Breakpoint

The beginning of every Christian citizen’s civic duty is to vote. Chief among the reasons Christians should vote is that it is an opportunity to love God, by loving what He loves, and an opportunity to love our neighbor, by advancing those policies that lead to moral and personal goods.

At the same time, voting is about more than who is on the ballot at the top of the ticket. Of course, the Presidential race is incredibly important, but so are the other races from the federal to the most local ones. Ballot initiatives matter too.

A few weeks ago, a friend and listener asked what questions Christians should ask candidates. Because, there is no perfect candidate but so many issues, casting an informed vote requires research. Since most of us will never get the opportunity to question presidential candidates (apparently, even if we were moderating the debates), we should be able to know how they might answer the questions based on the statements of public record. At the same time, candidates running for Congress or for state and city offices are, perhaps, more accessible.

Either way, the key thing we must get at in our questions and research is worldview. Values matter. Behavior matters. Party matters. But at the root of each of these things for all of us, including political candidates, are our most deeply held beliefs about life and the world. Here’s how G.K. Chesterton put it in an essay entitled “Introductory Remarks on the Importance of Orthodoxy,” from his book Heretics:

But there are some people, nevertheless–and I am one of them–who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy’s numbers, but still more important to know the enemy’s philosophy. We think the question is not whether their theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether, in the long run, anything else affects them.

Recently I asked our Colson Center staff and a few others to submit questions they’d ask candidates to get at what Chesterton called “their view of the universe.”

Several offered the question, “What makes human life valuable?” It doesn’t get more fundamental than this. Does our value come from what we can contribute to society, which group we do or don’t belong to, or whether we are wanted or dependent on others? Do only some humans have value, or do all humans have value simply because they are humans?

Another question is What is the basis for moral judgments? Does morality evolve over time, or is it based on knowable and unchanging principles? This question gets to the heart of what a candidate believes about the fundamental principles established in our nation’s founding documents, and whether or not they will look to the Constitution or some other source in carrying out their responsibilities.

A third question offers insights about how a candidate understands the scope and limits of government: What are the most significant problems we face as a society, and whose job is it to solve them? Any candidate that points to the state as the only answer to every problem not only is wrong, they will undermine the God-given role of pre-governmental institutions such as families, churches, religious organizations, business, voluntary associations, etc. Whenever these intermediate institutions are bypassed or even worse, intentionally weakened, the society is weakened. Not to mention, unchecked power provides the greatest potential for state corruption.

There are also important questions of definition. Most battles for a culture are fought over the definition of words. Here are two words that matter in our cultural moment:

1. The “common good.” You might remember from civics lessons (or at least the song from Schoolhouse Rock) that our Constitution was developed to, among other things, “promote the general welfare.” What does that mean? What does a good, flourishing society look like? How might it be achieved?
2. Religious freedom. The free exercise of religion is the first freedom listed in the Bill of Rights for a reason. However, many candidates have replaced “free exercise” with “freedom to worship.” They are not the same thing.

On today’s BreakPoint Podcast, we offer a special episode of the Focus on the Family broadcast, in which I joined Tim Goeglein and Jim Daly of Focus on the Family to discuss the importance of voting. A special thanks to Focus on the Family for allowing us to air this broadcast. Come to BreakPoint.org or subscribe to the BreakPoint Podcast wherever you get your podcasts. 

And then, please, vote.

Today we have a special episode for you courtesy of Focus on the Family. John Stonestreet and Tim Goeglein join Focus on the Family president Jim Daly to discuss the  importance of voting—and for Christians to make informed decisions about the candidates and issues at every level of government, from the presidency down to your city council and school board. How do we vote according to our Christian worldview, and how do we engage others in civil discussion in this heated election season.

Our thanks to Focus on the Family!

Focus on the Family Broadcast: The Importance of Voting

The morning after John Stonestreet and Shane Morris recorded this episode of "BreakPoint This Week," the nation learned that President Trump and the First Lady had tested positive for COVID. All of us at the Colson Center are praying for their health and speedy recovery.

John and Shane discuss the presidential debate: It says more about the state of our nation than it does about the individual candidates. Also, a new survey reveals that 20-some percent of self-identified evangelicals do not hold to a biblical understanding of sex and gender. How is this, and what are the implications?

They also discuss the stunning pro-China propaganda puff piece published this week by the New York Times, which asserts that Communist China's crackdown on protesters for freedom was good and necessary. Really? This is the same New York Times, you may remember, that forced an editor to resign because he ran an op ed by Sen. Tom Cotton discussing the use of military force to quell violent protesters here at home.

John and Shane wrap up the show with their recommendations of the week.

“The Woke and the Red-Pill, pt I: Conjoined Twins at War,” by Joseph Minich, Modern Reformation

“No, the Kids Are not OK, a Conversation with Helen Alvare,” BreakPoint Podcast

“Hong Kong Is China, Like It or Not,” by Lam Yik Fei, New York Times

The Wonderful Works of God, by Herman Bavinck

“The World Split Apart,” by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

“Divided Hearts of America” movie by Benjamin Watson

The most common response we received to Wednesday’s commentary, in which I argued that the sexual revolution is progressing to the next stage involving children, was “So, what can we do?” It’s exactly the right question for Christians to ask, and one to which we were already committed to answer. Never should Christians talk about the fall, even the worst of human depravity, outside of the context of the victory Jesus Christ, who has overcome the world.

While the cultural indicators do point, I believe, to the further mainstreaming of pedophilia, a Christian worldview places even the most chaotic and distressing of moments within a larger Story. Christ has risen from the dead. He is Lord. And, He is making all things new. Thus, as Christian philosopher Alvin Pantinga reminds us, whenever we talk of evil, we are talking about a very real foe. But a defeated foe. 

Christians join what theologians call the “already-but-not-yet” work of the Kingdom, in what St. Paul called “the ministry of reconciliation,” in a number of ways: by championing what is good, innovating what is missing, restoring what’s broken or, especially in this case, confronting what is evil. 

In this case, social media and the internet play an outsized role in the exploitation and sexualization of kids. An honest look a nearly every metric available of the broad outcomes of widespread social media use, especially for kids, it’s clearly a net negative. It may very well be time to consider getting off of social media or, at the very least, keeping our kids off of social media. As a minimum, children should never be left to social media or, for that matter to any use of the internet, unsupervised, especially if they lack the maturity to understand it and self-govern.

I will say this a different way: It’s stupid, in the Proverbial sense of “foolishness,” to give students unfettered, unaccountable access to the apps, games, videos, or online communities of the internet, especially in the privacy of their bedrooms. To stop that intrusion into our families is a way to resist the evil of the increasing sexualization of children.

From a larger perspective, child exploitation and the normalizing of pedophilia must be understood as one of the consequences of the sexual revolution’s worst ideas. Two years ago, in an interview for the BreakPoint podcast, I discussed this with Helen Alvare, a Professor of Law at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. As the sexual revolution has barreled onward, she observed, the emphasis in U.S. law has subtly but definitively shifted. Once broadly favoring the rights of children, the law increasingly prioritizes the “rights” and “freedoms” of adults over the rights of children.

Same-sex marriage is the prime example. Once the state proclaimed an intentionally sterile union is socially identical to a man-woman marriage, a child’s inherent right to their mother and father was erased. As Alvare put it, “The idea used to be that parents only have rights when it comes to children because they first have responsibilities. Now there’s a demand that children are something that must be given to you.”

Because my conversation with Helen Alvare is even more important today than it was two years ago, we’ve re-aired it on the BreakPoint Podcast. You can find it at BreakPoint.org, or subscribe  to the BreakPoint Podcast wherever you listen to podcasts.

Alvare is among a few who are innovating and advocating an important and brilliant strategy which, I believe, is part of the answer to the question, “so what can we do?”  We must launch a children’s rights movement, demonstrating how the so-called progress of the sexual revolution has put children at risk.

Another leader in this movement to reprioritize children is Katy Faust. Her organization, Them Before Us, is specifically dedicated to advocating for children’s rights at both the state and federal levels, and also to telling the stories of the victims that aren’t supposed to exist: the children borne from sperm donors deprived of their right to know their biological father’s name and medical information; the children raised by persons in same-sex unions who have no biological relationship to them but claim legal parentage merely because of romantic feelings and sexual choices; the children birthed by surrogates and detached from their biological mom. Katy advocates for children’s rights in a culture solely fixed on adult happiness.

T.S. Eliot once said all attempts to form a civil society without Christianity will fail. Before the collapse, however, we must “meanwhile redeem the time: so that the Faith may be preserved alive through the dark ages before us, to renew and rebuild civilization.”

Our Enemy is a defeated enemy. God will restore and rebuild. It’s an opportunity and a blessing to be a part of that.

There are no highlights from Tuesday night’s presidential debate. There are, however, plenty of “lowlights”: name-calling, untruths, anger, vitriol, interruption. It was a debacle on every level.

During the debate, my friend Trevin Wax tweeted, “Neil. Postman. He saw this coming forty years ago,” referring to how the author of Amusing Ourselves to Death, who described what happens in societies when societies entertainment replaces truth and celebrity-ism replaces virtue.

In addition to Postman, a speech called “A World Split Apart,” given at the Harvard University commencement on June 8, 1978, by Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn has proven to be the best decoder of our cultural moment. Today, we live downstream from, in the wake of, what Solzhenitsyn attempted to describe to his booing audience.

For example, Solzhenitsyn described how the West had replaced the pursuit of happiness by virtue with a pursuit of happiness by stuff: 

“Every citizen has been granted the desired freedom and material goods in such quantity and of such quality as to guarantee in theory the achievement of happiness … however, one psychological detail has been overlooked: the constant desire to have still more things and a still better life and the struggle to obtain them imprint many Western faces with worry and even depression … The majority of people have been granted well-being to an extent their fathers and grandfathers could not even dream about; it has become possible to raise young people according to these ideals, leading them to physical splendor, happiness, possession of material goods, money and leisure, to an almost unlimited freedom of enjoyment. So who should now renounce all this, why and for what should one risk one's precious life in defense of common values?”

When the pursuit of virtue is undone by materialism, words are redefined. Specifically, Solzhenitsyn suggested, freedom:

“Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the … misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counter-balanced by the young people's right not to look or not to accept…Such a tilt of freedom in the direction of evil …[was] born primarily out of a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which there is no evil inherent to human nature; the world belongs to mankind and all the defects of life are caused by wrong social systems which must be corrected.”

Solzhenitsyn then specifically points a finger at the press:

“The press too, of course, enjoys the widest freedom. But what sort of use does it make of this freedom? … How many hasty, immature, superficial and misleading judgments are expressed every day, confusing readers, without any verification. The press can both simulate public opinion and miseducate it. Thus, we may see terrorists described as heroes, or secret matters pertaining to one's nation's defense publicly revealed, or we may witness shameless intrusion on the privacy of well-known people under the slogan: ‘Everyone is entitled to know everything.’ But this is a false slogan, characteristic of a false era. People also have the right not to know, and it is a much more valuable [right]. The right not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk. A person who works and leads a meaningful life does not need this excessive burdening flow of information. …In spite of the abundance of information, or maybe because of it, the West has difficulties in understanding reality such as it is.”

At the root of all of this, Solzhenitsyn suggested, is what he called “spiritual exhaustion”:

“The human soul longs for things higher, warmer, and purer than those offered by today's mass living habits, introduced by the revolting invasion of publicity, by TV stupor, and by intolerable music… There are meaningful warnings that history gives a threatened or perishing society. Such are, for instance, the decadence of art, or a lack of great statesmen. There are open and evident warnings, too. The center of your democracy and of your culture is left without electric power for a few hours only, and all of a sudden, crowds of American citizens start looting and creating havoc. The smooth surface film must be very thin, and the social system quite unstable and unhealthy.

There is only one solution with which Solzhenitsyn left his audience:

“Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction …If the world has not come to its end, it has approached a major turn in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will exact from us a spiritual upsurge: We shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life where our physical nature will not be cursed as in the Middle Ages, but, even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon as in the Modern era.”

And then he concludes:

“No one on earth has any other way left but -- upward.”

God help us.

John Stonestreet and Shane Morris tackle a tough question: The Colson Center always talks about a Christian worldview. Given that many theologically liberal churches hold positions we wouldn't call Christian, their worldview is not the same. Wouldn't it be better to call it a "biblical worldview?" But even then, there are many interpretations of the Bible. How do I talk about worldview with friends?

The second question refers to John's recent BreakPoint commentary in which he claims all the furor over the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett all stems back to the issue of abortion. One listener challenges, "Isn't it really about hypocrisy?"  That is, the hypocrisy of the Republicans voting on a nominee before the election now, but not in 2016 when Obama was in office.

BREAKPOINT

“Self-constructed, Build-a-Bear, Buffet-Style Christianity Is No Christianity at All,” by John Stonestreet and Shane Morris, BreakPoint

“Why the Left Is Attacking Amy Coney Barrett (It’s not Just Because Trump Nominated Her),” by John Stonestreet, BreakPoint

The Upstream Podcast, with Shane Morris

Making Sense of Your World: a Biblical Worldview, 2nd edition, by Gary Phillips and William Brown, available at the Colson Center online bookstore

Each chapter of the sexual revolution has featured an updated version of the same myth: “Don’t worry, the kids will be fine.” Sex with anyone anywhere? The kids will be fine. Separate marriage from procreation? The kids will be fine. No-fault divorce? The kids will be fine. Graphic sex education in schools beginning in kindergarten? The kids will be fine. Same-sex marriages eliminating either a mom or a dad from the picture? The kids will be fine. 

They weren’t. Growing up in families without married parents, their well-being sacrificed for the sake of adult happiness, the kids have been the primary victims of our sexual experimentations. To cover our tracks, we’ve resorted to indoctrination, attempting to convince them of other myths, such as the idea that biological sex and their physical bodies are fully malleable. Kids today are literally taught to be skeptical of how they were made.

The kids are not fine. They’ve never been fine, in fact, not throughout this entire history of sexual redefinition. And I’m afraid, that the next chapter just began.

Even before Netflix released “Cuties,” that French movie about an 11-year-old girl who joins a twerking dance group to escape her conservative Muslim family, it received wide-spread backlash. Many critics, including all of us here at the Colson Center, were horrified to think that a movie featuring pornographic footage of very young actresses would be permitted to air. But it was. 

Even worse, once the director wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post attempting to explain her intentions, she and her film have been defended in mainstream media outlets such as the Washington Post and on NPR. She was warning us about the sexualization of children through online technology, we were scolded, even if in the process, she sexualized actual children. The lead character, who is sexualized throughout the film, is played by an actual 11-year-old girl.

At the risk of sounding like the old man who yells “get off my lawn” to the enlightened minds at NPR, no 11-year old girl should be sexualized for any reason. Their defense of this film makes me think we’ve entered new territory.

Every stage of the sexual revolution has progressed the same way. A morally questionable activity enters our culture, not through moral argument, but through the imagination, typically via entertainment or some form of “artistic expression.” I’m old enough to remember how controversial “Beverly Hills 90210” was, as it skirted the edge of our cultural moral boundaries, depicting teenagers talking about sex but never actually doing it.

In the end, the characters mostly came down on the right side of the moral question, but not because of any appeal to a stable moral framework. Rather, the teen just “weren’t ready to take that step.” Just a few years later, say, on an episode of “Friends,” the teenager is having sex, with a teacher even. This time, it’s supposed to be funny. Before long, it’s Glee, and the teens aren’t just talking anymore. They’re doing, and they’re in Ohio, not LA. (We could trace the history of homosexuality from the “not that there’s anything wrong with that” days of “Seinfeld” to “Will and Grace” to “Modern Family.”)

At the end of “Cuties,” I’m told, the lead character leaves behind her twerking dance crew and returns to her conservative family. Her decision, of course, does not come from any moral framework, much less a condemnation of the pedophilia the film both portrays and commits.  The crisis is resolved through some weak notion like “self-discovery,” or “being true to yourself.” This means that in the next “Cuties” (and there will be a next one), the ending will be different. Maybe her fundamentalist parents learn to flex a little bit. Maybe in the one after that, she doesn’t go home at all. Before long, none of us are alarmed by pornographic portrayals of children.

What happened with sexual promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality, and currently, with transgenderism is happening with kids. We’ve already told them to determine their sexual identities. At the same time, the only ground left sexual morality is the flimsy notion of “consent.” Is it that much of a leap, really, from here to kids self-determining sexual behavior?

Just two weeks ago, California’s Governor signed a bill decriminalizing homosexual activity between an adult and a minor 14 or over, as long as there’s less than a 10-year age gap between the two and “consent” was given. Lawmakers said the bill was necessary for the equality of LGBT people, because heterosexual sex between a minor and an adult has already been decriminalized along the same lines.

I hate to say this, but the train of pedophilia has left the station. The kids definitely won’t be fine.

“In a Sane World,” suggests Kathryn Jean Lopez, “America Would Have Just Fallen in Love with the Barrett Family.” After all, Amy Coney Barrett’s scholarly brilliance is recognized by legal minds on both the left and the right. Plus, she’s the mom of seven children, including two that were adopted from Haiti. Her youngest child, who has Down Syndrome, is the favorite of everyone in the family, she revealed in a truth said in jest when she accepted her nomination.

As Lopez asks, “what’s not to love?”

It’s a good question, even for those on the other side of the political aisle. Barrett is, after all, literal proof that women really “can have it all,” a line that, apparently, more people say than actually believe. As NPR’s Nina Totenberg admitted in a recent profile, “Barrett’s busy schedule and her many roles leave people… scratching their heads and asking, ‘How does she do it?’”

Critiques of Barrett have, so far, run the gamut. Some are understandable, such as the complaints about how this process is proceeding in an election year or the questions rooted in fundamental disagreements about judicial philosophy.

Other critiques have been uncharitable, even evil. For example, a tweet issued over the weekend suggested that adopting children from Haiti could mean that the Barrett family are white-supremacist colonizers.

The stupidest critique award goes to the person who suggested that a religious group Barrett was connected to was the inspiration for Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale.” Turns out, it wasn’t. Though, to be clear, this falls under the category of “irrelevant and pointless even if true.” 

And, some critiques reflect a straightforward anti-religious bigotry, as if Catholics who believe what Catholics have always believed are somehow disqualified from public service. The irony of these critiques is that they are often coming from the same voices who’ve spent the last four years telling Christians they weren’t Christian enough. It’s hard to keep up.

At root, there’s more to this hatred than the legitimate disagreements and debate inherent to the nomination process. There’s even more to it than being potentially the third appointee of a President despised by so many. The savage incivility already being directed at Barrett can be traced back to Roe v. Wade. As Kim Colby, legal scholar for Christian Legal Society suggested last week on the BreakPoint podcast, the decision to legalize abortion has poisoned our political system and escalated court nominations to literal life and death issues.

Like the horrible Dred Scott decision on slavery, Roe deals with the very heart of what it means to be human. And, just as in Dred Scott decision, the Court got Roe wrong. More than 160 years later, America is still paying the price for the Court getting Dred Scott wrong. In the case of Roe, the national cost in terms of lives lost, families destroyed, and a deeply poisoned, dysfunctional system mired in a culture war are nearly incalculable.

Roe is why Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the fierce protector of legalized abortion in all forms (including later-term, sex-selective, and disability-targeted abortions) was a hero to the left; and, Roe is why Amy Coney Barret is the left’s latest villain. More specifically, Barrett represents a new kind of feminism; one that doesn’t come at the expense of children; that doesn’t require rejecting the inherent goodness of a women’s procreative nature. Barrett’s career has been built on her judicial genius, while fully embracing who she is as a woman, a wife, and a mom.

By joining five other pro-life votes on the Supreme Court, four of which seem reliable, a Justice Amy Coney Barrett may indeed spell the end of Roe v. Wade. However, it is unlikely that even if her confirmation means the end of Roe, it would not be the end of legalized abortion in America. Rather, it would be the end of federally imposed abortion on all states. In states such as California, New York, Colorado, Virginia and the many others that either have or are trying to enshrine abortion as an unalienable right, the deadly practice would almost certainly continue. Pro-lifers, then, would continue their very important work: persuading hearts and minds, loving scared young women and their partners, adopting precious children, etc.

At the same time, as Kim Colby suggested on the BreakPoint Podcast, overturning Roe would be huge. It could put an end to the kind of brutal, divisive, and cruel confirmation hearings we have all become used to. The furor over the president nominating a justice 40-some days before an election has nothing to do with constitutionality. Nothing to do with precedent or principle. It has everything to do with politics. And our politics have been deeply poisoned by the evil of abortion. 

What Amy Coney Barrett is about to endure at the hands of Senate Democrats is living proof of that.

Hope for E.T. springs eternal, despite the definitive lack of evidence for his existence. After decades of peering through telescopes, listening with giant radio antennae, and hurling probes to distant worlds, astronomers have yet to find even a hint of life beyond earth.  So, instead of looking for actual evidence of life, some scientists have begun looking for conditions that could theoretically be associated with life. And when they find that, they hold press conferences.

When scientists discovered that liquid water may once have existed on Mars, it was reported with the excitement we’d expect if probes had found Martian guppies. The discovery of a probable ocean under the ice of a Jovan moon is reported as if alien life forms had already been filmed doing backstrokes in there. Just this year, the discovery of an earth-sized exoplanet orbiting a distant red dwarf star was reported by most articles as if Kepler-1649c were a perfect potential host for life.

The latest episode of astrobiological hype involves our nearest planetary neighbor. Venus has long been dismissed in the search for extraterrestrial life due to its hellish climate. After all, it’s wrapped in sulfuric acid, with a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead.

Then, just a few weeks ago, an international team of scientists from MIT and Cardiff University published evidence of phosphine gas high in the atmosphere of Venus. On Earth, the only two known sources of phosphine are human industry and microscopic life. So, according to this team, the presence of large quantities of this gas on Venus can only be explained by living things.

The press’s reaction was predictable. Every headline featured the word “life.” Clamor to divert space exploration resources to Venus mounted so quickly that NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine had to issue a statement in which, while praising the insight of these astronomers, he noticeably downplayed Venus, pointing instead to other, more promising missions already on the space agency’s docket and in their budget.   

Other critics were more measured: “[T]his can hardly be taken as a biosignature,” one biologist said to the New York Times. “…only for anomalous and unexplained chemistry.”  Another professor of planetary sciences who was quoted in the Financial Times sounded even more skeptical: “The scientists can’t think of a way of getting these phosphine levels without it being a byproduct of life,” he said. “That doesn’t mean there isn’t another way, and it is a long way from proving that there’s life on Venus.”

So much of the fanfare of stories like this follow a familiar script: scientists rush through the peer-review process and go straight to the press with speculative conclusions. Along the way, “anomalous chemistry” becomes “alien life.” Later, once cooler heads prevail, the same newspapers and websites carrying the fantastical headlines, print a retraction with a less exciting explanation for all that phosphine gas … usually in small print on a back page somewhere.

Of course, proposing and challenging theories is what science is all about. Where science goes wrong is in treating these findings—especially in the early, speculative stages—as if anything is “settled,” much less announcing the speculations as settled conclusion with breathless news reports and demands that NASA rework their budget.

In one of our latest “What Would You Say?” videos, my colleague Brooke McIntire takes on the myth of “settled science.” Proposing and overturning theories is an ongoing part of the process. Even longstanding scientific consensus is vulnerable to new and contrary evidence, and scientists are fallible and biased human beings too. It’s a great video, especially one to share with your kids and grandkids. To watch and share it, just go to whatwouldyousay.org.

None of this means, of course, that life on Venus is impossible. What it does mean is that a pair of papers linking the presence of a particular gas to life doesn’t amount to all the hype it generated. Without more and better evidence, speculation about little E.T.s on Venus is like its sweltering atmosphere… so much hot air.

The controversy over the sexualization of young girls in the Netflix-aired film "Cuties," is the latest incarnation of the pervasive myth of the sexual revolution: "The kids will be ok."

No-fault divorce? The kids will be ok. Graphic sex education at a young age? The kids will be ok. Letting kids determine their own gender identity, same thing.

Well, the kids are not ok. Today on the BreakPoint Podcast, we re-air an interview John Stonestreet conducted with Helen Alvare of the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School. She is the author of Putting Children's Interests First in US Family Law and Policy, and discusses the catastrophic consequences of the law shifting from protecting children and families to catering to adult sexual preferences. 

This interview first aired May 9, 2018.

“The Next Frontier in the Sexual Revolution,” by Scott Yenor, First Things

Putting Children’s Interests First in U.S. Family Law and Policy: With Power Comes Responsibility, by Helen Alvare

Women Speak for Themselves, Facebook page

“Supreme Court Delivers 2 Important Victories for Religious Freedom,” by Helen Alvare, National Catholic Register

The Strong Women Podcast