Amid all the emotion over same-sex marriage, the limited-government argument for marriage as uniting a man and a woman keeps getting short shrift.... 

Virtually every political community has regulated male-female sexual relationships. This is not because government cares about romance as such. 

Government recognizes male-female sexual relationships because these alone produce new human beings.

For highly dependent infants, there is no path to physical, moral, and cultural maturity—no path to personal responsibility—without a long, delicate process of ongoing care and supervision to which mothers and fathers bring unique gifts. Unless children mature, they never will become healthy, upright, productive members of society.

Marriage exists to make men and women responsible to each other and to any children that they might have.

Marriage is thus a personal relationship that serves a public purpose in a political community. As the late sociologist James Q. Wilson wrote, “Marriage is a socially arranged solution for the problem of getting people to stay together and care for children that the mere desire for children, and the sex that makes children possible, does not solve.”

The late atheistic philosopher Bertrand Russell echoed the sentiment: “But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex,” he wrote.  “[I]t is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.”

Not every marriage will produce children, but every child is the result of a male-female union—and needs a mom and a dad. Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces.

Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children. How? By encouraging men and women to commit to each other permanently and exclusively—and to take responsibility for their children.

Social science confirms the importance of marriage for children. According to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every examined indicator when reared by their wedded biological parents. Studies that control for other factors, including poverty and genetics, suggest that children reared in intact homes do better than those who aren’t in categories such as educational achievement, emotional health, familial and sexual development, and delinquency and incarceration.

The statistics have penetrated American life to such a great extent that President Barack Obama refers to them as well known:

Fathers matter, and marriage helps to connect fathers to mothers and children. But how could the law teach that fathers are essential if it redefines marriage to make fathers optional?

Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children and deny the importance of mothers and fathers. It would deny, as a matter of policy, the ideal that children need a mother and a father.

Marriage laws work by embodying and promoting a true vision of marriage, which makes sense of those norms as a coherent whole. Law affects culture. Culture affects beliefs. Beliefs affect actions. The law teaches, and it shapes the public understanding of what marriage is and what it demands of spouses.

Indeed when the law redefined marriage by introducing no-fault divorce, it taught something about marriage: that it need not entail a real commitment to permanency. It used to be that divorce was issued for fault—the three A’s of common law: abuse, abandonment and adultery—but no-fault divorce allowed a spouse to divorce for any reason or no reason at all. And as a result divorce rates rose from single digits to nearly 50 percent.

And the costs were high.

A Brookings Institution study found that $229 billion in welfare expenditures between 1970 and 1996 can be attributed to the breakdown of the marriage culture and the resulting exacerbation of social ills: teen pregnancy, poverty, crime, drug abuse and health problems. A 2008 study found that divorce and unwed childbearing cost taxpayers $112 billion each year. Utah State University scholar David Schramm estimated that divorce alone costs local, state and federal governments $33 billion each year.

Marriage benefits everyone. Separating childbearing and childrearing from marriage burdens innocent bystanders: not just children, but the whole community. Often, the community must step in to provide (more or less directly) for their well-being and upbringing. By encouraging the marriage norms of monogamy, sexual exclusivity and permanence, the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role.

By recognizing marriage, the government supports economic well-being. Here’s how W. Bradford Wilcox, a University of Virginia professor, described the benefits of marriage in summarizing a study he led as part of the National Marriage Project: “The core message…is that the wealth of nations depends in no small part on the health of the family.”

The same study suggests that marriage and fertility trends “play an underappreciated and important role in fostering long-term economic growth, the viability of the welfare state, the size and quality of the workforce, and the health of large sectors of the modern economy.”

So it should be no surprise that the decline of marriage most hurts the least well-off.

A leading indicator of whether someone will know poverty or prosperity is whether, growing up, he or she knew the love and security of having a married mother and father. A Heritage Foundation report last year by Robert Rector points out: “Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 82 percent.”

And although all citizens have the right to live and love as they choose, no one has the right to redefine marriage for everyone.

Redefining marriage to exclude the norm of sexual complementarity (shared by a man and a woman) makes other marital norms optional and sabotages the reason for marriage policy. Again, the government’s interest is to ensure that relationships that could result in children are permanent and monogamous, so that those children have a mom and a dad.

Civil recognition of the marriage union of a man and a woman serves the ends of limited government more effectively, less intrusively and at less cost than does picking up the pieces from a shattered marriage culture.

-Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at The Heritage Foundation. He is co-author with Sherif Girgis and Robert P. George of the book “What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense” (Encounter, 2012).

Modern-day politicians carelessly and arbitrarily vote on issues that impact important aspects of our lives, and even determine the direction of our country.  

The freshly written immigration bill introduced in the Senate on Wednesday is one example of legislation that will have significant and lasting consequences.  

The bill is 844 pages long and takes approximately 3 full days to read -- even without taking any breaks.  

Senators have not had time to read it, let alone to study its accuracy and impact before its only scheduled hearing this morning.

Do you believe even one senator will take time to read the entire bill before the hearing?  (In case you're curious, here's a link to the Senate Immigration Bill.  In a few days, maybe hours, you could know more about it than some senators.)  

Of course, many senators divide the bill and delegate their study to subordinates, so-called experts, or lobbyists who brief them.  But as we have seen from past experience, that isn't working so well.  

Does anyone believe ObamaCare could have survived if politicians had been required to take time to really study it, and then accurately discuss its provisions with the people they serve?    

Now, even Obama-supporting union leaders are calling for it to be repealed, saying, "In the rush to achieve its passage, many of the Act's provisions were not fully conceived, resulting in unintended consequences..."  That's the nice way to say it's full of crap. 

It didn't have to be this way. We could have done it right.  And that's just one example of many.  

Have we learned anything from our experience?  Will our senators read and understand the Immigration Bill before they vote on it ?  The bill is already having a significant impact.  Undocumented workers are flooding across the border so "Obama can give them amnesty."  
Will Senators carefully consider the impact of each provision?  Will they give such important legislation enough effort to get it right?    

Why do our elected "representatives" spend less time considering legislation that will have a profound influence on America than President Obama spends considering his basketball brackets and golf games, or Michelle invests in planning her next extravagant party or opulent outing?

Are we governed by fools who care more about power, prestige, perks and privileges than they care about protecting our lives, liberty, peace, and prosperity?  

We know where this path leads.  We've been here before, more times than we care to count.  We can anticipate troubling consequences in the short term, and a deeply disturbing accumulation of consequences in the not-so-distant future. 

And as we have seen from past experience, the decisions we make about immigration policy are significant and lasting.  Immigration legislation will:

• Touch the lives of millions of immigrants
  
• Exert a powerful and lasting influence on all Americans
  
• Change the political landscape and balance of political power
• Impact national security
• Shape the very future of America
  
• And as a result, influence untold millions around the world.  
  

It would be wise to divide the bill into meaningful components that senators have time to carefully consider and vet properly.  But at the very least, they should read and understand what they are voting on.

Politicians must stop taking action on massive bills they haven't read and don't understand.  We should support senators of character and courage who want senators to do their duty.

Hold your senators and other elected leaders accountable!  Tell them to READ THE BILL!  

A friend shared this inspirational video about a teenage mother who sacrificed what she wanted for what was best for her son -- and the beautiful blessings that came from her sacrifice.

Birth mothers don't give their children up because they don't love them.  They love their baby so much they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice so the baby can have a better life.

Adoption is all about love!  Wish everyone, especially adopted children, could see this video because it gives a powerful perspective on the great love that is part of adoption.  

If you know someone who is looking for a great family, I know an awesome family who has been waiting and praying for a child to adopt.

"For all the talk in Washington about border security, the one agency charged with providing it isn't sharing a wealth of details. 

"So a group of volunteers -- called Secure Border Intelligence -- has stepped in, working around the clock in Arizona to keep a thorough record of the front lines of the border battle. 

"Using tiny, motion-activated cameras hidden in the desert along known smuggling routes, the group captures images of illegal immigrants streaming into the U.S. Some carry water, others bundles of drugs slung across their shoulders. SBI also records conversations between Border Patrol pilots and agents on the ground. Excerpts from those conversations, obtained exclusively by Fox News, suggest the border may not be as secure as frequently portrayed by the Obama administration."   Read more:  Fox News 

Every American should watch this two minute video.  We are becoming a country without borders, with all the security and financial challenges that creates.

As women, our perception of our appearance affects everything we do.  

It influences the choices we make, the friends we choose, the jobs we apply for, the way we treat our children -- just about everything.  

It’s an important part of our happiness.  

We spend a lot of time analyzing and trying to fix the things that aren’t quite right.  We should spend more time appreciating the things we do like.

You are more beautiful than you think!

Last month world-renowned pediatric neurosurgeon and up-from-nothing African-American idol Ben Carson expressed his contrarian opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman and no group could change this millennia-old social institution. Appalled medical students at Johns Hopkins University – allegedly a place of intellectual inquiry and diversity and “a forum for the free expression of ideas” -- circulated a petition to remove Carson as commencement speaker.

Having gained widespread media attention for his recent National Prayer Breakfast speech in which he critiqued political correctness, Carson apologized for his off-the-cuff, maladroit and incorrect political critique of same-sex marriage, reiterating his belief that gays must be assured equal civil and legal rights without changing the definition of marriage.

Were Johns Hopkins students more sage, they’d Think Again before dissing this distinguished man of character, accomplishment, and philanthropy for sharing Bill and Hillary Clinton’s marriage definition -- until “evolving” last month -- though not their political dexterity. Before exiting the ivory tower, students could learn from Jimi Hendrix who believed, “Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens,” and Benjamin Franklin who taught, “If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking.”

Apparently they don’t think much at Johns Hopkins where the Student Government Association denied the pro-life group “Voices for Life” recognition as an approved organization.  Without alternative voices on campus, how does the university assure the diversity it champions? Might ardent though free-thinking supporters of women’s reproductive rights want to know that a representative of Planned Parenthood (half of whose budget is taxpayer-funded) recently testified before the Florida legislature that the decision of what to do with a baby who survives a failed abortion be left up to the patient and her doctor, begging the question: who’s the patient?

Considering that abortionist Kermit Gosnell is currently on trial in Philadelphia for murdering late-term babies delivered alive by snipping their spines, these aren’t hypothetical questions. If “sunlight is the best disinfectant,” shouldn’t we encourage alternative voices – on and off-campus -- to assure an informed citizenry and a civil society?

Other instances of intolerance masquerading as tolerance are equally disquieting: At George Washington University, two gay students are seeking the removal of a chaplain for teaching Catholic doctrine regarding homosexuality (but apparently not pre-marital sex); the U.S. Army listed Evangelical Christianity, Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, and Catholicism as examples of religious extremism (along with Al Qaeda, Hamas and the Ku Klux Klan) in a Pennsylvania reserve unit training manual; and actor Jeremy Irons was labeled anti-gay for worrying that “lawyers are going to have a field day” if marriage is redefined and imagining estate-tax avoidance strategies involving father-son “marriages,” despite wishing “everybody who’s living with one other person the best of luck in the world, because it’s fantastic.”

Though distracted by ham-fisted arguments and irrespective of one’s view on same-sex marriage, abortion or any other hot-button issue, Americans must resist diversity-champions and tolerance-enforcers who dictate homogeneity -- as if there’s one cosmically correct policy that can be expressed without offending anyone. Name-calling and social ostracism not only destroy reputations and careers, they suffocate the debate a free, pluralistic and informed society needs to assure its government has the “consent of the governed.”

Throughout American history, we’ve navigated changes in cultural and legal landscapes while accommodating divergent views, values, and (lawful) practices. In America’s melting pot, prejudices dissolve through exposure to disparate voices and moral suasion, while legitimate differences are respected. America is the freest and most decent opportunity-giving society on earth because we’ve been a refuge for the persecuted since the Puritans left the Church of England to establish Plymouth Colony in 1620.

Embedded in our founding documents are uniquely American and revolutionary principles to protect our inalienable rights – including free speech and the free exercise of religion -- and “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” The barring of state-sponsored religion and the guaranteeing of religious liberty is what “the wall of separation between church and state” means – not a demand for the separation of religion and politics.

In his best-selling book “America the Beautiful,” Carson recounts how this “American Way” helped him overcame poverty, poor role models, racism and anger.  Born in a land of opportunity, and cultivated morally by religion, intellectually by a solid public education, and behaviorally by a wise though functionally illiterate Mom who never made excuses (nor allowed him to), he reached the pinnacle of success.

Fearing America won’t bequeath the same opportunity-society to future generations, Carson entreats Americans to recover our founding values, “set aside political correctness…apply logic to solving our problems and add the godly principles of loving our fellow man, caring about our neighbors, and developing our God-given talents.”  This will assure America remains “a pinnacle nation, … ‘one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’”

Think Again — for students whose heads need examining to ensure that they still think, a brain surgeon is the perfect commencement speaker.

Melanie Sturm lives in Aspen. She reminds readers to Think Again. You might change your mind. She welcomes comments at melanie@thinkagainusa.com. 

The original “Man of the People,” Thomas Jefferson, was born on April 13 in 1743.

Jefferson is best known for drafting the Declaration of Independence, but he also wrote prolifically and prophetically on education. “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be,” he wrote in a letter to a friend.

Jefferson understood that freedom depends on self-government: the cultivation of self-reliance, courage, responsibility, and moderation. Education contributes to both the knowledge and virtues that form a self-governing citizen. By proposing a bill in Virginia that would have established free schools every five to six square miles, Jefferson sought to teach “all children of the state reading, writing, and common arithmetic.” With these skills, a child would become a citizen able to “calculate for himself,” “express and preserve his ideas, his contracts and accounts,” and “improve, by reading, his morals and faculties.”

Jefferson viewed this basic education as instrumental to securing “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” for Americans because it helps an individual “understand his duties” and “know his rights.”

Once taught reading and history, people can follow the news and judge the best way to vote. If the government infringes on their liberties, educated citizens can express themselves adequately to fight against it.

By providing equal access to primary schools, Jefferson hoped to teach children “to work out their own greatest happiness, by showing them that it does not depend on the condition of life in which chance has placed them, but is always the result of a good conscience, good health, occupation, and freedom in all just pursuits.”

While Jefferson supported the idea of public education, he would not have placed schools under government supervision. Instead, he argued for the placement of “each school at once under the care of those most interested in its conduct.” He would put parents in charge.

Taxpayers would provide the resources for public education; the community would arrange the schooling. Although we today face a very different set of challenges than Jefferson, his reasoning remains relevant: Those most concerned with the school’s performance, i.e., parents, will best manage education.

We spend more than enough on our struggling education system. Empowering parents with control over dollars, instead of increasing the amount spent on schools, will improve educational outcomes.

During his lifetime, Thomas Jefferson had little success with his efforts to reform the American education system. Yet the principles he promoted hold true today: Our freedom depends on delivering a quality education to future generations. As we honor Jefferson’s birthday, let us also heed his advice and enable parents to make more of the decisions regarding their children’s education.

It’s Tax Day.  Most Americans dread Tax Day, and for good reasons. Beyond the huge tab Americans pay to the government, the tax code is so complex that it’s difficult to figure out what we owe to the IRS. This is a pain for taxpayers and a huge drain on the economy.

According to the federal Taxpayer Advocate in its 2012 report, Americans’ cost of complying with today’s complex tax code totaled $168 billion in 2010. That’s almost as large as the impact of the Obama tax hikes in fiscal year 2013, and twice the size of sequestration this year [see chart].

It takes taxpayers 6.1 billion hours—or 51 hours per household—to complete all the required filings. That’s more than six full eight-hour working days per household!

The compliance burden comes on top of the direct financial cost of $3.5 trillion in federal spending. In 2012, Washington collected $20,000 in taxes for every household in America. But Washington spent nearly $30,000 per household.

Americans pay high taxes as it is, and with the 13 tax increases that hit this year, tax revenue is growing beyond its historical average as a share of the economy. But Washington’s deficits continue, because spending keeps going up.

Future Tax Days promise to be even worse because of the tax increases from the fiscal cliff deal and from Obamacare. Taxpayers will start seeing these costs when they do their tax returns next April and in future years.

Too much taxing and spending is bad for the nation. Americans are right to be concerned about how the President and Congress allocate their hard-earned money. As the above infographic shows, 45 percent or almost half of all spending went toward paying for Social Security and health care entitlements. Without reforming these massive and growing programs, Washington will have to borrow increasing amounts of money, piling debt onto younger generations and putting the nation on a dangerous economic course.

Growing government spending threatens current and future taxpayers with higher taxes. Congress should reduce spending and prevent any more tax increases. Congress also needs to reform the tax code so it is less of a burden on the American people.

Tax day is a real drag, but it doesn’t have to be this bad. Learn more at savingthedream.org.

Americans have long been blessed with abundant freedom to live, believe, and worship as we desire.  President Obama declared:

"For nearly four centuries, men and women have immigrated to America's shores in pursuit of religious freedom.  Hailing from diverse backgrounds and faiths, countless settlers have shared a simple aspiration -- to practice their beliefs free from prejudice and persecution.  

"In 1786, the Virginia General Assembly took a bold step toward preserving this fundamental liberty by passing the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which brought to life the ideal of religious tolerance from the texts of the Enlightenment in the laws of state...

"Drafted by Thomas Jefferson, the Virginia Statute formed the basis for the First Amendment, which has preserved religious freedom for both believers and non-believers for over 220 years..."

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, teaches us more about Thomas Jefferson's legacy:

"If you've ever toured Monticello, then you know that Thomas Jefferson had very strong opinions about what his legacy should be. 

"He wanted to be remembered as the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence and as the 'father' of the University of Virginia. 

"Both are inscribed on his tombstone, along with his second proudest achievement--authoring the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom.

"That might surprise Americans today, who wrongly believe that our third President wanted to divorce the government of all religious expression. On the contrary, what Jefferson wrote in Fredericksburg some 230 years ago was such a groundbreaking defense of freedom that the men who drafted our Constitution relied on it for the framework of the First Amendment. 

"'No nation,' the third President said years later, 'has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be.' Thomas Jefferson understood then, as we do now, that religious freedom is fundamental to every other freedom on earth. Maybe that's why, despite all of his other accomplishments, Jefferson considered the statute one of his greatest legislative feats."

Many of us have taken our legacy of religious liberty for granted -- like the air we breathe, it has always been abundant.  Lately, as our rights have been questioned, I have appreciated more than ever before the sacrifices so many have made to preserve religious freedom in America.  It's our turn to preserve and pass on this noble heritage.

Thomas Jefferson was a man of unusual intelligence, ability, and accomplishment.  

In fact, as President John F. Kennedy once welcomed forty-nine Nobel laureates to the White House, he said, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

Jefferson's love of learning and his ability to work diligently prepared him to be the principal author of the Declaration of Independence when he was just thirty-three years old.  In less than three weeks he drafted the document that would change the course of history and influence the lives of untold millions.