<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>First Things RSS Feed - Michael Fragoso</title>
		<link>https://www.firstthings.com/author/michael-fragoso</link>
		<atom:link href="https://www.firstthings.com/rss/author/michael-fragoso" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<description></description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2025 First Things. All Rights Reserved.</copyright>
		<managingEditor>ft@firstthings.com (The Editors)</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>ft@firstthings.com (The Editors)</webMaster>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2025 16:57:02 -0500</pubDate>
		
		<ttl>60</ttl>

		<item>
			<title>Ratifying U.N. Radicalism</title>
			<guid>https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2009/03/ratifying-un-radicalism</guid>
			<link>https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2009/03/ratifying-un-radicalism</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
			<description><![CDATA[<p>From March 2 until March 13th the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) held their meeting at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. An annual event that coincides with International Women&rsquo;s Day (March 8), it brings together hundreds of feminists (in theory) to improve the lot of women and (in fact) to advance a radical anti-life, anti-family agenda. One way in which delegates and NGOs seek to accomplish the latter is the yearly ritual excoriation of the United States for not having ratified the  
<a href="http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm"> Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women </a>
  (CEDAW).
</p> <p><em><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2009/03/ratifying-un-radicalism">Continue Reading </a> &raquo;</em></p>]]></description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Keeping Marriage Public</title>
			<guid>https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2007/12/keeping-marriage-public</guid>
			<link>https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2007/12/keeping-marriage-public</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
			
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Prof. Stephanie Coontz recently  
<u>  <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?_r=2&amp;ref=opinion&amp;oref=slogin&amp;oref=slogin"> took to the pages </a>  </u>
  of the  
<em> New York Times </em>
  to inform us that we do not need marriage as a legal institution. This is  
<u>  <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/opinion/19coontz.html"> not the first time </a>  </u>
  she has ridden rough-shod over marriage in the  
<em> Times </em>
 , and I doubt it will be the last. In this instance, Coontz is nothing short of dazzling in how adeptly she manages to misrepresent marriage and marriage law in Western history in order to bolster her destructive arguments.
</p> <p><em><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2007/12/keeping-marriage-public">Continue Reading </a> &raquo;</em></p>]]></description>
		</item>
			</channel>
</rss>
