'MARRIAGE' In The NEWS- April 2010: The REAL Proposal For Marriage magazine

World Exclusive: Meet Sandra Bullock's Baby Boy! People magazine, April 28, 2010
In public, Sandra Bullock has been through the best and worst of times this year – from winning her first Oscar to enduring the breakup of her marriage. In private, she was quietly keeping a joyful secret – his name is Louis, and he is her newborn son. "He's just perfect, I can't even describe him any other way," Bullock reveals exclusively in the new issue of PEOPLE, announcing that she is the proud mother of Louis Bardo Bullock, a 3½-month-old boy, born in New Orleans. "It's like he's always been a part of our lives." Bullock, 45, and husband Jesse James, 41, began the adoption process four years ago and brought Louis home in January but decided to keep the news to themselves until after the Oscars. Their close friends and family – including James's children Sunny, 6, Jesse Jr., 12, and Chandler, 15 – were essential in keeping the adoption a secret. Then, just 10 days after the March 7 Oscars, Bullock and James separated following reports James had cheated. Bullock says she is now finalizing the adoption as a single parent. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Shocked Fans Thrilled for New Mom Sandra Bullock People magazine, By Zach Haberman, April 28, 2010
The world is abuzz about what until now had been the best kept secret in Hollywood – Sandra Bullock's adorable, newly adopted son. The Oscar winner's exclusive PEOPLE interview and pictures with 3½-month-old Louis Bardo Bullock – on newsstands Friday – mark the first inside peek at Bullock's life since she learned of her soon-to-be ex-husband's indiscretions. Fans and PEOPLE readers immediately took to Facebook and Twitter to congratulate Bullock and comment on the news, with their reactions ranging from delight to declaring her an "inspiration.". . .

RELATED QUOTE: We should NEVER glamorize out-of-wedlock parenting, but it is important to remember that not all single parents are single by choice! The Real Proposal magazine, April 28, 2010

RELATED ARTICLE: His Own Words: Jesse James Reacts to Divorce Filing People magazine, Wednesday April 28, 2010

As Sandra Bullock shares her decision to file for divorce from husband Jesse James and adopt son Louis as a single mom, James tells PEOPLE he has a "huge hole" in his heart, but understands: "My whole life has been full of hard decisions. "The decision to let my wife end our marriage, and continue the adoption of Louis on her own, has been the hardest. The love I have for Louis cannot be put to words. Not having him around to love and to hold has left a huge hole in my heart. "Sandy is the love of my life, but considering the pain and devastation I have caused her, it would be selfish to not let her go. Right now it is time for me to beat this addiction that has taken two of the things I love the most in life. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Single Mother's Manifesto The Times, By J.K. Rowling, April 14, 2010
. . . . Personally, I keep having flashbacks to 1997, and not merely because of the most memorable election result in recent times. In January that year, I was a single parent with a four-year-old daughter, teaching part-time but living mainly on benefits, in a rented flat. Eleven months later, I was a published author who had secured a lucrative publishing deal in the US, and bought my first ever property: a three-bedroom house with a garden. I had become a single mother when my first marriage split up in 1993. In one devastating stroke, I became a hate figure to a certain section of the press, and a bogeyman to the Tory Government. Peter Lilley, then Secretary of State at the DSS, had recently entertained the Conservative Party conference with a spoof Gilbert and Sullivan number, in which he decried "young ladies who get pregnant just to jump the housing list". The Secretary of State for Wales, John Redwood, castigated single-parent families from St Mellons, Cardiff, as "one of the biggest social problems of our day". (John Redwood has since divorced the mother of his children.) Women like me (for it is a curious fact that lone male parents are generally portrayed as heroes, whereas women left holding the baby are vilified) were, according to popular myth, a prime cause of social breakdown, and in it for all we could get: free money, state-funded accommodation, an easy life. An easy life. Between 1993 and 1997 I did the job of two parents, qualified and then worked as a secondary school teacher, wrote one and a half novels and did the planning for a further five. For a while, I was clinically depressed. To be told, over and over again, that I was feckless, lazy -- even immoral -- did not help. . .

Baby boy survives for nearly two days after abortion
A baby boy abandoned by doctors to die after a botched abortion was found alive nearly a day later. The Telegraph- UK, By Simon Caldwell, April 28, 2010
The 22-week infant died one day later in intensive care at a hospital in the mother's home town of Rossano in southern Italy. The mother, pregnant for the first time, had opted for an abortion after prenatal scans suggested that her baby was disabled. However, the infant survived the procedure, carried out on Saturday in the Rossano Calabro hospital, and was left by doctors to die. He was discovered alive the following day – some 20 hours after the operation – by Father Antonio Martello, the hospital chaplain, who had gone to pray beside his body. He found that the baby, wrapped in a sheet with his umbilical cord still attached, was moving and breathing. The priest raised the alarm and doctors immediately arranged for the infant to be taken to a specialist neo-natal unit at the neighbouring Cosenza hospital, where he died on Monday morning. Italian police are investigating the case for "homicide" because infanticide is illegal in Italy. The law means that doctors have had an obligation to try to preserve the life of the child once he had survived the abortion. The Italian government is also considering an inquiry into the conduct of the hospital staff. Eugenia Roccella, the under-secretary of state in the health department, on Wednesday night promised a government inquiry into the incident. . . .

RELATED QUOTE: “It amazes me that scientists get excited at the prospect of finding a microorganism on another planet or moon referring to it as 'life' but cannot see a one-month old fetus as life because it is in a woman's womb.” - Brenda McKeraghan, Via Live Action

Referendum 71 case has implications for future free speech Seattle Times, By James Bopp, Jr., and Scott Bieniek, April 26, 2010
Referendum 71 takes center stage at the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday. Guest columnists James Bopp Jr. And Scott F. Bieniek write the court's decision could impact how, or even if, citizens ever speak on a controversial issue in the future. . . . . .IN 2008, California voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman. The election was plagued by threats and intimidation levied against supporters of traditional marriage, and the harassment was facilitated by a law requiring contributors of $100 or more to publicly disclose their names, addresses, occupations and employers. This personal information was even combined on the Internet with maps, providing would-be harassers with directions to supporters' homes. And the retaliation was as much about the next vote on same-sex marriage as the election in California. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will consider a case involving that next vote. The case, Doe v. Reed, involves a Washington referendum to repeal a domestic-partnership law. Protect Marriage Washington, the group that sponsored the referendum, submitted a petition containing the names, addresses and signatures of more than 138,000 voters who felt the issue was too important to leave to their elected representatives. Rather than embrace the opportunity to publicly debate the merits of the domestic-partnership law, opponents vowed to obtain copies of the petition, hoping to place the names and addresses of the signers on the Internet to encourage "uncomfortable conversations." After what transpired in California, it is clear these are confrontations, not conversations, and that they chill political speech. And the clear goal was to prevent the debate from even occurring. After expressing reservations that petitions could be used to retaliate against petition signers, Secretary of State Sam Reed agreed to become a willing participant in such campaign tactics by ruling that the state Public Records Act required disclosure of the petitions. The decision came as a surprise because petitions have traditionally been exempt from public disclosure. More than 1,100 petitions have been filed with the secretary since the law was enacted in 1972. In 2006, Reed became the first secretary to release copies of petitions and Referendum 71 would be only the ninth petition released pursuant to the law, or otherwise. Only an emergency order from the U.S. Supreme Court on the eve of the election prevented opponents from using tactics usually reserved for the schoolyard bully. . .

Referendum 71 case has implications for future free speech

RELATED SITE: Protect Marriage Washington

RELATED ARTICLE: Court Skeptical on Bid to Keep Petitioners' Names Secret Wall Street Journal, By Peter Landers and Jess Bravin, April 28, 2010 Update!
Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical Wednesday of claims that the Constitution forbids the government from releasing the names of those who sign ballot petitions, in a case stemming from a gay-rights referendum in Washington state. The state's public-records law requires release of various government documents when requested by the press or public, including ballot petitions signed by voters seeking to place an issue before the electorate. . . . At arguments Wednesday, justices on both sides of the ideological spectrum suggested that the public had an interest in knowing who signed ballot petitions. "You can't run a democracy this way, with everybody being afraid of having his political positions known," said Justice Antonin Scalia. He criticized the plaintiffs for being "touchy-feely" and "oh so sensitive." "I'm sorry, Justice Scalia, but the campaign manager of this initiative had his family sleep in his living room because of the threats," responded James Bopp, representing the plaintiffs. . . . . . Chief Justice John Roberts suggested the court was unlikely to strike down the law on its face, but might find that in some circumstances names should be withheld if the signers could show they faced a threat. Defending the public-records law, Washington state Attorney General Robert McKenna said that names should be withheld only in the most extreme circumstances. "I think it would have to rise to the level of threat and violence," said Mr. McKenna. "I think the standard would be very high.". . .

RELATED REPORT: Executive Summary: The Price of Prop 8 The Heritage Fondation, By Thomas Messner, October 22, 2009
Supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry. Arguments for same-sex marriage are based fundamentally on the idea that limiting marriage to the union of husband and wife is a form of bigotry, irrational prejudice, and even hatred against homosexual persons. As this ideology seeps into the culture more generally, individuals and institutions that support marriage as the union of husband and wife risk paying a price for that belief in many legal, social, economic, and cultural contexts. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Tyranny of the Minority: How the Forced Recognition of Same-Sex "Marriage" Undermines a Free Society Salvo magazine, By S. T. Karnick, Autumn 2008- Salvo 6 Issue
From the beginning, the debate over "same-sex marriage" has been one of those topsy-turvy issues in which the side that is truly tolerant and fair has been characterized as narrow-minded and oppressive, while the side that is intolerant and blatantly coercive has been depicted as open-minded and sympathetic. Favoring government-enforced recognition of same-sex "marriage" is not, as the media invariably characterize it, a kindly, liberal-minded position, but instead a fierce, coercive, intolerant one. Despite their agonized complaints about the refusal of the majority of Americans to give in on the subject, those who advocate government recognition of same-sex "marriage" want to use coercion to deny other people their fundamental rights. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Intolerance of Tolerance Townhall.com, By Gregory Koukl, December 14, 2006
Probably no concept has more currency in our politically-correct culture than the notion of tolerance. Unfortunately, one of America's noblest virtues has been so distorted it's become a vice. There's one word that can stop you in your tracks. That word is "intolerant." . . . . The tolerant person allegedly occupies neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality where each person is permitted to decide for himself. No judgments allowed. No "forcing" personal views. That all views are equally valid is one of the most entrenched assumptions of a society committed to relativism. And it's a myth. . .

Comic book shocker! Archie's Riverdale high school gets openly gay student, Kevin Keller

Parenting Issues: Comic book shocker! Archie's Riverdale high school gets openly gay student, Kevin Keller NY Daily News, By Ethan Sacks, April 22nd 2010
Gee whiz, Archie! Riverdale High School, the stomping grounds of comic books' favorite teen and his friends, is opening its doors to an openly gay student - a first in the 69-year history of the character. "We're trying to reflect society and we're just trying to show Riverdale is a diverse place," says Dan Parent, the artist-writer behind the series. Kevin Keller makes his debut in September in "Veronica" No. 202, on sale in September, as a hunky new kid who catches the raven-haired vixen's eye. Though Veronica is used to getting her way, she's finally run up against a boy who's immune to her charms. Cue the hijinks. Parent says he hopes the positive message will offend as few people as possible, but adverse conservative reaction "was not a reason not to do the story." Archie Comics Co-CEO Jon Goldwater said in the few hours since the official announcement his voice mail has been overwhelmed with messages - mostly in support of the company's decision. "Riverdale is a safe place for everybody. Everyone's welcome with Archie and the Gang," says Goldwater, "and that's the message we're trying to send.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Not the Riverdale we grew up with Examiner.com, By Charles Martin Cosgriff, April 25, 2010
It appears as though the long term Archie comics, about the fictional Archie Andrews and his friends in Riverdale, will introduce an openly gay character this coming September. Whether this is an attempt to boost circulation or a genuine, heartfelt message that gay is okay, is hard to tell. Beyond the morality of having any actually gay characters in any comic kingdom, it ought to be considered who the readers are. If primarily preteens, it is fair to ask whether the subject should be broached at all. There's simply no need for adult storylines in a a kid's world. The only reasons to have it at all must be for greater overall exposure to the world of Archie, which would trivialize the issue itself, or to promote the lifestyle. That second part speaks for itself. Archie Andrews is off the mark either way on the matter. Perhaps the creators should consider simply ending the series instead of using it for such shallow purposes. . .

RELATED QUOTE: "Come now, is this Archie comic-book fiasco really about "diversity" and "inclusion?" Isn't it more that we've increasingly become a society where the pursuit of MONEY (and the politically correct crap-speak we hear, marketed as truth) has long overtaken our pursuit of MORALITY?" The Real Proposal magazine, April 26, 2010

The Pill at 50: Sex, Freedom and Paradox

The Pill at 50: Sex, Freedom and Paradox TIME magazine, By Nancy Gibbs, April 22, 2010
There's no such thing as the Car or the Shoe or the Laundry Soap. But everyone knows the Pill, whose FDA approval 50 years ago rearranged the furniture of human relations in ways that we've argued about ever since. Consider the contradictions: It was the first medicine ever designed to be taken regularly by people who were not sick. Its main inventor was a conservative Catholic who was looking for a treatment for infertility and instead found a guarantee of it. It was blamed for unleashing the sexual revolution among suddenly swinging singles, despite the fact that throughout the 1960s, women usually had to be married to get it. Its supporters hoped it would strengthen marriage by easing the strain of unwanted children; its critics still charge that the Pill gave rise to promiscuity, adultery and the breakdown of the family. . . . .That age has seen changes in social behavior that continue to accelerate. In 1960 the typical American woman had 3.6 children; by 1980 the number had dropped below 2. For the first time, more women identified themselves as workers than as homemakers. "There is a straight line between the Pill and the changes in family structure we now see," says National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O'Neill, "with 22% of women earning more than their husbands. In 1970, 70% of women with children under 6 were at home; 30% worked. Now that's roughly reversed." Today more than 100 million women around the world start their day with this tiny tablet. So small. So powerful. But in surprising ways, so misunderstood. Improvising Infertility: As long as people have been making little people, they've wanted to know how not to. . . .

RELATED VIDEO: Nancy Gibbs on the Pill's Importance TIME magazine, Aoril 22, 2010
On the 50th Anniversary of the Pill, TIME Executive Editor Nancy Gibbs talks about why we're still fighting about it half a century later — whom it helped, whom it hurt, what it meant and why it mattered. . .

How the Marriage Proposal Became a Negotiation
The question, like the ring, used to be a surprise. Wall Street Journal, By Hannah Seligson, April 20, 2010
In 1972, on a park bench in Birmingham, Ala., Garner Lee Green's father proposed to her mother. The proposal came out of the blue. She said yes. "That doesn't happen to people anymore," says Ms. Green, who is 30. And it certainly wasn't the way her husband asked her to marry him several years ago. The two of them talked for a long time about how and when the proposal would happen. "I was ready before he was, so we had to come to a meeting of the minds about a time frame. The negotiations lasted about six months," Ms. Green says. She is not the only one who missed what used to be a classic big moment. Those romantic tales that get passed among friends and relatives—"One day he just showed up with a ring! I was completely surprised!"—are vestiges of the past. We've gone from popping the question to a long conversation, hammering out the details of when and how the engagement will happen. Amanda Miller, a sociology professor at the University of Central Oklahoma, conducted a study about how proposals are made among cohabiting couples. The result, titled "Waiting to Be Asked," found that couples not only work together as a team to set the date. Ms. Miller says some women script the proposal first, telling their boyfriend something like: "I'd always wanted to be proposed to on Christmas morning in front of family." The engagement negotiation is not some repackaged version of the female proposal or part of an ultimatum. This new ritual simply points to a less unilateral and more pragmatic approach. In a world where two young people are juggling goals, the proposal language sounds something like: "I'll be finishing up medical school, and then I'll be doing my residency, so maybe we can do the wedding between the residency and my fellowship. So what if you propose in June?". . .

How the Marriage Proposal Became a Negotiation: The question, like the ring, used to be a surprise.

Revoking the Marriage License TIME magazine, By Belinda Luscombe, Monday, May. 03, 2010
Barring a last-minute reconciliation, Larry King is about to get unhitched for the eighth time. This despite the fact that his wife, Shawn Southwick, is 26 years younger and about a foot taller than he is. In other words, a perfect match. Nevertheless, it seems likely that the ex — Mrs. King club will soon welcome its seventh member — only seven, because one of the Mrs. Kings served two tours. And Mr. King will be back in the dating pool. Losing a life partner or two could happen to anyone, but going through seven requires some effort. The vast majority of Americans — about 97% — wimp out and do not wed more than three times. As an octospouse, the 76-year-old King is in rarefied company. Elizabeth Taylor has also hatched and dispatched eight unions. (Recent reports of a ninth have proved erroneous.) So has Mickey Rooney. Zsa Zsa Gabor has been married nine times. William Shatner has an impressive number of exes, as do Billy Bob Thornton and Joan Collins. Like news anchoring, the field of extreme spouse collecting is dominated by women who were once considered very good-looking and men who almost never were. . . . . All of which raises the question: How many marriages are too many? Statistics show that more second marriages break up than first ones and more third marriages — about 75% — break up than second ones. Given that trajectory, shouldn't a referee step in after the third or fourth and suspend play for the good of all? In no other area of life can grown people flame out so often and so badly and still get official permission to go ahead and do the same thing again. . . . . . So why are we complicit in allowing people to make big public promises they have demonstrated a chronic inability to keep? When we pore over their wedding pictures in People, it's as enabling as installing a fun-house mirror in the bathroom of an anorexic. It's not that the multiple marriers want to get divorced or hate marriage. It's that they like it too much, even though it's not good for them. So perhaps applicants for, say, a fifth marriage license should be required to get therapy. . .

Celebrity Moms Leave Daughters with Regrets

Parenting Issues: Celebrity Moms Leave Daughters with Regrets CWfA.org, By Demi Bardsley, April 21, 2010
Kim Kardashian, celebrity, socialite, and star of the E! reality show “Keeping Up With The Kardashians,” recently announced that she regrets posing for Playboy back in 2007. Just before her reality show was to begin airing, Kim posed nude for Playboy. Of course, an episode of her show documented the shoot. At the time, Kim was proud to celebrate her body, and her mom told her how beautiful the photos were going to be. However, three years later, Kim says the shoot made her feel “uncomfortable,” and she regrets it altogether. What was Kim’s mom’s response to her hesitance? She says her mom, Kris Jenner, actually pressured her to go through with it. “They might never ask you again. Our show isn’t on the air yet. No one knows who you are. Do it and you’ll have these beautiful pictures to look at when you’re my age.” Wow. She gives an entirely new meaning to the term “stage mom.” I mean, it just seems as if more and more mothers are willing to pimp their daughters out for fame and publicity. The message it sends to young girls is that it’s more important to be admired for your sexuality than for true beauty and character. It makes me sad beyond words that Kris Jenner sent that kind of message to her daughter, and by extension, young women everywhere. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Naked Celebrities Talk Body Image Harper's Bazaar, By Rose Apodaca,
We shot Kim Kardashian, Joy Bryant, and Amanda de Cadenet in the nude — and found out what they really think of their (unretouched) bodies. . . . KIM KARDASHIAN: . . . . Kardashian still has shy moments. "A good six months have to go by before I'll leave the lights on for a boyfriend," she says. And she didn't love her 2007 Playboy cover. "I'm sorry I did Playboy. I was uncomfortable," she remembers, though at the time she was excited. "Go for it," she recalls her mother saying. . .

RELATED QUOTE: "She regrets posing for Playboy? And so, that's why she's posing nude again with everything hanging out all over the Internet, purportedly to show her body without airbrushing? In their minds, perhaps, whoring is a matter of geography?" The Real Proposal magazine, April 22, 2010

RELATED ARTICLE: Where Have All The Gentleman Gone? Huffington Post, By Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, September 28, 2009
Nowhere in the Western world are we raising a generation of men who pride themselves on their restraint and respect toward women. We are likewise failing to cultivate women who refuse to be complicit in their own degradation and who insist that their sexuality be shared with a man only in the context of a serious and tangible romantic commitment. It's a man's world. Women just live in it. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Lindsay Lohan: Perhaps, Momma doesn't always know best! The Real Proposal magazine, February 28, 2008
Can we, please, just dispense with the inane sycophancy and drivel that passes nowadays as celebrity journalism and call a spade, a spade? Lindsay's pictorial is not just risqué. It is downright pornography. And it is destined for the voyeur market regardless of the fact that the pictorial spread was commissioned by, and appears in, what some would otherwise consider a reputable publication. Just ask any frat-boy on any college campus across America, whose sensibilities aren't as "refined" as Dina's, and he'll tell you. And so, to feign disguise of degenerate behavior through sleights of hand (and scarves, and bed sheets, and PR articles in People magazine that surely serve only to appease Dina's conscience) doesn't change what this debacle ultimately is. I think it was Julia Roberts in her role as the prostitute "Vivian" in the movie Pretty Woman that so artfully made the observation that transferring her profession and craft to another, more tasteful, location only changed her geography. . .

No hooking up, no sex for some coeds CNN.com, By Stephanie Chen, April 19, 2010
Almost every weekend, there is a tradition called raging at Vanderbilt University. It's a recurring, drunken activity that isn't the proudest moment for student Frannie Boyle. After consuming large quantities of alcohol before a party, her night would sometimes end in making out with a stranger or acquaintance. Casual hook ups fueled by alcohol may be the norm across college campuses, but Boyle, now a 21-year-old junior at the school, chose to stop. Her reasons to quit hooking up echo the emotional devastation of many college students, particularly girls whose hearts are broken by the hook-up scene. "I saw it [hooking up] as a way to be recognized and get satisfaction," said Boyle, shaking her blond ponytail. "I felt so empty then." The hook-up culture on campuses may seem more pervasive than ever, especially as media outlets, books and documentaries rush to dissect the subject, but some college women and men are saying no. Some, like Boyle, experimented with hooking up and quit. Though she is Catholic, she says her reason for disengaging herself from the hook-up culture had more to do with the unhappiness she experienced afterward. Others influenced by religion have abstained from casual physical activity from the moment they set foot on campus. The idea of rejecting hook-ups may not be as strange as it sounds in a generation surrounded by sex. Pop star Lady Gaga recently announced she was celibate and encouraged others to follow. In Kelly Clarkson's song "I Don't Hook Up," she addresses the dominant hook-up culture: "I do not hook up, up I go slow, so if you want me I don't come cheap.". . .

RELATED VIDEO: One night stands: The Two Perspectives CBS4.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Casual sex left me feeling worthless: How a one-night stand left one woman emotionally destroyed. New research says women bitterly regret one-night stands. But the emotional damage can go deeper than you think... The Daily Mail- Uk, By Helen Weathers, July 3, 2008
When seen in the cold light of the morning after the night before, what had seemed like a rather thrilling idea at the time suddenly felt anything but for 28-year-old PR executive Aisling. At the party where they'd met, the prospect of a no-strings, one-night stand with a handsome young man had felt sexy, slightly dangerous, liberating and a salve to the ego following the end of a four-year relationship. After all, in this day and age, if men can do it, why can't women? Only when Aisling woke up, she didn't feel liberated. As her conquest departed with barely a backward glance, she felt used and cheated, even though she'd been under no illusion that it might lead to anything more. She worried about what the man really thought of her as a person, what friends would say if they found out, why her one-night stand had been so eager to depart without asking for a phone number. She felt rotten. In short, she regretted every second of it. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Unprotected Townhall.com, By Mona Charen, January 5, 2007
Meet the liberated college woman. You may pity her. "Unprotected" is a hard slap at the sexual free-for-all that prevails on American campuses and throughout American life. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Get Chaste: The Dawn and the Eden of a countercultural revolution National Review Online, By Kathryn Jean Lopez, December 5, 2006
Dawn Eden, an editor at the New York Daily News and blogger with an eclectic background, is author of a new book published by Thomas Nelson called The Thrill of the Chaste: Finding Fulfillment While Keeping Your Clothes On. Eden’s tried it both ways, and in the book describes the life-changing experience that came with her decision to stop having lots of sex in the city. . .

Solicitor General Elena Kagan is widely viewed as a leading candidate for the Supreme Court

White House complains about CBS News blog post saying that possible Supreme Court nominee is gay Washington Post, By Howard Kurtz, April 16, 2010
The White House ripped CBS News on Thursday for publishing an online column by a blogger who made assertions about the sexual orientation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, widely viewed as a leading candidate for the Supreme Court. Ben Domenech, a former Bush administration aide and Republican Senate staffer, wrote that President Obama would "please" much of his base by picking the "first openly gay justice." An administration official, who asked not to be identified discussing personal matters, said Kagan is not a lesbian. CBS initially refused to pull the posting, prompting Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director who is working with the administration on the high court vacancy, to say: "The fact that they've chosen to become enablers of people posting lies on their site tells us where the journalistic standards of CBS are in 2010." She said the network was giving a platform to a blogger "with a history of plagiarism" who was "applying old stereotypes to single women with successful careers." The network deleted the posting Thursday night after Domenech said he was merely repeating a rumor. The flare-up underscores how quickly the battle over a Supreme Court nominee -- or even a potential nominee -- can turn searingly personal. Most major news organizations have policies against "outing" gays or reporting on the sex lives of public officials unless they are related to their public duties. A White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said he complained to CBS because the column "made false charges." Domenech later added an update to the post: "I have to correct my text here to say that Kagan is apparently still closeted -- odd, because her female partner is rather well known in Harvard circles." . . .

RELATED ARTICLE & COMMENTS: Is sexual orientation directly relevant to judicial philosophy and SCOTUS duties? Sentencing Law & Policy, April 16, 2010

RELATED QUOTE: "Let's not kid ourselves. Now more than ever, the sexual orientation of a potential nominee to the SCOTUS is relevant and critical to the judicial philosophy and makeup of the Court. SCOTUS will likely soon rule on landmark cases like Perry v. Schwarzenegger and determine the law of the land regarding same-sex marriage." The Real Proposal magazine, April 19, 2010

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 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. . .

Why Isn't Marriage the Way I Thought It Would Be?

Why Isn't Marriage the Way I Thought It Would Be?
The fairytale wedding is over and the realities of married life are sinking in. Are you missing the "happily ever after"? FOTF
On their honeymoon, Ed and Renee spent hours gazing into each other's eyes — contemplating how they'd spend their next 50 years. They decided to write those plans down as a road map for the future. But before long, those plans hit several speed bumps. Ed lost his job. Renee was diagnosed with diabetes. Habits that seemed cute at first became annoying. When they had a son, Renee decided to stay home — which tightened the family purse strings. Ed worked more to compensate, further reducing their time together. When she voiced concern, it only seemed to irritate him. They still loved each other. But this wasn't how either of them had written the script on their honeymoon. You might find yourself wondering if your early dreams of marital bliss were more illusion than reality. Why isn't marriage turning out the way you planned? In premarital counseling, couples often explore their expectations of marriage. But what does that mean? Are expectations the way you think your marriage will look, or the way you want it to look? The two can be very different! People draw their marital expectations from two wells. One is courtship. If dating was wonderful and starry-eyed, why would you expect marriage to be otherwise? If spending 20 hours a week brings us such joy, you might think, more time together as husband and wife could only be better! But think back to your courtship. Wasn't it largely a mirage?. . . . . If your expectations about marriage have been unrealistic, it's time to challenge them. But if you do, and still have concerns, consider the possibility that the problem might not be your expectations. You might have a problem in your marriage. Harboring unrealistic expectations doesn't mean that everything else in a marriage is on track. Your qualms might be slightly off target, but they could be early warning signs about issues that will cause more trouble if you don't resolve them. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Isn't My Husband the Person I Thought He Was? FOTF.com - Relationships & Marriage, By Glenn Lutjens
When you were dating, he was attractive and neat. Now he doesn't even pick up after himself. What should you do? When she entered counseling with her husband, Erica had one purpose: getting Jim "fixed." Jim had fallen into patterns that might work for a single guy, but certainly wouldn't do for a married man. He sometimes worked four extra hours without calling to inform Erica, for instance. He'd changed so much, she thought. When they'd been dating, she'd figured Jim knew how to handle his finances; at least his car was never repossessed. Now they received monthly surprises from MasterCard, detailing Jim's "toy" purchases. Likewise, his apartment had always seemed neat when Erica visited during their courtship. But now his underwear rarely made it the two yards from the foot of their bed to the hamper. It's easy to understand why Erica hoped the counselor would take on the challenge of setting her husband straight. She wanted the "old" Jim back. You might be asking yourself these days, "What happened to the guy I used to know? Did he change, or was I just seeing him differently then?" The answer is probably, "Yes." That's because both reflect the truth. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Isn't My Wife the Person I Thought She Was? FOTF.com - Relationships & Marriage, By Phillip J. Swihart
Now that the wedding's over, your spouse seems different. Are you wondering what happened to the person you used to know? It's much more likely that you saw her through rose-colored glasses while you were dating, and now the glasses are off. And guess what? You're probably not the person she thought you were, either. Before the wedding, differences tend to seem intriguing, interesting, and attractive. A few months or years into the marriage, however, what seemed so inviting in the semi-fantasy world of dating now seems considerably less than idyllic. . .

Larry King Infidelity Allegations Take Over TMZ Mediaite, By Jon Bershad, April 15th, 2010
TMZ fans who go to the site for juicy gossip about sexy celebs were probably a bit surprised today to sign on and discover that the entire page had been taken over by the grizzled face of Larry King. The site posted a whopping 11 updates on the story in the last 24 hours including infidelity allegations coming from both sides. The first attack came from King’s wife, Shawn Southwick, who claimed that he had been having an affair with her own sister. For everyone who’s been too busy to keep up with latest dirt, here’s a quick rundown of how this has all unfolded. By reading all these posts, you should be able to accurately predict every joke in Jay Leno’s monologues for the next week and a half:

•King and Southwick are married in 1997.
•Two sons are born, one in 1999 and one in 2000. King has three adult-aged children from previous marriages.
•Yesterday morning, King files for divorce, seeking joint custody.
•Southwick files for divorce a few hours later and asks for primary custody.
•Two hours after the initial report, TMZ posts that Southwick is accusing King of having an affair with her sister.
•TMZ talks to the sister, who denies the affair.
•Old rumors from a few months ago resurface, linking Southwick to the son’s baseball coach.
•TMZ digs up an old video with Penate where he admitted that “mistakes were made”.

Personally, we find this story much more interesting than the Tiger Woods situation. There’s nothing too shocking about finding out that a rich, handsome, young athlete has been bedding a bunch of beautiful women, But when it comes out that a 76-year-old most famous for wearing suspenders may have been sleeping with two beautiful sisters (not at the same time), we have to take notice. . .

Larry King Infidelity Allegations Take Over TMZ

RELATED ARTICLE: Larry King seeks 8th divorce CNN.com, By Alan Duke, April 15, 2010
CNN talk show host Larry King and his wife, Shawn King, each filed for divorce Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court. Both cited "irreconcilable differences" in their filings, but they disagreed over custody of the two children from the 12 years of marriage. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Managing Temptation FOTF.com
When Bob planted a garden, he put up little hedges all around the perimeter of his yard to help keep out pests that would eat the prized vegetables he worked so hard to nurture. His efforts proved successful. Within marriage, barriers must also be erected to protect the "garden of marital bliss" that you are trying hard to build. These barriers, which help keep out unwanted intruders, especially during times of temptation to be unfaithful, will, like Bob's hedges, protect the marriage that God gave you. When you or your spouse feels tempted to cheat, either through participating in some online forum that promotes infidelity or flirting with a coworker, these barriers can protect the marriage that God gave you. And like Bob, you'll reap the benefits of a well-tended garden of marital love. We have some great ideas for you on what kind of hedges or boundaries you can erect to keep your marriage thriving, healthy and safe from the dangers of temptation and extra-marital affairs. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Is the Grass Really Greener? In marriage, it's important to guard yourself against greener grass fantasies and temptations. FOTF.com, By Scott Stanley
When you pick one path, it's natural to wonder about the others, especially if the path you've chosen gets rocky. In marriage, maybes and what-ifs are most dangerous when your commitment to your marriage is lagging and the person you're thinking of is available (that is, single or in the process of divorce). . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Myths about Divorce Boundless.org, By Scott Stanley
It's no secret a large segment of young adults wants to marry, but are apprehensive about it because of the pain they experienced when their own parents divorced. The prospect of marriage scares them. Though they are statistically more likely to repeat their parents' mistakes, they are not doomed to do so. The victory of life-long marriage stems from the commitment of both husband and wife. You must be able to say, "As strongly as I believe in marriage, I'm equally firm that I do not believe in divorce." Your actions will flow from your beliefs. Entering marriage convinced of divorce's harm is a strong antidote against it. In this culture, where divorce comes easy and often, it's essential for singles contemplating marriage to have good reason to be against divorce. That's where Dr. Stanley comes in. . . .

Editor's Note: This article was adapted from Scott Stanley's book, The Power of Commitment: A Guide to Active, Lifelong Love. For the complete text and more advice on forming matches that will go the distance, please consult his book. . .

The Single Mother's Manifesto The Times, By J.K. Rowling, April 14, 2010
. . . . Personally, I keep having flashbacks to 1997, and not merely because of the most memorable election result in recent times. In January that year, I was a single parent with a four-year-old daughter, teaching part-time but living mainly on benefits, in a rented flat. Eleven months later, I was a published author who had secured a lucrative publishing deal in the US, and bought my first ever property: a three-bedroom house with a garden. I had become a single mother when my first marriage split up in 1993. In one devastating stroke, I became a hate figure to a certain section of the press, and a bogeyman to the Tory Government. Peter Lilley, then Secretary of State at the DSS, had recently entertained the Conservative Party conference with a spoof Gilbert and Sullivan number, in which he decried "young ladies who get pregnant just to jump the housing list". The Secretary of State for Wales, John Redwood, castigated single-parent families from St Mellons, Cardiff, as "one of the biggest social problems of our day". (John Redwood has since divorced the mother of his children.) Women like me (for it is a curious fact that lone male parents are generally portrayed as heroes, whereas women left holding the baby are vilified) were, according to popular myth, a prime cause of social breakdown, and in it for all we could get: free money, state-funded accommodation, an easy life. An easy life. Between 1993 and 1997 I did the job of two parents, qualified and then worked as a secondary school teacher, wrote one and a half novels and did the planning for a further five. For a while, I was clinically depressed. To be told, over and over again, that I was feckless, lazy -- even immoral -- did not help. . . . . .To this end, they promise a half-a-billion pound tax break for lower-income married couples, working out at £150 per annum. I accept that my friends and I might be atypical. Maybe you know people who would legally bind themselves to another human being, for life, for an extra £150 a year? Perhaps you were contemplating leaving a loveless or abusive marriage, but underwent a change of heart on hearing about a possible £150 tax break? Anything is possible; but somehow, I doubt it. Even Mr Cameron seems to admit that he is offering nothing more than a token gesture when he tells us "it's not the money, it's the message". Nobody who has ever experienced the reality of poverty could say "it's not the money, it's the message". . .

Lady Gaga Tells Fans: 'Don't Have Sex' (Click for Related Video)

Lady Gaga Tells Fans: 'Don't Have Sex' People magazine, By Catherine Donaldson-Evans, April 12, 2010
Forget her in-your-face sexuality. Lady Gaga has a new routine: celibacy. The lusty singer, 24, has shocked even herself with her latest message to embrace abstinence. Furthermore, she is urging fans to do the same, reports MTV.com. "I can't believe I'm saying this – don't have sex," Gaga said in England, where she is promoting MAC's Viva Glam Campaign to fight AIDS. "It's okay not to have sex, it's okay to get to know people," she says. "I'm celibate, celibacy's fine." Gaga says she is advocating a ban on sex for herself in part because the HIV cases among women around the world have steadily risen, while cases among men have dropped. "It's okay to be whomever it is that you want to be," says Gaga. "You don't have to have sex to feel good about yourself, and if you're not ready, don't do it … It's not really cool anymore to have sex all the time. It's cooler to be strong and independent." . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Celibate Celebs Reclaim Their Innocence: Are Celebs Vowing Celibacy to Make Money or Stay True to Their Beliefs? ABC News, By Emily Friedman, April 1, 2008
They're young, they're hot and have the world at their fingertips – but there's one thing they say they're not interested in. Sex. The newest crop of teen celebrities – Disney's Miley Cyrus and boy band The Jonas Brothers – as well as slightly older stars such as Victoria's Secret model Adriana Lima, are all toting the same accessory: their virginity. . . . . And current teen heartthrobs, the Jonas brothers, aged 15 to 20, wear purity rings to signify their devotion to remaining virgins until they get hitched – and reminding them to resist the tempting hoards of teenage girls who show up wherever they go. But celebrity insiders and sex experts told ABCNews.com that the branding of young celebrities as pure and innocent isn't exactly innovative and just how influential these teen role models may be to their younger fans is questionable. . . . . . . Sex Sells, But So Does Virginity. . . But How Pure Are They, Really? . . .

RELATED VIDEOS: Sex STILL Has a Price Tag - Part 1 Part 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Featuring Pam Stenzel

RELATED ARTICLE: Shocked Townhall.com, By Dr. Miriam Grossman, M.D., March 17, 2008
That so many American girls have a sexually transmitted infection should come as no shock. Rather, the shock should be at the madness in our country that we call sexuality education. . .

RELATED BROADCAST: Sex Has a Price Tag (Part 1)   TruthsThatTransform.org
What have you always wanted to tell your kids about sex? "If you are not married, don't do it. If you are married, go for it with the person you are married to." That is according to author and speaker Pam Stenzel. . .

RELATED BROADCAST: Sex Has a Price Tag (Part 2)   TruthsThatTransform.org
What does every parent want their teenage daughter to know? If you want respect, you have to demand it. If you demand respect, you get it. That is not something you are going to hear in the popular media but it needs to be told! Pam Stenzel tells you and your teens what you need to know about the facts of life. . .

RELATED BROADCAST: Sex Has a Price Tag (Part 3)   TruthsThatTransform.org
Guess who is having the best sex in this nation? Married Christian monogamous women! What a message for our teenagers! Sadly, they won't hear it in the mainstream media! So, how do you share this vital information with your teen? Pam Stenzel shows you how. . .

RELATED DVD TRAILER: Sex Still Has A Price Tag Featuring Pam Stenzel

RELATED ARTICLE & STUDY: Teens Who Make Virginity Pledges Have Substantially Improved Life Outcomes The Heritage Foundation- Center for Data Analysis, By Robert E. Rector, Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., and Jennifer A. Marshall, September 21, 2004

RELATED ARTICLE: Is celibacy the new virginity? Living the single life without sex Ebony magazine, By Nikitta A. Foston, January 2004
After a string of failed relationships, broken promises and a parade of commitment-phobic men, Shandra Johnson (not her real name) decided that she'd had enough. Rather than delving into another emotionally draining relationship, she decided to save herself, her sanity and her body for the right man--not the next man. Vowing to make herself the prize and not a product, Johnson took the road of celibacy, promising to God, herself, and her potential partner, that she would not engage in sex until she was married--a transition that proved challenging, given the temptations and occasional late-night phone calls from an ex. But Johnson and other determined men and women have successfully removed the sex from sensuality and discovered, they say, an unexpected fulfillment that nourishes the heart, soul and spirit. At the same time, a number of local and national leaders are striving to help young people make informed decisions regarding their sexuality. . .

Prop. 8 repeal bid fails to make November ballot San Francisco Chronicle, By Wyatt Buchanan, April 13, 2010
Backers of an initiative to repeal Proposition 8, the California ban on same-sex marriage, have failed to gather enough signatures to place it on the ballot in November. The supporters say they will try to qualify the measure for the November 2012 election. Gay rights activists had been split on whether to push such a measure this year or in 2012. The largest groups supported waiting for the next presidential election. Those supporting a vote this year said the division hampered their fundraising and volunteer efforts. They needed slightly more than 694,000 signatures of registered voters to place the measure on the ballot and had until Monday to collect that amount. Leaders of the effort would not disclose how many signatures they gathered. "It wasn't close enough to submit signatures to county registrars," said Sean Bohac, who was chairman of an advisory panel for the effort, called Restore Equality 2010. The group raised about $10,550, according to the California secretary of state. Prop. 8 supporters said the failure shows that voters in California prefer allowing only heterosexual couples to marry. "Even the minority of Californians who voted against Prop. 8 have accepted that the majority rules and moved on to other issues," said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, a major backer of Prop. 8. Prop. 8 passed in November 2008 with 52 percent of the vote. Opponents have filed a federal lawsuit over the ban, which could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. A poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California last month found for the first time more voters support same-sex marriage than oppose it, with 50 percent in favor and 45 percent in opposition. . . .

Prop. 8 repeal bid fails to make November ballot

RELATED BLOG: ProtectMarriage.com

RELATED BLOG: NOM Marriage News: April 09, 2010, By Brian Brown
If you listen to Ted Olson, the attorney enthusiastically leading the charge to trample on the civil rights of the 7 million Californians who voted for Proposition 8 by asking the Supreme Court to read gay marriage into our nation's constitution, you eventually get a sense of the movie unfolding in his head. He's the star. This is Ted Olson's Great Adventure. Now, at least, freed from the stigma of being the Bush Administration Solicitor General, he gets to bask in media glory. He gets to be a World-Historical Figure. Ted Olson told the press, "What happens in this case won't just affect the people of California, it will affect the country. And what happens in the United States will affect the rest of the world.". . . . .Our fight against gay marriage is just one part of a larger calling to rebuild a civilization of love, that is based on marriage. . . . the end game for us in this fight for marriage is something quite different: transmitting a marriage culture to the next generation. That means creating an America in which each year more children are born to and protected by their mother and father united in a loving, decent, average good-enough marriage. In the middle of our necessary and exciting political victories, we do not forget that they are meant to serve a larger purpose. . .

RELATED BLOG: Behind-the-Scenes Tactics of Homosexual Activists Protect Marriage.com, By Ron Prentice, Executive Director, March 24, 2010
A cornerstone of the plaintiffs’ legal strategy in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case is the political powerlessness of homosexuals. On cross-examination, our legal team was able to tear giant holes in this bogus assertion, noting that the homosexual lobby has reliable and active allies in the White House, our State House and in cities and counties across California. Now comes news of strong-arming another influential association into submission, underscoring the political success of those who want society to accept gay “marriage” as normal. LifeSiteNews.com reported an alarming behind-the-scenes look at how same-sex marriage advocates bullied the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) into flip-flopping its long-held position on traditional marriage. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay 'Marriage' Activists Forcing Pro-Family Views out of California Therapist Association LifesiteNews.com, By Kathleen Gilbert, March 15, 2010
– Abandoning its long-held neutrality on the marriage debate, the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) has slowly come to disavow pro-family views and sexual orientation therapy as "homophobic." Instead it now warmly supports homosexuality as a "normal and positive" variant of sexuality - all thanks to pressure by gay activists who have openly vowed to transform the organization from within. The disturbing result of the activists' tactics, says one anonymous CAMFT intern, is that pro-family therapists in California are becoming increasingly afraid to speak up in favor of natural marriage and the family. CAMFT, one of the largest therapist associations in California with over 30,000 members, had maintained a broadly neutral stance on same-sex "marriage" for most of its existence. But in the run-up to California's vote on Proposition 8 banning same-sex "marriage" in November 2008, CAMFT's neutrality began drawing unfriendly attention. . .

Movie Review: 'Date Night' movie review: Fey and Carell are funny but not worth getting a babysitter for (Click for Related Video)

Movie Review: 'Date Night' movie review: Fey and Carell are funny but not worth getting a babysitter for NJ.com- The Star-Ledger, By Stephen Whitty, April 08, 2010
Great actors want great directors. Top comics want traffic cops. Long talks about conflict, character, nuance? No thanks. They already know what’s funny. What they want is a technician who can get the shot, keep things moving — and stay out of their way. Which explains the career of Shawn Levy. And also the blandness of his films for Steve Martin (“The Pink Panther,” “Cheaper by the Dozen”) and Ben Stiller (“Night at the Museum” — I and II). Luckily, with “Date Night,” he has better material — and Tina Fey and Steve Carell. And this time, when he stays out of their way, his stars and their movie actually provide some genuine wit. Which explains the career of Shawn Levy. And also the blandness of his films for Steve Martin (“The Pink Panther,” “Cheaper by the Dozen”) and Ben Stiller (“Night at the Museum” — I and II). Luckily, with “Date Night,” he has better material — and Tina Fey and Steve Carell. And this time, when he stays out of their way, his stars and their movie actually provide some genuine wit. . . . . .Rating note: The film contains strong language, sexual situations and drug references.
Movie Review: The Steve Carell/Tina Fey way to revive a marriage Philadelphia Inquirer, By Carrie Rickey, April 09, 2010
If comedy ends in marriage, as Shakespeare shows us, then is it equally true that marriage ends the funny in a relationship? The man who thinks that his wife can't take a joke sometimes forgets that his wife took him. Date Night, a tour-de-farce with Steve Carell and Tina Fey as a couple in a marital rut, ticklishly ribs such maxims. Here are a mild-mannered New Jersey mom and dad - a Realtor and an accountant! - confused for shakedown artists, a case of mistaken identity that launches them on a Manhattan misadventure. As written by Josh Klausner and directed by Shawn Levy, Date Night is the opposite of a madcap comedy. Given the thoughtful leads, it's definitely a sanecap affair. The marrieds lose their wits and find their wit - the quality that originally made them an ideal fit. . .

RELATED VIDEO: Fey, Carell Go on a 'Date Night' AP, April 07, 2010
Tina Fey and Steve Carell hit the red carpet at the New York premiere of their new comedy flick 'Date Night.' (April 7)

Parenting Issues: Theater of the absurd: Son files harassment charges against mother for Facebook posts Homeland Security Newswire, April 08, 2010
A 16-year old sues his mother for tampering with his Facebook account; he filed charges against her last month and requested a no contact order after he claims she posted slanderous entries about him on the social networking site; he alleges she hacked his account, changed his password, and posted things that involve slander about his personal life. An Arkadelphia, Arkansas, mother is charged with harassment for making entries on her son’s Facebook page. Denise New’s 16-year old son filed charges against her last month and requested a no contact order after he claims she posted slanderous entries about him on the social networking site. New says she was just trying to monitor what he was posting. “You’re within your legal rights to monitor your child and to have a conversation with your child on Facebook whether it’s his account, or your account or whoever’s account. It’s crazy to me that we’re even having this interview,” she told KATV reporter. New remains in shock after her son slapped her with the charge of harassment. In a document from the Clark County prosecutor, he alleges she hacked his account, changed his password, and posted things that involve slander about his personal life. The mother said: I read things on his Facebook about how he had gone to Hot Springs one night and was driving 95 m.p.h. home because he was upset with a girl and it was his friend that called me and told me about all this that prompted me to even actually start really going through his Facebook to see what was going on. Prosecutor Todd Turner would not comment on the specifics because of the son’s age, but he did cite Arkansas’ harassment law. “A person commits the offense if with purpose to harass, annoy or alarm another person without good cause, he engages in conduct or repeatedly commits acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person.” The mother responded: “Oh yeah, I’m going to fight it. If I have to go even higher up, I’m going to. I’m not gonna let this rest. I think this could be a precedent-setting moment for parents.” New’s son lives with his grandmother who has custodial rights, but New maintains she had had a great relationship with him despite their living arrangements. Her next court date is 12 May.

RELATED ARTICLE: Son Files Harassment Charges Against Mother for Facebook Posts KATV, April 07, 2010

RELATED STUDY: Behind The Screen: The Hidden Life Of Youth Online Institute for Public Policy Research- UK, March 27, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: How the web stole our children: Chilling report reveals under-16s spend more than 20 hours a week online The Daily Mail- UK, By Winifred Robinson, April 24, 2008

The other day my eight-year-old son asked: 'Mum, what was your favourite website when you were little?' The question illustrates the yawning gulf dividing today's parents and their children. We were raised in an age when the sum total of what could be viewed on screen was four television channels with content strictly controlled. Spool forward just 25 years and our children can choose from scores of channels and - via the internet - visit thousands of uncensored virtual worlds at the click of a mouse. Such is the influence of these worlds on young minds and such is the lack of understanding among parents, that a report from the think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research - "Behind The Screen: The Hidden Life Of Youth Online" - describes a generation of teenagers effectively being raised by the internet. They spend all of their free time on websites such as Facebook and MySpace which offer free and easy access to videos posted by other users including, on occasion, real scenes of rape and violence plus links to websites advocating anorexia and even suicide. Parents worried about these developments are often dismissed as hysterical participants in something sneeringly termed "moral panic". But the simple fact is that we lack the knowledge to take charge when it comes to how our children use the internet. Our ignorance is eroding our confidence to act. And so children, rather than their parents, are winning the battles over computer use, battles being fought out daily in thousands of caring middle-class homes. . . .The report from the IPPR is the first to seek to answer some of the basic questions troubling parents like the Joneses and Graysons about children's internet use and in particular about the social networking sites which have grown massively in popularity in the past two years. It examines how long our children are spending online, what exactly they are experiencing there, how the facts square with what parents believe is going on, and how sustained exposure to this new world of virtual friendships and experiences might influence the moral, social and intellectual development of a child. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Are you on Facebook? And is it ruining your life? The Daily Mail- UK, By Tom Rawstorne, February 5, 2008
When it comes to picking up a boyfriend, 23-year-old Laura Levin doesn't waste time with fancy chat-up lines and whispered sweet nothings. "Are you on Facebook?" is her opener - and then it's back home to switch on her computer and get the lowdown on her potential new beau. "One of the attractions of Facebook is that you can find out so much about someone before you even date them," explains Laura, a university undergraduate from Hayle in Cheshire. Their friends, their profile, their likes and dislikes, and the way they present themselves tells you everything you want to know about them." Of course, such tactics may shock traditionalists, but in 21st-Century Britain the forging of personal relationships - be they romantic or just as friends - now has far less to do with locking eyes across a smoked-filled room than logging on to a PC. . .

Majority in California support gay marriage, Times/USC poll finds

Majority in California support gay marriage, Times/USC poll finds Los Angeles Times- LA Now Blog, By David Lauter, April 6, 2010
Same-sex marriage got majority support in the latest Los Angeles Times/USC poll -- much like a similar poll by the Public Policy Institute of California earlier this spring. But does that mean that a measure to repeal Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state, would have smooth sailing? Not necessarily. First, the numbers: Registered voters surveyed in the latest poll said 52% to 40% that “same-sex couples should be allowed to become legally married in the state of California.” That’s the latest in a string of surveys that have found similar results. A PPIC poll released March 25 found respondents backing gay marriage 50% to 45%. And a Times/USC poll last November found a 51% to 43% split on the issue. As with the previous surveys, the latest Times/USC poll showed a sharp polarization by political party and ideology, with Democrats and liberals supporting same-sex marriage by large margins and Republicans and conservatives opposing it by equally lopsided margins. The poll also showed a huge variation by age, with registered voters younger than 30 supporting same-sex marriage by roughly 3 to 1, while a majority of those 64 and older were opposed. That age division, also seen in every other poll on the issue, suggests that over time, the state’s electorate probably will become even more supportive of same-sex marriage -- unless today’s voters in their 20s become more socially conservative as they age. But the divide also poses a challenge for gay rights advocates: Older voters are substantially more likely to turn out to vote than younger voters. . . . . .The margin of error for the survey, which included 1,515 registered voters, was plus or minus 2.6 percentage points for the overall sample and slightly larger for smaller breakdowns. Questioning took place March 23-30. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Comments Blog: Poll finds majority in California support gay marriage; where do Times readers stand? LA Times Blog. By Gerrick D. Kennedy
Here is some of what our readers have to say on the poll results: Mike said: Don't let these lies continue. The Majority do not approve of same sex marriage, thats why we voted on Prop 8....stop it!! These polls are lies, just like those that say this country is 83% christian...if that was true....Why are we trying to give 2% of the population all of this time, waste of money, and bogus lies. Now, if we believed in polls, why have we not stopped War!!! Not stopped Abortions, Not stopped HUNGER. What people do in their bedroom is their business, not mine, and God will judge them. Marriage is between a man and a woman, to provide a unit for a family.....not for two same sex people to engage in pathetic lustful behavior.....love, give me a break!!. . . . . nobama wrote: We expected this. Another attempt of the opinionated news outlets to sway the courts and public opinion. This is getting old. We are smarter than that. . . . Matti wrote: We the People, not We the Press. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: California law seeking a ‘cure’ for homosexuality to be overturned United Families International, April 7, 2010
You may not know this, in fact, we suspect nobody knows this, but a provision of California law mandates an end to homosexuality, or at least a cure. Through Welfare and Institutions Code Section 8050, passed in 1950, California requires health officials to seek ‘the causes and cures of homosexuality” in what was initially a hope to eradicate the behavior. California Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal is now seeking to overturn that law with Assembly Bill 2199. You can read her criticism of the law here. And below you can watch Lowenthal debate the issue with self-described ex-gay Richard Cohen. Although UFI does not take an official position on what appears to be a generally poor law, we wanted to note Lowenthal’s efforts because it brings up a hugely important but divisive issue in the “gay rights” debate: Is homosexuality curable or innate?. . . . The truth is homosexuality is neither genetic nor innate. Despite vigorous efforts to prove otherwise, no scientific study has demonstrated homosexuality to be attached to any gene, while a substantial amount of evidence has demonstrated that, for those who desire, same-sex attraction can be reversed. Although this position draws more accusations of bigotry and hatred than any other pro-family position, the evidence is on our side. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Born or Bred? Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic. Homosexual activists love to insist that CWA, By Robert H. Knight, December 21, 2005
The debate over homosexual "marriage" often becomes focused on whether homosexuality is a learned behavior or a genetic trait. Many homosexual activists insist that "science" has shown that homosexuality is inborn, cannot be changed, and that therefore they should have the "right to marry" each other. Beginning in the early 1990s, activists began arguing that scientific research has proven that homosexuality has a genetic or hormonal cause. A handful of studies, none of them replicated and all exposed as methodologically unsound or misrepresented, have linked sexual orientation to everything from differences in portions of the brain, to genes, finger length, inner ear differences, eye-blinking, and "neuro-hormonal differentiation." Meanwhile, Columbia University Professor of Psychiatry Dr. Robert Spitzer, who was instrumental in removing homosexuality in 1973 from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders, wrote a study published in the October 2003 Archives of Sexual Behavior. He contended that people can change their "sexual orientation" from homosexual to heterosexual. . .

RELATED RESOURCE: National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)
NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with UNWANTED homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care, and the right of professionals to offer that care.

RELATED RESOURCE: ChangeisPossible.com
International Healing Foundation: Changing the World One Life at a Time!

'Dancing With the Stars' Season 10, Week 3: Niecy Nash Cries Over Partner, Gay Marriage

‘Dancing With the Stars’ Season 10, Week 3: Niecy Nash Cries Over Partner, Gay Marriage Wall Street Journal Blog, By Lyneka Little, April 6, 2010
A comedienne cried, someone was disrespected, broken toes moved, and the paparazzi came calling and that was only in week three of reality competition “Dancing With the Stars.” The stars in the reality competition tackled the waltz, quickstep or paso doble in this week’s episode of DWTS. How did they do?. . . . Niecy Nash cried. No, not because of her fellow contestants’ scores, but for more politically-charged reasons involving love. Nash couldn’t imagine what life would be like if she was unable to marry her boyfriend, as her dancing partner Louis van Amstel — who is gay — is. Van Amstel’s response? “You gotta help me fight my battle, too,” he said. The comedian who said she “felt vulnerable” as a result of her tearful practice danced without props and earned 21 points. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 'Dancing With the Stars': Niecy Nash and Pamela Anderson dance for causes Zap2it, By Christine Law, April 5, 2010
On Monday (April 5) night's "Dancing With the Stars," Niecy Nash and Pamela Anderson both danced in the name of a bigger cause. Niecy Nash took the stage with Louis Van Amstel to dance a waltz in the characters of an interracial couple from half a century ago -- when the law didn't allow marriage between such couples. Nash teared up in rehearsals when she imagined not being able to be with the person she loves because a law said so. For Van Amstel, who is openly gay, the issue is current and personal. When co-host Brooke Burke asked Van Amstel what the dance meant to him, he replied that he "wanted to celebrate how far we've come in the last 40 years ... everyone should be able to get married.". . . . . . COMMENTS:. . . This is the kind of fallacy being propagated in the media. What do these deliberately obtuse, disingenuous people mean by, "everyone should be able to get married"? Everyone IS allowed to get married! Every single man in this country can, in fact, marry any single woman of his/her choice. That's what marriage is: the union of one man, one woman! Anything else is NOT marriage. Gays can call their unions whatever name they wish...not marriage. Posted by Terry | April 6, 2010 2:48 AM. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Facts, not flattery, about same-sex attraction: Blithe assertions about the gay lifestyle are seldom backed up by scientific studies -- and when they are, the studies are weak. Mercatornet.com, By Ad Hoc Committee on Homosexuality and Scientific Research, May 22, 2007
Who helps you: someone who fails to tell you the truth or someone who does tell you the truth? The former may make you feel better; they may soothe and flatter, but the truth is more loving. It will help you live a healthier, happier and more fulfilled life. Defenders and promoters of homosexuality try to cover up the scientifically documented serious promiscuity, inability to maintain sexual fidelity, partner abuse and psychological and medical illnesses associated with the lifestyle. Also, they tell persons with same-sex attractions (SSA) that "It's genetic," "You were born that way," or worse "God made you gay.". .

RELATED ARTICLE: Same-Sex marriage: Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy The Weekly Standard- By Eugene F. Rivers & Kenneth D. Johnson, June 1, 2006
The definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman does not establish a sexual caste system or relegate one sex to conditions of social and economic inferiority. It does, to be sure, deny the recognition as lawful "marriages" to some forms of sexual combining--including polygyny, polyandry, polyamory, and same-sex relationships. But there is nothing invidious or discriminatory about laws that decline to treat all sexual wants or proclivities as equal. People are equal in worth and dignity, but sexual choices and lifestyles are not. . .

When Fidelity Falters WebMD.com, By Leslie Becker-Phelps, PhD
It’s all over the news. The outlaw Jesse James allegedly betrayed his wife, Sandra Bullock. How devastating for her! If the rumors are true, she not only learned that her husband betrayed her deep trust, but she had to find out in the blinding glare of the public limelight. Unfortunately, this situation is not limited to tabloid fodder; married couples all over the country struggle with it. And, while there are as many reasons for affairs as there are affairs (only Jesse and Sandra really know what’s going on between them), all such betrayals have one basic common denominator: There is a problem. The problem may actually be one of two. It could be a matrix of issues that fester between the spouses. If the inevitable conflicts that arise within a marriage are not addressed directly or effectively, they can take over and decay all that is good within the union. One reason this is relatively common is because spouses often try to minimize the importance of problems; they don’t want to see what it is they fear. A second basic problem that might be at the root of an affair has more to do with struggles inherently within one person, but affecting the marriage. This spouse has difficulties maintaining a monogamous relationship due to any of a number of complex psychological needs. But what begins as one person’s issue then becomes a real problem in the marriage. Although spouses can’t necessarily know when an affair is happening, they should know if their marriage is faltering. Rather than looking for lipstick on his collar or sniffing for cologne on her blazer, all couples would benefit more from regularly assessing how well their relationship is working. For instance: Do you feel emotionally close? Do you talk through difficult issues in a respectful way? Are you working together to meet each of your individual dreams, as well as joint dreams for your life together? Do you make time just for the two of you? Whether you’re a major celebrity or just sit home watching them on TV, these are the kinds of discussions that will keep a marriage on track; or let you know that there is something really wrong (whether or not an affair is involved). If it is too late, and one of you has had an affair, then the priority is to address this crisis in the marriage. . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Adultery LeadershipU, By Kerby Anderson
Even though most people consider adultery to be wrong and know that it can be devastating, our society still perpetuates a number of untruths about adultery through a popular mythology about extramarital affairs. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Sex addiction — is it real? MercuryNews, By Jessica Yadegaran-Contra Costa Times, April 07, 2010
Addicts call it a God-sized hole, a hollowness in the soul. It leaks no matter how much they try to fill it — and at what cost. For years, George filled his emptiness with pornography, erotic massage and, eventually, sex for hire. There was no tenderness. Even pleasure was rare because every time George engaged in his obsessive sexual behaviors, he felt dirty and even emptier than before. Heavy with shame, he'd throw used magazines into Dumpsters only to swim through the trash days later to retrieve them. George reached his edge in 2000, when, after 100 one-night stands and losing $10,000 to sex, he was warned by an Oakland prostitute that if he continued, he would wind up dead. George is a fictitious name used to protect this Oakland graduate student's anonymity. The fortysomething has been a recovering sex addict for 12 years and is one of 12 million Americans who struggle with it, according to the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapists. His story is a critical one, and comes at a time when mental health experts are debating whether compulsive sexual behavior is a true addiction, and celebrities such as Tiger Woods and Jesse James are rumored to be in treatment for their serial affairs. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Jesse James Loves Sandra Bullock 'More Than Anything in His Life' People magazine, By Elizabeth Leonard and Mike Fleeman, April 05, 2010
As he continues undergoing treatment for personal issues, Jesse James has one overriding hope. "When all is said and done, he wants the same people who were living in his house before all this happened to still be living there," his attorney Joe Yanny tells PEOPLE. "And he wants to save his marriage with the woman he loves more than anything in his life." James, who checked into the treatment facility last month after allegations of infidelity against wife Sandra Bullock, "is doing as well as he can be," says Yanny. "He's focusing on what he's doing and trying to make himself better." His lawyer also believes the media has gone too far with constant coverage and by naming the treatment facility. "The First Amendment was not meant to cover the sexual lives of people who are not in office," says Yanny. "This is sheer voyeurism and bullying, pure and simple. It's disgusting.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Can Tiger Woods’ Marriage Be Saved? FoxNews, April 05, 2010
Tiger Woods apologized to his family, fellow golfers and his fans as he got ready to return to golf on Monday. At the 35-minute news conference at Augusta National, Woods says he is confident he can win the master’s. But, can his marriage survive? Marriage and Family therapist Joan Pechauer believes the Woods marriage can survive with a lot of time and effort. . .

RELATED ARTICLE & RESOURCE: Foundations of a Lifelong Marriage FOTF.org, By Louis McBurney, M.D
There are many principles that, if practiced, can help you build a solid marital foundation. Here are some of those key principles:
Commitment: "Commitment" is not a popular word in our culture. Our society emphasizes individual rights, personal freedom and mobility. The idea of giving these up because of dedication to another person or loyalty to a relationship makes a lot of people feel trapped. But I don't think you can have it both ways. You can't build a divorce-proof marriage and remain unbending toward your personal rights. That doesn't mean you give up all your freedoms or choices, but it does mean your commitment to the relationship supersedes your individual rights. Commitment means putting your spouse's needs above your own. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Avoiding Threats to Your Relationship FOTF.org, By Louis McBurney, M.D
There are a lot of problems that can cripple or fatally wound a marriage, whether it's just starting or yet to come. Here are some of the common ones:
Relying on Feelings Rather Than Commitment: Romantic feelings come and go, and many spouses get nervous when the flame dies down. They begin to doubt their relationship and wonder if they married the wrong person. A lot of those misgivings are fueled by the media, which says any successful relationship must run on high-octane passion. You're setting yourself up for disappointment if you think marriage will be one long, steamy love scene. Sometimes it's pure commitment and persistence that keeps a marriage together. In all marriages there are times when the tingle of romance fades. At those times, commitment is the force that pulls you through. . .

Burden of Paying for Wedding Bells Shifts

Burden of Paying for Wedding Bells Shifts New York Times, By Abby Ellin, April 2, 2010
When it comes to paying for a wedding while remaining financially afloat, today’s rule is all hands on deck. Couples are relying not only on the kindness of the bride’s parents, who have traditionally borne most of the burden, but also on that of the bridegroom’s parents, along with the couple’s stepparents and even grandparents, aunts and uncles. With the average American wedding running north of $28,000, according to the 2009 Condé Nast American Wedding Survey, and significantly more in major cities, most everybody must now chip in. And even as the nation seeks to shake off a deep recession, this is a trend that’s likely to stick long after the employment figures rebound. . . . . Observers say that this shift away from the bride’s family shouldering the bulk of the cost has been quietly under way for a number of years. The Association of Bridal Consultants, an organization of 4,000 wedding planners, offered evidence that the trend has accelerated since the beginning of this century. David M. Wood III, its president, estimated that only about 10 percent of weddings are now wholly paid for by the bride’s parents, down from the 20 percent figure that the association reported from a 2003 survey. Mr. Wood also estimated that 33 percent of weddings are now financed by the bride and bridegroom alone, up from 27 percent in the earlier survey. Whereas the bride’s parents traditionally covered all but the rehearsal dinner, now the bridegroom’s side is also taking care of the open bar, cake and even flowers. . . . . .But with these shifts in the financial landscape of weddings have come changes in the dynamics of who gets to call the shots. According to Lizzie Post, a great-great-granddaughter of Emily Post and a spokeswoman for the etiquette institute in Burlington, Vt., that bears her ancestor’s name, “Money should never be used as a bargaining or leveraging chip.” Nor does she think it is ever acceptable for one family to dictate solely what’s happening in the wedding — especially if all parties are paying. “You should get the two families together in advance and talk very respectfully and candidly about what everyone’s wishes and expectations are.” Despite this noble and noteworthy sentiment, cracks can and do form. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: One Perfect Day: The Selling of the American Wedding AlterNet, By Emily Wilson, June 15, 2007
Pre-World War II, many couples got married in clothes they already owned. Today, they spend thousands. In her new book, One Perfect Day, Rebecca Mead shows how the wedding industry became so powerful and who it has exploited in the process. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: One in four married couples don't have sex on their wedding night The Daily Telegraph- AU, By Vikki Campion, July 31, 2009
One in four couples do not have sex on what should be the most romantic night of their life. While 90 per cent of people expect sex to be on the agenda on their wedding night at least 25 per cent are disappointed, a survey of newlyweds revealed. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Wedding Night Whoopie Doesn't Always Measure Up FOX News, By Adam Pasick, March 07, 2001
Sex on the wedding night is often more about obligation and expectation than desire, say experts and the newly married. With many couples sleeping and living together for years before they get hitched, the complexities of the extravaganza can get in the way. "You shouldn't expect your toes to curl," said Lori Seto of theknot.com, a wedding Web site where people trade their wedding night sex tales. "And if you do have sex, it's just a token gesture." Between 10 and 30 percent of newlyweds don't manage to have sex at all on the night of their nuptials, according to surveys by Bride, Glamour and K-Y Brand Liquid. Maybe magazines and lubricant manufacturers don't sound like the most credible sources, but apparently they're the people who care. . .

Why your man will NEVER understand how you feel The Daily Mail- UK, By Dr Louann Brizendine, April 02, 2010
When I came up with the idea of writing my book The Male Brain, nearly everyone made the same joke: 'That will be a short book!' But while culturally females may consider men to be rather simple creatures, nothing could be further from the truth. My clinical work and research as a neuropsychiatrist and professor of clinical psychiatry, in fields from neuroscience to evolutionary biology, convinced me that the unique brain structures of men create a male reality, fundamentally different from the female one. Advances in genetics and brain mapping technology allow us to see inside the human grey matter as never before. Consequently, scientists have learned that men use their brains in extremely complex and different ways to women. 'I was only looking!' It can be infuriating. You're chatting to your partner in a cafe when you catch him salivating over your shoulder at a buxom 20-something. But men really can't help looking at other women. Like it or not, the lust centre in the male brain automatically directs men to visually take in the details of attractive females. To your partner's brain, the buxom woman was like a colourful hummingbird. She flew into his line of vision, caught his attention for a few seconds, then flew off, out of his mind. For many men, this can happen several times a day because this is autopilot behaviour for the male brain. They don't think it's a big deal and they can't understand why women find it so threatening - until the tables are turned. Once men start to see a partner as The One, researchers have found that fear of loss or rejection can trigger a release of the mating hormones, testosterone and vasopressin, that drive his possessive mating instincts wild. So, your partner couldn't have stopped his eyes from looking at her breasts even if he'd tried - but he could learn to be more discreet. Why he doesn't understand you:. . . . .Why men fall asleep after sex. . . . .Why older men can appeal to younger women. . . . . The 'daddy' brain. . . . The male ego. . . . . 'My other car's a Porsche'. . .

Why your man will NEVER understand how you feel

RELATED ARTICLE: Ten Secrets to a Successful Marriage: Here are ten principles that will help you create and maintain a successful marriage. FOTF, By Mitch Temple
Successful couples are savvy. They read books, attend seminars, browse Web articles and observe other successful couples. However, successful couples will tell you that they also learn by experience – trial and error. Here are ten principles of success I have learned from working with and observing hundreds of couples:
1. Happiness is not the most important thing. . . . . 2. Couples discover the value in just showing up. . . . .3. If you do what you always do, you will get same result. . . . . 4. Your attitude does matter. . . . .5. Change your mind, change your marriage. . .

RELATED RESOURCE: The Crazy Cycle: Dr. Emerson Eggerichs describes the crazy cycle and how it affects marriages FOTF.com, By Rev. Emerson Eggerichs, Ph.D.
Craziness is when we keep doing the same thing — again and again — with the same ill effect. Marital craziness is when we do the same thing — over and over — with the same negative results. I call it the Crazy Cycle. When hurt and frustrated, we continue reacting in negative ways to motivate our spouse to be positive. Can you believe it? That's like flipping broken light switches for 30 minutes. All who are married go through this cycle. The topics change, and the intensity varies, but the crazy cycle continues. One day the argument may be about a diet book, the next day the argument may be about child-rearing methods. Next month, it's about a marriage book and then about the lack of money. This happens among good willed people. Sadly, some think they have a horrible marriage because of this craziness. Truth is, they are inches away from making an adjustment that can set them in a whole new and positive course. Stopping the Crazy Cycle: The key is to see underneath this "craziness," to the heart of a spouse. Based on Ephesians 5:33, I discovered why a husband and wife react the way they do. We read, "each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband" (NIV). . .

RELATED ARTICLE: God's Design for Marriage: Find the key to making your marriage flourish — just as God designed Faith & Family Foundation, By Carol Heffernan
According to author Gary Thomas, we're not asking the right questions. What if your relationship isn't as much about you and your spouse as it is about you and God?. . . . . It's easy to think that only "other people" get divorced. That your own marriage is somehow immune to heartache, infidelity and fights over who gets the house, the car, the dog. After all, how many of us would walk down the aisle if we believed our relationships would end up in divorce court? Truth is, no relationship comes with a lifetime guarantee. Even men and women who grew up in stable homes, who attend church and consider themselves Christians, who promise "until death do us part," can have it all fall apart. As Christians, we know that applying biblical principles to marriage will give us a stronger foundation than those of our unbelieving friends and neighbors. We know this, but what are we doing about it? In other words, what makes a marriage "Christian"? According to author Gary Thomas, we're not asking the right questions. What if your relationship isn't as much about you and your spouse as it is about you and God? Instead of asking why we have struggles in the first place, the more important issue is how we deal with them. In Sacred Marriage, Thomas has not written your typical "how to have a happier relationship" book. Rather, he asks: How can we use the challenges, joys, struggles and celebrations of marriage to draw closer to God? What if God designed marriage to make us both happy and holy? . . .

In Calif. Senate race, gay marriage emerges as key factor in deciding GOP candidate, especially for former congressman, Tom Campbell.

In Calif. Senate race, gay marriage emerges as key factor in deciding GOP candidate LA Times, By Kevin Freking, April 01, 2010
The Republican contest to determine who will challenge California Sen. Barbara Boxer in the fall has focused so far on the bread-and-butter issues of the day — jobs, the economy and federal spending. That's changing as the June primary draws closer. A national group opposed to gay marriage is trying to shift the focus to that lightning rod issue in the coming weeks, putting pressure on the candidate seen as the most moderate of the three GOP challengers. Former congressman Tom Campbell, a supporter of gay marriage, finds himself under attack and his previous front-runner status reduced to a statistical tie with former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina in one poll. Another poll taken about the same time showed Campbell clinging to a narrow lead. The National Organization for Marriage is spending $300,000 on television ads that liken Campbell to Boxer on taxes and gay marriage, calling them two peas in the same liberal pod. . . . . . A business professor who holds a doctorate in economics, Campbell is the kind of middle-of-the-road Republican who would be likely to give Boxer a tough challenge as she seeks a fourth term in the Senate. But his opposition to Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that enshrined a ban on gay marriage in the California Constitution, has made him a target of the social conservatives who dominate the ranks of the state GOP. A recent poll from the Public Policy Institute of California found that 67 percent of Republicans disagree with Campbell on the issue. The same poll found that for the first time more Californians support gay marriage than oppose it. The National Organization for Marriage led the effort to pass Proposition 8, which voters approved 52 percent to 48 percent. . . . . ."Our goal is not to necessarily elect Republicans," Brown said. "Our goal is to elect candidates who will stand up and protect marriage." In October 2008, a month before the Proposition 8 vote, Campbell wrote an op-ed column in which he said government has no business making distinctions between people based on their personal lives. He said California has always made itself stronger by welcoming people, not excluding them. "For those of us who are proud of our party and our state's reputation for fairness and against discrimination, our choice is very clear: No on Proposition 8," he wrote. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: National Organization for Marriage Responds to New PPIC Polls: Tom Campbell’s Support Drops Sharply Among GOP Voters NOM Press Release, March 29, 2010
NOM is continuing its targeted public education campaign in California. “The last thing California needs is another RINO in Washington. If recent elections in Massachusetts, Virginia and New Jersey are any indication, Americans are hungry for principled common sense conservative leadership,” said Brian Brown, “NOM is committed to making sure people know the truth about Tom Campbell’s record.’. . .

RELATED RESOURCE: National Organization for Marriage
Protecting Marriage and the Faith Communities that Sustain it.

My mum said there was more to life than your children - now I know she was right

Parenting Issues: My mum said there was more to life than your children - now I know she was right Daily Mail-UK, By Winifred Robinson, April 01, 2010
By some standards I am a lousy mother. I gave up breast-feeding after only four days. When it came to weaning, I fed my baby food from jars and I was back at work when he was three months old. Now he is ten I serve him ready-meals and shop-bought cake, and worse still I have missed the school Nativity play and only last week, the Easter Fayre. I am often beset by guilt about all of the above and more. But I shouldn't be - at least not according to Elisabeth Badinter, a French philosopher and feminist whose latest book The Conflict, The Woman and The Mother is topping her country's bestseller lists and provoking intense debate. She argues that women have thrown off male domination only to embrace an equally hellish form of servitude - becoming slaves to their own children. Why have we done this? Badinter lays the blame at the feet of breast-feeding activists, child rearing 'experts' and what she calls 'new age pumpkin-peeling Earth mothers'. She argues that today's young women are raised in a climate of me-first hedonism, only to be urged to cast all their own needs aside when they become mothers, always putting their children first. This is the conflict in the book's title and she says it's making us miserable, putting us off having children and contributing to dangerously low birth rates in the West. This take on the torment of modern motherhood certainly strikes a chord with me and it seems many other modern mothers, hence the healthy book sales. And I think Badinter is correct - up to a point - when it comes to why we are being so hard on ourselves. For me, huge feelings of guilt towards my son - accompanied by an urge to over-compensate - began with breast-feeding. At my antenatal class it was portrayed as a simple, natural skill anyone could master. Formula milk was hardly mentioned and then only in brisk, disapproving tones. I was completely unprepared for the grim reality; sitting up all night in hospital, my Caesarean wound still oozing, nipples cracked, a hungry infant screaming as the young, childless, midwife urged me to get my breast-feeding 'right'. At dawn when I finally gave in and requested a bottle I accepted the judgment implicit in her disappointed frown - I was a wimp and a failure. I felt I had a great deal to make up to my child. . . . . .Yet by setting unattainable standards, the armies of child-rearing gurus and experts, who insist infants must take the lead, have sapped us of all confidence. They have encouraged us to be the servants of our children, when in reality a good mother has sometimes to be the boss. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Is motherhood a form of oppression?
Times Online-UK, By Adam Sage, March 22, 2010
Thanks to breastfeeding, organic purees and eco nappies, the baby has become a tyrant, says a bestselling book in France. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Despite 'Mommy Guilt,' Time With Kids Increasing- Society's Pressures, Own Expectations Alter Priorities Washington Post, By Donna St. George, March 20, 2007
Cynthie Bush pulled on her coat and started to say goodbye. She and a friend were taking a night out -- three hours in all, for a quick dinner and a PTA event. It was not the kind of thing she did often, with two small children and a full-time job. But before she could leave her Herndon home, her 4-year-old daughter began to cry for her. For a moment, Bush recalled, she wondered if she should cancel. Her days were already so full. She needed more hours with her children, not fewer. That whisper of worry and regret is familiar to a generation of mothers who juggle homework and housework, sports practice and dance lessons, in days that often include paid jobs and traffic-snarled commutes. But for all the rush of modern life, recent research suggests that mothers are actually doing a better job than they may think, at least by historical standards. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Sorry, but my children bore me to death! The Daily Mail, By Helen Kirwan-Taylor, July 26, 2006
It's the start of the summer holidays, when millions of mothers despair at how to entertain their children for the next six weeks. What none of them dare say is that they would rather their children were still at school or, frankly, anywhere else. Helen Kirwan-Taylor, a 42-year-old writer, lives in Notting Hill, West London, with her businessman husband Charles and their sons Constantin, 12, and Ivan, ten. Here, she argues provocatively that modern women must not be enslaved by their children. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Breast-Feeding Best Bet for Babies ChildbirthSolutions Inc., By Rebecca D. Williams
New parents want to give their babies the very best. When it comes to nutrition, the best first food for babies is breast milk. More than two decades of research have established that breast milk is perfectly suited to nourish infants and protect them from illness. Breast-fed infants have lower rates of hospital admissions, ear infections, diarrhea, rashes, allergies, and other medical problems than bottle-fed babies. . . . . Human Milk for Human Infants:. . . . Benefits to Mothers :. . . . When Formula's Necessary: . . . . Possible Problems:. . . . Tips for Breast-Feeding Success:. . . . Medicines and Nursing Mothers:. . . . Drugs That Are NOT Safe While Nursing:. .

RELATED RESOURCE: Breastfeeding Answers from La Leche League
Welcome! Here you will find answers to your breastfeeding and parenting questions, drawn from the various resources on our site, conveniently grouped by topic. Resources come from NEW BEGINNINGS (our publication for parents), LEAVEN (our publication for our volunteer Leaders), BREASTFEEDING ABSTRACTS (our publication for professionals), our Frequently Asked Questions collection, or our podcasts.

Interested women or couples are welcome to attend La Leche League meetings without charge. League leaders offer advice by phone as well. To find a convenient La Leche League chapter, call (1-800) LA-LECHE.

RELATED RESOURCES: Breastfeeding: Frequently Asked Questions Breastfeeding.com

U.S. Preacher Fined for Calling Homosexuality a Sin Christian Post, By Charles Boyd, April 01, 2010
The Christian Institute has voiced concern after a street preacher was handed a fine of more than $1,500 for saying homosexuality was a sin. U.S. evangelist Shawn Holes, 47, was preaching in Glasgow, Scotland, on March 18 when he was arrested and detained overnight in a police cell. Police later charged him with breaching the peace and told him to pay the fine on the grounds that his remarks were “homophobic” and had been “aggravated by religious prejudice.” Holes was touring the U.K. as part of a group of evangelists from the U.S. He was taking questions from the public when a gay couple in the crowd asked him about his views on homosexuality. He allegedly told them that homosexuals “deserve the wrath of God” and would go to hell. Holes said the incident had “felt like a set-up” by gay rights campaigners and that he had only admitted the charge because he wanted to return to the U.S. to see his family and father, who is staying in a hospice. The case has concerned even gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, who branded the fine “disproportionate.” “Shawn Holes is obviously homophobic and should not be insulting people with his anti-gay tirades," the activist said. "He should be challenged and people should protest against his intolerance. However, in a democratic, free society it is wrong to prosecute him. Criminalization is not appropriate. The price of freedom of speech is that we sometimes have to put up with opinions that are objectionable and offensive.” The Christian Institute helped pay for Holes’ lawyer, Tony Kelly, who had advised him to challenge the charge. Kelly said: “This case raises important issues about the interface between the criminal law in Scotland, freedom of speech and religious freedom.” Christian Institute director Colin Hart said: “The fine in this case was totally disproportionate. The police should have never arrested Mr Holes a t all. "We believe that had he fought the charge it would have been proved that he did nothing wrong. We are disappointed that Mr Holes pleaded guilty.” Peter Kearney, spokesman for the Roman Catholic Church, argued that Holes should not have been charged because he was expressing a religious conviction.

U.S. Preacher, Shawn Holes, Fined for Calling Homosexuality a Sin

RELATED VIDEO: Religious Liberty Under Fire YouTube.com- Air Maria
A special AIRMARIA report on the status of religious liberty in America, relative to the ongoing push on the part of the homosexual lobby for full same-sex marriage. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Why We’re Losing Our Right to Speak Out Townhall.com, By Chuck Colson, May 1, 2008
David Woodward is a political science professor at Clemson University—one who has first-hand experience on how dangerous it can be to speak out in favor of traditional values: He almost lost his job over it. In 1993, Woodward was asked to testify about the political power of homosexual groups in American life. . . . . .To publicly oppose the campaign for same-sex “marriage” and gay rights was, he writes, “the equivalent to being sent to the university Gulag.” He was denied an administrative position on the grounds that he was “ideologically incompatible” with the values of the university. He often found the word homophobe scribbled on his office door. The press viciously attacked him for his views. But in private, Woodward was hearing a different message. People would call to whisper encouragement. So did parents and university staffers. Some students came into his office, carefully closed the door, and whispered their support. “The one thing they all had in common is that they were all scared, and they all spoke in whispers,” Woodward writes. Homosexuality is not the only issue Americans can no longer speak freely about. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Meaning of Religious Liberty The Heritage Foundation, By Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., December 5, 2007
It is often thought that religious liberty means a strict separation of church and state, but that view is out of tune with the proper understanding of the role religion and morality play in the civic and public life of a self-governing people. A more compelling model is that of America's Founders, who advanced religious liberty in a way that would uphold religion and morality as indispensable supports of good habits, the firmest props of the duties of citizens, and the great pillars of human happiness. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Same-Sex “Marriage,” “Hate Crimes,” and the New Totalitarianism LifeSite Special Report, By Michael D. O’Brien, February 28, 2005
Is it so far-fetched to consider the possibility that we are in a downward slide toward totalitarianism? Few people would go so far as to maintain that we are living in the early phase of an Orwellian 1984 or alternatively a softer form of totalitarian government such as Huxley’s Brave New World, yet the elements of State-enforced social reconstruction are now in operation. We should also consider the fact that in just over one generation we have been shifted from a society in which homosexual acts were a crime under the then existing law, to a society in which homosexual acts have become a government-protected and fostered activity, while voicing criticism of it “publicly” has become the crime. Call it by any name you like, but this is Thought Crime. As Orwell predicted, we have arrived at a situation in which “some of us are more equal than others.” . . .

RELATED CALL TO ACTION: Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience
On Nov. 20, 2009 a group of prominent Christian clergy, ministry leaders and scholars released the Manhattan Declaration, which addresses the sanctity of life, traditional marriage and religious liberty.

"Marriage" News: March 2010