• Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial  San Francisco Chronicle, By Phillip Matier,Andrew Ross, February 7, 2010
  The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay. Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise - or advertise - his orientation. They also don't believe it will influence how he rules on the case he's now hearing - whether Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure approved by state voters to ban same-sex marriage, unconstitutionally discriminates against gays and lesbians. . . . . . . .Walker has declined to talk about anything involving the Prop. 8 case outside court, and he wouldn't comment to us when we asked about his orientation and whether it was relevant to the lawsuit. . . . Walker, by the way, didn't seek out the Prop. 8 case - it was assigned to him at random. If the judge decides that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, supporters of the measure are sure to take it to the federal appeals court  and the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary. Kendell expects that if that happens, the measure's proponents will make an issue of the judge's sexual orientation - at least in the public arena. Not so, said Andy Pugno, general counsel for the group that sponsored the Prop. 8 campaign. "We are not going to say anything about that," Pugno said. He was quick to assert, however, that Prop. 8 backers haven't gotten a fair shake from Walker in court. He cited both the judge's order for the campaign to turn over thousands of pages of internal memos to the other side and Walker's decision to allow the trial to be broadcast - both of which were overturned by higher courts. "In many ways, the sponsors of Prop. 8 have been put at significant disadvantage throughout the case," Pugno said. "Regardless of the reason for it.". . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Judge Walker’s Skewed Judgment  National Review Online- The Corner Blog, By Ed Whelan, February 07, 2010
  According to this column in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, “The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.” In terms of his judicial performance in the anti-Proposition 8 case, the bottom-line question that matters isn’t whether Walker is straight or gay. It’s whether he is capable of ruling impartially. I have no reason to doubt that there are homosexuals who could preside impartially over this case, just as I have no reason to doubt that there are heterosexuals whose bias in favor of, or against, same-sex marriage would unduly skew their handling of the case. From the outset, Walker’s entire course of conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case has reflected a manifest design to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Prop 8’s sponsors. Consider his series of controversial — and, in many instances, unprecedented — decisions: . . . . . Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation: that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage. Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now. . .
  

RELATED BLOG:  Protect Marriage- Yes on 8 Blog


RELATED BLOG:  Testimony Concludes But The Battle Is Just Beginning  Protect Marriage- Yes on 8 Blog, By Ron Prentice- Executive Director, February 6, 2010
The live testimony in the federal trial of Perry v Schwarzenegger, the historic court battle over the definition of marriage, finally came to a close. Our lead trial attorney Charles Cooper and the rest of the Prop 8 Legal Defense Team did a superb job defending the will of the voters and the institution of marriage itself under extremely difficult circumstances in this San Francisco courtroom. As we consistently saw in most of the critical pre-trial rulings, virtually all of Judge Vaughn Walker’s significant rulings during the trial went against us. . .

RELATED QUOTE:
"... Only down Professor Segura’s rabbit hole does the fantasy of gays lacking political power exist, leading to the conclusion that gays and lesbians are a defenseless minority entitled to extraordinary legal protection.  In the real world, gays and lesbians are one of the most powerful, effective special interest groups who wield power far in excess of their numbers. The fact that they have amassed untold millions of dollars to fund a legal team that includes dozens of lawyers and some of the nation’s top litigators to come into federal court claiming to be powerless is rich with irony..."  Andy Pugno- General Counsel, Protect Marriage-Yes on 8, January 21, 2010

RELATED ARTICLE:  Selling Homosexuality to America    Regent University Law Review, By Paul E. Rondeau
This article explores how gay rights activists use rhetoric, psychology, social psychology, and the media--all the elements of modern marketing--to position homosexuality in order to frame what is discussed in the public arena and how it is discussed. . . . The economics and education of homosexuals makes them prime players in a capitalistic society. Money means power, and education means the knowledge to use that power to gain more. Homosexuals have demonstrated they have access to the leadership in media, government, education, business and other centers of influence as well as access to capital. These are hardly traits of an oppressed minority. . .



RELATED ARTICLE:  How America Went Gay    Leadership U, By Charles W. Socarides, M.D.
Gays said they could "reinvent human nature, reinvent themselves." To do this, these reinventors had to clear away one major obstacle. No, they didn't go after the nation's clergy. They targeted the members of a worldly priesthood, the psychiatric community, and neutralized them with a radical redefinition of homosexuality itself. In 1972 and 1973 they co-opted the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association and, through a series of political maneuvers, lies and outright flim-flams, they "cured" homosexuality overnight-by fiat. They got the A.P.A. to say that same-sex sex was "not a disorder." It was merely "a condition"-as neutral as lefthandedness. . .

• Study: Gay Marriage Involves More Outside Relationships  NewsMaxx.com, By: Theodore Kettle, February 07, 2010  
  A federally-funded study by San Francisco State University that followed 556 local male couples for three years found that half “have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners,” according to The New York Times. The study, to be completed this month by the State University’s Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality, is even leading “some experts” to the conclusion that “boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution,” the newspaper reports. The key distinction is that so many homosexuals do not view cheating on each other as wrong, the way married men and women do. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” the study’s principal investigator Colleen Hoff told the newspaper, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.” On its website, the Center describes the importance in conducting the study as revolving around the fact that “gay and bisexual men in relationships engage in substantially higher rates of unprotected” homosexual activity than do “single men with their casual partners.” Hoff and her fellow researchers apparently seek to re-evaluate whether such “non-safe sex” risks as much spread of AIDS as is widely believed. According to the Center, “whether these behaviors are ‘risky’ depends on many factors and needs to be further explored.” With the high rates of non-exclusivity among homosexuals, “and primary partners an often unrecognized and under-studied source of new HIV infections,” the State University investigators say “studying gay and bisexual male couples is an important next step in HIV research and prevention.” But the New York Times could not get homosexuals themselves to discuss in the open the claimed success of the widespread prevalence of “open” unions. “Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns.” Another big worry discovered among those contacted: “that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.”. . .
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret  NY Times, By Scott James, January 28, 2010
  When Rio and Ray married in 2008, the Bay Area women omitted two words from their wedding vows: fidelity and monogamy. “I take it as a gift that someone will be that open and honest and sharing with me,” said Rio, using the word “open” to describe their marriage. Love brought the middle-age couple together — they wed during California’s brief legal window for same-sex marriage. But they knew from the beginning that their bond would be forged on their own terms, including what they call “play” with other women. As the trial phase of the constitutional battle  to overturn the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage concludes in federal court, gay nuptials are portrayed by opponents as an effort to rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony. Quietly, outside of the news media and courtroom spotlight, many gay couples are doing just that, according to
  groundbreaking new research. A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution. . .

RELATED ARTICLES & INFO: HIV/AIDS and Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)  Centers For Disease Control and Prevention


RELATED STUDY (PDF):   Modelling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men  International Journal of Epidemiology  Vol 6, No.3

RELATED ARTICLE (PDF):  NATIONAL GAY MEN’S HIV/AIDS AWARENESS DAY  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Statement by Dr. Jonathan Mermin— Director, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, September 27, 2009
September 27, 2009 is the second annual National Gay Men’s HIV/AIDS Awareness Day (NGMHAAD). I applaud the efforts of the National Association of People with AIDS (NAPWA) and many other organizations throughout the United States who are participating in this important event. HIV touches all segments of American society—individuals, families, and communities, young and old, men and women, black and white. However, since the beginning of the epidemic in the United States, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men have been disproportionately affected by HIV. Of all the people newly infected with HIV, men who have sex with men is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among men who have sex with men has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples  Family Research Council, By Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D.  (Posted March 2008)
The “I’m boring.” down-home portrayals of homosexual couples are meant to provoke the question: Since gay couples really differ only in that both partners are of the same sex, what rational basis exists for denying them full marriage rights? Are homosexual households, as the article suggests, simply another variant of human relationships that should be considered, along with marriage, as “part of mainstream American society”? On the contrary, the evidence indicates that “committed” homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples in several key respects:

· relationship duration
· monogamy vs. promiscuity
· relationship commitment
· number of children being raised
· health risks
· rates of intimate partner violence . . . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  "Gay" Sex Kills   Townhall.com, By Matt Barber, Monday, April 21, 2008
. . . By recently admitting that “HIV is a gay disease,” Matt Foreman, outgoing Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, acknowledged what the medical community has known for decades: the homosexual lifestyle is extremely high-risk and often leads to disease and even death. . . . . . On April 25, 2008, the pro-homosexual indoctrination of your children comes to a boil. Homosexual activists and like-minded liberal educators will be pushing the so-called “Day of Silence” on kids in thousands of schools across the country. . . . To be sure, bullying and harassment should not be tolerated against anyone, anywhere for any reason, and those who engage in such activities should be firmly disciplined. However, DOS has very little to do with “bullying” and has everything to do with propaganda. During DOS, children and teachers are encouraged to disrupt the school day by refusing to speak, in a show of support to self-described “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual” and “transgender” students. Kids are additionally taught that Biblical truth, which holds that human sexuality is a gift from God shared between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage, is “homophobic,” “hateful” and “discriminatory.” Our schools are supposed to be places of learning, not places of political indoctrination. It’s the height of impropriety and cynicism for “gay” activists and school officials to use good-hearted but misguided children as pawns in their attempt to further a deceptive, highly controversial and polarizing political agenda. . . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Till Death Do Them Part: The Deadly Consequences Of Homosexual Unions  Catholic Citizens.org, By Dr. Brian Kopp, December 5, 2003
According to Dr. Kopp, "The best scientific evidence suggests that putting society's stamp of approval on homosexual partnerships would harm society in general and homosexuals in particular, the very individuals some contend would be helped. A large body of scientific evidence suggests that homosexual marriage is a defective counterfeit of traditional marriage and that it poses a clear and present danger to the health of the community. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  The Health Risks of Gay Sex    Catholic Education Resource Center, By John R. Diggs, Jr. M.D.

• Kim Kardashian & Kendra Wilkinson Get into Pre-Super Bowl Spat  People magazine, By Joe Bargmann, February 05, 2010
  Let the game begin: Kim Kardashian and Kendra Wilkinson enjoyed some good-natured trash-talking Friday morning as the their respective men – Kim's boyfriend, New Orleans Saints running back Reggie Bush, and Kendra's husband, Indianapolis Colts player Hank Baskett – prepare to meet in Super Bowl XLIV on Sunday. "This is the real showdown, baby. Let the claws come out!" Ryan Seacrest said, announcing his interview with the two women on his KIIS-FM radio show. Kardashian got into the spirit of things by kiddingly threatening, "I'm going to poison your coffee!" Wilkinson replied by taunting Kardashian about rumors that she and Bush planned to get engaged if his team wins the game on Sunday, something the E! reality star has denied. Seacrest himself referred to Kardashian as Bush's "soon to be fiancée – I think."  Although both women are camping out in the same Miami hotel as their dudes, their pre-game rituals are quite different. "[The players are] staying a couple floors up from me," said Wilkinson. "[Hank] comes in here with me and spends time with me and the baby – his 'daddy time.' " Baskett previously told reporters that his 7-week-old son, Hank Baskett IV, would watch the game from a skybox with his mom even if he doesn't remember it. Meanwhile, Kardashian will enjoy visits from Bush: The couple will have dinner together, then return to the hotel for in-room massages, but Bush will stay in a separate room, following a team rule. . . .
  
  
  
  RELATED PHOTO ESSAY:  Wife vs. Wifey: A Twentysomething Struggle with the Term 'Wifey'  Essence magazine, February 06, 2010
  Real women want to be a man’s choice, not an option. Period. It takes one bad breakup or one shocking rejection to come to that epiphany—quick. After witnessing Beyonce grace the stage on Grammy night, publicly sending her love and gratitude to her “huzzzband,” Jay-Z, my appreciation for the institution of marriage surfaced stronger than ever. Belonging to the generation that created the term wifey, defined as a man’s main squeeze, long-term girlfriend, or woman who is almost “wife material,” I had ask, Is the title wifey really good enough? A lot of women seem to be honored by the title wifey, and if it works for you…who am I to judge? The question is, How long does it work? After speaking to more than a few of the fellas who admit they use the title wifey, they also admitted they don’t take the title nearly as half as serious as wife. If they don’t even hold the title “wifey” in high regard, then why should we? Get ya mind right ladies. They gave me nine reasons why, unless you’re dropping the “y,” wifey just isn’t good enough: 1. Accessibility. . . Next: 2. Exclusivity. . .
  
  
  
  

• When did giving birth become a competition?  The Daily Mail- UK, By Liz Fraser, February 04, 2010
  Ladies, it's official: childbirth doesn't hurt. At all! In fact, it's wonderful. I know this because Brazilian supermodel Gisele Bundchen said so. Recalling her eight-hour labour, which took place two months ago in the bath at her home, with her mother and husband present, she said it 'didn't hurt in the slightest'. And that, after lots of preparation and yoga, she 'managed to have a very tranquil birth'. The next time I need a relaxing beach holiday, remind me to go into labour, won't you? It sounds idyllic. Sadly, though I do know women who have had almost pain-free experiences of labour, for most mothers childbirth is about as far from the one Gisele described as you can imagine. As far as I'm concerned, labour was one of the least tranquil, most excruciating things I've ever experienced. And yes, I did try the yoga. My first time lasted 35 hours, and I was in terrible pain throughout. But I was determined not to have any pain relief. Why? Because pain relief, I'd been told by midwives and do-gooding mothers in Tesco, was for wimps. When I did finally cave in and ask for something to dull the agony, my midwife, who appeared to have been trained by the Royal Marines, urged me to: 'Keep going! You can do this by yourself! You are strong!' I felt like I'd let the Sisterhood down just for asking. It took the kind words of a male doctor to say 'please have an epidural. It's not a sign of weakness and will help you, and your baby' to change my mind. And the moment the anaesthetic took effect and my whole body relaxed, I wished I'd done it hours earlier - and felt angry that I'd been encouraged not to. I'd become convinced that if I caved, I would have lost the competition - and taken the 'soft option'. The fact is that, whether we like to admit it or not, motherhood makes most women very competitive. If it's not how old your baby was when he or she first talked, it's how pretty they are, or when they first walked or lost their first tooth. The list is endless. And the pressures on mums are getting greater every year. Where once making a happy home was enough to gain entry to the Good Mother Club, now the criteria are enough to make even the toughest mums weep. We should look great, dress in the latest fashions, earn a living, bake organic cupcakes, have a beautiful house and keep our man happy in bed. We should be there when our kids need us, but be somewhere else when the job does. The truth is that none of us manages even a quarter of all this without suffering from burn-out, because we're human. We are women, not robots. This competitive female culture has now seeped into childbirth. It's always been there to a certain extent, but the emphasis has changed. Ten years ago, labour stories were all about the suffering: 'Oh, I was in labour for three weeks and the baby weighed 15lb. I couldn't walk for a month and I still can't look at a trampoline without wetting myself.' Nowadays, the fashion has turned and it's all about how wonderful labour is. How peaceful. How well we coped. If you don't have a natural, 'proper' labour - like Gisele - you've somehow failed. You are less of a woman; a failed mother from day one. . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Celebrity yummy mummies make the rest feel like failures  The Daily Mail- UK, February 28, 2008
  Looking after the children, keeping a spick and span house and perhaps juggling a job is enough to fill any mother's busy day. When you add in looking immaculate at all times, serving up home-cooked family feasts and making romantic time for a partner, the schedule looks even more daunting. But then Madonna seems to manage it. So do Victoria Beckham and Angelina Jolie. Faced with such examples of domestic goddesses, the average mother can feel a little less than perfect. In fact, more than two-thirds believe the likes of Madonna and Co are putting mothers under pressure to live up to an unrealistic ideal, a survey has found. . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  In praise of the 'ordinary' woman: It's time to embrace being Miss Average  The Daily Mail- UK, By Kathryn Knight, February 27, 2008
  Wallis Simpson once observed that a woman could 'never be too rich or too thin', and spent much of her life in slavish pursuit of both states. By and large, the former Duchess of Windsor appeared to succeed in her endeavours - certainly in the latter if the photographs of her mind-bogglingly waspish waist are anything to go by. She just never looked particularly happy about it, the same photographs revealing a red-lipsticked mouth set in a permanently thin, hard, gloomy line. Wallis wouldn't thank us for pointing it out, but her natural heir is Victoria Beckham, a woman who once looked like a perfectly attractive girl-next-door type but who increasingly resembles a sleek, scowling android given an all over hose-down with the plastic coating they use on wicker furniture. Nonetheless, contemporary wisdom has it that the Victoria Beckhams of this world have got it sussed. She has, after all, morphed by sheer force of will into an ultimate version of herself, a walking testament to the worship of superlatives. Success is about being the slimmest, prettiest, cleverest and wealthiest (Victoria is, admittedly, pushing it on the middle two). The odd thing is that it doesn't seem to help her with the quality that is arguably the most important: the happiest. It begs the question of when being ordinary got such a bad press. After all, some of the most contented women I know are average in the nicest possible way. . .
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  It's time to stop trying to be perfect, psychologist says  Boston Globe, By Billy Baker, February 25, 2008
  After more than 20 years of studying women's health issues, psychologist Alice Domar has come to a grand conclusion: Women are just too hard on themselves. There is no pill that will cure this self-imposed pressure - which Domar says creates harmful stress and makes dealing with everything from eating disorders to infertility more difficult. People will take pills, Domar says. That's easy. What's hard is to get women to accept what she says is obvious to men: Perfection is not attainable. . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  The (futile) pursuit of happiness The Daily Mail- UK, By Helen Kirwan-Taylor, March 30, 2007
  Throughout my whole life, I have striven to be happy. Indeed, on the surface, I have everything required to reach such a state of contentment: a loving husband, beautiful children, a nice house, the absence of debt or physical impediments. However, despite all this, despite my best attempts to remain positive, most of my waking life is spent in a state that is far, far short of euphoric. Not that I would ever dare admit to anyone that I am anything less than blissfully happy. For in the 21st century, being openly negative, miserable or even a little unhappy in today's glossy, airbrushed, size zero, Hello! magazine world, has become a taboo of unspeakable proportions. To admit you are miserable is to risk becoming a social pariah. It is, somehow, to admit that you are a failure in our ultra-competitive world.Try telling anyone that you feel lousy and that everything in your life stinks: you will see the room clear. It is not quite the same as admitting that you beat your children or your dog - but it's close. But what is so fantastically great about being "happy" that makes us all want it so badly? Why has that word - and the state of mind that it indicates - become the holy grail of our society? The pursuit of happiness has become such an obsession that the latest craze in the U.S. (and what the U.S. pioneers, the UK almost invariably copies), forbids complaining altogether. . .
  
  
  
  

• Marriage carries on where fairytales end  Scotsman, By Lee Randall, February 03, 2010
  Last week, avid readers will surely recall, I had a hissy fit about Lori Gottlieb's book Marry Him, in which she urges readers to abandon the search for Mr Right and settle for Mr Good Enough. Only one person – gender unidentified – commented online, saying: "Imagine the howls of 'sexism' if this story had been about women instead." This is just ambiguous enough to leave me confused about whether the remark is directed at me or at Gottlieb. If the former, I hope that commenter is with us today. We're back here again because last week I ran out of space to say: if you feel you've "settled" for the man you marry, then shame on you. You've done him a huge disservice and the poor guy deserves better. I do, still, agree with Gottlieb that despite the evidence to hand – our parents' union, for which we have ringside seats – too many of us internalise an overly romantic and utterly unpractical view of marriage, and this sets us up for a fall. I blame a diet of fairytales and films in which the entire point of the exercise is seeing the hero and the heroine swan off into the sunset arm in arm. We aren't encouraged to imagine their future together. I contend that "And they lived happily ever after" is the most pernicious phrase in the English language. It leaves out "except for when they really hated each other's guts"; it glosses over the instructional nuts and bolts description of how the hell they manage to keep love, attraction and mutual respect alive through thick and thin and all those other polar opposites in the marriage vows. There's an argument lurking in the shadows here, urging "starter marriages" or cohabiting to build up your skills, and I am reminded of my aunt remarking: "It's about time you got your first marriage under your belt." Ultimately, my main aggravation isn't Gottlieb's assertion that women ought to abandon hypercritical nitpickery in favour of realistically weighing up a person's flaws and strengths and assessing them in relation to one's own flaws and strengths. Where I stumble every time is over her choice of terminology. . . . . .That's not realism, that's cynicism. Gottlieb's assessment of the marriage game is so cold and calculating, I'd wager she suffers from hypothermia. . .
  
  
  
  RELATED VIDEO:  Should women wait for Mr. Right?  MSNBC.com, February 2008

RELATED ARTICLE:  Marry Him! The Case For Settling For Mr. Good Enough  Atlantic Monthly, By Lori Gottlieb, February 8, 2008
Still holding out for Mr. Right, even as middle age quickly approaches? Don't hold your breath, says Lori Gottlieb. Here, the author and single mom explains why true love may be a fantasy — and why that's not necessarily a bad thing. Excerpted from “Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough” from the March 2008 issue of The Atlantic magazine. . . . About six months after my son was born, he and I were sitting on a blanket at the park with a close friend and her daughter. It was a sunny summer weekend, and other parents and their kids picnicked nearby — mothers munching berries and lounging on the grass, fathers tossing balls with their giddy toddlers. My friend and I, who, in fits of self-empowerment, had conceived our babies with donor sperm because we hadn’t met Mr. Right yet, surveyed the idyllic scene. “Ah, this is the dream,” I said, and we nodded in silence for a minute, then burst out laughing. In some ways, I meant it: We’d both dreamed of motherhood, and here we were, picnicking in the park with our children. But it was also decidedly not the dream. The dream, like that of our mothers and their mothers from time immemorial, was to fall in love, get married, and live happily ever after. Of course, we’d be loath to admit it in this day and age, but ask any soul-baring 40-year-old single heterosexual woman what she most longs for in life, and she probably won’t tell you it’s a better career or a smaller waistline or a bigger apartment. Most likely, she’ll say that what she really wants is a husband (and, by extension, a child). . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Great Expectations  Psychology Today, By Polly Shulman, March 27, 2007
Has the quest to find the perfect soul mate done more harm than good? Psychologists provide insight into how the never-ending search for ideal love can keep you from enjoying a marriage or a healthy relationship that you already have. . .

• Jenny Sanford Exclusive: Husband Refused to Be Faithful in Wedding Vows
  S.C. First Lady Tells Barbara Walters: 'I Thought He Loved Me in His Own Way, Which Is Not a Warm, Bubbly Way'  ABC News, February 02, 2010
  South Carolina first lady Jenny Sanford recalls how she made the "leap of faith" to marry husband Gov. Mark Sanford even though the groom refused to promise to be faithful, insisting that the clause be removed from their wedding vows.  "It bothered me to some extent, but ... we were very young, we were in love," she said in an exclusive interview with Barbara Walters to air on "20/20" Friday. "I questioned it, but I got past it ... along with other doubts that I had." Sanford and her marriage were thrust into the national spotlight in June 2009 when her husband admitted that he had been secretly visiting his longtime lover in Argentina instead of hiking the Appalachian Trail, as he had told his staff. . . .Sanford learned of her husband's infidelity in January 2009, before the scandal broke. After 20 years of marriage, she moved out of the governor's mansion with the couple's four children in August and filed for divorce in December. Following the ordeal of the last year, Sanford penned a memoir called "Staying True," a chronicle of her marriage to the governor, which will be released Friday. Sanford, a former investment banker and Georgetown alumna, was 27 when she married Mark Sanford. "I was a little bit surprised and maybe frankly a tiny bit disappointed that Jenny was willing to subvert herself to somebody who, frankly I didn't think was as capable as she was," Steve Rattner, her boss at the time, at the top investment bank Lazard Freres, told Walters. After their November 1989 wedding, the newlyweds moved to Charleston, S.C., where she discovered her husband was extremely frugal -- even "cheap." Sanford said her husband gave her less than romantic gifts for her birthday. "He drew me a picture of a half a bike, and then for the next birthday or Christmas I got the picture of the other half a bike, and then he delivered the $25 used bike," she recalled. For another birthday, Mark Sanford gave her a diamond necklace, which she adored, but then he took it back. . . . .One day her world came shattering down when Sanford said she found a letter in her husband's desk, which made it clear to her that he was "having a sexual relationship" with 43-year-old Argentine businesswoman Maria Belen Chapur. . . . . . Sanford Breaks the Mold in Face of Political Spouse's Nightmare: In the face of every political spouse's nightmare, Sanford opted not to stand by her husband's side during his June press conference when he confessed to cheating. Instead, she watched it on TV, like the rest of America. . .

RELATED VIDEO:  Jenny Sanford Memoir to Be Released Friday The Associated Press

RELATED ARTICLE:  Ex-Edwards Aide: $1 Million Spent to Cover Up Pregnant Mistress: Andrew Young Tells '20/20' About Private Jets, Mansions, 5-Star Hotels, a BMW Used in Elaborate Scheme; 'Money Was No Object'   ABC News, By James Hill, Teri Whitcraft, Eric M. Strauss, and Nadine Shubailat, January 29, 2010
When presidential contender John Edwards decided he had to hide his mistress and her pregnancy from his wife -- and from the voters -- he concocted an elaborate scheme to keep the scandal a secret, according to the once-loyal aide who helped smuggle the woman through a series of luxurious hideaways. Wealthy benefactors were called on and their sizable contributions funded the lavish life on the lam. "I know of at least a million dollars. And there was much, much more," said Andrew Young of the scheme that brought him to testify in front of a grand jury. "We were living in mansions, flying around in jets. ... Money was no object." The Iowa caucuses were just two weeks away in December 2007, when Young falsely claimed he was the father of his boss's love child. We knew we were going to have to leave town as soon as this hit the Enquirer," Young recalled of the bombshell that broke in the supermarket tabloid the National Enquirer.Young and his wife, Cheri, said they had less than 12 hours to make the decision to go on the lam with his boss's mistress -- Rielle Hunter -- but ultimately agreed to go into hiding with her. According to Young, Edwards' campaign finance chairman, Fred Baron, who's now deceased, made it possible for them to effectively disappear. "Fred said to me, 'Andrew, I got more money than I can ever spend. You spend whatever it takes to take care of the situation. And let us focus on making him president, vice president or attorney general," Young recalled. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  The Values Dance  Joseph C. Phillips.com, October 17, 2007
What distresses is that the esteem in which we hold our public servants has fallen so far that increasingly such revelations are greeted with a yawn and a rather disinterested shrug of the shoulders. Still others will declare that we judge our public representatives solely on the work they do. I wonder, however, if the personal behavior of our public officials is truly a private matter to be overlooked by a blushing public or is it an indicator of the true character of the man? To the extent that our public policy intersects with questions of morality, is it unreasonable that we look with curiosity on the character of our political representatives?. . . . .In America we do not anoint royalty infallible, but public servants with “servants” being the operative word. Our elected officials serve at the pleasure of the people. We rightly expect that those entrusted with the nation’s security and purse strings will exercise their obligations with prudence and clarity. It is not scandal mongering that sparks our interest in the private lives of public servants but the fact that public indiscretion calls into question one’s decision making skills. Or at least it should. Trust is essential to public service. In truth though, if a man would break a sacred vow he makes to the mother of his children, why should we believe for one moment that he holds the promises he made to nameless faceless citizens in any higher esteem. I struggle with the idea that any man bent on fulfilling his own personal desires, even at the expense of the best interests of his children, can be trusted to oversee the interests of the general public. . .

• Almost All Millennials Accept Interracial Dating and Marriage   Pew Research Center, February 1, 2010
  Over the last several decades, the American public has grown increasingly accepting of interracial dating and marriage. This shift in opinion has been driven both by attitude change among individuals generally and by the fact that over the period, successive generations have reached adulthood with more racially liberal views than earlier generations. Millennials are no exception to this trend: Large majorities of 18-to-29 year olds express support for interracial marriage within their families, and the level of acceptance in this generation is greater than in other generations. The Pew Research Center's recent report on racial attitudes in the U.S., finds that an overwhelming majority of Millennials, regardless of race, say they would be fine with a family member's marriage to someone of a different racial or ethnic group. Asked about particular groups to which they do not belong, Millennials are about equally accepting of marriage to someone in any of the groups tested: Roughly nine-in-ten say they would be fine with a family member's marriage to an African American (88%), a Hispanic American (91%), an Asian American (93%) or a white American (92%). This high level of acceptance among Millennials holds true across ethnic and racial groups; there is no significant difference between white, black and Hispanic Millennials in the degree of acceptance of interracial marriage. . . . . .Not surprisingly, given the high levels of acceptance of interracial marriage among Millennials, nearly all 18-to-29-year-olds (93%) agree with the statement "I think it is all right for blacks and whites to date each other." Pew Research has tracked responses to this question for more than two decades in its study of American political values, most recently in April 2009. These surveys have found Millennials very accepting of interracial dating since the opinions of this generation first were tracked in 2003 (in 2003, 92% of Millennials agreed that it was all right for blacks and whites to date). . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  New Mom Ellen Pompeo Reveals First Pic of Baby  People magazine, By Blane Bachelor, February 03, 2010
  New mom Ellen Pompeo showed the world – or, at least, the TV world – the first picture of 4-month-old Stella Luna. . .
  
  
  
  

• Biological Clock Ticking: Most Ovarian Eggs Used Up by Age 30  AOL Health, By Mary Beth Sammons
  By the time a woman reaches 30, she’s lost 90 percent of her ovarian eggs for good, according to a new study, which suggests that the female “biological clock situation is worse than we thought," says Elan Simckes, M.D., medical director and founder of The Fertility Partnership  of St. Peter’s, MO. The study, published by the University of St. Andrews and Edinburgh University in Scotland found that 95 percent of women have less than 12 percent of their ovarian egg reserve left by age 30 and only three percent by 40. “It sends a strong message to wannabe moms that ‘sooner is better,’ says Dr. Simckes. “I have been telling patients for years that a woman’s ability to conceive peaks in her late teens stays fairly stable until 30 and nosedives after 35.” At the same time the study is bolstering medical community recommendations surrounding women’s age and conception, it speaks volumes about the anxiety women over 30 face when trying to conceive. “I knew the odds were bad, but I didn't know how bad they were,” says Mistie Thompson, of Ellisville, MO, who will turn 40 in July, and who has experienced two miscarriages trying to conceive. She is the mom of two daughters, Faith, seven, and Gabrielle, four, but has gone through significant challenges in both pregnancies and in trying to conceive. “Obviously, the chances are incredibly slim for me, and if I do conceive, the odds of having another miscarriage are much higher than for someone even a few years younger,” Thompson says. “I definitely wish I had known this in my 20s. “Like many of my friends, I waited until I had finished my master's degree and was well-established in my public relations career at 31 to begin trying to conceive. My first pregnancy ended in a miscarriage, but I was able to successfully give birth to two baby girls after that, although both involved threatened miscarriages, preterm labor and long bed rests.” Deanna Russo, a 39-year-old president of an entertainment marketing firm in Los Angeles and a self-described “career-driven and independent woman” says, “I always knew I wanted to have a child, but at some point it dawns on you, you really hope you can make it all happen within the proper window of time. Creating a healthy life is something I take very seriously. “ She says she is not surprised by the study’s findings, but it underscores the pressure she has always felt. She has decided to take her biological clock into her own hands. Not wanting to leave motherhood up to “fate,” she has chosen to have her eggs frozen. . . . . .“Between being a late bloomer and the challenges of dating in Los Angeles -- it wasn't until I was a very young 37 when I met the love of my life,” adds Russo. “I'm finally fulfilled both personally and professionally. However there’s one exception -- the love of my life is eight years younger than me. In a world of instant gratification, I knew the worst thing I could possibly do was to put unnecessary pressure on our budding relationship.” Though it’s common knowledge that women have more difficulty conceiving as they age, this study is significant because it is the first time researchers have provided a better understanding of how many eggs a woman has in her ovaries, and provides evidence that women have a fixed number of eggs that decline with increasing age, says study researcher Tom Kelsey, Ph.D., a senior research fellow at the School of Computer Science at St Andrews. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  South Koreans Told to Go Home and Make Babies  BBC, By John Sudworth, January 20, 2010
South Korean government workers are being presented with an unusual suggestion - go home and multiply. . . .The country has one of the world's lowest birth rates, lower even than neighbouring Japan. . .

RELATED STUDY:  The birth of the biological clock    University of St. Andrews, January 26, 2010
Researchers have moved one step closer to solving the inner workings of the biological clock, by studying it from the moment it starts ticking. A successful collaboration between the Universities of St Andrews and Edinburgh has resulted in a better understanding of how many eggs a woman has in her ovaries (ovarian reserve) from conception to menopause.  It is the first time that scientists have ever modelled human ovarian reserve from establishment before birth to menopause around 50 years of age. The new research, by Dr Tom Kelsey (St Andrews) and Dr Hamish Wallace (Edinburgh), provides further evidence for the theory that women are born with a fixed number of non-growing follicles (eggs) that decline with increasing age. . .

• Testimony concludes in same-sex marriage trial in San Francisco The Catholic Spirit, By Rick Del Vecchio, February 01, 2010
  Closing arguments were expected around the beginning of March in the federal trial challenging the constitutionality of California's ban on same-sex marriage. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, presiding at the nonjury trial, said Jan. 27 that he will set a date for closing arguments after at least a 30-day hiatus to review the evidence. "Obviously a fascinating case," Walker said as he adjourned the proceedings. "Extremely well presented on both sides." The final expert witness for the defense in the trial on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the 2008 voter initiative that defined state-sanctioned marriage as limited to a man and a woman, testified that the "rule of opposites" has been a virtually unwavering principle of marriage throughout human history. "There are no or almost no exceptions to this principle that marriage is between a man and a woman," said David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values. Blankenhorn defended the historical basis of that definition as he underwent close cross-examination by David Boies, a lawyer for same-sex couples who sued to have Proposition 8 overturned as discriminatory. . . . .Blankenhorn, testifying the previous day as the principal expert witness for the Proposition 8 defense, said the social foundation of marriage is greater than the legal issues surrounding it. He described marriage and domestic partnership as separate institutions. He said marriage predates law and "is not a creature of law." "The marital institution is differently purposed, is specifically purposed," he said. "The purpose is to bring together the biological male and biological female to make it as likely as possible that they are the social and legal parents of the child. That's the lodestar, that's the distinctive and core contribution of the institution of marriage.". . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE: Filmmakers Assemble Actors to Re-Enact Prop 8 Trial for Web  Christian Post, By Eric Young, February 01, 2010
  A film production team is re-enacting last month’s federal court battle over California’s voter-approved marriage definition to allow people to see what the U.S. Supreme Court decided to keep behind court doors. Having secured a courtroom set and casted dozens of actors, the Los Angeles-based team is re-enacting last month’s trial word-for-word, based on official court transcripts and under the advisory of constitutional law scholar and professor David B. Cruz from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, which is providing the replica courtroom. . .
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Prop. 8 defense only needs 2 witnesses   San Francisco Chronicle, By Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer, January 29, 2010
  If the Proposition 8 trial were about something more mundane than the rights of gays and lesbians to marry - say, a suit over an auto accident or insurance coverage - it would probably be no contest. In 12 days of testimony in federal court, lawyers for two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco called a parade of academic heavyweights and people affected by the ban on same-sex marriage to buttress their claim of unconstitutional discrimination. Defenders of the November 2008 ballot measure called only two witnesses, who did not address many of the plaintiffs' issues. But while Prop. 8's challengers presented the weightier case, they also faced the heavier burden: overturning a voter-approved law on a politically sensitive subject, with arguments that no federal court has yet addressed, much less accepted. . . . . Prop. 8's sponsors may submit further evidence before closing arguments, probably in March. But for now, Blankenhorn's testimony is the sole justification offered for the ballot measure by any courtroom witness. It "couldn't possibly be enough," said Joan Hollinger, a UC Berkeley family law lecturer who attended the trial in San Francisco and plans to submit arguments in support of the plaintiffs. "There was nothing there except his own opinions." But this case is a constitutional battle that may not be as one-sided as it appeared in court. . .

RELATED BLOG:  Protect Marriage- Yes on 8 Blog


Presentation of Evidence Concludes in Perry v Schwarzenegger Federal Trial   By Andy Pugno - General Counsel, January 27, 2010


RELATED VIDEOS: Marriage Trial: Perry v. Schwarzenegger

RELATED POLLS & RESEARCH: Americans Expect Court to Reject Gay Marriage  Angus Reid Global Monitor, January 31, 2010
- Many Americans believe their Supreme Court will ultimately ban same-sex marriage, according to a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion. 52 per cent of respondents expect a decision that would define marriage federally as between a man and a woman. In addition, 58 per cent of respondents say they would prefer a ruling that defines marriage federally as between a man and a woman. . .


RELATED QUOTE:
"...The plaintiffs put on a spectacular show-trial of irrelevant evidence, calling to the stand many “expert” witnesses to testify that allowing homosexual marriage would: help local governments raise more tax revenues, help gay and lesbian couples to accumulate greater wealth, and improve the self-esteem of homosexuals.  But those are political arguments for society to consider, not legal support for the claim that the US Constitution contains the right to homosexual marriage. The courtroom is simply not the proper forum for what is clearly a social, not a legal, appeal..."  Andy Pugno - General Counsel- Protect Marriage- Yes on 8, January 27, 2010

 "Marriage" News: January 2010

Get 2 Free Preview Issues!

Home  I  Subscribe  I  About Us  I  Editorial  I  'MARRIAGE' In The News  I  Enter Our Blog Spot  I  'Something New' 


2010 'MARRIAGE' News Archives:  January 2010 

2009:  December 2009  |  November 2009  |  October 2009  |  September 2009  |  August 2009  |  July 2009  |  June 2009  |  May 2009  |  April 2009  |  March 2009  | February 2009  |  January 2009

2008:  December 2008  |  November 2008  |  October 2008  |  September 2008  |  August 2008  |  July 2008  |  June 2008  |  May 2008  |  April 2008  |  March 2008  |  February 2008  I  January 2008

2007:  December 2007  I  November 2007  I  October 2007  I  September 2007  I  August 2007  I  July 2007  I  June 2007  I  May 2007  I  April 2007  I  March 2007  I  February 2007  I  January 2007

2006:  December 2006  I  November 2006  I  October 2006  I  September 2006  I  August 2006  I  July 2006  I  June 2006  I  May 2006  I  April 2006  I  March 2006  I  February 2006  I  January 2006

2005:  December 2005  I  November 2005  I  October 2005  I  September 2005  I  August 2005  I  July 2005  I  June 2005  I  May 2005