family

Why Focus on the Family Believes Obergefell Must Be Struck Down

This week marks the 10th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Obergefell v. Hodges decision that radically redefined marriage and the family by nationalizing the de-sexing of both. That is precisely what happens when that court required every state in the union to accept that same sex couplings are every bit as valuable and important as the ageless and life-producing marital and familial union of the two essential parts of humanity in male and female.

Marriage between a man and a woman is a cross-cultural institution that existed before it was defined in human laws. What the court did in Obergefell was a logical impossibility. It has been hailed as a progressive victory, but the result has been terribly regressive.

There are at least four compelling reasons why Obergefell must be struck down.

First, Obergefell neutered our legal conception of what it means to be human. If male nor female are not essential to the family – and this is precisely the defective logic this landmark decision resulted in — both lose any consequential meaning. This is why it was absolutely no coincidence that the transgender movement was launched when Bruce Jenner infamously appeared as “Caitlyn” on the July 2015 cover of Vanity Fair magazine … within hours of Obergefell being handed down! There was no daylight between these two revolutionary events because one follows from the other.

If male and female have no essential, distinctive meaning for the family, they then have no real meaning for society. People can just assume new “gender identities” at will … and they are.

Second, Obergefell should be overturned because it does a dramatic injustice to children by asserting children have no fundamental right to be loved and cared for by their own mother and father. Every same-sex family, by definition and design, denies every child it contains the maternal and paternal love he or she craves and requires. And does so to fulfill novel adult wishes. Thus, Obergefell establishes the right of adults to form experimental sexless families over any child’s right to his or her own mother and father. This is always immoral, full stop.

Third, Obergefell fails to protect women by casually dismissing the essential power, quality and character of the feminine. It was largely males who argued most persuasively for this redefinition of marriage, demonstrated in numerous early books on the topic, here, here, here, and here. And if the family headed by two males does everything and meets every need that a wife and mother can – and this is, after all, precisely the claim of gay marriage proponents and the reasoning of the Obergefell majority – then the feminine half of humanity becomes meaningless. This created the worst and most dramatic brand of misogyny.

Fourth, Obergefell is based on bad law. As Justice Clarence Thomas correctly explained in his dissent to the razor-thin majority opinion in Obergefell, “The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built.” He then noted an indisputable fact:

[T]he majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a ‘liberty’ that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect.

The Constitution provides no right to so radically change and redefine the essential human institution of marriage and family that predate all human law. Obergefell, just like Roe v. Wade before it, is radically bad law because it is extra-constitutional. It is usurped legislative power.

Obergefell compels all Americans to do the impossible: assent to the radical idea that male and female are merely optional for the noble and essential purposes of marriage and the family which are universal human truths given by God to all of humanity in His wise goodness. That decision put us on a vast, untested experiment with the family and our very understanding of what it means to be human as male and female.

Some warned gay marriage would lead us to slippery slopes. It certainly has. But the wildest imagination never considered it would create this wildly popular cosplay misogyny or this full frontal assault on mothers and fathers. The intentional queering of the family wrought all this and our nation’s Supreme Court enabled it ten years ago this week.


For all these reasons and more, Focus on the Family strongly calls for the overturning of Obergefell v. Hodges and we will work hard to achieve that end.

Warning: Not Having Children Can Rob You of Countless Joys

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, “There they go again.”

Wednesday’s New York Times contains an essay and online video titled, “Motherhood Should Come With a Warning Label” – a piece highlighting reader feedback from women discussing their path to parenthood.

As the Times regularly does, motherhood is presented in a somber and heavy-handed manner. 

Finances take center stage in the presentation. From having less monthly income to negatively impacting personal retirement accounts, the casual reader could easily be left wondering why any woman would trade the office for diapers and carpool lines.

Dig into the article and we read about the so-called “motherhood penalty” – the financial hit women take when they either postpone or suspend their professional careers to care for their children.

Then there’s the decline in mental health that mothers supposedly endure. 

Overall, the entire tone of the article is that mothers are victims. We’re told they’re not only underpaid and underappreciated but also disrespected and even disdained.

It quite literally takes until the last three sentences for the author of the piece to share any positive sentiment about motherhood at all. 

“Was it worth it?” asked one reader. “100 percent,”

Clearly, The New York Times and the majority of its readers whom the paper chose to highlight disagree. Not only that, they feel quite aggrieved and convinced that society is somehow conniving to find ways to punish mothers – or in the very least, not doing enough to accommodate them when it comes to employment outside the home. 

The wearisome diatribe is just one small piece of a larger anti-natalist cultural campaign that aims to rundown and discourage couples from having children. We regularly see astronomical numbers about how expensive it is to raise a child as studies quote figures in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

What’s so insidious about this offering is how they weaponize and exaggerate age-old realities regarding the typical challenges of parenthood.

News flash to those coming of childbearing age: motherhood and fatherhood have always taken the measure of women and men.

No matter the economy, raising children costs money – money that you won’t have to sock away in a retirement fund or use to buy the boat or country club membership. 

Since time immemorial, mothers have endured moments or seasons of feeling underappreciated. Children can be difficult, demanding, exhausting and even exasperating. There’s a reason God included the commandment to “Honor your father and your mother” in the instructions given to Moses (Exodus 20:12).

This has always been the case – what’s changed is the introduction or expansion of an entitlement mentality that life should be self-focused and comfortable. According to this inward focus, Heaven forbid that adults are inconvenienced or forced to sacrifice. This “me”-focused mentality is why there are more dogs in San Francisco than children.

It’s also why the majority of the readers of America’s leading liberal publication, some of whom are mothers themselves, appear so down on the institution itself. Brainwashed by the leading lights of anti-natalism, they’re bombarded with propaganda suggesting parenthood itself is some sort of handicap. 

Yes, motherhood holds its share of challenges, but like that lone reader acknowledged, it also holds countless joys.

In fact, what the Times and groups predisposed to discourage having children should do would be to highlight those who deliberately avoid having children. If they did, they would discover that intentional childlessness often leads to selfishness and emptiness.

Years ago, the late legendary talk show host Larry King was being interviewed by Charlie Rose.

“You’re not a father, are you?” Larry asked Charlie.

“No,” answered Rose.

“You miss the great joy of life,” reflected King, who was father to five.

A lifetime of success at work will never outpace the pleasures and satisfaction of pouring yourself into the task and privilege of raising a child.

Protester Mocks, Prevents Working Mom From Supporting Family

Anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protesters blocked a New York City mom from driving to work on Tuesday, a now-viral video shows, then mocked her for caring about her job.

Turning Point USA contributor Savanah Hernandez captured the maddening interaction at a busy intersection, when a woman got out of her car to reason with two protesters blocking the road.

“I have a kid!” she pleads. “If I don’t get to work…” One of the protesters cuts her off.

“I know. And these people,” the woman says, gesturing to the protesters, “are having their children taken, their parents taken.”

“But what about my kid?” The beleaguered mom asks frantically. “If I lose my job, then what happens to my kid?”

The protester claims she can’t help the stranded woman. “This is what’s going to happen right now,” she placates, like a condescending kindergarten teacher fending off a tantrum.

Later in the video, Hernandez asks the protesters how it feels to prevent a mom from going to work. The man replies, sarcastically, “Oh no, not work!”

He giggles, scoffing, “I care so much!”

You can watch the full confrontation here.

The footage racked up millions of views and thousands of outraged comments across several different X accounts before appearing in traditional news coverage. Clearly, it struck a chord with rank-and-file Americans — and that’s a good thing.

In his Politics, Aristotle asserts families are the building blocks of society. History proves him right — civilizations thrive when parents can fulfill their biblical duty to love, raise, protect and provide for their children.  

The protesters on video claim to fight for the rights of families and children. But true family advocates understand preventing some parents from caring for their children doesn’t benefit suffering families.

True family advocates make parents’ jobs easier, because they know good parenting requires immense sacrifice. The protesters in the video not only refused to help a hamstrung mom but told her to get over it.

They shamelessly explained her child meant less than the children they had chosen to champion.

Americans have the right to protest peacefully. They have the right to plead their cause in the common square and persuade others to their view. But they do not have the right to block public roads in service of a cause only they can afford to care about.

Because that’s the grand irony, isn’t it? Only the most “privileged” Americans can mock others for missing work, while spending hours protesting in the street. Only the most entitled can espouse the causes of family and children while actively harming those with different worldviews.

The rest of us plebes — the ones with jobs, children, responsibilities and self-awareness — know better.

Additional Articles and Resources

LA Riots, Agitators and the Timeless Tensions of Culture

On the New York Times’ Terribly Simplistic View of the Family

VP Vance Addresses March for Life: ‘Every Child is a Gift From God’

No, Michelle Obama, the Nuclear Family is Not a New Idea

Former first lady Michelle Obama has been out of the White House for eight years and keeps a relatively full schedule, including hosting a podcast with her brother, Craig Robinson.

“IMO” – which stands for “In My Opinion” – launched this past March. This podcast is her third. The show promises to answer “your real questions about life and everyday challenges you are facing.”

This past week, Mrs. Obama and her brother fielded a question from a woman named Shira who explained how she and her husband, along with their two young children, moved from New York City to Maine to escape the metaphorical city rat race. Now, several years into the new arrangement, the couple is missing the urban community they had developed.

“What guiding principles should we use when deciding where to set up our family for the greatest ability and success?” she asked the hosts. Here is how Michelle Obama responded:

I literally talk about this a couple of times a month with young people who are trying to figure out how to build a life. So, it’s one of the reasons why I was excited about this, because I know there are a lot of people who are grappling with this. But Barack and I have talked about this because he sent us an article.
It talked about how unusual the concept of the nuclear family is. I don’t know if you guys read that article, but it’s like, that is a concept. The concept of two parents and children building their lives together is a relatively new concept to this generation.
That it isn’t really how we were designed to be because we’re kind of pack animals. We live in community in ways that I think are more foreign to couples now, because a lot of young couples are thinking about, “How do I make it on my own? I moved away, I don’t have support.”

Mrs. Obama’s response is a curious one, but perhaps endemic of modern-day liberals who are woefully ignorant when it comes to history and especially the origin of the family.

As Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton has noted on numerous occasions, the nuclear family is not only foundational to our ability to thrive as a culture, but it goes back thousands of years. As Glenn writes:

The concept of the mother/father/child triad as the fundamental nucleus of all human society stretches back to the ancient philosopher Aristotle. In Aristotle’s Politics, his explanation for how human civilization functions best, the great philosopher begins in Book I explaining how the exclusive union of husband and wife and their common children serve as the literal nucleus upon which the village, state, and nation are established and successfully sustained.
Aristotle explains, “There must be a union of those who cannot exist without each other, for example male and female, that the race may continue.” He adds, “The family is the association established by nature for the supply of humanity’s everyday wants, and the members of it are called by Charondes ‘companions of the cupboard’ and by Epimenides the Cretan, ‘companions of the manger.’”

Of course, the Bible is clear that the nuclear family is God’s original idea. In the second chapter of Genesis, we read that man was lonely and needed a help mate (Genesis 2:18), and so God created the woman out of the man (Genesis 2:21-23). We then learn that God created marriage and directed the man to leave his mother and father and cling to his wife (Genesis 2:24).

Liberals have a habit of thinking what they’re living through is somehow new and unique. This is one of the reasons for the so-called climate crisis. It never occurs to them that weather is ever changing. We hear warnings about the warmest and coldest recorded temperatures, but the radicals fail to acknowledge that the earth has gone through a wide array of climate variations throughout its existence.

The nuclear family is not a new concept. It’s not a new idea. It’s a biblical creation as old as mankind itself. We’re also not pack animals. Each person is a unique and divine creation. It’s true that we are made for community, but despite what perspective Michelle Obama is parroting, men and women were designed to marry, have children, and care for the rising generation. We’re also commanded to care for the older generation, especially our mother and father (Exodus 20:12).

Ignorance of the family as an institution doesn’t disqualify anyone from enjoying the blessings of one. However late to the realization of the power and importance of mothers and fathers and children, it’s always good when the penny drops and the Lord lifts the blinders and impresses upon someone just how critical the family is to individuals and the culture at-large. 

Is the Global Population Decline Linked to Happiness Decline?

It is clearly documented that global population is tanking in most parts of the world. Could this decline be related to declining happiness, worldwide? There is interesting data indicating this could be the case.

In a recent article over at Public Discourse, professor Margarita Mooney Clayton, who teaches practical theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, asks “What are the social implications of a world with fewer children?” It is important to note that we are having fewer children, largely below replacement level, not because of any outside force discouraging us. We are doing so by choice. We are choosing not to marry in greater numbers and increasingly putting education and career before producing the next generation of humanity. This comes with certain substantial costs, namely a threatened human future and declining overall happiness.

Professor Clayton explains,

As it turns out, the freedom to pursue our self-interest without the constraints of marriage and children does not lead to happiness. On average … research shows married people with kids are happier than their single and childless counterparts.

Daily Citizen has documented the research showing this fact over the past few years here, here, and here. There are other research-based indicators that children lead to greater happiness. In the Gallup research group’s 2025 World Happiness Report, they have a whole chapter on how growing families foster greater happiness globally. Their scholars state, “Happiness is nurtured in relational spaces and the family is at the heart of these connections.” They note that “two-parent households are associated with higher levels of life satisfaction among adult members, while adults living in single-person and single-parent households tend to experience lower levels of happiness.”

Data from the 2022 edition of the General Social Survey – what the Institute for Family Studies (IFS) calls “the nation’s preeminent social barometer” – shows that “a combination of marriage and parenthood is linked to the biggest happiness dividends for women.”  Leading IFS scholars Brad Wilcox and Wendy Wang add, “Among married women with children between the ages of 18 and 55, 40% reported they are ‘very happy,’ compared to 25% of married childless women, and just 22% of unmarried childless women.”

The happiness differentials for U.S. married mothers looks like this.

The happiness differentials for married fathers are similarly positive.

Wilcox and Wang explain,

By contrast unmarried childless men, and especially unmarried fathers are the least happy – with less than 15% of these men saying they are “very happy.” In other words, married men (ages 18-55) in America are about twice as likely to be very happy, compared to their unmarried peers.

Professor Clayton correctly observes at Public Discourse,

Children easily pour love into anyone around them, instantly expanding our hearts. If we stop being around children, it’s no wonder the American heart is closing. 

She is absolutely correct, concluding “Happiness is not an achievement; it’s a gift. Children are a blessing.” As the IFS scholars summarize, “As difficult as marriage and parenthood can be, in general, men and women who have the benefit of a spouse and children are the most likely to report that they are ‘very happy’ with their lives.”

Say “Yes!” to having children … and enjoy greater overall happiness.

Related Articles and Resources

Married Mothers and Fathers Are Happiest According to Gold-Standard General Social Survey

Why You Should Care About the Growing Positive Power of Marriage

Married Fatherhood Makes Men Better

Family Scholars Explain the Current Marriage Paradox in America

New Research Shows Married Families Matter More Than Ever

Important New Book Explains Why Marriage Still Matters

Research Update: The Compelling Health Benefits of Marriage

Important New Research on How Married Parents Improve Child Well-Being New Research: Marriage Still Provides Major Happiness Premium