Marriage and Family

[Crafty_Dog]

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.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_m054tLKvs

[Crafty_Dog]

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."

[DougMacG]

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.

[Crafty_Dog]

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. 

[Crafty_Dog]

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.”

[Crafty_Dog]

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 >>

[Crafty_Dog]

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.

[DougMacG]

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.

[Crafty_Dog]

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

[Crafty_Dog]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/25/2354941/ohio-plans-unspeakably-cruel-appeal-of-dying-mans-last-wish/

[Crafty_Dog]

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.

[ccp]

*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)

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/6/in-hawaii-mormons-try-a-more-muted-strategy-agains/

[Crafty_Dog]

Continuing our explorations of the implications of gay/lesbian parenting:

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

[DougMacG]

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.

[Crafty_Dog]

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.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/marry_and_submit_to_him._what

[G M]

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.

[Crafty_Dog]

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 , , ,    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/

[Crafty_Dog]

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

[Crafty_Dog]

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

[Crafty_Dog]

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

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2736287/Final-ruling-issued-against-polygamy-ban.html

[Crafty_Dog]

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

[Crafty_Dog]

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

[Crafty_Dog]

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

[DougMacG]

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.

[Crafty_Dog]

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/

[DougMacG]

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.

[ccp]

"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."

 

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.mercatornet.com/sheila_liaugminas/view/14917

[Crafty_Dog]

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

[Crafty_Dog]

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

[ccp]

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?

[Crafty_Dog]

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/oklahoma-bill-aims-to-separate-marriage-and-state/ 

[Crafty_Dog]

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.”

[Crafty_Dog]

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

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/in-modern-families-mother-and-father-are-no-longer-necessary/15968

[Crafty_Dog]

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.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/two-gay-men-campaigning-against-same-sex-marriage-in-ireland/16168

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.acpeds.org/same-sex-marriage-not-best-for-children

[Crafty_Dog]

http://yellowhammernews.com/politics-2/alabama-senate-passes-bill-to-privatize-marriage/

[DDF]

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

[Crafty_Dog]

Just read the first of the three URLs. Amidst the witty and sometimes specious glibness, some penetrating questions are presented.

[DDF]

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.

[G M]

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!

[DDF]

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.

[G M]

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.

[Crafty_Dog]

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).