Fire Hydrant of Freedom

Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Science, Culture, & Humanities => Topic started by: rachelg on July 03, 2009, 02:17:28 PM

Title: Marriage and Family
Post by: rachelg on July 03, 2009, 02:17:28 PM

I am back and hopefully we have time to respond to other posts tomorrow.   I have wanted to post this for a while but I couldn't figure out where to put it.


(http://scribe.doublex.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/large-image/090616_XX_wifeArticle.jpg)
My Husband's Other Wife
By: Emily Yoffe

Posting Date:
06/16/2009 - 7:50am

Shortly after my husband John and I were married, on a day he was at work and I was home moving my things into his house, I opened a cardboard box in the attic. It was filled with photos of his other married life, the one he’d had with his first wife, Robin Goldstein. She was 28 when they got married, and six months later she was diagnosed with breast cancer. My husband was nursing her at home when she died just after her 34th birthday. The box contained wedding photos, honeymoon photos, and random snapshots of parties and birthdays. As I excavated, I could chart her illness by her hair—a cycle of dark waves, then wigs and scarves. After I’d looked at them all I closed the box and cried for her, and for my guilty awareness that her death allowed me, five years later, to marry the man I loved.

When our daughter was born, one of the sweetest gifts we got was a tiny chair with her name painted on the back. It was from the Goldstein family. How final it must have felt to them to send this acknowledgement of John’s new life. Robin had wanted children, but her long illness and the brutal treatments made that impossible.

All of us exist because of a series of tragedies and flukes. I’m here because 80 years ago my grandfather’s wife, Ruth, died suddenly of the flu, leaving him a young widower with a toddler and an infant. (They say he had to be restrained from jumping into her grave.) Eventually he remarried to my grandmother, and my mother was born. My grandmother banished all traces of Ruth. Her sons had no contact with Ruth’s relatives, displayed no photos of her. It was if she never existed. At the end of my grandfather’s long life—he lived to be 95—his distant past became more present to him, and he began to tell stories about Ruth. My grandmother was more incredulous than angry. “Can you imagine?” she told me. “Do you know how long she’s been dead?”

Maybe when my husband and I get old, memories of his life with Robin will become even more vivid than our years together. If so, I hope I’ll welcome those memories. I’m grateful to Robin, not jealous (even if she left it to me to convince our joint husband that the laundry hamper was invented for a reason). I knew my husband for only four months before we got married. But I heard from others how protective, tender, and devoted he was to her. Because of their relationship, I knew that this was a man who could be trusted, who stayed, for better or worse. I also knew that it’s possible to have more than one love of your life. I am the love of his, and so was she.

Robin was born in Newark, N.J. in 1955. She was a striking, slender young woman with huge dark eyes. She started her career as a city reporter in a small New Jersey town, and both the cops and the mobsters she covered had crushes on her. When she reported on a trial of the Genovese family the judge threatened Robin with jail for protecting one of her sources, a mobster turned government witness, and her case became a test for a newly passed press shield law.

She was just as brave about her illness. After the first surgery, radiation, and chemo, it looked as if she’d be OK, as if the diagnosis might be just some ghastly glitch. But a year later the cancer came back, and for the next five years she endured everything the doctors threw at her, while convincing other people not to pity her.

Robin decided that for however long she had, she would make it a normal life. She kept working and traveling—there were many vacation photos in that box—and when the cancer spread to her bones, she went to the office on crutches. She had to stop when it got to her brain. In her final week, at the hospital, she still got excited about fixing up a radiation technologist she liked with a bachelor journalist friend.

Although they spent their entire marriage moving toward her death, my husband says they didn’t spend much time talking about this destination. A therapist once told him those discussions were like “looking at the sun” —something one could do only glancingly because of the pain. At the end, Robin told him she wanted him to have a child. She made him promise he would do that, because she knew how much he wanted children. In their conversation Robin acknowledged that if he did it would mean he had found a new wife; she said that was harder for her to think about, but she wanted him to find love again. I asked him what he said when she told him this. He told her, “I can’t imagine life without you.”

A few months after we were married, when the sixth anniversary of her death was approaching, my husband fell into a depression. He became silent and burdened. After several weeks of it I wondered if this was what my marriage would be like. I decided that maybe I could be in a happy marriage even if I was the only one who was happy. Then, when the day of her death came and went, his darkness lifted for good. It was a last spasm of guilt about having left her behind.

I am sarcastic and occasionally (sometimes? often?) harsh. Robin wasn’t—I know because I asked, not because John holds her over me or compares us—and he would have had a gentler life had she lived. I try to remind myself that I owe it to her to do as good a job of taking care of him as she would have. I will catch myself about to say sentences that begin “How many times have I ...” or “Weren’t you listening when ...” and stop thinking that if he were still married to Robin, he wouldn’t have to hear this.

When our daughter was about 6, she and her father were exploring in the attic when she came across an unfamiliar box, filled with Robin’s things. She came running down the stairs in tears. “I found a box of jewels and Dad won’t let me touch them!” she cried. My husband and I talked it over. I understood his desire to keep all that was left of Robin safe. But I suggested she would have liked that a little girl was enchanted with her jewelry. So we told our daughter she could play with these rings and necklaces, but that they were precious. We explained that Robin had been a good friend of her dad’s who died, and Dad was the one who had kept her things.

When our daughter was 8 she found the same box of photos that I had seen that day I moved in. She brought them downstairs to our bedroom and said she wanted to look at the old pictures of Daddy. She asked about the pretty, dark-haired woman always standing next to him. My husband told her that was Robin. After a few more minutes she looked up and said, “There are so many pictures of her.”

“Dad loved her,” I said.

“If you loved her so much, why didn’t you marry her?” she asked her father.

He looked at me, and I nodded.

“I did,” he replied.

Our daughter looked at the picture she was holding in her hand, her eyes widening, then at me. It was like one of those moments in Dickens when a foundling discovers her true origins.

“It’s like I have two mothers,” she said in a kind of astonishment.

I liked her formulation. And I thought Robin would be satisfied with how well her wish for her husband, now mine, had been fulfilled.

My husband and I have been married for 15 years, more than twice as long as he was married to Robin. My daughter is 13 now and long ago outgrew the chair that Robin’s family gave her. I keep it stored safely with her bassinet, the clown rattle, and her favorite jacket printed with elephants. I hope someday a granddaughter might use these things. If so, when that little girl is old enough, I will tell her the story of her other grandmother, Robin.


Source URL: http://scribe.doublex.com/section/life/my-husbands-other-wife

Title: Re: Marriage
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 04, 2009, 12:32:42 PM

Rachel:

That is a utterly remarkable piece.

Thank you for bringing it here.

Marc

Title: Re: Marriage
Post by: rachelg on July 05, 2009, 07:19:17 PM

Thanks Marc.

I really enjoy that piece I have been reading it over and over again.  It encapsulates the best of married Life.

She also posted a sweet defense of marriage that has nothing to do with children or dying.

http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/hello-young-lovers

Hello, Young Lovers

    * Posted: July 2, 2009 at 4:42 PM
    * By Emily Yoffe


Jessica, my husband and I have been married for 15 years. Last weekend, we drove from Maryland to New Jersey and during the many hours of crawling in traffic we wrote a rap song together about the Delaware Toll Plaza. We stay up too late talking to each other. We hold hands at the movies. Since we're in our fifties, sure we've talked about who's going to get to pull each other's plug—but eventually being able to do this honor is not why we're together. So do not despair that marriage is an enterprise devoted to raising children, fighting over litterbox scooping duties, and holding the horror of fidelity over each other's heads.

There are long-time married couples who still genuinely enjoy each other's company and would be bereft without their spouse. I say this as someone who grew up in a home where my parents' marriage required the police to be called in. So finding marriage to be an oasis has been one of life's sweet surprises.

Title: Those Aren’t Fighting Words, Dear
Post by: rachelg on August 04, 2009, 06:45:33 PM

August 2, 2009
Modern Love
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/fashion/02love.html?_r=1&ref=fashion&pagewanted=print
Those Aren’t Fighting Words, Dear
By LAURA A. MUNSON

LET’S say you have what you believe to be a healthy marriage. You’re still friends and lovers after spending more than half of your lives together. The dreams you set out to achieve in your 20s — gazing into each other’s eyes in candlelit city bistros when you were single and skinny — have for the most part come true.

Two decades later you have the 20 acres of land, the farmhouse, the children, the dogs and horses. You’re the parents you said you would be, full of love and guidance. You’ve done it all: Disneyland, camping, Hawaii, Mexico, city living, stargazing.

Sure, you have your marital issues, but on the whole you feel so self-satisfied about how things have worked out that you would never, in your wildest nightmares, think you would hear these words from your husband one fine summer day: “I don’t love you anymore. I’m not sure I ever did. I’m moving out. The kids will understand. They’ll want me to be happy.”

But wait. This isn’t the divorce story you think it is. Neither is it a begging-him-to-stay story. It’s a story about hearing your husband say “I don’t love you anymore” and deciding not to believe him. And what can happen as a result.

Here’s a visual: Child throws a temper tantrum. Tries to hit his mother. But the mother doesn’t hit back, lecture or punish. Instead, she ducks. Then she tries to go about her business as if the tantrum isn’t happening. She doesn’t “reward” the tantrum. She simply doesn’t take the tantrum personally because, after all, it’s not about her.

Let me be clear: I’m not saying my husband was throwing a child’s tantrum. No. He was in the grip of something else — a profound and far more troubling meltdown that comes not in childhood but in midlife, when we perceive that our personal trajectory is no longer arcing reliably upward as it once did. But I decided to respond the same way I’d responded to my children’s tantrums. And I kept responding to it that way. For four months.

“I don’t love you anymore. I’m not sure I ever did.”

His words came at me like a speeding fist, like a sucker punch, yet somehow in that moment I was able to duck. And once I recovered and composed myself, I managed to say, “I don’t buy it.” Because I didn’t.

He drew back in surprise. Apparently he’d expected me to burst into tears, to rage at him, to threaten him with a custody battle. Or beg him to change his mind.

So he turned mean. “I don’t like what you’ve become.”

Gut-wrenching pause. How could he say such a thing? That’s when I really wanted to fight. To rage. To cry. But I didn’t.

Instead, a shroud of calm enveloped me, and I repeated those words: “I don’t buy it.”

You see, I’d recently committed to a non-negotiable understanding with myself. I’d committed to “The End of Suffering.” I’d finally managed to exile the voices in my head that told me my personal happiness was only as good as my outward success, rooted in things that were often outside my control. I’d seen the insanity of that equation and decided to take responsibility for my own happiness. And I mean all of it.

My husband hadn’t yet come to this understanding with himself. He had enjoyed many years of hard work, and its rewards had supported our family of four all along. But his new endeavor hadn’t been going so well, and his ability to be the breadwinner was in rapid decline. He’d been miserable about this, felt useless, was losing himself emotionally and letting himself go physically. And now he wanted out of our marriage; to be done with our family.

But I wasn’t buying it.

I said: “It’s not age-appropriate to expect children to be concerned with their parents’ happiness. Not unless you want to create co-dependents who’ll spend their lives in bad relationships and therapy. There are times in every relationship when the parties involved need a break. What can we do to give you the distance you need, without hurting the family?”

“Huh?” he said.

“Go trekking in Nepal. Build a yurt in the back meadow. Turn the garage studio into a man-cave. Get that drum set you’ve always wanted. Anything but hurting the children and me with a reckless move like the one you’re talking about.”

Then I repeated my line, “What can we do to give you the distance you need, without hurting the family?”

“Huh?”

“How can we have a responsible distance?”

“I don’t want distance,” he said. “I want to move out.”

My mind raced. Was it another woman? Drugs? Unconscionable secrets? But I stopped myself. I would not suffer.

Instead, I went to my desk, Googled “responsible separation” and came up with a list. It included things like: Who’s allowed to use what credit cards? Who are the children allowed to see you with in town? Who’s allowed keys to what?

I looked through the list and passed it on to him.

His response: “Keys? We don’t even have keys to our house.”

I remained stoic. I could see pain in his eyes. Pain I recognized.

“Oh, I see what you’re doing,” he said. “You’re going to make me go into therapy. You’re not going to let me move out. You’re going to use the kids against me.”

“I never said that. I just asked: What can we do to give you the distance you need ... ”

“Stop saying that!”

Well, he didn’t move out.

Instead, he spent the summer being unreliable. He stopped coming home at his usual six o’clock. He would stay out late and not call. He blew off our entire Fourth of July — the parade, the barbecue, the fireworks — to go to someone else’s party. When he was at home, he was distant. He wouldn’t look me in the eye. He didn’t even wish me “Happy Birthday.”

But I didn’t play into it. I walked my line. I told the kids: “Daddy’s having a hard time as adults often do. But we’re a family, no matter what.” I was not going to suffer. And neither were they.

MY trusted friends were irate on my behalf. “How can you just stand by and accept this behavior? Kick him out! Get a lawyer!”

I walked my line with them, too. This man was hurting, yet his problem wasn’t mine to solve. In fact, I needed to get out of his way so he could solve it.

I know what you’re thinking: I’m a pushover. I’m weak and scared and would put up with anything to keep the family together. I’m probably one of those women who would endure physical abuse. But I can assure you, I’m not. I load 1,500-pound horses into trailers and gallop through the high country of Montana all summer. I went through Pitocin-induced natural childbirth. And a Caesarean section without follow-up drugs. I am handy with a chain saw.

I simply had come to understand that I was not at the root of my husband’s problem. He was. If he could turn his problem into a marital fight, he could make it about us. I needed to get out of the way so that wouldn’t happen.

Privately, I decided to give him time. Six months.

I had good days, and I had bad days. On the good days, I took the high road. I ignored his lashing out, his merciless jabs. On bad days, I would fester in the August sun while the kids ran through sprinklers, raging at him in my mind. But I never wavered. Although it may sound ridiculous to say “Don’t take it personally” when your husband tells you he no longer loves you, sometimes that’s exactly what you have to do.

Instead of issuing ultimatums, yelling, crying or begging, I presented him with options. I created a summer of fun for our family and welcomed him to share in it, or not — it was up to him. If he chose not to come along, we would miss him, but we would be just fine, thank you very much. And we were.

And, yeah, you can bet I wanted to sit him down and persuade him to stay. To love me. To fight for what we’ve created. You can bet I wanted to.

But I didn’t.

I barbecued. Made lemonade. Set the table for four. Loved him from afar.

And one day, there he was, home from work early, mowing the lawn. A man doesn’t mow his lawn if he’s going to leave it. Not this man. Then he fixed a door that had been broken for eight years. He made a comment about our front porch needing paint. Our front porch. He mentioned needing wood for next winter. The future. Little by little, he started talking about the future.

It was Thanksgiving dinner that sealed it. My husband bowed his head humbly and said, “I’m thankful for my family.”

He was back.

And I saw what had been missing: pride. He’d lost pride in himself. Maybe that’s what happens when our egos take a hit in midlife and we realize we’re not as young and golden anymore.

When life’s knocked us around. And our childhood myths reveal themselves to be just that. The truth feels like the biggest sucker-punch of them all: it’s not a spouse or land or a job or money that brings us happiness. Those achievements, those relationships, can enhance our happiness, yes, but happiness has to start from within. Relying on any other equation can be lethal.

My husband had become lost in the myth. But he found his way out. We’ve since had the hard conversations. In fact, he encouraged me to write about our ordeal. To help other couples who arrive at this juncture in life. People who feel scared and stuck. Who believe their temporary feelings are permanent. Who see an easy out, and think they can escape.

My husband tried to strike a deal. Blame me for his pain. Unload his feelings of personal disgrace onto me.

But I ducked. And I waited. And it worked.

Laura A. Munson is a writer who lives in Whitefish, Mont.

I don't know if I could or would act like the author if G-d forbid I was in a situation like that but the article was  definitely food for thought.

Title: Re: Marriage
Post by: G M on August 04, 2009, 08:30:33 PM

That's a good woman. Her husband disgusts me.

Title: Re: Marriage
Post by: bedens on August 06, 2009, 09:11:33 AM

Quote from: G M on August 04, 2009, 08:30:33 PM

That's a good woman. Her husband disgusts me.

Sounds like he needed to find himself, as much of a cliche as that is... At least he came back... Most "men" don't...

Title: Re: Marriage
Post by: G M on August 06, 2009, 11:09:47 AM

Phrases like "I need to find myself" need to be replaced with "Man the fcuk up". Psychobabble from the 60's/70s is nothing but destructive.

Title: A banker
Post by: ccp on November 30, 2009, 07:46:09 AM

and possibly a nice Jewish boy.
But is he politically correct in his views?
Anyone care to bet if he is a secret Beck admirer?

Clinton daughter Chelsea engaged to be married
         NEW YORK – Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton has become engaged to her longtime boyfriend.

Matt McKenna, a spokesman for former President Bill Clinton, confirmed that 29-year old Chelsea and investment banker Marc Mezvinsky got engaged on Thanksgiving and announced it in an e-mail to friends.

Chelsea is the only daughter of the former president and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. The couple was rumored to be getting married last summer in Martha's Vineyard but the stories turned out to be premature. The engagement was first reported by ABC News.

Title: Father a corrupt Congressman
Post by: ccp on December 01, 2009, 10:00:12 AM

Well Chelsea's future father in law as a felon fits right in with the family.
I assume he has money so he can finance her eventual run for office.
Unfortunately another very liberal Jewish guy who spends all his time making every cent he can then turns around and pleads he is worried for the world's poor and hence MUST be a Democrat.  I don't understand the hypocracy of my some of own people.  I guess it is guilt for some.

****Will Father of the Groom Be Welcome Figure at Chelsea Clinton's Wedding?
Convicted Felon Ed Mezvinsky Cheated Friends and Family Out of Millions of Dollars
By JOSEPH RHEE and DREW SANDHOLM
Dec. 1, 2009 
5 comments Font Size   PrintRSSE-mailShare this story with friendsFacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponMore
If Ed Mezvinsky, the disgraced father of Chelsea Clinton's newly-announced fiancé Marc Mezvinsky, attends his own son's wedding, he might want to consider ducking out before the reception. Mezvinsky was convicted in 2002 of bilking his associates, friends and family members -- even his own late mother-in-law -- out of millions of dollars. Despite being released in April 2008 after serving five years in prison, Mezvinsky remains on federal probation and still owes almost $9.4 million in restitution to his victims.

Chelsea Clinton and fiancee Marc Mezvinsky are shown in this file photo, left./Marc's father, Edward M. Mezvinsky, is shown in this file photo.
(AP Photo/Reuters)
More PhotosAn ABC News investigation revealed that Mezvinsky, a former Democratic Congressman from Iowa, had been caught up in a series of Nigerian e-mail scams and began to steal from people to further his schemes.

"He was always looking for the home run. He was always trying to find the business deal that would make him as wealthy as all the people in his social circle," said federal prosecutor Bob Zauzmer. According to Zauzmer, Mezvinsky, who is now 72, will be on supervised release, the federal version of probation, until 2011.

Related
PHOTOS: Inside Look at Nigerian Scam ArtistsPHOTOS: The Secrets Behind the 'Black Money' ScamMore from Brian Ross and the Investigative TeamABC News was unable to reach Ed Mezvinsky for a response, but did reach his wife Marjorie. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky refused to comment on whether or not her husband would be attending their son's wedding, referring all questions to a Clinton family spokesperson. Margolies-Mezvinsky did confirm that no wedding date has yet bAsked whether Ed Mezvinsky would be attending the wedding, a spokesperson for former President Bill Clinton said he didn't know. "I don't know anything at this point beyond the fact that they're engaged," Matt McKenna told ABC News in an e-mail.

In their heyday, Ed Mezvinsky and his wife Marjorie, herself a former Democratic congresswoman from Pennsylvania as well as an ex-TV reporter, were part of the political and social elite in Philadelphia. The Mezvinskys were close to Bill and Hillary Clinton and were frequent guests at the White House. Prosecutors say Mezvinsky exploited his ties to the Clintons, including his son's relationship with Chelsea, to woo investors to contribute more money to his schemes.


  Suspected Con MenMarc Mezvinsky's Dad Served Time For Nigerian E-mail Scam
Mezvinsky used those funds to travel to Nigeria to pursue one hare-brained scheme after another. He ultimately lost more than $3 million to the scammers, falling especially hard for the notorious "black money" scam, where victims are told millions of dollars have been coated with black ink so the money could be smuggled out of Nigeria. The scammers then offer to sell a special, expensive chemical to clean the ink off of the money. Prosecutors say Mezvinsky fell for at least three separate "black money" schemes.

Mezvinsky pleaded guilty to more than 30 counts of fraud, and was sentenced to 80 months in federal prison. He has blamed bipolar disorder for his behavior.

In an interview with Des Moines Register from prison in 2003, Mezvinsky said he found the scam convincing. "The man later came out with a chemical, threw it on the money, and it all turned to $100 bills. He gave me 10 to have them tested back home. And they were real," Mezvinsky told the Register.****

Title: The Perils of Living Off-Base
Post by: rachelg on February 09, 2010, 06:17:02 PM

DEPLOYMENT DIARY
The Perils of Living Off-Base
I've slogged my way to the halfway point.
By Alison Buckholtz
Posted Friday, Feb. 5, 2010, at 10:30 AM ET
Most military spouses experience the mid-deployment blues, and as I near the halfway point of my husband's 14-month absence, I recognize the signs; in my case, though, the mid-deployment black-and-blues have rendered me useless. Last fall, I fractured my foot and wore a cast for six weeks; just as that was healing, I slipped on a patch of black ice and hit my head. One concussion and 15 stitches later, I emerged bloody, bandaged, and as bruised as a Civil War casualty. I looked terrible, but there was something deeply satisfying about it. At the risk of sounding melodramatic, my broken outside finally matched my (heartbroken) inside. That mid-deployment feeling of floating in time indefinitely—the separation has lasted eons, but homecoming is still many moons away—leaves some spouses angry, some depressed, and some simply exhausted. I fight hopelessness.

For me, long separations don't get any easier with time. I don't get used to it, but I do go numb. After my mid-deployment accidents, when people approached me with sympathy for my physical distress, the spiritual numbness that enveloped me began to wear away. I tricked myself into believing that their tenderness toward my wounds was actually directed at my desolation and that those buried feelings suddenly had a sympathetic audience.

It was liberating. Since my outer appearance matched my inner attitude, there was no longer a need to pretend that our family situation was acceptable. I wasn't required to play the stoic military spouse. The answer to the well-meaning, "How are you doing?" was written in stitches across my swollen face.

But feeling right, or even self-righteous, doesn't help anyone feel better. And in my solo effort to stave off halfway-point hopelessness, I found myself longing for the institutions of military spousehood. (Because of the nature of this deployment, my husband and I decided that the children and I would move away from our military community to be near family. It was the right choice for us, and we don't regret it.)

Military spouse clubs regularly transform lemons into lemon meringue pie, and the groupthink goes something like this: Halfway is nearly there. Halfway is when you start trying on outfits for homecoming. Halfway is when you landscape the yard. Halfway is when you struggle to shed that last five pounds. It's the only deployment-related milestone of any consequence, and like a warm spring emerging from a cold, dark winter, it is fragrant with optimism, bursting with hope.

So I picked up the phone recently and called an old friend, a fellow military spouse who has seen it all. When she asked, "How are you doing?" and heard my hesitation, she translated it with the expertise of a native speaker. "Just muddling through, huh?" she said. There was deep understanding in her light touch. I remembered Emily Dickinson's famous line, "Hope is the thing with feathers."

And suddenly I was hopeful, because muddling through implies forward motion. I might reach the shores of homecoming dirty and disheveled, if not outright bruised and battered, but I'll get there. It's only seven months away.

Alison Buckholtz is the author of Standing By: The Making of an American Military Family in a Time of War.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2243618/

Title: My Husband Is Finally Home From Iraq By Alison Buckholtz
Post by: rachelg on September 01, 2010, 06:50:52 PM

DEPLOYMENT DIARY
My Husband Is Finally Home From Iraq
After a year's deployment, I can't believe the ordeal is over.
By Alison Buckholtz
Updated Wednesday, Sept. 1, 2010, at 7:10 AM ET

The clapping, the hooting, the whistling: It was all very familiar. As I hurried toward the terminal at Baltimore-Washington Airport, where U.S. troops land after serving overseas, I spotted the cheerful retirees from Operation Welcome Home who applaud each servicemember returning from deployment. These greeters, clad in American flag T-shirts and carrying handmade signs thanking the troops, organize themselves to be present for every incoming military flight, even ones landing at 2 a.m.

I remembered them from exactly one year ago, when I hugged my husband Scott goodbye as he left for a year in Baghdad. Now he was finally coming home. But after 12 months of planning for this moment (I ordered an enormous "Welcome Home" banner for our porch only weeks after his departure), I feared I had missed it.

There had been some confusion when Scott called to relay the date and time of his return from Iraq. His itinerary said noon, but administrative staff in Iraq had mentioned 1 p.m. I decided to arrive early, and it was only 11:45 a.m.when I stepped on to the escalator. But from the sound of the greeters' enthusiastic cheers, I was too late. I ran the rest of the way, feeling my face redden from exercise and anxiety. A few of the greeters, looking sympathetic, approached and assured me that the flight I was waiting for had just startled to trickle in. Scott hadn't walked through the double doors yet. I stationed myself off to the side, and scanned the terminal. Only one other family waited alongside me—a twentysomething woman with long brown hair and her two biracial children, who held hand-crayoned "I [heart] Daddy" signs.

There were so few other families because the terminal at BWI is only the first point of entry into the United States for many returning troops; most then board a series of connecting flights to their local airports, where husbands and wives and moms and dads wait with bouquets and balloons. We live relatively close to BWI, so I could welcome Scott as soon as he arrived. But many of the troops were still many hours away from a real homecoming. That's why the greeters make it their mission to applaud and thank every single returning servicemember.

I knew about Operation Welcome Home from the documentary The Way We Get By, a moving look into the lives of three elderly troop greeters in Bangor, Maine. The last time I saw these eager, vocal volunteers, I wasn't feeling very generous. I admitted as much in my first Deployment Diary, where I confessed that I was unable to be happy for the families I saw embracing their returning servicemember at the terminal where I'd said my heartbroken goodbye to Scott. My own misery prevented me from being gracious, and the whistles and cheers of the greeters shredded what was left of my nerves. I so desperately wanted it to be my turn to have my husband home.

"Come closer," one of the greeters urged, pulling my elbow forward. He had a camera in his hand and his patriotic T-shirt was tucked neatly into his chinos. But I was rattled after convincing myself that I was late, and from absorbing, for the first time, the magnitude of this moment. I started to cry, and I covered my mouth. We survived this, I thought. We did it. The greeter seemed sympathetic, though I hadn't said a word. He returned to his spot, leaving me alone.

Scenes from the past year played unbidden: Last August's departure, as I walked to the airport parking lot alone, numb with misery and uncertainty; my 6-year-old son Ethan waking in the middle of the night a few times a month for the past 12 months, crying out for his father; my 4-year-old daughter Estee climbing into my bed every morning, her lean, warm body wrapping itself around me and readying me for the day ahead; the three of us, homebound during the past winter's snowstorms and power outages.

As I wiped my eyes and watched the greeter return to his spot, I was relieved to have left the kids at camp that morning. Scott's permanent homecoming was still several days away—he would fly to California after a two-hour layover at BWI to complete administrative details before coming home for good, and we didn't want to confuse the children with another goodbye.

We decided to tell them he was coming home just the day before his return from California, when we were more certain of the details, and could assure them he would spend a long summer vacation with them. After that break, he will start a Navy staff job in the D.C. area, driving to work every morning and pulling up to the house every evening. The domestic dullness I've long craved is imminent.

More servicemembers in camouflage stepped through the double doors, blinking in the bright light of the terminal. The greeters cheered and clapped. Soldiers, sailors, and Marines navigated the gauntlet of outstretched hands, some reaching back eagerly, most nodding politely and smiling, a few staring straight ahead, acknowledging no one. They carried little, and they all looked exhausted. "Thank you for your service," the greeters called out over and over. But it never sounded rote; it was impossibly original and real each time. It was as if they had a secret which re-energized them each time they shared it.

I've thought a lot this past year about the idea of service. I have a better understanding of what it entails—not just in the military, but in any field that demands similar sacrifice and devotion. I'm still not sure where the obligation of service ends. I'm not even sure if thinking of service as an obligation negates the authenticity of that service. Clearly, the greeters set out to serve their country each time they met these flights, vowing that no veteran will return to the United States unappreciated. If they consider it an obligation, it is one they fulfill joyfully, which is more than I can say for how I feel about our family's commitment to the military on most days.

My eyes were still on the double doors. Scott walked through, and I heard myself gasp. He looked exactly the same as he does in the photos hanging throughout our house, but this time, he was smiling back at me. I ran to him. I was still crying, still thinking: We made it. We survived this. I heard applause as we embraced. I don't know how long we stood there, but when we pulled apart and made our way toward the exit, dozens of greeters reached toward Scott. He tried to shake every hand and return every hug.

"Thank you for your service," one woman said, but I didn't look up. "Thank you for your service," I heard again, insistently, the same voice. I searched her out in the crowd. She had close-cropped gray hair and was so small that she barely peeked out among the others in the group. When I found her, she was already looking into my eyes. I realized she was actually talking to me, and not to my husband. I appreciated the sentiment, but I didn't know what to say. She disappeared into the throng. I held Scott's hand tightly, and we kept walking.

Like Slate on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.

Alison Buckholtz is the author of Standing By: The Making of an American Military Family in a Time of War.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2265662/

Title: A Father-to-Be's Promise to Break the Cycle
Post by: rachelg on October 08, 2010, 06:17:13 AM

A Father-to-Be's Promise to Break the Cycle
http://www.theroot.com/print/44373

By:
Posted: October 4, 2010 at 8:01 PM


I'm 32 years old, and I'm about to do something that I've never really witnessed. I'm about to be a father. Sure, I've seen other fathers close up. There were a few scattered about in the Montgomery, Ala., neighborhood where I spent my teen years, and there definitely were tons on the Air Force base I lived on with my military mother. But my observations were those of a safari vacationer, jotting down mental notes and wondering if one species' habits were like those of another.

You don't have to go far to see bad examples of black fathers. Just throw a stone in any black neighborhood and you'll hit a house containing children but no father. Just last week, we as a nation collectively smacked our teeth and shook our heads as we read about Howard Veal, the 44-year-old man who fathered 23 children with 14 different women and owed $500,000 in child support. There are great examples of black fathers too, but you'll have to aim carefully with that rock to hit those houses.

My own fatherhood is about two months away. Until now I've managed to distract myself with work, side projects and healthy doses of ESPN. But now, as my beautiful wife's belly balloons with life and we feel our unborn son's kicks, hiccups and squirms against our palms, the reality and weight of fatherhood is sinking in.

My two best friends, like me, were both raised without fathers in their homes. It's a fact that we unconsciously bonded over in our youth.

"I'm always going to be there for my kids," we said to one another when we were 15. We exchanged those words at the same time we talked about the cutest girls in school and the new pair of Jordans each of us wanted.

But unlike my two friends, I haven't seen my father since I was toddler. My two friends have hugged and shaken the hands of their fathers as grown men. Like many of my generation, I could easily have walked by my father on the street yesterday without recognizing him.

He isn't in jail, and I don't think he's dead. No, he's just a dude who jettisoned my mother and me after a divorce. I've spoken with him once by phone in 25 years -- it was a random call after two decades of silence to see if I had been in jail or had any children.

"What's up?" he had said, as if our last conversation hadn't been on the eve of my 6th birthday, with him promising gifts that never arrived.

"Nigga, what's up with you?" I said in my mind. But what came out of my mouth was a dry, "Uh, what's up?"

No kids, no jail, I told him. A journalist, I told him. Shock, he expressed. Yes, my mother is awesome, I said. The conversation lasted five minutes, and he left a number that later didn't work.

 

In some ways, having a father who was deceased or locked up would have felt more reassuring to me as a child than having one who had just washed his hands of me. There is a discarded feeling you carry with you when you know that some cat who fathered you is out there but doesn't care enough to nurture you.

I once hurt my mother's feelings when I was about 13 and she asked me if I would like to live with my father. I had said, "Sure, that be cool. I'd jump at the chance." The answer wasn't meant to trample the sweat and tears she had expelled to raise and mold me. It was just an honest response from a boy who wanted a father.

There have been men -- two in particular -- who stepped up and played fatherly roles in my life. I love them for their guidance, phone calls and visits to my college. But even though I know both of them would say they'd drop anything to help me through a trivial problem or counsel me through a challenging period, as I grew older I began to feel that my own expectations were a presumptuous intrusion on their lives and, quite frankly, not their responsibility.

Lately I've grappled with the fear that I'll overcompensate with my son. Will I be too strict? Will I be too focused on his education? Will I have unrealistic expectations, all in an attempt to ensure that he is smarter than I am, achieves more than I have, earns more than I do, is happier than I am, is better than I am? I know that's the wrong way to go about it. I've seen the movies.

I know I need to steady myself, relax and trust that this is just another phase of life that comes with its successes and missteps. I've experienced failure before, but until now those letdowns have largely affected only me. That's no longer the case, and it's easy to feel the pressure to be a perfect parent.

I know that viewing fatherhood like this is juvenile and unfair to my son. But at my most honest moments, these are the thoughts bouncing in my head.

OK, now that I've been honest with myself, it's time to do a hard-drive erase of my expectations. It's my job to put all of my issues on a shelf and love the heck out of this kid. With all of the Michael Jordan-Thurgood Marshall-Ralph Ellison dreams I may have for my son, it's simply my duty to love him. I'll be working his entire life to ensure that my dreams for him do not eclipse my love for him. That's what my mother did so well, and because of it, I am who I am. While far from perfect, I turned out OK.

The one promise I can make to my son is that his father will never discard him. He will always feel my love and presence, even if my fathering is a work-in-progress.

Topher Sanders is a newspaper reporter who is shopping his first novel. He and his wife live in Jacksonville, Fla. Their baby boy is due in November.

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: G M on October 08, 2010, 07:43:24 AM

I remember reading a study that found children that were without a father because of his death were psychologically/emotionally better off than children of divorce. Look at prison populations and you'll find that the vast majority of inmates grew up without fathers.

Title: Putting Marriage First
Post by: rachelg on November 16, 2010, 07:15:19 AM

This is a little more moralizing than my usual posts on this thread. However two friends marriages just fell apart because  the wife "fell out of love"  " He is a good guy but I'm just not in love with him anymore". What does that mean?  

Anyway ---

Putting Marriage First
by M. Gary Neuman
Why we avoid the real work of marriage.

Unconscious Assumption: Our Marriage Will Run by Itself While We Deal with Everything Else

It's the number one myth of marriage: "After you fall in love, you don't have to work at it anymore." Countless couples have told me, "If it takes so much energy, we must not be made for each other." Somewhere we have been improperly taught that true love is supposed to come easy. Once we've committed to each other through marriage, our love will take care of itself while we get on with life. We can now focus on jobs, kids, and acquiring things.

I think many want to resist having to work so hard at love. It takes enormous energy to create and maintain a wonderful marriage. Great marriages are about a fully engaged connection that requires constant attention, a deep, soul-searching understanding of yourself and how it affects your ability to love. Giving it everything you've got sounds exhausting and disquieting.

We may say we want that wonderful marriage, but deep down we recognize that being sensitive to another human being is harder than most things we do. If all you're giving your spouse is the energy left over from balancing work and family, you're cheating your marriage.

Putting your marriage first is about a state of mind. It's believing that everything else that you feel is important is dramatically impacted by your marriage. Whether you feel in love or lonely will affect every decision and action you take today. Marriage is a foundation for your world. With love in your heart and a sense of someone who cares deeply for you as your partner, you have greater energy and greater abilities to handle all of life's tasks. Aren't you a better parent on the day you feel close to your spouse than when you've just had a fight? Aren't you more focused and energized at work the day after a romantic, loving evening with your spouse? Don't you want to live more passionately when you feel loved and able to give love?

For every ounce of effort you put into your marriage, you will benefit tenfold, not only from the direct love you feel but from the energy and focus you'll have for everything else in your life.

The idea that you need to focus more on kids, work, or friends than your marriage is an excuse for running away from having an exceptional marriage. You didn't marry to be absorbed by everything else but your marriage. You'll never lose from any other part of your life when you make marriage your priority. Obviously you may have less time for your kids today if you go out to dinner alone with your spouse. But you will be offering them a supremely better parent on your return, Start at the top -- the love in your marriage -- and allow that intense love to flow into the rest of your life.

Unconscious Assumption: If I Don't Invest in My Marriage, I Can't Be Blamed If It Fails

Another reason why so many people avoid the work that marriages need is that being in love demands that we be true to our spouse and give. We unconsciously hold ourselves back because if we make this ultimate commitment and fail at it, it might truly break our hearts and push us into a deeper understanding of ourselves and our shortcomings. It's easier to simply "give love a shot" without the intensity of deep love. That way, if things go wrong you can blame it on things like, "I was young," "I married the wrong spouse," "We didn't know what we were doing," and avoid looking deeper within.

There is little else as hard as confronting who you are and why you act the way you do. Once you open up to yourself and see some of your deeper issues and frailties, you can never pretend them away. Too many of us deny our innermost feelings and don't give to our spouse the way we could precisely to protect ourselves from that deeper understanding of ourselves, which can be painful. However, you can't possibly know or truly love another human being without learning a great deal about yourself along the way. It's a spectacular, albeit difficult, journey that takes bountiful energy and concentration.

And it isn't even easy once you do understand yourself. Ask couples who have been genuinely happy in their marriages for 25 years or more and you won't find one who says, "It was easy." Sound depressing? We would prefer not having to work at it. We'd like it to just flow easily. But is there anything else worthwhile in your life that came easily? We don't expect parenting or creating a thriving business to be easy. We don't even treat important friendships with ease. We know that we will have to be there physically and emotionally for our dearest friends, our children, and our family if we want to reap the benefits of a loving relationship. But when it comes to our spouse, too many of us don't believe we need to put forth the same energy. We think our relationship should be able to thrive on what's left of us after we've given to everyone else.

Unconscious Assumption: Being Vulnerable Is Dangerous

Yet another reason you may shy away from putting in the daily effort to develop a wonderful marriage is that it makes you extremely vulnerable to your spouse. Your spouse knows you better than anyone else. You can hide somewhat from your children or from your parents. But your spouse will know every detail of your weaknesses and strengths. Your spouse will know what you really think about your parents, boss, friends. He or she will know the truth about who you are deep down, even when you've been able to fool the rest of the world.

Being close to your spouse means being an open book. Perhaps you're not as comfortable with yourself as you think. Perhaps you're hiding from yourself emotionally and are therefore avoiding the closeness of a loving bond, as it will force you to deal with your issues. Perhaps you're afraid to become so close to your mate. Closeness will make both of you depend on each other. Maybe you can't handle that, or you're afraid you'll disappoint your spouse. Maybe you feel deep down that you're just not good enough to deserve a wonderful marriage. When we love deeply, we lose control, and we're apt to get hurt and suffer deep emotional pain.

I'm not suggesting any of us consciously uses these fears to sabotage our marriage. I don't believe you get up in the morning and say, "I'll put time and effort into every other relationship except my marriage because that closeness makes me uncomfortable." I am merely pointing out the potential push-pull struggle of being close to your spouse. In front of your spouse you are naked, plain and simple.

People are surprised to learn that they may be shying away from the very thing they say they desire. But we are complicated beings. We say we want to work harder but find ourselves leaving the office early. We say we want a fabulous marriage but don't do a whole lot to make that happen. You can only challenge this contradiction when you see it clearly.

When I explain to couples how much work marriage takes, they respond with comments like, "Who has the time?" You do have the time to dedicate if you want to. We always find time for the things we see as a priority. If your child had an accident that required hours of physical therapy, you'd find the time to do whatever you needed to do to care for your child. Make marriage the priority it deserves. You're not as busy as you think.

Excerpted from Emotional Infidelity by M. Gary Neuman

This article can also be read at: http://www.aish.com/f/m/97259269.html

Title: Amazing
Post by: ccp on November 18, 2010, 11:36:38 AM

39% in a poll say marriage is obsolete.  What does this mean for us?  I am on my way out so I don't care for me but what about the future of our nation?  Our society?

****Four in 10 say marriage is becoming obsolete
             By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Hope Yen, Associated Press – Thu Nov 18, 6:20 am ET
WASHINGTON – Is marriage becoming obsolete?

As families gather for Thanksgiving this year, nearly one in three American children is living with a parent who is divorced, separated or never-married. More people are accepting the view that wedding bells aren't needed to have a family.

A study by the Pew Research Center, in association with Time magazine, highlights rapidly changing notions of the American family. And the Census Bureau, too, is planning to incorporate broader definitions of family when measuring poverty, a shift caused partly by recent jumps in unmarried couples living together.

About 29 percent of children under 18 now live with a parent or parents who are unwed or no longer married, a fivefold increase from 1960, according to the Pew report being released Thursday. Broken down further, about 15 percent have parents who are divorced or separated and 14 percent who were never married. Within those two groups, a sizable chunk — 6 percent — have parents who are live-in couples who opted to raise kids together without getting married.

Indeed, about 39 percent of Americans said marriage was becoming obsolete. And that sentiment follows U.S. census data released in September that showed marriages hit an all-time low of 52 percent for adults 18 and over.

In 1978, just 28 percent believed marriage was becoming obsolete.

[Photos: Secret celebrity weddings]

When asked what constitutes a family, the vast majority of Americans agree that a married couple, with or without children, fits that description. But four of five surveyed pointed also to an unmarried, opposite-sex couple with children or a single parent. Three of 5 people said a same-sex couple with children was a family.

"Marriage is still very important in this country, but it doesn't dominate family life like it used to," said Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology and public policy at Johns Hopkins University. "Now there are several ways to have a successful family life, and more people accept them."

The broadening views of family are expected to have an impact at Thanksgiving. About nine in 10 Americans say they will share a Thanksgiving meal next week with family, sitting at a table with 12 people on average. About one-fourth of respondents said there will be 20 or more family members.

"More Americans are living in these new families, so it seems safe to assume that there will be more of them around the Thanksgiving dinner table," said Paul Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Research Center.

The changing views of family are being driven largely by young adults 18-29, who are more likely than older generations to have an unmarried or divorced parent or have friends who do. Young adults also tend to have more liberal attitudes when it comes to spousal roles and living together before marriage, the survey found.

[Related: Sudden celebrity splits]

But economic factors, too, are playing a role. The Census Bureau recently reported that opposite-sex unmarried couples living together jumped 13 percent this year to 7.5 million. It was a sharp one-year increase that analysts largely attributed to people unwilling to make long-term marriage commitments in the face of persistent unemployment.

Beginning next year, the Census Bureau will publish new, supplemental poverty figures that move away from the traditional concept of family as a husband and wife with two children. It will broaden the definition to include unmarried couples, such as same-sex partners, as well as foster children who are not related by blood or adoption.

Officials say such a move will reduce the number of families and children who are considered poor based on the new supplemental measure, which will be used as a guide for federal and state agencies to set anti-poverty policies. That's because two unmarried partners who live together with children and work are currently not counted by census as a single "family" with higher pooled incomes, but are officially defined as two separate units — one being a single parent and child, the other a single person — who aren't sharing household resources.

"People are rethinking what family means," Cherlin said. "Given the growth, I think we need to accept cohabitation relationships as a basis for some of the fringe benefits offered to families, such as health insurance."

Still, the study indicates that marriage isn't going to disappear anytime soon. Despite a growing view that marriage may not be necessary, 67 percent of Americans were upbeat about the future of marriage and family. That's higher than their optimism for the nation's educational system (50 percent), economy (46 percent) or its morals and ethics (41 percent).

And about half of all currently unmarried adults, 46 percent, say they want to get married. Among those unmarried who are living with a partner, the share rises to 64 percent.

Other findings:

_About 34 percent of Americans called the growing variety of family living arrangements good for society, while 32 percent said it didn't make a difference and 29 percent said it was troubling.

_About 44 percent of people say they have lived with a partner without being married; for 30-to-49-year-olds, that share rose to 57 percent. In most cases, those couples said they considered cohabitation as a step toward marriage.

_About 62 percent say that the best marriage is one where the husband and wife both work and both take care of the household and children. That's up from 48 percent who held that view in 1977.

The Pew study was based on interviews with 2,691 adults by cell phone or landline from Oct. 1-21. The survey has a total margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points, larger for subgroups. Pew also analyzed 2008 census data, and used surveys conducted by Time magazine to identify trends from earlier decades.****

 

Title: Arranged
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 18, 2010, 10:08:48 PM

Two faiths, two women and their friendship
In the film, Arranged, shared values bridge the faith divide in an unexpected way.



Jennifer S. Bryson is Director of the Islam and Civil Society Project at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey. Her article is reproduced here with the permission of The Public Discourse.


“I heard that the Muslims want to kill all the Jews,” says a fourth-grade student to his Muslim teacher while an Orthodox Jewish teacher sits with them in the classroom. Just about any way one looks at this it sounds like a recipe for disaster.

And yet, by this point in the film Arranged the students’ Muslim teacher, Nasira, and the Orthodox Jewish special education teacher, Rochel, have begun to suspect that they may have more in common with each other as religious women than with anyone else in the secular environment of their Brooklyn public school.

The lunchtime chit-chat of the other female school teachers is about parties and sleeping with guys. Nasira and Rochel have, however, opted for a different approach to life. This means eating lunch alone instead—until they discover each other, that is.

There are those who would like to get Nasira and Rochel to abandon their “backward” ways. In the view of the school principal, for example, the religiosity and consequent modesty of Nasira and Rochel are outdated and irrational. At a workshop to instruct teachers about tolerance, the principal simply assumes and then goes on to tell the whole group that she thinks Nasira wears a headscarf because her father forces her to do so. Nasira, however, refuses to let this snide remark pass and shares with the group an eloquent explanation of her personal choice to follow her religious faith and how this informs her understanding of feminine modesty. She does so gracefully and confidently, not angrily or bitterly. This piques Rochel’s interest. Rochel discovers that Nasira too is facing the challenge of trying to fit in but not give in to the culture at their school.

Nasira’s explanation of why she chooses to wear the hijab does, however, not alleviate the principal’s crusade to ‘enlighten’ and ‘liberate’ Nasira and Rochel with her own brand of feminism.

The principal’s enthusiasm for diversity and tolerance wanes when it comes to the modest attire these young women have chosen out of their religious convictions. The principal considers these women among her two best teachers in the school, but for her that’s not enough. She tells them, “You’re successful participants in the modern world, except for this religious thing. You know I mean—the rules, the regulations, the way you dress… I mean come on we’re in the 21st century here for crying out loud. There was a women’s movement!” Nasira and Rochel try to be polite, but clearly they feel more irritation than liberation at hearing this. The principal, on the other hand, is so flustered by Nasira and Rochel’s calm, confident disinterest in the type of free-for-all feminism she promotes that she finally resorts to offering them her own personal money for them to go out and buy some “designer” clothes as a replacement for “those farkakte outfits” (which seems to be a Yiddish nod, from the secular Jewish principal, to the line from the Blues Brothers, “What are you guys gonna do? The same act? Wearing the same farkakte suits?”). Nasira and Rochel decline and walk out of her office.

This is a delightful film with a positive, substantive message. It deserves more viewers than its somewhat confusing title might attract. Arranged, as in arranged marriage, conjures up for many images of child marriage and forced marriage. This film does not attempt to downplay the abusiveness of such practices. Rather, in this film the “arranging” of marriage refers to family engagement in the process of searching for a suitable spouse.

(In fact, it is worth noting that today there are devout Muslims and Jews working to protect women and men from potential abuses resulting from distorted concepts of marriage. For example, this Fall the Muslim chaplain at New York University, Imam Khalid Latif, devoted a Friday sermon to differentiating between marriage and forced marriage.)

Nasira and Rochel discover they are both exploring the possibility of getting married, and that both of them are from devout religious families with cultural traditions of parents’ involvement in suggesting and getting to know eligible bachelors.

At the same time, even with a role for their families in seeking a suitable spouse, each woman has veto authority over any of the proposed suitors. And they exercise it.

But when Rochel spots a handsome, single Orthodox Jewish student with kind, bright eyes in a university study group with Nasira’s brother, some dreaming and scheming ensue. The most helpful person along the way proves to be her Muslim friend Nasira, who comes up with a humorous ploy to bring him to the attention of the women helping Rochel find a husband.

In a day and age in America when public discussion of marriage tends to be limited to either vicious fighting or depressing divorce statistics, Arranged provides a welcome respite from this. The film offers instead a focus on the centrality of relationship, commitment, and family in marriage.

This story—devout Muslim and Orthodox Jewish women discovering common ground in valuing feminine dignity and family—is not just some fictional tale of unrealistic wishful-thinking. Arranged is based on the real life account of an Orthodox Jewish woman, a teacher in the New York public schools, and her experiences getting to know the Pakistani-American Muslim mother of one of her pupils.

These filmmakers are not naïve. As one of them explains in an interview about the making of the film, included on the DVD, Israel and Lebanon were at war during the shooting of this movie. Challenges abound and they are very real. And in the film Nasira and Rochel have to maneuver their budding friendship through the obstacles of family members’ skepticism and even opposition to their Muslim-Jewish friendship. But even so, real friendships are also possible, and alliances to protect religious freedom can cross unexpected lines.

(For example, in Montreal the Orthodox Jewish community is fighting against a bill which would ban the Muslim facial veil, niqab, in Quebec for women seeking government services. The Orthodox Jewish community there has expressed concern about the government trying to regulate the attire of religious believers and doing so by targeting one minority.)

Shared values provide a bridge for Nasira and Rochel. They are women with humble self-dignity in a world not disposed to support integrity or family. What these women learn is that kindness begets friendship, and genuine friendship can handle differences. They don’t have to deny their difference to get along. The bridge they build proves to be stronger than cross-currents around them. Friendship, and healthy relationships, ensue and grow.

Jennifer S. Bryson is Director of the Islam and Civil Society Project at The Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, NJ.

Copyright 2010 the Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: Vicbowling on February 14, 2011, 02:59:24 PM

Beautiful and inspiring story! Thank you so much for sharing. It's rare that a spouse would be so excepting for a previous life and it's uplifting to hear her story.

_______________________
home security systems (http://www.alarm.com/)

Title: Douthat: Monogamy matters
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 07, 2011, 05:36:27 AM

Why Monogamy Matters
By ROSS DOUTHAT
Published: March 6, 2011
 
Social conservatives can seem like the perennial pessimists of American politics — more comfortable with resignation than with hope, perpetually touting evidence of family breakdown, social disintegration and civilizational decline.

 
But even doomsayers get the occasional dose of good news. And so it was last week, when a study from the Centers for Disease Control revealed that American teens and 20-somethings are waiting longer to have sex.

In 2002, the study reported, 22 percent of Americans aged 15 to 24 were still virgins. By 2008, that number was up to 28 percent. Other research suggests that this trend may date back decades, and that young Americans have been growing more sexually conservative since the late 1980s.

Why is this good news? Not, it should be emphasized, because it suggests the dawn of some sort of traditionalist utopia, where the only sex is married sex. No such society has ever existed, or ever could: not in 1950s America (where, as the feminist writer Dana Goldstein noted last week, the vast majority of men and women had sex before they married), and not even in Mormon Utah (where Brigham Young University recently suspended a star basketball player for sleeping with his girlfriend).

But there are different kinds of premarital sex. There’s sex that’s actually pre-marital, in the sense that it involves monogamous couples on a path that might lead to matrimony one day. Then there’s sex that’s casual and promiscuous, or just premature and ill considered.

This distinction is crucial to understanding what’s changed in American life since the sexual revolution. Yes, in 1950 as in 2011, most people didn’t go virgins to their marriage beds. But earlier generations of Americans waited longer to have sex, took fewer sexual partners across their lifetimes, and were more likely to see sleeping together as a way station on the road to wedlock.

And they may have been happier for it. That’s the conclusion suggested by two sociologists, Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker, in their recent book, “Premarital Sex in America.” Their research, which looks at sexual behavior among contemporary young adults, finds a significant correlation between sexual restraint and emotional well-being, between monogamy and happiness — and between promiscuity and depression.

This correlation is much stronger for women than for men. Female emotional well-being seems to be tightly bound to sexual stability — which may help explain why overall female happiness has actually drifted downward since the sexual revolution.

Among the young people Regnerus and Uecker studied, the happiest women were those with a current sexual partner and only one or two partners in their lifetime. Virgins were almost as happy, though not quite, and then a young woman’s likelihood of depression rose steadily as her number of partners climbed and the present stability of her sex life diminished.

When social conservatives talk about restoring the link between sex, monogamy and marriage, they often have these kinds of realities in mind. The point isn’t that we should aspire to some Arcadia of perfect chastity. Rather, it’s that a high sexual ideal can shape how quickly and casually people pair off, even when they aren’t living up to its exacting demands. The ultimate goal is a sexual culture that makes it easier for young people to achieve romantic happiness — by encouraging them to wait a little longer, choose more carefully and judge their sex lives against a strong moral standard.

This is what’s at stake, for instance, in debates over abstinence-based sex education. Successful abstinence-based programs (yes, they do exist) don’t necessarily make their teenage participants more likely to save themselves for marriage. But they make them more likely to save themselves for somebody, which in turn increases the odds that their adult sexual lives will be a source of joy rather than sorrow.

It’s also what’s at stake in the ongoing battle over whether the federal government should be subsidizing Planned Parenthood. Obviously, social conservatives don’t like seeing their tax dollars flow to an organization that performs roughly 300,000 abortions every year. But they also see Planned Parenthood’s larger worldview — in which teen sexual activity is taken for granted, and the most important judgment to be made about a sexual encounter is whether it’s clinically “safe” — as the enemy of the kind of sexual idealism they’re trying to restore.

Liberals argue, not unreasonably, that Planned Parenthood’s approach is tailored to the gritty realities of teenage sexuality. But realism can blur into cynicism, and a jaded attitude can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Social conservatives look at the contemporary sexual landscape and remember that it wasn’t always thus, and they look at current trends and hope that it doesn’t have to be this way forever.

In this sense, despite their instinctive gloominess, they’re actually the optimists in the debate.

Title: Re: Marriage
Post by: Vicbowling on March 08, 2011, 09:38:30 AM

Quote from: G M on August 04, 2009, 08:30:33 PM

That's a good woman. Her husband disgusts me.

I don't think the husband is disgusting. I think it's hard to really encapsulate what he was going through. I'm not condoning it but at the same time, people are human and it's impossible to say how you would react if you would have such overwhelming feelings like he probably had. I think the wife was really taking a gamble but I'm really relieved that everything worked out for her!

barcelo maya (http://bookit.com/mexico/cancun/hotels/barcelo-maya-beach-and-caribe-resort-all-inclusive/)

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: G M on March 08, 2011, 03:04:32 PM

Vic,

Exactly what would he have to be "going through" to justify his behavior?

Title: WSJ: Polygyny, Mormons, Muslims, and Women
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 01, 2011, 05:09:25 AM

By ROSE MCDERMOTT
Polygamy is a popular punchline these days, from HBO's drama "Big Love" to TLC's documentary "Sister Wives" and the Broadway musical "The Book of Mormon," written by the creators of "South Park." Yet plural marriage is as serious an issue as it's ever been—and is even on the rise in the West.

Warren Jeffs, the infamous leader of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints sect, is in an Arizona jail awaiting trial on charges of bigamy and sexual assault. North of the border, Canadian authorities have been trying to nab his co-religionists. In 2009, prosecutors charged Winston Blackmore and James Oler, two leaders of the fundamentalist community in Bountiful, British Columbia, with polygamy.

The case was thrown out on a technicality, but now Canada's anti-polygamy statute, which dates to 1890, is being put to the test in a so-called "reference case." In effect, the government is seeking an opinion from the court on whether the statute is valid. Opponents say that it violates the country's commitment to religious freedom. "Consenting adults have the right—the Charter protected right—to form the families that they want to form," Monique Pongracic-Speier of the Civil Liberties Association has said.

Supporters of the statute say that it's not about persecuting religious outliers or maintaining a traditional definition of family for its own sake. Rather, it is about protecting human rights. The case has begun to inflame passions far from the rural communities of small Mormon breakaway groups.

Polygamy—or more specifically polygyny, the marriage of one man to more than one woman—has been widespread in human history. And it is becoming increasingly common, particularly in Muslim enclaves—including in Paris, London and New York.

View Full Image

Associated Press
 
Warren Jeffs is led from the Tom Green County Courthouse in San Angelo, Texas after his pretrial hearing in Jan. 2011.
.A 2006 report by the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights reported that approximately 180,000 people were living in polygamous households in France. For decades, France allowed entrance to polygamous immigrants from about 50 countries where the practice was legal. When the French government banned polygamy in 1993, it tried to support the decohabitation of such couples if a wife wanted to move into her own apartment with her children.

In Britain, where immigration laws have banned the practice for longer, there appear to be about a thousand valid polygamous marriages, mostly among immigrants who married elsewhere, such as in Pakistan. Such families are allowed to collect social security benefits for each wife, although the government has apparently not counted how many are doing so.

In the United States, where numbers are more difficult to come by, anecdotal reports indicate underground communities of polygamists in New York City, particularly among immigrant communities from West Africa.

Where the practice remains common in Africa it cuts across religious lines. But in the West, it has been concentrated among Muslims and breakaway Mormon sects. Under Islamic Shariah law, a man is allowed to marry up to four women as long as he can provide for them equally. This should constitute a limiting factor, especially under conditions of poverty. But one way polygamists circumvent this problem is by getting their governments to support unofficial wives whose ambiguous legal status allows them to make claims for aid.

There are more serious problems that come with the practice of polygamy. My research over the past decade, encompassing more than 170 countries, has shown the detrimental effects of polygynous practices on human rights, for both men and women.

According to the information I have helped to collect in the Womanstats database, women in polygynous communities get married younger, have more children, have higher rates of HIV infection than men, sustain more domestic violence, succumb to more female genital mutilation and sex trafficking, and are more likely to die in childbirth. Their life expectancy is also shorter than that of their monogamous sisters. In addition, their children, both boys and girls, are less likely to receive both primary and secondary education.

This is at least partly because polygynist cultures need to create and sustain an underclass of unmarried and undereducated men, since in order to sustain a system where a few men possess all the women, roughly half of boys must leave the community before adulthood. Such societies also spend more money on weapons and display fewer social and political freedoms than do monogamous ones.

When small numbers of men control large numbers of women, the remaining men are likely to be willing to take greater risks and engage in more violence, possibly including terrorism, in order to increase their own wealth and status in hopes of gaining access to women. Whatever their concerns about protecting religious freedom, or demonstrating cultural sensitivity, Western nations should think twice before allowing the kinds of family structures that lead to such abuses.

Ms. McDermott is a professor of political science at Brown University.

Title: A Face in the Window
Post by: Rachel on June 15, 2011, 06:18:32 AM

http://www.aish.com/f/hotm/A_Face_in_the_Window.html
A Face in the Window
by Rabbi Yaakov Salomon

As Father's Day approaches, I am haunted by one most vivid and moving scene from my childhood.

June.

Ah...June.

Tulips. Suntan lotion. Baseball. Graduations. Barbeques. Finals (finally). Summer camp. Really red watermelon. Sunglasses. Father's Day.

What a month, indeed. Someday, when they ask me to re-calibrate the calendar (which, by the way, will definitely happen), I'm going to lop off a good 8-10 days from each of December, January, and February and add them to June. No reason in the world why the greatest month of the year shouldn't have 60 or 70 days, at least!

Until then, 30 will just have to do. Oh well.

But for me, June always had an additional significance. It contained my father's birthday. Not that he ever made much of it (and, in typical European fashion we never knew how old he was, of course), but it did add a dash of supplementary luster to an already celebratory time of year.

Come to think of it, Daddy never really made very much of Father's Day either. And since the birthday and Father's Day inevitably fell so close to each other, my brother and me usually cheated and rolled the festivities into one. Daddy just kind of smiled approvingly at our annual shortcut, perhaps gladdened that less of a fuss would be made over him. In fact, if I didn't know better, and if he hadn't been born in Poland, I'd have suspected that he orchestrated his own birth to land in the vicinity of Father's Day, precisely to escape some additional rays of limelight. He was reticent and unassuming. In short, nothing like his son.

I wonder if he was always unassuming. Who knows? Was he indeed born, or brought up that way, or did he become inconspicuous later in life – either in response to his war experiences or perhaps as a desperate or feeble survival tool. Maybe unobtrusive inmates had a better chance of "hiding" in the Nazi death camps. I just don't know; he never really spoke to us about his six years of hell on earth.

As Father's Day (and his birthday) approach once more, I think about this delicate and understated father of mine and I search for glimpses into his humble, yet loving soul. And I am repeatedly haunted by one most vivid and moving scene from my childhood. But first some contrast.

Several years ago, on a particularly warm Tuesday morning in very late June (yes, June), I found myself walking past a school building in my neighborhood. Lined up in the adjacent street were six idling "coach" busses, brimming with jubilant and frenzied kids. A momentary chill trickled through me. Instantly, one of my fondest childhood memories appeared. Camp departure day had arrived.

Starting at age nine, for 13 years, I had lived and breathed my camping experience, not for 2 months a year, but for practically every single day of the year. I was obsessed with everything about camp. Various scenes from camp routinely visited my dreams all year. (Some still do!) So camp departure day was by far the number one day of the year for this kid. To say that the anticipation bordered on the euphoric would probably be an understatement.

So watching those busses revving up and listening to those kids howling with glee was a gripping moment for me. But then it struck me. Something was wrong; very wrong. I felt like I was confronting one of those magazine puzzles – "What's wrong with this picture?"

It didn't take me long to figure it out. There was something missing from the scene. The parents. Where were they?

"HEY!" I shouted internally. "YOUR CHILDREN ARE LEAVING FOR CAMP! WHY AREN'T YOU HERE? CAN'T YOU WAIT FOR THE BUSSES TO PULL OUT???"

An inappropriate sweat saturated my collar. I had to find out. I ran to a burly chap with a whistle. He would know.

"Excuse me," I blurted, "I see you're going off to camp."

"Leaving any minute," he offered, crushing a torn duffle bag into the final empty corner of the luggage bin.

"Can I ask you a question?"

"Sure."

"WHERE ARE THE PARENTS?"

"Oh, a lot of them were here before, but they left. Work, I guess. Who knows? No big deal – these kids are in good hands."

My heart sank. "A lot of them were here," did he say? "No big deal?" Of course it's a big deal. IT'S THE BIGGEST DEAL OF THE WHOLE DARN YEAR!!!

I was clearly losing it.

It took me a minute or two to fully grasp the reality of the episode before me. I guess the parents did have places to go. Work, appointments or otherwise. A lot of the kids do have older siblings with them. Why should the parents have to wait for the busses to pull out? Suitable goodbyes, including kisses, nosh, and money, are presumably permitted even prior to the busses leaving. And maybe the kids actually prefer to get those mushy goodbyes over with early etc. etc. What got into me?

Which brings me to that one vivid and moving experience from my past that I mentioned to you. It happened on camp departure day. And it happened every single year, for many years.

My folks woke me early and the three of us made the 80-minute subway trek to the camp bus. Little Jackie (me) didn't get much sleep the night before, dreaming of extra-inning baseball games and stirring Friday night melodies to come. But rest was the last thing on my mind. "THE DAY" had arrived!

Freshly laundered socks, a chocolate-sprinkle sandwich and my trusted black baseball mitt filled the "Korvette's" shopping bag I usually carried, and no matter how old I was, Mommy and Daddy had a tough time keeping pace with my determined stride to the "Stairway to Heaven," otherwise known as the camp bus.

Creased loose-leaf papers posed as official bunk signs, directing us to the appropriate lines where we received pre-boarding instructions, obligatory bunkmate introductions, and the usual warnings about throwing stuff out of the bus windows and maintaining proper decorum. But when those big bus doors flew open, we all charged full steam ahead like a herd of police dogs on a manhunt. It's a miracle that other than a lot of crushed Devil Dogs and an exploding Pepsi or two, there were no serious casualties in the mad surge of exuberant youth. I would then make my annual pilgrimage to the "back of the bus" and settle in comfortably at a vacant window seat. Seatmates changed from year to year, but it really didn't matter who was sitting with me. My focus was elsewhere.

Long forgotten by that time, were my forlorn father and mother who, missing me already, remained obediently on the now nearly evacuated sidewalk, chatting with other similarly abandoned parents. I peered out the window and watched them. Sending me to camp was not easy for them. Not financially and not emotionally. Such is the reality for survivors of the Holocaust. Separations cut deep. I was pretty young, and I didn't understand it very well, but I knew it was a real sacrifice.

Before very long, the counselors performed the ritual roll call and head count and I knew any minute we'd be on our way. I looked once more through the open window and felt that wistful pang of exhilaration and yearning. It was a strange combination of feelings and my stomach knew it. Mommy always wore a look that said, "Everything will be fine," but Daddy looked lost. His lips seemed to quiver and his soft eyes were no longer dry.

The engines revved up. By now all the windows were crammed with waving arms and blown kisses.

"Bye-bye!"
"See you on Visiting Day!"
"Don't forget to write!"

The wheels began their tiresome thrust. The bus lurched forward. A couple of drops of already opened soda probably spilled somewhere. And then I heard it. It was a tap on the windowpane. Strong. Determined. No...maybe frightened is a better word. It was Daddy.

One final good-bye. I saw his hands fumbling in his pockets. When they emerged, they were filled with candy, gum, salted peanuts, and some loose change. He shoved them through the window, half of them spilling to the gutter below. One final chance to feed me, nurture me, hold on to me... love me.

I whipped my neck around to steal a glance at those around me. I guess I was embarrassed, but it didn't matter much. By now Daddy was running to keep up with the departing bus. It was the only time all year he ever ran.

Our eyes met one last time. We were both crying now. His arms flailed in surrender mode as we picked up speed. He knew the separation was inevitable and imminent. It was a race he would surely lose. I stuck my head out for one last look...and stared at the peanuts on my lap. Somehow the bus seemed very quiet.

And so went the annual scene. As I grew older, the candy matured somewhat and the change became dollars, but the loving, tearful face in the window remained the same. It was the happiest sadness I could ever feel.

The irony of the situation was that we both knew that Visiting Day would arrive in less than two weeks! It's not like I was going on some yearlong voyage to ‘Never-never Land.' But separations do cut deep.

What really triggered this most reserved man to unabashedly display his most shielded emotions? I don't really know. We never spoke about it. Could it have been a morbid association to the trains he boarded en route to five different concentration camps? Or a menacing reminder of separations – final ones- that he experienced with loved ones? Or was it some overwhelmingly painful image of the bizarre disparity between the camps he went to, and the "camp" I loved so much?

I will never know. But I think I now understand why I demanded to know where those parents were, when the busses left without them that hot Tuesday morning. And I think I know why I love June so much.

Happy Father's Day, Daddy... and Happy Birthday too... I miss you.

This article can also be read at: http://www.aish.com/f/hotm/A_Face_in_the_Window.html

Title: Four Ways to Marry the Wrong Person
Post by: Rachel on June 20, 2011, 05:53:24 PM

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_ez-QeYuxk&feature=player_embedded#at=35[/youtube]



Four Ways to Marry the Wrong Person http://www.aish.com/d/w/Four_Ways_to_Marry_the_Wrong_Person.html

Title: "Flexible monogamy"
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 18, 2011, 01:44:16 PM

"[M]arriage, redefined to include homosexuals, is now open to further redefinition to suit the homosexual lifestyle. Just a week after the New York law passed, the New York Times ran a piece promoting the practice of 'flexible' monogamy, or infidelity with permission -- a common practice in 'committed' homosexual relationships. The thesis? It 'works' for the homosexual community, so heterosexuals should try it too. ... Societies that legitimize substitutes for traditional marriage (homosexual 'marriage,' civil unions, cohabitation) inevitably witness the decline of authentic marriage. And as marriage declines, family structures weaken, producing cracks in the bedrock of a stable society. The result? Children suffer. ... Be unequivocal with your children. This is not about 'fairness' or 'equality.' It's about morality and the strength of civil society. Homosexual behavior is wrong. And homosexual relationships are not equivalent to heterosexual marriages, no matter what the New York legislature says." --columnist Rebecca Hagelin

==================

Title: No slippery slope
Post by: G M on July 18, 2011, 02:26:07 PM

**But, but I was told that mainstreaming gay marriage would never lead to anything like this.....

http://blogs.findlaw.com/celebrity_justice/2011/07/sister-wives-lawsuit-to-challenge-polygamy-law.html

'Sister Wives' Lawsuit to Challenge Polygamy Law

 By Cynthia Hsu on July 13, 2011 11:43 AM|



A "Sister Wives" lawsuit is expected to be filed today by the family featured on the hit TLC reality show. The polygamy lawsuit is challenging the Utah law that makes polygamy a crime.

Kody Brown is the head of the family. He has four wives and 16 children and stepchildren. The Browns are members of the Apostolic United Brethren Church, which is a fundamentalist offshoot of the Mormon Church.

The Mormon Church gave up polygamy in the 1890s when Utah sought statehood, reports The New York Times.


Brown himself is only legally married to one of his wives. The rest of his wives are "spiritual wives," meaning that they are not legally bound, reports The New York Times.

However, Brown's participation on the reality show brought scrutiny - and an investigation - into their family and their practices. Police started the investigation, which is still ongoing. In the meantime, the family has moved from Utah to Las Vegas, reports Deseret News.

The lawsuit itself is being filed partially on the basis of the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court decision that struck down Texas' anti-sodomy and anti-homosexual law, reports The New York Times.

Lawrence v. Texas, in part, found: that the anti-sodomy statutes violated the constitutional right to privacy, and that the Texas statute did not further any legitimate state interest that could "justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."

But, is the Utah law similar to a law that makes sodomy or homosexuality a crime? Unlike homosexuality, polygamy has never been protected by law - and the state could make the case that there are legitimate state interests in preserving bigamy laws, like preventing harm from one spouse to another.

What will happen in the "Sister Wives" lawsuit is still unclear in these early stages. Though, the Browns are certainly employing their share of legal experts: helming the polygamy lawsuit is Professor John Turley, who teaches law at George Washington University, The New York Times reports.

Related Resources:
 •Sister Wives' Polygamist Plans Suit to Challenge Polygamy Law (ABC News)
 •'Sister Wives' Family Investigated for Bigamy (FindLaw's Celebrity Justice)
 •More Information on Annulment and Prohibited Marriage Laws (FindLaw)
 •The Marriage Debate and Polygamy (FindLaw's Writ)

Title: Fable of the Porcupine
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 27, 2011, 08:55:07 PM

Fable of the porcupine
It was the coldest winter ever. Many animals died because of the cold. The porcupines, realizing the situation, decided to group together to keep warm. This way they covered and protected themselves; but the quills of each one wounded their closest companions. After awhile, they decided to distance themselves one from the other and they began to die, alone and frozen. So they had to make a choice: either accept the quills of their companions or disappear from the Earth. Wisely, they decided to go back to being together. They learned to live with the little wounds caused by the close relationship with their companions in order to receive the warmth that came from the others. This way they were able to survive. Moral of the story: The best relationship is not the one that brings together perfect people, but when each individual learns to live with the imperfections of others and can admire the other person's good qualities.
The real moral of the story......LEARN TO LIVE WITH THE PRICKS IN YOUR LIFE.

Title: David Beckham's Baby Girl
Post by: Rachel on July 28, 2011, 08:37:58 AM

http://www.aish.com/ci/s/David_Beckhams_Baby_Girl.html


David Beckham's Baby Girl
by Jeff Jacoby
The Beckhams gave birth to their fourth child. Are they bad role models?

David and Victoria Beckham were overjoyed by the birth last week of their fourth child, a baby girl they named Harper. "We all feel so blessed and the boys love their baby sister so much!!!" the former Spice Girl exulted to her vast following on Twitter. A few days later she posted a picture of her husband cradling his new daughter, with the tender comment: "Daddy's little girl!"

What heart wouldn't be warmed by the Beckhams' delight in their newborn?

The Observer's wouldn't.

In a remarkably churlish article on Sunday, Britain's influential left-leaning newspaper (The Observer is The Guardian's sister Sunday paper) pronounced Harper's parents "environmentally irresponsible" for choosing to bring her into the world. Headlined "Beckhams a 'bad example' for families," the piece was a sour blast at parents who raise good-sized families. "One or two children are fine but three or four are just being selfish," Simon Ross, executive director of the Optimum Population Trust, told reporter Tracy McVeigh. "The Beckhams... are very bad role models with their large famil[y]."

McVeigh also quoted natural-history broadcaster David Attenborough, who recently "made a passionate speech about how the world's baby-making was damaging the planet." Fifty years ago there were 3 billion human beings, Attenborough had lamented. "Now there are almost 7 billion... and every one of them needing space. There cannot be more people on this Earth than can be fed."

Has there ever been a more persistent and popular superstition than the idea that having more kids is a bad thing, or that "overpopulation" causes hunger, misery, and hopelessness? In the 18th century, Thomas Malthus warned that human population growth must inevitably outstrip the food supply; to prevent mass starvation, he suggested, "we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction," such as encouraging the spread of disease among the poor. In the 20th century, Paul Ehrlich wrote bestsellers with titles like The Population Bomb, in which he described the surging number of people in the world as a "cancer" that would have to be excised through "many apparently brutal and heartless decisions." (His list included sterilization, abortion, and steep tax rates on families with children.)

Just last month, Thomas Friedman avowed in his New York Times column that "The Earth Is Full," and that "we are currently growing at a rate that is using up the Earth's resources far faster than they can be sustainably replenished."

For more than 200 years the population alarmists have been predicting the worst, and for more than 200 years their predictions have failed to come true. As the number of men, women, and children in the world has skyrocketed -- from fewer than 1 billion when Malthus lived to nearly 7 billion today -- so has the average person's standard of living. Poverty, disease, and hunger have not been eradicated, of course, and there are many people in dire need of help. But by and large human beings are living longer, healthier, cleaner, richer, better-educated, more productive, and more comfortable lives than ever before.

The Malthusians are wrong. When human beings proliferate, the result isn't less of everything to go around. The planet doesn't run out of food and fuel, minerals and metals. On the contrary, most resources have grown cheaper and more abundant over the past couple centuries -- in tandem with rising population.

The explanation is no mystery. Yes, more babies mean more mouths and therefore more consumption. But more babies also mean more minds and arms and spines -- and therefore more new ideas, more energy, more ingenuity, more initiative, more enterprise. "Human beings do not just consume, they also produce," writes George Mason University economist Bryan Caplan in a new book. "The world economy is not like a party where everyone splits a birthday cake; it is more like a potluck where everyone brings a dish."

It is a beautiful and uplifting insight, but the population misanthropes never seem to grasp it: Human beings, on the whole and over time, usually create more than they destroy. With more people tend to come more progress and more prosperity. That's why the birth of virtually any baby is cause to rejoice, and why parents who decide to raise another child bestow a gift on all of us. To be fruitful and multiply, says Genesis, is to be blessed. The parents of Harper Beckham know that, even if The Observer doesn't.

This article originally appeared in The Boston Globe.

This article can also be read at: http://www.aish.com/ci/s/David_Beckhams_Baby_Girl.html

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: Cranewings on July 28, 2011, 02:14:03 PM

I'm not sure I understand why someone would doubt that the earth is going to run out of space. I think human behavior is about the same as yeast growing in a jar. Eventually it is going to use up all the space and food and die on its own poisons. I know that sounds pessimistic, but growth is not endlessly sustainable. Just because no one knows when the resources as going to run out doesn't mean they aren't going to.

Right now, most of our food supply comes from farms that are being fertilized with fossil fuels, farms that are losing top soil. As those farms loose top soil, people build their homes on good farming land. As more people come into the world, we use up more of the limited amount of natural gas which is used to make the nitrogen fertilizers. At some point, the declining amount of fuel, the declining amount of farmland, the declining amount of top soil, and the increasing number of mouths is going reach an impasse. What happens next is a population crash.

People who are worried about it are expressing their compassion for the future people yet born, that are going to live in a world without enough food or fuel. It is going to happen. You can't endlessly fill a limited area (the earth) with a constantly increasing number of things (people). At some point the jar will be full.

I don't know when we are going to start having kids, probably in about 3 years or so. We have already talked about the fact that we don't think the world needs us to have more than enough children to replace us. We might have two kids, but not more than that. I agree, anything more is irresponsible.

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: G M on July 28, 2011, 04:16:20 PM

CW,

Well, if Malthus was correct, that would explain why humanity went extinct back in the 1800's.

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 28, 2011, 04:57:48 PM

Or why we ran out of oil in 1993 as predicted in 1973, or , , , etc.

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: G M on July 28, 2011, 05:00:35 PM

I'm trying to recall the environmentalist that wrote a book that predicted mass starvation in North America by the 1980's.

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: G M on July 28, 2011, 06:06:23 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A12789-2001Oct18

Greener Than You Think
'The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World' by Bjorn Lomborg

Reviewed by Denis Dutton
Sunday, October 21, 2001; Page BW01

THE SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST
Measuring the Real State Of the World
By Bjorn Lomborg
Cambridge Univ. 515 pp. $69.95; paperback, $27.95

That the human race faces environmental problems is unquestionable. That environmental experts have regularly tried to scare us out of our wits with doomsday chants is also beyond dispute. In the 1960s overpopulation was going to cause massive worldwide famine around 1980. A decade later we were being told the world would be out of oil by the 1990s. This was an especially chilly prospect, since, as Newsweek reported in 1975, we were in a climatic cooling trend that was going to reduce agricultural outputs for the rest of the century, leading possibly to a new Ice Age.
 
Bjorn Lomborg, a young statistics professor and political scientist at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, knows all about the enduring appeal -- for journalists, politicians and the public -- of environmental doomsday tales, having swallowed more than a few himself. In 1997, Lomborg -- a self-described left-winger and former Greenpeace member -- came across an article in Wired magazine about Julian Simon, a University of Maryland economist. Simon claimed that the "litany" of the Green movement -- its fears about overpopulation, animal species dying by the hour, deforestation -- was hysterical nonsense, and that the quality of life on the planet was radically improving. Lomborg was shocked by this, and he returned to Denmark to set about doing the research that would refute Simon.

He and his team of academicians discovered something sobering and cheering: In every one of his claims, Simon was correct. Moreover, Lomborg found on close analysis that the factual foundation on which the environmental doomsayers stood was deeply flawed: exaggeration, prevarications, white lies and even convenient typographical errors had been absorbed unchallenged into the folklore of environmental disaster scenarios.

Lomborg still feels at one with the basic sentiments that underlie the Green movement: that we should strive toward a cleaner, healthier world for everyone, including animals (he's a vegetarian with ethical objections to eating flesh). But his aim in this new catalogue of environmental issues is to counter the gloom with a clear, scientifically based picture of the true state of the Earth and to take a rational view of what we can expect in the next century.

In a massive, meticulously presented argument that extends over 500 pages, supported by nearly 3,000 footnotes and 182 tables and diagrams, Lomborg revisits a number of heartening breakthroughs in the recent life of the planet. Chief among these is the decline of poverty and starvation across the world. Starvation still exists, but there is less of it than ever, as our capacity to produce abundant quantities of food continues to improve. Likewise with other dire scenarios of resource depletion: We are emphatically not running out of energy and mineral resources, the population bomb is fizzling, and, far from killing us, pesticides and chemicals are improving longevity and the quality of life. Neither need we fear anything from the genetic modification of organisms.

For a factual encyclopedia, the book has immense entertainment value, particularly in the way Lomborg traces the urban legends of the Green movement back to their sources. Consider the oft-repeated claim that 40,000 species go extinct every year. Such an annual loss of species, Lomborg points out, would be disaster for the future of life on earth, amounting perhaps to a loss of 25 to 50 percent of all species in the next half century. He manages, however, to locate the source of the story -- an off-hand and completely unfounded guess made by a scientist in 1979. It's been repeated endlessly ever since -- and in 1981 was increased by arch-doomsayer Paul Ehrlich to 250,000 species per year. (Ehrlich also predicted that half the planet's species would be extinct by 2000.)

Lomborg brings these unhinged forecasts back down to Earth by reminding us that the only actual scientific documentation for species loss is in United Nations figures, which show an actual loss of between a tenth of a percent and 1 percent of all species for all of the next 50 years. This includes beetles, ants, flies, worms, bacteria and fungi, which make up 99 percent of all species, plus a small but unknown number of mammals and birds. Extinction, Lomborg argues, is a problem to be realistically faced and solved, not a catastrophe to be bewailed.

Or consider deforestation. It's been claimed that the world has lost two-thirds of its forests since the dawn of agriculture. The real figure, Lomborg shows, is around 20 percent, and this figure has hardly changed since the World War II. Tropical forests are declining at a small annual rate of 0.46 percent, but this is offset by growth in commercial plantations, which should be encouraged, as their products take the pressure off the tropical forests. In fact, the world's wood and paper needs could be permanently satisfied by tree plantations amounting to just 5 percent of the world's forest cover.

Then there's waste disposal. Are we really running out of landfill space for our garbage? Lomborg shows how the entire trash-dumping requirements for the United States through the whole of the coming century (assuming the country doubles in population) could be met by a single landfill that measures 100 feet high and 18 miles square. That's a lot of trash, but as the total leavings of the increasing U.S. population over a hundred years, it is certainly not unmanageable, and if it's properly dealt with, it need pose no serious pollution threat to air or water.

Speaking of trash, Lomborg favors recycling, but only when it makes sense, and he gives a hilarious analysis of a scheme from Environment magazine to mail used toothbrushes to a plant where they could be recycled as outdoor furniture. This would cost $4 billion to implement for the U.S. population, and that's without taking into account the costs of the postal system handling a billion packages of new and used toothbrushes annually. The recycling cure can be worse than the consumption disease (though I can imagine the U. S. Postal Service might see this idea as a revenue opportunity).

Many well-intentioned environmental policies can have surprising outcomes: Suppose minute pesticide residues have the potential to cause cancer in a tiny number of cases -- one estimate would have it around 20 cases per annum in the United States (not very many in a country where 300 people drown in bathtubs every year). So we ban the pesticides. This in turn, Lomborg points out, would sharply drive up the price of cancer-preventing fruits and vegetables. By reducing consumption, especially among the poor, the pesticide ban in the end would cause more cancer (perhaps 26,000 cases annually) than the pesticides would have caused in the first place. Sometimes, as with toothbrushes, the best thing to do about a "problem" is exactly nothing.

Lomborg enjoys placing what look to be serious environmental issues in a comparative context, which can often cause them to diminish considerably in scale. The Exxon Valdez oil spill was portrayed as a disaster of unparalleled magnitude: For example, it killed 250,000 birds. He shows how the long-term effects of the spill were far less damaging than environmentalists predicted, and also puts the avian mortality claim in perspective: Some 300,000 birds are killed by mammals, mostly cats, in Great Britain every 48 hours, and 250,000 birds die from striking plate glass in homes and offices in the United States every 24 hours. How could he know that? I wondered myself, so here as elsewhere, I followed Lomborg's claims back through the footnotes, traced the sources for myself, and found them to be sound. In fact, since The Skeptical Environmentalist was published last month in Britain, an army of angry environmentalists has been crawling all over the book, trying to refute it. Lomborg's claims have withstood the attack.

Title: Somerville: The case against
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 29, 2011, 04:06:21 AM

The case against
Whose rights do we value most: those of children or of homosexual adults?


 

Same-sex marriage creates a clash between upholding the human rights of children with respect to their coming-into being and the family structure in which they will be reared, and the claims of homosexual adults who wish to marry a same-sex partner. It forces us, as a society, to choose whether to give priority to children’s rights or to homosexual adults’ claims. This problem does not arise with opposite-sex marriage, because children’s rights and adults claims with respect to marriage are consistent with each other.

Reasons matter 
Many people who oppose extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples do so on religious grounds or because of moral objections to homosexuality. In contrast, my arguments are secularly based and, to the extent that they involve morals and values, they are grounded in ethics, not religion.

Moreover, I oppose discrimination on basis of sexual orientation and believe that civil partnerships, open to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples, are the most ethical compromise in terms of balancing respect for children’s rights and fulfilling adults’ claims to mutually protect each other, for instance, with respect to inheritance, property rights and so on. Legally recognizing civil partnerships, as has been done, for example, in France and the United Kingdom, also neutralizes any claim – although, as I explain below, I do not agree it is a valid one - that legalizing same-sex marriage is necessary to avoid discrimination. That said, I continue to believe that, in order to maintain respect for children’s human rights, the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman should not be changed to include same-sex couples.

In other words, I am against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and against legalizing same-sex marriage. This is a position that same-sex marriage advocates refuse to acknowledge is possible. One of their strategies for promoting same-sex marriage is to allow only two possibilities: one is either for same-sex marriage and against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, or against same-sex marriage and, thereby, necessarily for such discrimination.

My reasons for opposition go to the nature of marriage as the societal institution that institutionalizes, symbolizes and protects the inherently reproductive human relationship which exists between a man and a woman, and, in doing so, establishes children’s human rights with respect to their biological origins and the family structure in which they are reared.

Ethical reasons to give priority to children’s rights over homosexual adults’ claims include that children are the more vulnerable persons and ethics demands that decision making is based on a presumption in favour of the most vulnerable; they cannot give their informed consent to participation in the unprecedented social experiment that same-sex marriage would constitute; and we cannot establish children’s “anticipated consent”, that is, we cannot  reasonably assume they would consent to the mode of their coming-into being or family structure, when their conception is other than between a man and a woman.

Marriage as culture only or biology plus culture

A central issue in the same-sex marriage debate is whether the institution of marriage is a purely cultural construct, as same-sex marriage advocates argue, and therefore open to redefinition as we see fit, or whether it is a cultural institution built around a central biological core, the inherently procreative relationship of one man and one woman. If it is the latter, as I believe, it cannot accommodate same-sex relationships and maintain its current functions.

A common riposte of same-sex marriage advocates to making procreation an essential feature of marriage is that we recognize opposite-sex marriages that do not or cannot result in children, so why not same-sex ones? The answer is that the former do not negate the norms, values and symbolism established for society by opposite-sex marriage with respect to children’s human rights in regard to their natural parents and families, as same-sex marriage necessarily does.

Advocates of same-sex marriage also argue that we should accept that the primary purpose of marriage is to give social and public recognition to an intimate committed relationship between two people and, therefore, to exclude same-sex couples is discrimination. They are correct if that is the primary purpose of marriage. But they are not correct if its primary purpose is to protect an intimate relationship because of its procreative potential. (Note that there is no inherent reason to limit same-sex marriage to two people, as there is in opposite-sex marriage. Moreover, as in a current Canadian case, it can be argued that if it’s discrimination not to recognize same-sex marriage as legal, likewise, it’s discrimination not to recognize polygamous marriage.)

The right to found a family and children’s human rights

Marriage is a compound right in both international and domestic law: it’s the right to marry and to found a family. Giving the right to found a family to same-sex couples necessarily negates the rights of all children, not just those born into a same-sex marriage, with respect to their biological parents and a natural family structure.

Indeed, the Canadian Parliament implemented this change in the second section of the Civil Marriage Act 2005 which legalized same-sex marriage. It provides that in certain legislation where the term “natural parent” appears, it is to be replaced by “legal parent”. In short, the adoption exception - that who is a child’s parent is established by legal fiat, not biological connection - becomes the norm for all children.

In the same vein, in Canada we now have provincial legislation that replaces the words “mother” and “father” on a birth certificate with “Parent 1” and “Parent 2”. And an Ontario court has ruled that a child can have three legal parents: her biological mother and her lesbian partner, and her gay biological father who donated sperm.

Children’s human rights and reproductive technologies

The dangers of same-sex marriage to children’s human rights are amplified by reprogenetic  technoscience. Developments such as IVF, cloning and surrogacy pose unprecedented challenges to maintaining respect for the transmission of human life and the children who result, because they open up unprecedented modes of transmission, which are sometimes referred to as “collaborative non-coital reproduction”. When the institution of marriage is limited to opposite-sex couples, it establishes a social-sexual ecology of human reproduction and symbolizes respect for the transmission of human life through sexual reproduction, as compared, for example, to asexual replication (cloning) or same-sex reproduction (for instance, the future possibility of making a sperm from one woman’s stem cell and using it to fertilize another woman’s ovum).

It merits noting, in this regard, that the Canadian Assisted Human Reproduction Act 2004, for instance, provides that “persons who seek to undergo assisted reproduction procedures must not be discriminated against, including on the basis of their sexual orientation or marital status”.

If we believe that, ethically, there should be limits on the use of new reproductive technologies, we now need the natural procreation symbolism established by opposite-sex marriage more than in past. In the past, the only mode of transmission of human life was sexual reproduction in vivo. Now we must ask what is required for respect for the mode of transmission of human life to the next generation. And what is it required we not do with reproductive technologies if we are to respect the children who would result from the use of these technologies?

If the response to such possibilities is that we should prohibit them, we must keep in mind that if exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is found to be discrimination by way of comparison with opposite-sex couples, not providing same-sex couples with the means for procreation — that is, excluding the couple from procreating with each other — when such procreation is possible, is a related discrimination. In Halpern et al. the Court of Appeal of Ontario expressly ruled that same-sex couples’ inability to reproduce together naturally was not an argument against same-sex marriage, because they could use assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) to found a family, as the right to marry contemplates. Some provisions of the Canadian Assisted Human Reproduction Act 2004 have already been found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, so a challenge to the legal validity of any prohibitions would not be novel.

Respect for the transmission of human life

Recognizing that a fundamental purpose of marriage is to engender respect for the transmission of human life provides a corollary insight: excluding same-sex couples from marriage is not related to those people’s homosexual orientation, or to them as individuals, or to the worth of their relationships. Rather, the exclusion of their relationship is related to the fact that it is not inherently procreative, and, therefore, if it is encompassed within marriage, marriage cannot institutionalize and symbolize respect for the transmission of life. To recognize same-sex marriage (which is to be distinguished from same-sex partnerships that do not raise this problem, because they do not entail the right to found a family) would unavoidably eliminate this function of marriage.

The alternative view is that new reproductive technoscience means that same-sex couples will be able to reproduce as a couple, so they should be included in marriage as the institution that institutionalizes, recognizes and protects procreative relationships.

Child-centred reproductive decision-making

Same-sex marriage is symptomatic of adult-centred reproductive decision-making, a stance that our Western democratic societies have largely adopted. But reproductive decision-making should be child-centred. This means, among other requirements, that we should work from a basic presumption that children have an absolute right to be conceived from natural biological origins, that is, an untampered-with ovum from one, identified, living, adult woman and an untampered-with sperm from one, identified, living, adult man. This, I propose, is the most fundamental human right of all.

Children also have valid claims, if at all possible, to be reared by their own biological parents within their natural family. If not raised by them, they have a claim to know who those parents and their other close biological relatives are. And society should not be complicit in intentionally depriving children of a mother and a father. We must consider the ethics of deliberately creating any situation that is otherwise.

A common riposte by those advocating same-sex marriage and same-sex families is to point out the deficiencies of traditional marriage and natural families.

 The issue is not, however, whether all or even most opposite-sex couples attain the ideals of marriage in relation to fulfilling the needs of their offspring. Neither is the issue whether marriage is a perfect institution — it is not. It is, rather, whether we should work from a basic presumption that children need a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents. I believe they do. The issue is, also, whether society would be worse off without the aspirational ideals established by traditional marriage. I believe it would be.

Discrimination

As mentioned already, the reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage matters: if the reason for denying same-sex marriage is that we have no respect for homosexuals and their relationships, or want to give the message that homosexuality is wrong, then, the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is not ethically acceptable from the perspective of respect for homosexuals and their relationships. It is also discrimination.

On the other hand, if, as I have argued, the reason is to keep the very nature, essence and substance of marriage intact, and that essence is to protect the inherently procreative relationship for the sake of the children who result, then excluding same-sex couples from marriage is ethically acceptable from the perspective of respect for them and their relationships. And such a refusal is not discrimination.

A useful comparison can be made with the discrimination involved in affirmative action. That shows that sometimes discrimination - in the sense of not treating all people in exactly the same way - and the harm it involves, can be justified when it is to achieve a greater good that cannot otherwise be achieved.

It is also argued by those advocating same-sex marriage, that excluding same-sex couples from marriage is the same act of discrimination as prohibiting interracial marriage. This has rightly been recognized as a serious breach of human rights. But this argument is not correct. Because an interracial marriage between a man and a woman does symbolize the procreative relationship, its prohibition is based on racial discrimination which is wrong. In contrast, not extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples is not based on the sexual orientation of the partners, but the absence of a feature of their relationship which is an essential feature of marriage.

Some same-sex marriage advocates argue, as well, that any “privileging” (as they see it) of opposite-sex marriage is, in itself, a form of discrimination they call heterosexism. They see traditional marriage as the flag-bearer for such discrimination and believe that if they can eliminate traditional marriage, which they see the legalization of same-sex marriage as achieving, they will eliminate heterosexism.

Wider effects of legalizing same-sex marriage

We also need to consider the wider effects of legalizing same-sex marriage. It can result in restrictions on freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of speech, as we’ve seen happen in Canada. Complaints have been filed before Human Rights tribunals or courts, and sometimes they have resulted in substantial penalties. Those targeted have included civil marriage celebrants for refusals to conduct same-sex marriages; a teacher and an author of a letter to the editor questioning the morality of homosexuality; a Roman Catholic organization which rescinded an agreement to rent a church hall for a reception when it discovered it was to be used for a lesbian wedding; and school trustees for their decision not to include books on homosexual families on a recommended reading list for kindergarten students.

Holding on trust our metaphysical ecosystem

 As I pen this article here in Australia, my understanding is that the Australian Greens, as is true of groups in other countries who see themselves as supporting what they call “progressive values”, are strong advocates of the legalization of same-sex marriage. They have made an important contribution in raising people's sensitivity to the idea that we can irreparably damage our physical ecosystem and the need to avoid further damage and hold that system in trust for future generations. We have to take care not to leave them with anything less than we inherited and, if possible, in a better situation.

We also have a metaphysical ecosystem - the values, principles, beliefs, attitudes, myths and so on that create the glue that binds us together as families, communities and a society (the societal-cultural paradigm) which for some people includes religion, but for others does not. Like our physical ecosystem that can also be irreparably damaged and, likewise, has to be held in trust for future generations. This means, I suggest, that we must examine the values the Greens are promoting, including same-sex marriage, in that light.

In conclusion, legalizing same-sex marriage would be a very powerful statement against the horrible wrong of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We clearly need such statement. But, in order to uphold children’s human rights with respect to their biological origins and the family structure in which they are reared, they should be made in other ways than legalizing same-sex marriage.

Society needs to maintain traditional marriage in order to continue to establish cultural meaning, symbolism and moral values around the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman, and thereby protect that relationship and the children who result from it. This is even more necessary than in the past, when alternatives to sexual reproduction were not available.

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would affect its cultural meaning and function and, in doing so, damage its ability and, thereby, society’s capacity, to protect the inherently procreative relationship and the children who result from it, whether those children’s future sexual orientation proves to be homosexual or heterosexual.

Margaret Somerville is director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law in Montreal.

Title: Moynihan on Polygamy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 29, 2011, 04:14:32 AM

second post of the morning

One big, happy polygamous family?
In the wake of New York’s same-sex marriage law plural marriage is getting an airing, but no-one wants to talk about the kids.


Three years ago Texas authorities caused a sensation in the United States with a raid on the polygamous Mormon sect living at Yearning For Zion Ranch, during which 401 children were taken into state custody. The pretext for the crackdown was not so much polygamy, although it is a crime in Texas, but forced sex with under-age girls taken as wives by older men. In other words, the wellbeing of children was the main issue.
Community leader Warren Jeffs, already in trouble before the raid, is currently in jail awaiting trial in Texas on sexual assault and bigamy charges. If he sits tight a bit longer, though, the bigamy charge may collapse; with same-sex marriage apparently in the bag, polygamy is looking like the next big thing in the United States -- and no-one seems to care what happens to the kids.

While Jeffs has been cooling his heels in clink, television networks have promoted his cause by rolling out shows such as Big Love and Sister Wives. The Browns of Sister Wives, all four of them, have talked about how happy they are with their choice and how well adjusted their 16 children are, and how the children are carefully educated about choice and consequences, and how there are no underage or arranged marriages. Fictional versions of the lifestyle add to the gloss by leaving out what one script writer calls the “yuck factor”.

Now that the small screen has demystified and sentimentalised polygamy it is the turn of professors and judges to legitimise it. And what better time to do so than in the wake of the latest green light for same-sex marriage? Straight after New York conferred the right to marry on homosexuals, Ralph Richard Banks, a Stanford law school professor predicted that polygamy and incest must now be legalised: “Over time, our moral assessments of these practices will shift, just as they have with interracial marriage and same sex marriage.”

Right on cue, in mid-July, the patriarch of the Brown family, Kody Brown, filed a challenge to Utah’s law against polygamy. His lead counsel, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote in the New York Times that the suit is based not on any analogy with same-sex marriage but on the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, that states could not use the criminal code against what two consenting adults -- in that case, homosexuals -- do in private. Privacy is the issue, he insists, not what society finds acceptable.

However, if it comes to acceptability, Turley has an answer ready for critics: society already accepts other kinds of plural relationships. He says: “It is widely accepted that a person can have multiple partners and have children with such partners. But the minute that person expresses a spiritual commitment and ‘cohabits’ with those partners, it is considered a crime.”

We are going to hear this argument a lot more in the new battle for the rights of polygamists. It has been used also by another law professor, Adrienne D. Davis of Washington University at St Louis, in a 92-page article in the Columbia Law Review of December 2010. With interesting timing, the university sent out a press release about the article earlier this month.

But Davis, like Turley, prefers not to hitch her wagon to the same-sex marriage star. She says it’s a red herring in the polygamy debate since same-sex marriage is concerned with the couple relationship and polygamy with plural relationships. In fact she is not really interested in marriage at all (“I am no particular fan of the institution of marriage”); a power feminist, she talks, rather, of “intimate relationships” and rules for “bargaining for equality” within them.

Polygamy, with its “multiple partners, ongoing entrances and exits, and life-defining economic and personal stakes”, presents a special challenge in this regard, one which family law could hardly cope with, Davis admits. But, no problem; it turns out that commercial partnership law has a “robust set of off-the-rack rules” that could be adapted to arbitrate the disputes of polygamists. If the power relationships can be regulated -- and she believes they can (lots of work for lawyers there) -- there would be no reason to withhold social recognition from polygamy.

In social revolutions like this numbers are always useful: a million backstreet abortions; tens of thousands of gay couples already enjoying family bliss but without the blessing of marriage; and now, “50,000 to 100,000” polygamists minding their own business but persecuted for merely moral reasons. (A recent Gallup poll shows that 86 per cent of Americans consider polygamy immoral.) The implication is that what so many people are doing, with little evident harm, must really be harmless.

Many feminists, it’s true, are unhappy about the subjugation of women in communities like Yearning For Zion. Then there’s the problem of young girls becoming extra wives, and there have been disturbing stories about what happens to “spare” boys once they reach puberty. Some, simply expelled from their compounds, have been found living rough around rural towns in Utah and Arizona.

Which brings us to the central question about polygamy, or any other variation on the married mother and father family: what about the kids? Is this form of adult intimacy good for them?

One can almost hear Professor Davis sigh as she reluctantly addresses this issue in a section of her essay headed “Children and Other ‘Externalities’…”. “Part of me wants to radically resist the notion that intimacy cannot be theorised without attention to children,” she protests.

Still, she does take a sideways glance at the children and comes up with the same argument as Turley: we already have de facto polygamy, in both the unmarried (single mothers and nomadic fathers) form and the married (divorced and remarried parents) or serial form, and family law accommodates those. Not only that, but the law is developing norms to deal with claims arising from other multi-parent situations: open adoption, grandparents raising children, and “reprotech families” formed by both heterosexual and same-sex couples using donor gametes and surrogate mothers. Why not add polygamy to the “marriage pantheon”?

Well, yes, marital culture is in a mess, but we know that the absence or divided affections of fathers resulting from transient partnerships and divorce create serious risks for children and much actual misery. And we have some idea from the grown children of donor daddies of the problems being generated by the reprotech variants of family life. So, again, what about the kids? Why expand the opportunities to generate emotional and economic problems for them?

All Davis will say is that it is “unclear that polygamy generates more costs for children than the standard alternatives” (to a married mother and father). That’s it: like, “Since when did we start worrying about children?”

She does have a point (I have made it myself), although it is slightly chilling that a woman, in particular, would make it with such detachment. Adults do already make a lot of trouble for their children. But these are pathologies we should be trying to fix, not spread more widely by recognising another pathway to family chaos on the basis that “it can’t be any worse” than the others.

It may be true that the case for social recognition, or at least tolerance, of polygamy is different to the case for same-sex marriage and the claim to same-sex parenthood that goes with it. But they have one thing in common: they both find their place in a decaying marriage/sexual culture where adult desires increasingly trump the needs and rights of children.

Three years after the Yearning For Zion raid, is the welfare of children no longer an issue in the adult scramble for sexual rights?

Carolyn Moynihan is deputy editor of MercatorNet.

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: JDN on July 29, 2011, 08:41:24 AM

While I am not a supporter of polyandry or polygyny, my wife would kill me   :-D   and perhaps it's immoral, I do not understand why it's illegal; a criminal act.

"While few present-day states permit polygamous marriages, polygynous male behavior may be observed in the establishment of mistresses, who are openly or secretly supported. In this way, men may be technically monogamous but de facto polygynous.

Economically, polygyny tends to benefit all but the most desirable women, by giving them more opportunities to marry rich men, who are in short supply. Most men tend to be disadvantaged by polygyny, however, since when many women are able to marry a rich man, it leaves fewer women available for the less rich."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: ccp on July 29, 2011, 09:04:56 AM

"I do not understand why it's illegal; a criminal act."

Well if polygamists can organize into a radical semi militant poltical action group like the gays and make it politically correct than it will become legal.

If "father" "mother" is to be replaced with "parent" then why not "parent's", wives and husbands (plural intended).

Just one more step in gutting our cultural norms.

Isn't it all just glorious and beautiful?

Title: Re: Somerville: The case against
Post by: Cranewings on July 29, 2011, 09:13:18 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on July 29, 2011, 04:06:21 AM

A central issue in the same-sex marriage debate is whether the institution of marriage is a purely cultural construct, as same-sex marriage advocates argue, and therefore open to redefinition as we see fit, or whether it is a cultural institution built around a central biological core, the inherently procreative relationship of one man and one woman. If it is the latter, as I believe, it cannot accommodate same-sex relationships and maintain its current functions.

I get the idea of reaching a compromise over gay marriage, simply to move along the cause of equal rights. If they have civil partnerships that entailed all the same rights, but weren't called marriage, at least it would be something.

While I agree that this would be helpful, I don't agree that its based on any kind of biological science. Humans are about as far from monogamous creatures as you can get.

Quote

Humans are naturally polygamous
The history of western civilization aside, humans are naturally polygamous. Polyandry (a marriage of one woman to many men) is very rare, but polygyny (the marriage of one man to many women) is widely practiced in human societies, even though Judeo-Christian traditions hold that monogamy is the only natural form of marriage. We know that humans have been polygynous throughout most of history because men are taller than women.

Among primate and nonprimate species, the degree of polygyny highly correlates with the degree to which males of a species are larger than females. The more polygynous the species, the greater the size disparity between the sexes. Typically, human males are 10 percent taller and 20 percent heavier than females. This suggests that, throughout history, humans have been mildly polygynous.

Relative to monogamy, polygyny creates greater fitness variance (the distance between the "winners" and the "losers" in the reproductive game) among males than among females because it allows a few males to monopolize all the females in the group. The greater fitness variance among males creates greater pressure for men to compete with each other for mates. Only big and tall males can win mating opportunities. Among pair-bonding species like humans, in which males and females stay together to raise their children, females also prefer to mate with big and tall males because they can provide better physical protection against predators and other males.

In societies where rich men are much richer than poor men, women (and their children) are better off sharing the few wealthy men; one-half, one-quarter, or even one-tenth of a wealthy man is still better than an entire poor man. As George Bernard Shaw puts it, "The maternal instinct leads a woman to prefer a tenth share in a first-rate man to the exclusive possession of a third-rate one." Despite the fact that humans are naturally polygynous, most industrial societies are monogamous because men tend to be more or less equal in their resources compared with their ancestors in medieval times. (Inequality tends to increase as society advances in complexity from hunter-gatherer to advanced agrarian societies. Industrialization tends to decrease the level of inequality.)

Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy
When there is resource inequality among men—the case in every human society—most women benefit from polygyny: women can share a wealthy man. Under monogamy, they are stuck with marrying a poorer man.

The only exceptions are extremely desirable women. Under monogamy, they can monopolize the wealthiest men; under polygyny, they must share the men with other, less desirable women. However, the situation is exactly opposite for men. Monogamy guarantees that every man can find a wife. True, less desirable men can marry only less desirable women, but that's much better than not marrying anyone at all.

Men in monogamous societies imagine they would be better off under polygyny. What they don't realize is that, for most men who are not extremely desirable, polygyny means no wife at all, or, if they are lucky, a wife who is much less desirable than one they could get under monogamy.

-By Alan S. Miller, Ph.D., Satoshi Kanazawa, Ph.D., published on July 01, 2007 - last reviewed on June 18, 2009"

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: JDN on July 29, 2011, 09:17:19 AM

Quote from: ccp on July 29, 2011, 09:04:56 AM

"I do not understand why it's illegal; a criminal act."

Well if polygamists can organize into a radical semi militant poltical action group like the gays and make it politically correct than it will become legal.

If "father" "mother" is to be replaced with "parent" then why not "parent's", wives and husbands (plural intended).

Just one more step in gutting our cultural norms.

Isn't it all just glorious and beautiful?

Divorce is quite common, unfortunately.  "father" "mother" is replaced with "parent".

In a polygamist society, you are still with your "father" and your "mother". 

I'm not saying it's "all just glorious and beautiful", but I am questioning why it's illegal and criminal.

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: ccp on July 29, 2011, 12:31:39 PM

"but I am questioning why it's illegal and criminal"

I'll answer it a different way:
Only because it is not politically correct to be a polygamist.

Title: My Husband and the Suitcase
Post by: Rachel on August 14, 2011, 03:04:30 PM

My Husband and the Suitcase
by Melissa Groman, LCSW
After 18 years of marriage, shouldn't my husband do a little mind reading?

These are the moments that marriages are made of, the millions of small decisions that we make that shape us as we go through the regular, everyday stuff of life. Such was the case of the suitcase in my living room.

My oldest daughter is about to leave for a year abroad in Israel and my mother gifted us three pieces of luggage, two of which were selected to make the journey to the Holy Land. The third would stay behind and reside in our attic until needed. The two chosen suitcases were moved to my daughter’s bedroom, and the one remaining stood tall and lonely in the middle of our living room.



In my house operates what I lovingly refer to as “the law of infinity.” This means that if something is left in the middle of a room, or on the steps, or in a hallway, it will stay there for infinity unless I personally pick it up (or direct someone to do so). Over the years, in deep and abiding gratitude (seriously) for my happy crew, I bend and lift and collect and arrange and sometimes ask my husband or one of my kids to move the sock, put the Lego in the basket, or the stroller back on the porch. I happily accept this as a privilege of motherhood.

But somehow, the suitcase was needling me. After all, it’s bigger than a sock. My husband was part of the conversation that concluded that this poor suitcase would not have the merit of traveling to Israel (its only crime being that it was eight pounds heavier than the others). So he knew it needed to be taken upstairs. For a few days, it sat in the middle of the living room. Then I moved it to the side, and that’s when the trouble started. It began with my lower self asking me why my husband has not taken it upstairs yet (my lower self did not ask it that nicely). My higher self said, “Oh just take it upstairs yourself. Stop being so silly.” To which some middle part of me said, “Oh leave it, he’ll do it when he gets home.”

That was Wednesday, and by Friday I was arguing with myself again. “But you teach this stuff,” said my higher self. “You know men don’t read minds. Just ask him to do it.” To which my lower self said, “Ha, after 18 years of marriage, he should do a little mind reading.” Higher self: “He is busy working and learning and helping with the kids. He cleans up every Friday night after the meal. He mows the lawn; he balances the check book; he gets up with the baby in the middle of the night.” Lower self: “So what, they are his kids too. You work; you cook.”

Quickly my selves had begun debating the merits of my husband, and thrown us into a competition for meritorious contributions to the household. I could see it going downhill fast.

Lower self: “If he loved you, he would know you needed the suitcase moved.”

Higher self: “Oh please, if you loved him, you would not bother with this nonsense.”

Friday afternoon, just before he came home from work, I moved the suitcase to the bottom of the staircase, where it would clearly block anyone and everyone from using the stairs. Lower self, one. Higher self, zero.

Friday night, the suitcase had been leaned heavily over on its side (not by me) where everyone could (and did) step around it without too much effort.

Comes Shabbos morning. The house is quiet; it’s me and the suitcase. Lunch guests are coming soon.

Lower self: “Can you believe it?”

Higher self: “Please, enough already just take it upstairs yourself.”

Lower self: “Move it to his bed. He’ll probably just sleep on it for six months without even noticing it’s there.”

Higher self: “If you asked him to move it, you know he would. He always does. Then you say thank you, and you get good karma.”

Lower self: “Forget karma, I’ll bet it stays there for another three months.”

Turns out that higher self won in the end. When he came home from shul I asked if he would please take the suitcase upstairs. “Sure,” was the answer I got. And he did. Of course lower self was not to be silenced completely. When he came back down I asked him (nicely), “How come you didn’t take it up sooner?”

“I didn’t notice it.”

Lower self wanted me to retort that he should have noticed. That he should notice me more, appreciate me more, pay me more attention. My lower self can be quite adept at carrying things a bit too far.

Behind him, my eye catches the bright yellow of Calla Lilies (my favorite flowers) that my husband brought home for Shabbos. They are winking at me from the dining room table.

I look back towards the stairs and smile, as much to myself as to husband and say, “Thank you, honey.”

This article can also be read at: http://www.aish.com/f/m/My_Husband_and_the_Suitcase.html

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 15, 2011, 03:24:47 AM

I'll be sharing that with my wife  :lol:

Title: Two articles
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 19, 2011, 11:37:00 AM

http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1029.new#new

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_marriage_gap_thats_destroying_middle_america/

Title: Six Habits of Happily Married Couples
Post by: Rachel on August 23, 2011, 05:53:56 AM

Six Habits of Happily Married Couples
by Rabbi Dov Heller, M.A.
Success in marriage hinges on consistent performance of six key habits.
http://www.aish.com/print/?contentID=48937667&section=/f/m

HABIT #1 - GIVE EACH OTHER PLEASURE

Happily married couples are committed to the goal of giving each other pleasure. You must stay focused on the ultimate goal -- which is to give each other pleasure and not cause pain. It sounds simple enough, but can be very hard in practice.

For just one day, try to maintain a consciousness with everything you do, by asking yourself, "Is what I'm about to do or say going to cause my spouse pain or pleasure?"

To monitor how you're doing, each of you should make two lists: One for all the things your spouse does to cause you pain, and another which identifies what you would like your spouse to do to give you pleasure. Swap lists, and now you know exactly what to do and what not to do. No more mind reading!

HABIT #2 - CREATE MUTUALLY SATISFYING LOVE AND FRIENDSHIP RITUALS

Rituals are habits that build and strengthen a relationship. One couple had the following "greeting ritual" at night when the husband came home:

He would first greet the dog and hug the kids. Then he would go into his bedroom, change his clothes, and watch the news, followed by a visit to the bathroom. Finally he would wander into the kitchen and mutter something to his wife, for example, "Let’s eat fast so we can get to the PTA meeting!"

One might say that such a ritual was not exactly increasing their love for each other.

So after watching how their dog greeted them every time they came home, this couple decided to come up with a new ritual. Elated dogs jump all over their masters and lick them. So they decided to greet each other like dogs. They started jumping up and down and hugging each other. They really got into it. They had fun and the kids got a kick out it, too.

Our actions affect the way we feel. How are your greeting and good-bye rituals?

Here are some rituals you and your spouse should consider working on:

* Daily e-mailing each other with a compliment.

* Daily phone call. (especially important for husbands to do)

* Anniversaries deserve special attention. Plan to do something both of you really enjoy, rather than feeling stuck two days before your anniversary arrives and then running out to get some flowers.

* Before you turn in for the night, try saying two compliments to each other. This means coming up with something new each night!

* It is essential to have a "date night" at least every other week.

HABIT #3 - CREATE A SAFE PLACE TO DISCUSS ISSUES OPENLY AND HONESTLY

Abusive relationships are ones in which you are afraid to express feelings and opinions. Happily married couples create a sense of safety that allows each person to feel comfortable expressing his/her feelings, problems, and dissatisfactions. This sense of safety is the foundation upon which a couple negotiates things that are bothering them.

It's common for each person to come into a relationship with certain expectations about how things will be. But without the ability to communicate and negotiate, these issues become sources for power struggles that almost always damage the relationship.

HABIT #4 - USE GOOD COMMUNICATION SKILLS TO RESOLVE HOT ISSUES

The technique that every couple must learn is called the "listener-speaker technique." The problem with the way most couples argue is that they try to find solutions before fully giving each other the chance to say what they need to say. The speaker-listener technique ensures that before you can engage in solution talk, each person feels they have been fully heard.

Here's how it works: One person holds an object in their hand which symbolizes that he or she has the floor. While one person has the floor, the other person can only listen by repeating back or paraphrasing what the other person said. The listener can stop the speaker if s/he is saying too much for the listener to repeat back.

When couples use this technique, it automatically ensures that each person will be able to say everything s/he needs to say without interruption, rebuttals, criticism or attack. Only after each person has been fully "heard," do you then proceed to problem solving.

HABIT #5 - CONSTANTLY TURN TOWARD EACH OTHER, RATHER THAN AWAY

When you pass your spouse sitting at her desk doing some work, do you stop and rub her shoulders, give her a kiss on the cheek, and whisper something nice in her ear -- or do you just walk on by? This is the meaning of "turning toward" as opposed to "turning away."

Marriage research shows that happily married couples do a lot of turning toward each other whenever they get the chance. They look for ways to be physically and emotionally close to each other. Turning toward each other means making each other your number one priority.

Another important aspect of turning toward each other is doing things together that you both enjoy. Taking walks together, drinking coffee together after dinner, learning Torah together, and listening to music together, are all examples of how couples turn toward each other.

A powerful way to turn toward each other is to show the ultimate respect -- by standing when your spouse enters the room. Sounds old-fashioned? It is. But it's a powerful way to turn toward your spouse, make him/her feel very special.

Couples who "turn away" from each other don't develop closeness. It's a basic principle stated in the Talmud, "A good deed begets another good deed. A bad deed begets another bad deed."

HABIT #6 - INFUSE YOUR LIVES WITH SHARED MEANING

I often ask singles the following question: "After you're married, what do you plan to do for the next 40 years?" And I usually follow-up by saying, "And besides having fun, what else will you do with each other?"

Human beings need meaning like we need water. Happily married couples enrich their relationship by sharing meaningful experiences with each other. The ultimate in meaning is to share a common philosophy of life and life purpose. This is why couples who observe Shabbat together, and learn Torah together, have great sources of meaning built into their lives.

Some other specific ways of infusing your relationship with meaning are visiting the sick together, making a shiva call together, or preparing a meal together for a mother who just gave birth.

When couples share truly meaningful experiences, they bond on a deeper level.

These six habits may seem small, but when practiced intentionally and consistently, they will form the backbone of a deeply fulfilling marriage.

 

This article can also be read at: http://www.aish.com/f/m/48937667.html

Like what you read? As a non-profit organization, Aish.com relies on readers like you to enable us to provide meaningful and relevant articles. Join Aish.com and help us continue to give daily inspiration to people like you around the world.
Make a secure donation at: https://secure.aish.com/secure/pledge.php or mail a check to Aish.com, 408 South Lake Drive, Lakewood, NJ 08701

Title: Ten Rules for Post Divorce Parenting
Post by: Rachel on August 24, 2011, 04:50:33 PM

Ten Rules for Post Divorce Parenting
by Rachel Rose M.Sc.
Ensuring your child's success after divorce.

Ever wonder why some children with parents who have divorced fare better than others? Respecting these ten rules of post-divorce parenting can be a powerful contributing factor to your child's success after a divorce. Keeping these rules will not only help the children, it will help you too.

1. Give your child the gift of not having to choose between their parents.

Asking children to cut off from extended family compounds the loss that divorce creates. Allowing children to maintain regular access to both sets of grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins can contribute to a child's self-esteem, as well as their sense of security and belonging.

When children return from a visit, either with the other parent or with relatives, refrain from asking competitive questions. Everyone has something different to offer and children need all of it. They need the parent with more money, as well as the parent with more love. They need the parent who is better at helping with homework as well as the one that makes the best spaghetti and meatballs.

Asking your children to choose one parent over another, whether overtly or through subtle messages, can create anxiety and guilt. Not knowing who to choose creates anxiety. So does fear of reprisal by the scorned parent. Being "unfaithful" to a parent can create tremendous feelings of guilt. This can lead to hurt and anger in the child for having being asked to make that difficult choice. Some children will disconnect emotionally from both parents as a way of coping with having to make a decision. Everyone loses in that scenario.

Accept that your child benefits from having a relationship with both parents. (This obviously does not apply in cases where there is any risk of danger or abuse to the child. For the sake of this article, it is assumed that if such protection is needed it was obtained in court.)
Allow your child to enjoy what each parent has to offer without making them feel guilty.
2. Refrain from speaking poorly of your ex to your children.

It's tempting. Your marriage did not work out as you had hoped. You may be hurt, disappointed and angry. But remember, you're the adult. Children need to respect their parents. It helps them to respect authority in general, and to grow up to be self-respecting. When you are critical of your former spouse you are teaching your child to be critical and judgmental. Even if sarcasm, bitterness and hurtful statements were a trademark of your marriage, lose it in your post-divorce reality.

Even if your spouse bad-mouths you, don't respond, don't retort. It only lowers your child's respect for you. You might feel that if you do not "defend" yourself, your children will think less of you. In reality, it is the on-going fighting that will lead to an erosion of respect for you.

There is another selfish reason to not speak poorly of your former spouse. If someone speaks poorly of someone you love, what do you do? Usually you run to defend them, even if you suspect that they are wrong. When you attack your ex, you are forcing your child to come to your ex's defense, even if it is only in the child's mind.

Negative speech undermines your child's trust in the speaker, as well as the person who is being spoken about. It can even affect their ability to trust adults in general. Be careful not to send your child the message that all members of your former spouse's gender are bad, particularly not to your children of that gender.

Proactively protect your child from having to listen to harmful speech.
Commit to respecting the best interests of your children regardless of what your former spouse does.
3. Spare your children the details.

Sharing too much information about how hard your life has become only confuses and burdens children. Giving your child too much information might be a subtle (or not so subtle) way of asking them to help you. Rather than going into the details of how little money is in your account, stick to a simple "we need to be smart about how we spend our money now." As the adult, you will need to find the best way to pay your bills. Even if it means getting a job, taking a loan, or asking someone to help out financially until you can make necessary changes. That is not your child's responsibility.

Remember that all the changes and issues that are troubling you are probably troubling them, too. If you make them feel that you are unable to handle it, they lose their sense of security. They need you to be there for them; don't make them feel that in addition to everything they're going through, they need to be there for the adults in their life.

Make your calls to your lawyer or your friends to vent about your ex at a time and place where your children are not in earshot.

Spare your children the details of the difficulties your divorce has created. They have their own difficulties to deal with.
Do all of your venting out of your children's earshot.
4. Don't make your child your messenger.

There are numerous ways for former spouses to communicate. Some people choose to speak on the phone, others send text messages or e-mails to one another. Others might continue to communicate through their attorneys. All of these ways work. Using children as the "mailman" between the two parents does not work.

"Tell your father we have nothing to eat!" "Tell your mother that I also don't!" Such exchanges communicate a strong message of insecurity and vulnerability to a child. It leaves them wondering, "If both of the people who I would turn to for the basics don't have, what will happen to me?" Your role as a parent is to protect your child, not to put him in the middle of two warring factions. Children have a hard time separating the words and facial expressions that are spoken to them, and the fact that they were not meant for them, wspecially if they were meant for someone else who that they love.

Choose a healthy method of communication with your former spouse that keeps your child out of the middle.
Hurting your spouse "through" your child is nothing more that hurting your child.
5. Let go of your former spouse.

It seems so obvious. You got divorced. The marriage is over. Some people who can't live together in love try to continue the relationship through hatred. One or both of you have given up on the marriage. If you feel that you were not given a choice about the divorce, ask yourself one question: "Would you really want to be in a committed relationship with someone who does not appreciate and value you?" The sooner you accept that the relationship is over, the sooner you can let go of the need to suffer. Some people mistakenly believe that if they suffer enough their ex will come back (and save them.) It is a painful fantasy to have to live with. Even if your ex did return, it is not the foundation for a healthy relationship.

Rather than interrogating your children about what your ex is up to, focus on what is going on in your house. If you really want to "get even," let it be by moving on and having a good life in spite of the divorce. When you put your energy into punishing or getting back at your former spouse, you are really only punishing yourself and your children.

Accept your divorce, let go of the need to "get back" at your ex.
Focus on rebuilding your own life in a healthy and positive way.
6. Set boundaries and expectations for your children.

Set healthy boundaries for behavior in your home. If you are not sure what they should be under your particular circumstances, seek guidance from a someone who is a competent authority on child-rearing. Don't be afraid that if you set boundaries your children will prefer to be at your ex's house. Some children are quite adept at playing one parent against the other. Don't fall prey to that game. Share your expectations for your children regarding getting up, going to school, homework, chores, curfews, bedtime. Make your expectations clear and reasonable.

The rules for your home may differ from those at your ex's home. That's okay. "That's how your Mom/Dad chooses to do things. Here, we do things differently." If you are comfortable with the rules that you are setting, you increase the chances that your children will be, too. Explain that you are interested in what is good for them, and that you are only doing this because you care.

Strive for balance. On the one hand, you want your children to be responsible and functional. At the same time, you want to encourage your children to continue to enjoy their childhood. If your child seems to be unable to enjoy him or herself, or if you find yourself feeling sorry for your children, speak to a qualified therapist.

Don't be afraid to set boundaries that reflect the values of your home.
Encourage your children to enjoy their childhood.
7. Keep the lines of communication to your children open.

Be there to listen. Don't judge or tell your child how to feel. Validate how they are feeling now, while pointing out to them that they may not always feel that way. Time has a way of changing things. Let your child know that you are always there for them. Don't ask questions that will require your child to point a finger at your former spouse. Ask your child if he or she would prefer to talk about those difficulties with an impartial adult, such as a therapist or an adult family friend.

Many times as a marriage is unraveling, children develop the belief that if only they could be "good" then their parents would stay married. For those children, the marriage's failure is confirmation that they just weren't "good" enough. Communicate to your child that the divorce was not his or her fault. Even if your child says that they never thought that it was, it will be reassuring to hear that you don't think so.

Your child might be quiet and may not want to share any feelings. Respect that. If you think that it might be related to a lack of emotional vocabulary, help your child develop one. As you read to your child, ask him or her what he thinks the character is feeling at different points in the book. Inject your own thoughts, "Well, if I were Winnie the Pooh, I would be sad that Tiger didn't invite me to his birthday party." Then talk about the choices available to Winnie the Pooh.

Be there to listen to your children's emotions without judgment.
Make sure your child know the divorce was not their fault.
8. Become a Bigger person.

Proactively choose who you want to be after a divorce. Set short term, medium and long term goals for your yourself and for your family. Divorce creates the possibility for a new beginning. Let go of the past, and of blaming or complaining. It is over. Only today is significant. Decide who you want to be, starting today. What will it take for you to get there?

Get your own therapist so that you are not tempted to have your children fill that role. A good therapist can help you to process what has happened in your marriage and afterwards. Divorce is a loss that needs to be mourned. Respect that your loss is different from your child's. Model that it is okay to get help to talk out problems. By dealing with your difficult feelings and getting through them you can become a bigger person from the experience.

Being a bigger person means letting go of competition. The competing game is one where everyone loses. What will be etched in your children's memory for life is not who bought them the most toys, but who had values that they could respect. Care enough about your children to guide them onto the path of success in life. Your children need you – your time, your attention, your understanding and your encouragement. Understand that anything that you do that hurts your child's other parent, will hurt your child. Limit what you are willing to do to acquire their love and allegiance.

Decide who you want to be in your post-divorce reality. Create a map of out how to get there.
Let go of competition. Model becoming a bigger person.
9. Create safety.

Regardless of how often you see your children, make your home a place of safety. Your home should be a place where children are respected, cared for, shown love and acceptance and taught responsibility. It does not matter what is going on at your ex's house. In fact, if you feel that there is not enough safety at your ex's house, the safety you create only becomes that much more important.

Be responsible. Be there when you say you are going to be there. Do what you say you are going to do. Apologize when you let your child down. It is better not to commit to something that you will not be able to do, for this erodes trust.

It is the parent's responsibility to make sure that there is food in the house. A child who doesn't have what to eat cannot concentrate in school. Parents have the job of creating a structure for cleanliness and order in the home. A child that can't find their shoes in the mess, will have a hard time getting to school on time. A child with no bedtime routine will struggle through the next day's activities.

Safety means showing your child respect, love and acceptance. Say what you will do, and do what you say.
A safe home means providing food, shelter and structure for your child.
10. Teach resilience.

Resilience is one of the most valuable gifts a parent can give a child. Show your child that even when things get hard you and your children can get through the difficulties without falling apart. Teach your child that everything happens for a reason. There is a silver lining to every cloud. Develop your and their ability to access the good in everything that happens. Believe that this experience, like any test, is an opportunity for growth. Show through your example how to use a tough time as a stepping stool, rather than an obstacle. Model patience, flexibility and acceptance for your children. Encourage them to take little steps towards growth.

Help children to build resilience by staying connected to family and friends. Find "big brothers" or "big sisters" to be there for your children. Encourage your children to do things that help them feel accomplished. Encourage them to look for and develop their strengths. Use hopeful language, talk about meaning. When you believe that you can do something, you can. When you believe that you can't, you won't. Speak the language of positivity. Your belief in a brighter future can help you and your children to really have one.

Help your child develop resilience skills to take with them through life.
Look for meaning. Speak the language of hope and possibility.
 

This article can also be read at: http://www.aish.com/f/p/Ten_Rules_for_Post_Divorce_Parenting.html

Title: Ron Paul on Gay Marriage
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 29, 2011, 06:38:16 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=EwdOMvoRSVc

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: Cranewings on September 01, 2011, 12:10:07 AM

Ron Paul is great. I've voted for him twice now. I wish he could win.

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: DougMacG on September 01, 2011, 06:47:17 AM

Government not recognizing marriage would end traditions like spousal privilege or inheritance rights if not specifically willed?

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: G M on September 03, 2011, 11:46:16 AM

Quote from: Cranewings on September 01, 2011, 12:10:07 AM

Ron Paul is great. I've voted for him twice now. I wish he could win.

Don't you live in Ohio? I'm pretty sure Ron Paul's Congressional district doesn't include Ohio.

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 03, 2011, 01:16:26 PM

Woof Oh Snarky One :lol:

I voted for him when he ran for President back in the 1980s and I would suspect that it would have been possible for an Ohioan to have voted for him in a Presidential Primary.

Yip!

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: Cranewings on September 03, 2011, 08:22:50 PM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on September 03, 2011, 01:16:26 PM

Woof Oh Snarky One :lol:

I voted for him when he ran for President back in the 1980s and I would suspect that it would have been possible for an Ohioan to have voted for him in a Presidential Primary.

Yip!

Yup, I'm a registered Republican. I'm probably more interested in voting in Republican primaries than I am in presidential elections. I feel like the Republicans bring a bunch of saints and sinners, while the democrats just bring a kind of overall boring / crooked pot. Like last time, I didn't care between Hilary or Obama, but I wanted McCain or Ron Paul WAY more than I wanted any of the other people that were running.

I'll probably vote for Ron Paul again in the primary unless Ohio is divided on Romney vs. the Texas Governor, in which case I have to vote for Romney, being more liberal and all. I wish the republicans would put up better people this time but its my opinion they are just sacrificing all their crappy people to Obama so that they can have a real run in 2016.

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: G M on September 03, 2011, 08:46:56 PM

"And no matter how much I agree with conservative economics, this is half of why I'll probably never vote for a Republican (the rest being gay rights and keeping conservative men out of women's pants)."

"Yup, I'm a registered Republican. I'm probably more interested in voting in Republican primaries than I am in presidential elections."

Hmmmm. It makes a lot of sense to be a registered republican but not voting republican.

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: Cranewings on September 03, 2011, 09:04:51 PM

GM, your google-fu is strong. Can you understand why I would be invested in who the Republican candidate is? I wasn't against McCain - that's why I didn't vote for Obama. I think its important that the Republican candidate be as moderate as possible.

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: G M on September 03, 2011, 09:07:41 PM

And you think Ron Paul, the favorite candidate of Stormfront and other neo-nazi types is moderate?

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: G M on September 03, 2011, 09:12:27 PM

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

November 14, 2007
The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters
By Andrew Walden

 


When some in a crowd of anti-war activists meeting at Democrat National Committee HQ in June, 2005 suggested Israel was behind the 9-11 attacks, DNC Chair Howard Dean was quick to get behind the microphones and denounce them saying: "such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric."


When KKK leader David Duke switched parties to run for Louisiana governor as a Republican in 1991, then-President George H W Bush responded sharply, saying, "When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don't believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society."


Ron Paul is different. 


Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) is the only Republican candidate to demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq and blame US policy for creating Islamic terrorism.  He has risen from obscurity and is beginning to raise millions of dollars in campaign contributions.  Paul has no traction in the polls -- 7% of the vote in New Hampshire -- but he at one point had more cash on hand than John McCain.  And now he is planning a $1.1 million New Hampshire media blitz just in time for the primary.



Ron Paul set an internet campaigning record raising more than $4 million in small on-line donations in one day, on November 5, 2007. But there are many questions about Paul's apparent unwillingness to reject extremist groups' public participation in his campaign and financial support of his November 5  "patriot money-bomb plot." 


On October 26 nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Medved posted an "Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul" on TownHall.com.  It reads:



Dear Congressman Paul:


Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 "Truthers" and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.


Do you welcome- or repudiate - the support of such factions?


More specifically, your columns have been featured for several years in the American Free Press -a publication of the nation's leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto.  His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the "comforts and amenities" provided for inmates of Auschwitz.


Have your columns appeared in the American Free Press with your knowledge and approval?


As a Presidential candidate, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such publications?


As a guest on my syndicated radio show, you answered my questions directly and fearlessly.
Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society?


Along with my listeners (and many of your own supporters), I eagerly await your response.


Respectfully, Michael Medved

Medved has received no official response from the Paul campaign.


There is more.  The Texas-based Lone Star Times October 25 publicly requested a response to questions about whether the Paul campaign would repudiate and reject a $500 donation from white supremacist Stormfront.org founder Don Black and end the Stormfront website fundraising for Paul.  The Times article lit up the conservative blogosphere for the next week.  Paul supporters packed internet comment boards alternately denouncing or excusing the charges.  Most politicians are quick to distance themselves from such disreputable donations when they are discovered.  Not Paul.



Daniel Siederaski of the Jewish Telegraph Agency tried to get an interview with Paul, calling him repeatedly but not receiving any return calls.  Wrote Siederaski November 9: "Ron Paul will take money from Nazis. But he won’t take telephone calls from Jews." [Update]  Finally on November 13 the Paul campaign responded. In a short interview JTA quotes Jim Perry, head of Jews for Paul describing his work on the Paul campaign along side a self-described white supremacist which Perry says he has reformed.



Racist ties exposed in the Times article go far beyond a single donation.  Just below links to information about the "BOK KKK Ohio State Meeting", and the "BOK KKK Pennsylvania State Meeting",  Stormfront.org website announced: "Ron Paul for President" and "Countdown to the 5th of November".  The links take readers directly to a Ron Paul fundraising site from which they can click into the official Ron Paul 2008 donation page on the official campaign site.  Like many white supremacists, Stormfront has ties to white prison gangs.


Finally on October 30 Paul's campaign came back with a non-response.  In a phone interview with the Lone Star Times, Ron Paul national communications director Jesse Benton was non-committal about removing the donations link from Stormfront.org.  After a week of internet controversy, the best Benton could come up with is:



"We hadn't thought of these options but I'll bring up these ideas with the campaign director.  Blocking the IP address sounds like a simple and practical step that could be taken.  I doubt there is anything we can do legally.  Tracking donations that came from Stormfront's site sounds more complicated.  I'm concerned about setting a precedent for the campaign having to screen and vet everyone who makes a donation.  It is important to keep in mind is (sic) that we didn't solicit this support, and we aren't interested in spending al of our time and resources focused on this issue.  We want to focus on Dr. Paul's positive agenda for freedom."

Perhaps frustrated by the weasel words, Lone Star Times asked Benton: "Bottom line- Will the Ron Paul campaign be rejecting the $500 contribution made by neo-Nazi Don Black?"


Benton's response:



"At this time, I cannot say that we will be rejecting Mr. Black's contribution, but I will bring the matter to the attention of our campaign director again, and expect some sort of decision to be made in coming days."

On October 11 Stormfront Radio endorsed Ron Paul for President saying: 



"Whatever organization you belong to, remember first and foremost that you're a white nationalist, then put aside your differences with one another and work together.  Work together to strive to get someone in the Oval Office who agrees with much of what we want for our future.  Look at the man, look at the issues, look at our future.  Vote for Ron Paul, 2008."

As of November 11--the Ron Paul donation link is still up and active on Stormfront.  No IP address has been blocked.  Stormfront's would-be stormtroopers are still encouraged to contribute to Paul's campaign. 


The white supremacists do more than raise funds.  Blogger Adam Holland reports:



"one of Rep. Paul's top internet organizers in Tennessee is a neo-Nazi leader named Will Williams (aka ‘White Will'). Williams was the southern coordinator for William Pierce's National Alliance Party, the largest neo-Nazi party in the U.S." 

Pierce is author of the racist "Turner Diaries".   When the Lone Star Times exposed the $500 Don Black donation, Williams responded on the national Ron Paul meetup site,



"Must Dr. Paul capitulate to our Jewish masters' demands?" 

The mild responses to Williams' MeetUp post make a sharp contrast to the hatred and invective with which Paul supporters respond to Medved or any other writer questioning Paul's refusal to disassociate himself from his racist supporters.  Any other campaign would presume Williams' expression of anti-Semitism was a dirty trick by an opposing campaign.  Williams would have been hurriedly denounced and booted out of the campaign.  Not Ron Paul.


Williams has also organized at least one other discussion, "the Israel factor revisited" on the national Ron Paul MeetUp site.  Again the measured tone of the remarks by Ron Paul supporters in the comments section contrasts sharply with the invective Paul supporters rain down upon bloggers who oppose him.  Paul's campaign relies heavily on MeetUp sites to organize.  Over 61,000 Paul supporters are registered on MeetUp as compared to 3,400 for Barack Obama, 1,000 for Hillary Clinton, 1,800 for Dennis Kucinich and only a couple of dozen members for most other candidates.


On the white-supremacist Vanguard News Network, Williams links to Paul's "grassroots" fundraising site and organizes other racists to "game You Tube" to advance a specific Ron Paul video to the top of You Tube's rankings.  Writes Williams, "Everybody here can do this, except bjb w/his niggerberry."  Holland points out, "BJB" stands for "burn Jew burn".  BJB's internet signature is, "Nothing says lovin' like a Jew in the oven."     


Williams is not Paul's only supremacist supporter.  "Former" KKK leader (and convicted fraudster) David Duke's website http://www.whitecivilrights.com/, calls Ron Paul "our king" and cheers while "Ron Paul Hits a Home Run on Jay Leno Show."  Duke also includes a "Ron Paul campaign update" and plugs Ron Paul fundraising efforts.  These articles are posted right next to articles such as "Ten reasons why the Holocaust is a fraud" and "Germans Still Remember their Historical Greatness"-featuring a map of Hitler's Third Reich at its 1942 military height, just in case anybody doesn't get the point.  Apparently "Dr. Paul's positive agenda for freedom" is attractive to those who ape the world's worst tyrants and genocidaires.


There are others.  In a You Tube video circulating the internet, Ron Paul is endorsed by Hutton Gibson, a leading Holocaust denier and father of controversial actor and director Mel Gibson.     


Ron Paul is supported by Patrick Buchanan, whose website carries videos and articles such as: "Ron Paul epiphany" and "Ron Paul a new hope."  Buchanan has a long history of remarks some call anti-Semitic (see link).  Ron Unz, editor of Buchanan's American Conservative magazine, is a Paul contributor and may have helped raise money from Silicon Valley sources. 


Ron Paul's American Free Press supporters run literally from one end of the country to the other: 

•A Maine Ron Paul MeetUp activist who once ran for US Senate describes himself as, "a 911 truth researcher & video documentarian, & a writer for The Barnes Review."  The Barnes Review is a Holocaust-denier magazine founded by Willis Carto.
•A Hawaii Ron Paul MeetUp organizer is pictured here pumping the Paul campaign and selling copies of Willis Carto's American Free Press at a farmers market.

There is more to the Paul campaign than racists.  The mis-named 9-11 "truth" movement has also been a big source of Paul support.  The Detroit Free Press describes the scene as Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani shared the ferry ride back from a Mackinac Island Michigan Republican caucus September 21. 



"According to one eyewitness, Giuliani was beset by dozens of Paul enthusiasts as he was leaving the island, some of whom shouted taunts about 9/11, including: ‘9/11 was an inside job' and ‘Rudy, Rudy, what did you do with the gold?' -- an apparent reference to rumors about $200 million in gold alleged to have disappeared in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.  Ed Wyszynski, a longtime party activist from Eagle, (MI) said the Paul supporters threatened to throw Giuliani overboard and harassed him as he took shelter in the ferry's pilothouse for the 15-minute journey back to Mackinaw City."

Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton told the Detroit Free Press "Ron Paul does not think that 9/11 was an inside job."  But the "truthers" aren't fooled.  Paul's committee paid 9-11 conspiracy nut and talk-show host Alex Jones $1300.  Jones claims the payment is a partial refund after he over paid August 27 when giving Paul a $2300 contribution.  Aaron Dykes of Alex Jones' company Magnolia Management and Alex Jones' Infowars website gave Ron Paul $1600. 

Jones has been pumping Paul's campaign on his nationally syndicated radio show for months.  Alex Jones got Paul's first radio interview January 17 after announcing his Presidential campaign.  LINK: http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/170107paul.mp3.  In a lengthy October 5 interview -- apparently Paul's fourth with Jones -- Paul thanks Jones for his support saying: "You and the others have always said run, run, run."  Alex Jones' websites are piled with Ron Paul articles and campaign paraphernalia for sale.


Other Paul donations and activists come from leftists and Muslims.  Singer and Democrat contributor Barry Manilow is also a Ron Paul contributor and possibly a fundraiser.  There are close ties (but no endorsements) between Ron Paul's San Francisco Bay Area campaign and Cindy Sheehan's long-shot Congressional campaign.


An Austin, TX MeetUp site shows Paul supporters also involved in leftist groups such as Howard Dean's "Democracy for America."  MeetUp lists other sites popular with members of the Ron Paul national MeetUp group.  The number one choice is "9/11 questions" another leading choice is "conspiracy." 


MuslimVoterOnPaul.com chimes in writing:



"Brothers and Sisters, please vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries. It's our obligation to come together and try to stand up for not only our best interests, but the best interests of the entire Ummah." 

A Ron Paul flyer directed at Muslims reads: "Who is Ron Paul and why does the Jerusalem Post call him crazy?"  A "Muslims for Paul" bumper sticker puts the Islamic crescent in Paul's name.


The ugly mishmash of hate groups backing Paul has a Sheehan connection as well.  David Duke is a big Cindy Sheehan supporter eagerly proclaiming "Cindy Sheehan is right" after Sheehan said, "My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel."  Stormfront.org members joined Sheehan at her protest campout in Crawford, TX and posed with her for photos.  Sheehan is also intimately associated with the Lew Rockwell libertarian website which has posted over 200 articles by Ron Paul as well as some "scholarly" 9-11 conspiracy theories. 


The white supremacist American Nationalist Union also backed Sheehan's Crawford protests and endorsed David Duke for president of the United States in 1988.  Now they are backing Ron Paul-linking to numerous Pro-Paul articles posted on LewRockwell.com.



Medved's questions surprise many, but they shouldn't.  Paul's links the anti-Semites and white supremacists continue a trend which has been developing since the 9-11 attacks.  Barely six weeks after 9-11, Paul was already busy blaming America.  On October 27, 2001 Paul wrote on LewRockwell.com, "Some sincere Americans have suggested that our modern interventionist policy set the stage for the attacks of 9-11".  Paul complained: "often the ones who suggest how our policies may have played a role in evoking the attacks are demonized as unpatriotic."  He says the US is "bombing Afghanistan" and is upset nobody is interested in his solution:



"It is certainly disappointing that our congressional leaders and administration have not considered using letters of marque and reprisal as an additional tool to root out those who participated in the 9-11 attacks."

Paul is quick to blame the victim when the issue is Islamist violence.  But when it comes to ordinary criminal violence, Paul once blamed "95% of black males."  During Paul's 1996 Congressional campaign a Houston Chronicle article raised questions about  a 1992 Ron Paul newsletter article.  Under Ron Paul's name was written: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.' Paul added: "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city (Washington, D.C.) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." 


Texas Monthly later interviewed Paul.  He claims:



"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing.  'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" 

Adds Texas Monthly:



"It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."

Paul defenders often point to a December 24, 2002 Paul essay, "What really divides us?"  Wrote Paul,



"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups." 

What his supporters don't often mention is that Paul deployed this fine rhetoric only in defense of Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS).  Lott was pilloried in the press for his flattering words about the segregationist 1948 Presidential run of South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond.


Responding to rioting in Los Angeles under the heading "Terrorist Updates", Paul's 1992 article exposes a double standard.  Substitute the words "Islamist terrorism" for "riots" and try to imagine Paul using this language:



"The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism. Trouble is, few seem willing to do anything to stop them. The cops have been handcuffed. And property owners are not allowed to defend themselves. The mayor of Los Angeles, for example, ordered the Korean storekeepers who defended themselves arrested for "discharging a firearm within city limits."  Perhaps the most scandalous aspect of the Los Angeles riots was the response by the mayors, the media, and the Washington politicians. They all came together as one to excuse the violence and to tell white America that it is guilty, although the guilt can be assuaged by handing over more cash. It would be reactionary, racist, and fascist, said the media, to have less welfare or tougher law enforcement. America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.

"Rather than helping, all this will ensure that guerrilla violence will escalate. There will be more occasional eruptions such as we saw in Los Angeles, but just as terrifying are the daily muggings, robberies, burglaries, rapes, and killings that make our cities terror zones."

If one forgets the implication that the US treasury is a "white checking account" or the suggestion that all "underclass blacks" are thugs, it seems that Paul believes that appeasing street criminals "will ensure that guerrilla violence will escalate."  But when it comes to the Islamist terror, Paul's message, now the theme of his Presidential campaign is: "our policies may have played a role in evoking the attacks."


The double standard raises questions.  Paul's real motivation for appeasing Islamists may be underlined in quotes from a May 24, 1996 Congress Daily article:



"Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, ‘By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government' and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism." 

"Ron Paul-America's Last Chance", a January, 2007 article by Ted Lang on the anti-Semitic site Rense.com, makes a familiar argument for supporting Paul.  Lang claims,



"Dr. Paul's best credentials are those identifying him as a true libertarian, meaning a ‘classical liberal' of the anti-Federalist genre of libertarians that helped found this country, true liberals such as Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams...." 

Paul himself writing on antiwar.com says:



"Thomas Jefferson spoke for the founders and all our early presidents when he stated: ‘peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none...' which is, ‘one of the essential principles of our government'. The question is: Whatever happened to this principle and should it be restored?"

Perhaps Paul forgets America's 1801-05 war with the Islamic terrorists known as the Barbary Pirates?  Paul's interpretation of American history is false.  This writer explained in "The Colonial War against Islam":   



"In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, and John Adams, then American Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey's ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote of funding. To Congress, these two future presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims' hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

"‘...that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.'"

Apparently Paul chooses to remember only the parts of American history which benefit his arguments.  As part of the War on Terror Paul wants the US to abandon, the US Navy is on duty fighting Islamic pirates off the coast of Somalia, in the Persian Gulf, and Southeast Asia.


In spite of official silence from the Paul Campaign, hordes of Paul supporters lit up the comments section of Michael Medved's open letter on TownHall.com.  In a phenomenon familiar to any blogger who posts information negative to Paul, the 500-plus comments include several which indicate that Medved has got Paul's supporters dead to rights:
•"Your own Zionism is slipping, Medved!  Why should anyone disassociate from 9/11 Truthers?"
•"I suggest you take off the tin-foil yamika (sic), your brain is fried."
•"You will do anything to smear this good man to try and safeguard US policy in Israel."
•"Hey Medved. Tell your AIPAC handlers to be nervous. You are failing miserably."
•"It's patently obvious why you don't support Dr. Paul: He's not hand-picked by AIPAC and the Likud Party."

Over at Liberty Post, a self-described "Christian Zionist" identifying himself as ‘David Ben-Ariel' adds this response:



"If discredited and paranoid Michael Medved is so concerned about it, let him actually follow his Judaism to the Jewish Homeland of Israel and take the treacherous ACLU and its liberal ilk, and every other self-hating, defeatist, godless group and loathsome organization with him. What's he got to lose, especially if he fails to believe the Israeli oligarchy is under German-Jesuit control and guilty of murdering Yitzhak Rabin?  ... I'm voting for Ron Paul." 

Besides the Paul backers whose words seem to provide backing to Medved's case, others complain that it is wrong to question the sources of Paul's support.  Writing on the "Daily Paul", Mike Bergmaier complains it is "unfair" for Medved to demand Paul renounce the support of anti-Semites, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis.  Really?  Why?


Lew Rockwell attempts to respond to Medved's question by echoing leftist themes equating Nazis with mainstream conservatives.  Rockwell argues Medved should renounce Cheney and Bush.  In a weak effort at verbal judo, Rockwell calls Medved's letter a "neocon libel."  Rockwell continues:



"Mr. Medved, will you repudiate belligerent nationalists, drooling torturers, scheming warmongers, redistributing pressure groups, foreign aid thieves... (etc)"

and then without even pausing to catch his breath accuses Medved of practicing "guilt by association." 


Perhaps Rockwell hopes weak-minded readers will not notice that associating Medved with "drooling torturers" is itself "guilt by association."   No "drooling torturers" have been identified among Medved's financial backers but actual neo-Nazis have been identified by name amongst Paul's.  Is this what passes for scholarship at the Ludwig von Mises Institute headed by Rockwell?  Judging from many of the comments Paul supporters have flooded the internet with, it apparently is good enough for them. 



Meanwhile, elsewhere on the Daily Paul, Paul's "fair" supporters are organizing to call radio stations and demand they yank Medved's show, thus demonstrating that censorship is a Libertarian value.   


Neither Paul nor his campaign has officially responded to the questions raised by Medved.  But then perhaps these types of comments are the official response. 


Paul supporters complain endlessly that the "mainstream media" is censoring or ignoring their candidate.  They should be careful what they ask for.  If Paul wants to be taken seriously, he must stop cowering behind the internet and face these questions.  Until then it is only reasonable to presume that Paul is happy to wallow in well-financed obscurity accepting the support of some of the worst enemies of freedom and liberty within American society.
 
on "The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters"

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: Cranewings on September 03, 2011, 09:17:44 PM

Quote from: G M on September 03, 2011, 09:07:41 PM

And you think Ron Paul, the favorite candidate of Stormfront and other neo-nazi types is moderate?

Sure, moderate is the total wrong word for him, but I like his opinions on the Federal Reserve and on the governments place in our social lives. Even though he won't win, a vote for him is a message that those things are important. Hopefully it affects other candidates positions.

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: G M on September 03, 2011, 09:23:44 PM

What human culture spawned the idea of human rights and limited government?

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: Cranewings on September 03, 2011, 09:41:35 PM

Quote from: G M on September 03, 2011, 09:23:44 PM

What human culture spawned the idea of human rights and limited government?

The Persians? They had the first charter of human rights and many of their Satrapies allowed the culture and politics of the local people to continue. That's in stark contrast to the Spartans we adore for their slave state and fascism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Cylinder

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 03, 2011, 10:28:54 PM

GM:

A fascinating piece on RP and the Nazis, but one with de minimis connection with this thread.  May I ask you to post it either in the Presidential 2012 thread or the Anti-semitism thread please?

Thank you,
Marc

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: G M on September 04, 2011, 02:46:14 AM

Quote from: Cranewings on September 03, 2011, 09:41:35 PM

Quote from: G M on September 03, 2011, 09:23:44 PM

What human culture spawned the idea of human rights and limited government?

The Persians? They had the first charter of human rights and many of their Satrapies allowed the culture and politics of the local people to continue. That's in stark contrast to the Spartans we adore for their slave state and fascism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Cylinder

From the wikipedia article cited:

A partial transcription by F.H. Weissbach in 1911[34] was supplanted by a much more complete transcription after the identification of the "B" fragment; this is now available in German[35] and in English.[32][36] Several editions of the full text of the Cyrus Cylinder are available online, incorporating both "A" and "B" fragments.
 
A false translation of the text – affirming, among other things, the abolition of slavery and the right to self-determination, a minimum wage and asylum – has been promoted on the Internet and elsewhere.[37] As well as making claims that are not found on the real cylinder, it has been edited, referring to the Zoroastrian divinity Ahura Mazda rather than the Mesopotamian god Marduk. The false translation has been widely circulated; alluding to its claim that Cyrus supposedly has stated that "Every country shall decide for itself whether or not it wants my leadership."[38] Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi in her acceptance speech described Cyrus as "the very emperor who proclaimed at the pinnacle of power 2,500 years ago that ... he would not reign over the people if they did not wish it".[37][39][40][41] Similarly, United States President George W. Bush referred in a 2006 speech to Cyrus declaring that his people had "the right to worship God in freedom"[42][43] – a statement made nowhere in the text of the cylinder.

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: Cranewings on September 04, 2011, 08:58:55 AM

Eh, I still give it to them (;

So if not Cyrus, GM, who are you giving the credit to and where are you going with it?

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 04, 2011, 11:21:54 AM

Well, I'd like to see this thread go back to the subject matter of "Marriage and Family"  :lol:

Title: Gay marriage: A novel notion of justice
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 06, 2011, 04:16:51 AM

The extent to which people will go to advance their rationalizations for sexual misbehavior grows ever more amusing and ambitious, with consequences, however, that are less jolly. The ultimate level of absurdity has now been reached by the claim that justice requires the legalization of same-sex marriage. Consider the following two protestations.

Celebrating the recent passage of such a law in New York, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote: “I am the brother of a woman in a longtime same-sex relationship... This is a cause whose justness has long been apparent to me. The opponents have no case other than ignorance and misconception and prejudice.”

And when Edwin O'Brien, the Catholic archbishop of Baltimore, attempted to remonstrate with Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, a Catholic, over his sponsorship of a same sex marriage bill, the Governor responded that: "When shortcomings in our laws bring about a result that is unjust, I have a public obligation to try to change that injustice."

So now it is no longer tolerance, but the demands of justice that seem to require legally equating homosexual marriage with heterosexual marriage, something no other civilization in recorded history has done.

But before justice can be enlisted on behalf of this cause, we should ask ourselves: what is justice? The classical answer to this question is that justice is giving to things what is their due according to what they are. In other words, to act justly, one must first know what things are. When one knows what something is, one then understands what it is for. The purpose of the thing then determines whether our actions toward it are a use or an abuse. This is where the matter of justice comes in.

One does not get to make up what things are. If that were the case, then justice could be anything that one said it was. That is what tyrants do. This would be arbitrary, and what is arbitrary is by definition tyrannical. It is based upon pure will, unguided by reason. Those who wish to base their freedom upon the supposed purposelessness of things should face the consequences of this view. What seems unmitigated freedom is, in fact, the foundation of tyranny.

Unfortunately, this solipsistic view of reality has reached high places. In the 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey ruling, the Supreme Court opined that, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Well, actually not. The universe is already here. It has already been defined for us; otherwise, it would not be in existence. Our choice is not to make up the meaning of the universe, but to discern its meaning and then either conform ourselves to it, or revolt against it. The choice today is revolt. Igor Stravinsky once wrote, “The old original sin was one of knowledge, the new original sin is one of non-acknowledgment.” It is the refusal to acknowledge anything outside the operation of the human will — most especially “the good” toward which the soul is ordered. "The good" is what ultimately informs human justice.

The modern premise, so evident in the campaign for same-sex marriage, is that any pre-existing rational end constitutes a limitation on human freedom. Therefore, “freedom” requires the denial that rational ends inhere in things. Things are tabula rasa, blank slates upon which we can write anything we desire. Things, being purposeless themselves, only have the ends we give them by our will and choice. They serve whatever purpose we wish. This is a very dangerous teaching, especially as it affects the issue of justice.

As mentioned earlier, it is necessary to apprehend things as they are in order to act justly. A simple example suffices. If one does not know the difference between a man and a dog, one may end up treating a man as if he were a dog. This would be acting unjustly. Justice in no way pertains to how we feel about things but rather to what they are. In our anthropomorphic enthusiasm, we may feel that our pet dog is human. However, it would be absurd to pass legislation requiring the dog's consent to its owner’s rule, because the dog is not human and is incapable of giving its consent. Dogs do not have free will. It is therefore just for men to rule over dogs.

Likewise, no feeling can justify the enslavement of another human being, because a human being has the inalienable right to consent in his or her rule. This, of course, was the problem with slavery. Only the understanding of what a human being is allows one to make this vital distinction between the human and the nonhuman. It is something one knows, or does not (or refuses to acknowledge), with huge consequences. It is precisely the loss of this distinction upon which the practice of abortion is based.

Once we know what something is, we can know what it is for. Its purpose is within it. How does this pertain to the issue of the justice of same-sex marriage? It has to do with the procreative and unitive powers of our sexual organs. What are they for? Today, we seem to know what every other part of our body is for, except our genitals. This is a case of selective epistemological amnesia.

Sex has a natural purpose

In using or treating any part of our body, the critical question is: what are the ends to which the nature of the thing directs it, and is the action outside of, or within those ends? For instance, our lungs are for breathing. Breathing oxygenates our blood through the alveoli. If anyone suggested that our lungs are for imbibing water, they would be set straight in short order and informed that water in the lungs would lead to drowning and death. If they nonetheless insisted that water is good for the lungs and applied this teaching to themselves, they would soon be asphyxiated.

No one has really been tempted to do this. However, people have found a great deal of pleasure in smoking cigarettes. This has been shown to be a misuse of the lungs, because the tars and nicotine from the tobacco smoke cause lung cancer. Therefore, we can say with some confidence that the end or purpose of the lungs is not pleasure from smoking. The purpose of a thing cannot be fulfilled in an action which leads to its destruction. On the basis of this, the government has taken vigorous steps to dissuade people from smoking. Laws have been passed prohibiting young people from buying cigarettes and requiring the labeling of cigarettes as injurious to health.

However, no one today can publicly suggest that our genitals are not made for sodomy or even, without becoming the objects of obloquy, point out the health consequences of this unclean practice. Well before HIV/AIDS arrived on the scene, the life expectancy of practicing homosexuals was substantially below that of the heterosexual male population because of the deleterious health effects of this behavior. What things are have a way of fighting back against those who deny what they are and who act in such a way as if they weren’t.

So what is sex for? The purpose of sex is to make “one flesh.” Two becoming “one flesh” encompasses both the generative and unitive nature of sex. By nature, only men and women are physically capable of becoming “one flesh.” (Otherwise, the pieces don't fit.) The end of sex is not simply pleasure; otherwise, any kind of sex that produces pleasure would be “natural.” That something occurs, or can occur, does not make it “natural.” Cancer occurs, but one would not say, by that fact, that cancer is therefore natural to, say, the lungs. Why not? Because we know that lungs are for breathing, and that cancer impedes and eventually prevents breathing.

A great deal of human ingenuity has gone into finding other uses for sex that go directly against its unitive and generative nature. Those who misuse its powers perversely are saying, in effect: We will take the pleasure, but not the thing toward which the pleasure is directed: the imago Dei. As Fr. James Schall has written (CRISIS Sense & Nonsense, March 1995), “Whenever we seek pleasure without it being grounded in what is right in the action in which it exists, we isolate the pleasure, the act, from reality.” Every act of coition presupposes the unitive and the commitment within which it must take place. And when it is not there, it is felt as a betrayal, a lie. It is followed by emptiness. There is something inherently false about sexual acts outside of marriage.

Only marital love can tame erotic passion

However, sex is a very strong passion, and it is difficult for anyone to contain. The only thing that can tame Eros and direct it to an end that can satisfy the sexual passion is love, which leads Eros away from death and, quite literally, toward new life. When a specific person is the object of love, no substitute will do. Love demands exclusivity, and receives it in marriage. The desire for oneness in marital union is also a thirst for fecundity. The wild and complete abandon of the marital act is a joyful affirmation of the possibility of more — in children.

In their souls, what people truly love is goodness. And when they love goodness, it is what they seek to serve. This is true with sex, also. Sex is directed to goodness by love. Love sublimates lust and restores the original innocence of sex. It is no longer self-seeking, self consuming, but self-giving and life-generating. It seeks the unity that is only available in "one flesh." So it seems spousal love requires becoming “one flesh.”

This is not a matter of "who says," but of how we are constituted by nature. Anything else is counterfeit. To make the counterfeit official, as in legal same-sex marriage, is to substitute the unreal for the real. If you cannot become "one flesh" with the person whom you love, that is nature's way of telling you that the character of your love is not spousal, but something else.

Love has its proper expression according to its subject and object – sisterly love, parental love, conjugal love, the love of friendship are each distinct and are expressed accordingly. A child does not love its father with parental love, because the child is not the parent of its father. It may seem silly to state something so obvious, but this is what must be done when reality is being contested. It is just as necessary and obvious to say that two men, or two women, cannot become husband and wife because that relationship requires a person of the other gender. No matter how many times homosexual advocates say it, two flesh of the same kind is not, and cannot become, "one flesh." Homosexual marriage is not, as some have suggested, "inclusive," simply making room for another kind of marriage. Its legalization requires the denial of the true nature of marriage. Militant homosexuals are trying to conform reality to themselves, rather than conforming themselves to reality. They will say, no doubt, that their reality is that they are homosexuals. But that is no more persuasive than an alcoholic acknowledging the reality of his condition.

Abnormality and normality

Many who think that homosexuality is a genetic condition believe that this, in and of itself, justifies homosexual marriage. That is why a great deal has been invested in the argument over whether homosexuality is a genetic trait or learned behavior. This issue, however, is immaterial to the morality of homosexual acts. The same kind of argument could be made over alcoholism. There appears to be a missing chromosome – the Y chromosome – that predisposes certain people to alcoholism; others seem to acquire alcoholism through their behavior. In either case, drunkenness is no less evil because of an inherent predisposition to it. Likewise, sodomy.

Of course, it is very hard to live with such predispositions, and profound sympathy and assistance is due to those who suffer from them. The worst disservice that could be done in either case, however, would be to encourage or participate in the celebration of the afflictions, as in "Gay Pride Day." Why is “Gay Pride Day” any less absurd than an “Alcoholic Pride Day” would be? Both conditions exist as aberrations, as abnormalities in the light of what is normal by nature. To substitute an abnormality for normality destroys the distinction between the two, and closes off the path to recovery.

In moral terms, this would be analogous to substituting a cancerous lung for a healthy lung on the basis that we cannot tell the difference between them. Such a claim would obviously subvert medical care and would represent a huge injustice to cancer patients. Sodomy is the cancer version of coition. Substituting it for spousal intercourse on the basis that there is no difference between them is an act of injustice that will subvert marriage and the soul of the society that accepts it.

This makes richly ironic Richard Cohen’s and Governor O'Malley’s invocation of justice to advance a cause based upon the denial of the nature of marriage. They are, in fact, complicit in perpetrating fraud. “Thinking against nature,” wrote Irenaeus in Against Heresies (180 AD), “you will become foolish. And if you persist you will fall into insanity.” No one can say we were not warned. The path ahead to the asylum is clear, but in this case the asylum will be the entire society.

Robert Reilly has worked in foreign policy, the military, and the arts. His most recent book is The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis.

Title: Vox populi says no
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 06, 2011, 04:20:25 AM

second post



In June the New York State Assembly approved same-sex marriage, 33 votes to 29, making New York the sixth state out of fifty to issue marriage licences to gay couples. The press of the entire world conveyed the impression that gay marriage has become mainstream in American culture and therefore it is only a matter of time before it is recognized in the whole country.

The truth, for the time being at least, is the exact opposite. Every time the issue has been put to the people in a referendum, the outcome has been a round “NO”. This has been the case everywhere, even in states that are in the vanguard of modernity and permissiveness, like California. Thirty-one states out of fifty have held referendums and in every case the majority of ordinary people voted against same-sex marriage.

If this is the case, then why did it pass in those six states? Thanks solely to either courts of law or to politics pressured by intense campaigns, capable of mustering huge amounts of capital.

The current federal law was signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton and is known as DOMA, an acronym for Defence of Marriage Act.

DOMA defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman and also asserts the constitutional right of each state to deny recognition to same-sex marriages celebrated in another state. Following the passage of DOMA, a majority of the fifty states (37 out of 50 and counting) have defined marriage in their own constitutions as a union between one man and one woman.

It was only in 2003 that gay marriage was first recognized. The breakthrough came in ultra-liberal Massachusetts, which set an example for other liberal North Eastern states: Connecticut (2008), Vermont (2009) and New Hampshire (2010). In 2009 it was approved in the Midwestern state of Iowa, followed now by New York (2011). Add to these the District of Columbia (the area surrounding Washington that does not belong to any state) and the decision by Maryland in 2010 to automatically recognize same-sex marriages celebrated in other states, and you have the sum total of US jurisdictions that recognize same-sex marriage.

But none of these decisions have ever come from the people.

In the 31 states where the people were consulted, what prevailed was always the will to defend marriage between man and woman, even when this opposed verdicts or laws that had already been passed.

In three cases, Hawaii (1998), Alaska (1998) and California (2008), voters actually annulled court verdicts. In Maine (2009) the citizens abrogated a law that had been approved by their State Assembly.

In other words, so far, advocacy for homosexual marriage has succeeded only when the matter was in the hands of a judge or a group of politicians whom the LGBT lobbies managed to win over. But this very significant fact has been drowned out by the fanfare surrounding the news of the recognition granted in the state of New York alone.

The clamour surrounding that piece of news was so great that it drowned out all other news, such as the fact that the same approval had just been denied in Maryland and in Rhode Island, as well as the recent approval of two constitutional amendments to state constitutions -- in Indiana and in Minnesota – to follow DOMA by defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Similar amendments are currently being examined in North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

To achieve the approval of same-sex marriage in New York the gay community lobbied Albany long and hard. Five pro-gay marriage groups merged into one and hired a consultant to help them set up an effective lobbying campaign, with phone calls and post cards to politicians, a television blitz costing US$3 million, donations by wealthy benefactors with gay relatives and one-to-one lobbying of politicians.

Effort-wise, gay activists outdid the supporters of traditional marriage, who were financially and numerically incapable of organizing politically to succeed in opposing the New York law. However, to get an idea of how high feelings run on the issue and how attentive to it the public is, suffice it to say that in New York itself, less than two years ago (December 2009), gay marriage had already been put to a vote and lost 38-24. Yet in that case as in others, the governor, who at the time was David A. Paterson, had come out in favour of gay marriage, and the gay rights organizations had steered almost $1 million to election campaigns to support the law.

But California is the case that has seen the most action, involving courts, legislators and referendums. In November 2008, six months after a verdict of the California Supreme Court had recognized the legal quality of same-sex marriages, voters voiced their opinion in a referendum known as “Proposition 8”, whose outcome stipulated that marriage be defined as a union between one man and one woman.

Yet the tables turned once again in August last year when the Ninth District Court in California called this referendum unconstitutional. This decision is currently being appealed and the hearing is scheduled for December. But whatever the outcome, it is probable that this verdict will be sent to the US Supreme Court, which might then validate gay marriage and thereby annul the laws extant in most of the states: an outcome reminiscent of the way abortion came to be legalized in the US almost 40 years ago.

Meanwhile, by the way, it has become known that the judge of the Ninth Circuit who decreed the unconstitutional nature of the referendum was in a situation which could be deemed of conflict of interest, since, as he has freely admitted, he has himself been in a stable homosexual relationship for ten years.

Currently four cases are being tried in as many States, asking that DOMA be declared unconstitutional.

In the White House President Obama has been working on the issue as well. In February his administration made an unprecedented move by officially announcing that it would not defend the constitutionality of DOMA, a federal law. And on July 19 Obama went further, by announcing his support for a bill of law that would abrogate DOMA. Meanwhile the Senate is also preparing to vote on the abrogation of DOMA.

In conclusion, even though over the last eight years same-sex marriage has won the support of judges, politicians, and the media, it remains a controversial subject in the eyes of voters, and has a long way to go before it belongs to the cultural mainstream.

Alessandra Nucci is an Italian writer and freelance journalist. In 2007 she won the Golden Florin in the essay sector of  the Premio Firenze [Florence Award] for her book on gender feminism as an instrument of class warfare, La donna a una dimensione [One-Dimensional Woman], published by Marietti 1820.

Title: Every child deserves a mother and a father
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 06, 2011, 04:25:38 AM

Third article of the morning

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
A conspicuous absence of children
Every child deserves to begin life with a mother and father. Gay couples cannot provide the family support they need.


A bigot is someone who refuses to see the other point of view. A number of columnists in Australian newspapers have smeared opponents of gay marriage as bigots, yet by and large they refuse to see the other point of view -- and that means the point of view of the child.

"Marriage is fundamentally about the needs of children", writes David Blankenhorn, a supporter of gay rights in the US who nevertheless draws the line at same-sex marriage. "Redefining marriage to include gay and lesbian couples would eliminate entirely in law, and weaken still further in culture, the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child."

Here is the heart of opposition to same-sex marriage: that it means same-sex parenting, and same-sex parenting means that a child must miss out on either a mother or a father.

Marriage is a compound right under Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; it is not only the right to an exclusive relationship, but the right to form a family. Therefore gay marriage includes the right to form a family by artificial reproduction. But any child created within that marriage would have no possibility of being raised by both mother and father.

Obviously there are tragic situations where a child cannot have both a mum and a dad, such as the death or desertion of a parent, but that is not a situation we would ever wish upon a child, and that is not a situation that any government should inflict upon a child.

Yet legalising same-sex marriage will inflict that deprivation on a child. That is why it is wrong, and that is why all laws are wrong that permit single people or same-sex couples to obtain a child by IVF, surrogacy, or adoption.

Australia’s Finance Minister, Penny Wong, recently announced that her lesbian partner is expecting an IVF child. She is an effective politician, but she can never be a dad to a little boy. She and her partner tell us they have created a baby who will have no father, only a mother and another woman. Their assertion is that a dad does not matter to a child.

As ethicist Margaret Somerville wrote in these pages, such assertions "force us to choose between giving priority to children's rights or to homosexual adults' claims." Yet trivial arguments frame the gay marriage debate solely in terms of the emotional needs of adults, ignoring the child's point of view.

Such adult-centred narcissism raises the wider question: if gender no longer matters in marriage, why should number? If marriage is all about adults who love each other, by what rational principle should three adults who love each other not be allowed to marry? Academic defenders of polyamory are asking that question, and no doubt critics will soon be slurring opponents of polyamory as binary bigots.

Warm and fuzzy images of gay couples leave no room for imagining possible harm to society from gay marriage. However the serious minds behind the movement occasionally let us glimpse their wider purpose. US activist Michelangelo Signorile urges gays "to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely." He sees same-sex marriage as "the final tool with which to get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools."

Sure enough, we now have empirical evidence that normalising gay marriage means normalising homosexual behaviour for public school children.

Following the November 2003 court decision in Massachusetts to legalise gay marriage, school libraries were required to stock same-sex literature; primary school children were given homosexual fairy stories such as King & King; some high school students were even given an explicit manual of homosexual advocacy entitled The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century, which the Massachusetts Department of Health helped develop. Education had to comply with the new normal.

Beyond the confusion and corruption of schoolchildren, the cultural consequences of legalising same-sex marriage include the stifling of conscientious freedom. Again in Massachusetts, when adoption agency Catholic Charities was told it would have to place children equally with married homosexuals, it had to close. As Canadian QC and lesbian activist Barbara Findlay said, "The legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a showdown between freedom of religion versus sexual orientation".

Blankenhorn has warned, "Once this proposed reform became law, even to say the words out loud in public – ‘every child needs a father and a mother’ -- would probably be viewed as explicitly divisive and discriminatory, possibly even as hate speech."

The Australian parliament must say these words out loud, because they are bedrock sanity. It must accept that the deep things of human nature are beyond the authority of any political party to tamper with.

Marriage is not a fad to be cut to shape according to social whim. The father of modern anthropology, Claude Levi-Strauss, called marriage "a social institution with a biological foundation." Marriage throughout history is society's effort to reinforce this biological reality: male, female, offspring. All our ceremonies and laws exist to buttress nature helping bind a man to his mate for the sake of the child they might create.

Not all marriages do create children but typically they do, and the institution exists for the typical case of marriage. Homosexual relationships cannot create children or provide a child with natural role models. Such relationships are important to the individuals involved, and demand neighbourly civility, but they do not meet nature's job description for marriage.

Homosexual couples now enjoy equality with male-female couples in every way short of marriage. It must stop short of marriage, because the demands of adults must end where the birthright of a child begins. Marriage and family formation are about something much deeper than civil equality; they are about a natural reality which society did not create and which only a decadent party such as the Australian Greens, so out of touch with nature, would seek to destroy.

Dr David van Gend is a Toowoomba general practitioner and a spokesman for the Family Council of Queensland. A version of this article was first published in The Australian 29/8/11.

Title: Majority of babies now born out of wedlock
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 19, 2012, 05:00:44 AM

POTH

Written with typical POTH attitudes , , , What could go wrong?  :cry:
================
LORAIN, Ohio — It used to be called illegitimacy. Now it is the new normal. After steadily rising for five decades, the share of children born to unmarried women has crossed a threshold: more than half of births to American women under 30 occur outside marriage.

Once largely limited to poor women and minorities, motherhood without marriage has settled deeply into middle America. The fastest growth in the last two decades has occurred among white women in their 20s who have some college education but no four-year degree, according to Child Trends, a Washington research group that analyzed government data.

Among mothers of all ages, a majority — 59 percent in 2009 — are married when they have children. But the surge of births outside marriage among younger women — nearly two-thirds of children in the United States are born to mothers under 30 — is both a symbol of the transforming family and a hint of coming generational change.

One group still largely resists the trend: college graduates, who overwhelmingly marry before having children. That is turning family structure into a new class divide, with the economic and social rewards of marriage increasingly reserved for people with the most education.

“Marriage has become a luxury good,” said Frank Furstenberg, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania.

The shift is affecting children’s lives. Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems.

The forces rearranging the family are as diverse as globalization and the pill. Liberal analysts argue that shrinking paychecks have thinned the ranks of marriageable men, while conservatives often say that the sexual revolution reduced the incentive to wed and that safety net programs discourage marriage.

Here in Lorain, a blue-collar town west of Cleveland where the decline of the married two-parent family has been especially steep, dozens of interviews with young parents suggest that both sides have a point.

Over the past generation, Lorain lost most of two steel mills, a shipyard and a Ford factory, diminishing the supply of jobs that let blue-collar workers raise middle-class families. More women went to work, making marriage less of a financial necessity for them. Living together became routine, and single motherhood lost the stigma that once sent couples rushing to the altar. Women here often describe marriage as a sign of having arrived rather than a way to get there.

Meanwhile, children happen.

Amber Strader, 27, was in an on-and-off relationship with a clerk at Sears a few years ago when she found herself pregnant. A former nursing student who now tends bar, Ms. Strader said her boyfriend was so dependent that she had to buy his cigarettes. Marrying him never entered her mind. “It was like living with another kid,” she said.

When a second child, with a new boyfriend, followed three years later — her birth control failed, she said — her boyfriend, a part-time house painter, was reluctant to wed.

Ms. Strader likes the idea of marriage; she keeps her parents’ wedding photo on her kitchen wall and says her boyfriend is a good father. But for now marriage is beyond her reach.

“I’d like to do it, but I just don’t see it happening right now,” she said. “Most of my friends say it’s just a piece of paper, and it doesn’t work out anyway.”

The recent rise in single motherhood has set off few alarms, unlike in past eras. When Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then a top Labor Department official and later a United States senator from New York, reported in 1965 that a quarter of black children were born outside marriage — and warned of a “tangle of pathology” — he set off a bitter debate.

By the mid-1990s, such figures looked quaint: a third of Americans were born outside marriage. Congress, largely blaming welfare, imposed tough restrictions. Now the figure is 41 percent — and 53 percent for children born to women under 30, according to Child Trends, which analyzed 2009 data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Still, the issue received little attention until the publication last month of “Coming Apart,” a book by Charles Murray, a longtime critic of non-marital births.

Large racial differences remain: 73 percent of black children are born outside marriage, compared with 53 percent of Latinos and 29 percent of whites. And educational differences are growing. About 92 percent of college-educated women are married when they give birth, compared with 62 percent of women with some post-secondary schooling and 43 percent of women with a high school diploma or less, according to Child Trends.

Almost all of the rise in nonmarital births has occurred among couples living together. While in some countries such relationships endure at rates that resemble marriages, in the United States they are more than twice as likely to dissolve than marriages. In a summary of research, Pamela Smock and Fiona Rose Greenland, both of the University of Michigan, reported that two-thirds of couples living together split up by the time their child turned 10.

In Lorain as elsewhere, explanations for marital decline start with home economics: men are worth less than they used to be. Among men with some college but no degrees, earnings have fallen 8 percent in the past 30 years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, while the earnings of their female counterparts have risen by 8 percent.

“Women used to rely on men, but we don’t need to anymore,” said Teresa Fragoso, 25, a single mother in Lorain. “We support ourselves. We support our kids.”

Fifty years ago, researchers have found, as many as a third of American marriages were precipitated by a pregnancy, with couples marrying to maintain respectability. Ms. Strader’s mother was among them.

Today, neither of Ms. Strader’s pregnancies left her thinking she should marry to avoid stigma. Like other women interviewed here, she described her children as largely unplanned, a byproduct of uncommitted relationships.

Some unwed mothers cite the failures of their parents’ marriages as reasons to wait. Brittany Kidd was 13 when her father ran off with one of her mother’s friends, plunging her mother into depression and leaving the family financially unstable.

“Our family life was pretty perfect: a nice house, two cars, a dog and a cat,” she said. “That stability just got knocked out like a window; it shattered.”

Ms. Kidd, 21, said she could not imagine marrying her son’s father, even though she loves him. “I don’t want to wind up like my mom,” she said.

Others noted that if they married, their official household income would rise, which could cost them government benefits like food stamps and child care. W. Bradford Wilcox, a sociologist at the University of Virginia, said other government policies, like no-fault divorce, signaled that “marriage is not as fundamental to society” as it once was.

Even as many Americans withdraw from marriage, researchers say, they expect more from it: emotional fulfillment as opposed merely to practical support. “Family life is no longer about playing the social role of father or husband or wife, it’s more about individual satisfaction and self-development,” said Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University.

Money helps explain why well-educated Americans still marry at high rates: they can offer each other more financial support, and hire others to do chores that prompt conflict. But some researchers argue that educated men have also been quicker than their blue-collar peers to give women equal authority. “They are more willing to play the partner role,” said Sara McLanahan, a Princeton sociologist.

Reviewing the academic literature, Susan L. Brown of Bowling Green State University recently found that children born to married couples, on average, “experience better education, social, cognitive and behavioral outcomes.”

Lisa Mercado, an unmarried mother in Lorain, would not be surprised by that. Between nursing classes and an all-night job at a gas station, she rarely sees her 6-year-old daughter, who is left with a rotating cast of relatives. The girl’s father has other children and rarely lends a hand.

“I want to do things with her, but I end up falling asleep,” Ms. Mercado said.

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: ccp on February 19, 2012, 09:33:13 AM

Well it is ironic that on one hand we have the gays making a big deal out of gay marriage (I can only wonder if it is all about the money somehow with regards to estates, taxes etc) while at the very same time we have a collapse of the insitution in the heterosexual side of the country. 

Divorce rates over 50%, single parenthood over 50% under age 30 and especially for the blue collars, minorities etc.

I guess one could argue that homosexuals fighting for this "right" is in a way a fight to preseve it as an insitution.

Yet nothing is stopping them from living together, working and the rest.  It has to be either some sort of in your face to the non gay community, or, gays are just as normal as non gays and not just living an alternative lifestyle, or about financial issues that come up related to marriage.  Or a combination thereof.

Who cares anymore when someone is gay?  I am fatigued by all this infatada about marriage, adoption, bullying (for God's sake if I turn on CNN one more time to see Anderson Cooper making a school bullying incident into an international scandal....)... the point is now I feel like I am the one being harrassed.  Yes I know I can change the TV station.

Title: Curious correlations , , , coincidence?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 15, 2012, 10:12:35 AM

"New government data reveals a continuing trend of declining marriage rates. More women have never been married, and cohabitation rates have increased steadily. And more children are born outside of marriage than ever before. The consequences of these trends include lower economic prosperity for families and an array of poorer outcomes for children. Tragically, as marriage declines, even the very physical safety for women and children is compromised. ... The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that never-married women are over four times as likely to be a victim of domestic violence compared to married women. ... Additionally, children living outside of married, biological-parent homes have a far greater probability of experiencing physical and sexual abuse. Most notably, children living with a single parent and the parent's romantic partner are approximately 10 times as likely to be physically abused and 20 times as likely to be sexually abused. Even children living with both biological parents are at heightened risk of physical abuse (over four times as likely) and sexual abuse (nearly five times as likely) if their parents are not married. As marriage rates decline, more women and children are exposed to living situations that jeopardize their safety. As policymakers look to ways to address violence against women, rather than expanding top-down approaches of questionable effectiveness, efforts to promote and strengthen marriage are critical." --Heritage Foundation's Rachel Sheffield

Title: A thought experiment about marriage
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 25, 2012, 07:18:59 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/a_thought_experiment_about_marriage

A thought experiment about marriage
A world in which sexual intimacy could not produce children would never have come up with the idea of marriage.




In previous articles, I have asserted that if sex did not naturally lead to children, no one would ever have conceived the idea of marriage. My claim may be obvious to most people, but we live in a world in which people who never intend to have children get married; so, of course, do some people who want children but are infertile. In generations past, we felt compassion for those who married but did not have children, because it was presumed that they wanted children, since, after all, they married one another. No longer can we presume this. The era of contraception and surgical sterilization has altered the face, so to speak, of the childless couple, and consequently the face of the married couple.

The quest for same-sex marriage begins here. In a world where seeking marriage is seeking a community-endorsed way to have sex and bear children, the idea of same-sex marriage is like the idea of a square circle. The very idea of same-sex marriage is conceivable only in a world that is using the term “marriage” in a completely different way, to refer to something of a completely different nature.

Allow me, then, to make a case for my assertion about sex, children, and marriage through a “thought experiment”—a scenario in which human beings have no word for, no concept of, marriage.

CONTINUED

Title: Why monogamous?
Post by: JDN on May 29, 2012, 08:45:14 AM

By Rosie Mestel, Los Angeles Times
May 28, 2012, 7:00 p.m.
The roots of the modern family — monogamous coupling — lie somewhere in our distant evolutionary past, but scientists disagree on how it first evolved.

A new study says we should thank two key players: weak males with inferior fighting chops and the females who opted to be faithful to them.

These mating strategies may "have triggered a key step in the very long process of the evolution of the family," said study author Sergey Gavrilets, a biomathematician at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. "Without it, we wouldn't have the modern family."

The mating structure of humans is strikingly different than that of sexually promiscuous chimps, in which a few alpha males dominate other males in the group and, by dint of their superior fighting prowess, freely mate with the females. Lower-status males are largely shut out from mating opportunities.

In addition, male chimps don't contribute to rearing their young — that is left to the female.

Some scientists believe that ancestors of humans had chimp-like patterns of mating and child-rearing. The transition to pair-bonding was a key step for our big-brained species, because our children take years and much energy to raise to independence. It's hard for a mother to go it alone.

How did the transition take place? It's not a simple question, Gavrilets said.

Dominant, promiscuous males have it good — they don't have to invest in their young because they'll have plenty of offspring regardless, Gavrilets said.

Males that help feed and protect a smaller number of offspring can also be very successful, reproductively speaking — but only if they can be sure who their children really are or if they provide for all the young in a group. Otherwise, the "providers" will be wasting their resources on offspring that are not their own, and there is ample opportunity for some males to cheat and not do their part.

Gavrilets wanted to see how we might have gotten from A to B. In his work published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, he used mathematical models to test factors that scientists believe may have driven the transition to pair-bonding. These include mate-guarding (males hang around the females they've mated with so others cannot mate with them too) and provisioning (males offer food or other resources to a female in return for sexual favors).

His number-crunching found that these factors alone were not enough to move a species away from promiscuity. The models did work, though, with a few adjustments.

First, he stopped assuming that all males would act the same. Instead, he tested what would happen if only the low-ranking males in the group offered food to females in return for mating opportunities. These weaker males had less to lose by switching strategies because they wouldn't get very far through fighting anyway.

The other key change was realizing that these low-ranking males would select faithful females.

"When I factored those things in, then things start to happen with the formation of pair bonds," Gavrilets said. Pair-bonding ultimately swept through almost the entire group.

For all the talk of the free-love 1960s, he added, "people don't realize that the most important sexual revolution for our species happened much, much earlier — probably several million years earlier."

Owen Lovejoy, a biological anthropologist at Kent State University in Ohio, said the paper fits with his own thoughts on the evolution of monogamy.

Lovejoy, who edited Gavrilets' paper, said he had theorized for decades that monogamy could be traced to males providing food to females. In a 2009 research paper, he proposed that monogamy was already in place in a 4.4-million-year-old member of the human family, Ardipithecus ramidus, based on such features as a lack of large, slicing canine teeth that would signify a lot of male competition as well as an upright skeleton that would leave arms free to carry food.

But David Buss, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin and author of "The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating," said that although the paper offered a "plausible" explanation for what may have jump-started monogamy, it hugely simplified human sexual behavior.

Human mating behaviors, for men and women, are quite varied, he said — including not just committed, long-term pairing but a smorgasbord of other strategies such as casual sex, serial monogamy, having a long-term mate with sexual partners on the side, and combinations thereof.

The study also fails to address the possibility that males didn't move straight from promiscuity to monogamy but instead to an intermediate pattern of polygyny — guarding a number of females on a long-term basis, said primatologist Bernard Chapais of the University of Montreal.

Once polygyny was in place, it would have been much easier to move to monogamy without Gavrilets' assumptions about providing food and care, Chapais said.

rosie.mestel@latimes.com

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 30, 2012, 03:17:22 PM

To the best of my knowledge, gorillas are a good example of polygyny.

Title: WSJ: First circuit strikes down DOMA
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 31, 2012, 09:53:34 AM

Marriage Law Struck Down by Appeals Court.
By JESS BRAVIN

A federal appeals court in Boston ruled the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional Thursday, finding that the 1996 law denying benefits to same-sex spouses improperly targeted a minority group and infringed on states' prerogatives over family law.

The decision is the second federal appeals ruling this year to side with gay-marriage proponents, after a court in San Francisco struck down a California voter initiative that rescinded a state constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Neither Thursday's decision, from the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, nor the February ruling by the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, recognized a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Both opinions cited narrower grounds to invalidate measures. The courts found that neither the federal Defense of Marriage Act nor California's Proposition 8 could be justified in light of the penalties they imposed on same-sex couples.

Both cases raise issues all sides expect to be resolved ultimately by the Supreme Court.

In Thursday's ruling in Boston, a three-judge panel, including two appointees of Republican presidents, unanimously found the 1996 federal law, passed by bipartisan congressional majorities and signed by President Bill Clinton, couldn't stand under Supreme Court precedents.

Read the Appeals Court Opinion
View Document
.
.Writing for the court, Judge Michael Boudin, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, observed that Supreme Court precedents limit government's power to take action against "historically disadvantaged or unpopular" groups, including gays and lesbians. The 1996 law imposes "serious adverse consequences" on them, he wrote, and the apparent justifications of the law—"defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage" and "traditional notions of morality," among others—were insufficient, Judge Boudin said.

Legal Patchwork
See where each state stands on the same-sex marriage issue.

View Interactive
. More photos and interactive graphics
.In recent years, Democrats have largely embraced same-sex marriage, and earlier this month President Barack Obama said he favored allowing it. Earlier, the Justice Department had dropped its defense of the 1996 law, saying it failed constitutional scrutiny. The GOP-controlled House picked up the mantle, hiring a former solicitor general, Paul Clement, to defend the law.

Under the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government may only recognize heterosexual marriages, thereby denying Social Security survivors benefits, burial privileges in veterans cemeteries and other entitlements to same-sex spouses. Massachusetts is one of a half-dozen states that authorize same-sex marriage. Both that state and several couples and surviving spouses challenged the federal law for violating constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, as well as the state's own authority over family law.

Title: The Single Mom Catastrophe
Post by: JDN on June 02, 2012, 12:21:12 PM

The single-mom catastrophe

The demise of two-parent families in the U.S. has been an economic catastrophe for society.

By Kay S. Hymowitz

June 3, 2012

The single-mother revolution shouldn't need much introduction. It started in the 1960s when the nation began to sever the historical connection between marriage and childbearing and to turn single motherhood and the fatherless family into a viable, even welcome, arrangement for children and for society. The reasons for the shift were many, including the sexual revolution, a powerful strain of anti-marriage feminism and a "super bug" of American individualism that hit the country in the 1960s and '70s.

In its broad outlines, the story is familiar by now. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to women with marriage licenses. Over the next few decades, the percentage of babies with no father around rose steadily. As of 1970, 11% of births were to unmarried mothers; by 1990, that number had risen to 28%. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women. And for mothers under 30, the rate is 53%.

Though other Western countries also concluded that it was OK for the unmarried to have kids, what they had in mind as the substitute for marriage was something similar to it: a stable arrangement in which two partners, cohabiting over the long term, would raise their children together. The embrace of "lone motherhood" — women bringing up kids with no dad around — has been an American specialty.

"By age 30, one-third of American women had spent time as lone mothers," observed family scholar Andrew Cherlin in his 2009 book, "The Marriage-Go-Round." "In European countries such as France, Sweden and the western part of Germany, the comparable percentages were half as large or even less."

The single-mother revolution has been an economic catastrophe for women. Poverty remains relatively rare among married couples with children; the U.S. census puts only 8.8% of them in that category, up from 6.7% since the start of the Great Recession. But more than 40% of single-mother families are poor, up from 37% before the downturn. In the bottom quintile of earnings, most households are single people, many of them elderly. But of the two-fifths of bottom-quintile households that are families, 83% are headed by single mothers. The Brookings Institution's Isabel Sawhill calculates that virtually all the increase in child poverty in the United States since the 1970s would vanish if parents still married at 1970 rates.

Well, comes the response, maybe single mothers are hard up not because they lack husbands but because unskilled, low-earning women are likelier to become single mothers in the first place. The Urban Institute's Robert Lerman tried to address that objection by studying low-income women who had entered "shotgun" unions — that is, getting married after getting pregnant — on the theory that they represented a population roughly similar to those who got pregnant but didn't marry. The married women, he found, had a significantly higher standard of living than the unmarried ones. "Even among the mothers with the least qualifications and highest risks of poverty," Lerman concluded, "marriage effects are consistently large and statistically significant."

Women and their children weren't the only ones to suffer the economic consequences of the single-mother revolution; low-earning men have lost ground too. Knowing that women are now expected to be able to raise children on their own, unskilled men lose much of the incentive to work, especially at the sometimes disagreeable jobs that tend to be the ones they can get. Scholars consistently find that unmarried men work fewer hours, make less money and get fewer promotions than do married men.

Experts have come to believe that these are not just selection effects — that is, they don't just reflect the fact that productive men are likelier to marry. Marriage itself, it seems, encourages male productivity. One study by Donna Ginther and Madeline Zavodny examined men who'd had shotgun marriages and thus probably hadn't been planning to tie the knot. The shotgun husbands nevertheless earned more than their single peers did.

It's true that some opportunities — particularly well-paying manufacturing jobs — have declined for men. But a father's contribution to the family income, even if it's just $15,000, can dramatically improve the mother's lot, not to mention that of her — or rather, their — children. And it's still possible for families to move up to the middle class, despite the factory closings of the last few decades. Ron Haskins of the Pew Center on the States' Economic Mobility Project puts it this way: "If young people do three things — graduate from high school, get a job and get married and wait until they're 21 before having a baby — they have an almost 75% chance of making it into the middle class." Those are pretty impressive odds.

On the other hand, those who opt for single motherhood are hurting not just themselves but their offspring. The children of single mothers are twice as likely as children growing up with both parents to drop out of high school. Those who do graduate are less likely to go to college, even if you control for household income and the mother's education. Decades of research show that kids growing up with single mothers (again, even after you allow for the obvious variables) have lower scholastic achievement from kindergarten through high school, as well as higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, depression, behavior problems and teen pregnancy. All these factors are likely to reduce their eventual incomes at a time when what children need is more education, more training and more planning. The rise in single motherhood was ill-adapted for the economic shifts of the late 20th century.

Kay S. Hymowitz, the author of "Marriage and Caste in America," is a contributing editor at City Journal and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute. This piece is adapted from the spring issue of City Journal.

Los Angeles Times

Title: Re: Marriage and Family - The single-mom catastrophe
Post by: DougMacG on June 02, 2012, 01:54:55 PM

"The single-mom catastrophe
The demise of two-parent families in the U.S. has been an economic catastrophe for society."

Thanks JDN for a great post.  As a single parent with custody since almost birth I can tell you that while you play the hand that life deals you, you don't in fairness to the kid choose or plan a home environment that does not include a mom and a dad, married, in love, all under one roof.

Not only welfare programs, but also so-called feminism and liberalism in movies, television, schools etc that act to break down our society from its foundation.  Too bad. 

Title: The kids are all right?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 15, 2012, 11:20:56 AM

http://www.mercatornet.com/Newsletterv0810/view_txt/the_kids_are_all_right_think_again

The kids are all right”? Think again
Michael Cook | 15 June 2012




Kids thrive in families with same-sex parents. This is beyond serious debate. The science says so. Get over it.

Denying this self-evident truth has become tantamount to homophobia. In 2010 a Florida court, the Third District Court of Appeal, was certain enough to state complacently that: “based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise”.

The Big Bertha of the artillery defending gay parenting is the 2005 official brief on same-sex parenting by the American Psychological Association (APA). It declares that “there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation”. This is a bold claim. There is no more question about gay parenting, the APA implies, than there is about the earth revolving around the sun. Without a quaver of uncertainty it summarises its findings with pontifical aplomb:

“Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.”

In fact, a rigorous analysis of the evidence to date suggests nothing of the kind. The APA views on the beneficent effects of same-sex parenting are poorly researched, according to a blistering report released this week. Loren Marks, of Louisiana State University, finds that much of the science that forms the basis for the highly regarded report does not stand up to scrutiny.

"The jury is still out on whether being raised by same-sex parents disadvantages children," explains Marks. "However, the available data on which the APA draws its conclusions, derived primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalized claim either way."

In his study, published in a leading peer-reviewed journal, Social Science Research, he found numerous shortcoming in the 59 studies which the APA brief used as  the basis for its assertions.

What were these shortcomings? Marks writes in the detached, sober voice of an academic, but his analysis of a study which has been one of the main props of the “the kids are all right” argument is devastating.

Most of the studies looked at short-term outcomes. There have been numerous in-depth studies about cohabiting, divorced, step, and single-parent families. Researchers have looked at adult outcomes of childhood experiences in tens of thousands of families. They assessed these different family structures with respect to health, mortality, and suicide risks, drug and alcohol abuse, criminality and incarceration, intergenerational poverty, education and/or labor force contribution, early sexual activity and early childbearing, and divorce rates as adults.
Research on gay parenting is in a completely different class. None of the 59 studies in the APA report examined these outcomes – even though these are desperately important as background knowledge in a national policy debate.  Instead they looked at “gender-related outcomes” like sexual preference and gender identity.

Social science research into other kinds of family structures shows that the differences in outcomes for children increase with age. A major study published in 2001, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, by Judith Wallerstein, found that the impact upon children really kicked in when they became adults and tried to form their own families. But none of the 59 studies in the APA Brief tracked “societally significant long-term outcomes into adulthood”.

Most of the studies involved fewer than 100 participants and were biased toward well-educated white lesbians with high incomes. This is a problem that researchers have known for years. But, incredibly, the APA report insisted that its conclusions were “extraordinarily clear” despite the lack of diversity.

Furthermore, the 59 studies failed to examine parenting by male homosexuals. Of the 59, only 8 focused on male couples. Of these 8, only 4 had a heterosexual comparison group. Of these 4, only 1 (one) focused on outcomes for children. This is an example, says Marks, of “a recurring tendency in the same-sex parenting literature to focus on the parent rather than the child”.

Many of the studies compared homosexual couples with single mothers, not intact families. Instead of comparing gay and lesbian parents to marriage-based, intact families as heterosexual representatives, many of the researchers studied single mothers. This is called stacking the deck. Social science research shows that “children in single-parent families are more likely to have problems than are children who live in intact families headed by two biological parents”. It's entirely possible that two well-organised, well-heeled women in a leafy inner-city suburb will do a better job than a single mother in a housing commission flat. But that's not the question.

Of the 59 studies, only 33 involved comparisons with heterosexuals. Of these 33, 13 explicitly involved single mothers. Of the remaining 20, it was impossible to determine whether the “heterosexual parents” were single mothers, cohabiting mothers and couples, remarried mothers, or continuously married mothers and couples.

In the light of this, the APA’s pompous claim that “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents” takes on a whole new meaning. What it really means is that “Not a single study has compared children of lesbian or gay parents to children of heterosexual parents”.

Not a single study? Not even one? There was one study -- and the APA trashed it. In 1996 an Australian researcher, Sotirios Sarantakos, did a comparative study of 58 children of heterosexual married parents, 58 children of heterosexual cohabiting couples, and 58 children living with homosexual couples. The combined sample size of 174, says Marks, made Sarantakos’s study the largest one to examine children’s developmental outcomes rather than adults’ feelings. In fact, it was probably the strongest of all the studies mentioned in the APA report. However, its finding undermined the tidy consensus. Sarantakos found that “children of married couples are more likely to do well at school in academic and social terms, than children of cohabiting and homosexual couples”.

So what did the APA do with this report? Nothing. In the annotated bibliography, its entry says “No abstract available”.

This single dissenting voice was relegated to the ignominy of a footnote: “Children Australia, the journal where the article was published, cannot be considered a source upon which one should rely for understanding the state of scientific knowledge in this field, particularly when the results contradict those that have been repeatedly replicated in studies published in better known scientific journals.” In other words, “your results undermine our consensus, you live in a grass hut, and none of Us thinks you fit in. Thanks for coming and next time use some deodorant”.

A consensus based upon poorly-designed studies which have been “repeatedly replicated” is probably not reliable. Replication is a pillar of scientific method. If a scientist’s findings cannot be replicated by colleagues, they are deemed suspect. But if a number of researchers use the same small sample sizes drawn from the same biased population samples, the same results are likely to emerge. This does “not seem to constitute valid scientific replication”, Marks observes drily.

Furthermore, most of the studies cited in the APA’s brief were very small, which, in combination with other statistical shortcomings, weakens their conclusions. As a kind of benchmark, Marks lists 15 large studies which contrast children’s outcomes in various kinds of heterosexual family formations. The average sample size in these studies is 9,911, while all 59 same-sex parenting studies combined only reached 7,800.

Asserting the emergence of a new kind of family which is every bit as good as the traditional one is a big claim. Proving it requires big data. But not one of the 59 studies referenced in the APA brief is based on a large survey.

From a social science point of view, Marks concludes, the jury is still out on gay parenting. There are simply no solid studies which prove or disprove whether gays and lesbians make good parents. Fans of the traditional family can rest easy: a stable family with a married mother and father is still the best place to raise kids.

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.

Title: Does it really make no difference if your parents are straight or gay?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 15, 2012, 11:24:30 AM

second post

http://www.mercatornet.com/Newsletterv0810/view_txt/does_it_really_make_no_difference_if_your_parents_are_straight_or_gay

Does it really make no difference if your parents are straight or gay?
Walter Schumm | 15 June 2012




The claim that children raised by lesbian and gay parents thrive, on average, just as well as those raised by heterosexual parents has become a commonplace of opinion journalism, especially since the American Psychological Association reported that conclusion in 2005. However, two studies published online this week in the July issue of the peer-reviewed journal, Social Science Research, puts a large question mark over that view of the subject.

In one article Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of Sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, reveals the results of large-scale, robust study showing poorer adult outcomes for children whose parents had same-sex relationships, compared with those raised by their own married mother and father.* The other article, by Loren Marks, an associate professor of Family, Child, and Consumer Sciences at Louisiana State University, reports on a review study that finds no firm basis for the APA’s view that gay parenting is equivalent to heterosexual parenting.

“How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships?” asks the title of Dr Regnerus’ article. His answer -- decidedly different -- is based on a “first cut” at data from the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), a new data collection project funded at this point by two conservative organizations, the Bradley Foundation and the Witherspoon Institute. 

The study screened over 15,000 current or former members associated with Knowledge Networks, a research firm that obtains samples representative of the US population. Adults between 18 and 39 years of age were asked if their parents had ever had a same-sex romantic relationship, which yielded 163 mothers and 73 fathers in addition to 2,752 parents with other family structures. Regnerus reported results for 40 different outcomes, among them whether the subject ever had suicidal thoughts, identifies entirely as heterosexual, ever had an STI, their closeness to parents, attachment, condition of current relationship, frequency of use of various drugs, and numbers of various sexual partners.

Household instability

The answers revealed a number of significant differences, even with statistical controls for respondent’s age, gender, race/ethnicity, level of mother’s education, perceived household income while growing up, experience of bullying as a youth, and state legislative gay-friendliness. Comparisons of the children of intact heterosexual couples to other family forms were generally favorable to those of the former group of parents.

As Regnerus himself writes in Slate, children of women who had had same-sex relationships “were more apt to report being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed, more likely to have cheated on a spouse or partner, smoke more pot, had trouble with the law, report more male and female sex partners, more sexual victimization, and were more likely to reflect negatively on their childhood family life, among other things.” Household instability was a major theme among the adult children of same-sex parents, the children of women in lesbian relationships reporting a much higher incidence of time spent in foster care, grandparent care and living on their own before age 18 than those in the rest of the sample.

Strengths and weaknesses

Box Turtle Bulletin and other internet sites have been ablaze this week with arguments about the strengths and weaknesses of the NFSS, not to mention numerous ad hominem attacks against Regnerus based on the assumption that his work is part of a campaign against gays. In fact, its purpose was to gather objective data that no previous study on this subject had tried or managed to get -- from large samples of gay or lesbian parents from truly random samples of the general population. Previous research, as noted by Dr Marks in his article, has too often relied upon convenience (non-random) samples to study the children of gay or lesbian parents.

Another strength of his study is that Regnerus attempted to look at possible long-term outcomes of different family structures, by surveying adult children. The downside of this important concept is that it forces the reported parenting process back into the 1990s when society was probably less accepting of non-traditional family structures. However, it also might remind us that when we debate controversial topics such as gay marriage, we may not know for decades what the consequences will be of policy changes. For example, no fault divorce was intended to help highly conflicted couples avoid contentious divorce proceedings, but it may have also helped increase the overall heterosexual divorce rate and rates of poverty for women and children -- clearly unintended, often adverse social consequences.

The NFSS study also featured more statistical controls than many previous studies and included a large number of multiple-item scales (many sociological studies rely upon single item measures). One important omission from the tables in the article was the standard deviations, without which effect sizes cannot be calculated. However, Dr. Regnerus indicates that the full data set will be available for re-analysis by other scholars, regardless of their political interests.

Importance of random sampling

Whatever the limitations of Regnerus’s research, it appears that most of those reviewing his study commend him for the random sample aspect of the study. More controversy emerges with respect to the nature of the lesbian or gay families aggregated into his same-sex parenting group(s). It appears that very few of the same-sex parental relationships identified by the young adults were stable relationships. For example, only five lesbian couple parents, among the 173 families where a mother had been involved in a same-sex relationship at some point, had been together for 13 or more years of the first 18 years of the participant’s life. Given the random nature of the sample, that paucity of long-term lesbian parental relationships suggests that such relationships are relatively rare, at least in terms of percentages. However, it is possible that many such relationships involve higher-income families who may be able to insulate themselves from “opportunities” to participate in such survey research. It also remains possible that some other flaw in the family selection process inadvertently overlooked a disproportionate number of such families.

Several critics have argued that he was actually comparing stable heterosexual parents to MOMs – mixed orientation marriages or to other structures, such as a heterosexual couple in which one partner had a same-sex affair. Because he asked each participant detailed questions about household composition, year by year, from age 1 to age 18, he has a goldmine of data, with a lot of room to deal with the concerns of his critics, if he or others wish. For example, I think his dataset could be used to look into differences among parents who had a same-sex relationship in the past but are now married straight; same-sex parents who raised a child from birth; or parents who came out later in life and now are in a same-sex household.

The significance of family structure

Furthermore, even if one accepts the MOMs thesis, it is still of interest that many different family structures did appear to predict a variety of outcomes. As noted, the effect sizes of those outcomes were not elucidated in the article but sociology professor Paul Amato, in a comment on the NFSS in the same issue of Social Science Research, suggested they were small to moderate in nature, depending on the group comparisons involved. Sociologists tend to study structures while psychologists tend to study processes. Thus, these two groups of scholars tend to debate the relative importance of structure vs. process. Dr. Regnerus’ model academically looks, roughly, like this: structure predicts process, process predicts (in this case, child) outcomes. Probably few would dispute the importance of process (e.g., parents having a loving relationship with each other and their children). Scientifically, the challenge comes when you try to determine which factors mediate the structure-to-process relationship.

Regnerus wasn’t trying to do that in this initial report, but I think his data have the potential to permit far more detailed analyses that would help scholars get at some of those issues – that is, far more complex models of how family structure impacts process. The NFSS contains a number of measures that might be useful mediating variables between family structures, family processes, and child outcomes.

One thing is certain: this study represents a serious attempt to obtain objective information that has seldom been available before, and it should not be dismissed simply because of its uncomfortable suggestion that a variety of nontraditional parental structural characteristics may not bode well, on average, for long-term child outcomes.

Dr. Walter Schumm served as a consultant (3 days) on the early development of measures to possibly be included in the NFSS, including a method for tracking family structural changes over the life cycle.

* Mark Regnerus, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research, Volume 41 (July 2012), pages 752-770.

Title: Talented WI working mothers
Post by: JDN on July 18, 2012, 07:25:40 AM

Mayer hails from a small town in Wisconsin where she showed an early aptitude for science and math.

A top debater, she was on a high school team that won the Wisconsin state championship while her pompom squad was a state runner-up.

She pulled all-nighters studying artificial intelligence at Stanford and was leaning toward a consulting job at McKinsey advising Silicon Valley tech companies after graduation when, at the age of 24, she decided to take a gamble on a little-known Internet company called Google.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-yahoo-marissa-mayer-20120718,0,5425804.story

Title: Mercatornet: Marriage, religious liberty, and the "grand bargain"
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 28, 2012, 08:24:58 AM

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/marriage_religious_liberty_and_the_grand_bargain

Marriage, religious liberty, and the “grand bargain”
In the name of “marriage equality” and “non-discrimination” liberty and genuine equality are undermined.
 
In the name of “marriage equality” and “non-discrimination,” liberty—especially religious liberty and the liberty of conscience—and genuine equality are undermined.

It was only yesterday, was it not, that we were being assured that the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex partnerships would have no impact on persons and institutions that hold to the traditional view of marriage as a conjugal union? Such persons and institutions would simply be untouched by the change. It won’t affect your marriage or your life, we were told, if the law recognizes Henry and Herman or Sally and Sheila as “married.”

Those offering these assurances were also claiming that the redefinition of marriage would have no impact on the public understanding of marriage as a monogamous and sexually exclusive partnership. No one, they insisted, wanted to alter those traditional marital norms. On the contrary, the redefinition of marriage would promote and spread those norms more broadly.

When some of us warned that all of this was nonsense, and pointed out the myriad ways that Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and others would be affected, and their opportunities and liberties restricted, the proponents of marriage redefinition accused us of “fearmongering.” When we observed that reducing marriage to a merely emotional union (which is what happens when sexual reproductive complementarity is banished from the definition) removes all principled grounds for understanding marriage as a sexually exclusive and faithful union of two persons, and not an “open” partnership or a relationship of three or more persons in a polyamorous sexual ensemble, we were charged with invalid slippery-slope reasoning. Remember?

No one, they assured us, would require Catholic or other foster care and adoption services to place children in same-sex headed households. No one, they said, would require religiously affiliated schools and social-service agencies to treat same-sex partners as spouses, or impose penalties or disabilities on those that dissent. No one would be fired from his or her job (or suffer employment discrimination) for voicing support for conjugal marriage or criticizing same-sex sexual conduct and relationships. And no one was proposing to recognize polyamorous relationships or normalize “open marriages,” nor would redefinition undermine the norms of sexual exclusivity and monogamy in theory or practice.

That was then; this is now.

I must say, though, that I still can’t fathom why anybody believed any of it—even then. The whole argument was and is that the idea of marriage as the union of husband and wife lacks a rational basis and amounts to nothing more than “bigotry.” Therefore, no reasonable person of goodwill can dissent from the liberal position on sex and marriage, any more than a reasonable person of goodwill could support racial segregation and subordination. And this, because marriage, according to the redefiners, consists principally of the emotional union of people committed to mutual affection and care. Any distinctions beyond this one they condemn as baseless.

Since most liberals and even some conservatives, it seems, apparently have no understanding at all of the conjugal conception of marriage as a one-flesh union—not even enough of a grasp to consciously consider and reject it—they uncritically conceive marriage as sexual-romantic domestic partnership, as if it just couldn’t possibly be anything else. This is despite the fact that the conjugal conception has historically been embodied in our marriage laws, and explains their content (not just the requirement of spousal sexual complementarity, but also rules concerning consummation and annulability, norms of monogamy and sexual exclusivity, and the pledge of permanence of commitment) in ways that the sexual-romantic domestic partnership conception simply cannot. Still, having adopted the sexual-romantic domestic partnership idea, and seeing no alternative possible conception of marriage, they assume—and it is just that, an assumption, and a gratuitous one—that no actual reason exists for regarding sexual reproductive complementarity as integral to marriage. After all, two men or two women can have a romantic interest in each other, live together in a sexual partnership, care for each other, and so forth. So why can’t they be married? Those who think otherwise, having no rational basis, discriminate invidiously. By the same token, if two men or two women can be married, why can’t three or more people, irrespective of sex, in polyamorous “triads,” “quadrads,” etc.? Since no reason supports the idea of marriage as a male-female union or a partnership of two persons and not more, the motive of those insisting on these other “traditional” norms must also be a dark and irrational one.

Thus, advocates of redefinition are increasingly open in saying that they do not see these disputes about sex and marriage as honest disagreements among reasonable people of goodwill. They are, rather, battles between the forces of reason, enlightenment, and equality—those who would “expand the circle of inclusion”—on one side, and those of ignorance, bigotry, and discrimination—those who would exclude people out of “animus”—on the other. The “excluders” are to be treated just as racists are treated—since they are the equivalent of racists. Of course, we (in the United States, at least) don’t put racists in jail for expressing their opinions—we respect the First Amendment; but we don’t hesitate to stigmatize them and impose various forms of social and even civil disability upon them and their institutions. In the name of “marriage equality” and “non-discrimination,” liberty—especially religious liberty and the liberty of conscience—and genuine equality are undermined.

The fundamental error made by some supporters of conjugal marriage was and is, I believe, to imagine that a grand bargain could be struck with their opponents: “We will accept the legal redefinition of marriage; you will respect our right to act on our consciences without penalty, discrimination, or civil disabilities of any type. Same-sex partners will get marriage licenses, but no one will be forced for any reason to recognize those marriages or suffer discrimination or disabilities for declining to recognize them.” There was never any hope of such a bargain being accepted. Perhaps parts of such a bargain would be accepted by liberal forces temporarily for strategic or tactical reasons, as part of the political project of getting marriage redefined; but guarantees of religious liberty and non-discrimination for people who cannot in conscience accept same-sex marriage could then be eroded and eventually removed. After all, “full equality” requires that no quarter be given to the “bigots” who want to engage in “discrimination” (people with a “separate but equal” mindset) in the name of their retrograde religious beliefs. “Dignitarian” harm must be opposed as resolutely as more palpable forms of harm.

As legal scholar Robert Vischer has observed, “The tension between religious liberty and gay rights is a thorny problem that will continue to crop up in our policy debates for the foreseeable future. Dismissing religious liberty concerns as the progeny of a ‘separate but equal’ mindset does not bode well for the future course of those debates.” But there is, in my opinion, no chance—no chance—of persuading champions of sexual liberation (and it should be clear by now that this is the cause they serve), that they should respect, or permit the law to respect, the conscience rights of those with whom they disagree. Look at it from their point of view: Why should we permit “full equality” to be trumped by bigotry? Why should we respect religions and religious institutions that are “incubators of homophobia”? Bigotry, religiously based or not, must be smashed and eradicated. The law should certainly not give it recognition or lend it any standing or dignity.

The lesson, it seems to me, for those of us who believe that the conjugal conception of marriage is true and good, and who wish to protect the rights of our faithful and of our institutions to honor that belief in carrying out their vocations and missions, is that there is no alternative to winning the battle in the public square over the legal definition of marriage. The “grand bargain” is an illusion we should dismiss from our minds.

Of course, with sexual liberalism now so powerfully entrenched in the established institutions of the elite sector of our culture (and, let us not kid ourselves, fully embraced by the President of the United States and the leadership of the Democratic Party), some view the defense of marriage as a lost cause. I think that is another mistake—one that sexual liberals have every reason to encourage their opponents to make, and ample resources to promote. We’ve all heard the argument (or taunt): “The acceptance of same-sex marriage on a national scale is inevitable. It’s a done deal. You had better get on the right side of history, lest you be remembered in the company of Orval Faubus.”

Of course, this is what we were told about a “woman’s right” to abortion in the mid-’70s. But it didn’t turn out that way. A greater percentage of Americans are pro-life today than in the 1970s, and young people are more pro-life than people of their parents’ generation. The idea promoted by the abortion lobby when their cause seemed to be a juggernaut—that “the American people will inevitably accept abortion as a matter of women’s rights and social hygiene”—proved spectacularly false.

Or, speaking of “social hygiene,” think back to the 1920s and ’30s when eugenics was embraced by the elite institutions of American society—from the wealthy philanthropic foundations, to the mainline Protestant denominations, to the Supreme Court of the United States. Affluent, sophisticated, “right-minded” people were all on board with the eugenics program. It, too, seemed like a juggernaut. Only those retrograde Catholics, joined by some other backward religious folk, resisted; and the thought was that the back of their resistance would soon be broken by the sheer rationality of the eugenics idea. The eugenicists were certain that their adversaries were on “the wrong side of history.” The full acceptance of eugenics was “inevitable.” But, of course, things didn’t quite turn out that way.

Note that my point here is not to say or imply that redefining marriage is morally equivalent to abortion or eugenics. There are obvious and important differences. My point is about the claim by progressives and some others in each case that the triumph of the cause was “inevitable,” and that those who declined to go along were “against progress” and had placed themselves on the “wrong side of history.”

Does that mean that the reverse is true, that the conjugal conception of marriage will inevitably prevail in law and culture? No. There is nothing inevitable in this domain. As the left-wing—but anti-Hegelian—Brazilian legal theorist Roberto Unger used to preach to us in courses at Harvard Law School, the future will be the fruit of human deliberation, judgment, and choice; it is not subject to fixed laws of history and forces of social determinism. As the Marxists learned the hard way, the reality of human freedom is the permanent foiler of “inevitability” theses. Same-sex marriage and the assaults on liberty and equality that follow in its wake are “inevitable” only if defenders of marriage make their adversaries’ prophecies self-fulfilling ones, by buying into them.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. An earlier version of this essay appeared on Mirror of Justice. Republished on Mercatornet with permission. Read on Public Discourse.

Title: POTH: Two mommies not working out so well
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 29, 2012, 07:56:52 AM

MANAGUA, Nicaragua — Lisa A. Miller and her daughter, Isabella, started their fugitive lives here in the fall of 2009, disguised in the white scarves and long blue dresses of the Mennonites who spirited them out of the United States and adopting the aliases Sarah and Lydia.

Journey to Managua

Now 10, Isabella Miller-Jenkins has spent her last three birthdays on the run, “bouncing around the barrios of Nicaragua,” as one federal agent put it, a lively blond girl and her mother trying to blend in and elude the United States marshals who have traveled to the country in pursuit.

She can now chatter in Spanish, but her time in Nicaragua has often been lonely, those who have met her say, long on prayer but isolated. She has been told that she could be wrenched from her mother if they are caught. She has also been told that the other woman she once called “Mama,” Ms. Miller’s former partner from a civil union in Vermont that she has since renounced, cannot go to heaven because she lives in sin with women.

Isabella’s tumultuous life has embodied some of America’s bitterest culture wars — a choice, as Ms. Miller said in a courtroom plea, shortly before their desperate flight, “between two diametrically opposed worldviews on parentage and family.”
Isabella was 7 when she and Ms. Miller jumped into a car in Virginia, leaving behind their belongings and a family of pet hamsters to die without food or water. Supporters drove them to Buffalo, where they took a taxi to Canada and boarded a flight to Mexico and then Central America.

Ms. Miller, 44, is wanted by the F.B.I. and Interpol for international parental kidnapping. In their underground existence in this impoverished tropical country, she and Isabella have been helped by evangelical groups who endorse her decision to flee rather than to expose Isabella to the “homosexual lifestyle” of her other legal mother, Janet Jenkins.

In a tale filled with improbables, an Amish Mennonite sect known for simple living and avoiding politics has been drawn into the high-stakes criminal case: one of its pastors is facing trial in Vermont on Aug. 7 on charges of abetting the kidnapping.
The decade-long drama touches on some of the country’s most contentious social and legal questions, including the extension of civil union and marital rights to same-sex couples and what happens, in the courts and to children, when such unions dissolve.

In this case, the passions of any divorce were multiplied by Ms. Miller’s born-again conversion to conservative Christianity and her denouncing of lesbianism as an addiction. Ms. Miller repeatedly prevented Isabella’s court-ordered visits with Ms. Jenkins until an exasperated Vermont judge said he would transfer custody.

And then Ms. Miller fled.

Her supporters say she has been persecuted because of her religion. They made “Protect Isabella” a rallying cry at a time when more gay couples are raising children, whether through adoption or, in Lisa Miller’s case, in vitro fertilization.
“I only want to see my daughter,” Ms. Jenkins said in an interview this spring in the four-bedroom house in Vermont that she and Ms. Miller bought when they dreamed of having five children. Ms. Jenkins, 47, has since married another woman and runs a day care business.

Even as Ms. Miller disappeared with Isabella, the Vermont judge granted Ms. Jenkins formal custody of the girl, as of Jan. 1, 2010. Ms. Jenkins keeps a bedroom piled with toys that Isabella is surely outgrowing.

“What’s hard for me as a parent is not knowing what she’s going through,” Ms. Jenkins said.

At the center of the story is a girl, tall for her age, whose cheerful face appears on a poster from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Based on the first extended interviews with the missionaries who harbored the pair, visits to places where Isabella and Ms. Miller stayed in Nicaragua and court documents, The New York Times has assembled the most complete picture yet of their getaway and subsequent life.

A Romance Turns Bitter
Page 2 of 4)

Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins met at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in Falls Church, Va., in 1997. In later interviews, with supporters and her lawyers, Ms. Miller described growing up with a mentally unstable mother and dealing with her own problems of pill addictions, food disorders and self-mutilation. After a failed marriage and a suicide attempt, she said, she began seeing women.

Ms. Jenkins, when they met, had recently ended a long-term relationship with a woman.

“It was a normal courtship, and we fell in love,” Ms. Jenkins recalled. “We wanted to have a family and spend the rest of our lives together.”

They became pioneers of sorts: in 2000, soon after Vermont became the first state to offer civil unions, they traveled there to seal the relationship, adopting the joint surname Miller-Jenkins.

When Ms. Miller decided to get pregnant through in vitro fertilization, they picked a donor with Ms. Jenkins’s green eyes. Isabella Ruth Miller-Jenkins was born in Virginia on April 16, 2002. Ms. Jenkins cut the umbilical cord as her own mother, Ruth, stood in the room.

Preferring to raise a family in a state that endorsed same-sex relationships, the couple moved to southern Vermont. They bought a two-story house within walking distance of a grade school in Fair Haven, a small town known for Victorian houses and summer music on the village green.

Isabella learned to call Ms. Jenkins “Mama” and Ms. Miller “Mommy.” In these apparently happier days, Ms. Miller made an Easter card for Ms. Jenkins with Isabella’s handprints and the words, “Mamma I love you.”

Ms. Miller later said in interviews that even before the move, she was rediscovering Christianity and questioning her lesbianism. During her difficult pregnancy with Isabella, “I promised God that if he would save my baby, I would leave the homosexual lifestyle,” she said in notes she left for one of her lawyers, Rena M. Lindevaldsen, associate dean of the Liberty University Law School. Ms. Lindevaldsen describes the notes in “Only One Mommy,” New Revolution Publishers, her 2011 book on Ms. Miller and what she calls the threat of “the homosexual lifestyle.”

But such doubts were not apparent to Ms. Jenkins, who said they lived as Unitarians at the time, nor to Ms. Jenkins’s parents in Virginia, Roman Catholics who said they had warm relations with Ms. Miller and doted over their new grandchild.
Ms. Miller became pregnant again but had a miscarriage. She fell into depression, according to Ms. Jenkins; Ms. Miller later said that she was tortured by guilt. They separated in September 2003, when Isabella was 17 months old. Ms. Miller moved back to Virginia, a state that does not recognize same-sex unions or marriage.

Ms. Jenkins signed a promise to pay child support, and they agreed, she said, that she and her parents would remain in Isabella’s life.

“I wanted to preserve the close bond with Isabella,” Ms. Jenkins said, and she started visiting on weekends, making the 10-hour drive from Vermont. Their civil union was formally dissolved in 2004, and Family Court in Vermont granted custody to Ms. Miller with visiting rights for Ms. Jenkins.

But according to court records, Ms. Miller soon began to block visits, disappearing with Isabella before Ms. Jenkins arrived. As she became more vocal about her religious beliefs she moved to Lynchburg, Va., where she got a teaching job at Liberty Christian Academy, a Baptist school founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell with close ties to Liberty University, which he also founded.

Her legal case was taken up by Liberty Counsel, which is affiliated with the Liberty Law School. Her lawyers, led by the dean of the law school, Matthew D. Staver, and Ms. Lindevaldsen, invoked the federal Defense of Marriage Act to argue that Virginia’s laws had precedence and that Ms. Jenkins was not a parent.

Seeing the custody battle as an important test, national gay rights advocates including Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation have given legal aid to Ms. Jenkins.

Initially, a Virginia court sided with Ms. Miller, and for two years she did not allow Ms. Jenkins to see Isabella. She told Ms. Jenkins’s parents that they should not consider themselves Isabella’s grandparents and that the child could no longer call them “Mom-Mom” and “Pop-Pop.”

“I couldn’t believe that Lisa was saying this,” Ruth Jenkins said in an interview. “I was in shock.”

But eventually, setting what legal experts said was an important precedent, the Virginia Supreme Court determined that Vermont still had jurisdiction, regardless of Virginia’s stance on same-sex unions. The Vermont court laid out a new schedule of visits.

The Flight

In 2009, Ms. Miller’s options were shrinking.
Page 3 of 4)

That January, she again started blocking visits. She complained, in a court filing and to friends, that Ms. Jenkins had upset Isabella by taking a bath with the child and was undermining the girl’s conservative beliefs by reading her “Heather Has Two Mommies.” When Isabella returned from a rare visit to Vermont showing anxiety and wetting her bed, Ms. Miller blamed Ms. Jenkins.

The exasperated judge in Vermont held Ms. Miller in contempt once again but gave her another chance, specifying visits in Virginia and in Vermont. But none took place. In August, the judge warned that he would transfer custody and ordered a weekend visit for late September.

Ms. Miller’s written appeal to the judge that fall gives some idea of her thinking.

“What is at stake is the health and well-being of an intelligent, delightful, beautiful, 7-year-old Christian girl,” she wrote. Isabella “knows from her own reading of the Bible that marriage is between a man and a woman,” she wrote, “that she cannot have two mommies, that when I lived the homosexual lifestyle I sinned against God, and that unless Janet accepts Christ as her personal savior, she will not go to heaven.”

Ms. Miller was also under financial pressure because her teaching position had not been renewed.

She prayed long hours, hoping God would tell her what was best for her daughter, said Linda M. Wall, a conservative activist and self-described “ex-gay” who befriended her in Virginia.

“I told Lisa that she should have a Plan B,” Ms. Wall said, but Ms. Miller, she added, seemed to resist the idea.

In fact, Ms. Miller made a secret plan, the government alleges, based partly on recovered e-mails and phone records.
One person named in the court papers is Philip Zodhiates, the owner of a conservative Christian direct-mail-list service who lives in Waynesboro, Va., and owns a beach house in Nicaragua. The other is Kenneth L. Miller, a pastor of the Beachy Amish Mennonite sect in Stuart’s Draft, Va., and manager of a family garden business five minutes from Mr. Zodhiates’s home. (He is not related to Lisa Miller.)

Mr. Zodhiates has not been indicted, but Mr. Miller’s trial is set to begin on Aug. 7. Prosecutors, citing extensive e-mail correspondence, say that he helped make arrangements for the escape to Nicaragua. If convicted, he could be sentenced to three years in prison. E-mails in the court documents suggest that Mr. Zodhiates also helped with the flight and later sent “care packages” with items like peanut butter to Lisa and Isabella.

Mr. Miller and Mr. Zodhiates declined to comment for this article.

Just how Ms. Miller got in touch with Kenneth Miller remains a central legal question, said Sarah Star, Ms. Jenkins’s lawyer in Vermont.

One of Mr. Zodhiates’s daughters, Victoria Hyden, is an administrative assistant at the Liberty Law School. But Mr. Staver, the dean, said that while he had met Mr. Zodhiates a few times, neither he nor his colleagues had ever discussed the Miller case with him or Ms. Hyden, and that they, too, were surprised when Ms. Miller disappeared.

On Sept. 21, 2009, Ms. Miller and Isabella drove south to meet Kenneth Miller, who, according to court documents and missionaries in Nicaragua, gave them Mennonite dresses and scarves for their journey. That evening they were driven to Buffalo, a trip documented by the F.B.I. in a trail of calls from two cellphones registered to Mr. Zodhiates’s company, Response Unlimited.

Just after midnight, prosecutors allege, Ms. Miller and Isabella took a taxi over the Rainbow Bridge at Niagara Falls and were met by a Mennonite pastor who put them on a plane to Mexico City, where they continued on to El Salvador and Nicaragua.

The tickets had been bought at Kenneth Miller’s request, according to the indictment, with the purchase arranged by a fellow Mennonite pastor in Nicaragua who had his mother-in-law in the United States buy them. She was reimbursed with a money order from Virginia.

Ms. Wall said that after no one had heard from Ms. Miller for three weeks, she let herself into her house outside Lynchburg.
“Inside, it looked like she had just gone to the grocery store,” Ms. Wall recalled. The curling iron was sitting out and the closets were filled. When she discovered the dead hamster family, she said, she knew they were long gone.

“I thought, wow, congratulations Lisa Miller, you did it,” she recalled.

Embraced by Mennonites
Page 4 of 4)

Ms. Miller and Isabella were met at the Managua airport by Timothy D. Miller, 35, known as Timo, an ebullient pastor who was born to missionaries in Honduras and runs the Beachy Amish Mennonite outpost in a rough area of this capital city. He drove them straight to the interior town of Jinotega, in the coffee-growing hills of northern Nicaragua, he said in an interview, where they lived for two months on a farm. (Timo Miller is not related to either Kenneth or Lisa Miller.)
to Managua

Isabella enjoyed the animals, but it was a rainy, foggy time of year in Jinotega and Ms. Miller felt isolated, Timo Miller said. The pair moved to Managua, to a $150-a-month one-bedroom home near the Mennonite mission.

The mother and daughter came to visit nearly every day, as Lisa helped with home schooling. Some evenings, Isabella sat on the pastor’s lap as he read to her and his own four children the American Girl books, “Little House on the Prairie” and Bible stories. “We were like family,” he recalled.

One of his daughters, RuthAnna, 9, said she and the girl she knew as Lydia used to ride bicycles in their courtyard and enjoyed giggle-filled sleepovers at each other’s homes. “We were best friends,” she said.

Mr. Miller’s wife, Joanna, said that when they went shopping together, “people would gawk over Isabella and her blond hair.”

But “the isolation is driving her and little Lydia crazy,” Timo Miller wrote of Lisa and her daughter in an e-mail to friends.
He noted that the girl’s 8th birthday was coming up on April 16, 2010, and said that she could use cheering up with a party. “She is going through a lot,” he wrote to his parents, also missionaries, who lived in the remote town of Waslala.
Timo Miller’s family and their guests made the rugged five-hour drive to Waslala, where the Mennonites have five scattered churches and a clinic among small cattle ranches and bean farms. The family of Pablo Yoder, another pastor, hosted a birthday party at their tranquil homestead with a green lawn and a pet macaw.

Isabella was feted by some 25 Mennonites with a cake, homemade ice cream and a piñata for the children. After a dinner of rice and chicken, they sang hymns in the yard, Mr. Yoder said in an interview in Waslala.

The group from Managua returned home within a day or two. But personal relations with Ms. Miller, who tends to see things “in black and white,” Timo Miller said, were getting strained. Within weeks after the party, she and her daughter moved back to Jinotega, renting a house on their own in town.

Missionaries in Jinotega, too, indicated that Ms. Miller struggled with depression.

“Lisa is very independent-minded,” said David Friesen, 45, a Canadian Mennonite in Jinotega. “She needed spiritual help,” he said, and there were issues of anger and forgiveness from her past life.

But eventually, he said, she embraced the fundamentalist faith of the Mennonites. She also showed initiative, inviting neighborhood children into her home to read them Bible stories through an interpreter.

Everything changed on April 18, 2011, a year after the birthday party, when Timo Miller, returning for a vacation in the United States with his family, was arrested at Dulles Airport and charged with aiding a kidnapping. Ms. Miller and Isabella quickly disappeared from their house in Jinotega, and there have been no reported sightings since, but federal agents believe the pair remain in Nicaragua.

In December 2011, federal prosecutors dropped the charges against Timo Miller in return for his testimony and filed charges against Kenneth Miller for what they allege was his more central role in the flight from the United States. Up to Timo Miller’s arrest, the missionaries in Nicaragua said, they had not realized they could be prosecuted.

“We had no idea what we were getting into,” Mr. Friesen said of the decision to shelter Ms. Miller and Isabella. But he added, “We are willing to be persecuted for God’s will.”

Timothy Schrock, 46, bishop of the Mennonites in Nicaragua, originally approved Kenneth Miller’s request to help Isabella and her mother. Speaking in Waslala, where he is pastor of a remote church, he said that the “brethren,” as they call themselves, now feel under siege, their phones and e-mails presumably monitored, and some are afraid to return to American soil.

But he supported Ms. Miller’s decision to flee on religious grounds.

“As many rights as Janet may have, this child is being pushed into a situation that God has not agreed with,” Mr. Schrock said.  Ms. Lindevaldsen, the lawyer, said she knew that her former client could face jail time if caught, and that Isabella’s life could take another wrenching turn. She blames a misguided legal system.

“It’s sad that in America a woman was faced with this choice,” she said. “The court overstepped its bounds, calling someone a parent who is not a parent and turning a child over to a person who lives contrary to biblical truths.”

Ms. Jenkins said she had learned to shrug off the personal attacks and worries only about Isabella’s welfare, after years in hiding in a strange land, with all her former ties lost.

“Isabella was such a happy child,” she said. “That’s one of the things I hope has stayed the same.”

Title: Hah! I knew it!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 28, 2012, 09:17:11 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/9572187/Couples-who-share-the-housework-are-more-likely-to-divorce-study-finds.html

 By Henry Samuel, Paris
10:00PM BST 27 Sep 2012
In what appears to be a slap in the face for gender equality, the report found the divorce rate among couples who shared housework equally was around 50 per cent higher than among those where the woman did most of the work.

“What we’ve seen is that sharing equal responsibility for work in the home doesn’t necessarily contribute to contentment,” said Thomas Hansen, co-author of the study entitled “Equality in the Home”.

The lack of correlation between equality at home and quality of life was surprising, the researcher said.

“One would think that break-ups would occur more often in families with less equality at home, but our statistics show the opposite,” he said.

The figures clearly show that “the more a man does in the home, the higher the divorce rate,” he went on.

The reasons, Mr Hansen said, lay only partially with the chores themselves.

“Maybe it’s sometimes seen as a good thing to have very clear roles with lots of clarity ... where one person is not stepping on the other’s toes,” he suggested.

“There could be less quarrels, since you can easily get into squabbles if both have the same roles and one has the feeling that the other is not pulling his or her own weight.”

But the deeper reasons for the higher divorce rate, he suggested, came from the values of “modern” couples rather than the chores they shared.

“Modern couples are just that, both in the way they divide up the chores and in their perception of marriage” as being less sacred, Mr Hansen said. “In these modern couples, women also have a high level of education and a well-paid job, which makes them less dependent on their spouse financially.

They can manage much easier if they divorce,” he said. Norway has a long tradition of gender equality and childrearing is shared equally between mothers and fathers in 70 per cent of cases. But when it comes to housework, women in Norway still account for most of it in seven out of 10 couples. The study emphasised women who did most of the chores did so of their own volition and were found to be as “happy” those in “modern” couples. Dr Frank Furedi, Sociology professor at the University of Canterbury, said the study made sense as chore sharing took place more among couples from middle class professional backgrounds, where divorce rates are known to be high.

“These people are extremely sensitive to making sure everything is formal, laid out and contractual. That does make for a fairly fraught relationship.  The more you organise your relationship, the more you work out diaries and schedules, the more it becomes a business relationship than an intimate, loving spontaneous one. That tends to encourage a conflict of interest rather than finding harmonious resolutions.” he said.

While the survey applied to Norway, he was confident the results would be the same in the UK.

“In a good relationship people simply don’t know who does what and don’t particularly care. “Unless marriage is a relationship above anything else, then whenever there are tensions or contradictions things come to a head. You have less capacity to forgive and absorb the bad stuff.”

The survey appeared to contradict another recent one across seven countries including Britain that found that men who shouldered a bigger share of domestic responsibilities had a better sense of wellbeing and enjoyed a better work-life balance.  The researchers expected to find that where men shouldered more of the burden, women’s happiness levels were higher. In fact they found that it was the men who were happier while their wives and girlfriends appeared to be largely unmoved.  Those men who did more housework generally reported less work-life conflict and were scored slightly higher for wellbeing overall.  Experts suggested that, while this may be partly because they felt less guilty, the main reason could be that they had simply learnt the secret of a quiet life.

Title: Prager: Why a good person can vote against same sex marriage
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 30, 2012, 09:56:24 AM

http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=4bd9a8e1-d2e3-4e27-8ff9-13225099eea5&url=why_a_good_person_can_vote_against_samesex_marriage

Title: Gay Marriage in Canada after ten years
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 23, 2012, 04:58:32 AM

http://www.mercatornet.com/Newsletterv0810/view_txt/same_sex_marriage_ten_years_on_lessons_from_canada1

Same-sex marriage ten years on: lessons from Canada
Bradley W. Miller | 19 November 2012

 

Would recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages be much of a game-changer? What impact, if any, would it have on the public conception of marriage or the state of a nation’s marriage culture?
 
There has been no shortage of speculation on these questions. But the limited American experience with same-sex marriage to date gives us few concrete answers. So it makes sense to consider the Canadian experience since the first Canadian court established same-sex marriage a decade ago. There are, of course, important cultural and institutional differences between the US and Canada and, as is the case in any polity, much depends upon the actions of local political and cultural actors. That is to say, it is not necessarily safe to assume that Canadian experiences will be replicated here. But they should be considered; the Canadian experience is the best available evidence of the short-term impact of same-sex marriage in a democratic society very much like America.
 
Anyone interested in assessing the impact of same-sex marriage on public life should investigate the outcomes in three spheres: first, human rights (including impacts on freedom of speech, parental rights in public education, and the autonomy of religious institutions); second, further developments in what sorts of relationships political society will be willing to recognize as a marriage (e.g., polygamy); and third, the social practice of marriage.
 
The Impact on Human Rights
 
The formal effect of the judicial decisions (and subsequent legislation) establishing same-sex civil marriage in Canada was simply that persons of the same-sex could now have the government recognize their relationships as marriages. But the legal and cultural effect was much broader. What transpired was the adoption of a new orthodoxy: that same-sex relationships are, in every way, the equivalent of traditional marriage, and that same-sex marriage must therefore be treated identically to traditional marriage in law and public life.
 
A corollary is that anyone who rejects the new orthodoxy must be acting on the basis of bigotry and animus toward gays and lesbians. Any statement of disagreement with same-sex civil marriage is thus considered a straightforward manifestation of hatred toward a minority sexual group. Any reasoned explanation (for example, those that were offered in legal arguments that same-sex marriage is incompatible with a conception of marriage that responds to the needs of the children of the marriage for stability, fidelity, and permanence—what is sometimes called the conjugal conception of marriage), is dismissed right away as mere pretext.
 
When one understands opposition to same-sex marriage as a manifestation of sheer bigotry and hatred, it becomes very hard to tolerate continued dissent. Thus it was in Canada that the terms of participation in public life changed very quickly. Civil marriage commissioners were the first to feel the hard edge of the new orthodoxy; several provinces refused to allow commissioners a right of conscience to refuse to preside over same-sex weddings, and demanded their resignations. At the same time, religious organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, were fined for refusing to rent their facilities for post-wedding celebrations.
 
The Right to Freedom of Expression
 
The new orthodoxy’s impact has not been limited to the relatively small number of persons at risk of being coerced into supporting or celebrating a same-sex marriage. The change has widely affected persons—including clergy—who wish to make public arguments about human sexuality.
 
Much speech that was permitted before same-sex marriage now carries risks. Many of those who have persisted in voicing their dissent have been subjected to investigations by human rights commissions and (in some cases) proceedings before human rights tribunals. Those who are poor, poorly educated, and without institutional affiliation have been particularly easy targets—anti-discrimination laws are not always applied evenly.  Some have been ordered to pay fines, make apologies, and undertake never to speak publicly on such matters again. Targets have included individuals writing letters to the editors of local newspapers, and ministers of small congregations of Christians. A Catholic bishop faced two complaints—both eventually withdrawn—prompted by comments he made in a pastoral letter about marriage.
 
Reviewing courts have begun to rein in the commissions and tribunals (particularly since some ill-advised proceedings against Mark Steyn andMaclean’s magazine in 2009), and restore a more capacious view of freedom of speech. And in response to the public outcry following the Steyn/Maclean’saffair, the Parliament of Canada recently revoked the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s statutory jurisdiction to pursue “hate speech.”
 
But the financial cost of fighting the human rights machine remains enormous—Maclean’s spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, none of which is recoverable from the commissions, tribunals, or complainants. And these cases can take up to a decade to resolve. An ordinary person with few resources who has drawn the attention of a human rights commission has no hope of appealing to the courts for relief; such a person can only accept the admonition of the commission, pay a (comparatively) small fine, and then observe the directive to remain forever silent. As long as these tools remain at the disposal of the commissions—for whom the new orthodoxy gives no theoretical basis to tolerate dissent—to engage in public discussion about same-sex marriage is to court ruin.
 
Similar pressure can be—and is—brought to bear on dissenters by professional governing bodies (such as bar associations, teachers’ colleges, and the like) that have statutory power to discipline members for conduct unbecoming of the profession. Expressions of disagreement with the reasonableness of institutionalizing same-sex marriage are understood by these bodies to be acts of illegal discrimination, which are matters for professional censure.
 
Teachers are particularly at risk for disciplinary action, for even if they only make public statements criticizing same-sex marriage outside the classroom, they are still deemed to create a hostile environment for gay and lesbian students. Other workplaces and voluntary associations have adopted similar policies as a result of their having internalized this new orthodoxy that disagreement with same-sex marriage is illegal discrimination that must not be tolerated.
 
Parental Rights in Public Education
 
Institutionalizing same-sex marriage has subtly but pervasively changed parental rights in public education. The debate over how to cast same-sex marriage in the classroom is much like the debate over the place of sex education in schools, and of governmental pretensions to exercise primary authority over children. But sex education has always been a discrete matter, in the sense that by its nature it cannot permeate the entirety of the curriculum. Same-sex marriage is on a different footing.
 
Since one of the tenets of the new orthodoxy is that same-sex relationships deserve the same respect that we give marriage, its proponents have been remarkably successful in demanding that same-sex marriage be depicted positively in the classroom. Curriculum reforms in jurisdictions such as British Columbia now prevent parents from exercising their long-held veto power over contentious educational practices.
 
The new curricula are permeated by positive references to same-sex marriage, not just in one discipline but in all. Faced with this strategy of diffusion, the only parental defense is to remove one’s children from the public school system entirely. Courts have been unsympathetic to parental objections: if parents are clinging to outdated bigotries, then children must bear the burden of “cognitive dissonance”—they must absorb conflicting things from home and school while school tries to win out.
 
The reforms, of course, were not sold to the public as a matter of enforcing the new orthodoxy. Instead, the stated rationale was to prevent bullying; that is, to promote the acceptance of gay and lesbian youth and the children of same-sex households.
 
It is a laudable goal to encourage acceptance of persons. But whatever can be said for the objective, the means chosen to achieve it is a gross violation of the family. It is nothing less than the deliberate indoctrination of children (over the objections of their parents) into a conception of marriage that is fundamentally hostile to what the parents understand to be in their children’s best interests. It frustrates the ability of parents to lead their children to an understanding of marriage that will be conducive to their flourishing as adults. At a very early age, it teaches children that the underlying rationale of marriage is nothing other than the satisfaction of changeable adult desires for companionship.
 
Religious Institutions’ Right to Autonomy
 
At first glance, clergy and houses of worship appeared largely immune from coercion to condone or perform same-sex marriages. Indeed, this was the grand bargain of the same-sex marriage legislation—clergy would retain the right not to perform marriages that would violate their religious beliefs. Houses of worship could not be conscripted against the wishes of religious bodies.
 
It should have been clear from the outset just how narrow this protection is. It only prevents clergy from being coerced into performing marriage ceremonies. It does not, as we have seen, shield sermons or pastoral letters from the scrutiny of human rights commissions. It leaves congregations vulnerable to legal challenges if they refuse to rent their auxiliary facilities to same-sex couples for their ceremony receptions, or to any other organization that will use the facility to promote a view of sexuality wholly at odds with their own.
 
Neither does it prevent provincial and municipal governments from withholding benefits to religious congregations because of their marriage doctrine. For example, Bill 13, the same Ontario statute that compels Catholic schools to host “Gay-Straight Alliance” clubs (and to use that particular name), also prohibits public schools from renting their facilities to organizations that will not agree to a code of conduct premised on the new orthodoxy. Given that many small Christian congregations rent school auditoriums to conduct their worship services, it is easy to appreciate their vulnerability.
 
Changes to the Public Conception of Marriage
 
It has been argued that if same-sex marriage is institutionalized, new marital categories may be accepted, like polygamy. Once one abandons a conjugal conception of marriage, and replaces it with a conception of marriage that has adult companionship as its focus, there is no principled basis for resisting the extension of marriage licenses to polygamist and polyamorist unions.
 
In other words, if marriage is about satisfying adult desires for companionship, and if the desires of some adults extend to more novel arrangements, how can we deny them? I will not here evaluate this claim, but simply report how this scenario has played out in Canada.
 
One prominent polygamist community in British Columbia was greatly emboldened by the creation of same-sex marriage, and publicly proclaimed that there was now no principled basis for the state’s continued criminalization of polygamy. Of all the Canadian courts, only a trial court in British Columbia has addressed whether prohibiting polygamy is constitutional, and provided an advisory opinion to the province’s government. The criminal prohibition of polygamy was upheld, but on a narrow basis that defined polygamy as multiple, concurrent civil marriages. The court did not address the phenomenon of multiple common-law marriages. So, thus far, the dominant forms of polygamy and polyamory practiced in Canada have not gained legal status, but neither have they faced practical impediments.
 
The lesson is this: a society that institutionalizes same-sex marriage needn’t necessarily institutionalize polygamy. But the example from British Columbia suggests that the only way to do so is to ignore principle. The polygamy case’s reasoning gave no convincing explanation why it would be discriminatory not to extend the marriage franchise to gays and lesbians, but not discriminatory to draw the line at polygamists and polyamorists. In fact, the judgment looks like it rests on animus toward polygamists and polyamorists, which is not a stable juridical foundation.
 
The Impact on the Practice of Marriage
 
As for the practice of marriage, it is too soon to say much. The 2011 census data establish that, first, marriage is in decline in Canada, as it is in much of the West; second, same-sex marriage is a statistically minor phenomenon; and third, there are very few same-sex couples (married or not) with children in the home.
 
There are approximately 21,000 married same-sex couples in Canada, out of 6.29 million married couples. Same-sex couples (married and unmarried) constitute 0.8% of all couples in Canada; 9.4% of the 64,575 same-sex couples (including common-law and married) have children in the home, and 80% of these are lesbian couples. By contrast, 47.2% of heterosexual couples have children in the home. Canada stopped tracking divorce after 2008, and has never provided data on same-sex divorce.
 
What we can gather from these data is that same-sex marriage has not, contrary to arguments that it would, powered a resurgent marriage culture in Canada. Nor are there any census data (one way or the other) for empirical arguments tying the institutionalization of same-sex marriage to marriage stability.
 
Without empirical data on divorce rates (which are not forthcoming in Canada), we are left with conceptual arguments that must be evaluated on their merits. Here, the Canadian experience cannot provide much information. We are left with the question, does the institutionalization of same-sex marriage rest on a conception of marriage that places a premium on stability, as does the conjugal conception? If it does not, then we can reasonably believe same-sex marriage will speed up cultural acceptance of a conception of marriage—the adult companionate model—that has done much social damage over the past fifty years.
 
Bradley W. Miller is an associate professor of law at the University of Western Ontario and a Visiting Fellow in the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. This article has been reproduced with permission from Public Discourse.

Title: A study's methodology studied
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 30, 2012, 08:51:01 AM

http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/11546

Title: What is marriage?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 10, 2012, 02:23:33 PM

What Is Marriage?
Shawn Murphy | 7 December 2012

 

American gay rights activist and radio host Michaelangelo Signorile recently wrote triumphantly of what lies around the corner for a country that just re-elected its “First Gay President” -- as a Newsweek cover last year dubbed Obama. Claiming an early victory for his movement in the Huffington Post Signorile proclaimed that “[n]o longer will politicians -- or anyone -- be able to credibly claim to be supportive of gays, and to love and honor their supposed gay friends and family, while still being opposed to basic and fundamental rights like marriage”. Like many other same-sex marriage advocates, Signorile believes the re-election of Barack Obama is a harbinger of nationwide same-sex marriage legislation.
 
Few can deny that the movement is on the march. At the time of the election four states moved in favour of same-sex marriage and other states are quickly gathering momentum on the issue. Disturbingly, the thought embedded in Signorile’s spiel is that even polite disagreement and opposition to the claims of same-sex marriage advocates amounts to wholesale bigotry and intolerance. Heterosexual marriage supporters vehemently deny this, but many people now think that principled opposition to same-sex marriage is a delusion.
 
One reason why supporters of traditional marriage are losing elections is that they are losing the war for intellectual credibility. They are too often mired in facile arguments about “tradition”, Bible passages, and bleeding heart litanies about children. Supporters of gay marriage have succeeded in ridiculing these fumbling attempts at a rationale as ignorant and homophobic.
 
So a robust intellectual defence of the traditional view of marriage by Princeton law professor Robert P George is a welcome addition to the debate. Labelled by the New York Times as “America’s most influential conservative Christian thinker”, George, a convert from the ranks of the Democrats, is responsible for the interdenominational manifesto The Manhattan Declarationsigned by a number of Christian leaders in support of traditional marriage, sanctity of life and religious liberty.
 
In 2010 he published a controversial article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy with co-authors Ryan T Anderson and Sherif Gergis, putting forward a philosophical defence for the conjugal view of marriage. It gained many responses from all sides of the debate and has proved so successful that they have expanded it into a book to further flesh out their claims and answer their opponents.
 
The authors start by contrasting, with precision, the “conjugal” and the “revisionist” views of marriage. The conjugal view presupposes an exclusive union between a man and a woman that is bodily and mental and distinguishes itself by its comprehensiveness, while, revisionists claim that marriage is just two (no more, for the moment) people committing to romantically love and care for each other for as long as they see fit.
 
The authors steer clear of discussing the moral implications of homosexuality itself to avoid giving critics a pretext for accusing them of denigrating same-sex-attracted people, or making assumptions about their feelings and motives. Instead they argue that the revisionist view (which informs both homosexual and some heterosexual relationships alike) lacks sexual complementarity and comprehensiveness and is therefore vulnerable to internal contradictions and ambiguities.
 
“[Revisionists] will not see [marriage] as essentially comprehensive, or thus (among other things) as ordered to procreation and family life—but as essentially an emotional union. For reasons to be explained, they will therefore tend not to understand or respect the objective norms of permanence or sexual exclusivity that shape it. Nor, in the end, will they see why the terms of marriage should not depend altogether on the will of the parties, be they two or ten in number, as the terms of friendships and contracts do.”
 
What is original in the argument advanced by George et al is their explanation of why conjugal sex is a worthy human ideal. Arguably, homosexual relationships have many of the same contours that heterosexual relationships do. The authors agree but emphasise that it’s the differences that matter. Sex between a man and a woman differs fundamentally to sex between members of the same sex.
 
The authors contend that
 
“n coitus, and there alone, a man and a woman’s bodies participate by virtue of their sexual complementarity in a coordination that has the biological purpose of reproduction—a function that neither can perform alone. Their coordinated action is, biologically, the first step (the behavioral part) of the reproductive process. By engaging in it, they are united, and do not merely touch, much as one’s heart, lungs, and other organs are united: by coordinating toward a biological good of the whole that they form together.”
 
With this as an anchor, they tackle other common arguments which are used to subvert conventional marriage. They contend, for example, that understanding marriage as a merely emotional union threatens marital norms such as permanence and exclusivity:
 
“But why should these be limited to two people? Indeed, how could they be, if we form emotional connections with various loved ones- parents, siblings, close friends – and by various activities? Romantic emotional unions do have a different quality from others and are clearly important for marriage, but emotional hues are hardly enough to mark the difference in kind between marriage and ordinary forms of friendship.”
 
To the common objection that, if marriage is about making babies, then infertile heterosexual marriages are not true marriages, George et al respond that conjugal acts have a meaning in themselves, not just because they produce babies.
 
“Here the whole is the couple; the single biological good, their reproduction. But bodily coordination is possible even when its end is not realized; so for a couple, bodily union occurs in coitus even when conception does not. It is the coordination toward a single end that makes the union; achieving the end would deepen the union but is not necessary for it.”
 
They illustrate this thought in typical American fashion by way of a baseball analogy:
 
“Infertile couples and winless baseball teams both meet the basic requirements for participating in the practice (conjugal union; practicing and playing the game) and retain their basic orientation to the fulfilment of that practice (bearing and rearing children; winning games), even if that fulfilment is never reached.”
 
George et al comment on the fallacious argument that equates traditional marriage laws to laws banning interracial marriage, and point out that the current debate is not about who gets to marry but what marriage is really about.
 
“First, opponents of interracial marriage did not deny that marriage (understood as a union consummated by conjugal acts) was possible between blacks and whites any more than segregationists argued that some feature of the whites-only water fountains made it impossible for blacks to drink from them… By contrast, the current debate is precisely over whether the kind of union with marriage’s essential features can exist between two men or two women.”
 
Supporters of traditional marriage tend to be flummoxed by the challenge, “How would same-sex marriage affect you and your marriage?” But George and his co-authors show that same-sex marriage would have very real effects. First of all, real marriage would be obscured by altering its civil definition:
 
“People forming what the state called ‘marriage’ would increasingly be forming bonds that merely resembled the real thing in certain ways, as a contractual relationship might resemble a friendship. The revisionist view would distort their priorities, actions, and motivations, to the harm of true marriage.”
 
Religious freedom will be at risk. The authors point to the alarming state of religious freedom in places where a same-sex marriage culture takes precedence and provide a number of worrying examples. They point to Massachusetts where Catholic Charities was forced to give up its adoption services rather than place children with same-sex couples, and to Damian Goddard, a Canadian sportscaster who was fired from his job for supporting conjugal marriage on Twitter. They provide many other examples.
 
In positing “comprehensiveness” in union as the crucial element in marriage, the authors distinguish themselves from classic defences of heterosexual marriage. Classical natural law theorists like Aristotle and St Thomas Aquinas considered homosexual acts as “perverted” uses of human sexual organs. As an adherent of the philosophical “new natural law” school of ethics, George, along with his co-authors view this argument as “fallacious”. They don’t argue, like the classical natural law theorists, that certain parts of the human body have in-built purposes or for which they are designed but instead simply argue that if a relationship isn’t comprehensive overall then it isn’t a marriage. The authors neatly avoid the dispute between the two views, presumably to devote more space to the question of same-sex marriage.
 
Notwithstanding this shortcoming, the authors traverse a solid path between the libertarian view which argues that government should have no role in marriage, and a liberalism that wants government approval and benefits for emotional bonds. Against both positions, they argue that marriage consists of rights between parties that ought to be protected by governments because “wherever reasonably possible, parents are entitled to bring up their own children-and children have a right to their own two parents’ care, as affirmed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child”.
 
Though their argument is mainly philosophical the authors also provide helpful social science research to bolster their case. Taking studies from both left and right leaning think tanks they conclude that children raised in intact families headed by two biological parents fare best in areas of educational achievement, emotional health, familial and sexual development, and child and adult behaviour. They also conclude that lower-income earners are the hardest hit by a failing marriage culture.
 
The authors of What is Marriage? offer a sober and resounding answer to the question posed in the book’s title. Marriage, as it has been understood for centuries, is a unique and comprehensive institution that joins mothers and fathers to their children and to each other. The authors show that it is a rationally defensible cornerstone of Western civilisation and a bedrock of societal stability. In confronting the challenge currently facing marriage in parliaments, courtrooms and schools around the world George, Anderson and Gergis put forth a clear and formidable case for one of our most sacred traditions.
 
Shawn Murphy recently completed a journalism course at Monash University, in Melbourne.

Title: Don't mention the decadence
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 10, 2012, 02:29:58 PM

Second post of day:

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/dont-mention-the-decadence/

Title: Kids from Mom & Dad families do better in school
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 11, 2012, 09:16:27 AM

http://www.mercatornet.com/family_edge/view/11586

Kids from mum and dad families do better at school

William West | 11 Dec 2012 | (1)

   
tags : child development, same-sex parenting,



Research showing problems with homosexual parenting continues to grow with the release of a study showing that the children of heterosexual couples are more likely to progress in primary school than children from a same-sex household.

The study, "Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School: A Comment on Rosenfeld", is a re-examination of a study by Michael J. Rosenfeld of Stanford University’s Department of Sociologypublished in 2010. The new study, led by Douglas W Allen, and published by the academic journal Demography, found that the children from a heterosexual household are “35 percent more likely to make typical school progress”.

Rosenfeld's study, based on data from 1.6 million children in the 2000 United States Census, claimed that children raised in sex-same households progressed just as well as other children when differences in the socio-economic status are considered. It seems this study limited itself in two ways that did not take into account “the full family experiences of all children”.

The new study found:

When the sample consisted of only biological children, regardless of residential stability, children in married heterosexual households were 25.8 percent more likely to make typical school progress than peers raised in same-sex households; 
When the sample consisted only of children who stayed in the same residence for five or more years, regardless of their biological status, children in married heterosexual households were 29.5 percent more likely to make typical school progress than peers in same-sex households; 
Even when adopted children are excluded from the residentially stable sample (taking into consideration that children adopted by married heterosexual couples may be different from those adopted by same-sex couples), children in married heterosexual households were still 24 percent more likely to make typical progress in school; and 
When the sample consisted of all children, regardless of their biological status or residential stability, children in married heterosexual households were 35.4 percent more likely to make normal progress in school than peers in same-sex households.

In short, the new study sought to compare like with like by comparing only children who were nearly identical in relation to “disability status, race, income, education, birthplace, metropolitan status, private-school attendance, and state residence”.

A blogger at The Foundry website at www.heritage.com, Christine Kim, concluded from the findings:

"Consistent with previous research, these findings suggest that when considering how children’s family environment influences their outcomes, it is important to look at both family structure and stability.

Together, the pair of studies underlines the complex dynamics between children’s family situations and their well-being, as well as the difficulty of analysing that relationship even with sophisticated research methods and data. The studies also underscore the necessity for policymakers to weigh the full accumulating research evidence in their decision-making."

Title: Jackie Gingrich Cushman: Marriage best left to churches
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 13, 2012, 01:12:00 PM

The current conundrum regarding the legalization of same-sex marriage is what happens when church and state are mixed -- the topics become confusing and confused.

When I married my husband almost 15 years ago, I did so out of love and out of a desire to witness before God my commitment to him and his to me. The legal and tax ramifications did not enter into my head.

But for couples of the same sex, the legal and tax ramifications can be very important because their legal rights differ from those of heterosexual couples in a number of ways, from hospital visiting rights to insurance benefits and taxes on death benefits.

It is time for us to pull apart the institution of marriage from the definition of a legal union.

Marriage should be determined by the church, whatever church you belong to. Some religions agree to same-sex marriages, others do not.

On the other hand, the state should not meddle with the definition of marriage, but focus instead on determining the legality and requirements of civil unions.

Marriage -- and the relationship between partners and their God -- should be defined by the church.

Civil unions and their legalities should be defined by the state.

It would breach the idea of freedom of religion to force a priest or pastor who does not believe in same-sex marriage to perform such a union.

The division? The government should issue civil-union licenses that could be referenced for legal/insurance matters. Churches should continue to perform marriages as they see fit. The churches' determinations would not affect couples' legal standing in terms of taxes, benefits, etc.

Why is this delineation important?


Last week, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear two cases regarding same-sex marriage. One takes on the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as it applies to the government this way: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Lower courts have found that the act is unconstitutional.

The second case deals with California's Proposition 8, a voter initiative that amended the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Lower courts have declared it unconstitutional because it withdraws rights from a minority group.

The outcome of the cases could affect churches and organizations that do not recognize same-sex marriage.

Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, who is the chairman of the bishops' Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, noted in a National Catholic Register interview that the "real threat lies in the area of licensing of Catholic Charities' adoption agencies and accreditation of schools and universities that maintain their support of traditional marriage."

"It is not unthinkable that defending traditional marriage will be regarded as bigotry and hate speech and that all kinds of strictures will be placed on our schools," Lori said.

The real solution is to create a real division between church and state.

Title: Some French homosexuals opposing gay marriage
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 18, 2013, 06:10:42 AM

There was a huge rally against same-sex marriage in France at the weekend. C-FAM reports an unexpected feature of the opposition -- something that should be kept in mind when various media report what the "gay community" etc says about certain issues:

Perhaps as many as a million people marched in Paris last Sunday and at French embassies around the world against proposed legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage in France.  One of the surprises in the French campaign for traditional marriage is that homosexuals have joined pro-family leaders and activists in the effort.

“The rights of children trump the right to children,” was the catchphrase of protesters like Jean Marc, a French mayor who is also homosexual.

Even though France is known for its laissez faire attitude toward sex, pro-family leaders were quick to organize huge numbers. When President Hollande announced his intentions to legalize homosexual marriage last November, a demonstration against the proposal gathered 100,000 protesters. And then what started as a debate about homosexual rights changed to one about a child’s right to a mother and a father, and the numbers in opposition exploded and has come to include unlikely allies.

Xavier Bongibault, an atheist homosexual, is a prominent spokesman against the bill. “In France, marriage is not designed to protect the love between two people. French marriage is specifically designed to provide children with families,” he said in an interview. “[T]he most serious study done so far . . . demonstrates quite clearly that a child has trouble being raised by gay parents.”

Jean Marc, who has lived with a man for 20 years, insists, “The LGBT movement that speaks out in the media . . . They don’t speak for me. As a society we should not be encouraging this. It’s not biologically natural.”

Read more at: http://www.c-fam.org/fridayfax/volume-15/french-homosexuals-join-demonstration-against-gay-marriage.html

Title: Prager: Even if your child is gay
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 19, 2013, 04:20:00 PM

Even If Your Child Is Gay...

 Tuesday, March 19, 2013

ShareThis


 Last week, Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio announced that he had reversed his position on same-sex marriage. The reason was that his son had come out to him and his wife as gay.
 
This is not the first such instance. Periodically, we hear about Republican politicians whose child announces that he or she is gay, prompting the parent to change his mind about the man-woman definition of marriage.

As a parent, I understand these parents. We love our children, and we want them to love us.

Nevertheless I differ with their decisions to support the redefinition of marriage.
 
In order to explain why, let's analyze some of Senator Portman's words:

"I'm announcing today a change of heart ... "

These words are well chosen. Senator Portman's position is indeed "a change of heart." That's why he didn't say "change of mind." His change comes from his heart.
 
In this regard, Portman speaks for virtually every progressive/left/liberal position on virtually every subject. To understand leftism -- not that the senator has become a leftist, but he has taken the left-wing position on redefining marriage -- one must understand that above all else leftism is rooted in emotion, not reason. That is why left-wing social positions always refer to compassion and fairness -- for blacks, for illegal immigrants, for poorer people and, of course, for gays. Whether a progressive position will improve or harm society is not a progressive question. That is a conservative question. What matters to progressives is whether a position emanates from compassion.
 
Progressives do not seem to recognize that in life there is always tension between standards and compassion. Standards, by definition, cannot allow for compassion for every individual. If society were to show compassion to every individual, it would have no standards. Speeding laws are not waived for the unfortunate soul who has to catch an important flight. Orchestral standards are not waived for the musician who has devoted his or her life to studying an instrument, is a wonderful person and needs the job to support a family.
 
It is either right to maintain the man-woman definition of our most important social institution, or is it not. We cannot base our decision on compassion for gays, whether the gay is our child, our sibling, our friend or anyone else.

Yes, societies have changed qualifications for marriage regarding age and number, but no society before the 21st century ever considered redefining the fundamental nature of marriage by changing the sexes. That is why it is not honest to argue that same-sex marriage is just another redefinition. It is the most radical change to the definition of marriage in the history of civilization.

How then should people of compassion deal with this, or any other, issue? By asking whether we maintain standards or whether we change them because of compassion. Do we change universities' academic standards out of compassion for blacks and their history of persecution, or do we maintain college admission standards? Do we change military standards in order to enable women to enter fighting units or do we ask only what is the best policy to maintain military excellence?

The only answer that works -- and no answer is perfect in this imperfect world -- is to maintain standards in the macro and show compassion in the micro.

Every parent owes the same love and support to a gay child as to a straight child. In fact, all of us, parents or not, owe the same respect to gays as individuals as to heterosexual individuals. That does not mean, however, that marriage needs to be redefined. It does not mean that, all things being equal, it is not best for a child to have a male and female parent.

Compassion was the reason Senator Portman raised another issue: "My son," he said, "told us he was gay, and that it was not a choice."

This raises an obvious question. Prior to his son telling him that he did not choose to find men sexually attractive, did Senator Portman believe that gay men did choose to find men rather than women sexually attractive? Unlikely.

So why did he raise this? Because the "gays have no choice" issue tugs at people's hearts. Once again, compassion individual is supposed to trump all other considerations.

Finally, the senator also said:

"During my career in the House and the last couple of years in the Senate, I've taken a position against gay marriage rooted in part in my faith and my faith tradition." But he has been "rethinking my position, talking to my pastor and other religious leaders."

It would be interesting to find out what exactly his Christian pastor said to him. Did the pastor tell him that Christianity looks favorably on man-man marriage? Or that God made men and women essentially interchangeable? If so, why didn't this pastor tell this to the senator the whole time the senator opposed same-sex marriage?

A final note to parents of gays: Parents who believe in the man-woman definition of marriage do not owe it to their gay child to support the same-sex redefinition of marriage -- any more than gay children owe it to these parents to oppose same-sex marriage. Parents and children owe each other love and respect, not abandonment of convictions.
 

Title: Lowry: Gay Marriage by Fiat?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 26, 2013, 06:29:39 AM

Gay Marriage by Fiat?
The Supreme Court could be about to deem all opposition to same-sex marriage illegitimate.
By Rich Lowry


It is a sign of how far supporters of gay marriage have advanced that the term “opposite-sex marriage” — an infelicitous phrase that once would have been a confounding tautology — is now in common usage.
 
They have all the momentum. The polls are swinging their way. They had victories in state-level referenda for the first time in 2012. The entire Democratic party is converting to their cause, and conservatives are increasingly split.
 
This would all seem reason to conclude that their campaign of persuasion is working, and to keep at it. Instead, supporters of gay marriage are asking the Supreme Court to declare the traditional definition of marriage — and by extension everyone who adheres to it — irrational and bigoted. They want to short-circuit democratic deliberation via court ruling as great cultural ukase.
 





Advertisement
 

The laws before the court are the Defense of Marriage Act, passed handily by a bipartisan majority of Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, and Proposition 8, the measure passed by California voters in 2008 enshrining the traditional definition of marriage in the state’s constitution.
 
The Defense of Marriage Act is a modest measure. For purposes of federal programs, it defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and it says that states don’t necessarily have to honor same-sex marriages from other states. This creates a flexible environment whereby the federal government recognizes the traditional understanding of marriage that still applies in more than 40 states, while any state is welcome to adopt any other definition of the institution that it sees fit.
 
Opponents of the law have concocted an argument against it on federalist grounds. But it is bizarre to contend that a federal law defining marriage for federal purposes is an offense against the federalist structure of American government. The law has done nothing to arrest the progress of gay marriage at the state level, where it now prevails in nine states and the District of Columbia despite the Defense of Marriage Act.
 
The real reason for the court to invalidate the law would be that it supposedly has no rational basis and is born of “animus” toward gays. This is the brief against Proposition 8, which was struck down by a federal appellate court, the famously activist Ninth Circuit, on grounds that it has no “legitimate reason.”
 
In this view, the promoters of Proposition 8 came up with a definition of marriage that has stood for centuries in the West and is endorsed by every major religion simply as an imaginative way to stick it to gay people. Every serious contender in the Democratic presidential primary in 2008, including Barack Obama, supported this same definition, presumably also out of the same simmering hostility to gays.
 
Supporters of traditional marriage believe that the institution exists as an expression of society’s interest in children’s being raised by their biological fathers and mothers. You can say that this understanding is dated, given what has become of marriage the past 40 years. You can say that it is too pinched, given evolving mores. You can’t say it is inherently hateful.
 
If the Defense of Marriage Act is wrongheaded, the solution is simple and will be within reach in a few years if gay marriage continues to win converts — repeal it. And there is nothing wrong with Proposition 8 that California’s voters can’t fix by going to the polls again.
 
By seeking a shortcut in the courts, supporters of gay marriage want to end debate through judicial fiat. In an amicus brief in the case, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty points out the consequences if traditional marriage is deemed irrational. Religious people and groups objecting to same-sex marriage will “face a wave of private civil litigation under anti-discrimination laws never intended for that purpose,” and they will be “penalized by state and local governments.”
 
In other words, supporters of the exotic-sounding practice of “opposite-sex marriage” will be marginalized forevermore.
 
— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. © 2013 King Features Syndicate

Title: Shaky Science behind same-sex marriage
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 26, 2013, 07:56:38 AM

Second post of the morning.

The shaky science behind same-sex marriage
Institute for Marriage and Public Policy , Harvey C. Mansfield and Leon R. Kass | 26 March 2013

 

Today the US Supreme Court begins hearings on two same-sex marriage cases. Scores of organisations have presented “amicus briefs” to the Court as background to the legal arguments. Here we present an edited version of a submission by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and two distinguished scholars. Leon Kass, of the University of Chicago, and Harvey Mansfield, of Harvard University, are experts on the limits of the scientific method and on issues relevant to the appropriate structure of family life. This is a long but extremely valuable contribution to the debate over same-sex marriage.
 
* * * * *
 
Overview
 
This case should be decided on the basis of the law, without reliance on the social science studies and authorities that Respondents and their amici will undoubtedly put before the Court. The social and behavioral sciences have a long history of being shaped and driven by politics and ideology. This is partly because researchers often choose to study issues implicating controversial questions of public policy.
 
And it is partly because it is often impossible to perform the kind of objective observations and controlled experiments that are standard in the physical sciences. History is littered with notorious examples of false theories gaining wide acceptance among respected social and behavioral scientists, some of which supported pernicious public policies.
 
Although published academic studies typically contain caveats about the limitations of their methodology and of the data available to the researcher, those studies are frequently cited in litigation and in public debate for conclusions they cannot legitimately support. When organizations of social and behavioral scientists purport to speak for a professional consensus on controversial matters of public policy, special caution is warranted.
 
At one time, for example, psychiatrists almost universally considered homosexuality a mental disorder, and the American Psychiatric Association classified it as such in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM”). After a sustained political campaign against the Association, its members voted in 1973 to remove homosexuality from the DSM. The historical record shows that the change was not made because of new scientific findings, but rather in response to external political pressure and to political maneuvering within the Association.
 
Amici do not contend that the long-standing classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder was justified by reliable science, or that the alteration of the DSM resulted from scientific error. Our point, rather, is that science had little to do with the Association’s revision of the DSM, and that this episode illustrates why such organizations should not be taken for the voice of science. It would have been a mistake for this Court to rely on the official position of the American Psychiatric Association either before or after 1973.
 
It would also be a mistake to rely on briefs from this and similar organizations today. There is good reason to believe that the political climate has strongly influenced much of the existing research on issues raised in this case. That body of research, moreover, is radically inconclusive. Same-sex marriage is a very recent innovation, as is the practice of child rearing by same-sex couples. The effects of these new developments could certainly be significant. But only an advocate for social change could claim to know that the effects will be entirely or even largely benign.
 
Even if same-sex marriage and child rearing by same-sex couples were far more common than they now are, large amounts of data collected over decades would be required before any responsible researcher could make meaningful scientific estimates of the effects.
 
Social and behavioral scientists, moreover, have inadequate tools for measuring the effects of different family structures on children. Notwithstanding the patent weaknesses of the existing research, Respondents sought to persuade the courts below that there is a scientific basis for constitutionalizing same-sex marriage.
 
In fact, there is no such basis. There neither are nor could possibly be any scientifically valid studies from which to predict the effects of a family structure that is so new and so rare. The necessary data simply do not exist.
 
There could conceivably come a time when supporters of traditional marriage are compelled by scientific evidence to acknowledge that same-sex marriage is not harmful to children or to society at large. That day is not here, and there is not the slightest reason to think it is imminent. It is no less possible that scientific evidence will eventually show that redefining marriage to encompass unions of same-sex couples does have harmful effects on our society and its children. That day is also not yet here, but there is no basis for this or any other court to conclude that it will never arrive.
 
Now and for the foreseeable future, claims that science provides support for constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage must necessarily rest on ideology. Ideology may be pervasive in the social sciences, especially when controversial policy issues are at stake, but ideology is not science.
 
In recent decades, this Court has been inundated with arguments and evidence from social and behavioral scientists. Reliance on such briefing is no doubt sometimes appropriate. But the Court has frequently expressed its skepticism about such submissions, and for good reason. In this case, the relevant scientific evidence on which Respondents seek to rely is manifestly unreliable, and it should be given no weight at all. The case can and should be resolved on the basis of the law.
 
1. This court has recognized that unreliable expert opinions are a serious threat to the integrity of the legal system.
 
Modern science advances our understanding of the world by testing potentially falsifiable hypotheses against observable and measurable data. Because it is seldom if ever possible for all relevant data to be accounted for, and thus for all but one of the logically possible alternatives to be falsified, scientific theories are in principle always subject to revision on the basis of new data or better measurements.
 
Our legal system, of course, cannot treat all scientific conclusions as tentative or inadmissible. It must therefore often rely on expert testimony or on the consensus of scientific authorities. Cases in the Daubert line frequently involve characteristically scientific issues about causation in the physical world.
 
Even here, experts frequently overstate the reliability of their conclusions, for a variety of reasons including the incentives they may have to favor one party or another in litigation. Accordingly, this Court has recognized that reliance on such opinion evidence is often perilous.
 
The Court’s deep concern about the use of unreliable evidence in the context of physical causation should be magnified a thousand-fold in a case like this one.
 
Unlike a tort case, this litigation raises elusive and contentious issues about the nature of homosexuality and the personal and social effects of alternative family structures. A decision constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage, moreover, would have social implications far beyond any that might arise from a mistake in a product liability case.
 
Academic studies of the issues raised in this case, like many others in the various fields of social science, are subject to severe constraints arising from limited data and from a dearth of the kind of controlled and replicable experiments that are characteristic of the physical sciences. This Court should not rely on the social science research that will undoubtedly be cited by Respondents and their amici.
 
2. Social and behavioral science is frequently shaped and driven by politics and ideology. 
 
Even in the physical sciences, research is often tainted by the bias of the researchers. These biases can arise from a multitude of causes, frequently invisible to the researchers themselves, including the researcher’s policy preferences, unquestioning acceptance of conventional wisdom, personal ambition, and ideology.
 
The effort in recent years to close off debate about issues related to global warming provides one example, and a striking one because it has come close on the heels of warnings from scientists about the possibility of a new ice age caused by global cooling.
 
This Court has not rushed to embrace an end to the debates, and for good reason.  It can sometimes take a very long time for a genuinely settled consensus based on scientifically valid studies to arise. The debate in astronomy over geocentric theory, for example, remained open for hundreds of years after Copernicus.
 
Only in the 19th century did new technology finally permit observations conclusively demonstrating that the earth does move in relation to what were once called the “fixed stars.” The social sciences are far more prone to biased research than the physical sciences. That is partly because such research frequently addresses questions with immediate implications for controversial issues of public policy. And it is partly because it is inherently much more difficult—and often impossible—to perform the kind of objective observations and replicable experiments that are the staple of the physical sciences.
 
It is therefore often difficult to definitively disprove theories that have little or no basis. History is littered with notorious illustrations, including phrenology, Marxist economics, and so-called scientific racism, all of which were once widely accepted by respected social and behavioral scientists.
 
The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, himself a distinguished social scientist, acutely diagnosed the susceptibility of social science to politicization:
 
“ocial science is rarely dispassionate, and social scientists are frequently caught up in the politics which their work necessarily involves...
 
Moreover, there is a distinct social and political bias among social scientists. In all fairness, it should be said that this is a matter which social scientists are quick to acknowledge, and have studied to some purpose. It all has to do, one suspects, with the orientation of the discipline toward the future: It attracts persons whose interests are in shaping the future rather than preserving the past. In any event, the pronounced ‘liberal’ orientation of sociology, psychology, political science, and similar fields is well established.”
 
When Senator Moynihan wrote this in 1979, the “‘liberal’ orientation” in these fields was indeed well established by surveys of university faculties.  More recent surveys indicate that this orientation has become considerably more pronounced in recent decades,  and that it is stronger in the realm of “social or ‘lifestyle’ liberalism than it is in economic liberalism.” 
 
Multiple-regression analysis has provided preliminary results consistent with the hypothesis that when academic achievement is controlled for, academics who do not hold progressive political views experience negative effects on their professional advancement. If confirmed by further research, these results might be explained in part by the dynamics of group psychology. These dynamics might also help to explain why research in certain fields can consistently and for reasonably long periods of time support conclusions that are eventually proven false.
 
When organizations of social and behavioral scientists purport to represent a consensus of their professions, special caution is warranted. A telling illustration is provided by the history of classifying homosexuality in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM”). As recently as the 1960s, there was an overwhelming consensus in the psychiatric profession that homosexuality should be classified as a mental disorder.
 
This consensus was reinforced by an in-depth study comparing 106 male homosexuals and 100 male heterosexuals under the care of members of the Society of Medical Psychoanalysts. The research was carried out over a period of ten years, and the results were reported in a massive volume signed by Irving Bieber and nine co-authors. Even those who did not adhere to the dominant psychoanalytic approach in psychiatry agreed that homosexuality should be considered an abnormality.
 
Doubts about the validity of this diagnosis were raised by research from outside psychiatry, including that of Alfred Kinsey and students of comparative anthropology and primatology. That research, however, was subject to various interpretations, and psychiatrists disagreed among themselves primarily about the etiology and treatment of what they agreed was a disorder. Beginning in 1970, the American Psychiatric Association came under sustained attack from an organized political movement determined to force the Association to remove homosexuality from the DSM.
 
Within the short space of three years, this attack succeeded. As a detailed (and by no means unsympathetic) history of this political struggle has demonstrated, the change in the Association’s position was not the result of scientific advances. Rather, it was a response to political tactics that included public denunciations of the profession and disruption of scholarly conferences.  The intricate maneuvering for change within the Association was not led by experts on homosexuality; those who resisted the proposed change, moreover, alleged that some of its public supporters privately acknowledged that they considered homosexuality a pathological condition, but were afraid to say so publicly.  Eventually a referendum was held, and the deletion of homosexuality from the DSM was approved, though only by 58 percent of the Association’s members.
 
Amici do not contend that the long-standing classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder was justified by reliable science, or that the alteration of the DSM in 1973 resulted from scientific error. Our point, rather, is that science had little to do with what happened, and that this episode illustrates why organizations of social and behavioral scientists should not be taken for the voice of science. The American Psychiatric Association’s treatment of homosexuality in the DSM was not based on settled science either before or after its political decision to alter its position. It would have been a mistake for this Court to rely on the classification of homosexuality in either version of the DSM.
 
It would also be a mistake to rely on briefs or official statements from this and similar organizations today.
 
There is good reason to believe that the political climate has strongly influenced much of the existing research on issues raised in this case. Norval Glenn of the University of Texas, for example, has written: “Given the widespread support for same-sex marriage among social and behavioral scientists, it is becoming politically incorrect in academic circles even to suggest that arguments being used in support of same-sex marriage might be wrong.”
 
Similarly, two strong opponents of what they call “heterosexism” have attacked the scholarship of those who support traditional marriage, but have also said, “We wish to acknowledge that the political stakes of this body of research are so high that ideological ‘family values’ of scholars play a greater part than usual in how they design, conduct, and interpret their studies.” They have also suggested that many psychologists sympathetic to parenting by homosexuals are apt to “downplay the significance of any findings of differences.”
 
The record in this case offers some revealing examples. Some of Respondents’ own expert witnesses have acknowledged that opinions (including their own) about whether homosexuality is a psychological disorder are not scientific judgments.
 
At trial, Respondents’ expert on child development, Dr Michael Lamb, read the following statement by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: “Lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people have faced more rigorous scrutiny than heterosexual people regarding their rights to be or become parents.” Under cross examination, Dr. Lamb was unable to dispute the proposition that “this statement is not based in empirics, but, rather, in politics.”
 
Dr Lamb was cited by the district court for the broad and unqualified conclusions that the “gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in the child’s adjustment” and that “having both a male and female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.” At trial, however, Dr. Lamb had conceded that his own published research concluded that growing up without fathers had significant negative effects on boys, and that there is data indicating that there are significant differences between men and women in their parental behavior.
 
At trial, he also conceded that there is considerable research indicating that traditional opposite-sex biological parents appear in general to produce better outcomes for their children than other family structures do. The district court’s opinion contains numerous other conclusions that in fact are not and cannot possibly be established by the evidence on which that court relied. The district court’s citations to the testimony of Respondents’ witnesses and to a statement by the  American Psychological Association should not be mistaken for reliance on credible science.
 
There could conceivably come a time when supporters of traditional marriage are compelled by scientific evidence to acknowledge that same-sex marriage is not harmful to children or to society at large. That day is not here, and there is not the slightest reason to think it is imminent. It is no less possible that scientific evidence will eventually show that redefining marriage to encompass unions of same-sex couples does have harmful effects on our society and its children. That day is also not yet here, but there is no basis for this or any other court to conclude that it will never arrive. Now and for the foreseeable future, claims that science provides support for constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage must necessarily rest on ideology. Ideology may be pervasive in the social sciences, especially when controversial policy issues are at stake, but ideology is not science.
 
3. The effects of same-sex marriage on family life are unknown, and currently unknowable
 
Same-sex marriage is a very recent innovation, as is the practice of child rearing by same-sex couples. The effects of these new developments certainly could be quite significant for same-sex partners, for children raised by same-sex couples, and for our society.
 
But only an advocate for the cause of same-sex marriage could claim to know that the effects will be entirely or even largely benign. Such claims can be based only on conjecture or faith, not science. Even if same-sex marriage and child rearing by same-sex couples were far more common than they now are, large amounts of data collected over decades would be required before any responsible researcher could make meaningful scientific estimates of the effects.
 
Social and behavioral scientists, moreover, do not have adequate tools for measuring the effects of different family structures on children. Typical measures include educational attainments and rates of social deviance (using criteria such as drug use and other forms of delinquency). But these can hardly begin to assess the success of children (or adults for that matter) as human beings, let alone how happy they are.
 
Accordingly, the statements that one encounters in the existing research literature typically amount at best to claims that “no evidence exists” of bad effects from same-sex marriage or from child rearing by same-sex couples. Such conclusions should hardly be surprising inasmuch as there is manifestly too little evidence from which to draw any reliable conclusions.
 
Thus, one could just as easily say that there is no reliable evidence that such practices are beneficial or harmless. But that is something one rarely if ever hears from proponents of legalizing same-sex marriage.
 
Instead, researchers and social science advocacy organizations have promoted the myth that their failure to find evidence of bad effects implies or strongly suggests that such bad effects will not ensue.
 
A brief filed in the court below by several organizations—including the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family  Therapy—provides a revealing illustration.
 
Much of this brief to the Ninth Circuit argued for conclusions that are only peripherally relevant at best, such as the proposition that some homosexuals form long-lasting relationships, or are noncontroversial, such as the proposition that married heterosexuals are statistically more likely than unmarried heterosexuals to exhibit certain indicia of physical and psychological health. On the issues that might be thought central, however, the brief offered only a mélange of weak and unreliable evidence from which unjustified inferences were drawn or suggested.
 
Consider, for example, Section III.A of the brief, titled “Gay Men and Lesbians Form Stable, Committed Relationships That Are Equivalent to Heterosexual Relationships in Essential Aspects.” In support of this conclusion, the brief cited several studies, based on non-representative samples, for the proposition that a significant fraction of gay men and lesbians are or have been in a “committed relationship.” What the brief called “more representative samples” were said to support this finding.  So far as amici have been able to determine, no studies using the scientific standard of comparing large random samples with appropriate control samples were cited here or anywhere else in the brief.
 
Instead, the brief drew the following conclusion: “Based on the empirical research findings, the American Psychological Association has concluded that ‘[p]sychological research on relationships and couples provides no evidence to justify discrimination against same-sex couples.’” To the extent that this might be thought to support the brief’s ultimate conclusion that “[t]here is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to... civil marriage,”, one could just as well say that there is no scientific basis for denying that such couples should be distinguished. This corollary was conveniently ignored.
 
Another example of misleading argumentation appeared in the brief’s effort to argue that California’s laws on marriage deny important social or psychological benefits to same-sex couples. First, the brief cited no studies at all that attempt to compare the benefits of marriage with the benefits of California’s same-sex civil unions. Apart from that rather glaring problem, the brief acknowledged that no empirical studies have systematically compared married same-sex couples with unmarried same-sex couples.
 
Remarkably, however, the brief purported to rely on its signatories’ “scientific and clinical expertise” for the proposition that it is appropriate to extrapolate from research on heterosexual couples to predict the effects of legalizing same-sex marriage. Whatever this “scientific and clinical expertise” may amount to, the brief offered no evidence that such extrapolation is justified by the application of scientific methods to appropriate bodies of data.
 
Finally, the brief cited numerous studies purporting to support the inference that homosexual parents are indistinguishable from heterosexual parents in their effects on children. Once again, the brief cited no studies based on large, randomized samples.
 
Once again, the brief could actually claim at most that studies using severely limited data have failed to prove that children raised by homosexual parents fare less well than children raised by heterosexual parents. And once again, we can say that it is equally true that the studies do not prove that children do fare as well with the one as with the other.
 
Apart from the fact that this brief proves on close examination to have been misleading on its face, its statements about “no evidence” were false. The brief simply ignored research that found, among other things, that the children of homosexual parents had higher levels of problematic behavior (such as excessive drinking, drug use, and lower assessments of educational performance and socialization) than the children of heterosexual parents. This work may not be more reliable than the research relied on by Respondents, but it is evidence in the same sense as the research that Respondents cited.
 
What is more, there is now a body of new evidence—based for once on recognizably scientific methods—arising from a study using a large randomized sample, objective measures of well-being, and reports of grown children rather than their parents. This study found that children raised in a household where a parent was involved in a same-sex romantic relationship were at a significant disadvantage on several objective measures of wellbeing. This obviously implies nothing conclusive about the effects of same-sex marriage, about which there is too little data from which to draw any clear inferences at all. But neither can its possible implications be dismissed, especially in light of the weaknesses of the earlier research that tended to find little or no difference in the outcomes for children raised by same-sex couples. The earlier research was based on severely biased data. One prominent study, for example, relied on a sample recruited entirely at lesbian events, in women’s bookstores, and in lesbian newspapers. Others relied on samples as small as 18 or 33 or 44 cases. And most of them relied heavily on reports by parents about their children’s well-being while the children were still under their own care.
 
This is hardly the stuff from which scientifically valid conclusions could possibly be drawn.
 
Not surprisingly, a detailed re-analysis of 59 studies cited by the American Psychological Association in a 2005 publication showed serious flaws in the research, and concluded that “strong, generalized assertions, including those made by the APA [publication], were not empirically warranted.”
 
The new research cited above, which suggests that being raised by homosexual parents may have adverse effects on children, is the most scientific of the studies now available, but it certainly is not the last word on the subject. Its author, Professor Mark Regnerus, freely acknowledges that his work is only the beginning of a long-term scientific project. He has, moreover, specifically cautioned against drawing conclusions about causality from his findings, and has warned against basing legal decisions on his preliminary  research.
 
Amici agree that the outcome of this case should not be determined by Professor Regnerus’ research, any more than it should be affected by the less scientific studies that preceded his. But it is now undeniably false to say that all the scientific evidence points toward an equivalence of outcomes for children raised by homosexual and heterosexual parents.
 
The simple fact is that nobody knows, or could possibly know, what the effects of legalizing same-sex marriage will be. Human well-being is an extraordinarily complex phenomenon, which is affected by an extremely large and diverse number of causal factors. Decades from now, it may be possible for researchers using scientific methods to provide meaningful measures of the effects of same-sex marriage on individuals and society. Today it is not.
 
4. Inconclusive studies are often used to argue that controversial policies are scientifically supported.
 
Studies conducted by social and behavioral scientists are frequently cited to support policy decisions for which the studies themselves offer little or no support. While the results published in academic journals typically contain caveats about the data and methodology used by the researcher, the studies are often cited for propositions far beyond what the research can legitimately support. Journalists, activists, litigants, and interested amici are especially prone to such overstatements, but government officials are not immune and neither are social and behavioral scientists themselves.
 
A revealing example is provided by two nearly simultaneous commissions that studied the effects of popular media on viewers. The National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence found that “[t]he preponderance of available research evidence strongly suggests... that violence in television programs can and does have adverse effects upon audiences—particularly child audiences,” and that broadcasters should accept “the burden of proof that such programs are not harmful to the public interest.”
 
The President’s Commission on Obscenity and Pornography found that “extensive empirical investigation... provides no evidence that exposure to or use of explicit sexual materials plays a significant role in the causation of social or individual harms such as crime, delinquency, sexual or nonsexual deviancy or severe disturbances.” The contrast is arresting, as is the fact that at least one academic participated in both commissions and managed to provide support for both.
 
The “no evidence” conclusion of the pornography commission should have come as no surprise, given the obstacles to obtaining reliable scientific evidence that such effects either do or do not exist. Yet the commission went on to make recommendations about public policies based in significant part on research finding “no evidence” of harmful effects. The violence commission’s Task Force on Mass Media and Violence, for its part, relied on research that manifestly did not support its conclusions. This led a leading social scientist, Harvard’s James Q. Wilson, to say: “The blunt truth is there is almost no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the conclusions of either the Task Force or the Commission... unless what one means by ‘violent behavior’ is a willingness to engage in certain forms of harmless play.”
 
Professor Wilson went on to lament one feature of the commission’s report in particular: “Perhaps the most distressing aspect of the entire enterprise is the tone of advocacy that pervades some of the chapters written by social scientists who seem more interested in finding any data, however badly interpreted, that will support their policy conclusions.”
 
Professor Wilson, we should stress, was a strong proponent of modern social science, who believed that it can discover evidence that may have implications for public policy.
 
But “[w]hen social scientists are asked to measure consequences in terms of a badly conceptualized or hard-to-measure ‘effect’ of one among many highly interrelated ‘causes,’ all of which operate (if at all) over long periods of time, they tend to discover that there is no relationship or at best a weak and contingent one.” Accordingly, he did not invoke science to claim that exposure to media violence is harmless or that pornography is harmful. Rather, his analysis showed that the kind of social science relied on by these two commissions cannot answer—or even meaningfully contribute to answering—the public policy questions they addressed. The same is true of the research that Respondents and their amici have urged upon the courts in this case.
 
Like Professor Wilson, this Court has frequently been skeptical about the findings of social and behavioral scientists, especially in the area of human psychology. This has led to some frustration among academics. One commentator, for example, castigated the Court at length for its resistance to using the results of psychological research in decisions about trial process.
 
In the course of his critique, the commentator announced without reservation that “psychologists agree that eyewitness identification of strangers is unreliable,” citing as an authority a 1985 publication by Professor Gary Wells. At the time, such a consensus may have existed among researchers in this area. Subsequently, however, Wells himself, and other researchers as well, have concluded that such broad statements are not supportable. The Court has been right in refusing to change the law on eyewitness identification in response to preliminary research by social scientists. There is at least as much reason not to change the existing law in this case.
 
5. The court should rely for its decision in this case on the law, rather than on speculation and ideology masquerading as science.
 
Beginning with the development of “Brandeis Briefs” early in the last century, and increasingly in recent decades, it is fair to say that this Court has been inundated with arguments and evidence from social and behavioral scientists. There undoubtedly are areas where social science can offer meaningful assistance to policymakers and to courts. This Court has found guidance, for example, from economics in the field of antitrust law and from statistical studies in the field of employment discrimination. No such meaningful assistance can possibly be drawn from the kind of studies that Respondents and their amici cited in the courts below, and which they presumably will cite again in this Court. The research they offer cannot possibly confirm that the effects of same-sex marriage will be harmless or beneficial. The scientific evidence cited to support this change in social policy is manifestly inconclusive, and there is no good reason to give it any weight at all. The social and behavioral scientists who make rosy predictions are using their academic credentials to advance a policy they prefer for reasons outside their fields of expertise.
 
This case can and should be resolved on the basis of existing law, which should not be altered in response to advocacy posing as science.
 
Conclusion
 
For all the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons set forth by Petitioners, the Court should decline to remove decisions about legalizing same-sex marriage from the democratic process.

Title: Transgender pregnant "man" blocked from getting divorced?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 30, 2013, 03:39:10 PM

The mind boggles , , ,

http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2013/03/30/bizarre-news-judge-blocks-divorce-for-transgender-pregnant-man/

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 01, 2013, 08:52:45 AM

"No progressive 100 years ago could have conceived of gay marriage. In fact, merely a decade-and-a-half ago, the entirety of the Democratic Party supported traditional marriage, codified under law. ... [F]or progressives, where's their next redefinition in the ongoing process of redefining marriage? Does the evolution end with one man and one woman, or one man and one man, or one woman and one woman? Why could it not next progress to one man and multiple women? Could it involve an adult and a minor? Could their evolving redefinition include first cousins or a parent and child? Could it include multiple heterosexuals or homosexuals in single or even joint or group spousal relationships? The answer: progressives, by their very definition, cannot answer you. We do know, however, that progressives are happy to do with marriage what they do with everything: hand it over to the federal government. Render under government what is government's. And what is government's province? It's anything progressives decide. ... [Conservatives] can tell you our end-goal, our ideal. Progressives cannot. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a train-wreck of an ideology, with literally no end to its havoc. It is currently careening into the most fundamental building block of human civilization: the family." --professor and author Dr. Paul Kengor

Faith and Family

"In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that it is more about adults' desires than children's needs. This view reduces marriage primarily to intense emotional bonds. If marriage were just intense emotional regard, marital norms would make no sense as a principled matter. There is no reason of principle that requires an emotional union to be permanent. Or limited to two persons. Or sexual, much less sexually exclusive (as opposed to 'open'). Or inherently oriented to family life and shaped by its demands. Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children and deny the importance of mothers and fathers. It would deny, as a matter of policy, the ideal that children need a mother and a father. ... It would be very difficult for the law to send a message that fathers matter once it had redefined marriage to make fathers optional." --Heritage Foundation's Ryan T. Anderson

Title: Polyamorous family
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 01, 2013, 10:48:36 AM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/29/tv-show-wife-swap-sets-up-tea-party-christian-with-polyamorous-family-guess-who-ends-up-looking-reasonable/

Title: POTH: Brooks: Freedom loses one
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 02, 2013, 04:30:53 AM

What an odd argument!

Freedom Loses One
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: April 1, 2013
 
I don’t think we’ve paused sufficiently to celebrate the wonderful recent defeat for the cause of personal freedom. After all, these sorts of defeats don’t happen every day.

Over the past 40 years, personal freedom has been on a nearly uninterrupted winning streak. In the 1960s, we saw a great expansion of social and lifestyle freedom. In the 1980s, we saw a great expansion of economic freedom. Since then, we’ve had everything from jeans commercials to rock anthems to political conventions celebrating freedom as the highest ideal.

People are much more at liberty these days to follow their desires, unhampered by social convention, religious and ethnic traditions and legal restraints.

The big thinkers down through the ages warned us this was going to have downsides. Alexis de Tocqueville and Emile Durkheim thought that if people are left perfectly free to pursue their individual desires, they will discover their desires are unlimited and unquenchable. They’ll turn inward and become self-absorbed. Society will become atomized. You’ll end up with more loneliness and less community.

Other big thinkers believed that if people are left perfectly free to follow their desires, their baser ones will end up dominating their nobler ones. For these writers, the goal in life is not primarily to be free but to be good. Being virtuous often means thwarting your inclinations, obeying a power outside yourself. It means maintaining a balance between liberty and restraint, restricting freedom for the sake of an ordered existence. As Edmund Burke put it:

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites. ... Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

Recently, the balance between freedom and restraint has been thrown out of whack. People no longer even have a language to explain why freedom should sometimes be limited. The results are as predicted. A decaying social fabric, especially among the less fortunate. Decline in marriage. More children raised in unsteady homes. Higher debt levels as people spend to satisfy their cravings.

But last week saw a setback for the forces of maximum freedom. A representative of millions of gays and lesbians went to the Supreme Court and asked the court to help put limits on their own freedom of choice. They asked for marriage.

Marriage is one of those institutions — along with religion and military service — that restricts freedom. Marriage is about making a commitment that binds you for decades to come. It narrows your options on how you will spend your time, money and attention.

Whether they understood it or not, the gays and lesbians represented at the court committed themselves to a certain agenda. They committed themselves to an institution that involves surrendering autonomy. They committed themselves to the idea that these self-restrictions should be reinforced by the state. They committed themselves to the idea that lifestyle choices are not just private affairs but work better when they are embedded in law.

And far from being baffled by this attempt to use state power to restrict individual choice, most Americans seem to be applauding it. Once, gay culture was erroneously associated with bathhouses and nightclubs. Now, the gay and lesbian rights movement is associated with marriage and military service. Once the movement was associated with self-sacrifice, it was bound to become popular.

Americans may no longer have a vocabulary to explain why freedom should sometimes be constricted, but they like it when they see people trying to do it. Once Americans acknowledged gay people exist, then, of course, they wanted them enmeshed in webs of obligation.

I suspect that this shift in public acceptance will be permanent, unless it turns out that marriages are more unstable when two people of the same gender are involved.

And, who knows, maybe we’ll see other spheres in life where restraints are placed on maximum personal choice. Maybe there will be sumptuary codes that will make lavish spending and C.E.O. salaries unseemly. Maybe there will be social codes so that people understand that the act of creating a child includes a lifetime commitment to give him or her an organized home. Maybe voters will restrain their appetite for their grandchildren’s money. Maybe more straight people will marry.

The proponents of same-sex marriage used the language of equality and rights in promoting their cause, because that is the language we have floating around. But, if it wins, same-sex marriage will be a victory for the good life, which is about living in a society that induces you to narrow your choices and embrace your obligations.

Title: 10 Compliments to give your wife
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 03, 2013, 03:25:57 PM

http://www.allprodad.com/top10/marriage/10-specific-compliments-to-give-your-wife/

Title: Gay infertility to be a basis for mandatory fertility treatments?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 07, 2013, 05:58:17 PM

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/gay-infertility-is-the-new-mandatory-health-insurance-frontier/

Title: Teen Peer Pressure
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 18, 2013, 02:19:04 PM

Peer Pressure for Teens Paves the Path to Adulthood
By SHIRLEY S. WANG

New studies on peer pressure suggest that teens—who often seem to follow each other like lemmings—may do so because their brains derive more pleasure from social acceptance than adult brains, and not because teens are less capable of making rational decisions.
[image] Lorenzo Cancian-Kavoliunas

Xavier Corbeil, left, Yannick Stein-Tremblay, center, and Lorenzo Cancian-Kavoliunas, right, friends from Montreal, on a recent visit to New York. They say resisting peer pressure got easier as they grew older.

And scientists say facing the influence of friends represents an important developmental step for teens on their way to becoming independent-thinking adults.

Peer pressure is often seen as a negative, and indeed it can coax kids into unhealthy behavior like smoking or speeding. But it can also lead to engagement in more useful social behaviors. If peers value doing well in school or excelling at sports, for instance, it might encourage kids to study or train harder. And both peer pressure and learning to resist it are important developmental steps to self-reliance, experts say.

Research suggests people are strikingly susceptible to influence as teenagers, but to what degree varies widely. In a growing body of work, including research published in April, scientists suggest that teens are more vulnerable to peer pressure than adults because they get greater pleasure from behaviors they experience as rewarding. They tend to find being liked by other people very gratifying.

Peer influence during adolescence is normal and tends to peak around age 15, then decline. Teens get better at setting boundaries with peers by age 18 according to Laurence Steinberg, a psychology professor at Temple University.

During puberty, people experience an increase in novelty-seeking, demonstrated by interest in exploring a new environment.

"It is adaptive to have a [biological] system that encourages you to start exploring outside the home, to start making your new own peer circles," says Beatriz Luna, a developmental cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center who studies peer influence and the adolescent brain.

In years past, people thought teens didn't have fully developed frontal lobes, the part of the brain critical for decision-making and other more complex cognitive tasks. But a growing body of work seems to show that teens are able to make decisions as well as adults when they are not emotionally worked up.

Bad Pressure: As teens mature, biological changes in their brains make them better able to work past the negative influence of their peers on issues from clothing to smoking.

Good Pressure: Teens can benefit from the right kind of peer pressure, such as being coaxed into overcoming a fear or trying a challenging activity.

Instead, the key may be that the reward centers of the brain get more activated in adolescence, and seem to be activated by our peers. This heightened rush of neurotransmitters brings the teenager more pleasure than the same experience might in an adult, Dr. Luna says.

In addition, the connections between the frontal lobes and other parts of the human brain are still forming into one's 20s. That means the ability to make decisions when emotional—and peer pressure often induces emotion—isn't at full strength in the teenage years.

"It's not that they don't understand the risks involved," Dr. Luna says.

In terms of who is most resistant to peer pressure, researchers have identified some characteristics of kids who are resilient against peer influence, such as those who are more popular, have families with low dysfunction and have high communication skills. But they still don't know why these kids are less susceptible, according to Mitchell Prinstein, a psychology professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who studies popularity and peer influence.

Though peer pressure affects all kids, risky, "bad" behaviors like drinking tend to be associated with being popular, so kids who are less popular or have lower self-esteem tend to fall prey to peer influence for these behaviors rather than, for instance, doing well in school.

In a series of studies, including one published last year in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, researchers set up an Internet chat room and led kids to believe they were interacting with three peers who were considered popular or unpopular. The kids were then asked questions like, "Imagine you're in a party scenario and someone offers you alcohol. What would you drink?" If the other people in the room say yes, the effect is "very powerful," says Dr. Prinstein. "We find our respondents dramatically change their response."

When the supposed peers are popular, highly socially anxious kids indiscriminately conform—they would agree with whatever the other kids decided—but low-anxiety kids were more choosy. The kids most likely to be influenced are the least popular—not necessarily because of low self-esteem but because they want to be positively evaluated to fit in.

Another factor that seems to affect peer influence is ethnicity. When the chat room was filled with Caucasians, nonwhites weren't substantially affected by the Caucasians' responses, though it's not possible from the study to conclude why, Dr. Prinstein says. It could be that nonwhites are not as influenced by peers or people outside their own ethnic group.

Also, some of what appears to be resistance to peer pressure is just about wanting to be different. Some people have a higher need for uniqueness, but they're still being influenced, says Jonah Berger, a marketing professor at the University of Pennsylvania who studies social influence and consumer decision-making.

Kids from different social circles may wear very different clothing from people in other cliques, but resemble each other, even those outside the mainstream. For instance, a group of friends may sport Mohawk haircuts in reaction to other kids in school wearing preppy gear.

Warm parenting with strict boundaries, so-called "authoritative parenting," is linked to kids who are more independent thinkers. But, Temple's Dr. Steinberg warns, in order for kids to develop the ability to stand up to peer pressure, parents are going to have to let their children stand up to them, too.

"If you're the kind of parent that raises your children with the 'do it because I said so' approach, you're raising a child who's going to be more susceptible to others saying, 'Do this,' " Dr. Steinberg says.

Parents can also help their children anticipate situations of peer pressure, like declining alcohol at a party, and go over strategies to help a child save face while still avoiding an activity. "Sometimes, just having a prepared response can help a teenager get off a runaway train," says Dr. Steinberg, who is also the author of "You and Your Adolescent."

Parents should thoroughly assess their kids' friends, says Dr. Steinberg. It's better to start early and express opinions. Once a child reaches adolescence, friends may wield more influence than authority figures, so simply saying a child isn't allowed to hang out with a particular friend anymore may be met with resistance.

Instead of banning that friend outright, starting a dialogue could get better results. If they have concerns, parents should try to elicit more information, like asking their daughter why she likes a friend who concerns them.

Lorenzo Cancian-Kavoliunas, a 19-year-old Montreal college student, thinks he was able to resist peer pressure more as his confidence grew when he made good friends and began excelling in sports. "It went from below the ground to the heavens," he says.

Having good friends "turns you into a leader," Mr. Cancian-Kavoliunas says. "You don't feel like you have to fit in. You are in.

"Now I peer-pressure people," Mr. Cancian-Kavoliunas says jokingly, "but in a good way," like coaxing friends to train and join him as a lifeguard this summer in Ocean City, Md.

Title: The Parent Rap
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 19, 2013, 01:15:31 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N_NspDWssIY

Title: Marriage=one man + one woman
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 20, 2013, 04:37:18 AM

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/pdf/Marriage_E-Book_Download.pdf

Title: Coming changes in marriage
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 21, 2013, 09:25:12 AM

http://www.mercatornet.com/Newsletterv0810/view_txt/yes_marriage_will_change_and_heres_how

Title: Profoundly misguided
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 23, 2013, 07:47:40 AM

The Misnomer of ‘Motherless’ Parenting
Karen Barbour
By FRANK LIGTVOET
Published: June 22, 2013


SOMETIMES when my daughter, who is 7, is nicely cuddled up in her bed and I snuggle her, she calls me Mommy. I am a stay-at-home dad. My male partner and I adopted both of our children at birth in open domestic adoptions. We could fill our home with nannies, sisters, grandmothers, female friends, but no mothers.

My daughter says “Mommy” in a funny way, in a high-pitched voice. Although I refer the honors immediately to her birth mom, I am flattered. But saddened as well, because she expresses herself in a voice that is not her own. It is her stuffed-animal voice. She expresses not only love; she also expresses alienation. She can role-play the mother-daughter relationship, but she cannot use her real voice, nor have the real thing.

I have seen two types of arguments in the discussion on gay adoption. The first is the civil-rights argument. You find this in David Strah’s book “Gay Dads: A Celebration of Fatherhood,” which contains interviews with gay fathers. “The men in this book stuck it out, kept struggling, claimed their rights, and triumphed in the end,” it says. “They are heroic, and their heroism is a gift for their children.”

The books adds: “If coming out was the first step and forming a movement the second, then perhaps asserting our fundamental right to be parents is the third step in our evolution as a community.” The argument is not so much about the voices or feelings of the children but about those of their dads.

More child-focused, but still reflecting the values of the grown-ups, is the second argument: the good-enough-parent idea, as developed in the series of research papers on gay and lesbian adoption of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. The executive summary of the 2006 report states: “Social science research concludes that children reared by gay and lesbian parents fare comparably to those of children raised by heterosexuals on a range of measures of social and psychological adjustment.” Kids of gay dads (and lesbians) do just as well as kids of moms and dads, the research shows. Being a good-enough parent counts for gay people, just as it does for straight people.

What is not expressed in both arguments, which I consider valid, is the voice of the adoptee — my daughter’s voice, that is. Her awareness of being a motherless child is not addressed. I don’t want to appropriate our child’s voice, but I want to speak up for her, and her older brother, and I want to acknowledge their feelings.

Being a “motherless” child in an open adoption is not as simple as it looks, because there is a birth mother, who walks in and walks out of the lives of our children. And when she is not physically there, she is — as we know from many accounts of adult adoptees — still present in dreams, fantasies, longings and worries.

In a closed or an international adoption there is also a mother — sometimes in photos, but always in the narrative of the child’s birth, which also starts for them with “in your mommy’s tummy.” When the mother walks into the lives of our kids it is mostly a wonderful experience. It is harder for them when she walks out, not only because of the sad goodbye of a beloved adult, but also because it triggers the difficult and painful question of why she walked out in the first place.

The answer initially depends very much on us, and we have to help our kids find a narrative that is honest about the circumstances and the unjust world we live in, yet loving and respectful toward the mother. To do that properly, gay families have to create an emotional space where the mother lives as a reality, a space where she can be addressed and discussed without any shame or secrecy.

So, motherless parenting is a misnomer. Also, the wider world around our kids sees mothers when they are not there. Every step we as a family take outside in public comes with a question from a stranger about the mother of the children: a motherless child seems unthinkable. When I picked up my sick son from school one day after a call from the nurse’s office, we bumped into his class in the hall. One of the boys saw us and called, “Hey, where’s your mom?”

THAT was awkward, because our son had introduced himself to his classmates at the beginning of the school year with pictures of our family and of his birth family. That had made a deep impression. The boy who called out was without doubt aware of our son’s situation, and he was certainly not meanspirited. But he was just not able to see the scene of a father and a sick son objectively and injected a mother, who would have been there in most cases. The forces of normalcy, as I would like to call them, are strong, and can be difficult and confusing for children who live outside that normalcy.

Gay parents, trained to deal with those forces, should be aware of the effect on their children. What these questions do touches on a vulnerability in the children’s identity, the identity of the motherless child. The outside world says time and again — not in a negative way, but matter-of-factly — you are not like us. We have to give our kids the chance to give voice to that vulnerability, and to acknowledge the sad and complicated feelings of being different. (And show the pride in that as well.)

How to parent around these issues of motherlessness and vulnerability is a personal choice. There are practical matters, like where your family lives, where your kids go to school, what clubs and churches you are members of, what friends and family you have over for dinner, where you go on vacation. Still, the overarching idea behind parenting by gay men should be that it is great for a child to have one or two dads, and that not having a mom in your daily life can be hard. And that it is O.K. to long for a soft cheek instead of a stubbly one.

Frank Ligtvoet is the founder of Adoptive Families With Children of African Heritage and Their Friends, a New York City support group, and a member of the board of the New York State Citizens’ Coalition for Children.

Title: The Velveteen Rabbit
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 28, 2013, 10:45:08 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_m054tLKvs

Title: Human Genetic Engineering in UK; 3 parent embryos
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 29, 2013, 09:27:26 AM

UK to allow research into three-parent embryos
by Michael Cook | Jun 29, 2013 |
       
tags: genetics, mitochondrial replacement, three-parent embryos
 
The UK government has decided that it will allow the creation of three-parent embryos to prevent the births of children with mitochondrial diseases. The announcement came after an extensive consultation carried out by the fertility watchdog, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, last year which found that most Britons were not opposed to the procedure.
The UK's Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, said: "Scientists have developed ground-breaking new procedures which could stop these diseases being passed on, bringing hope to many families seeking to prevent their future children inheriting them. It's only right that we look to introduce this life-saving treatment as soon as we can."
While the news was reported as a breakthrough and a world first by the media, there were voices of dissent. Dr David King, of the lobby group Human Genetics Alert, was bitterly critical.
"These techniques are unnecessary and unsafe and were in fact rejected by the majority of consultation responses. It is a disaster that the decision to cross the line that will eventually lead to a eugenic designer baby market should be taken on the basis of an utterly biased and inadequate consultation."
(The HFEA huffily denied that the consultation was biased, saying that "Our consultation was a more nuanced exercise than simply counting up votes for and against the techniques.")
The ethics of mitochondrial transfer were overshadowed in the media by the stories of happy parents whose children would not suffer or die. The issues were framed by supporters of the research to make it sound completely benign. However, as opponents pointed out, there are many unanswered questions.
For starters, mitochondrial diseases affect about 1 in 6,500 babies - about 200 a year in Britain. While some of these children are seriously ill, others suffer much less and lead productive lives. (It appears that Charles Darwin suffered from a mitochondrial dysfunction.) According to the BBC, only about 10 couples every year would benefit from the technique.
This would also be the first time that a government has authorised "full-scale germline genetic engineering", in the words of Stuart Newman, of New York Medical College.
Some scientists flatly deny that the babies would have three parents, because only about 1% of the DNA they inherit will come from its "second mother". But others argue that it is a vital part of its genetic make-up and that the "three-parent embryo" tag is accurate.
Furthermore, research into the mitochondrial replacement will involve the destruction of thousands of embryos. How the vast amount of human eggs are to be obtained for the research programme also involves ethical quandaries.
Even the Guardian's columnist Zoe Williams, a strong supporter of reproductive rights, thought that the ethics of this research had not been studied carefully.
"There are clearly implications here that go beyond the curative properties of the technique as it's used at the moment, and questions thrown up to which the answer "think of all the suffering alleviated for mitochondrial disorder sufferers" is insufficient."

Title: Re: Human Genetic Engineering in UK; 3 parent embryos
Post by: DougMacG on June 29, 2013, 11:52:32 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on June 29, 2013, 09:27:26 AM

UK to allow research into three-parent embryos
The UK government has decided that it will allow the creation of three-parent embryos to prevent the births of children with mitochondrial diseases. The announcement came after an extensive consultation carried out by the fertility watchdog, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, last year which found that most Britons were not opposed to the procedure.

I understand that this is for the purpose of preventing a genetic disease but at some point, in my view, man pretending to take over for God with the design and evolution of life is not realistic or in our best interest.

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 04, 2013, 06:56:39 PM

Do Traditional Marriage Supporters Deserve to Be Treated with Dignity?
by Jim DeMint, President of The Heritage Foundation

Some people can’t seem to understand why anyone would support marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Indeed, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued last week that the only reason Congress had for passing the Defense of Marriage Act was to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” others. Justice Kennedy says we’re denying dignity to people in same-sex relationships. But it is his ruling that denies dignity to those who don’t think a same-sex relationship is a marriage. His ruling denies dignity to the millions of Americans and their elected officials who have voted to pass laws that tell the truth about marriage.
 

The rhetoric from the Supreme Court attacking the goodwill of the majority of Americans—who know marriage is the union of a man and a woman—is not helpful. The marriage debate will continue, and all Americans need to be civil and respectful.

Already, however, we have seen that those in favor of redefining marriage are willing to use the coercive force of law to marginalize and penalize those who hold the historic view of marriage—even if it means trampling First Amendment religious liberty protections along the way. This is already evident in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, D.C., where Christian adoption agencies have been forced to stop providing adoption and foster care services.

Legal challenges have been brought against wedding-related service providers who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, after they declined to participate in ceremonies that would have violated their consciences. A photographer in New Mexico, a florist in Washington, and a baker in Colorado have already been victims of such intolerant coercion.

Our interest in marriage policy from the beginning has been to ensure that a man and woman commit to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children they create. This gives children the best chance at a flourishing future. When children have that, liberals are less likely to succeed in their efforts to grow the welfare state. It is impossible for the government to redefine marriage to make fathers optional and for society to insist at the same time that fathers are essential.

In its ruling last week, the Supreme Court refused to wrestle with any of the serious scholarly arguments that support marriage policy as the union of a man and a woman, and instead declared that Congress acted solely out of ill will.

It is outrageous to suggest that 342 Members of the House, 85 Senators, and President Bill Clinton were all acting on the basis of anti-gay bias in 1996, when the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted. As Chief Justice John Roberts says in his dissent, “I would not tar the political branches with bigotry.”

Indeed, as Heritage has argued repeatedly, there are valid reasons to oppose the redefinition of marriage—which those House Members, Senators, and President Clinton took into account. Marriage matters for children, civil society, and limited government, because children deserve a mother and a father, and when this doesn’t happen, social costs run high.

Citizens and their elected representatives have the constitutional authority to make policy that recognizes marriage as the union of a man and a woman. States will lead the way even as we work to restore clear marriage policy at the federal level. And in the states, support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman remains strong.

The Heritage Foundation will be joining with millions of Americans to ensure that support for marriage continues to grow and that marriage proponents can express their views in this debate. Go to TheMarriageFacts.com today to download your free copy of our e-book on marriage. And continue to speak out boldly about why marriage—that union of one man and one woman—is important for children, civil society, and limited government. 

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 06, 2013, 09:01:21 AM

LOS ANGELES — Sinai Temple is a Conservative Jewish congregation perched on a hill in Westwood, famous for its wealth, its sizable population of Persians, many of whom fled Iran after the fall of the shah, and a well-known and outspoken rabbi who has at times pushed his congregation on ideologically adventurous paths.


So it was that three weeks before the Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex marriage in California, the rabbi, David Wolpe, announced in a letter to the synagogue that gay marriages would be performed in this 107-year-old congregation, as soon as the court ruling he anticipated was handed down.

Celebrating same-sex marriages is hardly a new stand for Conservative Jewish congregations. But the decision in this distinctive synagogue has set off a storm of protests in recent days, particularly from Persian Jews, reflecting not only the unusual makeup of the congregation but also the generational and cultural divisions among some Jews over how to respond to changing civil views of homosexuality.

“To officiate a union that is expressly not for the same godly purpose of procreation and to call such a relationship ‘sanctified’ is unacceptable to a sound mind,” M. Michael Naim, an architect, said in an open letter to other Iranian members of the congregation. “Homosexuality is explicitly condemned in Scripture and has been categorically and passionately rejected by all classical Jewish legal and ethical thinkers as a cardinal vice in the same category as incest, murder and idolatry.”

This is not the first time that Rabbi Wolpe, 54, has attracted national attention for the views he has pressed on his congregation. In one noted sermon, he expressed doubt about one of the great stories of Jewish life, the exodus of Jews from Egypt into the wilderness.

The synagogue is an anchor of the Los Angeles Jewish community, and Rabbi Wolpe himself is such an entrenched figure there that there seems little chance that its existence, or his tenure, is endangered. Still, the argument within the congregation offered a striking contrast to the images of gay couples across this state rushing to be married, reflected in smiling faces in newspapers and on evening television.

Mr. Naim said he was leaving the congregation. Rabbi Wolpe said that 10 families had told him so far that they intended to either leave the synagogue or withdraw their children from its school, to protest a policy they denounced as a violation of Jewish teachings and the traditions they had brought here when they fled the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Rabbi Wolpe said that based on letters he had received, and comments voiced to him as he walked the aisles of the sprawling, sunny sanctuary on Wilshire Boulevard during Saturday morning service, close to half of the congregation of 2,000 families, which is about half Persian, was unhappy with the new policy.

“The Persian community is pretty heavily weighted against the idea of same-sex marriage,” Rabbi Wolpe said. “And there are some non-Persians who also oppose it, and have made their convictions clear to me.”

“I’ve been wanting to do this for a long time,” Rabbi Wolpe said. “I was doing it on my internal timetable in the synagogue, which was to try to bring people along slowly because I knew this would be very difficult for many people. I think it’s the most controversial thing I’ve ever done or will do.”

The decision by Rabbi Wolpe, who has been at this synagogue for 15 years and is one of the country’s best known rabbis, was very much in accordance with other Conservative congregations. Conservative Judaism is perched between the more liberal Reform and Reconstructionist movements, which have long accepted gay clergy members, and the Orthodox, which rejects it.

Some Conservative congregations have gay rabbis and cantors. But the announcement and its aftermath served as a reminder of one of the things that distinguish Sinai Temple and nearby Beverly Hills: a heavy and at times insular presence of Persians, as many call themselves, and many of them are fiercely protective of their past and religious beliefs.

At Saturday services last week, the roll call of deceased members read off during the memorial conclusion of the service, in preparation for the chanting of the mourners’ Kaddish, was rich with Persian names, a notable addition to the usual roster of names like Abramowitz and Schwartz. And the girl who read from the Torah to observe her bat mitzvah was the daughter of Persian immigrants.

The resistance Rabbi Wolpe is finding among Persian Jews is, like much of the country, generational. Rabbi Ed Feinstein of Valley Beth Shalom in Encino, which also has a significant Persian population, said that he has long performed same-sex ceremonies, without any pushback.

=============================

 “In my experience, it’s all about generations,” Rabbi Feinstein said in an e-mail. “First-generation Persian Jews, immigrants who were raised in the Moslem culture of Iran, have very strong prejudices against gays and lesbians, along with other strong feelings about matters such as women’s roles in families and society, families’ control over the lives of kids, roles of husbands and wives, etc. Second-generation American Persian Jews, raised in the U.S. and generally college educated, have very different opinions.”


And the decision has backing among some Persian members of Sinai. “There are some people who are not yet ready to accept nontraditional views,” said Dora Kadisha, a member of the congregation. “But we cannot look the other way knowing that within our community we do have gays and lesbians. We have to embrace them not only in the families but in our congregations.”

Her father, Parviz Nazarian, one of the best-known members of the Persian community in Los Angeles, also said he supported the new policy. “Many people are following Rabbi Wolpe,” he said. “They are with him.”

Rabbi Wolpe said that while he looked forward to conducting same-sex marriages, he would continue to refuse to perform interfaith weddings, again reflecting the policy of the Conservative movement.

In laying the groundwork for the new policy over the past months, Rabbi Wolpe led a series of classes and workshops. “This is an important and fraught topic — people have very passionate feelings about it,” he said, opening the final one of the meetings. Moments later, the rabbi was challenged by a young Persian man asking why the synagogue should not simply refer to gay marriage as “a sodomy contract.”

The rabbi’s letter to the congregation argued that Jewish law not only permitted such unions, but also should embrace them.

“Our clergy believe that this decision is in the best tradition of the Conservative movement which views the Torah as a living document that allows room for new understandings and approaches,” it said. “As we have modernized the role of women and many other practices, the demand on the part of our brothers and sisters who are gay to be able to live in a sanctified relationship is a call to our conscience and our responsibility as Jews.”

Laurie L. Levenson, a law professor and a member of the congregation, said that she believed most of the congregation supported Rabbi Wolpe.

“It is a big congregation with people from many backgrounds,” she said. “Marriage equality is a new concept for some of the Persian families. There is an educational process that needs to take place. Thankfully, Rabbi Wolpe has so much credibility that he can pull this off.”

Title: Why marriage matters most
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 12, 2013, 07:24:00 AM

Why Marriage Matters Most
by Ryan T. Anderson, William E. Simon Fellow at The Heritage Foundation

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy can't seem to understand why every political community on earth until the year 2000 recognized marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In his mind, this can be explained only by anti-gay "animus."

Justice Kennedy is wrong.

The state isn't in the marriage business because it cares about love or romance, but because the sexual union of a man and a woman can produce new life and this new life deserves a mother and a father.

When a newborn isn't raised by the man and the woman -- the mother and the father -- who gave him or her life, social costs run high.
 

Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children need both a mother and a father.

There is no such thing as "parenting." There is mothering and there is fathering. Although men and women are each capable of providing their children with a good upbringing, typically there are differences in how mothers and fathers interact with their children and the functional roles that they play.
Dads play particularly important roles in the formation of both sons and daughters.

"The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender-differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable," Rutgers University sociologist David Popenoe explains.

"We should disavow the notion that 'mommies can make good daddies,' just as we should disavow the popular notion ... that 'daddies can make good mommies,' " Popenoe concludes. "The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary -- culturally and biologically -- for the optimal development of a human being."

Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way no other relationship does. Marriage is society's least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. State recognition protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children. Read our e-book for more insights >>

Social science confirms this. The best available research evidence shows that children fare best on virtually every examined indicator when reared by their wedded biological parents.

While respecting everyone's liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for childbearing and childrearing.

Read the rest and share this commentary online with your friends >>

Title: WSJ: Benefits
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 14, 2013, 09:46:25 PM

Social Security Benefits Now Available to Same-Sex Couples
Spousal, survivor payments could be worth thousands of dollars
By JENNIFER WATERS

The Supreme Court's recent decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act gave a huge retirement present to couples in same-sex marriages.

Social Security and Medicare benefits—two cornerstones of retirement planning long enjoyed by most married Americans—will be a bonanza for couples in the 13 states that recognize gay marriage. Gay and lesbian couples will be eligible for valuable spousal and survivor benefits that could be worth tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of dollars to each household.

President Barack Obama has promised that all relevant federal benefits and obligations will be implemented "swiftly and smoothly," including retirement and health benefits, according to the Social Security Administration.

Once they are, gay couples married in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington and Washington, D.C., will be able to incorporate Social Security and Medicare benefits into their post-career planning. Minnesota and Rhode Island join that roster Aug. 1.

Men (or women) married to each other, even if divorced, for example, will be able to collect up to half of each other's Social Security benefits if certain conditions are met. If one is widowed, even if divorced, he can receive up to 100% of the deceased spouse's benefit if it's less than his own benefit, and a spouse or divorced spouse may qualify for half of a worker's disability benefits. Medicare benefits also are available to spouses who haven't contributed.

For those living in states that accept only same-sex civil unions, the federal benefits will not be so generous. The Obama administration will not extend federal-worker benefits to domestic partners who are not legally married.

That applies to civil unions in Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois and New Jersey. Oregon, Nevada and Wisconsin have domestic-partnership laws on the books. Activists hope to eke out a legislative or court victory for gay-marriage laws in Illinois and New Jersey by the end of the year. Other pivotal states in the near term include Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon.

The first known legal test to overturn bans on gay marriage emerged last week when civil-rights lawyers, representing 23 men, women and children, challenged Pennsylvania's law.

The Supreme Court did not touch a DOMA provision that states need not recognize same-sex marriages performed by other states. Because the Social Security Act relies on where you were "domiciled when you filed for benefits," Congress will have to address changing the law to apply to couples who get married in states where gay marriages are legal but move to states where they're not. Thirty states outlaw same-sex unions.

"States have all kinds of rules about what is marriage, but at this point if your state of residence says you're not married, you're not married," says John Olivieri, a partner at White & Case law firm.

Q:I will be 63 in November and was told that when my ex-husband passed away recently I would qualify for his benefits since I never remarried and was married to him for 15 years.

Can I draw on his benefits in December and then when I am 66, switch to mine? Or am I only able to get his then?

Deborah P.

St. Paul, Minn.

A:There are three issues here: when you want to retire, your full retirement age, which isn't until 66; and your ex-husband's Social Security benefits.

You do qualify for his benefits because you stayed single and were married to him for more than 10 years. But if you take those benefits before your full retirement age, you will be stuck with whichever benefit is highest, 50% of his or a pared-down amount of yours.

If you can wait three more years, you can draw on 50% of his full benefit and then shift to yours, which may have grown to be greater than his, when you turn 70.

Q:I turn 65 this month and have been collecting Social Security since I was 62. My wife is 59 and works full time with a health-savings account policy that has a $6,000 deductible for each of us.

I was told by her insurance [company] that to remain covered after I turn 65 I need to decline all Medicare coverage including Part A.

The local Social Security office told me I cannot refuse part A, but can decline any other coverage at that time.

If I delay signing up for Medicare Part B until January, am I putting any of my Medicare benefits at risk?

Paul N.

Littleton, Colo.

A:Was her insurance company talking to you or to her? That's where the rules differ.

The Internal Revenue Service steps in here because your wife's plan has such a high deductible.

Under IRS rules, your wife cannot contribute to an HSA if she is enrolled in Medicare, even Part A, or is receiving retirement or disability benefits.

But that doesn't apply to you because you aren't the one contributing to the plan. Because you are part of this plan, you should be able to sign up for Medicare Part B during the special enrollment period from January to March without penalty.

You will automatically be enrolled in Part A.

Title: Re: WSJ: Benefits
Post by: DougMacG on July 15, 2013, 07:14:31 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on July 14, 2013, 09:46:25 PM

Social Security Benefits Now Available to Same-Sex Couples

Yes.  This was always about money since pursuit of happiness was already decidedly legal.  We of course don't have more money to pay more benefits, so the reporting should have included that the US dollar will be devalued by an amount exactly equal to the new payout.

The legislative meaning of spouse and family in federal law was changed by judicial action.  That should make those old discriminatory laws of marriage and family null and void until the legislative branch goes back and revisits those definitions and formulas.  Instead 5 people can re-write law and in effect change our fiscal and monetary policies, not just social policy.  To hell with consent of the governed.

Title: And that's when the fight started , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 22, 2013, 03:16:05 PM

My wife asked me what was on TV.

"Dust" I replied.

And that's when the fight started , , ,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEPoO08IMog

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 26, 2013, 10:09:57 AM

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/25/2354941/ohio-plans-unspeakably-cruel-appeal-of-dying-mans-last-wish/

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 28, 2013, 12:23:30 PM

Columnist John Hayward: "Viewers of the MTV Video Music Awards on Sunday night were treated to a bizarre dance routine from former Disney child actress Miley Cyrus.... If you're unfamiliar with the term, 'twerking' is a dance move that dispenses with all the other subtleties of dance to deliver pelvic thrusts and butt wiggles. ... Sexualizing young people is an important mission of the Left. They want little girls to jump right from teddy bears to Planned Parenthood. That helps dissolve the bonds of family, which is a fading bastion of independence and self-reliance against collective power. ... Children are powerfully influenced by popular culture. They yearn for guidance and inspiration from the adult world. They receive the lesson transmitted by crap like the MTV Video Music Awards. Kids a bit younger than Miley Cyrus remember what she used to be, and they see what she is now. They see the road stretching between those points, and they follow it.

Title: Marriage and Family and rape and murder; Yemeni style
Post by: ccp on September 11, 2013, 09:23:54 AM

*why would "local tribal leaders" try to cover this up if they didn't know this is essentially rape and murder?   

Child bride in Yemen dies of internal bleeding on wedding night: activist

SANAA (Reuters) - An eight-year-old Yemeni girl died of internal bleeding on her wedding night after marrying a man five times her age, a social activist and two local residents said, in a case that has caused an outcry in the media and revived debate about child brides.

Arwa Othman, head of Yemen House of Folklore and a leading rights campaigner, said the girl, identified only as Rawan, was married to a 40-year-old man late last week in the town of Meedi in Hajjah province in northwestern Yemen.

"On the wedding night and after intercourse, she suffered from bleeding and uterine rupture which caused her death," Othman told Reuters. "They took her to a clinic but the medics couldn't save her life."

Othman said authorities had not taken any action against the girl's family or her husband.

A local security official in the provincial town of Haradh denied any such incident had taken place. He did not want to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to the press.

But two Meedi residents contacted by Reuters confirmed the incident and said that local tribal chiefs had tried to cover up the incident when news first broke, warning a local journalist against covering the story.

Many poor families in Yemen marry off young daughters to save on the costs of bringing up a child and earn extra money from the dowry given to the girl.

A U.N. report released in January revealed the extent of the country's poverty, saying that 10.5 million of Yemen's 24 million people lacked sufficient food supplies, and 13 million had no access to safe water and basic sanitation.

Human Rights Watch urged Yemen's government in December 2011 to ban marriages of girls under the age of 18, warning it deprived child brides of education and harmed their health.

Quoting United Nations and government data, HRW said nearly 14 percent of Yemeni girls were married before the age of 15 and 52 percent before the age of 18. The group said many Yemeni child brides-to-be are kept from school when they reach puberty.

Discussions on the issue were shelved by political turmoil following protests against President Ali Abdullah Saleh in 2011 that led to his ouster.

(Reporting by Mohammed Ghobari; Writing by Mahmoud Habboush; editing by Mike Collett-White)

Title: LDS change of strategy in HI
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 07, 2013, 08:58:01 AM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/6/in-hawaii-mormons-try-a-more-muted-strategy-agains/

Title: Does same sex parenting really make no difference?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 11, 2013, 07:17:57 AM

Continuing our explorations of the implications of gay/lesbian parenting:

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/does_same_sex_parenting_really_make_no_difference

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: DougMacG on October 11, 2013, 09:36:56 AM

Almost all of this literature has the following characteristics: the samples are tiny and biased, the outcome measures are subjective and difficult to replicate, and the finding is always one of "no difference."
--------

One valid study is not going to refute all the biased studies from a political point of view.  This study showing extreme differences in graduation rates does not seem realistic either.  The real differences I think would be more subtle and harder to measure.

The gay lifestyle is a liberty available to consenting adults (in non-Muslim countries).  How do they rationalize that living in a gay household ("family?") could be the first choice of a newborn?

There is quite a movement out there committed to proving that God had it wrong.  Prior to the rise of the current liberal leftist agenda, homosexual sex rarely led to reproduction, making the parenting question moot.

Kids are amazingly adaptable.  That does not mean all situations are equal.

Title: WSJ: Utah's marriage battles
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 18, 2014, 04:22:30 AM

Seth Lipsky: Utah's Marriage Battles and the Ghost of Brigham Young
The federal micromanaging of who can wed has a long, ironic history.
By Seth Lipsky
Jan. 17, 2014 7:05 p.m. ET

The last time Utah got into a dustup with the United States government over legal questions regarding marriage, federal troops were involved. This time phalanxes of lawyers are doing the fighting, with the state's 2004 constitutional ban on same-sex marriage at issue. But history holds an astonishing twist that could present the appeals courts with a dilemma.

The latest case involves the Dec. 20 decision of a U.S. district judge overturning Utah's ban on same-sex marriage. More than 2,000 Utahans promptly plighted their troth to persons of the same sex. On Jan. 6, the Supreme Court, at the state's request, issued a stay. Gov. Gary Herbert then announced that Utah would refrain from recognizing the same-sex marriages that were licensed, only to have Attorney General Eric Holder announce that the federal government would recognize them.

In 1857, Utah's marital spat with Washington was over polygamy. This too-little-studied episode in American history, known as the "Utah War," was also called " Buchanan's Blunder." It wasn't only about marriage; general lawlessness in the territory was also a concern. But alarm in Washington was inflamed by reports of "plural marriages"—polygamy—among the Mormons who were settling the Utah territory.

President James Buchanan named a new, non-Mormon governor, Alfred Cumming, for the territory and sent an army of 2,500 men to back him up. The ousted governor, the Mormon leader Brigham Young, didn't get the word officially and called up the famed Nauvoo Legion, a militia originally organized at Nauvoo, Ill., by the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith.


In the conflict that followed, tens of thousands of people were evacuated. At Salt Lake, the Mormons hid the stones that had been carved for a future temple in the foundation for the structure, then covered over the area to look like a field. A handful of U.S. soldiers died, but that was mostly from illness, brawls and accidents, scholar William MacKinnon reports; he puts civilian casualties at about 130, mostly in one massacre by the Nauvoo of non-Mormon civilians at Mountain Meadows.

President Buchanan, in his first State of the Union address, denounced Brigham Young for resorting to force and for holding both church and state office. The president conceded that he had "no right to interfere" with the "religious opinions of the Mormons as long as they remained mere opinions, however deplorable in themselves and revolting to the moral and religious sentiments of all Christendom."

That is, Buchanan had a view of the Mormon religion similar to that maintained by Attorney General Holder, whose feud with Utah today also centers on the rules of marriage. This time it's not the plurality of marriage but the limitation to opposite-sex couples that the federal authorities, among others, oppose.

Ultimately the Utah War was settled by the appointment of a commission. The Mormons were overpowered, but the president's optics, as the moderns say, were not good. The New York Times NYT -0.52% issued a sarcastic editorial lampooning Buchanan as having "demolished Brigham Young by plying him with rhetoric and bayonets simultaneously, and pardoned him at the same moment."

The rest of the Mormons also got an amnesty for treason so long as they were prepared to accept the authority of the United States. It was a historic bow to a Constitution that establishes itself—and all laws made by the Congress it created—as the supreme law of the land. Utah's agreement proved an important step toward statehood, though that awaited a formal renunciation of plural marriage.

In 1890, the president of the Latter Day Saints, Wilford Woodruff, declared that he would advise his fellow Mormons "to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land." Congress still required that Utah establish a constitution holding that "polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited." Utah did so, and won its statehood.

It is not my intention to get between the Mormons and other Christians or between anyone, of whatever religion or sexual orientation, and the Constitution. It is my intention to remark upon the abiding nature, and explosiveness, of these passions. And upon the tricks that history can play on all of us.

For it turns out that only a week before a federal judge struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage last month, a different federal judge, also sitting at Salt Lake City, struck down the core of the very ban on plural marriage that the federal government had once established as a condition of statehood.

So where does this leave our justices? It's too soon to say whether the Utah same-sex marriage case, known as Kitchen v. Herbert, or the polygamy case, known as Brown v. Buhman, will go to the Supreme Court. But it's not too soon to say that the justices could find themselves in quite a quandary—one predicted precisely by Justice Antonin Scalia when, in Lawrence v. Texas, he dissented from the court's decision to end state bans on sodomy.

Texas, Mr. Scalia had noted, "undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are 'immoral and unacceptable.' " This, he wrote, is "the same interest" furthered by criminal laws against, among other things, bigamy. He warned that the justices were denying the legitimacy of such a state interest.

So might the Supreme Court insist that Utah bow to a federal authority and end its ban on same-sex marriage? Or might the justices insist that Utah no longer bow to a federal Congress that once required them to outlaw polygamy? No wonder they call Utah the Beehive State. One way or another, someone is going to get stung, and the whole country may feel it.

Mr. Lipsky is editor of the New York Sun.

Title: Marry and submit to him
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 28, 2014, 07:53:09 AM

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/marry_and_submit_to_him._what

Title: Re: Marry and submit to him
Post by: G M on March 28, 2014, 08:21:12 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on March 28, 2014, 07:53:09 AM

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/marry_and_submit_to_him._what

Everything is to be accepted as a personal choice, except for traditional gender roles and heterosexual marriage.

Title: The Justina Pelletier case
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 26, 2014, 06:05:15 AM

The Pelletier affair is so scary and totalitarian that it is hard to believe that it is true-- even for someone such as me-- every parent's worst nightmare-- his/her child being taken away and apparently headed for death while in the care of the State.  It is so bad that it is hard to even read about it.  Look it up , , ,  :cry: :cry: :cry:  The following will not give you the background, but I post it here anyway.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/04/25/massachusetts-governor-deval-patrick-confronted-about-justina-pelletier-case/

Title: Arkansas judicial imperialism strikes
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 12, 2014, 02:49:00 PM

May 12, 2014
Dear Marc F.,
Last week, Judge Chris Piazza, a circuit court judge in my home state of Arkansas, decided that he is singularly more powerful than the 135 elected legislators of the state, the elected Governor, and 75% of the voters of the state. Apparently he mistook his black robe for a cape and declared himself to be "SUPER LAWMAKER!"
In an order handed down at the close of business, cowardly making it impossible for the attorney general or other attorneys to file for an immediate stay of his overreaching decision, he waved his magic legal wand and erased a 1997 law which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, and a Constitutional amendment passed in 2004 by 75% of the voters which affirmed in the state's Constitution that natural marriage between a a man and a woman is the law. I signed the law in 1997 as Governor, which was sponsored by a Democrat and passed overwhelmingly by the House and Senate, which was comprised of 89% Democrats. I supported the 2004 Constitutional Amendment, Amendment 83. Once it passed, I took an oath to uphold it. So did Judge Piazza. He took the same oath. But he must have come to believe that his oath didn't really mean anything. He must have come to believe the popularly held, but completely false notion that a judge can go beyond deciding something is unconstitutional, he can prescribe the remedy and even implement it. Sorry, judge, but I learned in 9th grade civics and from a reading of the US and Arkansas state constitution that we have 3 branches of government. And that the 3 of them are equal. The judicial branch is not the superior branch and cannot erase the will of the other 2. Most importantly, the ultimate authority and power rests with the people, and they spoke in a 3-1 vote. The dangerous precedent of elected officials allowing one single member of the judicial branch to become Lord God of law is dangerous and unconstitutional. A judicial ruling can send a matter back to the legislature for remedy, but it cannot dictate nor implement the remedy. That requires legislation and the execution of the laws passed, which is the purview of the legislative and executive branches. By virtually ordering same sex marriage to begin immediately, which in fact happened in at least one Arkansas county on the morning after Judge Piazza's Friday night massacre of the law and the will of the people, he positioned himself as if he were all 3 branches of government and declared the voters immaterial. The Governor should call a special session of the legislature and impeach the judge and affirm the people's will. If the people wish to allow same sex marriage, they can put that matter on the ballot and vote for it. Or the legislature can put that matter on the ballot and ask the people to change the Constitution to allow it. But they should not stand by and allow one man to think his robe has more power than it does.
 
Mike Huckabee

Title: Beyond the binary implications for marriage
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 30, 2014, 07:22:15 AM

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/gender_beyond_the_binary_implications_for_marriage

Title: Bait & Switch
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 02, 2014, 09:22:48 AM

I'd be real interested in everyone's take on this:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/#.U9P1aFnrwY0.facebook

Title: Judge strikes down ban on polygamy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 30, 2014, 10:27:18 AM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2736287/Final-ruling-issued-against-polygamy-ban.html

Title: LA judge upholds traditional marriage law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 04, 2014, 09:31:24 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/us/louisiana-gay-marriage-ban-upheld-by-federal-judge.html?emc=edit_th_20140904&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193

Title: Michael Cook: A deeply amoral defense of same-sex marriage
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 10, 2014, 09:03:47 AM

http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/14767

A deeply amoral defence of same-sex marriage
BY MICHAEL COOK
comment | print |

Last week the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a district-court ruling that had struck down same-sex marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin. Judge Richard Posner wrote the decision, a brilliant piece of rhetoric which was studded with sparkling one-liners and dripping with sarcasm. “Hero Federal Appeals Judge Burns Down the Case Against Gay Marriage” was the headline in Gawker, a widely-read website. “A masterpiece of wit and logic,” was the verdict of Slate’s columnist.

Since the 75-year-old Posner is the most-cited legal scholar of the 20th Century and one of America’s leading public intellectuals, his views are bound to be influential as same-sex marriage heads for the Supreme Court.

But stripped of their sequinned garments Posner’s views are not as muscle-bound as they first appear.

His strength is identifying absurd inconsistencies in arguments and using them to pry open the door for new interpretations. For instance, he points out that Indiana bans marriages of first cousins until they are well past the age of procreation at 65. “Elderly first cousins are permitted to marry because they can’t produce children; homosexuals are forbidden to marry because they can’t produce children,” he writes.

Gotcha!

There are many entertaining Gotcha moments in his decision, too many, in fact, for they distract readers from his weakness on the fundamentals. His case rests on three legs, all heavily reliant on social science scholarship.

First, he argues that homosexual orientation is genetic, an immutable and innate characteristic rather than a choice. To support this he cites a 2008 brochure from the American Psychological Association – not exactly the summit of genetic scholarship, although admittedly, it is the APA’s official view. However, no genetic cause has yet been identified; homosexuality’s origin is still an open question.

Besides, if homosexuality is genetic, it should have disappeared according to evolutionary theory, as homosexuals do not produce offspring. Posner acknowledges that this is a problem, but says that the “kin selection  hypothesis” shows that homosexuality is compatible with evolutionary theory. What he doesn’t say is that the kin selection hypothesis is so controversial that it has been criticized by the Harvard evolutionary biologist who popularized it in the first place, Edward O. Wilson. Whether this is true or false is a matter for the scientists to work out. But the genetic origin of homosexuality is unsettled and contestable. It is hardly a firm plank on which to base a revolution in US marriage law.

Second, he argues that same-sex marriage does no harm to the institution of marriage or to society at large. This is a claim which is impossible to prove in less than two generations. The precedents are not promising. The last revolution in marriage, no fault divorce, was described as a blessing in the 1960s. But after a half-century experiment, it has led to huge changes in family structure, legions of single mothers, violence against spouses, child welfare, a declining marriage rate and so on.

Posner seems quite impressed by a recent study which analysed whether marriage rates fell after Massachusetts permitted same-sex marriage. “Allowing same-sex  marriage has no  effect on the heterosexual marriage rate,” he concludes. So what? An snapshot of Massachusetts marriages from 2004 to 2010 says almost nothing about damage to the institution.

Third, Posner says that the welfare of children should be front and centre of arguments about marriage. Since marriage is the best place to raise children, he argues, it is discriminatory to deny homosexual couples the right to raise their children within the framework of marriage.

But he only considers the material benefits of a hefty household income. The real question is whether a marriage with a mother and a father is the best place to raise children. Posner ignores almost completely the psychological effects on children of growing up in a heterosexual marriage, focused as he is on the rights of adults.

How could such a brilliant scholar offer such conventional arguments about social morality based on such weak evidence? The answer is that Posner does not believe in morality.

I am not exaggerating. This is a plain statement of fact.

In 1997 Posner gave the Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures at Harvard Law School, an honour given to outstanding legal scholars. “The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory” is an amazing document in which Posner defends his view of the relationship between morality and law. He calls himself a “moral subjectivist”, arguing that “an individual acts immorally only when he acts contrary to whatever morality he has adopted for himself. I am sympathetic to this position.”

The consequence of this stand lead Posner into some eyebrow-raising assertions. Here are some of them.

It is impossible even to say that a practice like female genital mutilation is wrong, although it may be abhorrent in our society.

    “Defenders of the practice claim that it is indispensable to maintaining the integrity of the family in those communities. The claim is arguable, though I do not know whether it is correct. If it is correct, the moral critic is disarmed, for there is no lever for exalting individual choice or sexual pleasure over family values.”

There are no actions which are always everywhere wrong, even infanticide:

    “A person who murders an infant is acting immorally in our society; a person who sincerely claimed, with or without supporting arguments, that it is right to kill infants would be asserting a private moral position. I might consider him a lunatic, a monster, or a fool, as well as a violator of the prevailing moral code. But I would hesitate to call him immoral.”

And – amazingly – even genocide can only be condemned because it runs across the laws of evolution. 

    “One reason for the widespread condemnation of the Nazi and Cambodian genocides is that we can see in retrospect that they were not adaptive to any plausible or widely accepted need of the societies in question.”

And the Nazis cannot be condemned in any objective way. In the light of the moral standards of the countries which won World War II their actions were appalling crimes. But these were just the feelings of the victors.

    “It was right to try the Nazi leaders rather than to shoot them out of hand in a paroxysm of disgust. But it was politically right… it was not right because a trial could produce proof that the Nazis really were immoralists; they were, but according to our lights, not theirs…

    “Had Hitler or Stalin succeeded in their projects, our moral beliefs would probably be different (we would go around saying things like ‘You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs’); and they failed not because the projects were immoral, but because the projects were unsound.”

And democracy itself is not sacrosanct. Why shouldn’t an elite govern the proletariat? Only because the proletariat has the power to resist. But an autocracy would not be wrong.

    “There is nothing in theory to refute a Nietzschean project of maximizing the power of an elite; it just is not in the cards in an age in which the growth and diffusion of wealth have made ‘ordinary’ people self-confident and assertive.”

Slate praised Posner’s opinion as “deeply moral”. This is a mistake. His slap-down of arguments in support of traditional marriage is deeply amoral. It is typical of Posner’s Nietschean scepticism of the possibility of any objective ethical standards. Morality is about identifying what actions are consistent with human flourishing. If Posner professes ignorance on this score, how can he possibly be a guide for what will make children, families, and society flourish? 

In 1974 he floated the idea of buying and selling babies in a now-famous article. He contended that a market in babies would solve the problem of a shortage of babies for adoption caused by the legalisation of abortion. A mind for which baby trafficking confers substantial public benefits was never going to see problems with placing babies in the care of married same-sex partners.

A profile of Posner in the academic magazine Lingua Franca sums him up well: “a gifted but wayward mind, given to reductive, simple minded analysis of the variegated human experience, seduced by a cynical narrative of power and survival; a dogmatic, heartless, calculating machine in pursuit of cold-blooded efficiency”.

What harm can same-sex marriage possibly do? All attention has been focused on the harm to traditional marriage as an institution. More should be focused on the harm to our most deeply felt and dearly purchased notions of morality, democracy and law. If, thanks to Richard Posner’s corrosive reasoning, same-sex marriage is legalised, they are at risk as well.

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.
- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/14767#sthash.b78tjYdQ.dpuf

Title: Huckabee on SCOTUS's failure to take up the marrigae cases
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 07, 2014, 08:34:22 AM

Oct. 7, 2014
Dear Marc F.,
By the Supreme Court failing to take up the case, it is deferring to the lower courts in a cowardly way, but sadly adding to the disturbing practice of judicial supremacy.

The Supreme Court largely created the confusion by the Windsor decision, and now runs from having to face a simple Constitutional principle that the ultimate authority in our system of government is the people. It is shocking that many elected officials, attorneys, and judges think that a court ruling is the 'final word.' It most certainly is not. The courts are one branch of government, and equal to the other two, but not superior to either and certainly not to both.

Even if the other two branches agree with the ruling, the people's representatives have to pass enabling legislation to authorize same sex marriage, and the President (or Governor in the case of the state) has to sign it. Otherwise, it remains the court's opinion. It is NOT the 'law of the land' as is often heralded. The courts can't make law. They can interpret it and even rule that a law is unconstitutional, but they have no power to create it or enforce it.

(MARC:  A very interesting point.  Would love to have BD's take on this.)

You have my pledge to continue to fight for traditional marriage and to only support candidates who stand with us on this fundamental issue.
Sincerely,
Mike Huckabee

Title: Re: Huckabee on SCOTUS's failure to take up the marrigae cases
Post by: DougMacG on October 07, 2014, 09:19:13 AM

I agree with Huck on a) opposing the change in definition of marriage, and b) the constitutional role of the Court and their wrongheadedness on this.

That said, fighting tooth and nail against what is already happening full speed across the country is a losing political battle.  While he makes his final losing stand on this, splitting the right and empowering the left, our bankrupt entitlement mess and failed economic policies will sink us.

It is great to articulate what is wrong with courts making laws, but very un-Reaganesque to declare he will oppose all who oppose him on this one issue.  We have bigger threats confronting us than arguing over what combinations of people may file a joint return.

Title: Cruz proposes Constitutional Amendment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 08, 2014, 10:03:04 AM

Doug:

You make good points.

Here's Cruz's response:

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/10/07/ted-cruz-to-introduce-constitutional-amendment-on-gay-marriage-after-supreme-court-ducks-appeals/

Title: Re: Cruz proposes Constitutional Amendment
Post by: DougMacG on October 09, 2014, 12:54:25 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on October 08, 2014, 10:03:04 AM

Doug:
You make good points.

Here's Cruz's response:
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/10/07/ted-cruz-to-introduce-constitutional-amendment-on-gay-marriage-after-supreme-court-ducks-appeals/

It bothers me that when otherwise smart people see that we can't get to 51% to support something, they jump to an idea that requires 80% support.  Cruz's procedural idea is valid, but everyone knows the point is to stop gay marriage - which I think can no longer be stopped.

Meanwhile, we are in the final stretch of a crucial mid-term election and still haven't offered a persuasive case of what we would do differently to grow our stagnant economy.

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: ccp on October 09, 2014, 06:35:35 AM

"Meanwhile, we are in the final stretch of a crucial mid-term election and still haven't offered a persuasive case of what we would do differently to grow our stagnant economy."

 :cry:

Title: Some thoughts , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 09, 2014, 11:04:41 PM

http://www.mercatornet.com/sheila_liaugminas/view/14917

Title: R. Edelman: Ruthless Misogyny
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 14, 2014, 08:14:59 AM

I'm not sure how well this argument succeeds (e.g. if the woman wants to be a "breeder" why should we stop her? Is the real issue here marriage, or gay parenting?) but offered in the spirit of considering various points of view:

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/ruthless_misogyny
Ruthless misogyny
LGBT activists have a range of strategies for discrediting women who question their goals.
Rivka Edelman | 13 October 2014
comment 7 | print |

Janna Darnelle’s recent essay, “Breaking the Silence: Redefining Marriage Hurts Women Like Me—and Our Children,” reveals what is behind the heartwarming pictures of gay families from a mother’s point of view. As someone who was raised by a lesbian mother, I would like to weigh in. I will comment not only as a former child who was once all smiles in those pictures, but also as an academic, a woman, a mother, and a feminist.

Darnelle’s essay struck a nerve and went viral. It is not surprising that, within a few hours, LGBT activists had taken up arms against her. Keyboard warriors manned the ramparts. Soon, the usual thugs took up their clubs and pitchforks.

For those of you who avoid the subterranean landscape of online same-sex parenting debates, it is useful to be introduced to Scott “Rose” Rosenzweig, a virulently misogynistic LGBT activist. As soon as Darnelle’s essay was published, Rose went into action, darting from the blog Good As You to other sites in an effort to destroy her personally. (Rose’s obsessive internet commenting has attracted attention at other news outlets as well.) Darnelle’s ex-husband even weighed in. A helpful fellow, he left her personal information in the comments section of several activists’ blogs, including her full legal name.

Janna Darnelle wrote under a pen name in order to protect her family. Unfortunately, her ex-husband’s comments helped Scott Rose embark on a campaign of harassment and intimidation. As I will discuss below, Rose was not content to confine his character assassination to the internet; he has also contacted Darnelle’s employer in an attempt to get her fired.

Readers will recall that Darnelle’s essay discusses her divorce from her ex-husband and her struggles as a single mother to provide a sense of family. Although her conclusions are controversial, her story is well-written and articulate. Sadly, the hate-driven response from extremist LGBT activists and bloggers confirms what many women are beginning to realize. While these activists laud the ex-husband for “living his truth,” they hold women and children in such contempt that they refuse to recognize the legitimacy of Janna’s account of her difficult experiences as a mother. Although they purport to represent the disadvantaged, certain wings of the LGBT-rights movement function as all-white men’s rights groups. In our contemporary climate, these men are allowed to do great harm to women and children with impunity.

Erasing and Exploiting Women

On the most superficial level, what Darnelle described could have parallels in a heterosexual divorce. In most cases, a woman’s standard of living drops significantly after a divorce, while men’s goes up significantly. So, in that sense, there was nothing surprising in Janna’s story: the judge favored the husband, who had a steady high income.

The bloggers and activists who comment at Jeremy Hooper’s Good as You blog have used this judge’s decision to suggest that Darnelle was an unfit mother. Darnelle’s piece did not give details about the family’s custody arrangement, but I have confirmed that the mother has 60 percent custody of the children. This indicates that she has not been found to be “unfit” in any way.

The “unfit mother” trope is very important, because it helps justify taking women’s children, eggs, or the use of their uteri. Darnelle is right. Many families headed by gay male couples are built upon exploitation of women. Practically speaking, Scott Rose and his compatriots have formed a men’s rights group that seeks to use women as breeders. These egg donors and surrogate mothers supply infants for a bustling market full of same-sex couples, for whom reproduction is naturally and biologically impossible.

In the name of equality, groups such as GLAAD (which employs Jeremy Hooper as a consultant) have pushed through gender identity laws that have legally erased women. The term “woman” now legally can refer to the way that a man chooses to identify himself. Once women have been erased legally as a group and as individuals, it is not hard to erase “mothers.” This lends support to the practice of using one woman’s eggs and another woman’s womb to supply children for gay male couples, obscuring the concept of motherhood and making it seem dispensable.

A Guide to the Playbook of Extreme LGBT Activists

The publication of Janna Darnelle’s story led to a spate of blog posts full of vitriol, calling her “a pitiful creature,” accusing her of mental instability, and questioning her very existence.

With the help of her husband’s comments, Scott Rose set off to dig up and publicize as much personal information as possible about Darnelle, such as high school graduation and real estate records. Rose has harassed Darnelle with threatening messages. He has even contacted Darnelle’s employer, leaving this message on the company’s Facebook page:

    This is a COMPLAINT against […], an executive assistant in […]. Under the nom de plume of “Janna Darnelle,” […] has published a horrifying, defamatory anti-gay screed on the website “Public Discourse.” The first problem would be that she is creating a climate of hostility for eventual gay elders and/or their visiting friends and relatives. The second problem would be that in the screed, she comes off as being unhinged. Her public expressions of gay-bashing bigotry are reflecting very poorly on LLC.

Sadly, all of this conforms to a predictable pattern of attack. If you study the routine that plays out whenever extreme activists like Scott Rose decide to take someone out, you will see seasoned patterns. Four steps comprise their usual character assassination.

First, they call the individual a liar and say the person’s existence cannot be verified without more data about him or her. Second, once they have such data, they write to the person’s employer to get him or her fired or professionally destroyed. Third, if they cannot get the person fired, they go after the family members. Fourth, if they cannot turn the person’s family against him or her, they blast endless broadsides against the person, trying to make him or her feel afraid or unsafe at all times.

They have a bag of rhetorical tricks as well. Learn these.

Soft derails: “What about straight divorces, adoptions, and blended families?” Such asides are meant to distract and create false equivalencies. The fact is, every single family headed by a gay male couple had to take another person’s child. In order to accept this, one must accept that men have the right to use women’s bodies and buy their children.

Shocking derails: “Look at all the bad parents that are heterosexual.” The existence of such parents, while tragic, does not give men the right to harvest eggs from women, to use them as breeders, or to take their babies and children.

Appeal to emotion: “We want children; what should we do?” This tries to make people feel guilty or shame them into handing over poor women to be used by rich men. My response: I have not asked you to solve my problems, have I? You can’t demand society legislate a special subclass of women to beused explicitly as breeders so you can feel happy.

Born this way biology: “Do not live a lie; be true to yourself.” This tactic becomes another erasure of women. In this scheme, we are asked to accept that men’s biology matters. A man who is attracted to other men could not possibly be asked to stay with his wife, because he is biologically fated to be attracted to other men’s bodies. Yet, simultaneously, we are told that women’s biology—especially their biological bonds with their children—are of no importance. Despite the scientific evidence of maternal and fetal bonding during pregnancy, and despite the long histories of women who have suffered lifelong grief because their babies were taken from them, we are expected to think of women as breed animals and to believe that men have the right to raise other people’s children.

You want to marry a man and you are a man? Society does not owe you women’s children, women’s eggs, or women’s bodies.

They Can’t Silence Us Forever

In writing this piece, I know that I risk being labeled a bigot. Like Janna Darnelle, I will probably have to endure a whole host of misogynistic terms. I’ll be called crazy, unhinged, laughable, bitter, fat, old, and ugly. In other words, I am just a woman who dares to say rich privileged white men do not have the right to women’s bodies and body parts.

Male sexual pleasure has been a protected industry for both gay and heterosexual men for ages. By and large, the industry exploits women and children. Now we have a new industry: surrogacy, or the commercial-industrial uterus. How very progressive. And at the same time, how very old and predictable.

Rivka Edelman is a visiting professor of literature and writing. She has published widely under a different name. She is also a feminist, a children’s rights activist, and an active member in the network of adult children raised in LBGT households. This essay was originally published at Public Discourse and has been republished with permission.
- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/ruthless_misogyny#sthash.AVkH34de.dpuf

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 27, 2014, 10:43:59 AM

http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/15034

US Judge: “Marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order”
BY BRIAN S. BROWN
comment 4 | print |

judge JuanOn Tuesday last week, United States District Judge Juan Pérez-Giménez (pictured) handed down a ruling in a case upholding Puerto Rico's law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

This ruling is the top headline of the week's marriage news.

"Marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order"

The Carter appointee did not fail to acknowledge that his opinion runs contrary to the majority of other Federal courts that have ruled on States' marriage laws since the Windsor decision by the Supreme Court, that struck down Section III of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

But in acknowledging this, Pérez-Giménez spoke of a "misapprehension that has plagued our sister courts." Specifically, he said that all of these decisions have blatantly ignored binding Supreme Court precedent from the Baker v. Nelson decision of 1972.

Baker essentially says the U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue of same-sex 'marriage'—which is a far cry from what activist judges have claimed over the last several months, that same-sex 'marriage' is somehow mandated by the 14th amendment!

Pérez-Giménez points out that this absurd claim is distinctly refuted by Baker, and that only the Supreme Court can contradict or overturn Baker, which they (sic) have (sic) not done. Furthermore, he notes that the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs Puerto Rico, explicitly recognized this only just two years ago! It will be interesting to watch this case as it will most surely be appealed to the First Circuit, and to see whether the Judges on that court will have the integrity to bind themselves by their own very recent logic.

Pérez-Giménez describes the "inexplicable contortions of the mind or perhaps even willful ignorance" that seem to have guided other Judges to the conclusion that the Supreme Court, in Windsor, signaled a constitutional demand for marriage to be redefined.

But the real beauty in this judge's decision is how he links the ideas of marriage and the rule of law itself, and points out that his fellow judges who have acted to redefine marriage have also showed a shameful disregard for the way in which our legal system works.

Allow me to quote at length from his conclusion [emphasis added]:

    There are some principles of logic and law that cannot be forgotten.

    Recent affirmances of same-gender marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law. Traditional marriage is 'exclusively [an] opposite-sex institution... inextricably linked to procreation and biological kinship.' Traditional marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order. And ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.

    Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries. The question now is whether judicial 'wisdom' may contrive methods by which those solid principles can be circumvented or even discarded.

    A clear majority of courts have struck down statutes that affirm opposite-gender marriage only. In their ingenuity and imagination they have constructed a seemingly comprehensive legal structure for this new form of marriage. And yet what is lacking and unaccounted for remains: are laws barring polygamy, or, say the marriage of fathers and daughters, now of doubtful validity? Is 'minimal marriage,' where 'individuals have legal marital relationships with more than one person, reciprocally or asymmetrically, themselves determining the sex and number of parties' the blueprint for their design? [...] It would seem so, if we follow the plaintiffs' logic, that the fundamental right to marriage is based on 'the constitutional liberty to select the partner of one's choice.'

    Of course, it is all too easy to dismiss such concerns as absurd or of a kind with the cruel discrimination and ridicule that has been shown toward people attracted to members of their own sex. But the truth concealed in these concerns goes to the heart of our system of limited, consent-based government: those seeking sweeping change must render reasons justifying the change and articulate the principles that they claim will limit this newly fashioned right.

    For now, one basic principle remains: the people, acting through their elected representatives, may legitimately regulate marriage by law.

I encourage you to read the entire decision and to share it with your friends. The clear logic and devotion to the truth, and the dedication to the integrity of our legal system, are a breath of fresh air compared to so many other errant decisions that have been issued over the past few months.

Brian S. Brown is the President of the US National Organisation for Marriage. This article appeared in NOM's email newsletter of October 25.
- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/15034#sthash.X4TM6vgw.dpuf
===============================

Here is the entire decision:

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Puerto-Rico-marriage-DCt-ruling-10-21-14.pdf

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: ccp on October 31, 2014, 04:40:27 PM

I once had a woman in her late 20s  in the office.  Now on ObamaCare.   Her Grandmother was married to a man who left her G-mother at a young age.
Her father left her mother at a very young age.  She now has 3 children all with three separate fathers and is married to none of them.

She has a barbell through her tongue, multiple tattoos, and wanted pain meds for some back pain and naturally has money to smoke cigarettes though unemployed.

Folks these are all choices these people make. 

I don't feel sorry for her one bit.  I do feel sorry for her kids.  Why do the rest of us have to be saps?

Title: Separate Marriage and State
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 14, 2015, 12:55:43 AM

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/oklahoma-bill-aims-to-separate-marriage-and-state/ 

Title: TWo big gay fashion designers oppose gay marriage and parenting.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 14, 2015, 04:49:44 PM

http://clashdaily.com/2015/03/dolce-gabbana-legendary-gay-designers-oppose-gay-marriage-gay-parenting-surrogacy/#


DOLCE & GABBANA: Legendary Gay Designers Oppose Gay Marriage, Gay Parenting, Surrogacy
Screen Shot 2015-03-14 at 4.46.44 PM
Posted on March 14, 2015

Uh-oh. Watch the gaystapo come in and attempt to re-educate them.

    Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, founders of the eponymous fashion house, have come out strongly against gay marriage, the notion of gay families, and the use of surrogacy to procreate.

    The billionaire pair, who used to be romantically linked, gave an interview with the Italian magazine Panorama, in which they said, “The only family is the traditional one. No chemical offspring and rented uterus. Life has a natural flow; there are things that cannot be changed.”

    They also said, “Procreation must be an act of love.”

    “I call children of chemistry, synthetic children. Uteri for rent, semen chosen from a catalogue,” Dolce stated.

    Gabanna said, “The family is not a fad. In it there is a supernatural sense of belonging.”

Title: Daughter of two lesbians says
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 20, 2015, 05:39:37 PM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/19/she-was-raised-by-lesbian-mothers-but-this-womans-open-letter-reveals-why-she-opposes-gay-marriage/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Firewire&utm_campaign=Firewire%20-%20HORIZON%203-19-15%20FINAL

Title: Another study pretends moms and dads are not necessary
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 15, 2015, 05:41:47 PM

http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/in-modern-families-mother-and-father-are-no-longer-necessary/15968

Title: Elder: The Left's War on Fathers
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 30, 2015, 01:16:57 PM

The Left's War on Father's Day
Larry Elder | Jun 06, 2013

"We know the statistics," said President Barack Obama, "that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves."

The Journal of Research on Adolescence found that even after controlling for varying levels of household income, kids in father-absent homes are more likely to end up in jail. And kids that never had a father in the house are the most likely to wind up behind bars.

Tupac Shakur, the rapper killed in an unsolved and possibly gang-related murder, once said: "I know for a fact that had I had a father, I'd have some discipline. I'd have more confidence." Tupac admitted he began running with gangs because he wanted structure and protection: "Your mother cannot calm you down the way a man can. Your mother can't reassure you the way a man can. My mother couldn't show me where my manhood was. You need a man to teach you how to be a man."

Where have all the fathers gone?

When I was a child, my father and mother often complained about "people going on the county," a term they used for the rare young mother in our neighborhood who relied on government welfare. My parents, who often disagreed politically, saw eye-to-eye in their opposition to what they called wrongheaded incentives that encourage people to have children without marriage. "The worst thing that ever came down the pike," Dad would often call "county money."

In "Dear Father, Dear Son," my latest book, I write about my rough, tough World War II Marine staff sergeant father, whose gruff exterior I mistook for lack of love. Born in the Jim Crow South of Athens, Ga., he was 14 at the start of the Great Depression.

He never knew his biological father. The man with the last name of "Elder" was one of his mother's many boyfriends, only this one stayed in my dad's life a little longer than the others. A physically abusive alcoholic, Elder would give my father's mom money from his paycheck to ensure he would not blow it on booze and gambling. After a couple of days, Elder would get drunk and demand his money back. She would refuse. He would beat her and take the money back. My father witnessed this ugly scenario over and over. "Why she just didn't give him the damn money," Dad told me, "I'll never understand."

One day, my father, then 13, came home from school, and his mom's then-boyfriend accused him of making too much noise. They quarreled. His mother, siding with the boyfriend, threw my father out of the house. He never returned.

Growing up, I watched my father work two full-time jobs as a janitor. He also cooked for a rich family on the weekends and somehow managed to go to night school to get his GED. When I was 10, my father opened a small restaurant that he ran until he retired in his mid-80s. "Hard work wins," Dad would tell my brothers and me. "The world doesn't owe you a living." My parents drilled into us the importance of education and self-reliance. "Go out into the world unprepared," Dad would say, "and you're going to get your behind kicked and your feelings hurt."

Studies back up the link between the explosive growth in government welfare -- begun in the '60s -- and the increase of out-of-wedlock births.

In 1960, 5 percent of America's children entered the world without a mother and father married to each other. By 1980 it was 18 percent, and by 2000 it had risen to 33 percent. Today, the number is 41 percent. For blacks, out-of-wedlock births have gone from 25 percent in 1965 to 73 percent today. The ethnic group with the next-highest percent of births to unmarried mothers is that of Native Americans, at 66 percent. For whites, out-of-wedlock births stand at 29 percent. For Hispanics, out-of-wedlock births are at 53 percent.

In every state, a woman with two children "makes" more money on welfare than were she to take a minimum wage job. The array of federal and state programs amounts to over $60K spent for every poor household. But because of costs, the recipient household ends up getting far less.

How do we know that the welfare state creates disincentives that hurt the people we are trying to help? They tell us. In 1985, the Los Angeles Times asked whether poor women "often" have children to get additional benefits. Most of the non-poor respondents said no. When the same question was asked of the poor, however, 64 percent said yes.

People, of course, need help. A humane society does not ignore those who cannot or even will not fend for themselves. But good faith does not substitute for sound policy. The welfare state is an assault on families.

Title: Two gay men campaigning against same sex marrigage referendum in Ireland
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 18, 2015, 11:22:12 AM

http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/two-gay-men-campaigning-against-same-sex-marriage-in-ireland/16168

Title: American College of Pediatricians says gay marriage not best for children.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 11, 2015, 06:59:50 AM

https://www.acpeds.org/same-sex-marriage-not-best-for-children

Title: State of Alabama getting out of marriage business?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 16, 2016, 08:04:58 PM

http://yellowhammernews.com/politics-2/alabama-senate-passes-bill-to-privatize-marriage/

Title: Are YOU a Divorced Male?
Post by: DDF on March 23, 2016, 08:54:31 AM

I found this interesting. I know the article is somewhat dated, but with robots and AI coming up in the news earlier this week, it seems that there is some merit to what is being said, apparently enough so that feminists are calling for them to be banned because they would "demean" women.

Personally, I could see it leading to less broken families, no child support slavery, especially when deprived of even seeing the children, etc. It's kind of like a video game in the end.

I personally value humans interrelating. I can also see several humans opting not to due to obvious or perceived disadvantages.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/16/sexbots-why-women-should-panic/

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/could-you-fall-in-love-with-this-robot.html

https://www.inverse.com/article/6684-futurologist-by-2050-most-of-us-will-be-having-sex-with-robots

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 23, 2016, 09:09:26 AM

Just read the first of the three URLs. Amidst the witty and sometimes specious glibness, some penetrating questions are presented.

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: DDF on March 23, 2016, 09:20:55 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on March 23, 2016, 09:09:26 AM

Just read the first of the three URLs. Amidst the witty and sometimes specious glibness, some penetrating questions are presented.

I admit the commentary gets fiesty, but to me, in 20 years or less, this will be something that has a direct impact on familiar/social structure as we know it.

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: G M on March 28, 2016, 06:11:33 AM

Quote from: DDF on March 23, 2016, 09:20:55 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on March 23, 2016, 09:09:26 AM

Just read the first of the three URLs. Amidst the witty and sometimes specious glibness, some penetrating questions are presented.

I admit the commentary gets fiesty, but to me, in 20 years or less, this will be something that has a direct impact on familiar/social structure as we know it.

https://vimeo.com/12915013

Don"t Date Robots!

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: DDF on March 29, 2016, 09:23:41 PM

Quote from: G M on March 28, 2016, 06:11:33 AM

Quote from: DDF on March 23, 2016, 09:20:55 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on March 23, 2016, 09:09:26 AM

Just read the first of the three URLs. Amidst the witty and sometimes specious glibness, some penetrating questions are presented.

I admit the commentary gets fiesty, but to me, in 20 years or less, this will be something that has a direct impact on familiar/social structure as we know it.

https://vimeo.com/12915013

Don"t Date Robots!

I don't....nor would I. I still think there are enough that would though, that it would open many legal and social issues.

Title: Re: Marriage and Family
Post by: G M on March 30, 2016, 03:06:30 PM

Quote from: DDF on March 29, 2016, 09:23:41 PM

Quote from: G M on March 28, 2016, 06:11:33 AM

Quote from: DDF on March 23, 2016, 09:20:55 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on March 23, 2016, 09:09:26 AM

Just read the first of the three URLs. Amidst the witty and sometimes specious glibness, some penetrating questions are presented.

I admit the commentary gets fiesty, but to me, in 20 years or less, this will be something that has a direct impact on familiar/social structure as we know it.

https://vimeo.com/12915013

Don"t Date Robots!

I don't....nor would I. I still think there are enough that would though, that it would open many legal and social issues.

Yup.

Title: WSJ: Cheap Sex and the Decline of Marriage
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 07, 2017, 04:22:47 PM

Cheap Sex and the Decline of Marriage

Why is marriage in retreat among young Americans? Because it is now much easier for men to find sexual satisfaction outside marriage, argues Mark Regnerus
Mark Regnerus
Sept. 29, 2017 9:07 a.m. ET

Kevin, a 24-year-old recent college graduate from Denver, wants to get married someday and is “almost 100% positive” that he will. But not soon, he says, “because I am not done being stupid yet. I still want to go out and have sex with a million girls.” He believes that he’s figured out how to do that:

“Girls are easier to mislead than guys just by lying or just not really caring. If you know what girls want, then you know you should not give that to them until the proper time. If you do that strategically, then you can really have anything you want…whether it’s a relationship, sex, or whatever. You have the control.”

Kevin (not his real name) was one of 100 men and women, from a cross-section of American communities, that my team and I interviewed five years ago as we sought to understand how adults in their 20s and early 30s think about their relationships. He sounds like a jerk. But it’s hard to convince him that his strategy won’t work—because it has, for him and countless other men.

Marriage in the U.S. is in open retreat. As recently as 2000, married 25- to 34-year-olds outnumbered their never-married peers by a margin of 55% to 34%, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. By 2015, the most recent year for which data are available, those estimates had almost reversed, with never-marrieds outnumbering marrieds by 53% to 40%. Young Americans have quickly become wary of marriage.

Many economists and sociologists argue that this flight from marriage is about men’s low wages. If they were higher, the argument goes, young men would have the confidence to marry. But recent research doesn’t support this view. A May 2017 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, focusing on regions enriched by the fracking boom, found that increased wages in those places did nothing to boost marriage rates.

Another hypothesis blames the decline of marriage on men’s fear of commitment. Maybe they just perceive marriage as a bad deal. But most men, including cads such as Kevin, still expect to marry. They eventually want to fall in love and have children, when their independence becomes less valuable to them. They are waiting longer, however, which is why the median age at marriage for American men has risen steadily and is now approaching 30.

My own research points to a more straightforward and primal explanation for the slowed pace toward marriage: For American men, sex has become rather cheap. As compared to the past, many women today expect little in return for sex, in terms of time, attention, commitment or fidelity. Men, in turn, do not feel compelled to supply these goods as they once did. It is the new sexual norm for Americans, men and women alike, of every age.

This transformation was driven in part by birth control. Its widespread adoption by women in recent decades not only boosted their educational and economic fortunes but also reduced their dependence on men. As the risk of pregnancy radically declined, sex shed many of the social and personal costs that once encouraged women to wait.





These forces have been at work for more than a half-century, since the birth-control pill was invented in 1960, but it seems that our norms and narratives about sexual relationships have finally caught up with the technology. Data collected in 2014 for the “Relationships in America” project—a national survey of over 15,000 adults, ages 18 to 60, that I oversaw for the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture—asked respondents when they first had sex in their current or most recent relationship. After six months of dating? After two? The most common experience—reported by 32% of men under 40—was having sex with their current partner before the relationship had begun. This is sooner than most women we interviewed would prefer.

The birth-control pill is not the only sexual technology that has altered expectations. Online porn has made sexual experience more widely and easily available too. A laptop never says no, and for many men, virtual women are now genuine competition for real partners. In the same survey, 46% of men (and 16% of women) under 40 reported watching pornography at some point in the past week—and 27% in the past day.

Many young men and women still aspire to marriage as it has long been conventionally understood—faithful, enduring, focused on raising children. But they no longer seem to think that this aspiration requires their discernment, prudence or self-control.

When I asked Kristin, a 29-year-old from Austin, whether men should make sacrifices to get sex, she offered a confusing prescription: “Yes. Sometimes. Not always. I mean, I don’t think it should necessarily be given out by women, but I do think it’s OK if a woman does just give it out. Just not all the time.”

Kristin rightly wants the men whom she dates to treat her well and to respect her interests, but the choices that she and other women have made unwittingly teach the men in their lives that such behavior is noble and nice but not required in order to sleep with them. They are hoping to find good men without supporting the sexual norms that would actually make men better.

For many men, the transition away from a mercenary attitude toward relationships can be difficult. The psychologist and relationship specialist Scott Stanley of the University of Denver sees visible daily sacrifices, such as accepting inconveniences in order to see a woman, as the way that men typically show their developing commitment. It signals the expectation of a future together. Such small instances of self-sacrificing love may sound simple, but they are less likely to develop when past and present relationships are founded on the expectation of cheap sex.

Young people in the U.S. continue to marry, even if later in life, but the number of those who never marry is poised to increase. In a 2015 article in the journal Demography, Steven Ruggles of the University of Minnesota predicted that a third of Americans now in their 20s will never wed, well above the historical norm of just below 10%.

Most young Americans still seek the many personal and social benefits that come from marriage, even as the dynamics of today’s mating market conspire against them. It turns out that a world in which it is possible to satisfy our sexual desires much more immediately carries with it a number of unhappy and unintended consequences.

—Dr. Regnerus is associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. This essay is adapted from his new book, “Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage and Monogamy” (Oxford University Press).

Title: Respect
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 17, 2017, 03:48:41 PM

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24676/walsh-most-effective-way-destroy-your-husband-ruin-matt-walsh?utm_medium=email&utm_content=121717-news&utm_campaign=position2

Title: No Sex Marriage
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 16, 2018, 12:44:05 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVgzOyHVcj4

Title: NRO: Marriage, sex dolls, and new ways to be alone
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 09, 2018, 01:30:32 PM

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/marriage-sex-dolls-western-civilization-new-ways-to-be-alone/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WIR%20-%20Sunday%202018-09-02&utm_term=VDHM

Title: NRO: Early Marriage and Family
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 02, 2018, 03:48:53 PM

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/early-marriage-cornerstone-model-for-young-adults/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202018-11-01&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives

Title: Stratfor: The Marriage Alliance
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 12, 2019, 09:34:49 PM

The World's Leading Strategic Alliance
By Ian Morris

About 40 couples participate in a group Valentine's Day wedding ceremony on Feb. 14, 2017, in West Palm Beach, Florida.
(JOE RAEDLE/Getty Images)
Contributor Perspectives offer insight, analysis and commentary from Stratfor’s Board of Contributors and guest contributors who are distinguished leaders in their fields of expertise.


Highlights

    About half of adult Americans continue to see marriage as an important strategic alliance that provides material and psychological benefits that outweigh its costs.
    But the forms and functions of marriage have changed dramatically many times in the past as societal conditions changed and the balance between the benefits and costs of marriage tilted one way or the other.
    As American society continues to change, it's not hard to imagine most people playing a different kind of marriage game, opting for other alliances that offer better versions of marriage's benefits at lower costs.

After several years without being invited to a wedding, my wife and I attended two in the last few weeks. We have passed through a period when most friends of our own age are already married and are now entering one where their children are tying the knot. As if to redress the balance, though, another pair of friends is now considering divorce. Overall, our acquaintances seem to be fairly typical: According to the Pew Research Center, roughly 2.1 million Americans will get married in 2019, and 850,000 — almost half as many — will divorce.

Our acquaintances are also typical in that many of them are single. Fifty years ago, 72 percent of Americans over the age of 18 were married; today, only half are. But this is not because Americans divorce more than they used to do. In fact, they divorce less often. While 56 percent of American marriages ended in divorce in the early 1980s, only 41 percent now do so. Marriage rates are falling partly because more people never marry (23 percent of men and 17 percent of women, as against 10 percent and 8 percent in 1960) and partly because those who do marry do so later (median ages of 29.5 for men and 27.4 for women, compared with 22.8 and 20.3 in 1960).

Journalists and politicians regularly treat marriage and divorce rates as metrics for morality, but they are not. Marriages are strategic alliances, and like everything involving strategy, they combine an unchanging logic with cultural specifics. Humans are rational, strategic actors. Marriage is losing ground not because Americans are more feckless than they used to be but because the conditions that for so long made it a profitable form of alliance are changing — particularly for women.

Squaring the Circle

Through most of history, most marriages have been alliances in which one man and one woman pool their labor, property and genes, creating a joint household. Many societies have also allowed multipartner marriages (usually, one man marrying several women), and some allow same-sex marriage. These alliances can look very different from the monogamous, heterosexual kind, but they nevertheless follow most or all of the same strategic principles.

What marks marriage off from other alliances into which we might enter, such as friendships, is the way it is enforced. Two or more people commit before their gods, ancestors and communities to follow agreed-on rules. Despite all the cultural variations between societies, these rules always come down more or less to loving, honoring and perhaps obeying one another. If the partners follow through, this pact solves many of the collective action and credible commitment problems that bedevil other kinds of coalitions, providing the family with material and psychological benefits that cannot be gained any other way.

In particular, the different chromosomes that heterosexual spouses bring with them fit their bodies for complementary tasks, most obviously in the breeding and rearing of children. Love, honor and a certain amount of obedience can even solve what evolutionists sometimes call the "sperm-and-egg" problem. For a male, passing genetic material onto a new generation is easy. It's also cheap, since the typical young man creates about a thousand sperm per second. Consequently, males who have sex with multiple females leave a bigger imprint on the human genome than males who do not, and natural selection has therefore given us men who want to have sex with lots of women. For women, though, passing on genetic material is expensive and difficult. Women produce only one egg per month, and, once the egg is fertilized, must carry the baby for another nine months. A woman who chooses her partners carefully, accepting sperm only from a male whom she expects (a) to give her the kind of children she wants and (b) to stick around to help raise them will typically leave a bigger imprint on the genome than one who chooses less wisely. Women have therefore evolved to be picky.

What marks marriage off from other alliances into which we might enter, such as friendships, is the way it is enforced.

Marriage offers a way to square this circle. Having sworn before their gods, ancestors and communities to follow the rules, husbands and wives who behave badly are subject to much more serious sanctions than mere friends with benefits who have taken no such oaths.

Tolstoy famously said that every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way, but in fact, the almost infinite number of ways to punish sinning spouses seem to come down to four basic weapons. All are also available to mere friends with benefits, but the oaths taken at a wedding before vengeful, powerful third parties raise the stakes. The first weapon is guilt. It is always difficult and painful to disappoint someone you love, which means that in a marriage that is working well, the partners effectively police themselves.

Next comes shame, or, to put it more coldly, reputational costs. Look, the betrayed spouse says to anyone who will listen, at what the bastard/bitch did after everything I've done for him/her! None of us is wholly immune to the fear of being revealed to all as a wicked person.

The third weapon is economics. If one partner controls vital resources, he/she is in a strong position to bargain over sex or any other bone of contention.

Finally, there is violence. Husbands are typically better placed to deploy this than wives, although many a woman scorned has called on her male kin to thrash her scoundrel of a husband to within an inch of his life, and plenty of cuckolded husbands have taken matters into their own hands.

Every documented human society has evolved some institution recognizable as marriage, enforced by these four kinds of sanctions. This is not a coincidence: without marital alliances, people would have a much harder time trusting each other enough to raise the next generation, let alone cooperating in all the other complicated tasks that our lives demand.

Costs and Benefits

These aspects of marriage are universals, relevant to every spouse in every time and place, parts of the unvarying strategic logic governing alliances. That is why the stories of Anna Karenina, Abelard and Heloise, and Helen of Troy immediately make sense to everyone, despite cultural differences. We understand intuitively that marriage involves trade-offs between costs and benefits, and that cheating can and should have consequences, even when these are tragic.

Yet as every strategist knows, simply following logic is never enough: We always need to understand how logical abstractions interact with the surrounding environment. Human beings have not changed much genetically in the last 30,000 or 40,000 years, yet in the course of just 50 years, the proportion of Americans in marriages has fallen by one-third. The explanation seems to be that conditions have changed so much across this half-century that rational actors, pursuing sensible goals, are increasingly concluding that the costs of marriage alliances now outweigh the benefits.

We should neither be surprised by this nor conclude that it proves that the modern world is morally bankrupt. The forms and functions of marriage have in fact changed dramatically many times in the past, even as the strategic logic behind marriage remains unchanged. If we can treat the foraging societies documented by 20th-century anthropologists as rough proxies for what life was like in the first 95 percent of human history, when everyone lived by hunting and gathering, it seems that early marriages tended to be rather loose alliances. Foragers certainly celebrate weddings before their ancestors and neighbors, enforce expectations, feel possessive about their spouses, and distinguish between children born in and out of wedlock, but they rarely do any of these things very strongly. Divorce and remarriage are usually easy, and extramarital sex and bastardy carry little stigma.

The main reason for this seems to be that property is relatively unimportant in most foraging societies. It is almost impossible for members of highly mobile bands to own land or flocks of animals, and therefore impossible to bequeath them to children. As a result, while sex outside wedlock still produces anger, having an illegitimate baby is not an economic crime, the way it is when inheriting property really matters.

The forms and functions of marriage have changed dramatically many times in the past, even as the strategic logic behind marriage remains unchanged.

The obstacles to accumulating wealth also make it difficult to enforce marriage rules through economic sanctions. The division of labor is strongly gendered in most foraging societies, with men hunting and women gathering. Some people are of course better at these activities than others, but hunting and gathering are both usually done in groups, making it difficult for one spouse to punish another by withholding vital resources. When an entire hunter-gatherer band decides that someone's behavior merits punishment, they can certainly deliver it, on a sliding scale from mockery to murder, but the targets of such sanctions tend to be overassertive men who try to set themselves up as chiefs over everyone else, rather than spouses who have failed in their duties.

Foragers regularly tell anthropologists that husbands or wives who fail in their duties should feel guilty, suffer shame and perhaps be beaten too — but not too much. Spouses who tried to kill each other over extramarital affairs would just look ridiculous. This forms a striking contrast with the evidence surviving from farming societies (which began to appear about 11,500 years ago in the Middle East and subsequently spread over most of the planet). As soon as people stop moving around in pursuit of wild animals and plants and begin intensively farming specific pieces of land, property becomes all-important. Having access to good, well-watered land, animals to work it and a house to live in are literally life-and-death issues.

For farmers, nothing matters more than inheriting from the right parents, which makes a wife's chastity all-important. The more a farming society develops toward large, dense populations and highly productive agriculture, the more it also evolves toward patriarchy, with men doing most of the work in the fields and controlling most economic assets and women doing the increasingly complex jobs of storing and processing food within the household and rearing children. The balance of power within marriages shifts dramatically toward men, which is why Tolstoy's Anna Karenina opens with Prince Oblonsky's wife banishing him to the couch for three nights after he has slept with the maid but ends with Anna throwing herself under a train after committing adultery.

The logic of marriage alliances is much the same in farming as in foraging societies, but the circumstances surrounding families are so different that matrimony functions in entirely different ways. Almost everyone who can do so marries because it is difficult for single men (and almost impossible for single women) to survive unless they are rich enough to afford large domestic staffs. Divorce is rarely easy to obtain — for wives because they are so weak relative to their husbands, and for husbands, because their wives' families have strong incentives to prevent husbands from sending their wives back home (while keeping their children) if someone better comes along. Gendered inequality has been so extreme in many farming societies that rich men have been able to take multiple wives, leaving poor men with no marriage partners. In extreme cases, rulers even maintain harems of hundreds of subordinate wives.

By the 18th century, patriarchal marriage was the norm everywhere except for those jungles, deserts and tundras that farmers did not want, where foraging survived. Since then, however, industrialized societies based on fossil fuels have once again transformed the circumstances governing how the logic of marriage alliances plays out. Industrialization created millions of new jobs in which brawn mattered less than brains, especially in offices organizing the output from the new factories. The more a society relaxed its rules about the need to keep women in the home, the larger its labor force grew; and the more that women moved into paid labor, the more money could be made from machines doing the household drudgery that had previously kept mothers, wives, sisters and daughters so busy. Economic historians in fact often call vacuum cleaners, washing machines and electric irons "engines of liberation."

Rising wealth in 19th- and especially 20th-century industrialized societies produced bigger, healthier, better-fed women, who in turn gave birth to bigger, healthier, better-fed babies. As infant mortality tumbled, parents needed fewer babies, which created a market for better contraception. Smaller families gave women even more time to work outside the home, and increased incentives to educate girls as well as boys.

The result of all these interacting forces has been a dramatic decline in the economic imbalance between men and women. When farming began widening gender imbalances 11,500 years ago, the guilt, shame and violence brought on by breaching the rules of marriage increased in tandem. In the 20th century, that process has gone into reverse, and guilt, shame and violence correspondingly lost potency as tools for enforcing marital norms. In rich, democratic societies, celebrities now earn big bucks airing their infidelities in public, while anyone caught beating an unfaithful spouse faces jail time. After centuries when powerful men had to keep their mistresses hidden, in the 1990s, President Bill Clinton was able to continue in office despite having multiple marital indiscretions described on television. Even more remarkably, Hillary Clinton was able to run for the same office in 2016 — and win more votes than her rival, who had fidelity issues of his own — despite being a betrayed wife.

A Changing Game

Marriage remains an important strategic alliance, allowing those who enter into it to pool resources, labor and genes. It continues to be distinguished from other kinds of alliances by the religious and social sanctions enforcing its rules, and roughly half of American adults still think that the material and/or psychological benefits of such an alliance outweigh the costs. How long that will remain the case is hard to say. Perhaps weddings of the kind I attended this summer will turn into exercises in nostalgia — which, in some ways, they already are — with most people opting for other kinds of alliances that offer better versions of the same benefits at lower costs. Or perhaps marriage will hang on by being redefined more broadly. After all, just a generation ago, few Americans imagined that the Supreme Court would legalize same-sex marriage in 2015. Only one thing seems certain: As American society continues to change, so, too, will the ways rational actors play the marriage game

Title: 25 Biggest Threats to the American Family
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 21, 2022, 04:19:32 PM

https://familythreats.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/2022_Top25Threats_web.pdf

Title: Re: Marriage and Family, Indonesia
Post by: DougMacG on December 08, 2022, 06:21:15 AM

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-63869078

Title: Tucker on the new marriage law and related things
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 15, 2022, 04:37:31 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmHbBcNyILs

Title: GM sighting in Iowa?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 06, 2023, 10:17:37 AM

https://washingtonstand.com/news/null-and-void-iowa-aims-to-expunge-samesex-marriage-

Title: Re: GM sighting in Iowa?
Post by: G M on March 06, 2023, 10:18:36 AM

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on March 06, 2023, 10:17:37 AM

https://washingtonstand.com/news/null-and-void-iowa-aims-to-expunge-samesex-marriage-

Heh!

Title: The Great Society vs. the American Family
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 17, 2023, 08:01:40 AM

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/how-great-society-destroyed-nuclear-family-structure-one-chart?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1662

Title: ET: Simple keys to Marriage and Family
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 22, 2024, 03:01:12 PM

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/simple-keys-to-a-happy-long-lasting-marriage-for-the-health-of-your-family-5555904?utm_source=Bright&src_src=Bright&utm_campaign=bright-2024-01-22&src_cmp=bright-2024-01-22&utm_medium=email&est=nnXMg7zlGCuF4okZNmkd9EKoYtNFLYfHmL%2BP51M4gkIFyzK2jpQ23p0AUxR3Pt8zBD2P