Podcasts about obergefell

Millions of Americans now believe and live as if Obergefell has settled the question of same-sex "marriage". It did not.  __________ Help ADF defend our freedoms by giving at joinadf.com/breakpoint.

While Lizzie and Arden take a short summer holiday, they wanted to re-release an episode celebrating all things Pride! In this week's episode to honor pride month, Lizzie and Arden examine a landmark Supreme Court case that paved the way for gay marriage, U.S. v Windsor! Join them as they look at the facts of the case, what the opinion and dissents were from the justices, and how it laid the groundwork for Obergefell v. Hodges!Follow us on socials: Let's Get Civical  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/letsgetcivical/Lizzie Stewart Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/lizzie_the_rock_stewart/Arden Walentowski Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ardenjulianna/Love the show? Leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and Spotify!

Send us Fan MailA baby asks for “mama,” and two adults laugh back, “There is no mama.” That short viral moment is heartbreaking on the surface, but we think it also reveals something deeper about the way modern culture talks about same-sex marriage, commercial surrogacy, and what counts as a family.I'm joined by my daughter Hannah as we slow down and look past the news cycle. We start with why the video felt so evil to so many people, not only because it provokes a child to tears, but because it treats a child's mother as optional. From there we revisit a question some people warned about years ago after Obergefell: what about the children? We talk plainly about how no “private” adult choice stays private once a child is involved, and why children's rights must come before adult agendas.We also bring in the child development and sociology side. We outline what social scientists commonly acknowledge about socioemotional health: biology matters, gender differences matter, and parental loss is harmful whether it comes through divorce, abandonment, death, adoption, IVF, or third party reproduction. We challenge the slogan “love is enough,” discuss why some studies are methodologically weak, and point listeners to research associated with Paul Sullins and Mark Regnerus. Finally, we share testimony from adult children and stories drawn from Katie Faust's Them Before Us, where “father mother hunger” shows up again and again.If you care about faith, family, and the real-world impact of marriage and reproductive technology on kids, listen through to the end, then subscribe, share this with a friend, and leave a review so more people can find the show.Support the showhttps://www.jacksonfamilyministry.comhttps://bobslone.com/home/podcast-production/

What does it take to evolve the law? In the first of a two-part episode of Pursuing Justice, Alicia Aiken speaks with two giants of civil rights litigation, Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry Global and Shannon Minter of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, about the long arc of marriage equality — from early legal and cultural resistance, to the nationwide victory in Obergefell v. Hodges. Hear how a combination of pro bono power, strategy, and persistence can lead to change. Explore our Pro Bono programs and resources Learn about our Pro Bono Memberships and Scholarships for qualified organizations and individuals Please note: CLE is not offered for listening to this podcast, and the views and opinions expressed within represent those of the speakers and not necessarily those of PLI.

This Day in Legal History: Loving v. Virginia DecidedOn this day in 1967, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion in Loving v. Virginia striking down Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 and, with it, the anti-miscegenation statutes that sixteen states still had on the books. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the Court. The case had come up from a county courthouse in Caroline County, Virginia, where Richard Loving, a white bricklayer, and Mildred Jeter, a Black and Native American woman, had been arrested in their bedroom in the middle of the night in 1958 by a sheriff acting on an anonymous tip — they had been married in the District of Columbia and returned home to Virginia, where their marriage was a felony. The Lovings pleaded guilty, accepted suspended sentences on the condition that they leave the state for twenty-five years, and lived in exile in Washington until Mildred wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert Kennedy that landed eventually with the ACLU, which took the case.The Supreme Court's opinion did two things at once. It held that Virginia's statute violated the Equal Protection Clause because it drew an explicit racial classification with no legitimate state purpose beyond preserving “White Supremacy” — the Court used the phrase the Virginia statute itself had used — and it held that the statute violated the Due Process Clause because the freedom to marry is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” That second holding, the marriage-as-fundamental-right strand, is the through-line that runs from Loving to Zablocki v. Redhail in 1978, to Turner v. Safley in 1987, to Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 — every one of those decisions cites Loving and treats it as the foundational case. Whether the Court's substantive due process marriage doctrine survives the next decade is, as we discussed earlier this week, one of the open questions in American constitutional law. But Loving itself remains intact, and on June 12, 1967, the Court said something it had not said cleanly before: that the right to marry is the kind of liberty interest the Constitution actually protects.The Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the Second Circuit in FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd., holding 6-3 that the Investment Company Act of 1940 does not give private parties a cause of action to seek rescission of fund bylaws or other contractual terms. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority. The dispute came out of a campaign by Boaz Weinstein's Saba Capital against eleven closed-end funds — funds that, under Maryland's Control Share Acquisition Act, had adopted bylaws limiting the voting power of any shareholder who accumulated a disproportionate stake without the consent of other shareholders. Saba sued under Section 47(b) of the ICA, which makes contracts that violate the Act unenforceable, and the Second Circuit held that Section 47(b) implied a private right to rescind the bylaws.The Court told the Second Circuit to look harder at the modern implied-cause-of-action doctrine, which since Alexander v. Sandoval in 2001 has been hostile to inferring private rights of action that Congress did not write into the statute. The opinion reads as a continuation of that line: the ICA's enforcement structure is committed to the SEC, not to private plaintiffs, and Section 47(b) is a defense against contracts the SEC has already determined to be unlawful, not an offensive cause of action. The dissent, by Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, argued that this is a misreading of Section 47(b)'s text and that the majority is gratuitously narrowing the enforcement of the federal securities laws. The practical impact is significant. Activist investors who had been pushing closed-end funds to convert to open-end form, or to alter investment strategies, lose a federal-court tool they had been using; the funds themselves and their independent directors gain a meaningful structural defense. Expect the next round of activist campaigns to move to state-court fiduciary-duty theories instead.US Supreme Court rules against private suits brought under key securities law | US NewsThe Court on Thursday also decided Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., vacating the Fifth Circuit 9-0 in an opinion by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The case is small in its facts and large in its doctrine. Thomas Keathley filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2019 and failed to disclose, on his schedule of assets, a personal-injury claim he later brought against a construction company over a truck accident. The Fifth Circuit barred the personal-injury suit on judicial-estoppel grounds — the longstanding equitable doctrine that prevents a party from taking one position in one proceeding and a contradictory position in another — using a three-factor test under which a debtor's mere knowledge of the facts plus a motive to conceal was enough to bar the later claim.The Supreme Court said no.To determine whether the omission was inadvertent or mistaken for judicial-estoppel purposes, the Court held, the lower courts must look to the totality of the circumstances, not just to whether the debtor knew of the facts and had a motive. The doctrinal interest of the case lies in two concurrences. Justice Sotomayor, concurring, wrote that judicial estoppel should likely never apply in an open bankruptcy case at all — the trustee can simply amend the schedule and pursue the claim for the estate, which solves the problem judicial estoppel was invented to address. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, went further and questioned whether federal courts have any inherent authority to apply judicial estoppel as a freestanding doctrine, period — a position that, if it ever gets five votes, would unwind a doctrine that has been part of American practice since the 1850s. None of that is the holding. But the votes to revisit one of the duller corners of equitable estoppel are now visibly on the table.Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. | SCOTUSblogThe third unanimous decision of the day was Abouammo v. United States, in which the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and vacated the obstruction-of-an-FBI-investigation conviction of Ahmad Abouammo, a former Twitter employee whose underlying case was one of the more striking Saudi-Arabia infiltration prosecutions of the last decade. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion. The facts are simple and the constitutional point cleaner than the facts. Abouammo, while working at Twitter's San Francisco office in 2014 and 2015, accessed and passed on confidential user information about Saudi dissidents to a Saudi official, in exchange for a $42,000 watch and $200,000 in wire transfers. The FBI eventually came to interview him at his home in Seattle, where he had moved by 2018, and during those interviews he created and emailed agents a fake invoice intended to make the wire transfers look like a legitimate consulting fee. The Justice Department charged the obstruction count along with foreign-agent and wire-fraud counts in the Northern District of California, and a San Francisco jury convicted him on all of them.The Supreme Court held that the obstruction count belonged in the Western District of Washington, not California, because the act of creating and sending the false invoice — the only act that supported the obstruction charge — happened entirely in Seattle. Article III's venue clause and the Sixth Amendment's vicinage requirement together do not let the government try a defendant in a state where no element of the charged offense occurred, no matter how convenient the prosecution. The obstruction conviction is vacated. The foreign-agent and wire-fraud convictions, which had different venue facts and were not before the Court, stand. Abouammo will not walk free. But the prosecution will need to decide whether to retry the obstruction count in Seattle, and the case is now a clean precedent that the venue clause has real teeth in a multi-district federal investigation.US Supreme Court overturns ex-Twitter employee's obstruction conviction in Saudi spy case | US News This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode, we welcome Katy Faust back to the studio. She is a Children's Rights Advocate and the Founder and President of “Them Before Us”, a global movement defending children's right to their mother and father. She is also the author of several books including “Them Before Us: Why We Need a Global Children's Rights Movement”. In this interview, we discuss her new initiative: The Greater Than Campaign, why she is trying to get the Obergefell v. Hodges gay marriage SCOTUS ruling overturned, how the rights of children are being violated to make adults feel comfortable, the dangers faced by children in gay parent households, how easy it has become for people to create and take possession of “designer babies”, why the IVF process is helping drive this cultural shift, and much more. Let's get into it… Episode notes and links HERE. Donate to support our mission of equipping men to push back darkness. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: The Burning of the GaspeeOn this day in 1772, a Royal Navy revenue schooner called HMS Gaspee, captained by a notably overzealous Lieutenant William Duddington, ran aground in shallow water in Narragansett Bay while chasing a Rhode Island packet boat called the Hannah. Within hours of the grounding, roughly sixty Providence merchants, sailors, and “Sons of Liberty” — led by John Brown, one of the wealthiest men in the colony — rowed out under cover of darkness in eight longboats, boarded the Gaspee, shot Duddington, and burned the ship to the waterline. The legal significance lies in what came next. The Crown convened a Royal Commission of Inquiry with authority to ship the perpetrators across the Atlantic for trial in England, bypassing colonial juries entirely, a procedural maneuver that the colonies read as a direct attack on the right to jury trial in the vicinage.The Virginia House of Burgesses responded in March 1773 by forming the first Committee of Correspondence, a sustained intercolonial communication network that became, two years later, the institutional skeleton of the Continental Congress. The Gaspee Affair never produced a single prosecution — the commission could not get the colonial governor or the Rhode Island courts to cooperate, and witness testimony evaporated — but it produced something more durable: the colonial conviction that the Crown's willingness to detour around local juries was itself a constitutional grievance worth organizing against. The right-to-jury-in-the-vicinage point that Madison wrote into the Sixth Amendment seventeen years later is, in a real sense, the Gaspee Affair's longest-lived legacy.The Supreme Court on Monday granted, vacated, and remanded the D.C. Circuit's decision in American Gas Association v. Department of Energy, sending the long-disputed Biden-era Department of Energy efficiency rule on non-condensing residential gas furnaces and commercial water heaters back to the D.C. Circuit “for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General.” That last phrase is the operative one. The new Solicitor General, on behalf of the second Trump administration's DOE, told the Court in late April that the prior administration's reading of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act was, in DOE's current view, wrong, and that the rule effectively bans non-condensing units that millions of homes and small commercial properties were built around. A confessed-error from a new administration doesn't automatically win a case, but the procedural vehicle — a grant-vacate-remand, or “GVR” — is the Court's standard way of saying “go look at this again with the new posture in mind” without resolving the merits itself.The trade-group plaintiffs, led by the American Gas Association and the American Public Gas Association, framed the rule from the start as a de facto product ban dressed up as efficiency standards. The environmental and consumer groups that intervened to defend the rule will get another bite at the apple on remand, but their position is harder when their own client agency has switched sides. Watch the D.C. Circuit's case calendar over the next few weeks for an expedited briefing schedule.Supreme Court Vacates Decision Outlawing Gas Stoves, Water Heaters | NewsBustersSCOTUSblog on Monday published a careful overview of an increasingly organized litigation campaign to ask the Supreme Court to overrule Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The campaign now includes Liberty Counsel, MassResistance, and the Southern Baptist Convention, which last year voted overwhelmingly to urge the Court to reverse the decision. The underlying ground for the push is partly the Court's reasoning in Dobbs four years ago, which gave conservative litigants a road map for unwinding substantive due process precedents, and partly the gradual erosion of public-opinion support for same-sex marriage in one slice of the polling, with Republican support falling from 55 percent in 2022 to 37 percent now. The legal headcount at the Court is, however, the part of the story that is not yet there.Only Justice Thomas has been a consistent vote to revisit Obergefell, having said so in his Dobbs concurrence. Justice Alito, despite being one of Obergefell's original dissenters, recently emphasized in a public speech that he is not suggesting the case should be overruled, citing stare decisis. Justice Gorsuch's dissent in 303 Creative seems to concede that Obergefell is good law and tries instead to carve out specific exceptions to it. None of which is a reason for litigants on the marriage-equality side to relax. The path Dobbs opened up is wider than any single justice's current voting pattern, and the campaign is plainly playing a long game.The next round of test cases on standing and ripeness will start to surface in the lower courts in the next term or two — that is when the campaign's seriousness becomes measurable.The campaign to overrule Obergefell | SCOTUSblogThe third and most constitutionally significant story of the day is one we've been watching: the litigation over President Trump's $400 million ballroom — built on the site of the demolished East Wing — is on track to land in front of the Supreme Court, SCOTUSblog reported Monday. The D.C. Circuit panel that heard the case for more than two hours in late April has not yet ruled, but the questioning made clear that a more substantial opinion is coming and that an appeal to the Court is the likely next stop regardless of which side wins. The legal question is unusually fundamental. The plaintiff, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, argues that the President has no “free-floating” power to construct major federal buildings without an appropriation from Congress, and that the Antideficiency Act and the Public Buildings Act both require the kind of statutory authorization the East Wing ballroom never received.The administration's response, delivered in a tone that several court-watchers described as unusually defiant, has essentially been that construction has “gone too far to be stopped” and that the courts have no role in second-guessing a presidential building decision once the steel is up. The structural separation-of-powers questions here — what does the Appropriations Clause actually constrain, and can a federal court enjoin a President from continuing to build something that is partially constructed — are large enough that the Supreme Court will almost certainly want to take the case if it reaches the high court. Construction, meanwhile, continues. The most likely Supreme Court resolution is a narrow opinion on standing or remedies, with the broader Appropriations Clause questions deferred for another day. We will see.White House ballroom battle may soon arrive at the Supreme Court | SCOTUSblogIn my Bloomberg Tax column this week, I argue that the SALT deduction cap's biggest problem is not that it is unconstitutional, but that it is badly designed. The latest failed challenge, Sims v. United States, involved two New Jersey taxpayers who claimed the cap violated the 10th Amendment, the 16th Amendment, and broader federalism principles. The federal district court rejected those arguments, finding that Congress has broad authority to tax income and decide which deductions are allowed, limited, or denied. My point is that opponents of the SALT cap should stop looking for constitutional defects that courts are unlikely to find and instead focus on forcing Congress to fix the policy it created.I explain that the cap has always been politically loaded: supporters see it as a needed limit on a deduction that benefits many high-income taxpayers in high-tax states, while critics see it as a targeted attack on those states. But unfair or politically motivated tax policy is not automatically unconstitutional. The real weakness, I argue, is the cap's uneven design, especially the pass-through entity tax workaround. Many business owners can effectively get around the cap when state taxes are paid at the entity level, while wage earners, sole proprietors, and many individual taxpayers remain stuck behind it.That creates a serious mismatch: two taxpayers can live in the same state, earn similar income, and face similar state tax burdens, but receive different federal treatment depending on whether one has the right business structure. I argue that this kind of selective relief may be a more promising target for a narrower administrative or legal challenge than another broad constitutional attack on Congress's taxing power. Congress partly recognized the problem when it raised the cap from $10,000 to $40,000, but I note that the fix is temporary, only lightly indexed, and still leaves major structural problems in place. The marriage penalty remains especially glaring because married couples filing jointly do not receive double the cap available to similarly situated unmarried taxpayers.I also criticize the phaseout design because it can create cliffs or marginal-rate spikes that reward tax gamesmanship rather than sound policy. A better fix, in my view, would make the higher cap permanent, index it meaningfully, eliminate the marriage penalty, smooth out the phaseout, and require Treasury to rationalize the treatment of pass-through entity taxes. The lesson from Sims is that courts may uphold the SALT cap, but that does not make it good tax policy. If the cap is unfair, incoherent, or selectively porous, Congress owns that problem.SALT Deduction Cap Falls Short in Design, Not Constitutionality This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Have a comment? Send us a text! (We read all of them but can't reply). Email us: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.comWhat happens when feelings become the test of truth?Robert P. George joins Faithful Politics to talk about what he calls “the age of feeling,” a moment where many people treat personal emotion as the final word on what is true. George argues that this does not lead to tolerance. It often makes disagreement feel like a personal attack, which shuts down honest conversation and creates real problems for democracy. The conversation moves through faith, reason, truth, tribalism, intellectual humility, and the challenge of disagreeing with your own side. Will brings in Jonathan Haidt's work on intuition and political identity, while Josh and George work through harder questions around same-sex marriage, gender, Obergefell, Loving v. Virginia, and the deeper moral assumptions underneath those debates.At its core, this episode is about whether Americans can still disagree seriously without turning each other into enemies. George's answer is that truth-seeking requires more than strong opinions. It requires reasons, evidence, humility, and the courage to listen when your tribe says one thing and your conscience says another.website: robertpgeorge.comGuest BioRobert P. George is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. He is a legal scholar, political philosopher, and public intellectual whose work focuses on natural law, constitutionalism, religious liberty, conscience, civil discourse, and moral reasoning in public life. He is the author of several books, including Conscience and Its Enemies, Making Men Moral, Seeking Truth and Speaking Truth, and Truth Matters, co-authored with Cornel West. Support the show

Steve discusses the primary runoff that really matters, not only for the Lone Star State but for the rest of the country: next week's Texas attorney general runoff. Then, the team reacts to a recent discourse on MS NOW among hosts and panelists who seemed genuinely dumbfounded by the idea of God-given rights. In Hour Two, Katy Faust of Greater Than joins the program to discuss the ongoing battle to overturn Obergefell and how to practically navigate issues involving homosexuality among those closest to you. Finally, Pop Culture Tuesday is possible the worst top ten list of all time. TODAY'S SPONSORS: BEAM: https://shopbeam.com/products/sleep-powder?discount=steve&variant=40436356710455&selling_plan=787415095&utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=sponsorship&utm_campaign=steve and use code STEVE at checkout RELIEF FACTOR: VISIT https://www.relieffactor.com/ OR CALL 800-4-RELIEF MASA CHIPS: https://www.masachips.com/pages/deace use promo code DEACE FAST GROWING TREES: https://www.fast-growing-trees.com/?utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=audio&utm_campaign=Steve+Deace+Show code DEACE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 2015 the Supreme Court decided in the case Obergefell v. Hodges, that the Fourteenth Amendment protected the right for homosexuals to get marriage. In 2026 the State of Tennessee is working on legislation that points out that private groups are organizations are not bound by the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore by Obergefell.

On this episode of “The Kylee Cast,” Katy Faust, a children's rights advocate, author, and founder of Them Before Us, joins Federalist Managing Editor Kylee Griswold to talk about The Seattle Times' front-page hit piece on her — on Mother's Day — for the crime of defending the rights of children and daring to oppose […]

On this episode of “The Kylee Cast,” Katy Faust, a children's rights advocate, author, and founder of Them Before Us, joins Federalist Managing Editor Kylee Griswold to talk about The Seattle Times' front-page hit piece on her — on Mother's Day — for the crime of defending the rights of children and daring to oppose Obergefell. Kylee and Katy dissect the shoddy piece of journalism, discuss how one bad SCOTUS decision redefined parentage by redefining marriage, and share what Christians can expect in the fight for kids' rights.Listen to Katy and Kylee's previous episode about IVF, surrogacy, and divorce here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLvWCQL9DKoRead Katy's article on The Seattle Times' hit piece here: https://thefederalist.com/2026/05/14/in-its-hit-piece-on-me-seattle-times-proves-im-right-about-obergefell/Follow Katy on X: https://x.com/Katy_FaustThe Federalist Foundation is a nonprofit, and we depend entirely on our listeners and readers — not corporations. If you value fearless, independent journalism, please consider a tax-deductible gift today at TheFederalist.com/donate. Your support keeps us going.

I have a rotten phlegmy cold so no news and clips today but I do have a great first time guest!  Subscribe and Watch Interviews LIVE : On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 750 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Shannon Minter is the Vice President of Legal (Legal Director)  Over his more than 30 years at NCLR, Shannon Minter has led impact litigation, legislative, and public policy efforts. He has filed multiple lawsuits challenging a range of Trump administration anti-transgender executive orders. He is one of the nation's foremost experts on conversion therapy, helping to draft and pass legislation in states to protect LGBTQ youth and support survivors. He served as lead counsel in the landmark California marriage equality case, and he led NCLR's contributions to multiple Supreme Court cases, such as Pavan v. Smith, Obergefell v. Hodges, and Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. An appointee to President Obama's Commission on White House Fellowships, Shannon was one of the most senior transgender appointees in the Obama administration. He has taught law at UCLA, Stanford, Golden Gate University, and Santa Clara University. Shannon is currently counsel in six cases challenging the Trump administration's anti-transgender policies, including Talbott v. Trump, which seeks to restore the right of transgender Americans to serve openly in the armed forces. His work challenging anti-transgender military policies spans nearly a decade — he previously challenged the 2017 transgender military ban under the first Trump administration, and co-chaired the Planning Commission on Transgender Military Service, which produced a comprehensive study demonstrating that inclusive service policies are both administratively feasible and militarily beneficial. Shannon has been at the forefront of efforts to protect LGBTQ+ youth from conversion therapy. He founded NCLR's Born Perfect project, a national campaign to end conversion therapy through legislation, litigation, and public education. He has helped draft laws protecting LGBTQ youth from conversion therapy across the country and continues to advocate for legal remedies to hold practitioners accountable for the harm they cause, including through malpractice, consumer fraud claims, and professional licensing sanctions. Shannon was lead counsel for same-sex couples in the landmark California marriage equality case, which was the first state supreme court decision to hold that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry and that laws discriminating based on sexual orientation are subject to the highest level of constitutional scrutiny. He was also counsel for married same-sex couples from Tennessee in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing marriage equality nationwide, and NCLR's lead attorney in Pavan v. Smith, a 2017 Supreme Court decision requiring equal treatment of same-sex parents, and in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding nondiscrimination policies based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In 2015, President Obama appointed Shannon to the President's Commission on White House Fellowships, making him one of the most senior transgender appointees in the Obama administration. Shannon called the appointment a reflection of the President's commitment to building a government that reflects the full diversity of the American people. He is co-editor of Transgender Rights (2006), the first comprehensive book on the transgender civil rights movement. Among his many honors, Shannon has received the ABA's Stonewall Award, the Ford Foundation's Leadership for a Changing World Award, the Cornell Law School Exemplary Public Service Award, the Dan Bradley Award from the National LGBTQ Bar Association, and the California Lawyer of the Year designation from California Lawyer magazine. He received his B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin and his J.D. from Cornell Law School. On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art  Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing

I have a rotten phlegmy cold so no news and clips today but I do have a great first time guest!  Subscribe and Watch Interviews LIVE : On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 750 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Shannon Minter is the Vice President of Legal (Legal Director)  Over his more than 30 years at NCLR, Shannon Minter has led impact litigation, legislative, and public policy efforts. He has filed multiple lawsuits challenging a range of Trump administration anti-transgender executive orders. He is one of the nation's foremost experts on conversion therapy, helping to draft and pass legislation in states to protect LGBTQ youth and support survivors. He served as lead counsel in the landmark California marriage equality case, and he led NCLR's contributions to multiple Supreme Court cases, such as Pavan v. Smith, Obergefell v. Hodges, and Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. An appointee to President Obama's Commission on White House Fellowships, Shannon was one of the most senior transgender appointees in the Obama administration. He has taught law at UCLA, Stanford, Golden Gate University, and Santa Clara University. Shannon is currently counsel in six cases challenging the Trump administration's anti-transgender policies, including Talbott v. Trump, which seeks to restore the right of transgender Americans to serve openly in the armed forces. His work challenging anti-transgender military policies spans nearly a decade — he previously challenged the 2017 transgender military ban under the first Trump administration, and co-chaired the Planning Commission on Transgender Military Service, which produced a comprehensive study demonstrating that inclusive service policies are both administratively feasible and militarily beneficial. Shannon has been at the forefront of efforts to protect LGBTQ+ youth from conversion therapy. He founded NCLR's Born Perfect project, a national campaign to end conversion therapy through legislation, litigation, and public education. He has helped draft laws protecting LGBTQ youth from conversion therapy across the country and continues to advocate for legal remedies to hold practitioners accountable for the harm they cause, including through malpractice, consumer fraud claims, and professional licensing sanctions. Shannon was lead counsel for same-sex couples in the landmark California marriage equality case, which was the first state supreme court decision to hold that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry and that laws discriminating based on sexual orientation are subject to the highest level of constitutional scrutiny. He was also counsel for married same-sex couples from Tennessee in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing marriage equality nationwide, and NCLR's lead attorney in Pavan v. Smith, a 2017 Supreme Court decision requiring equal treatment of same-sex parents, and in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding nondiscrimination policies based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In 2015, President Obama appointed Shannon to the President's Commission on White House Fellowships, making him one of the most senior transgender appointees in the Obama administration. Shannon called the appointment a reflection of the President's commitment to building a government that reflects the full diversity of the American people. He is co-editor of Transgender Rights (2006), the first comprehensive book on the transgender civil rights movement. Among his many honors, Shannon has received the ABA's Stonewall Award, the Ford Foundation's Leadership for a Changing World Award, the Cornell Law School Exemplary Public Service Award, the Dan Bradley Award from the National LGBTQ Bar Association, and the California Lawyer of the Year designation from California Lawyer magazine. He received his B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin and his J.D. from Cornell Law School. On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art  Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing

On this episode of “The Kylee Cast,” Josh Wood, executive director of Them Before Us, joins Federalist Managing Editor Kylee Griswold to discuss the viral video of two gay “dads” laughing as the child they commissioned via surrogate cries for “mama.” Plus, Kylee and Josh discuss adoption, natural rights, and the direct line from this heartbreaking video back to Obergefell.Follow Josh on X: https://x.com/J_K_WoodLearn more about Them Before Us here: https://thembeforeus.com/Learn more about the Greater Than campaign here: https://greaterthancampaign.com/The Federalist Foundation is a nonprofit, and we depend entirely on our listeners and readers — not corporations. If you value fearless, independent journalism, please consider a tax-deductible gift today at TheFederalist.com/donate. Your support keeps us going.

On this episode of “The Kylee Cast,” Josh Wood, executive director of Them Before Us, joins Federalist Managing Editor Kylee Griswold to discuss the viral video of two gay “dads” laughing as the child they commissioned via surrogate cries for “mama.” Plus, Kylee and Josh discuss adoption, natural rights, and the direct line from this […]

The boys drink and review a homebrewed porter, then discuss birthright citizenship. The question of birthright citizenship hinges on one phrase in the 14th Amendment, which reads "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What does that mean? The point of the amendment was to give citizenship to freed slaves, but it's been interpreted to mean that the child of an illegal immigrant, born in the U.S., is a citizen. Is that justified in the text? The boys discuss. This weird aspect of American law has led to many business opportunities for enterprising criminals. People make a lot of money bringing pregnant illegal aliens into the country. That's bad enough, but the Chinese have found ways to exploit this as a national security issue. They've been creating "American citizens" who are then raised in China. To what purpose, we wonder. While on the topic of the 14th amendment, the boys discuss the Obergefell decision, in which SCOTUS decided that states cannot prohibit same-sex marriage. If the court addresses and overturns birthright citizenship, maybe (God willing) they'll overturn Obergefell as well. (Not likely, but we can hope.) P&C end the show with predictions about how SCOTUS will rule on upcoming cases about birthright citizenship.

A major Supreme Court battle is reigniting the debate over free speech and gender identity—and Donald Trump is weighing in. At the center: whether states can enforce speech rules on therapists and professionals when it comes to gender identity discussions. With a controversial dissent from Ketanji Brown Jackson and broader cultural implications, this ruling could shape the future of the First Amendment in America. ⚡ EPISODE SUMMARY This episode dives into a heated legal and cultural clash over free speech, gender identity, and government authority. The discussion traces the roots of today's debate back to the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, where the concept of “self-identity” began influencing broader legal interpretations. At issue: whether professionals—like therapists—can be restricted in what they say to clients regarding gender identity. A recent ruling pushed back on state-level restrictions, framing them as violations of the First Amendment. Critics argue these policies amount to enforced speech, while supporters say they protect vulnerable individuals. The episode also explores broader implications—from parental rights and education to the role of government in regulating language—and highlights growing tensions inside the legal system itself.

"8" A PLAY ABOUT THE BATTLE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY (RATED PG-13) A co-production of 63audio and LEAP Audio. This is the story of two gay couples and their fight to challenge the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which went into effect in the first decade of the 21st century, predating "Obergefell". Prop. 8 essentially made it illegal for same-sex couples to marry. Fashioned from actual dialog, TV political ads and court transcripts, "8" is a moving, gripping drama that you must share with your family and friends.  Written by the author of the hit TV miniseries, "When We Rise", Dustin Lance Black.  Featured in the cast were: Austin Beach (of Audioblivious Prod.) as Charles Cooper Bob Caro as Evan Wolfson Shannon Grace as Maggie Gallagher Christian Ferris as David Blankenhorn MJ Cogburn as Dr Cott Jeremy Hennessy (of Audioblivious Prod.) as Dr. Gregory Herek Michael Cogburn as Elliot Perry Mason Cogburn as Spencer Perry John Washington as Dr. Tam Keane Lutz as Ryan Kendall Kristy Glick as Sandy Stier Melody Gaines as Kris Perry Kyle Bauer as Dr. Ilan Meyer Maurice Curran as Jeff Zarillo Omar Lopez as Paul Katami Lisa Marie Ayala as the Court Clerk Victoria Fancki as the Journalist And special Guest stars: Pete Lutz as Judge Vaughn Walker Jack Ward (of Electric Vicuna Prod.) as David Boies Timm Gillick as Dr. Gary Segura Mark Bruzee as Theodore Olson and Nick Wommack as the Narrator

It's Monday, March 16th, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus 400 Christians murdered in Congo in one year Christians are being attacked, murdered, and abducted in the Democratic Republic of the Congo every week, and the violence appears to be worse than ever, reports International Christian Concern. Between July 1, 2024 and July 1, 2025, the Institute for International Religious Freedom reported that nearly 400 Christians were murdered in the African nation of Congo. And this is only a fraction of the total violence being perpetrated. Rebel militias have gained vast influence over the Christian-majority nation due to extremist Islamist ideologies, years-long civil wars, and political upheaval. According to Open Doors, Congo is the 29th most oppressive country worldwide for Christians. The persecuted Christians in Congo are no doubt praying Psalm 91 which says, “I will say of the Lord, ‘He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust.' Surely, He will save you from the fowler's snare and from the deadly pestilence. … You will not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day. … A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but it will not come near you. You will only observe with your eyes and see the punishment of the wicked.” (verses 2,3,5, 7-8) Missile strikes U.S. Embassy in Iraq A missile has struck a helipad inside the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq as President Donald Trump's war on Iran heads into its third week, reports The Daily Mail. Plumes of smoke were seen above the U.S. embassy in the Iraqi capital. The missile landed within the embassy's boundaries. Pentagon sending assault ship & 2,500 Marines toward Iran The Pentagon is deploying the U.S.S. Tripoli and 2,500 Marines to the Middle East after President Trump vowed Friday to unleash “unparalleled firepower,” reports the New York Post. On Friday morning, War Secretary Pete Hegseth gave this overview. HEGSETH: “With every passing hour, we know, and we know they know, that the military capabilities of their evil regime are crumbling. They can barely communicate, let alone coordinate. They're confused, and we know it.  Our response? We will keep pressing. We will keep pushing, keep advancing. No quarter, no mercy for our enemies.” Iran's blocking Strait of Hormuz leading to global oil price spike The deployment of the amphibious assault ship comes as the American military admits it's currently unable to break Iranian influence over the vital Strait of Hormuz as global oil prices spike.  The Strait of Hormuz is located between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. It provides the only sea passage from the Persian Gulf to the open ocean and is one of the world's most strategically important choke points. The expected two-week voyage from East Asia matches Energy Secretary Chris Wright's prediction of reopening the crucial waterway “by the end of the month.” Secretary Hegseth was perturbed by a CNN report that Iran's stranglehold of the Strait of Hormuz was a surprise. HEGSETH: “More fake news from CNN. Reports that the ‘Trump administration underestimated the Iran war's impact on the Strait of Hormuz.' “Patently ridiculous, of course! For decades, Iran has threatened shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. This is always what they do: Hold the Strait hostage. CNN doesn't think we thought of that. It's a fundamentally unserious report.” Idaho House urges Supreme Court to invalidate homosexual “marriage” The Idaho House of Representatives has voted to reject the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges and urged the justices to reconsider the decision legalizing homosexual marriage nationwide, reports the Herzog Foundation. Lawmakers approved House Joint Memorial 17 last Tuesday in a 44-26 vote. All Democrats voted against the measure, and a small number of Republicans joined them. The resolution now heads to the Idaho Senate. The memorial states the Legislature “rejects the Obergefell decision” and “calls upon the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse Obergefell and restore the natural definition of marriage.” Supporters say the 2015 ruling overrode the authority of states and ignored the will of voters who had already defined marriage in state law. The resolution says Obergefell “is at odds with the Constitution of the United States and the principles upon which the United States is established.” It also says the ruling “arbitrarily and unjustly” cast aside the historic understanding of marriage, which “has been recognized as the union of one man and one woman for more than 2,000 years.” Idaho Republican State Rep. Tony Wisniewski sponsored the memorial. He said supporters oppose “the debasing of the term of marriage to that of something that is abhorrent to many of us.” The memorial also points to Idaho voters' earlier decision on the issue. In 2006, 63% of voters approved Amendment 2, which added language to the state Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Supporters argue the Supreme Court brushed aside that vote when it issued the Obergefell ruling. The resolution also states the decision “may have been illegitimately adjudicated” because two justices in the majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, had previously officiated homosexual weddings and did not recuse themselves. The memorial now moves to the Idaho Senate. The governor does not play a role because joint memorials do not require a signature. “Educated for Liberty” film urges Christian parents to wake up And finally, the rise of government-controlled schools and secular education has produced a decline of moral and academic excellence, which has led to a loss of liberty, reports The Providence Foundation. Schools have become progressively dangerous. Some of the most negative influences that young Americans can face today are found in public schools. Exposure to drugs, assault, rape, and murder are becoming more and more common. Radical transgender and homosexual ideology is promoted in classrooms, and reinforced by biological males having access to girls' restrooms and being allowed to compete in girls' sports. Well, there's a new Christian documentary out entitled Educated for Liberty. It urges Christian parents to pull their kids out of public schools and homeschool them or place them in private Christian schools instead. DAVID BARTON: “If you can't think biblically, then what you have is a bunch of secular-thinking people who attend church which will never change a community in the right direction.” RHONDA THOMAS: “We're not, as a church, raising up parents that understand their responsibility in the education of their children.” CAROL SWAIN: “Sunday School is fine. It's good. Vacation Bible School: Fine and good, but it's not enough.” CAROLE ADAMS: “Education is discipleship -- one way or another. Discipling our children in a secularized society, or it's discipling them to Christ.” CASEY GORDON: “How could you possibly segregate the concept of education from the duty and responsibility of the Christian faith, and that they should be trained in the Christian faith and in a Christian way?” ALEX NEWMAN: “For hundreds of years in this country, the Bible was the essential book. It was the foundation of everything. And yet, here we are where it's actually controversial that we should have the Bible in education. It's truly astounding.” MRS. SAM SORBO: “Give your children the Bible, and you give them an understanding of God, which is education. Then the world will become clear to them, and they'll be world changers.” Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” Watch the film, Educated for Liberty, for free through a special link in our transcript today at www.TheWorldview.com. Close And that's The Worldview on this Monday, March 16th, in the year of our Lord 2026. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Bienvenue dans FIFTY STATES SUPREME !!Pour tout savoir sur l'AmériquePour tout savoir sur son HistoireOn a décidé de zoomer sur les grands arrêts de la Cour SuprêmeAujourd'hui, on va parler coup de foudre, bisous et mariageAvec l'arrêt Obergefell VS HodgesLa date ? Le 26 juin 2015L'enjeu : le mariage pour tous aux Etats-Unis !Rien que ça !!Dans cet épisode, vous allez découvrir comment deux hommes, Jim Obergefell et John Arthur, ont changé la vie de milliers d'Américaines et d'AméricainsLe combat a été long, compliqué, chaotiqueMais désormais, le mariage entre personnes de même sexe est un droit constitutionnel aux Etats-UnisPour tout savoir sur cet évènement historiqueUne seule adresse :Le podcast Fifty States !!Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

This is Thinking in Public, a program dedicated to intelligent conversation about frontline theological and cultural issues with the people who are shaping them.Sign up to receive every new Thinking in Public release in your inbox.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.

Jan 30, 2026 The interview features the Drew Mariani Show with Dr. Jennifer Roback Morris discussing the Greater Than campaign, which argues that redefining marriage has harmed children by undermining the traditional mother-and-father model. Morris outlines the campaign's approach, emphasizing a child-centered case for preserving both parents in a child's life. The discussion covers adoption by same-sex couples, third-party reproduction, divorce, contraception, and gender-related issues from a Catholic perspective. Callers share personal experiences and concerns about children's well-being in different family structures. Listeners are encouraged to learn more at greaterthan.com and the Ruth Institute.

Katy Faust – Founder and President of Them Before Us Episode Guide Fighting for a child’s right to a mom and a dad – putting children’s needs above adult desires (00:17) How children’s needs will be brought back by overturning Obergefell v. Hodges (19:42) Planned Parenthood’s brilliant new business model based on botox, new funding sources, and marketing abortion to a new generation (32:32) Meat-free Fridays of Lent (45:20) Resources mentioned: Katy Faust explains the connection between gay marriage and harm to children. https://relevantradio.com/2026/01/the-business-of-child-exploitation/ Katy Faust – Them Before Us https://thembeforeus.com/ The Greater Than Campaign https://greaterthancampaign.com/ Mass creation of children who were abused https://thefederalist.com/2025/08/13/chinese-immigrants-create-21-surrogate-children-before-allegedly-abusing-them/ Known predator commissioned baby https://x.com/Katy_Faust/status/1950045587229016446?s=46 An elderly man has twin boys vis surrogacy https://sfstandard.com/2025/08/06/san-francisco-kids-alleged-cage/ Big Fertility Is the Billionaire’s Modern-day Harem https://thefederalist.com/2026/01/06/big-fertility-is-just-modern-day-harems-for-billionaires/

This Day in Legal History: Marbury v. MadisonOn February 24, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison, a case that permanently reshaped American constitutional law. The dispute arose after President John Adams appointed several “midnight judges” in the final hours of his administration. One of those appointees, William Marbury, never received his commission because it was not delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office. Jefferson instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commission, prompting Marbury to seek relief directly from the Supreme Court.Presiding over the case was Chief Justice John Marshall, whose involvement added a striking layer of irony. Before becoming Chief Justice, Marshall had served as Secretary of State under Adams and had been responsible for sealing the very commissions at issue. In other words, Marshall was now reviewing the legal consequences of actions taken by his former office. Rather than recuse himself, he authored the opinion that would define the Court's authority.Marshall concluded that Marbury had a legal right to his commission but held that the statute granting the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus conflicted with Article III of the Constitution. Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, Marshall reasoned, any conflicting statute must be void. In declaring part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, the Court asserted the power of judicial review for the first time.The decision simultaneously denied Marbury his remedy while expanding the Court's institutional authority. It avoided a direct political confrontation with Jefferson while firmly establishing the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government. What began as a minor political dispute over an undelivered commission became the foundation for the Supreme Court's power to strike down unconstitutional laws.A federal judge has permanently blocked the Justice Department from releasing a prosecutor's report concerning the classified documents case against President Donald Trump. The ruling was issued by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who concluded that making the report public would amount to a “manifest injustice” because the case never went to trial. She reasoned that publishing detailed allegations of criminal conduct without a jury verdict would undermine basic fairness principles.The case had been brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith and accused Trump of unlawfully retaining sensitive national defense materials at his Mar-a-Lago property and obstructing government efforts to recover them. Trump and his co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, pleaded not guilty and described the prosecution as politically motivated. In 2024, Cannon dismissed the charges, finding that Smith had not been lawfully appointed.After Trump returned to office, the Justice Department supported efforts to keep the report confidential. Although special counsels are typically required to submit reports explaining their charging decisions, Cannon held that releasing this one would conflict with her earlier rulings, including her determination that Smith's appointment was invalid. She also cited concerns about exposing grand jury material.The decision prevents public disclosure of substantial details about one of the four criminal cases Trump faced after leaving office. It follows the Supreme Court's recent decision limiting Trump's tariff authority and marks another significant legal development in the ongoing disputes surrounding his post-presidency investigations.US judge permanently blocks release of report on Trump documents case | ReutersThe chief judges of two major federal appeals courts have announced plans to step back from active service later this year, creating new vacancies for President Donald Trump to fill. Debra Ann Livingston of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit both notified the president that they intend to take senior status. Livingston plans to assume senior status on July 1, while Sutton will do so on October 1.Their decisions come ahead of the November midterm elections, when control of the U.S. Senate could shift, potentially complicating confirmation of successors. Because judicial vacancies have been relatively scarce during Trump's second term, the openings present an opportunity to expand his appellate appointments. During his first term, Trump appointed 54 appellate judges, significantly influencing the judiciary's ideological direction.Both judges were originally appointed by President George W. Bush. Livingston, who has served on the Second Circuit since 2007 and became chief judge in 2020, has at times issued notable dissents, including in cases involving LGBTQ workplace protections and congressional subpoenas tied to Trump's business records. Sutton, on the Sixth Circuit since 2003 and chief judge since 2021, has been an influential conservative jurist. He authored a 2014 opinion upholding same-sex marriage bans that the Supreme Court later overturned in Obergefell v. Hodges.Senior status allows eligible judges to continue hearing cases on a reduced basis while enabling the president to nominate full-time replacements. Their departures will hand Trump two high-profile appellate vacancies at a time when few others are available.Two chief US appellate judges to leave active service, handing Trump vacancies | ReutersIn my weekly column for Bloomberg Tax, I examine the Trump administration's proposed 0.125% “land port maintenance tax” and question whether it is truly infrastructure policy or contingency planning after the Supreme Court curtailed its tariff authority. The proposal is framed as a parity measure to mirror the Harbor Maintenance Fee, but I argue the timing is hard to ignore. Just this week, the Court in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, reaffirming that Congress controls taxing power absent clear delegation. In my view, that ruling narrows executive trade authority and invites efforts to find alternative mechanisms embedded elsewhere in the customs code.I suggest the land port tax looks like one such alternative. Although labeled a “maintenance” fee, it would be imposed at the border and function economically like a tariff, with costs passed to US importers and consumers. Because most land-based trade flows through Canada and Mexico, I note that the charge would operate in practice as a North American supply chain tax. Calling it infrastructure policy does not change its price effects.I also argue that the Harbor Maintenance Fee analogy falls apart on inspection. Whatever its flaws, the HMF at least carries a user-fee logic tied to dredging and port upkeep. By contrast, the new proposal appears loosely connected to land-border infrastructure and bundled within a broader maritime industrial policy agenda. If shipbuilding is a national security priority, I contend Congress should fund it transparently through the Defense Department and regular appropriations. If the HMF distorts shipping routes, it should be reformed directly rather than replicated inland.Ultimately, I maintain that after Learning Resources, any border charge that operates like a tariff will face legal skepticism. If policymakers intend to subsidize maritime industry, they should say so clearly, define measurable goals, and subject the costs to democratic accountability. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Katy Faust sees a not-so-hidden thread that connects divorce, gay marriage, IVF, surrogacy, child trafficking, and more: the historically-recent pivot of putting adult desires before children's needs and well-being. Today, we're discussing the history and data behind this disturbing trend and how we can fight back for the most vulnerable.Them Before Us: https://thembeforeus.com/ NEW: Check out our Merch store! https://shop.lilaroseshow.com/Join our new Patreon community! https://patreon.com/lilaroseshow - We'll have BTS footage, ad-free episodes, and early access to our upcoming guests.A big thanks to our partner, EWTN, the world's leading Catholic network! Discover news, entertainment and more at https://www.ewtn.com/ Check out our Sponsors: -Cozy Earth: Better Sleep, Brighter Days - Get the highest quality sleep essentials for 20% OFF at https://cozyearth.com/lila!-Seven Weeks Coffee: https://www.sevenweekscoffee.com Buy your pro-life coffee and Save up to 25% with promo code 'LILA' & get a free gift: http://www.sevenweekscoffee.com-EveryLife: https://www.everylife.com Buy diapers from an amazing pro-life diaper company and use code LILA to get 10% off!-Presidio Healthcare: Healthcare and doctors who share your values. If you're in TEXAS visit: https://www.presidiocare.com/ If you're NOT in Texas, visit: https://www.prolifeproviders.com/00:00:00 - Intro00:02:58 - Katy's background00:08:03 - Katy's “two moms”00:21:26 - The harms of lacking a mother/father00:35:49 - Disturbing LA mansion news00:46:33 - What is Surrogacy?00:55:16 - Do you need a mom and dad?01:06:45 - Any large studies on same-sex households?01:15:05 - Another study01:17:24 - No Fault Divorce01:30:07 - Ab*se data 01:34:22 - Obergefell and Same Sex Marriage 01:45:51 - Epstein

In this insightful interview on "Driving Home the Faith," Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, founder of the Ruth Institute, addresses the significant consequences of the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision on marriage and family dynamics. Dr. Morse elaborates on our active role in a new coalition, led by Them Before Us, dedicated to championing children's rights and restoring traditional marriage values. Listen in as we discuss our mission to build a civilization of love, ensuring that children's needs are prioritized in today's evolving society.

Join us on #TexasValuesReport with special guest Katy Faust, Founder of Them Before Us, & host Jonathan Saenz, President & Attorney for Texas Values, as they discuss the campaign Greater Than, a campaign with the goal of ultimately overturning Obergefell; the 2015 redefinition of marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, which effectively made mothers and fathers optional in law and culture. Read our press release Texas Values Joins Huge Nationwide Coalition to Overturn Obergefell Launching Today (1/28/2026) https://txvalues.org/texas-values-joins-huge-nationwide-coalition-to-overturn-obergefell-launching-today/ Learn more about the Greater Than Campaign https://greaterthancampaign.com/ Learn more about Them Before Us http://thembeforeus.com/ Get your free Texas voter's guide https://freevotersguide.com/ Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org To support our work, go to donate.txvalues.org/GivetoTexasValues

On February 5th, 2026, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse joins Driving Home the Faith to unravel the future of marriage and family dynamics. In this compelling interview, Dr. Morse challenges conventional views and discusses the societal impact of the Obergefell decision, emphasizing the need for a child-centered approach. Tune in for a thought-provoking conversation that promises to reshape your understanding of modern marriage.

Dr. Jennifer Roback-Morse from the Ruth Institute joins the Drew Mariani Show to discuss the profound effects of redefining marriage on children and society. In this engaging interview, Dr. Morse delves into the cultural shifts following the Obergefell decision, the rise of the Greater Than campaign, and the importance of centering children's needs in marriage and family policies. Discover how these changes impact family dynamics and the long-term implications for future generations.

Episode Summary: Almost every cultural and political battle we face eventually lands on the shoulders of children. Modern culture talks endlessly about rights but often overlooks the rights of children. If children truly have rights, then marriage cannot mean whatever adults want it to mean. In this episode, Katy Faust argues that when marriage is redefined, parenthood is rewritten, and children are the ones who lose. She shows why defending God's design for marriage and family isn't merely a religious conviction, but a natural law argument with profound implications for society as a whole.We explore a child-centered framework for marriage, IVF, surrogacy, and sexual ethics grounded in general revelation, social science, and the biblical vision of human flourishing. The Obergefell case legalized same-sex marriage in the U.S. and had profound ripple effects on identity, parenthood, and a growing commodification of children. As a culture, we are becoming more aware about how redefinitions of marriage have harmed children. Do you feel at a loss for how to meaningfully think about this and talk about it? Join the movement to grow in clarity, courage, and meaningfully protect the voiceless in the coming generation.–How well do you understand the implications of gay marriage and its impact on children? Quiz: https://greaterthancampaign.com/Who is Disciple Nations Alliance (DNA)? Since 1997, DNA's mission has been to equip followers of Jesus around the globe with a biblical worldview, empowering them to build flourishing families, communities, and nations.

If you want to learn more about CatholicVote's sponsorship of the Greater Than campaign, head over to their website at https://greaterthancampaign.com/ where you can take a QUIZ to find out how much you REALLY know about parental rights in America today.

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Katy Faust, founder and president of children's rights organization Them Before Us, joins Federalist Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle to discuss the devastating consequences the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision had on children and deliberate on the best way to recenter marriage and family to prioritize kids' rights. Read more from Faust here: https://thefederalist.com/2026/01/29/obergefell-has-harmed-children-for-far-too-long/Learn more about the Greater Than campaign here: https://greaterthancampaign.com/about-us/Learn more about Them Before Us here: https://thembeforeus.com/whoweare/The Federalist Foundation is a nonprofit, and we depend entirely on our listeners and readers — not corporations. If you value fearless, independent journalism, please consider a tax-deductible gift today at TheFederalist.com/donate. Your support keeps us going.

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Katy Faust, founder and president of children's rights organization Them Before Us, joins Federalist Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle to discuss the devastating consequences the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision had on children and deliberate on the best way to recenter marriage and family to prioritize kids' rights. Read more […]

San Francisco has a women's sports bar! In this episode, meet Danielle Thoe and Sara Yergovich. Together, they own and operate Rikki's, a women's sports bar on Market in the Castro. We'll hear from Danielle and Sara about their early lives and how they made their way to San Francisco and became friends. We'll also hear the story of why and how they opened The City's first women's sports bar, as well as the incredible woman they named it for. Most importantly, both Sara and Danielle (and me, Jeff) are Libras

In our brand new show, The World View with Alex Kocman, Alex breaks down FOUR major news stories this week:1) Minneapolis, Why?2) Obergefell (Good Political Propoganda)3)Watch all of our videos and subscribe to our channel for the latest content >HereHere

Aaron McIntire recaps Tom Homan's Minnesota visit emphasizing de-escalation through reduced rhetoric, while condemning Hakeem Jeffries' call to "put [DHS Secretary Kristi Noem] on ice permanently." Highlights mob chaos chasing federal air marshals in LA mistaken for ICE, Chuck Grassley's flip to co-sponsor the SAVE Act for citizenship-proof voting, a partial shutdown averted but 78% of government still at risk, Trump's housing comments prioritizing current owners' wealth, and the launch of the Greater Than campaign—pushing back against Obergefell by prioritizing children's right to a mom and dad over adult desires, featuring voices like Lila Rose, Allie Beth Stuckey, and Michael Knowles. Closes with Ask or Tell Me Anything submissions, including reaction to a rational breakdown of the Alex Pretti case.     The AM Update, Aaron McIntire, Tom Homan Minnesota, Hakeem Jeffries threat, Kristi Noem, federal air marshals LA, Chuck Grassley SAVE Act, government shutdown deal, Trump housing prices, Greater Than campaign, Obergefell, children's rights, Alex Pretti reaction, Ask or Tell Me Anything

Hour 1 for 1/30/25 Dr. Jennifer Robak Morse covers the new Greater Than Campaign (11:51). Topics: challenge of overturning gay marriage (21:48), caller: my grandchild was adopted by two men (28:42), contraception (34:54), and traditional marriage (48:15). Link: https://greaterthancampaign.com/ https://ruthinstitute.org/

Steve reacts to the day's news: border czar Tom Homan speaks in Minnesota, the "bananas and rice" Somali woman gets arrested, and Tucker Carlson makes a puzzling statement in Saudi Arabia. In Hour Two, Katy Faust joins the program to talk about a new effort she is joining called "Greater Than" and to explain why the overturning of Obergefell is so needed (and possible). TODAY'S SPONSORS: JASE MEDICAL: https://jasemedical.com/ and enter code “DEACE” at checkout for a discount on your order COWBOY COLOSTRUM: https://cowboycolostrum.com/?discount=deace&utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=deace CHIRP: https://gochirp.com/pages/steve-deace use promo code STEVE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Katy Faust of Them Before Us The Greater Than Campaign Pro-Child Politics: Why Every Cultural, Economic, and National Issue Is a Matter of Justice for Children Raising Conservative Kids in a Woke City Them Before Us Them Before Us: Why We Need a Global Children’s Rights MovementThe post Children's Rights and a Campaign to Overturn Obergefell's Same-Sex Marriage Ruling – Katy Faust, 1/28/26 (0283) first appeared on Issues, Etc..

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! In this episode, we explain the legal requirements for marriage formation in the United States. We also cover common law marriage as an exception to the procedural requirements and use hypothetical scenarios to illustrate how these rules apply in practice.   In this episode, we discuss: Defining marriage and legal precedents Procedural and substantive requirements for getting married Common law marriage Two hypotheticals from previous California bar exams Resources: "Listen and Learn" series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2002 (https://juraxbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/July-2002-CBX.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2008 (https://nwculaw.edu/pdf/bar/February%202008%20Essays%20and%20Sample%20Answers.pdf) Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (https://red.library.usd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3390&context=sdlrev) Loving v. Virginia (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395) Obergefell v. Hodges (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/644/) Podcast Episode 41: Tackling an MEE Family Law and Conflicts of Law Essay Question (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-41-tackling-an-mee-family-law-and-conflicts-of-law-essay-question/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-341-listen-and-learn-marriage-formation-and-requirements-family-law/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

How can governments incentivize couples to have more babies? What do you do when your fun mom group turns exclusive and "toxic"? And, in case you missed it, a "Here for the Comments" conversation about all the hate Katy got on her post about overturning Obergefell.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comLaura Field is a writer and political theorist who specializes in far-right populist intellectualism in the US. She's currently a Scholar in Residence at American University, a Senior Advisor for the Illiberalism Studies Program at GW, and a nonresident fellow with Brookings. Her new book is Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right. We bonded over some of the right's wackier innovations, and differed over how far the left has also slid into illiberalism.An auto-transcript is available above (just click “Transcript” while logged into Substack). For two clips of our convo — on the New Right's “post-constitutional moment,” and the war on the civil service — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: growing up in Alberta; losing a parent at a very young age; Plato an early inspiration; growing tired of the Straussians; the decline of religion under liberalism; Locke; Rousseau; Nietzsche; Fukuyama; the resurgence of the illiberal left and illiberal right; the Claremont Institute and Harry Jaffa; Jaffa's extreme homophobia and hatred of divorce; Allan Bloom; Lincoln fulfilling the Founding; Hobbes; the role of virtue in a republic; Machiavelli; Michael Anton's “Flight 93 Election”; John Eastman and “Stop the Steal”; Curtis Yarvin and The Cathedral; Adrian Vermeule's Common Good Constitutionalism; Catholic conversion; Pope Leo; Obergefell, debating Harvey Mansfield over marriage; Woodrow Wilson's expansion of the state; Thatcher and Reagan slimming it down; the pros and cons of technocratic experts; DOGE vs federal workers; “queer” curricula and the 1619 Project; edge-lords; Bronze Age Pervert and pagan masculinity; Fuentes and Carlson; and debating the dangers of wokeness.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: Claire Berlinski on America's retreat from global hegemony, Jason Willick on trade and conservatism, and Vivek Ramaswamy on the right's future. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

This is the nightmare scenario: incurring all the policy and political liabilities of GOP control while all the initial promises — from the DOGE and health care reform to immigration restriction and American jobs — are disintegrating. One of the big reasons why we are failing on immigration is because we refuse to fight the premise of judicial supremacism. We're joined today by Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, for a discussion about recent egregious court cases shredding our biblical and constitutional values. Mat is defending a mother in Maine after a state court ordered her daughter, at the behest of the girl's father, to divest from all contact with church or religious material. Mat also discusses how even the conservative judges are extremely political and refused to overturn Obergefell in the Kim Davis case. He believes that states need to force the issue by directly contradicting Obergefell in the same way they did with abortion. Finally, we discuss how the only authority of courts comes from the respect of the people and the other branches. If we are to believe that every decision is the unquestionable "law of the land," then there is no way to dig our way out of this tyranny. You cannot comply your way out of judicial supremacism.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President Trump put his signature on a bill that will fund the government through the end of January. The bill brought an end to a 43-day shutdown of the federal government. A group of eight Democratic senators negotiated with Senate Majority leader John Thune to get concessions for furloughed and laid off government workers, and the funding of several federal agencies. The deal did not include the extensions for healthcare subsidies that had become a key messaging point for Democrats throughout the shutdown. Will working out a deal without a big win hurt the political leverage the party seemed to be building? What will it mean for the position of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer?Next, Congress turns back to the Epstein files, with new emails emerging that appeared damning for President Trump. The president signed off on several pardons this week. Among those receiving the pardons were Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows and other members of the president's inner circle who faced scrutiny for their roles in undermining the 2020 election. None of the 70 individuals pardoned were facing federal charges. So what was the point? Does the pardon process need a facelift? The Supreme Court rejected the appeal of a Kentucky county clerk who wanted them to reconsider the landmark same-sex marriage case Obergefell v. Hodges. Concerns on the left about the case's standing were high after the court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. KCRW discusses why Obergefell may not be overturned anytime soon, and answers a question from a listener looking for insight from last week's election margins.

The Supreme Court turns down a challenge to law that brought us legalized same-sex "marriage" while an appellate court says making students recognize pronouns is unconstitutional. IVF deaths have surpassed those lost to abortion. Down Syndrome deaths continue to rise. And is America being feminized?    Recommendations  Interesting Times Podcast with Ross Douthat  Strong Women Podcast    Segment 1 – Courts on Obergefell and Pronouns  Christian Post: Supreme Court rejects Kim Davis' request to reconsider landmark gay marriage ruling  ADF: Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education  Segment 2 – IVF and Down Syndrome Deaths and Bible Reading  LifeSite: IVF embryo deaths surpass number of babies killed annually by abortion, report shows  The Denver Gazette: Termination of Down syndrome pregnancies continues to be high, which concerns advocates  Rising Kites  The Christian Post: More Americans are now reading the Bible but fewer believe it's 100% accurate: study  Segment 3 – Feminization of America  Substack: The Great Feminization  Strange New World by Carl Trueman    ______________________   Watch Truth Rising, now available at truthrising.com/colson.   

Erin is dehydrated after her visit to Austin, Bryan befriends his Erewhon-going seatmates on a flight to New York, plus some balm/SPF talk and a celebration of the results from last week’s elections. Erin discusses the NYT Opinion interview with three feminist conservative bootlickers titled “Did Liberal Feminism Ruin the Workplace”. Bryan brings us some cautious optimism with Kim Davis’ defeat with the Supreme Court declining to take up her case against Obergefell v. Hodges and the right to same-sex marriage, but how it doesn’t necessarily set a precedent and could still be brought up again in the future. For hours of bonus content visit www.patreon.com/attitudes See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.On today's edition of The Briefing, Dr. Mohler discusses SCOTUS's declination to take case that could have led to overturning of Obergefell, SCOTUS's allowance of Trump's transgender passport policy, and the 16 states suing the Trump administration over ‘morality of harm.'Part I (00:14 – 06:10)Supreme Court Declines to Take Case That Could Have Led to the Overturning of Obergefell: But This Does Not Mean SCOTUS Won't Take Up the Issue in the FuturePart II (06:10 – 11:51)Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration's Transgender Passport Policy to Proceed: Just Look at the ArgumentsSupreme Court Clears Way for Trump Transgender Passport Policy by The New York Times (Abbie VanSickle)Part III (11:51 – 19:50)No, Biological Designation is Not Meaningless and Useless: The LGBTQ Argument on Gender Identity Reveals the IdeologyThe Ruling About Passports Isn't About ID. It's About Social Control. by The New York Times (M. Gessen)Part IV (19:50 – 26:20)16 States Sue the Trump Administration Over ‘Morality of Harm': Christians Certainly Care About a Genuine Morality of Harm, But That Cannot Be Defined by LGBTQ IdeologiesUS judge to block Trump directive to cut ‘gender ideology’ from states’ sex ed materials by USA Today (Reuters)Sign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 1: 3:05pm- On Sunday night, eight Senators who caucus with Democrats—Angus King, Tim Kaine, Dick Durbin, John Fetterman, Maggie Hassan, Jeanne Shaheen, and Catherine Cortez Masto—joined Republicans and agreed to advance a bill that would end the government shutdown. The final vote in the Senate is expected to take place on Monday with a vote in the House of Representatives coming later in the week. If passed, the plan would fund most federal agencies through January 30th. Were Democrats simply prolonging the shutdown in hopes that it would help them electorally last Tuesday? 3:20pm- The United States Supreme Court has denied a request to revisit Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage in 2015. The court did not comment on its decision to decline the petition. According to The New York Times, at least four justices would have to vote in favor of hearing the case. 3:40pm- Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) was asked why he suddenly decided to join Republicans to end the government shutdown. He responded: "I was so focused on the Virginia elections I wasn't in this discussion on healthcare to see how dug in they were."

We begin by showing how Democrats will win in the long run on the government shutdown, even though it looks like they are capitulating this week.  Plus, the Supreme Court's refusal to overturn Obergefell shows that even the GOP appointees are hopelessly political. Next, we're joined by mortgage finance expert Melody Wright, who explains why Trump's plan to create a 50-year mortgage not only is debt slavery but will continue to fuel the housing crisis. In fact, Wright explains how the entire history of the 30-year mortgage was a folly. We actually need to return to the exact opposite dynamic: shorter mortgages, less debt, and less government involvement, which will allow home ownership to become affordable for the median income with shorter-term debt. She also warns that the AI data-center bubble is not only unsustainable but a ruse to prop up the economy.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices