By John Stonestreet (Source)

Each march, thousands of college students embark on spring break migrations to hot-spots like Miami and Cancun. They hit the beaches looking to relax and soak up the sun. But according to a recent disturbing article in the New York Post, a new trend involves predatory older single men following along, to feast their eyes and bed younger women.

These guys, many in their thirties and forties, dress up like frat boys and spend their make-believe spring breaks patrolling the sands for girls barely out of high school. Even more disturbing—they say it works!

“It’s all about the spring break mentality,” explains a 31-year-old vacationing from New York City who claims it’s easier to get young women into bed when they’re on vacation.

“[College girls] actually like older guys,” says another. “We bring more to the table.”

It’s pathetic, and as the dad of three little girls, it’s infuriating. And it represents the worst of our flourishing man-child subculture.

We’ve all heard about the guys who refuse to grow up—we remember the stereotypical Ferris Buellers of the eighties who spent high school partying.

Now the idea of teenage knuckleheads evokes nostalgia, because in 2014, the knuckleheads are balding thirty-somethings, as portrayed in movies like the Hangover series. Male adolescence now extends decades past the teen years. It’s become, as one blogger put it, “a lifestyle instead of a life stage.”

And a collapsing marriage culture is providing all the incentive. As a powerful video from the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture shows, extended adolescence, delayed marriage and even the hookup scene are largely the result of simple economics—sexual economics, that is.

In this video, based on the work of University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus, we learn how sex, in an important way, works like an economy. And as with all economies, it’s subject to the laws of supply and demand. Men haven’t always flown down to Miami to prowl the beaches for college girls. But they have (shocker!) always wanted sex. Once upon a time, a strong marriage culture allowed women to control the supply and set the price of sex at lifetime commitment of marriage and family.

But then along came “the pill,” abortion, and the sexual revolution, all of which helped normalize promiscuity by promising to eliminate its negative consequences. Of course, these promises came with unforeseen costs. Out-of-wedlock pregnancies, divorce and STDs skyrocketed.

But maybe the biggest downside was how it changed the rules and prices in our sexual economy. Now, men can get what they want without a ring. And with the tsunami of internet pornography in recent years, women—most of whom still want marriage—are left selling themselves short in a saturated economy.

I can’t recommend this video enough—especially for high school and college students. It’s eye-opening. And it’ll help you understand why our only hope for recovering a family-centered culture is to start from the ground up—to rebuild an economy where marriage is at a premium, and guys can’t afford to be middle-aged beach bums.

But as we seek to recover a family-centered culture, we should realize that the task will be hard and perhaps even dangerous.  In closing, strengthen yourself for the road ahead by reading this blog on pressure being placed on those who stand for the family.

High Court’s Inaction Escalates Battle

By Steve Deace (Source) | People’s rights are being threatened because they believe in traditional marriage.

The marriage battle in America is not over. It’s actually about to escalate all the more.

By its own inaction, the Supreme Court has created a constitutional crisis that threatens to make the decades-long fight over Roe v. Wade look timid by comparison. Only in Washington, where passive aggression is all the rage these days, could a political body such as the Supreme Court claim non-intervention in a fight it actually started.

This clash has been coming since last year’s contentious Windsor opinion, which resulted in rare public criticism among the justices. Justice Antonin Scalia scolded his more liberal peers for their “jaw-dropping … assertion of judicial supremacy” over the will of the people.

Both the duly-elected legislative and executive branches, as well as a majority of states in the union by voter referendum, had already defined marriage as one man and one woman by law.

Since laws defining marriage as civil society has always known it have come under assault, we’ve seen unprecedented attacks on religious liberty, free speech and private property rights — just as those of us in favor of the traditional definition of marriage have always warned would happen.

Look at one current case in New York as just one example, where a Catholic couple faces a $13,000 fine for refusing to rent out their own home to lesbians who wanted to use it for a wedding. It would take a whole separate column to list all the assaults on the First Amendment redefining marriage has already produced, despite the empty promises from the other side no one would lose their rights by granting so-called marriage equality.

Now those who shout “tolerance” are noticeably silent while such intolerance threatens to irrevocably undermine the God-given rights our Constitution is based on.

People’s rights are being threatened because they believe in marriage as we’ve always known it. The more that Americans see this debate isn’t really about equality, but about using the coercive force of government to make you abandon your own conscience, the more support for the other side will continue to decline.