?We?re a republic of laws,? Charles Krauthammer reminded his audience; ?we have a Constitution.? But he suggested that the Obama administration forgot or ignored that fact when it targeted Fox News reporter James Rosen and his colleagues. ?It is not illegal for a member of the press to seek information, and if you make it illegal, then you are really making a huge dent in, a huge assault on, freedom of the press.?

I did not expect to run into a study (based on comprehensive data in Denmark) in the International Journal of Cancer that shows so clearly that the retreat from marriage ? not just as a legal act but as a norm ? has medical consequences. Here?s the abstract:

Few population-based studies have investigated the relation between living arrangements and risk of invasive penile squamous cell carcinoma (iP-SCC). Using long-term national cancer registry data in Denmark we examined incidence trends of iP-SCC. Furthermore, we examined the relation between marital status, cohabitation status and risk of iP-SCC using hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) obtained in Cox proportional hazards regression analyses as our measure of relative risk. Overall, 1,292 cases of iP-SCC were identified during 65.6 million person-years of observation between 1978 and 2010. During this period, the WHO world age-standardized incidence remained relatively stable (p-trend?=?0.41) with an average incidence of 1.05 cases per 100,000 person-years. When compared to married men, those who were unmarried (HR 1.37; 95% CI: 1.13?1.66), divorced (HR 1.49; 95% CI: 1.24?1.79) or widowed (HR 1.36; 95% CI: 1.13?1.63) were at increased risk of iP-SCC. Regarding cohabitation status, single-living men were at increased risk of iP-SCC compared to men in opposite-sex cohabitation (HR 1.43; 95% CI: 1.26?1.62). Risk increased with increasing numbers of prior opposite-sex (p-trend?=?0.02) and same-sex (p-trend?<?0.001) cohabitations. In conclusion, single-living Danish men and men who are not currently married are at increased risk of iP-SCC, and the risk increases with the number of prior cohabitations, perhaps reflecting less stable sexual relations in these subgroups.

There is good news about the State Department International Religious Freedom Report, released on May 20. First, the report is, by and large an excellent resource. While slightly slimmer than in most previous years, it is still the most comprehensive overview of religious freedom and persecution on the planet.

There is more good news. The report pays particular attention to the growing threat created by blasphemy and apostasy accusations to religious freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. It highlights this not only in the reports on particular countries, but also, following a practice that State introduced last year, in a special section in the executive summary: ?The use of blasphemy and apostasy laws continued to be a significant problem, as was the continued proliferation of such laws around the world. Such laws often violate freedoms of religion and expression and often are applied in a discriminatory manner.?

Secretary of State John Kerry also singled out this issue as one of the only two trends he highlighted in his very brief introductory remarks at the report?s release. ?Lastly, another troubling trend is the increasing use of laws governing blasphemy and apostasy. These laws are frequently used to repress dissent, to harass political opponents, and to settle personal vendettas. Laws such as these violate fundamental freedoms of expression and religion, and we believe they ought to be repealed. And because we defend others? rights of expression, we are also ensuring that we can express our own views and practice our own faith without fearing for our own safety or our own lives.?

Much of my and Nina Shea?s work is on this key issue, especially on how these accusations are used to repress political and religious dissidents and reformers, and Kerry appears to have adopted this analysis. His call for such laws to be repealed may signal an end or a change to the ?Istanbul Process? on religious tolerance in which the State Department has partnered with the Saudi-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation, whose charter commits it ?to combat defamation of Islam.?

Of course, the State Department has often said good things in its reports before, but without translating them into policy. This might turn out to be true here as well, but the signals are better than we have seen for a while.

? Paul Marshall is Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute?s Center for Religious Freedom and the co-author of Persecuted: The Global Assault on Christian.

A public-radio reporter was the latest victim of one of the harsh responses that have helped make Chris Christie famous. When the reporter asked whether the state was prepared for the impact of climate change before Hurricane Sandy hit its shores, the New Jersey governor wasn?t pleased.

?Well, first of all, I don?t agree with the premise of your question because I don?t think there?s been any proof thus far that Sandy was caused by climate change,? Christie said at a ceremony celebrating the final nail?s being hammered into a repaired boardwalk. ?But, I would absolutely expect that that?s exactly what WNYC would say, because, you know, liberal public radio always has an agenda.?

Since he disagreed with the premise of the question, he refused to answer it. Attendants can be heard applauding Christie during his response.

?He says he?s outraged, and that?s fine, but we need to see him do something,? Senator Rand Paul said of President Obama?s lack of action on the IRS?s targeting of conservative groups. He described the president as ?detached? and ?passive in all of this.?

?I think in order for government to gain its trust back, someone needs to be fired, someone needs to be held responsible, and, if it?s criminal, someone needs to go to jail,? Paul said on Fox News this afternoon. He compared the president?s handling of this situation to his handling of Benghazi, in which no one has yet been fired.

Paul also called for an independent investigation of the IRS case, especially after the news that Lois Lerner, director of the Internal Revenue Service?s Exempt Organizations division, would invoke the Fifth Amendment and not testify in tomorrow?s House Oversight Committee hearing. (Committee chairman Darrell Issa has since issued a subpoena for Lerner in hopes of having her testify.)

The unfolding of the Obama administration?s aggressive attitude toward the media continues to reveal the same sorry themes as the other scandals erupting inside the Beltway. First is partisanship. This weekend came news that the Justice Department conducted an invasive investigation into the daily activities of Fox News reporter James Rosen, to the point where the Department judged him a ?conspirator? in violating the laws against leaking classified information. Does anyone recall a similar pursuit of New York Times and Washington Post reporters during the Bush years? No? I didn?t think so. Both outlets published extremely sensitive classified information that harmed our national security during the Bush years, and in the last five years both papers have published sensitive information on the operation of the drone programs and the bin Laden killing.

To an outside observer it appears that the Obama Justice Department has selected for investigation the media outlets whose editorial views are most hostile to its political leaders, while giving a pass to friendly organizations that might have published leaks that benefit the White House.

The second theme is the lack of adult supervision over the most important functions of the U.S. government. I am sure that in all of these cases, there were career prosecutors who would like to pursue the media. It is the job of the political appointees in any administration to stop cases that might fall within the letter of the law, but make terrible sense in terms of the use of the executive branch?s resources or of broader values that might not occur to career civil servants.

The fact that the political leadership of the Obama Justice Department must have signed off on the investigation shows how mediocre the appointees in the Department have become. On the other hand, if the Obama folks blame it all on the career prosecutors, it shows that they cannot even do their job of managing the department. The fact that this negligence has occurred in one of the executive branch?s most important, unique functions ? investigating and prosecuting crime ? only raises deeper doubts that this administration cannot manage the government competently.

In the Bush administration, there were some who wanted to pursue the media over classified leaking. I for one thought that these proposals were ill-conceived and raised problems under the First Amendment?s protection for a free press. I don?t believe that the Bush Justice Department ? allegedly so hostile to civil liberties ? undertook any of them. The only example I can think of was the independent counsel investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame?s identity to the press, which only went to show how bad an idea most independent-counsel investigations are. Only the Obama administration has authorized the tailing of reporters, monitoring of their phone calls and e-mails, and watching their sources.

Add up all the recent scandals and the message is clear: the Obama administration is showing that it cannot be trusted with the basic functions of government: law enforcement (surveillance of reporters), taxation (IRS scandals), and national security (Benghazi).