Entries by William C. Duncan

What’s next for family policy?

(Part 1 of 2) Before the U.S. Supreme Court acted to end the national debate over the meaning of marriage last year, a prominent feature was a dispute over the meaning of history – specifically the fact that marriage had been understood virtually universally as the union of a husband and wife across time and […]


Earlier this week, The Spectator published an article that’s equal parts interesting, humorous and distressing. It chronicles the rise of sologamy—the practice of “marrying” oneself. It’s hard to know how much of a rise we are really talking about since the article only profiles a few instances of the practice, but perhaps it’s a thing […]

Sutherland statement on federal judge’s transgender bathroom ruling

Sweeping edicts from Washington polarize public opinion, force a one-size-fits-all approach, and prevent the kind of dialogue that enables local school districts to meet the needs of their individual students. Sutherland Institute welcomes the news that a federal judge in Texas has given the states a reprieve from the overreaching government mandate that schools give […]

Proximate cause and the Planned Parenthood ruling

Two of three judges on a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled this week that the state of Utah could not cancel contracts with the Utah affiliate of Planned Parenthood. The dissenting judge pointed out that the majority relied solely on “circumstantial evidence” in determining the governor was trying […]

Creating room for accommodation

With a certain logic (since the sexual revolution is primarily a revolution against natural constraints), the topic of the moment has become the appropriate policies that govern the use of segregated school shower, locker room and restroom facilities by members of the opposite sex. This had not been a topic because the 1972 Title IX […]

Qualms about the Little Sisters case

It is, of course, great news that a unanimous Supreme Court vacated lower court decisions that would have allowed the federal government to use the insurance plans of some religious organizations to advance its purpose of disseminating free contraceptives. This despite the organizations’ objection that requiring them to participate in the scheme was inconsistent with […]