'MARRIAGE' In The NEWS- April 2011: The REAL Proposal For Marriage magazine

So Cute, So Hard on a Marriage: After Baby, Men and Women Are Unhappy in Different Ways

So Cute, So Hard on a Marriage
After Baby, Men and Women Are Unhappy in Different Ways; Pushing Pre-Emptive Steps Wall Street Journal, By Andrea Petersen, April 28, 2011
Along with shopping for sippy cups and strollers, expectant parents may want to consider another task for their to-do list: honing their marriage skills. Numerous studies have shown that a couples' satisfaction with their marriage takes a nose dive after the first child is born. Sleepless nights and fights over whose turn it is to change diapers can leach the fun out of a relationship. Now, a growing number of mental-health professionals are advising couples to undergo pre-baby counseling to hash out marital minefields such as divvying up baby-related responsibilities, money issues and expectations for sex and social lives. A growing number of hospitals, midwives and doulas (birth coaches who provide physical and emotional support) are teaching relationship skills alongside childbirth education classes. About two-thirds of couples see the quality of their relationship drop within three years of the birth of a child, according to data from the Relationship Research Institute in Seattle, a nonprofit organization focused on strengthening families. Conflict increases and, with little time for adult conversation and sex, emotional distance can develop. Men and women experience the deterioration differently: Mothers' satisfaction in their marriages plummets immediately; for men, the slide is delayed a few months. Hormonal changes, the physical demands of childbirth and nursing, and an abrupt shift from the working world to being at home with an infant may explain that, says Renay Bradley, the director of research and programming at the Relationship Research Institute. A key source of conflict among new parents is dividing up—and keeping score of—who does what for the baby and the household. Counselors at Urban Balance have expectant couples make a list of every potential task—from paying bills and cooking dinner to getting up with the baby at 3 a.m.—and decide who is going to be responsible for each one. "We felt better prepared," says Mary Gould Moorhead, a 34-year-old teacher from Chicago and mother of an 8-month-old son who took the Urban Balance course with her husband last year. "I don't think either one of us knew how much work [the baby] was going to be." "People spend more time decorating the nursery than preparing the relationship for the arrival of a baby,". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Remaining puzzle #11: Why Parenthood Makes Us Unhappy: The reason why parenthood sucks. Psychology Today - The Scientific Fundamentalist , By Satoshi Kanazawa, August 18, 2008
Social surveys often show that parents are less happy than comparable adults without children. This makes no sense from an evolutionary psychological perspective. Happiness (and other emotions) have been evolutionarily selected to induce us to do the right thing in order to attain reproductive success in the context of the ancestral environment. Reproductive success is the be-all and the end-all of all biological existence (including humans). Why then does having children make us unhappy? I have discovered this to be the case in my own work as well. In my analysis of the U.S. General Social Surveys, I find that marriage and parenthood have a significant positive interaction effect on happiness for both men and women. In nontechnical terms, it means that simultaneously being married and having children make Americans much happier than does the sum of being married and having children. There is an additional boost in happiness if you are both simultaneously. Since reproductive success -- being in a pair-bonded relationship and raising children together -- is the ultimate goal of all humans, this makes perfect sense from an evolutionary psychological perspective. It made perfect sense, that is, until a reviewer pointed out to me that the main effect of being a parent was very large and negative, slightly larger than the positive interaction effect. In essence, what the totality of my data analysis shows is that being a parent sucks, but it doesn’t suck as much if you are married. Or, conversely, it means that being married is great, but it’s not as great if you also have children. Of course, the question is: Why does being a parent suck? Why does parenthood make us unhappy? This does not make any evolutionary psychological sense at all. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The motherhood myth: The misery of being a mother The Daily Mail- UK, By Winifred Robinson, December 14, 2007
So at last the biggest secret of motherhood is out. For every woman who gives birth then sinks back blissfully into the pillows, there are scores like me who sit bolt upright, eyes wide with fear and think: "Oh my God, what have I done?" Lest you assume that I just didn't bond with my baby, let me say from the outset that I loved my son Tony from the top of his down-covered head to the tip of his tiny little toes. I loved him before he was born, before he was even conceived. I loved the idea of him, and I never lost touch with that love throughout the many miserable years of infertility and the IVF treatment that finally resulted in his birth on August 20, 1999, when I was 41. By then, as one of the doctors so tactlessly put it, I was "in the last chance saloon when it came to having kids". But however much he was loved and wanted, my baby's arrival waved no magic wand of satisfaction over my life. And as a study this week by the Institute for Social and Economic Research in Colchester attests, I am not so much the exception as the rule. The survey questioned four thousand couples and discovered that children, until the age of five - the point where most start school - make mothers less satisfied with their lives. . . . The irony of my situation wasn't lost on me: that after all those years of trying for a baby and finally achieving my goal, his arrival made me somehow unhappier than I had been before. Because what no one can convey before your own little bundle arrives is just how hellishly hard it is to be a Mum - by far the most difficult challenge most of us face in life. So why wasn't maternal love the harbinger of happiness?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Deciding When To Have A Child, If Ever: The Impacts Later In Life Science Daily, May 13, 2007
— How does having children or not having them affect a woman's happiness in later life? A new study examining nearly 6,000 women provides an unexpected answer —it's not so much whether you have children as when you have them.

RELATED ARTICLE: How parenthood changes marriage: A wife on how she had to manage her anger once children were born MSNBC- TODAY, July 6, 2007

RELATED ARTICLE: Sorry, but my children bore me to death! The Daily Mail, By Helen Kirwan-Taylor, July 6, 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. . .

Red Flags in a Relationship FOTF.com, By Glenn Lutjens
So, you're in a relationship. It's a pretty exciting time of life, huh? Perhaps you recently met someone who caught your interest, and you're hoping that with time you'll be able to discern if the relationship should move toward marriage. Or maybe you've been dating for quite some time now. You've identified the other person's strengths, but have also discovered some traits that leave you scratching your head. In either case, you have probably found that many forces push you forward in your relationship. Time can seem more like an enemy than an ally. You may fear that you're not getting any younger. Well-meaning friends and relatives might be inquiring about your love life, wondering when you plan on taking "the plunge." Your own sense of loneliness and that God-given desire for connection can nudge you further in a relationship until the steps toward the altar just seem to get easier and easier. Let's say you're already in love. Talk about an influence that changes behavior! Few factors have more horse power than romance. Even books on the subject of dating and marriage can convey a subtle expectation to keep moving forward: "Trust God," "differences are good," and "hey, nobody's perfect." All of that's true. The forces that compel you to move forward are not out to destroy you. But with so many of them urging you toward marriage, it's wise to pause and ask yourself some questions that might prevent heartache down the road. You need to decide what to do with this relationship; no other person can make that decision for you. As a counselor, I've spoken with people who didn't take the time to think through their relationship. They acted solely on their feelings and tied the knot. Once married, they wanted to be faithful to that covenant, but they experienced difficulties that could have been avoided. I'm grateful for their commitment to marriage and the desire to be faithful "till death us do part." Once a couple has committed at the altar – short of a few biblical exceptions – that is indeed the true path of faithfulness. But how would their lives have turned out had they taken the time to explore the red flags that were at least partially visible? Facing pain can certainly refine us, but we don't get extra credit for walking into it, especially when it can be avoided. Marriage is great; it's a fantastic gift from God. My hope is that many of you do move forward and make that promise for life. But I've heard it said: "I'd rather be single and wish I were married, than married and wish I were single." It's one thing to be lonely alone, it's an even more distressing experience to be with someone and still be lonely. Now is the time to look carefully at who you will marry – not after rings are exchanged! Even if you're in a great relationship, asking yourself the tough questions now will only create a greater level of confidence and appreciation if you do decide to marry. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Top 10 Dating Mistakes: Are you sabotaging your own dates? PsychologyToday.com, By Allison Conner, October 23, 2009
Are you making dating mistakes that stand in the way of you finding the right person or keeping the right person after finding him/her? Too often people end up ruining their chances with the person they are dating by committing fixable errors. This article discusses ten common dating mistakes, and what you can do to avoid them in the future:
1. Game playing: This strategy is usually employed for one of two reasons. The first is to protect one's ego. When it comes to dating, everyone, on some level, fears rejection. Playing it cool and not getting too involved may make you feel safe, but you risk coming across as aloof or remote, and may turn the other person off. Balance between demonstrating interest and maintaining your composure is best. Another reason people play games is to get something you want that you wouldn't likely get if you played it straight. For example, telling someone you love him or her so they will sleep with you, and then not calling them again. This form of manipulation is simply unacceptable (to put it mildly), and does not lead to healthy relationships. You will get further in less time in finding a relationship if you allow yourself to be genuine. It's OK to put your best foot forward, and also to be a bit cautious, but have the courage to be upfront and show who you are. . . . . . . .5. Ignoring red flags: If someone doesn't show up when you're supposed to meet, that's a red flag. If they don't let you call them at home, yep, red flag. If they kick their dog, bingo, red flag. Of course, there are more subtle warnings that one may be tempted to overlook, especially if one is eager for the relationship to work out. While one shouldn't jump to conclusions without sufficient evidence on the first problem that arises, an emerging pattern is not something to make excuses for or brush under the rug. Address these problems early, and don't waste your time. . .

Is the Palace asking too much of a 29-year-old? How it's difficult to avoid haunting comparisons with Diana

Is the Palace asking too much of a 29-year-old? How it's difficult to avoid haunting comparisons with Diana The Daily Mail- UK, By Catherine Ostler, April 23, 2011
For so many of us, it is difficult to avoid the haunting comparison. When willowy Kate Middleton goes walkabout wearing an elegant suit and that optimistic smile, it’s the woman who would have been her mother-in-law who springs disconcertingly to mind. Diana was, of course, the last beautiful young woman to marry an heir to the throne — precipitating a fashion fever and thousands of young girls’ dreams of wearing a puff-ball dress as they were swept off their feet by their prince. Just like Diana before her marriage, Kate Middleton can start a trend in minutes. This time, it’s royal blue and fitted tweed rather than knickerbockers and pie-crust collars. Like Diana, Kate seems to be a natural at meeting ‘ordinary’ people. She has happily flipped pancakes in Belfast, and christened a lifeboat with champagne in Anglesey. These appearances have been deemed ‘triumphs’ by Palace aides. Certainly, with her striking looks and personable manner, Kate is a hit with the public; and yet I sense that Britain is not as gripped by joyous wedding anticipation as the monarchy and the British Establishment might wish. Is it because the sad life and untimely death of Diana disabused us for ever of the notion of royal fairytales? Certainly, if anyone did still believe in them, that was shattered by the follow-up collapse of Prince Andrew and Fergie’s marriage. The truth is that Charles and Diana’s was a wedding that made fools of us all: an intoxicating charade, a marriage masquerading as a love match when, on one side at least, it was nothing of the sort. We later discovered, in painful detail, that the glamorous do-gooding and jet-setting life of the world’s favourite cover-girl masked inner turmoil and profound isolation. After her shocking death, the outpouring of public sympathy for Princes William and Harry was on a scale unimaginable for the normally uptight British. This was then followed by national queasiness over the mass mawkishness of the grief itself. So no wonder we don’t quite know how to react to this very modern royal romance. The spectre of Diana’s lonely anguish and wavering self-esteem is still fresh in our minds. It doesn’t help that Kate wears Diana’s ring. It also doesn’t help that as Kate prepares to be married in front of at least a billion people and enters the Royal goldfish bowl, her weight loss and slightly nervous appearance make us all anxious on her behalf. We feel as protective of her as we felt of William and Harry after their mother’s death. Whether the Palace shares these qualms is another matter. Of course, it is quite understandable that they are delighted by Kate’s popularity. After all, as hugely respected as she is, the Queen was 85 on Thursday, and Philip is about to turn 90. They will be well aware that the hopes of the monarchy —so tarnished by Prince Andrew’s unedifying activities — rest on the slight shoulders of a 29-year-old middle-class girl. Which is why I so worry that the expectations being placed on Kate by courtiers — who one hopes would have learned a lesson from the Diana debacle — are simply too great. . .

Editor's Note: How to follow the royal wedding on the BBC
The wedding of HRH Prince William to Catherine Middleton will take place on 29 April. It promises to be one of the biggest public occasions in the UK in recent years, and thousands of people are expected to line the streets of central London to wish the couple well. The BBC will be bringing viewers and listeners comprehensive coverage across TV, radio and online, both in the UK and around the world. The BBC News website will be providing across-the-board coverage of the event on the day, with live video and commentary of the occasion, up-to-the-minute written updates from our correspondents and expert observers, and all the latest pictures. Our royal wedding homepage will be the focus of our live coverage, which will begin at 0600 BST (0500 GMT).

RELATED RESOURCE: A Royal Wedding: It's official! The betrothed couple will marry on April 29 in the biggest royal wedding since Charles and Di People magazine
Latest William & Kate News

RELATED RESOURCE: A Royal Wedding Full coverage of the Royal Wedding BBC News- UK

RELATED ARTICLE: She should be so lucky: Why most women DON’T envy Kate Middleton The Daily Mail- UK, April 20, 2011
About to marry the heir to the throne, Kate Middleton seems to have everything a girl could wish for. But nearly nine out of ten women don't envy the bride-to-be's new Royal role, a poll has found. . . . . Carla Bevan, editor-in-chief of website MyDaily, who organised the study, said: 'Despite all the excitement about what she'll wear on the big day, the reality of the situation is that most women realise Catherine has an unenviable task ahead of her, having her every move, not to mention every outfit, picked apart by the press. 'The public clearly feel it's going to be no fairytale for Kate, bringing an end to the idea that it's every girl's dream to become a princess, with modern-day women increasingly wary of the trappings of life in the celebrity spotlight.'. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Red Flags in a Relationship FOTF.com, by Glenn Lutjens
So, you're in a relationship. It's a pretty exciting time of life, huh? Perhaps you recently met someone who caught your interest, and you're hoping that with time you'll be able to discern if the relationship should move toward marriage. Or maybe you've been dating for quite some time now. You've identified the other person's strengths, but have also discovered some traits that leave you scratching your head. In either case, you have probably found that many forces push you forward in your relationship. Time can seem more like an enemy than an ally. You may fear that you're not getting any younger. Well-meaning friends and relatives might be inquiring about your love life, wondering when you plan on taking "the plunge." Your own sense of loneliness and that God-given desire for connection can nudge you further in a relationship until the steps toward the altar just seem to get easier and easier. Let's say you're already in love. Talk about an influence that changes behavior! Few factors have more horse power than romance. Even books on the subject of dating and marriage can convey a subtle expectation to keep moving forward: "Trust God," "differences are good," and "hey, nobody's perfect." All of that's true. The forces that compel you to move forward are not out to destroy you. But with so many of them urging you toward marriage, it's wise to pause and ask yourself some questions that might prevent heartache down the road. You need to decide what to do with this relationship; no other person can make that decision for you. As a counselor, I've spoken with people who didn't take the time to think through their relationship. They acted solely on their feelings and tied the knot. Once married, they wanted to be faithful to that covenant, but they experienced difficulties that could have been avoided. I'm grateful for their commitment to marriage and the desire to be faithful "till death us do part." Once a couple has committed at the altar – short of a few biblical exceptions – that is indeed the true path of faithfulness. But how would their lives have turned out had they taken the time to explore the red flags that were at least partially visible? Facing pain can certainly refine us, but we don't get extra credit for walking into it, especially when it can be avoided. Marriage is great; it's a fantastic gift from God. My hope is that many of you do move forward and make that promise for life. But I've heard it said: "I'd rather be single and wish I were married, than married and wish I were single." It's one thing to be lonely alone, it's an even more distressing experience to be with someone and still be lonely. Now is the time to look carefully at who you will marry – not after rings are exchanged! Even if you're in a great relationship, asking yourself the tough questions now will only create a greater level of confidence and appreciation if you do decide to marry. . . .

The death of innocence: How the crude sexualisation of pop music, TV and fashion is destroying childhood

The death of innocence: How the crude sexualisation of pop music, TV and fashion is destroying childhood The Daily Mail- UK, By Tanith Carey, April 23, 2011
A typical afternoon in a typical middle-class home. It’s just after 4.30pm, I’m back from the school run — and in the next room I can hear my four-year-old daughter Clio rehearsing a routine she’s learnt at her school dance club. In front of the full-length mirror in the living room, she’s in full performance mode — although what she’s singing today is a departure from her usual material. At first, the words melt into one. But gradually, I can pick out what she’s trying to articulate: ‘I’m a single laydee, I’m a single laydee — I’ve got a man on my hips and lipstick on my lips.’ The full implication of the words may be lost on Clio, but it’s clear from the way she’s wiggling her bottom in her own version of Beyonce’s booty-shaking tour-de-force that she thinks she looks grown-up. Clio was doing what many little girls do for fun these days. Scroll through YouTube and you will see hundreds of little girls being filmed by their parents as they perform the explicit lyrics and sexy movements of Lady Gaga, Beyonce and Britney. The sort of sexually-charged performances that Ofcom apparently deem to be acceptable pre-watershed entertainment, if this week’s ruling that The X Factor’s most explicit performance ever did not breach broadcasting guidelines is anything to go by. When I first had my two daughters, I made the mistake of assuming that if I didn’t dress them up like little Lolitas I could protect them from sexualisation. By not mentioning the word ‘diet’, I thought I could save my girls from believing a woman’s worth is linked to her dress size. But despite my best efforts to press damp towels around the doorframe of my home, I soon found that sexualisation was like a gas that still seeped through. When my older daughter, Lily, then eight, sang with 1,500 other school children at a charity fund-raiser at the Royal Albert Hall last Christmas, one of the numbers she was asked to sing — along with Silent Night — was Bad Romance by Lady Gaga. Presumably no one had thought to question why primary pupils were being asked to perform a sexually-charged number about an abusive relationship. But then, it’s all become so normal. Suggestive songs are the soundtracks to our children’s school discos. The words ‘bring your own make-up’ are the instructions on the party invitations from their classmates. It’s a measure of how much sex is a part of their world that for the elder sisters of primary age girls, the word ‘slut’ is now a term of praise. During the research for my book, Where Has My Little Girl Gone?, I came across one 16-year-old girl at a top public school so proud of the term she spelled it out in giant letters as her phone screensaver. She’s far from being the only one. On Bebo, there are more than 30,000 girls happily describing themselves the same way. So how did sleaze become so acceptable that it’s now part of our girls’ childhoods? And, painful though it may be to admit, is it time that we parents accept our fair share of the blame? . . .

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: Parents, don't dress your girls like tramps CNN.com, By LZ Granderson, CNN Contributor, April 19, 2011
I saw someone at the airport the other day who really caught my eye. Her beautiful, long blond hair was braided back a la Bo Derek in the movie "10" (or for the younger set, Christina Aguilera during her "Xtina" phase). Her lips were pink and shiny from the gloss, and her earrings dangled playfully from her lobes. You can tell she had been vacationing somewhere warm, because you could see her deep tan around her midriff thanks to the halter top and the tight sweatpants that rested just a little low on her waist. The icing on the cake? The word "Juicy" was written on her backside. Yeah, that 8-year-old girl was something to see all right. ... I hope her parents are proud. Their daughter was the sexiest girl in the terminal, and she's not even in middle school yet. Abercrombie & Fitch came under fire this spring for introducing the "Ashley," a push-up bra for girls who normally are too young to have anything to push up. Originally it was marketed for girls as young as 7, but after public outcry, it raised its intended audience to the wise old age of 12. I wonder how do people initiate a conversation in the office about the undeveloped chest of elementary school girls without someone nearby thinking they're pedophiles? What kind of PowerPoint presentation was shown to the Abercrombie executives that persuaded them to green light such a product? That there was a demand to make little girls hot? I mean, that is the purpose of a push-up bra, right? To enhance sex appeal by lifting up, pushing together and basically showcasing the wearer's breasts. Now, thanks to AF Kids, girls don't have to wait until high school to feel self-conscious about their, uhm, girls. They can start almost as soon as they're potty trained. Maybe this fall the retailer should consider keeping a plastic surgeon on site for free consultations. We've been here with Abercrombie before -- if you recall, about 10 years ago they sold thongs for 10-year-olds -- but they're hardly alone in pitching inappropriate clothing to young girls. Four years ago the popular "Bratz" franchise introduced padded bras called "bralettes" for girls as young as six. That was also around the time the good folks at Wal-Mart rolled out a pair of pink panties in its junior department with the phrase "Who Needs Credit Cards" printed on the front. I guess I've been out-of-the-loop and didn't realize there's been an ongoing stampede of 10-year-old girls driving to the mall with their tiny fists full of cash demanding sexier apparel. What's that you say? Ten-year-olds can't drive? They don't have money, either? Well, how else are they getting ahold of these push-up bras and whore-friendly panties? Their parents? Noooo, couldn't be. . .

Churches don’t try to bring straying couples back together Chicago Sun-Times, By Betsy Hart (www.betsysblog.com) April 19, 2011
Once again this week, in a discussion with a friend, I found that a church had not defended marriage. The typical scenario I’ve seen more times than I can count goes like this: A couple are very much involved in the church, often official members. There’s abandonment or adultery — and I mean openly acknowledged walking out the door for good against the other’s wishes and/or a publicly displayed affair — and church leadership does essentially nothing. I’m focused on Protestant and evangelical churches here since that’s what I’m most familiar with, but I’ve seen it in Roman Catholic churches, too. People in the church divorce at the same rates as those outside of it. Enough already. The church needs to start defending marriage. It must say: “If you join our church, we will defend your marriage.” If it won’t, how dare it speak to the breakdown of the family, the increased sexualization of the culture, the rise of gay marriage or a host of other issues it seeks to address? There is a Biblical model for church discipline: to win back the straying party and to stand for truth whatever happens. Of course, in marital breakup, perhaps the one walking out the door had good reason — say, adultery by the other. That’s what church leaders are called to find out when at all possible. Once that’s determined, discipline includes private attempts to reach out to the offending party or parties, and then and only if that’s unsuccessful, public admonishment to the congregation. If the sin continues, the offender (s) is to be put out of the church. (Matthew 18.) The hope always is he or she will return, and that such discipline now will save him or her from worse later. Extreme? I don’t think so. Churches are voluntary organizations, and they ought to stand for something far different from the current trends of popular culture. When a church refuses to deal biblically with a divorcing couple who are members of its body, it’s telling every other couple in the church that “we won’t defend your family, either.” Yet I know of only a handful of divorces, including my own, where church leadership stepped in and took such Biblical action to defend marriage. I do know that in these particular church bodies, divorce rates are much lower than in the surrounding communities. Hopefully, in many churches, action is being quietly and successfully taken before a marriage is irretrievably broken. . .

Why aren't Churches trying to bring straying couples back together?

RELATED ARTICLE: Tragically Widening the Grounds of Legitimate Divorce DesiringGod.org, By John Piper, October 17, 2007
The October issue of Christianity Today carried an astonishing article on divorce and remarriage by David Instone-Brewer. What makes it especially amazing is that CT simply published it as if it were faithful to Scripture, with no counterpoint, and used the phrase on the cover “when to separate,” not “whether to separate”—even though Jesus said, “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Mark 10:9). To put it bluntly, the implication of this article is that every marriage I am aware of could already have legitimately ended in divorce. I knew I disagreed with Instone-Brewer’s position. I wrote three chapters on marriage and divorce and remarriage in What Jesus Demands from the World and considered Instone-Brewer’s views more fully at that time. But I did not expect to read this astonishing extension of the divorce license. It is, in our context of easy divorce and cavalier covenant-breaking, tragic. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: What God Has Joined: What does the Bible really teach about divorce? Christianity Today, By David Instone-Brewer, October 5, 2007
I'd read the biblical texts on divorce many times in the past, but I found something strange as I did so again. They now said something I hadn't heard before I read the rabbis! The texts hadn't changed, but my knowledge of the language and culture in which they were written had. I was now reading them like a first-century Jew would have read them, and this time those confusing passages made more sense. My book, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church (InterVarsity Press), is a summary of several academic papers and books I began writing with this new understanding of what Jesus taught. One of my most dramatic findings concerns a question the Pharisees asked Jesus: "Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?" (Matt. 19:3). This question reminded me that a few decades before Jesus, some rabbis (the Hillelites) had invented a new form of divorce called the "any cause" divorce. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Same-Sex Marriage: Not in the Best Interest of Children The Therapist (a publication of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists—CAMFT), By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D., May / June 2009
The California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) published a special issue of their bi-monthly journal “The Therapist” dedicated to the subject of same-sex marriage. Guest authors were asked to contribute articles, half of the writers in support and half opposed to same-sex marriage. A stated goal of the issue was to determine whether the organization should adopt a formal position on the matter. Subsequent to publication of the May/June 2009 special issue (Volume 21, Issue 3), homosexual activists within and without the organization pressured CAMFT to not only apologize, but also expunge from their organizational archives those articles that voiced opposition to same-sex marriage. CAMFT capitulated to those demands. The Director of CAMFT apologized for publishing articles critical of same-sex marriage and all the "offending" articles were censored from the CAMFT website archives. So much for intellectual debate and freedom of opinion. . . . . As mental health professionals, it’s our ethical and moral obligation to support policies that are in the best interest of those we serve, particularly those who are most vulnerable—namely, children. Same-sex marriage may be in the best interest of adult homosexuals who yearn for social and legal recognition of their unions, but it’s not in the best interest of children. Proponents of same-sex marriage believe love is all children really need. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as by loving parents of the opposite sex. But that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is naively simplistic and denies the complex nature and core needs of human beings. According to decades of research, the ideal family structure for children is a two-parent, mother-father family.(1,2,3) That research consistently shows that children raised in such families are more likely to thrive—psychologically, mentally, and physically—than children reared in any other kind of family configuration. Extensive research also reveals that not only mothers, but also fathers, are critical to the healthy development of children. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children DrTracyHansen.com, By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.
Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children really need is love. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as it is to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is false. Because love isn’t enough! All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive. Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father. So here are five reasons why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a father:. . .

Don't let money matters wreck your marriage Sydney Morning Herald, April 18, 2011
Although love is said to be the most important part of a successful marriage, money is often a leading cause of divorce. "The time to talk about money is not after you walk down the aisle and say, 'I do'," said Linda Descano, president and CEO of Women and Co in New York. "It should become part of the conversation as soon as you realise you are in a serious relationship. "When you talk about money, it can be an emotionally charged subject," she said. "The emotions are not about money, but what it represents - security, independence and quality of life." Family law lawyer Karen Ackerman said she is often surprised by the number of people who have no idea how much debt their partners have. "There are people who don't even know how much their spouse makes because their salaries are not deposited into a joint account," said Ackerman, a sole practitioner in Pittsburgh. "They don't know how much is available to their families or where it's going." While researching his book, Money and Marriage: A Complete Guide For Engaged and Newly Married Couples, Matt Bell interviewed several divorce lawyers who told him that when marriages are on the rocks, couples are usually living separate financial lives. "One person will take the couple to the edge of a financial cliff by racking up a lot of debt," he said. "By the time the other finds out, there's a lot of debt, and all respect and trust is lost as well." Recently married himself, financial adviser Anthony Criscuolo of Palisade Hudson Financial Group in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, is convinced that full financial disclosure is the most important policy future married couples can have toward each other. "The biggest mistake newlyweds can make is avoiding the money conversation completely," he said. "Money issues will come up ... so by avoiding the money conversation, your marriage is essentially starting off against the odds." Couples should tell each other before the wedding about all debt obligations rather than waiting until the bills start coming in. Each person should make a list of all student loans, car loans, credit card debt and even personal loans that he or she has received from family and friends, said Bill Hardekopf, CEO of LowCards.com, an online consumer resource for comparing card rates. "Get copies of credit reports to verify all open accounts," Hardekopf said. "One or both of you may enter the partnership with debt, but debt payments drain away money you could be saving to help reach financial goals. "If either partner has problems with credit, your rental or mortgage application may be denied, or you may have to pay more money on loans with higher rates." Combining finances is no simple matter when people marry. . .

Don't let money matters wreck your marriage

RELATED ARTICLE: Hart: Divorced and middle-aged, she advises newlyweds: Fellas, treat her as if she's really special. Seattle Times- Scripps Howard News Service, By Betsy Hart, April 08, 2011
Discussing what feels like the commonality of divorce in our circles, a dear gal pal whose own son is getting married soon pondered how to prevent marital breakup. She asked for my advice. Yep. She really did. Me. A woman married for 17 years, then blindsided by divorce, and now single for half a decade. What could I possibly have to offer? Who cares? I'm up for the challenge! Over the years, I've observed a lot, and learned a lot, and heard a lot, so here are a few things I'll just put out there. To brides everywhere: At the top of the list for your husband is, likely, sex. Actually, it is the list. Many years ago, I heard a young mom advise a group of wives to "find out how much sex your husband wants. And give him more." Bingo. Still, I'm convinced that too few wives of any age understand how crucially important sex is to their husbands both physically and, yes, emotionally. Well, whether you figure it out or not, just do it. A lot. Meanwhile, seek to respect and encourage your husband. I suggest resisting the urge to whine, and instead thanking him on a regular basis for working hard to support you, for being a good dad to your kids. Anything that will genuinely build him up. That will go further than you can know in making him eager to please you and care for you. And please do not attempt to make your husband your best girlfriend. He's not built for that, and you don't really want him to be, anyway. Get a gal pal. Get lots of gal pals. Look to them for much of your emotional support, and you will be happier for it. Meanwhile, husbands, when it comes to your list (i.e., sex), here's a tip:. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Questions To Ask As A Couple Before Getting Engaged PsychCentral, By Margarita Tartakovsky, M.S., February 07, 2011
When it comes to marriage, love doesn’t conquer all. Being on the same page with your significant other also is key to a successful relationship. In fact, according to Michael Batshaw, LCSW, a relationship expert and author of the book 51 Things You Should Know Before Getting Engaged, he’s seen “a lot of couples get into trouble not being on the same page.” As Denver psychologist Susan Heitler, Ph.D, said, walking down the aisle involves walking down a life path together. “The biggest mistake couples make is to avoid [discussing] the areas of differences before they walk down the aisle.” This is why talking about the kind of life you want to build with each other is so important, said Batshaw, also author of the forthcoming Things You Need to Know Before Getting Married: The Essential Guide to a Successful Marriage. In addition to love, couples do best when they have “an inherent compatibility in terms of shared life goals as well as daily living,” he added. But you don’t have to be compatible on all levels, he noted. . .

Are you thinking what he's thinking? A user's guide to single men

Are you thinking what he's thinking? A user's guide to single men The Daily Mail - UK, By Humfrey Hunter, April 09, 2011
How soon should you text him after a first date? Can you be sure he wants to see you again? Should you poke him on Facebook? Author and dating guru Humfrey Hunter offers his unique insight into what makes men tick – and what winds them up. . . . .As break-ups go, mine wasn’t dramatic: after three fairly happy years with my girlfriend, I’d realised that she wasn’t the one, so the relationship ended. I was 30, and in eight years had been single for a total of six months. The next day my friend Giles ordered me not to get a girlfriend for the next year, because I was too soft and fell in love too easily. If I wasn’t careful, I’d end up with one before I was ready, thus laying the foundations for yet another painful break-up. What I needed, said Giles, was to meet plenty of new girls before getting involved with one. With his advice in mind, dating began to feel very different; I started to analyse it in a way I never had before. Then, in an outrageous stroke of luck, I was asked to write a newspaper dating column, which gave me the opportunity to poke my nose into other people’s romantic business. Over two years of writing it I heard stories of dates of all shapes and sizes. Some made me laugh and some made me blush, while others left me speechless. Two years on, just when I’d given up on the idea of meeting anyone myself, a girl arrived in my life unexpectedly. Her name is Charlotte and she stayed. Meeting her made me understand how, when and why a guy meets someone special. So here is my hard-won advice to you if you are looking to meet a significant other: Beware the new lone wolf. . . . If he’s keen, he’ll be in touch. . . .Keep it light on a first date. . . .To call or not to call: There was one question that girls asked me more than any other when I was researching my column: ‘Why hasn’t he called me?’ The one thing you can know for sure is that when a guy hasn’t called you, he can’t be that interested in you. If he isn’t making the effort, then you shouldn’t have to. Rightly or wrongly, it’s a man’s job to do the chasing. Men expect, consciously or not, to make the running. We value things we have to work for, and if you call or text a guy you haven’t heard from, you make it too easy for him. When I met Charlotte I knew I wanted to see her again. I got in touch straight away because I liked her a lot – all the conventions about playing it cool went out of the window. With the date arranged, I had six days to wait. Charlotte didn’t do anything proactive other than reply to my messages. The result was me spending all week thinking about her, by the end of which I couldn’t wait to see her. And she’d done nothing at all. You want a man who can’t help getting in touch with you, who wants to talk to you all the time and to see you whenever he can; someone who would never dream of being deliberately aloof and distant because he wants you to know how he feels about you. They do exist. I know because despite my cynicism and occasional bad-boy behaviour, I eventually became one. . .

RELATED PHOTO ESSAY: In Pictures: 10 Ways to Tell He's Just Not That Into You Forbes.com, By Alyson Papalia, December 27, 2007

RELATED ARTICLE: So He's Just Not That Into You? Forbes.com, By Alyson Papalia, December 27, 2007
The holiday season seems to bring out the best in people: cards from those you had forgotten, phone calls from far-away family members and even a smile or two from strangers on the street. The "most wonderful time of the year" is bound to evoke feelings of love and happiness, and a desire to share that with someone. What's important to remember, though, is that it should always be shared with someone who deserves it. In what can be perceived as the season of coupledom, it's easy to forget that not all relationships are good. Unless you've been living under a rock, you've surely heard of the Sex and the City episode that quickly became a motto for millions of women--"He's Just Not That Into You." On the show, a group of Manhattanites find themselves analyzing a first date, contemplating what a man really meant when he refused to come upstairs afterward. The women offer explanations aplenty. (He obviously had to get up early for work.) But one of the gals' boyfriends points out the cold-hearted truth: "He's just not that into you." Initially, this idea may seems too definitive, too point-blank, too pat. After all, people do get up early for work, they do have other plans sometimes--these are not simply things men make up in an effort to avoid women. The premise of these six words, though, is that if he is into you, he'll man up and face the exhaustion the next day, or cancel the plans he already made with his buddies--because you're worth it. The fact is that the hours spent trying to interpret what he really meant when he said he was too tired could be used to get ahead in your career, become closer with your friends or find someone who is truly deserving of you. . .

How to stay civil when you are fuming:
The goal of your divorce should be to retain your dignity DoOver.com, Aopril 07, 2011
The heat and anger which inevitably rises during divorce has been known to turn perfectly nice people into demons. It happens to the best of us when the person you have pledged to love for you entire life suddenly turns on you. Although the division of children and assets seems fair in the eyes of objective observers, both parties react emotionally to the fact that anything if being taken away at all. "I gave birth and raised those children! What do you mean I only get 50 percent of their time?" "How can she kick me out of the house I bought and paid for?" Alas, these are the realities of divorce: The division of the dreams you both worked hard to build. The law is clear, so the choice is yours: How will you choose to get through your divorce?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Top Ten Myths of Divorce: Discussion of the most common misinformation about divorce, with references to social science literature The National Marriage Project- Rutgers University, By David Popenoe, April 2001

RELATED ARTICLE: Unexpected Legacy of Divorce PBS.org, December 19, 2000
Judith Wallerstein discusses her latest book, "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce," an analysis of the long-term effect of divorce on children.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Women Are Leaving Men for Other Women O magazine— Oprah.com, By Mary A. Fischer, April 2009 Issue
Cynthia Nixon did it. Lindsay Lohan's doing it. TV shows are based on it. Is it our imaginations, or are wives and girlfriends ditching their men and falling in love with other women? New science says that sexuality is more fluid than we thought. . . . . .Feminist philosopher Susan Bordo, PhD, a professor of English and gender and women's studies at the University of Kentucky and author of Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body, also agrees that in the current environment, more women may be stepping out of the conventional gender box. "When a taboo is lifted or diminished, it's going to leave people freer to pursue things," she says. "So it makes sense that we would see women, for all sorts of reasons, walking through that door now that the culture has cracked it open. . . . . . Over the past several decades, scientists have struggled in fits and starts to get a handle on sexual orientation. Born or bred? Can it change during one's lifetime? A handful of studies in the 1990s, most of them focused on men, suggested that homosexuality is hardwired. In one study, researchers linked DNA markers in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome to gay males. But a subsequent larger study failed to replicate the results, leaving the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association to speculate that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes, including environmental, cognitive, and biological factors. Today, however, a new line of research is beginning to approach sexual orientation as much less fixed than previously thought, especially when it comes to women. The idea that human sexuality forms a continuum has been around since 1948, when Alfred Kinsey introduced his famous seven-point scale, with 0 representing complete heterosexuality, 7 signifying complete homosexuality, and bisexuality in the middle, where many of the men and women he interviewed fell. The new buzz phrase coming out of contemporary studies is "sexual fluidity.""People always ask me if this research means everyone is bisexual. No, it doesn't," says Lisa Diamond, PhD, associate professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah and author of the 2008 book Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women's Love and Desire. "Fluidity represents a capacity to respond erotically in unexpected ways due to particular situations or relationships. It doesn't appear to be something a woman can control.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: College taught her not to be a heterosexual Townhall.com, By Dennis Prager, April 19, 2009
Perhaps the most important argument against same-sex marriage is that once society honors same-sex sex as it does man-woman sex, there will inevitably be a major increase in same-sex sex. People do sexually (as in other areas) what society allows and especially what it honors. . . . . .I interviewed Anna Montrose, a bright and articulate 22-year-old woman, on my syndicated radio show. She is a fine example of the type of thinking and behavior a homosexuality-celebrating culture -- such as that at our universities -- produces. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Will Increase Prevalence of Homosexuality: Research Provides Significant Evidence By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.
An accumulation of research from around the world finds that societies which endorse homosexual behavior increase the prevalence of homosexuality in those societies. The legalization of same-sex marriage--which is being considered by voters in several U.S. states--is the ultimate in societal endorsement and will result in more individuals living a homosexual lifestyle. Extensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior. A closer look at the research:. . .

RELATED RESOURCE: Myths, Facts, and Consequences of the Homosexual Lifestyle EarstoHear.Net

RELATED ARTICLE: Confusion Reigns as Tradition Decays Jewish World Review, By Kathryn Jean Lopez, March 21, 2009
The need for some return to sanity forms the subtext of an article in this month's issue of O, the Oprah Magazine. The article explores how some women find themselves abandoning heterosexual relationships in favor of partners of their own gender. One recently divorced academic describes what attracted her to a future female lover. "She got up and gave me the better seat, as if she wanted to take care of me. I was struck by that. ... she took initiative and was the most take-charge person I'd ever met." This article isn't about closeted homosexuality; it's not asserting that there's a vast population of women who were born to be with women, and are instead trapped in unfulfilling heterosexual arrangements. No, this article, despite its celebration of unconventional lifestyles, boils down to something much more orthodox: Femininity and masculinity mix well together. And women are taking masculinity where they can get it, even if it's in the arms of a fellow female. Normally, one might dismiss an article that explains that "more women may be stepping out of the conventional gender box," — but this is O magazine. The piece, "Why Women Are Leaving Men for Other Women," appears in an issue that features an exclusive interview at the White House with Michelle Obama. This is mainstream stuff. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: "Bi-Curious" Summer Townhall.com, By Brent Bozell III, July 11, 2008
When our culture merchants calculate how to exploit societal attitudes toward the homosexual lifestyle, one factor doesn't enter into the equation. Frankly, they don't give a d--- about people who believe it's a sin against God. Those religious people with their religious hang-ups aren't likely to watch MTV, so why bother with their silly complaints? Religious concerns safely tossed aside, producers are free to explore how best to profit from pushing envelopes. They know that (most) men don't enjoy watching gay men, but enough do like to watch women flirt with lesbianism to make it a commercially viable enterprise. Enter the idea of women being "bi-curious," as the slang goes. The trend has landed on top of the Billboard pop charts and has dominated the top of the i-Tunes download list in the form of Katy Perry's song "I Kissed A Girl." The concept has become so mainstream that she performed her song on Fox’s summer series “So You Think You Can Dance.” She’s also made a cameo appearance on the CBS soap opera “The Young and the Restless.” This summer she’s one of the few female performers featured on the Warped Tour, an appropriate word for her act. . . . . Here's the sad rub: 23-year-old Perry began her career at age 16 with a collection of Christian gospel songs under her real name, Kate Hudson. Her parents are both Protestant pastors in California. . . . Exploiting the "bi-curious" trend is also MTV's formula for the ongoing embarrassment of a reality show called "Tila Tequila's Shot at Love," another noxious offering for youngsters offered by that disgusting network. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Beyond Gay Marriage: A circle of friends point toward the next battle for acceptance VILLAGE VOICE- NY, By Corina Zappia, June 20, 2006
Watch the news reports on gay marriage and you'd think the queer community had magically morphed into a Noah's Ark of same-sex couples—all conveniently packaged two by two, a place for everything and everything in its place. Fit neatly into one of these circumscribed categories and maybe we'll make room for you at the dinner table. Now consider this proverbial wrench: a Brooklyn-based group of lesbian, gay, transgender, and straight friends who hang out, make out, and uphold an anything-goes policy on who gets with whom. A lesbian can kiss a gay man, a transgender can sleep with a straight woman—without fear of the reproach they might receive elsewhere from members of the queer and straight communities alike. . . The battle for gay marriage is just the beginning. . . RATED: MA FOR MATURE READERS ONLY SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL

TO READ THE FULL STATEMENT: Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships

RELATED ARTICLE: The Hetero-flexible Gene Townhall.com, By Jennifer Roback Morse, February 20, 2006
There is actually plenty of data that supports the position that sexual orientation is not a fixed trait. I know, I know, I can hear the howls already. Everybody knows that homosexuality is genetically determined. Actually, everybody who knows anything about the subject knows exactly the opposite. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Born or Bred? Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic. Homosexual activists love to insist that. Concerned Women For America 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.". .

RELATED ARTICLE: Kinsey's Secret: The Phony Science of the Sexual Revolution Catholic Culture, By Sue Ellin Browder
Alfred C. Kinsey had a secret. The Indiana University zoologist and "father of the sexual revolution" almost single-handedly redefined the sexual mores of everyday Americans. The problem was, he had to lie to do it. The weight of this point must not be underestimated. The science that launched the sexual revolution has been used for the past 50 years to sway court decisions, pass legislation, introduce sex education into our schools, and even push for a redefinition of marriage. Kinseyism was the very foundation of this effort. If his science was flawed — or worse yet, an outright deception — then our culture's attitudes about sex are not just wrong morally but scientifically as well. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together NARTH.com, By Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.
. . . For all these reasons, when as an adult he looked back on his childhood, the now-homosexual man recalls, "From the beginning I was always different. I never got along well with the boys my age and felt more comfortable around girls." This accurate memory makes his later homosexuality feel convincingly to him as though it was "preprogrammed" from the start. . .

RELATED ARTICLE (PDF): Female Homosexual Development NARTH.com
It is often claimed that sexual orientation is an innate and normal variation of sexuality and therefore immutable or unchangeable aspect of a person's core self or identity. But there is no conclusive evidence that female homosexuality is innate or solely genetic or biologically based. Most respected scientists agree that homosexuality is due to a combination of social, psychological, and biological factors. . .

Relationships: How one woman kept her cool when her husband said he wanted to leave The Daily Mail- UK, By Laura Munson, April 02, 2011
After 20 years and two children together, Laura Munson’s husband told her that he wanted to leave their farmhouse home. Laura suppressed the urge to rage at his selfishness – and her restraint had surprising consequences… Still no sign of husband. I’ve been jet-lagged and restless through the nights, tossing and turning and walking the pearly moonlit rooms of our house. In my waking hour of this third day without him, I ward off thoughts that I should be afraid. I have to believe this is just a temporary low in the long arc of our marriage. One thing I know he loves is my cooking. Maybe it will summon him home. And maybe it does. The children and I are in the kitchen making a glorious gamey mess. They know today could be the day Daddy is coming home from his ‘camping trip’ and they’re excited to impress him with our creation. We hear a truck in the driveway and the dogs don’t bark, which means one thing: it’s him. I tell myself that he might come through the door with good news. Standing at my kitchen counter, I’m centred and strong. And there he is. Dirty and scruffy and handsome. He sits down in his chair by the hearth like he’s on familiar stomping ground. He hasn’t made any eye contact with me whatsoever. Our son climbs on to his lap. ‘Daddy, did you catch any fish?’ he says, like he is meeting his superhero (he is). ‘A few, but no keepers,’ he answers, sounding strained. I see pain in his eyes and my heart starts to sink. I look at the copper pot simmering on the stove. ‘I’m making cassoulet,’ I say, too desperately. It seems like all I’ve got. He looks at me as if he has never seen me before. ‘We need to talk,’ I say. He nods. I am swarming with visceral panic but I take his hand, surprised by its firm grip, and we go out to the screened porch. He cries. He says he has done a lot of thinking. He feels like he can’t breathe. He needs to follow his instinct. It’s the hardest thing he has ever had to say. Something he never thought he’d say. He doesn’t think he loves me any more. He doesn’t have it in him any more to work at the relationship. Is showing up for dinner and doing the dishes ‘work’? Hunting for the Christmas tree, or building a house for our children where the hearth is warm all winter and the kitchen alive with smells and good food… Is that called ‘work’? He says he knows the children will understand. They’ll see how badly he needs to be happy. He’ll get a place in town. ‘I don’t believe it,’ I say. I don’t scream, ‘I love you!’ I stay calm. My proclamation of love won’t do anything but annoy him. Mine is not the love in question. . .

Relationships: How Laura Munson kept her cool when her husband said he wanted to leave

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Your Marriage Due For A Tune Up? Seven ways you can add value to your spouse. Menomonee Falls Patch, By Pastor Mike Frie, April 03, 2011
As someone who has been driving for decades, I've seen cars really improve over the years. They just seem to be more dependable these days, even better designed. One of the things I DO NOT like about today's cars though are the warning lights...the ones on the inside...on the dash. Back in the day, when you had a problem with your car, you could usually see, hear, or smell it. If you continued to foolishly ignore the symptoms, before long, a warning light would illuminate signaling something serious...an "idiot light" for those of us over the age of 35. At that point, you may no longer be a car owner of you continued on. Terrible things happened: the engine seized up, the transmission burned out, the brakes stopped working. Nowadays, it seems like every few thousand miles, I've got lights coming on, and I don't even know what for. "Service engine soon" is just a bit too vague for me. It's actually produced some skeptism in me concerning the health of my car. I begin having thoughts like: "How long before "soon" becomes right now?" or "They (the dealer) just want me to come in and spend some money to find out what the problem is... or "If it was serious, it would tell me exactly what was wrong." Unfortunately, I sometimes continue driving only to find that it shuts off after a day or two, thereby reinforcing my cynicism. I bring this up only because at times we tend to treat our marriages this way. Current data indicates that when a couple gets married in the USA, there’s pretty much a 50-50 chance the union will end in divorce (www.aboutdivorce.org). For second marriages, the rate is in the 60-70% range. Third marriages fare even worse. Admittedly, there is a debate as to the exact numbers, and the fact that many couples avoid marriage altogether tends to skew the data, but there is agreement that unless something changes, marriage could become an endangered species. I'm pretty much a "glass is half full" kinda guy, and when it comes to marriage, have a positive outlook. However, I don't want to look into my wife's eyes and see red warning lights looking back at me and neither do you. So what can be done? Here are seven ideas I've gleaned to help you and your spouse tune-up your marriage:. . .

Kate Middleton: A Kennedy in Queen Elizabeth's Court

Genealogy: A Kennedy in Queen Elizabeth’s Court
Though she’s just a month away from becoming British royalty, athletic and easygoing Kate Middleton has always seemed like an all-American girl. In a shocking exclusive, Vanity Fair reveals a newly uncovered family photograph and groundbreaking genealogical research that confirm the princess-to-be’s hidden Kennedy bloodline Vanity Fair, By Juli Weiner, April 01, 2011
Last month, a gentleman in a tattered bowler hat and gray trench coat walked into Le Périgord and delivered a manila envelope to my usual table. He was in a hurry, and the corner of the envelope slid into my Floating Island—which was excellent, by the way—as he quickly turned and beelined for the door. The package was marked, in tasteful calligraphy, “To, Vanity Fair; From, Source: ‘Masshole.’” I opened the envelope and removed a faded, crinkled photograph. Several faces in the picture were immediately recognizable: Ted Kennedy and his wife Victoria Reggie Kennedy, and Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. Among the group was a young girl with shiny brown hair, her pensive expression partially obscured by the schooner’s safety cable. I looked more closely at the girl—and dropped my fork. This never-before-seen photograph, in addition to Vanity Fair’s sponsored genealogical research, confirms that Kate Middleton, Prince William’s bride-to-be, is a distant cousin of Ted Kennedy. Preppy and poised, Middleton has the mien of a Kennedy. And as it turns out, she also has the genes of one. According to Dr. Adam Fenwick-Symes, a genealogist at the University of Cambridge and himself one-48th Kennedy, Middleton’s paternal great-grandmother Edwardian socialite Olive Lupton is the daughter of Francis Martineau Lupton and Harriet Albina Davis. Davis is the daughter of William Davis, whose aunt, Maria Davis, married James Kennedy, father to Patrick, grandfather to P.J., great-grandfather to Joe, and great-great-grandfather to John F. Kennedy. “The political climate in the States is such that both families wanted to keep this quiet,” a Middleton insider told Vanity Fair. “At least until after the wedding.” While Barack and Michelle Obama have not been invited to the April 29th nuptials—the event is not “a formal state occasion,” according to Clarence House—members of the Kennedy clan are expected to attend. “I think they’re just happy about the opportunity to get out of the country after that horrendous mini-series,” a family insider said. While news of Kate’s relationship is shocking, it was not completely unexpected—particularly to readers of this magazine. Middleton has the athleticism of a Jack, the charm of a Teddy, the shiny hair of a Maria Shriver, and the enigmatic reticence of one of the lesser-known Kennedys—Rose, for example. The 29-year-old, Berkshire-born Middleton frequently takes hunting and skiing trips with William, and would feel right at home swimming and playing tennis in Hyannis Port, where the Kennedys have owned a waterfront compound since 1927. Sartorially, Middleton is partial to basic trench coats, extravagant hats, and classic A-line skirts—all hallmarks of Kennedy women. Additionally, Middleton shares a birth date—January 9—with the singer Joan Baez, who of course shares a first name with Joan Kennedy, the first wife of Teddy Kennedy. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 'The Kennedy's: After the Debate, The Debut New York Times, By Dave Itzkoff, March 28, 2011
When the first episode of “The Kennedys,” the costly and controversial mini-series about that American political dynasty, makes its debut on Sunday, a chapter in television history will be closed, but a debate about the balance between accuracy and creative license in historical dramas will be renewed. Arriving on television shortly after an Oscars race between “The King’s Speech” and “The Social Network,” movies that put their own spin on real-life events, “The Kennedys” employs many of the same narrative devices. In chronicling the presidency of John F. Kennedy, it compresses time, consolidates characters and invents dialogue for moments never recorded by history’s pen. It also dwells on the sexual appetites of the Kennedy men, the use of prescription drugs by the president and his wife, and Joseph P. Kennedy’s interactions with the Mafia, in ways that, depending on your point of view, expose the flaws of historical figures or besmirch the legacy of an American hero. That would be complicated enough, even without two additional factors. The producer of “The Kennedys,” Joel Surnow, a co-creator of the Fox action series “24,” is an outspoken conservative. (He says that despite his personal politics, the mini-series depicts the family “in an honest yet really reverential and patriotic light.”) And the History Channel, which commissioned the $25 million series, ultimately rejected it in January after deciding that its “dramatic interpretation” was “not a fit for the History brand.” Stephen Kronish, who wrote the script (and says he is a liberal), acknowledges that his assignment put him at the center of a paradoxical conflict between truthfulness and telling a good story — a tension exacerbated by an enduring reverence for the central character of the mini-series, President Kennedy himself. “It is a challenge unlike just about any other in our business,” Mr. Kronish said, “when you’re being asked to write dramatic scenes but you’re constricted by what is factually workable.” That is a challenge amplified by the unique place that President Kennedy and his family continue to occupy in the American psyche. “Presidents are magic,” said the journalist Richard Reeves, author of several books on the modern presidency. “They walk into a room, and the air changes, and this one, in our lifetimes, above all.” “The Kennedys,” which will be shown on ReelzChannel, a little-known, film-oriented cable network, has for months been the subject of a heated dispute over its faithfulness to the facts. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: UK royal bride’s virginity no longer an issue Washington Post, By Gregory Katz, April 8, 2011
In 1981, Princess Diana’s uncle made a public statement before her royal wedding to clear up The Question: Yes, she was a virgin. What a difference a generation makes. Today, few people seem the least bit concerned that Prince William and Kate Middleton, set to wed this month, have been living together off and on since their university days. “We live in a modern age and people do all sorts of things before they settle down,” said Keith Morley, 34, an engineer from Birmingham. “It’s probably best that they lived together before making a commitment.” Some historians say it’s about time the royals shed the prudishness they exhibited at the time of Diana’s marriage, which came years after the pill and the Summer of Love made casual sex more socially acceptable even in traditionally uptight Britain. The modern-day tolerance of William and Middleton’s living arrangements, many say, just brings the House of Windsor in line with the times. Part of the change may have to do with the very public infidelities that played out in the disastrous marriage of Charles and Diana, which rocked the royal family to its core. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 9 Marriage Tips for the Royal Couple FOX News.com, By Alisa Bowman, April 05, 2011
Weddings tend to bring out the warm fuzzies in folks, especially in folks who have been married for years. For us, whenever we watch a bride walk down the aisle, we, for a brief moment, remember what it once felt like to be in love. It brings a sweet mist to our eyes. It’s for this reason, I believe, that so many people are captivated and downright obsessed with the upcoming wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton. There we are along the sidelines, cheering for this royal couple, “You can do it. You can stay in love! You can remain faithful and attracted to one another for years! Yes, you can! Give us cause for hope!” It’s almost a desperate prayer because if Will and Kate manage to do it, perhaps there’s hope for the rest of us. It’s for this reason that I think Will and Kate could use a little help. If we want them to stay in love, those of us who married long ago and are now recovering divorce daydreamers or already divorced might offer a word or two of advice in an effort to prevent this in-love couple from making the same mistakes we did. Here is my best advice for the royal couple:. . .

More "Marriage" Stories: March 2011