July 2, 2009 Rabbi Abraham J. Twerski: The hallmark of a person Abe Novick: Up, up, and aliya July 1, 2009 Rabbi Avi Shafran: The Road Taken The Kosher Gourmet by Marialisa Calta: Get into the holiday spirit with these Star-Spangled desserts June 30, 2009 Rabbi Binyomin Ginsberg: What makes a great parent? Caroline B. Glick: Ideologue-in-Chief June 29, 2009 The Jewish Ethicist by Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir: Beware of 'Caveat Emptor' Steven Emerson: ACLU pushing for more money for Hamas June 26, 2009 Rabbi Yoni Posnick: Learn the secret to a healthy marriage from a scriptural villain Caroline B. Glick: Barack Obama vs. International Law June 25, 2009 Rabbi Shimon Apisdorf: The Absurd Power of Truth Jordan "Gorf" Gorfinkle's strip: Everything's Relative June 24, 2009 Rabbi Yonason Goldson: Advancement of technology is a wake-up call for humanity The Kosher Gourmet by Andrea Weigl: Summer on a stick: Making frozen treats can be easy, creative and fun June 23, 2009 Martin M. Bodek: 'On Surnames': And so, We Begin Caroline B. Glick: The Obama Effect June 22, 2009 The Jewish Ethicist by Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir: Working for a corrupt firm N. Richard Greenfield : Where are American Jews? June 19, 2009 Rabbi Abraham J. Twerski: Emotion v. intellect Caroline B. Glick: Israel's rare opportunity June 18, 2009 Jonathan Rosenblum: Sometimes it is more essential to define the nature of evil than good Jordan "Gorf" Gorfinkle's strip: Everything's Relative June 17, 2009 Rabbi Yonason Goldson: The Language of Confusion The Kosher Gourmet by Linda Gassenheimer: Nothing pleases Dad more than a thick, juicy onion-smothered steak. Add home-Baked Potato Chips and … June 16, 2009 The Jewish Ethicist by Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir: Career v. Careersism Caroline B. Glick: Obama's losing streak and Israel Richard Z. Chesnoff: ‘Palestinians’: Never Missing an Opportunity … June 15, 2009 Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu: How Judea and Samaria can become 'Palestine' Daniel Pipes: Where Netanyahu's speech failed June 12, 2009 Rabbi Abraham J. Twerski: Some big thoughts about not acting so big Caroline B. Glick: Obama's High Commissioner June 11, 2009 Victor Davis Hanson: Our historically challenged President Mitch Albom: Beware the True Believers Lewis Grossberger: What we learn from the new Hitler photos June 10, 2009 Mort Zuckerman: What Obama and his advisors won't -- or refuse to -- grasp about Israel and the Muslim world The Kosher Gourmet by Steve Petusevsky Lotsa pasta: Tips, techniques and (amazing) taste June 9, 2009 Anne Bayefsky: Obama's stunning offense to Israel and the Jewish people Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.: America's first Muslim president? June 8, 2009 The Jewish Ethicist by Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir: Merchant must take responsibility for careless shopper? Mark Steyn: A superpower that feeds on mediocrity cannot survive for long on leftovers from the past Richard Z. Chesnoff: How do you say 'kumbaya' in Arabic? June 5, 2009 Rabbi Abraham J. Twerski: In quest of spirituality Caroline B. Glick: Obama's Arabian dreams Charles Krauthammer: The Settlements Myth June 4, 2009 Paul Greenberg: The War Comes to Little Rock The Kosher Gourmet by Judy Hevrdejs: Splash it on! Tap your inner jazz musician and improvise when stirring up a vinaigrette June 3, 2009 The Jewish Ethicist by Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir: Q. Should terrible teacher be exposed? Jonathan Rosenblum: The Israel Lobby: Missing in Action June 2, 2009 Dennis Prager: The Speech President Obama Won't Dare Give in Egypt Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.: Pressure on Israel raises war risk Oct. 29, 2003 Mortimer B. Zuckerman: Graffiti On History's Walls (MUST-READ!)

Jewish World Review May 22, 2008 / 17 Iyar 5768 Misunderstanding marriage By Jeff Jacoby http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | CALIFORNIA'S voters, unlike their counterparts in Massachusetts, will have the last word on what marriage means in their state. When the highest court in Massachusetts conjured up a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, 170,000 Bay State voters petitioned for an amendment to the state constitution that would restore the age-old definition. Their effort died on the vine when the Legislature derailed the measure before it could reach the ballot. But citizen initiatives aren't so easily thwarted in California, where last week the state supreme court, in a 4-3 ruling, likewise overturned the timeless understanding of marriage as a union of male and female. Some 1.1 million signatures have already been submitted on behalf of a constitutional amendment making clear that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That is far more than needed, making it virtually certain that Californians will have an opportunity to override the court's presumptuous diktat. And override it they should, for numerous reasons. Here are three: It is not the business of judges to make public policy. Reasonable men and women can disagree on whether same-sex unions should be granted legal recognition, or whether such recognition should rise to the level of marriage. The place to work out those disagreements is the democratic arena, not the courtroom. "From the beginning of California statehood," the court's majority opinion admits, "the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman." Eight years ago, Californians decisively affirmed that understanding when they adopted Proposition 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act, in a 61-39 landslide. To have legitimacy, any change in that consensus must come from the people or their elected representatives, not be forced upon them by an imperial judiciary. The radical transformation of marriage won't end with same-sex weddings. In American law, certain conditions of marriage have always been nonnegotiable. A marriage joins (a) two people (b) of the opposite sex (c) who are not close relatives. Under that venerable definition, there can be no valid same-sex marriage, no polygamous or other plural marriage, and no incestuous marriage. But if the opposite-sex requirement is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to marry - which the California court explains as "the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one's choice" - then so are the restriction of marriage to two people and the ban on incestuous marriage. If two women who wish to marry each other must be permitted to do so, why not two sisters? Why not three? In a footnote, the California court weakly tries to evade the consequences of its holding. Gay and lesbian couples are entitled to marry, writes Chief Justice Ronald George, but that "does not mean that this constitutional right . . . must . . . extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships." Why not? Well, because "our nation's culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry." So while the bar to homosexual marriage must be overturned because the court considers the public's opposition to it outdated, the public's opposition to incest and polygamy is still a good reason to bar them. As one of the dissenters notes, such logic invites a future court to overturn those prohibitions as well. Society has a vested interest in promoting only traditional marriage. Men and women are not interchangeable, and same-sex unions - no matter how devoted and enduring - cannot take the place of a married husband and wife. The essential function of marriage is to unite male and female. That is the only kind of union that can produce new life, and therefore the only kind of union in which society has a survival stake. Of course many gay and lesbian relationships are stable, loving, and happy. But since they cannot do what marriage can - bind men and women to each other and to the children that their sexual behavior may produce - they have never been regarded in the same light as marriage. Somehow, that crucial distinction eluded a majority of the California Supreme Court. Happily, California voters will soon have the chance to make things right. Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here. Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist. Comment by clicking here. Jeff Jacoby Archives © 2006, Boston Globe

Mitch Albom  Michael Barone   Dave Barry  Tony Blankley  Andy Borowitz  David Broder  Stratfor Briefing  Mona Charen  Linda Chavez  Ann Coulter  Greg Crosby  Rod Dreher  Larry Elder  Suzanne Fields  John Fund  Frank J. Gaffney  Lloyd Garver  Jonah Goldberg  Julia Gorin  Jonathan Gurwitz  Paul Greenberg  Lewis Grossberger  Victor Davis Hanson  Betsy Hart  Nat Hentoff  David Horowitz  Laura Ingraham  Paul Johnson  Jack Kelly  Ed Koch  Ch. Krauthammer  Jonathan Last  Michael Ledeen  John Leo  David Limbaugh  Kathryn Lopez  Rich Lowry  Michelle Malkin  Jackie Mason  Dick Morris  Bill O'Reilly  Jim Mullen  Clarence Page  Kathleen Parker  Dennis Prager  Wesley Pruden  Tom Purcell  Jonathan Rauch  Celia Rivenbark  Robert Robb  Cokie & Steve Roberts  Pat Sajak  Debra J. Saunders  Culture Shlock  Roger Simon  Michael Smerconish  Thomas Sowell  Mark Steyn  John Stossel  Cal Thomas  Bob Tyrrell  Diana West  Dave Weinbaum  George Will  Walter Williams  Byron York  Mort Zuckerman  Robert Arial  Chuck Asay  Baloo  Chip Bok  Dry Bones   Lisa Benson  John Branch  Gary Brookins  John Cole  J. D. Crowe  John Deering  Brian Duffy  Everything's Relative  Mallard Fillmore  Jake Fuller  Bob Gorrel  Joe Heller  David Hitch  Jerry Holber  Steve Kelley  Jeff Koterba  Dick Locher  Chan Lowe  Ranan R. Lurie  Jimmy Margulies  Rick McKee  Michael Ramirez  Kevin Siers  Jeff Stahler  Ed Stein  Danna Summers  John Trever  Gary Varvel  Kirk Walters  How 2  Lori Borgman  The Savvy Consumer  Elder matters  Fixit  Dr. Peter Gott  Marybeth Hicks  GET A JOB! by Marty Nemko  Richard Lederer  Tech Maven  Every Monday Matters  Nutrition Myths  Bookmark These  Bruce Williams  How Stuff Works