John Stonestreet – Family Council

What Americans Really Believe about What’s Best for Children: Guest Column

Jun 30, 2026John StonestreetMarriageChild Welfare, Family, Marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges

As a recent Substack post from children’s rights advocacy group Them Before Us accurately summarized, the decision issued eleven years ago in Obergefell v. Hodges “did more than mandate marriage licenses for same-sex couples.”

It redefined marriage in law, and redefining marriage redefines parenthood. Once husbands and wives became optional in marriage, mothers and fathers became optional in parenthood, eroding the right every child has to their own mother and father.

Thus, the Obergefell decision marked a further stage in the evolution of one of the core ideas of the sexual revolution: that men and women are interchangeable, not only in rights but also in social roles and even in reality itself. A legal decision of this magnitude inevitably shapes the cultural imagination, defining down the essential differences between men and women, husbands and wives, and mothers and fathers as mere cultural constructs. And ever since, we’ve been served the narrative that the social innovation of same-sex “marriage” is settled, both in culture and in law.

But what if it isn’t?

A new poll conducted by The Decision Co., of 1200 conservative and moderate likely voters, found that a significant majority believe, “children matter, mothers matter, fathers matter, and children’s needs should come before adult desires.” According to the data, the narrative that even social and political conservatives want same-sex “marriage” and consider it “settled law” is unsubstantiated conjecture.

As Josh Hammer, Senior Editor-at-Large at Newsweek and host of The Josh Hammer Show, said:

“This poll exposes the growing disconnect between elite cultural narratives and the convictions of conservative and moderate voters. Despite years of messaging from the media, academia, and corporate America, these voters continue to affirm a fundamental belief: whenever possible, children should be raised by and connected to both their mother and father. At a time when the center-right is often portrayed as fractured, this survey reveals remarkable unity around a principle that should never have become controversial: the rights and needs of children deserve to come before adult desires.”

Among the findings from this survey,

96% of these voters say it is important for a child to be raised with both an involved mother and an involved father.
82% of those surveyed agree that no child should be deliberately denied a mother or a father.
78% agree that when a child’s needs conflict with an adult’s desires, the child’s needs should come first.
66% reject the claim that being raised by same-sex parents is no different for a child than being raised by an adoptive mother and father.
63% of those surveyed agree that children are harmed when they lose their mother or father to be raised in a same-sex household.

For the record, the best social science data supports the views that these voters have. While direct comparison studies between children raised by married mothers and fathers and those acquired by same-sex couples are often plagued by poor methodology, self-selective sample groups, and ideological bias, two social science findings are overwhelmingly clear. First, children raised in homes by biological, married mothers and fathers have a distinct advantage. And second, mothers and fathers parent differently, and those differences matter greatly.

Interestingly, church attendance is a major differentiator for what people believe about marriage, children, and parenting. “Among voters who attend church regularly, 72% agree that every child should be legally recognized as having a mother and father, but so do 43% of those who never attend church at all.” On one hand, the gap is sizeable. On the other hand, a significant portion of the population currently holds a counter-cultural view about children.

Of course, a lesson to be learned from over 50 years of pro-life activism, is that people do not always connect their beliefs with the implications of those beliefs. Often, consistency is disrupted by a population taught that moral beliefs must be kept personal and private and should be outweighed by a commitment to “tolerance” and “accepting everyone.” Here too, the heaviest work to be done by those of us hoping to protect children is worldview work.

But there’s another lesson to be learned from those who have fought so hard for so long to make abortion not merely illegal but also unthinkable. The Supreme Court cannot settle an issue that is so far upstream of its jurisdiction. Obergefell is not the first or only time the Court has gotten an important decision wrong.

Like in the past, the moral failure of Obergefell is an expression of bad anthropology. And, like the past, this is no theoretical mess we are in. For children everywhere, it’s personal. We owe it to them to tell the truth, oppose the lies, and convince as many people as we can.

Learn more about the study and how you can join the Greater Than Campaign at greaterthancampaign.com.

Guest Column: Spielberg Wants to “Mess With” Your Faith

Jun 24, 2026John StonestreetChristianityChristianity, Church Ambassador Network

Award winning film director Steven Spielberg said recently that his new film will likely “mess with” a lot of people’s theology. “Disclosure Day” is about what would happen if there were a sudden mass revelation about the existence of extraterrestrial life. According to Spielberg, it will force people, especially Christians, to rethink Who God is.

As he told CBS Sunday Morning,

What does this do to the fundamental beliefs that many of us have? … Is God our God only on this planet or is God a God for every system where there’s civilization, intelligent life, and even developing life?

It’s not unusual for celebrity artists to weigh in on things outside of their expertise, but this talented filmmaker is out of his depth. Even if there were a real life disclosure day, it would not alter anything about Christians’ fundamental beliefs. The God portrayed in the Bible created and oversees the entire universe. As the Psalmist said, “The Lord established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all.” That could easily include other worlds and other life forms. But of course, there is no evidence of that anyway. This is a film. Spielberg must think that Christianity is barely hanging on from falling into the dustbin of history.

If so, he’s certainly not the first. Expectations of Christian extinction go back to the beginning. According to the Gospel of John, the High Priest Caiaphas thought that killing Jesus would erase His influence. When He failed to stay dead, the Jerusalem authorities thought that bribes and rumors would stamp out the new Faith. Those same authorities hoped that beating and scolding the apostles would keep them quiet.

The Romans spent centuries trying to stamp out Christianity, from Nero who infamously burned believers in his gardens to Marcus Aurelius who believed he could mock them out of their faith. By the 200s, the Church had grown so much that Emperor Decius decreed an empire-wide assault on Christians. By the beginning of the fourth century, Diocletian instigated the Great Persecution. In the end, persecution set the stage for toleration. Eventually, under Theodosius I, the Roman Empire was Christianized.

Later, when the Western Empire fell to Germanic tribes, the Church did not fall with it. Instead, Christianity not only endured but the pagans were converted. Islam tried to take down the Church a few centuries later. After subjugating Christianity in the Middle East, Muslim raiders seemed poised to conquer Western Europe. They were stopped in the middle of what is France. Almost 1,000 years later, armies of the Turkish Sultan advanced to Vienna, twice, before being pushed back. The smart money would have been that Christianity would fall, but it did not.

During the Enlightenment, confidence that the Church would fall was at an all-time high. In the 1700s, the influential French thinker Voltaire claimed that he was “living in the twilight of Christianity.” In 1822, Thomas Jefferson added that, “I trust there is not a young man now living in the U.S. who will not die a Unitarian.” Voltaire’s home later housed a Bible society, and Jefferson’s generation was followed by religious awakenings and an explosion of missionaries sent around the world.

In the twentieth century, the Communists predicted the end of what Marx called the “opiate of the masses.” Everywhere they went, revolutionary groups assaulted religion, especially Christianity. In Russia, China, Cuba, and elsewhere, the first targets of the Communists were churches, pastors, priests, and other religious groups. Often the persecution worsened out of frustration that the Faith simply would not die. In the end, Christianity stood over Communism’s grave, after contributing to its demise.

Whether from internal failings or external threats, Christians can be discouraged. But, to borrow a quip from Mark Twain, predictions of the church’s demise are greatly exaggerated. If emperors and empires and armies haven’t stamped it out, Steven Spielberg doesn’t have a chance.

Guest Column: Unlaughable Comedy

Jun 18, 2026John StonestreetCultureComedy, Culture

Over 13 million people watched the Netflix celebrity roast of comedian Kevin Hart. Irreverent insults are part of roasting, but the recent series of celebrity roasting has featured increasingly outrageous and often profane jokes, from mocking abortions to vilifying women. However, Hart’s roast has won the prize for the vilest yet.

The extremely inappropriate comments made at this roast about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, for example, demonstrate how debased mainstream comedy has become. Even worse, in a social media context, comedy is captive to likes and shares, so the desire to provoke and shock is ever escalating. So, what is the proper approach to comedy? Can the current state of comedy be redeemed?

Sociologist Philip Rieff coined a unique term for understanding many elements of modern culture, including debased comedy. Cultures produce artifacts. Cultures without a moral center produce what he called “deathworks,” or cultural artifacts that don’t build up but only tear down the sacred orders of a civilization. Roasts like the one for Hart are a deathwork, leveraging humor for no constructive noble or redeeming purpose. It’s just about degradation or, to borrow Carl Trueman’s term, desecration all the way down.

Humor is a unique, human characteristic that reflects the creativity and world-making for which humans were made. As such, it should rise above the mere profane and childish.

A Christian worldview offers the kind of moral framework humor needs, including the ability to discern between what one should laugh at and what one should not. If, on the other hand, nothing is sacred, then nothing is off-limits. Truly creative comedy operates within a worldview that identifies what is humorous while recognizing—and respecting—what is sacred. Put simply, if everything is funny, then nothing is sacred.

A notable exception to the current comedic trend is Nate Bargatze, a comedian who professes belief in Christ and stands out from virtually everyone else in his field. Bargatze’s humor is clean and avoids morally objectionable content. And yet, he has emerged as the top grossing comic in the world. His Saturday Night Live skit “Washington’s Dream” and its sequel, “Washington’s Dream 2,” became two of the most popular SNL skits in recent memory, with the first sketch now having amassed an amazing 30-plus million views on YouTube. In it, his comedic genius highlighted quirks of American culture that we hardly notice.

Or consider the Babylon Bee and its humorous satire on real-life events. Bee humor includes both inside jokes, that point out the foibles of the Christian community, and outside jokes, that expose dangerous ideas that need to be taken captive. A common experience after reading a Bee headline is to chuckle and then to think, “That sounds like it could be real.” That’s because they use satire to speak truth from the Christian worldview in a post-truth culture when others do not. As Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon said at our 2025 Great Lakes Symposium, humor is effective as a “vehicle for truth delivery,” and to “expose an absurdity for what it is.”

The gulf between comedy that acknowledges the sacred and comedy that denies the sacred reveals to us truth about reality. In the Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis described how modern attempts to remove man’s moral discernment has formed “men without chests.” As he put it:

In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings to be fruitful.

Notice Lewis’ words, “we laugh at honor.” In a morally castrated culture, nothing is truly sacred. In such a scenario, nothing is off limits from what is considered “funny.” When the counterbalance of a Christian worldview is removed, and the laughing gas is emitted, we laugh at anything—even the honorable.

Such a perspective brings to mind the less-than-morally upright comedian, Woody Allen, who sometimes closed his routines by saying, “I’m sorry I can’t leave you with something positive—would you accept two negatives?” At least Allen’s joke acknowledged the objective nature of mathematics. Still, since so much modern comedy is deathworks, there is opportunity for something better. Comedy that’s not only funny but, properly speaking, holy.