

Penna Dexter
The prominent role played by drag queens in the opening ceremonies for the Paris Olympics, was created to display France’s inclusivity and showcase the French LGBTQ+ community. James Leperlier, president of a group called Inter-LGBT, says the transgender community “has difficulty being heard.”
He told ABC news, “we are far from what the ceremony showed. There’s much progress to do in society regarding transgender people.”
Is it progress to offend Christians all over the world who are watching the Olympics?
The program’s parody of the Last Supper featured 18 drag queens and dancers posing behind a long table with the Seine and Eiffel Tower in the background. It mocks a central event of Christianity. The Last Supper was Christ’s final meal with his 12 disciples, when He instituted holy communion.
The ceremonies’ director, Thomas Jolly, previewed the opening in an interview with British Vogue. Mr. Jolly, who is gay, said his measure for the production’s success is “if everyone feels represented by it.”
Everyone?
Not according to best-selling author and cultural commentator Rod Dreher. “Right,” he responded, “except for Christians, whose most sacred moments must be mocked for the sake of queer inclusion.”
American Catholic Bishop Robert Baron, founder of Word on Fire ministries, has lived in Paris. He wonders: “Would they ever have dared mock Islam in a similar way?”
Arsonists are burning down churches all over France. As Rod Dreher points out, “Mosques are going up in France at the same rate that churches are coming down.”
“And yet,” he writes, “the contemptible elites who rule France stage this kind of blasphemous spectacle, attacking the ancestral faith of France, and what Christians still remain there.”
Christianity is declining in the West. Normally, when LGBT interests are elevated, Christianity loses. It’s becoming apparent that Christians are no longer welcome in this culture.
Rod Dreher concludes, “The Enemy knows what time it is.”
Do we?

Penna Dexter
Normal Americans are repulsed by the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. This was a bridge too far even for people who buy in to careless “threat to democracy” rhetoric from Trump’s opposition. Their recoil reminds us that we must take care to preserve our constitutional republic.
Our system of government is meant to help our nation avoid political violence. Under constitutionalism, we have systems that allow differences of opinion on government policy to be handled by negotiation and at the voting booth.
A prominent constitutional scholar says the escalation of political violence in the last 15 years has tested the bounds of constitutionalism “pretty aggressively.”
Yuval Levin (Yoo-vuhl Leh-vn) is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and  Editor at National Affairs and The New Atlantis. In an essay for The Free Press, Dr. Levin says the nearly-successful attempt to take out “a once and perhaps future president“ is far from a natural next step from the violence and threats of violence against public officials we’ve been seeing in recent years. He says “this moment feels like a sharp break” that “gave us a terrible glimpse of what it would be like to live beyond the bounds of our constitutional republic.”
Within a constitutional republic our differences may be stark, but there are institutions in which those disputes can be settled “through competition and negotiation.” Dr. Levin points out that, in a constitutional republic, there’s a prevailing assumption that our political victories and defeats are temporary and that the people on the other side of our political disputes “aren’t going away.”
Step outside of constitutionalism and you have “a realm of violence and pain” where “there is no expectation that the people we disagree with today will be here tomorrow and have to be accommodated somehow.”
As Dr. Levin points out, Our constitutional system exists to help us “disagree well.” We must put a stop to its degradation.

Penna Dexter
Nine years ago, the United States Supreme Court issued the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision that brought same sex marriage to every state. This — despite the fact that 31 states had specifically defined marriage in their laws and constitutions as being between one man and one woman.
Many Americans still hold to that definition of marriage, especially people of faith.
During oral arguments in Obergefell, Justice Antonin Scalia, asked, “Is it conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the state to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men if indeed this court holds that they have a constitutional right to marry?” Then he said, “I don’t see how.”
So far, the government has not forced churches and pastors to marry same sex couples. But public officials who perform marriages often experience opposition when they refuse to do so.
One such official is Dianne Hensley, a justice of the peace in McLennon County, Texas. She has refused to perform same sex weddings and thus received a reprimand from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct citing a violation of judicial impartiality. She now refers same sex couples to nearby officiants. Because of the public warning, she currently does not perform any weddings but, in order to serve her community, she would like to resume doing so.
In Obergefell, all nine justices affirmed that religious liberty should be protected. This was a slender reed to hang onto. Kelly Shackelford, President and CEO of First Liberty Institute, predicted that, post-Obergefell, religious liberty would come under attack.
Now the organization he leads is representing Judge Hensley in her quest to win the right for any justice of the peace in Texas to opt out of same sex weddings while still performing other weddings.
The TX Supreme Court recently ruled that Judge Hensley can challenge this warning in court, on the basis that her religious freedom is being violated. She’s fighting an important battle. 

Penna Dexter
Every four years each political party sends seasoned activists to the table to write a platform for convention delegates to pass. Words are carefully chosen; positions painstakingly framed.  The document — though not binding on candidates — provides a blueprint for policies advocated by the party.  Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, no other plank in the platform of either major party has received more scrutiny.
The 2016 Republican platform language on abortion is strongly supportive of the protection of human life. It adamantly opposes the use of public funds for abortion. In 2020, President Trump and the RNC did not reopen the platform, instead sticking with the one from 2016.
This year brings the first revision of the platform since the Dobbs decision which struck down Roe v. Wade. In the run-up to the convention the Trump campaign signaled a desire to “streamline” the platform to make it shorter, clearer, and more concise, with policy commitments that are “easily digestible.”
Pro-family leaders, including Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, were concerned that the RNC platform negotiated this past week in Milwaukee might end up watering down strong protections for the unborn.
Tony Perkins represented the state of Louisiana on this year’s RNC platform committee. He points out that “The platform not only gives insight to voters, it gives direction to Republican elected officials.” He cites research showing that “the parties actually follow their platforms” about 80 percent of the time.
At the convention this week, delegates will vote on a final platform with a pro-life plank that may be concise but, hopefully remains strong and clear.
The Democrats’ platform is pro-abortion and abortion is a front and center campaign issue for many of the party’s candidates. Post-Dobbs, we’ve learned that Republicans don’t do themselves any favors by shying away from the issue. Protecting human life is a moral imperative. GOP candidates must boldly articulate a pro-life position. 

Penna Dexter
On a recent trip to Greece, I learned that during the Athenian Golden Age, 449-431 BC, there emerged a fervent belief in the ability of man. 
Our tour leader, David Sparks explained the development of democracy in ancient Greece, which culminated in Athens taking power from the hands of a single ruler or aristocratic ruling class and redistributing that power to all male citizens regardless of social or economic status. “Each male citizen over eighteen was allowed participation in the Assembly, the legislative body that elected magistrates and created legislation.”
It’s hard to overstate the importance of this “shift from rule-by-the-few to rule-by-the-many.” This idea, democracy, is foundational to our government and culture. Sometimes our leaders forget that.
Nine years ago this week the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a landmark ruling that violates the very principles of democracy. 
In the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, the Court struck down all state laws specifying that marriage is the union between one man and one woman, bringing legal same sex marriage to every state. 
When you get a bad decision from the Supreme Court, it’s worth reading the dissenting opinion. In this case each of the four dissenting justices wrote his own. All lamented the damage the ruling does to democracy. The dissenters agreed, the question in this case was not whether same-sex marriage is a good idea, but who should decide. It should not have been the Court, but the people and their elected legislators.
Chief Justice Roberts spoke of the sheer arrogance of the ruling, saying: 
“The Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia.” He wondered: “Just who do we think we are?”
Since then, the Left has pulled out all the stops to force acceptance of same sex marriage into law and policy.

Penna Dexter
I recently returned from a trip to Greece. One cannot go far in that country without being confronted with evidence of the rise and fall of great civilizations.
We spent a day in and around Corinth, a wealthy ancient Greek city, destroyed by the Romans in 156 BC.
The Romans killed all the men in Corinth and enslaved the women — and the children. The victorious Roman army sacked the city, utterly destroying it.
In 146-144 BC, Julius Caesar settled Corinth as a Roman colony. The Romans rebuilt it.
The Corinth the apostle Paul visited was Roman — again a great city which, because of its location, was the crossroads of civilization. Paul started from Athens and went to Corinth to end his second missionary journey.
At that time, Corinth was the commercial center of the world. Our tour leader compared Athens to Boston. But Corinth, he told us, was like New York City. He likened the ceramic earthen vessel, the main receptacle for storage and transport in this prosperous society, to the ubiquitous cardboard box which characterizes commerce today.
Corinth was filled with carnality and corruption. Ancient Gods, both Greek and then Roman, were corrupt. Greece’s most beautiful women worshipped Aphrodite through their bodies in temples dedicated to her. People indulged their vices.
Paul was an urban evangelist. When Paul got to Corinth, he had to teach people what sin is.
Rod Dreher’s newsletter recently referred to William Ophuls’ book, Immoderate Greatness: Why Civilizations Fail. There comes a time for them when, “The majority lives for bread and circuses; worships celebrities instead of divinities; takes its bearings from below rather than above; throws off social and moral restraints, especially on sexuality; shirks duties but insists on entitlements; and so forth.”
William Ophuls continues: “The society’s original vigor, virtue, and morale have been entirely effaced. Rotten to the core, the society awaits collapse, with only the date remaining to be determined.”
We must ask: How near are we to this?

Penna Dexter
Population policy received heavy scrutiny recently at the annual meeting of the United Nations Commission on Population and Development.
Julia-Elena Cazan reported on the meeting which was held at UN headquarters in New York.  She wrote: “Governments voiced concerns that low fertility rates are threatening their societies with anemic economic growth, labor shortages, fiscal insolvency, and other social problems. But the UN population establishment insists it’s not a problem. Ms. Cazan says population bureaucrats, when confronted with these concerns, “tried to cast low fertility in a positive light.”
The UN has been able to convince some countries that population decline is a good thing and something to be pursued. But most are not buying it and are instead in a panic over steep declines in their populations.
Stefano Gennarini, Vice President for Legal Studies at the Center for Family and Human Rights, points out that “reality is catching up with the population control movement.” More and more countries,” he writes, “are awaking to the imminent threat of low fertility and aging in all societies.”  Many “countries are reaping the horrific consequences of sixty years of anti-natalist programs and propaganda.”
 According to Mr. Gennarini, “Currently, sexual and reproductive health is the number one item on the global health agenda. No other issue receives more funding.” But as countries suffer the harsh consequences of dwindling populations, and foresee worse down the road, they are questioning and scrutinizing the UN’s promotion of population control including reproductive health, i.e. abortion.
Western governments, including the U.S., constantly insist that “sexual and reproductive rights”  become international human rights. They attempt to exclude “language in UN agreements that protects the sovereign right of countries to decide questions of abortion and the provision of transgender affirming care, on their own.”
International pressure on governments is only one of many factors causing the decline in fertility rates and population worldwide. But these declines in population signal thatwe should abolish the UN’s population control apparatus.

Penna Dexter
With marriage rates down 60 percent since the 1970’s, some well-known authors are putting out books touting marriage. University of Virginia sociology professor, Brad Wilcox makes the case for marriage in his new book, Get Married: Why Americans Must Defy the Elites, Forge Strong Families and Save Civilization.
In interviews, he points out that “a lot of young adults today are under the impression that what really matters in life is your education, building your own brand, and especially investing your life in a career.” He says, “there’s a sort of false orientation to a more individualistic and workist or careerist approach to life.” He calls this the “Midas mindset” and it’s a major factor in the tendency of young adults to marry later or not to marry at all.
Novelist and philosopher Cheryl Mendelson has a new book that The Wall Street Journal’s Tara Isabell Burton describes as “fascinating and morally serious.” Vows: The Modern Genius of an Ancient Rite chronicles the evolution of wedding vows describing how love became increasingly central to the vows and to marriage itself.
A key date is 1549, when a consultation of bishops met and produced the first Book of Common Prayer which became a permanent feature of the Church of England’s worship and a key source for its doctrine. It is generally assumed that this book is largely the work of Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, during Henry the VIII’s break with Rome. Archbishop Cranmer built upon robust medieval vows, adding the promises “to love and to cherishe.” Cheryl Mendelson says the vision of marriage that emerged brought to English society “a quiet reservoir of freedom and equality, encouraging individualism and free choice.”
But this brand of individualism and free choice is different from Brad Wilcox’s “Midas mindset” in which “self-written vows are as common as traditional ones.”
The Journal’s reviewer, Ms. Burton concludes, “there is something to those old school words” and “the ideals behind them.”

Penna Dexter
A landmark study released last month reveals that, when a child presents with “sudden onset gender dysphoria,” rushing to provide so-called “gender affirming care,” is not medical progress or a natural “next step.”
The standard warning has been that if the child exhibiting gender incongruence does not receive gender affirming care, he or she is a likely suicide risk. But the United Kingdom’s National Health Service recently released a nearly 400-page report that counters this narrative. Researcher and pediatrician Hillary Cass chaired this independent review, the most comprehensive evaluation of the evidence to date. Her data confirms that children who suddenly exhibit gender dysphoria are often suffering from other mental health challenges and would benefit from holistic evaluation and treatment.
The report noted the lack of quality in published studies which form the basis upon which clinical decisions are made. Researchers observed that gender affirming care is based upon “shaky foundations,” and evidence for the use of puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and medical transition surgeries as treatment for gender dysphoria is “remarkably weak.”
On puberty blockers, the report concludes: “The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear.”
On cross sex hormones: “The use of masculinizing/feminizing hormones in those under the age of 18 also presents many unknowns, despite their longstanding use in the adult transgender population.”
Currently, these — followed by surgery — are the go-to strategies even when gender dysphoria is accompanied by other mental health problems and conditions like autism spectrum disorder and neurodiversity issues.
Gender activists and practitioners recommend treatments as if the science were settled. It’s not. There are long term negative medical and psychological consequences to these treatments.
One of those consequences is that in pursuing this path the young person has not sufficiently dealt with the underlying mental issues.
The report concludes: “For most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress.”
‘Perhaps the Cass Report will usher in some needed caution.