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

Tiger Woods' divorce? Part of the game
In the high-profile, high-finance world of professional sports, divorce is the norm. ESPN Sports, By Mark Kreidler, August 24, 2010
Look, the shocker is when things go right. The most surprising thing an elite athlete can do these days, apart from the athletic performance itself, is to have a home life that is either so stable as to prompt admiring glances or so boring that no one even notices. Grant Hill comes to mind. Drew Brees comes to mind. But most of these relationships among the elite -- they aren't normal. Why? Because these people aren't normal. I'm about to write something that ought to carry a Tiger-specific exemption clause, because any conversation about elite sports stars and marriage is immediately going to be connected back to the Woods-Elin Nordegren divorce. (It makes sense, seeing as how they're in the news. But the connection fails, mostly because Tiger Woods is by now an absolute caricature.) Nevertheless, this is the truth as I've experienced it over more than 20 years of observing, writing about and knowing some of the elite athletes in the world: It remains utterly shocking when one of them has a marriage that works. That isn't cynicism talking; the numbers make a pretty fair case for themselves, at least so far as they can be ascertained. Although the math can be slippery and most of the statistics have been gleaned by anecdotal means, the divorce rate among all professional athletes is generally estimated at somewhere between 60 percent and 80 percent, according to stories in both the New York Times and Sports Illustrated. Sixty percent! That is some epic, epic failure. So while the Woods case is notable for the levels of its depravity, creativity and mystery, its end result is not. Elite athletes fail at marriage all the time -- and infidelity is only the most salacious of the many reasons why. Money issues, fame issues, travel issues, focus issues, time issues: It's more difficult than you'd think, being a great athlete and being married at the same time. A-Rod got divorced. MJ got divorced. Lance Armstrong did, and Jeff Gordon, and Andre Agassi, and Greg Norman and Chris Evert (from each other after being divorced from others, too), and on and on. The point here isn't a roll call, but rather to help frame the thought. Athletes divorce at a higher rate than the public at large. It's complicated. Most of the top-tier athletes I've known who failed at marriage suffered either from me-itis, got-rich-too-fast syndrome, or a pronounced case of arrested adolescence. Some of them realized after the fact that they liked being single and moneyed more than they liked being married. . .

Tiger Woods' divorce? Part of the game (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: Woods' Divorce Details May Never Be Known AP, August 24, 2010
Tiger Woods and his former wife Elin finalized their divorce Monday in Florida. However, a divorce attorney in California says the monetary details of their break-up may never be known.

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: Elin Nordegren: 8 Things That Suprised Us In Her 'People' Interview: Not Just Tiger Woods' Ex-Wife: Inside Elin Nordegren's Life ABC News- The Frisky, By Olivia Allin, August 28, 2010
For tabloid fans, this week's People interview with Elin Nordegren was like Tabloid Christmas. We had been holding our breath with suspense for nine months to find out what was going through Elin's head after she (and the world) found out her now ex-husband Tiger Woods had a secret double life. And through the 12-page spread, I laughed and cried and learned a lot about Elin. Below, eight things that surprised us about Elin. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Elin Nordegren, a model of dignity in Tiger's divorce The Daily Mail- UK, By Jan Moir, August 27, 2010
Elin has lost not just a husband, but also the family life she wanted so badly for their children. The ordinary magic of waking up together on a weekend morning within your own little family unit? All that has all gone. Hit into the rough by her silly, selfish husband. And all for what, Tiger? The rather grim news that Rachel Uchitel, resident queen among his panting conquests, is still 'desperate' to see him?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Tiger "Probably Overpaid" Elin; $100M Pact? Celeb Divorce Attorney: Woods Was in "Desperateville" when Divorce Deal Negotiated CBS News, August 24, 2010
Court documents show the two reached a settlement in early July. The terms are unknown, but Elin is expected to get about $100 million, says celebrity website TMZ.com. The two reportedly revised their prenuptial agreement after the scandal broke. Since then, Woods has lost an estimated $18 to $25 million in endorsements and spent two months in sex rehab, Tracy said. Celebrity divorce attorney Raoul Felder remarked on "The Early Show" Tuesday that Woods was in "Desperateville" when he was making deals with Nordegren's lawyers. "He probably overpaid," Felder said. "I would judge (the amound Woods agreed to hand over at) anywhere from $100 million to almost $500 million." "Early Show" co-anchor Erica Hill asked, "So $100 million is the low end?" Felder replied, "Because he was desperate. July 4th, he signed a post-nuptial agreement. Then he went into rehab for two months and for an illness that half of America hopes they would have, I guess. And then he tried this ridiculous press conference that didn't work. And then the golf wasn't working. So this is the only thing left." Felder said it's "kind of late to resuscitate the patient," but he added that he would have advised the golf star, "(to) immediately hold a real press conference and kill it." "He is paying for confidentiality," Felder said. "That's something you can never get at any price. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Truth About Why Men Cheat: Counselor M. Gary Neuman surveyed 200 cheating and noncheating husbands to get at the real reasons behind men's infidelity WebMD Feature from "Redbook" Magazine, By Nicole Yorio
What makes men cheat? Marriage counselor M. Gary Neuman dug through past research on male infidelity and found that most answers came from the wife's point of view. Wouldn't it make more sense to ask the guys? he thought. So for his new book, The Truth About Cheating, Neuman surveyed 200 cheating and noncheating husbands to get at the real reasons behind men's infidelity — including what cheating men say could have prevented them from straying. Here, some of his findings:. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Adultery LeadershipU, By Kerby Anderson
The seventh commandment says "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Nevertheless, this sin has been committed throughout history. Today, though, adultery seems more rampant than ever. While tabloid stories report the affairs of politicians, millionaires, and movie stars, films like "The English Patient," "The Prince of Tides," or "The Bridges of Madison Country" feature and even promote adultery. How prevalent is adultery? Two of the most reliable studies come to similar conclusions. . . . .Perhaps you are thinking, "This is just a problem with non-Christians in society. It can't be a problem in the church. Certainly the moral standards of Christians are higher." Well, there is growing evidence that adultery is also a problem in Christian circles. An article in a 1997 issue of Newsweek magazine noted that various surveys suggest that as many as 30 percent of male Protestant ministers have had sexual relationships with women other than their wives. . . . . . Myths About Adultery: Marital infidelity destroys marriages and families and often leads to divorce. Public sentiment against adultery is actually very strong as approximately eight out of ten of Americans disapprove of adultery. Yet 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. At this point we want to examine some of the myths about adultery. Myth #1: "Adultery is about sex.". . . . . .Preventing Adultery: Her Needs. . . . Preventing Adultery: His Needs. . .

RELATED RESOURCE:   Divorce and Infidelity: Should I Get a Divorce? FOTF.org, By Amy Desai, J.D.
   1.   Overview
No couple goes into marriage thinking they'll be the ones who won't make it. Certainly, at your wedding, you thought you were promising a love that would last a lifetime. Now, for reasons you may not fully understand, that dream seems shattered. As you try to understand the pain and determine what to do, divorce may look like an appealing way out. "After all," you might reason, "life is full of second chances. Perhaps I simply married the wrong person, and Mr. or Ms. Right is still out there somewhere." You may think you were too young when you married, or that you never really loved your spouse. Or maybe you are just tired of the arguing, tired of the lack of communication, tired of the coldness in your relationship. Perhaps you simply want out – period. Or maybe you are hoping against hope that your marriage can be salvaged. Before you bail out of your marriage, carefully consider what you'll be diving into. Most people are not prepared for the challenges of post-divorce life.These articles are designed to help you understand the effects of divorce before you make that choice, to give insight into what you – and your children – will face. By providing solid facts, they will help you make a more informed decision. Be encouraged that no matter how hopeless it seems, there's a possibility your marriage can be saved. It's our sincere desire that your marriage will be transformed into the loving relationship you hoped it would be when you first said, "I do."

   2. Who Gets Divorced?
   3. How Would Divorce Affect Me?
   4. How Could Divorce Affect My Kids?
   5. Is There Hope for My Marriage?
   6. How Should a Christian View Marriage and Divorce?
   7. Dealing With the Bigger Problems in Marriage
   8. Dr. Bill Maier on Divorce
   9. Next Steps / Related Information. . .

Students, Welcome to College; Parents, Go Home

Parenting Issues: Students, Welcome to College; Parents, Go Home NY Times, By Trip Gabriel, August 22, 2010
In order to separate doting parents from their freshman sons, Morehouse College in Atlanta has instituted a formal “Parting Ceremony.” It began on a recent evening, with speeches in the Martin Luther King Jr. International Chapel. Then the incoming freshmen marched through the gates of the campus — which swung shut, literally leaving the parents outside. When University of Minnesota freshmen move in at the end of this month, parental separation will be a little sneakier: mothers and fathers will be invited to a reception elsewhere so students can meet their roommates and negotiate dorm room space — without adult meddling. As the latest wave of superinvolved parents delivers its children to college, institutions are building into the day, normally one of high emotion, activities meant to punctuate and speed the separation. It is part of an increasingly complex process, in the age of Skype and twice-daily texts home, in which colleges are urging “Velcro parents” to back off so students can develop independence. Grinnell College here, like others, has found it necessary to be explicit about when parents really, truly must say goodbye. Move-in day for the 415 freshmen was Saturday. After computer printers and duffle bags had been carried to dorm rooms, everyone gathered in the gymnasium, students on one side of the bleachers, parents on the other. The president welcoming the class of 2014 had his back to the parents — a symbolic staging meant to inspire “an aha! moment,” said Houston Dougharty, vice president of student affairs, “an epiphany where parents realize, ‘My student is feeling more comfortable sitting with 400 people they just met.’ ” Shortly after, mothers and fathers were urged to leave campus. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: What Is It About 20-Somethings? Why are so many people in their 20s taking so long to grow up? New York Times, By Robin Marantz ahenig, August 18, 2010
This question pops up everywhere, underlying concerns about “failure to launch” and “boomerang kids.” Two new sitcoms feature grown children moving back in with their parents — “$#*! My Dad Says,” starring William Shatner as a divorced curmudgeon whose 20-something son can’t make it on his own as a blogger, and “Big Lake,” in which a financial whiz kid loses his Wall Street job and moves back home to rural Pennsylvania. A cover of The New Yorker last spring picked up on the zeitgeist: a young man hangs up his new Ph.D. in his boyhood bedroom, the cardboard box at his feet signaling his plans to move back home now that he’s officially overqualified for a job. In the doorway stand his parents, their expressions a mix of resignation, worry, annoyance and perplexity: how exactly did this happen?. . .

The No-Fault-Divorce Nation
As New York becomes the last state to legalize no-fault divorce, will Americans see a new chapter in our national marriage crisis? Christianity Today, By Alicia Cohn, August 17, 2010
No-fault divorce is now legal in every state, making filing for divorce in America — whether both parties agree or not — simply a matter of getting the proper paperwork. New York just became the last state to adopt the legislation, passing a bill in early July that was signed into law this week by Governor David Paterson. According to New York Law Journal, the law lets mutually consenting couples divorce “within six months of stating under oath their unions are ‘irretrievably’ broken.” Proponents say such laws free couples from needing to prove that one spouse caused the divorce by adultery or abuse. But to suggest ugly divorce battles are a thing of the past would deny the devastation of divorce itself. There are plenty of reasons why making it easier to get a divorce is a bad idea. Opposition to the legislation has created unlikely allies out of the Roman Catholic Church, the New York chapter of the feminist group National Organization for Women (NOW), and the nonprofit Marriage Savers, founded by evangelical Mike McManus. Marcia Pappas, president of New York’s NOW, echoed the Catholic concern for the potential economic inequality for women caused by sanctioning “divorce on demand”: No-fault takes away any bargaining leverage the non-moneyed spouse has. Currently she can say, “If you want a divorce I’ll agree, but you have to work out a fair agreement.” According to New York Law Journal, the law lets mutually consenting couples divorce “within six months of stating under oath their unions are ‘irretrievably’ broken.” Proponents say such laws free couples from needing to prove that one spouse caused the divorce by adultery or abuse. But to suggest ugly divorce battles are a thing of the past would deny the devastation of divorce itself. There are plenty of reasons why making it easier to get a divorce is a bad idea. Opposition to the legislation has created unlikely allies out of the Roman Catholic Church, the New York chapter of the feminist group National Organization for Women (NOW), and the nonprofit Marriage Savers, founded by evangelical Mike McManus. Marcia Pappas, president of New York’s NOW, echoed the Catholic concern for the potential economic inequality for women caused by sanctioning “divorce on demand”: No-fault takes away any bargaining leverage the non-moneyed spouse has. Currently she can say, “If you want a divorce I’ll agree, but you have to work out a fair agreement.”. . .

The No-Fault-Divorce Nation As New York becomes the last state to legalize no-fault divorce, will Americans see a new chapter in our national marriage crisis?

Federal panel puts same-sex marriage on hold as appeal of Prop. 8 ruling goes forward

Federal panel puts same-sex marriage on hold as appeal of Prop. 8 ruling goes forward Los Angeles Times, By Maura Dolan, August 17, 2010
A federal appeals court decided Monday to put same-sex marriage in California on hold at least until December, interrupting the wedding plans of scores of gay couples who were hoping to exchange vows later this week. The brief order by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals prevents an early showdown on the marriage question at the U.S. Supreme Court. Challengers of the marriage ban said they would not appeal Monday's order.vU.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker decided Aug. 4 that Proposition 8 violated the U.S. Constitution and later ordered gay marriage to resume at 5 p.m. Wednesday unless a higher court intervened. The panel's decision gave no explanation for staying Walker's order directing the state to once again allow same-sex couples to marry. The panel said the court would hear the Proposition 8 challenge on an expedited basis and hold arguments the week of Dec. 6. Another panel of three judges is expected to rule on the appeal. Loyola Law School professor Richard Hasen said Monday's order was strategically advantageous for supporters of same-sex marriage, no matter how disappointed many couples may be. If the panel had refused to place a hold on Walker's ruling, the supporters of Proposition 8 were prepared to seek a stay from the Supreme Court. The court is believed to be divided on the question of gay marriage, with Justice Anthony Kennedy considered a swing vote. A vote on a hold might have pushed the justices into taking an early position on the question. "I think there are strategic reasons why even the most ardent supporter of gay marriage could opt for a stay," said Hasen, an expert on federal court stays. "The concern is that rushing things to the Supreme Court could lead to an adverse result [for supporters of gay marriage.] If this case takes another year to get to the U.S. Supreme Court, there could be more states that adopt same-sex marriage and more judicial opinions that reach that conclusion." Hasen said the hold "takes the heat" off Kennedy and takes the case "off the front burner for a while." The proponents of Proposition 8 won an early round at the Supreme Court in January, just as Walker was to begin hearing trial testimony about Proposition 8. The court ruled 5 to 4, with Kennedy in the majority, to overturn a decision by Walker to permit portions of the testimony to be broadcast. The Proposition 8 campaign, which calls itself ProtectMarriage.com, welcomed Monday's order. . .

RELATED PRESS RELEASE: 9th Circuit puts brakes on decision that struck down Calif. marriage amendment: Appellate court reverses district court’s denial of stay motion filed by ProtectMarriage.com legal team Alliance Defense Fund.org, August 16, 2010
As part of its order, the 9th Circuit also issued an expedited appeal schedule in the case, with the opening brief due Sept. 17 and oral argument to be heard the week of Dec. 6.

RELATED BLOG: Protect Marriage- Yes on 8 Blog

RELATED RESOURCE: Prop8Case.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Prop 8 Lawyers “Smackdown” Judge Walker in Appellate Motion National Organization for Marriage, Posted by Maggie, August 14, 2010
The press is retailing Judge Walker's Big Lie—that no serious case was made in court defending marriage. Meanwhile, the brief filed by the Prop 8 team contesting Judge Walker's decision to lift the stay is a thing of beauty. In a statement released today, Brian Brown said: Read this brief; I’ve never seen a smackdown of a judge quite like it:

Walker’s opinion is even worse than I thought; Chuck Cooper and company point out all the evidence Walker ignored or twisted to come to his opinion. I knew Walker ignored history, scholarship, common sense, but this brief by Prop 8 lawyer Chuck Cooper makes it clear Walker also simply ignored the ‘binding authority from this Court and the unanimous conclusion of ten other federal circuit courts. . . The district court did not confront the Supreme Court’s holding in Baker, binding authority from this Court, or any of the well established lines of authority opposed to its conclusions. It did not distinguish them. It did not explain why it believed they were wrongly decided. It did not even acknowledge their existence. It simply ignored them.”

Now, Walker is trying to insulate his opinion from judicial review by claiming Prop 8 proponents lack standing. No wonder. He knows this opinion is a stack of cards that will not stand up to serious scrutiny by higher courts. Here's at least 8 ways – taken from the emergency motion filed by the Prop 8 lawyers today– Walker's opinion ignored facts that did not fit his thesis, acting more like an activist than a neutral referee:. . .

LeBron James's Lady
In her first interview, the basketball icon's high school sweetheart discusses life off the court and the move to Miami. Harpers Bazaar, By Lola Ogunnaike,
Savannah Brinson, long-time girlfriend of basketball phenom LeBron James, has just finished her first major photo shoot. For this low-key girl from Akron, Ohio, it was quite the heady experience. James is used to this sort of attention, she says. She, on the other hand, is decidedly not. "I've always been in the background," she says, having changed back into her white track suit with bedazzled hearts for a bowl of spaghetti at Manhattan's Serafina restaurant. As she slowly twirls her pasta, she looks both wide-eyed and incredulous. "Now that magazines and the paparazzi are taking pictures of me, it's kind of weird. I never thought it would get to this magnitude, but clearly I was mistaken," she says. Brinson, 24, had better get used to the spotlight, because the glare will only get brighter now that James has left Cleveland, his home for the past seven years, for the sunny climes of Florida. After months of serious flirtation with a handful of teams—the New Jersey Nets, New York Knicks, Los Angeles Clippers, and Chicago Bulls—James, 25, who became a free agent this July, ultimately chose the Miami Heat. Fans outside of the Sunshine State were left heartbroken and seething. He and Brinson were roundly booed in New York City recently while walking into the wedding of Denver Nuggets star Carmelo Anthony and former MTV VJ La La Vazquez. At home, a few Cleveland Cavaliers diehards set fire to the player's No. 23 jersey. Not exactly the cordial send-off they were expecting. "You have fans and you think they're going to roll with you no matter what, and then they burn your jersey? It's unfair," Brinson says. "But they did it. It's over." She admits it took her some time to warm to the idea of life in South Beach. "Personally, Miami was not my favorite place. Vacationing there is great: You go for three days and get some sun, and it's time to go home," she explains. But the weather helped win her over. "When they told me it doesn't get any colder than 50 degrees, that sold me. We get below-zero weather in Cleveland. ... I can't wait to have a sunny Christmas," she says. "It will definitely be an adjustment, but we'll make it. We're not complaining." "Whatever LeBron felt was comfortable, I'm with him," she continues. "I just love him so much. We're soul mates." It's just such devotion that makes James gush about his longtime love. "A person like myself always needs a great sidekick and a person you can rely on no matter the circumstances. And she's that," he says. "She's got my back, and I love her for that." While James settles in on his new home court, Brinson plans to split her time between Miami and Akron. She didn't want to uproot her sons—LeBron Jr., five, and Bryce Maximus, three—from their neighborhood, where LeBron Jr. will be starting kindergarten in the fall. "Cleveland is home," she says. "Nothing is going to change about that." Some cynics might argue that long distance and superstar athlete equals disaster. And if VH1's hit series Basketball Wives is to be believed, Miami groupies are as gorgeous as they are aggressive. . .. . . .

LeBron James's Lady: In her first interview, the basketball icon's high school sweetheart discusses life off the court and the move to Miami (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: LeBron James' Girlfriend, Savannah Brinson Talks About Miami and Family Harper's Bazaar, September 2010 Issue

Editor's Note: Watch the discussion between Evan Wolfson (Freedom To Marry) & Maggie Gallagher (National Organization For Marriage) on the Perry v. Schwarzenneggar ruling handed down in California by federal court justice, Vaugh Walker. CNN likes to pretend objectivity, but judge for yourself...

Opinion: Clearing Away Gay Marriage Myths AOL News, By Michael Medved, August 07, 2010
The decision by federal Judge Vaughn Walker to invalidate California's Proposition 8 both recycles and revives some of the tired, misleading clichés regarding the same-sex marriage controversy. These distortions demand direct, concise correction and rebuttal.
- 1. "Proposition 8 was a mean-spirited ban on gay marriage."
Proposition 8 banned nothing. The ubiquitous headlines describing this voter-mandated change in the California Constitution as a "gay marriage ban" amount to an egregious example of journalistic malpractice. The entire proposition consisted of only 14 words: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This simple statement imposes no restrictions and issues no commands regarding the behavior of private citizens; it merely demands a change in the actions of government. Proposition 8 did nothing to interfere with gay couples in registering for state-recognized civil unions, participating in church ceremonies consecrating their love, forming lifetime commitments, raising children or concluding comprehensive contractual arrangement to share all aspects of life and property. The proposition simply says that government will not get involved in any of these private or public processes by calling such relationships a marriage.
- 2. "Proposition 8 singled out gays and lesbians for discriminatory treatment."
The proposition never mentioned gays, lesbians or any other individuals, whatever their sexual orientation. It didn't discriminate among individuals; it drew distinctions among relationships. Under the proposition, a gay male and a straight male would face exactly the same options in marriage; there is no relationship open to the straight citizen that's denied to his gay neighbor. The fact that gay people want government sanction for a different sort of relationship, creating radically new forms of marriage, reflects their desire to transform institution, not a demand for equal, long-established rights.
- 3. "Failure to sanction gay marriage is based on the assumption that "same sex couples simply are not as good as opposite sex couples."
(This language appears verbatim in the judge's decision).Opposition to government sanction of gay marriages isn't based on the notion that opposite-sex couples are "better," but on the idea that they are more consequential and serve an important social purpose more effectively. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Same-sex marriage will hurt families, society CNN.com, By Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr., Special to CNN
August 8, 2010
The implicit comparison Judge Vaughn Walker made between racism and opposition to same-sex marriage is particularly offensive to me and to all who remember the reality of Jim Crow. It is not bigotry, it is biology that discriminates between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. . .

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. . .

Same-Sex Marriage and the Assault on Moral Reasoning
Even same-sex marriage advocates should recognize the bad logic in the ruling overturning Proposition 8. The Witherspoon Institute, By Matthew J. Franck, August 6, 2010
It is something of a consolation, albeit a small one, that the best arguments advocates for a constitutional “right” to same-sex marriage can muster are so transparently bad. Disconnected from nature, from history, from the canons of legal reasoning, and even from the standards of logic itself, their arguments betray themselves at every turn, as acts of the will and not of reasoned judgment. When the advocate advancing the arguments wears a black robe and sits on the federal bench, of course, even falsehood and fallacy have a decent chance of ultimate victory. Such an advocate is Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. district court in San Francisco. After two and a half weeks of trial in January, and a day of closing arguments in June, he finally delivered his ruling and opinion in Perry v. Schwarzenegger on August 4, overturning California’s Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution adopted by the people in November 2008, declaring that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court, in May of that year, had overturned an earlier popular referendum protecting marriage (that had only statutory status) on grounds that it violated the state constitution. And so the people of the state, against the odds and facing elite opposition, amended that constitution just six months later. Judge Walker has shifted the ground of the controversy to the federal constitution, and has flung wide the door of the federal courts to embrace (he hopes) some of the worst sophistical knavery that has been seen in quite some time in the pages of American jurisprudence. Perhaps the most surprising thing in the judge’s opinion is his declaration that “gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.” This line, quoted everywhere within hours with evident astonishment, appears to be the sheerest ipse dixit—a judicial “because I said so”—and the phrase “no longer” conveys that palpable sense that one is being mugged by a progressive. But Judge Walker’s remark here is actually the conclusion of a fairly complex argument. The problem is that the argument is not only complex but wholly fallacious. . .

Same-Sex Marriage and the Assault on Moral Reasoning

RELATED RESOURCE: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Answering the Toughest Questions National Organization for Marriage
Strong majorities of Americans oppose gay marriage. Supporters of SSM therefore seek to change the subject to just about anything: discrimination, benefits, homosexuality, gay rights, federalism, our sacred constitution. Our goal is simple: Shift the conversation rapidly back to marriage. Don’t get sidetracked. Marriage is the issue. Marriage is what we care about. Marriage really matters. It’s just common sense. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: New campaign demanding 'gay' Prop 8 judge be booted: 'It's just a gross breach of his judicial responsibilities … activism on steroids' WorldNetDaily, By Bob Unruh, August 06, 2010
The openly homosexual federal judge in California who overturned the state's constitutional limitation of marriage to one man and one woman ignored a warning from the state's own Supreme Court about the coming chaos of polygamy and incest if same-sex "marriages" are established and now is the target of an impeachment campaign. Judge Vaughn Walker, who openly has lived a homosexual lifestyle, yesterday issued an order that the state could not enforce its own constitutional requirement that marriage is between members of the opposite sex only. The ruling from Walker said "race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage." "Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses' obligations to each other," Walker said. "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage." His opinion ignored the terse warning in state Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter dissenting opinion in the 2008 case affirming same-sex marriage. Baxter warned of the "legal jujitsu" required to establish same-sex marriage just a few months before California voters passed Proposition 8 and amended the constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Federal Court Declares Most Americans A Bunch of Bigots Human Events online, By Austin R. Nimocks, August 06, 2010
Judge Vaughn Walker ruled, among other things, that not one single person who voted for Proposition 8 had any rational reason for so doing. Yes, if you voted in favor of marriage in any of the states that have taken up this question, you’ve now been officially labeled as an irrational bigot, your voice being “nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples,” according to Judge Walker. He declared that your vote was “discrimination based on unfounded stereotypes and prejudices” and that to contend otherwise is to “mask” your true intentions. (By the way, that also goes also for the 84 percent of Congress who voted in favor of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. They also had no rational reason to vote for marriage and, according to Judge Walker, possess beliefs that are mere “artifact[s] of time.”) Whatever your opinion on the subject, it is simply not credible to say that tens of millions of Americans from west to east, north to south, red states and blue states who have universally and unanimously affirmed the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman have beliefs that are simply, as Judge Walker wrote, “based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender.” And what about children, you ask? Good question. Judge Walker talked about them too, concluding that “the evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes.” So, to every mother in our country—apparently you no longer matter for your kids, and you, as a woman, bring nothing unique to the “table” of child-rearing. According to Judge Walker, any average American man can adequately fill your shoes. Yet, we all instinctively know that all the love in the world doesn’t turn a man into a mother, and vice versa. To completely dismiss the idea that children need mothers and fathers is a slap in the face of, indeed, every mother and father around the world. In his zeal to make his mark in judicial history, Judge Walker neglected to remember the historical purpose and form of America—a nation of, by, and for the people. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Who decides what ‘marriage’ means Boston Globe, By Jeff Jacoby, - Globe Columnist, May 12, 2010
When Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, same-sex marriage did not exist in the United States. Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s 4-3 decision finding a right to same-sex marriage in the state constitution, was still seven years in the future. But the crusade to fundamentally redefine marriage was already in progress, and Washington understood that once gay marriage was legalized anywhere, supporters would go to court to demand that it be recognized everywhere. So Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act to make two things clear: First, that no state could be forced to deem a same-sex couple “married’’ merely because another state did so. And second, that as far as the federal government and federal law were concerned, “marriage’’ would continue to mean what it had always meant: the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. . . . The 1996 law does not “single out’’ same-sex marriages for invidious purposes, as GLAD argues in its brief. DOMA simply does what countless federal laws do: It defines basic legislative terms. Considering how frequently the terms “marriage’’ and “spouse’’ are used in federal statutes, rulings, and regulations, it is nonsensical to claim that Congress has no right to clarify their meaning — as nonsensical as claiming that Congress is barred from defining “wetland’’ or “endangered species’’ or “disability.’’ To be sure, an individual state is free to adopt an irregular definition of marriage — or anything else — for purposes of state law. But it doesn’t have a constitutional right to impose that definition on the rest of the nation. Massachusetts could decide to recognize martial-arts studios as institutions of higher education, and to make them eligible for state-subsidized education loans. Plainly, that anomalous definition of “higher education’’ would not be binding on the federal student loan program. By the same token, Massachusetts can decide (or be required by its supreme court) to treat same-sex partners as married spouses. But it can hardly insist that its definition of “married spouses’’ trumps that of the federal government and 45 other states. . . . The Defense of Marriage Act understandably sticks in the craw of those who want marriage to mean something the vast majority of Americans have never accepted. But is the longstanding national definition unconstitutional merely because some people reject it? The federal courts have never said so before; there is no reason for them to say so now. . .

RELATED ARTICLE & RESOURCE: Federal Court Strikes Down California Same-Sex Marriage Ban Pew Research Center, August 5, 2010
The Pew Forum offers a number of resources that explain different aspects of the same-sex marriage debate. These include:

The Constitutional Dimensions of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate -- a backgrounder on the legal issues involved

Majority Continues To Support Civil Unions; Most Still Oppose Same-Sex Marriage -- an October 2009 analysis of public opinion on the issue

A Contentious Debate: Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S. -- an overview of the history of the debate

Religious Groups' Official Positions on Same-Sex Marriage -- a recently updated fact sheet detailing the positions of various churches and other religious groups on same-sex marriage

The full text of the decision is available on the court's website. . .

Was Judge In California's Gay Marriage Case Truly Impartial?

Was Judge In California's Gay Marriage Case Truly Impartial? FOX News, By Gerard V. Bradley, August 05, 2010
I wrote in this space yesterday that if Judge Vaughan Walker is in a committed same-sex relationship – and there is credible evidence that he is – then a question about his impartiality in the Proposition 8 trial arises. I explained that Judge Walker could potentially benefit from his own ruling, at least if he and his partner harbor an interest in marrying. I concluded by saying, not that Judge Walker was guilty of bias, but by lamenting that the question had not been frankly explored in a timely way. Then I went out for the evening. Upon my return late last night I found some unfavorable reactions lying in my Inbox. Some of these correspondents were misinformed; they had relied upon the New York Times’ misrepresentation of my remarks and not upon the remarks themselves in marking their target. There is nothing more that needs to be said about these misfires. There were all sorts of flaws in the reasoning of the other critics – when they deigned to offer reasons at all. Some simply alleged that my arguments stunk. Some added unimaginative insults. But even the ad hominem attackers had a point to make. It was basically the same as those who offered some reasons. They all denied (in effect) that there was evidence that Judge Walker was or even could be partial. Now that the decision in Perry v. Scwarzenegger is in hand, we can conduct a useful experiment to see (up to a point) who is right. We can now look at Judge Walker’s opinion and ask: is this the handiwork of an impartial and open mind on the subject of same-sex marriage? Or does the opinion rather resemble an ad hoc rationale for conclusions reached by its author – Judge Walker – on other grounds? You do not have to be a legal expert to conduct this experiment. You can even try it at home. Slog through Judge Walker’s 136-page opinion and then ask yourself: why does this document read like the battle report of a search-and-destroy mission? . . .

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: 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. . .

Judge strikes down Prop. 8, allows gay marriage in California [Updated] Los Angeles Times, August 04, 2010
A federal judge in San Francisco decided today that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, striking down Proposition 8, the voter approved ballot measure that banned same-sex unions. U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Updated at 1:54 p.m.: "Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment," the judge wrote. "Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation." Vaughn added: "Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States.“ Ultimately, the judge concluded that Proposition 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. … Because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”]. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Some Key Excerpts From the Proposition 8 Ruling Wall Street Journal, By Ashby Jones, August 04, 2010
Judge Vaughn Walker’s opinion in the Proposition 8 case is not short, clocking in at 136 pages. For now, here are some highlights, most of which come deep in the opinion, starting at about page 85.

    * Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society. (Page 85)

    * Proposition 8 has had a negative fiscal impact on California and local governments. (Page 90)

    * Proposition 8 increases costs and decreases wealth for same sex couples because of increased tax burdens, decreased availability of health insurance and higher transactions costs to secure rights and obligations typically associated with marriage. Domestic partnership reduces but does not eliminate
      these costs. (Page 91)

    * Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents. (Page 93)

    * Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology. (Page 95)

    * The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian. The reason children need to be protected from same-sex
      marriage was never articulated in official campaign advertisements. Nevertheless, the advertisements insinuated that learning about same-sex marriage could make a child gay or lesbian and that parents should dread having a gay or lesbian child. (Page 105). . .

RELATED DOCUMENT: Proposition 8 ruling

RELATED RESOURCE: 3:09-cv-02292 Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al: Challenge to "Proposition 8"

RELATED BLOG: Protect Marriage- Yes on 8 Blog

RELATED RESOURCE: Prop8Case.com

RELATED STATEMENT: Prop. 8 Case Strikes at the Heart of Democracy Concerned Women for America (CWA), August 04, 2010
Today, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker handed down his much expected decision on Prop. 8 (Perry v. Schwarzenegger) declaring unconstitutional California’s constitutional provision defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), said: “Judge Walker’s decision goes far beyond homosexual ‘marriage’ to strike at the heart of our representative democracy. Judge Walker has declared, in effect, that his opinion is supreme and ‘We the People’ are no longer free to govern ourselves. The ruling should be appealed and overturned immediately. “Marriage is not a political toy. It is too important to treat as a means for already powerful people to gain preferred status or acceptance. Marriage between one man and one woman undergirds a stable society and cannot be replaced by any other living arrangement. “Citizens of California voted to uphold marriage because they understood the sacred nature of marriage and that homosexual activists use same-sex ‘marriage’ as a political juggernaut to indoctrinate young children in schools to reject their parent’s values and to harass, sue and punish people who disagree. “CWA stands in prayer for our nation as we continue to defend marriage as the holy union God created between one man and one woman.”. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Stars Celebrate Overturning of California's Gay Marriage Ban People magazine, By Eunice Oh, August 04, 2010
It's been a heavily debated topic for almost two years but it took just a few seconds for celebrities to Tweet their cheers when Proposition 8, a ballot measure passed in November 2008 that banned same-sex marriages in California, was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge. Here's what Hollywood had to say after U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker in San Francisco struck down Prop 8:. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Prop 8 ruling drives strong religious reactions: Outrage to joy USA Today- Faith & Reason, By Cathy Lynn Grossman, August 04, 2010
Proposition 8, banning gay marriage, has been overturned by U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker. He is short and sharp on the matter of religion, saying gay marriage does no harm to traditional beliefs. But that text was far down in a 130+ page decision and religious voices reacted immediately to the ruling Wednesday afternoon with statements of sadness, outrage and joy. . .

RELATED QUOTE ". . . The 1967 case, Loving v. Virginia case, which ended bans on interracial marriage in the remaining 16 states that still had such laws, is IRRELEVANT to the arguments for same-sex marriage because the definition of marriage was not in dispute. Having the right to enter into marriage is not the same as having a right to make up your own definition. Nobody has a right to demand that society make up bogus definitions for marriage — or pretend that it doesn't matter which two people enter into such an arrangement — just to accommodate a tiny sector of the population's peculiar ideology. Moreover, the Loving v. Virginia case, while declaring, Marriage to be one of the "basic civil rights of man," also decared it to be "fundamental to our very existence and survival", which begs the question: How does same-sex marriage accomodate, or is fundamental to, our survival and very existence when two people of the same sex cannot reproduce?. . ." The Real Proposal magazine, June 14, 2010

RELATED QUOTE:
"...What makes this case different than any previous marriage case is that it involves a federal court and the United States Constitution. They're asking a federal court to overturn a state amendment based on the federal constitution. This is like the 'Roe v. Wade' of marriage. If the Supreme Court gets involved and says the US Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage, then every state law defining marriage as between one man and one woman is unconstitutional. All 30 state marriage amendments that currently exist would be overturned in one decision, and then every state in the union would be forced to perform and license same-sex marriage..." Bruce Hausknecht, Judicial Analyst- FOTF Action, January 12, 2010.

RELATED ARTICLE: ADF: American Bar Association can’t speak for all American lawyers on same-sex ‘marriage’ Alliance Defense Fund Media, August 04, 2010
— Two groups representing thousands of attorneys nationwide are disputing claims by the American Bar Association that it speaks for the legal profession in its plans to endorse same-sex “marriage” later this week. Attorneys associated with the Alliance Defense Fund and National Lawyers Association point out that about three-quarters of American lawyers don’t even belong to the ABA, and many actively work to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In addition, National Lawyers Association President John G. Farnan is urging several thousand lawyers in its database to individually voice their objection directly to the ABA, which will decide at its national convention in San Francisco Aug. 5-10 whether it will adopt a policy that urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all legal barriers to radically redefine marriage. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Katherine Kersten: Gay-marriage efforts build, ominously: If it becomes the law of the land, expect wide-ranging consequences. Star Tribune, By Katherine Kersten, July 17, 2010
Is same-sex marriage just over the horizon in Minnesota? Many say yes. A suit to legalize it has been filed in Hennepin County, and a slew of bills on the subject were introduced in the last legislative session. All the Democratic candidates for governor -- along with Independent Tom Horner -- endorse gay marriage. At the national level, a federal judge in Massachusetts recently ruled unconstitutional the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Any day now, a federal judge in California is expected to strike down Proposition 8, which was endorsed in 2008 by California voters and defined marriage as a male-female institution in the state's constitution. Same-sex marriage supporters assure us that redefining marriage is no big deal. "How will my same-sex marriage hurt you?" they ask, expecting the answer to be "it doesn't." Don't believe it. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Same-Sex Marriage — Challenges & Responses   Townhall.com, By Gregory Koukl, February 11, 2007
Unfortunately, addressing this issue requires refined distinctions and careful thinking that are easily overwhelmed by sound-byte rhetoric and broad, indiscriminate appeals to “rights.” What follows is a point-by-point reply to those who are demanding this revision of civilization.
Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Rights:
1. “We’re being denied the same rights as heterosexuals. This is unconstitutional discrimination.”
There are two complaints here. First, homosexuals don’t have the same legal liberties heterosexuals have. Second, homosexual couples don’t have the same legal benefits as married couples. The first charge is simply false. Any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned matrimony. He just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions all citizens share equally. I realize that for homosexuals this is a profoundly unsatisfying response, but it is a legitimate one, nonetheless. Let me illustrate. . .

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. . .

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: CW’s ‘18 to Life’ Puts Spotlight on Teen Marriage — For Better or Worse Wall Street Journal, By Megan Angelo, August 02, 2010
A lot goes down in the premiere of the new CW series “18 to Life,” the drama adapted from a Canadian hit. In the first scene, eighteen-year-old Tom proposes to Jessie, the girl next door. By the end of the episode, they’re hitched. I know what you’re thinking: somebody’s knocked up. But nobody is. And that’s a good thing — right? When a pop-culture tide brought us “Juno” and “Knocked Up,” critics decried the glamorization of out-of-wedlock pregnancy. A show about teens getting married just because they’re in love should make us all feel good. Shouldn’t it? Watch and decide for yourself — but stick around for episode two before you decide. It’s then that Jessie and Tom settle into married life — and man, do they settle in. She bosses him around. He becomes instantly crotchety. All of this would be enough to undermine the show’s appeal. But what makes it really hard to watch is Tom and Jessie’s casual discourse on sex. They’re not youth group lifers who tied the knot so they could get it on. We learn that they were sexually active before marriage, and they’ll be sexually active after it. When Jessie confesses to having once slept with another guy, her exasperated excuse is: “It was like, two years ago” — when she was 16. Once settled in their marital home, Tom and Jessie are all over each other. There are many cringe-inducing references to “christening the new place.” Never mind that their “new place” is actually the attic of Tom’s parents’ home. What is it that makes this so creepy, even though the kids have made it legal? It’s that they’re still kids. And even actors can’t mask the fact that it’s unnatural to watch kids behave like they’re as entitled to sex as they are to silly bands. Somehow, trying to legitimize the whole thing only makes it worse — and usually, the CW doesn’t try. It’s way weirder to watch these two wholesome, suburban teens crawl into bed together than it is to watch the extravagant sexual exploits of the high schoolers on “Gossip Girl” or “90210.” That’s because both shows have a consistent unreal quality: set in high school, but not really true to it. Viewers sense that they can’t get away with those characters’ moral codes any more than they can their dress codes. So they don’t try. That’s not to say teens don’t make bad calls based on hormones — of course they do. But unlike Tom and Jessie, they generally don’t abandon their families, friends and future plans to have, as Tom gleefully puts it, “sex on tap 24/7!” That advantage seems little comfort to young, real-life newlyweds making a go of it because they have a baby – people like Bristol Palin, whose triumphant re-engagement has already been marred by rumors of Levi Johnston fathering another child, and the struggling stars of the MTV reality series “Teen Mom.” Because of Palin and her peers, many teens already have an inkling of how hard taking on grownup life before you’re done growing up can be. . .

The weekend's biggest wedding? It wasn't Chelsea Clinton's - it was an Indian ceremony in New Jersey (Click for Related Video)

The weekend's biggest wedding? It wasn't Chelsea Clinton's - it was an Indian ceremony in New Jersey NY Daily News, By Aliyah Shahid, August 2nd 2010
They didn't close any roads or airspace, but when it comes to raw numbers, a Jersey Shore wedding outdid Chelsea Clinton's -- big time. And there wasn't even a breath of Snooki. Welcome to Shweta Parikh and Nirav Patel's wedding in Lakewood, New Jersey. While around 500 guests assembled in Rhinebeck for Chelsea's big day, 650 people gathered in Lakewood over four days, where the scale and spectacle rivaled the very best of Bollywood. The bride changed outfits five times, culminating in her 18-foot, deep-red silk wedding sari, worn to Saturday's ceremony. There, her bridal party was resplendent in embroidered saris in lush blues, greens, magentas and golds. The groom was decked out in a gold and red sherwani and entered the affair on a white horse adorned with bells, a bejeweled headpiece and a beaded saddle. The hall was filled with thousands of rose petals and orchids flown in from Thailand. The wedding canopy was made of silk patterned with thousands of crystals. At dinner, there were fifteen entrees, like paneer makhani (a cheese and tomato vegetarian dish) and malai kofta, (cheese and dried fruit dumplings in gravy), accompanied by 3,000 pieces of naan bread and 1,500 pieces of poori bread for guests to mop up their plates. Guests flew in from all over the world -- 11 states and 5 countries. And the music? Chelsea Clinton had the Etta James classic "At Last" - the same number Beyonce sang to President and Mrs. Obama at his inaugural ball. On the Shore they played Bon Jovi. And while there's no word on Chelsea Clinton's honeymoon location, the Patels will be heading to Paris and Malta. Parikh, 27, and Patel, 29, both first-generation Indian-Americans living in New Jersey, first met in 2002 after being introduced by a mutual friends. They were in relationships at the time but Parikh made an impression. "I thought, 'Wow! That is a pretty girl!'" Patel recalls. About six years later, they ran into one another at a barbeque, and bonded over a shared love of Bon Jovi. Patel, a pharmaceutical sales manager from Garwood, said he'd call Parikh when he scored some tickets to a coming Bon Jovi show. He called the next day -- even though he didn't have tickets. "Actually, there wasn't even a concert," recalls Patel. "It was a terrible line." He asked the accountant to dinner. . .

Woman As Folly
I hope God doesn't see me the way I see 'The Real Housewives.' Christianity Today, By Jana Chapman Gates, August 02, 2010
Last year, I traded a New York City apartment for a house in a Midwestern cornfield. After living on the East Coast for nearly a decade, I didn't know what to expect from the dramatic change of scenery. The thought crossed my mind that the move might show me something new about America. It ended up showing me something new about God. On a wintry Wednesday night in our new Midwestern life, I wasn't expecting anything out of the ordinary when my husband and I gathered with a few friends from church for Bible study. We'd just started a DVD-based study about marriage, and as we pushed play to begin the lesson, I glanced down at a photocopied handout with the speaker's key points. On the white page in front of me, I read excerpted verses that played like a study in the overuse of ellipses:

Gen. 3:17— Then to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife … "

Deut. 13:6— If … the wife you cherish … entice you secretly, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods … "

. . . . I couldn't believe this was being discussed as a legitimate idea. I wanted to ask if he really thought that women are blinder than men to their own foibles. Instead, I stared ahead and tried to think of a constructive response. And then I remembered. I do know a few women who might fit the description of the "woman of folly" in Proverbs 9. I'm usually too incredulous to speak up when they behave outrageously. But that's also because I watch them on-screen, on the reality show The Real Housewives. It's an expanding franchise that started in Orange County and now includes programs based in New York and Atlanta. As a Los Angeles Times writer described the series, "The general premise—that if you put a group of well-off women together, they will spend their time buying luxury goods, obsessing about their appearance and stabbing each other in the back—is, essentially, misogyny on a stick." Of course, it's these very qualities that make the housewives celebrities, in the newest evolution of the word. Celebrity is now defined not by accomplishment or talent but by bad behavior. We're less fascinated by on-screen glamour in the style of Lauren Bacall, and more preoccupied by off-screen antics in the style of Lindsay Lohan. The cast of The Real Housewives seem to revel in their foolishness, but their misdeeds are perhaps a lesser offense than my confession that I enjoy their company. . .

Woman As Folly: I hope God doesn't see me the way I see 'The Real Housewives.'

RELATED SITE: Bravo TV

RELATED ARTICLE: Television review: 'The Real Housewives of New Jersey': Danielle Staub and her castmates/enemies behave badly. It can't be good for the kids. Los Angeles Times, By Mary McNamara, Television Critic, May 03, 2010|
The "Real Housewives" franchise has always been more than a little troubling. The general premise — that if you put a group of well-off women together, they will spend their time buying luxury goods, obsessing about their appearance and stabbing each other in the back — is, essentially, misogyny on a stick. Which doesn't mean it isn't entertaining; for three and a half minutes last year, I thought I liked the New Jersey version, mostly because the women were actually related, which made their relationships seem less like diva-casting, and two or three of them were mildly recognizable as actual wives and mothers. But Danielle Staub, cast as the villain of the piece, quickly overshadowed anything else that might be afoot in Franklin Lakes. A book written by her ex revealed a past that seemed to include drugs, kidnapping and a stint as a paid escort. Yes, this is New Jersey, but Staub and her sordid back story took the franchise way beyond the usual arc of upper-middle-class cattiness and mild drunken debauchery. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Dream Girl New York Times, By Daphne Merkin, April 5, 2010
Much as we might rag on it, the awful truth must be looked at head-on: Reality TV, that fiction of verisimilitude, is, even for people who read W. G. Sebald and enjoy grim Scottish films with subtitles, supernally addictive. Not always and (let’s hope!) not forever, but in the right now of it. Sure, sometimes one is simply not in the mood for all that virtual id, the jawing and bitching, the glaring white teeth and the faux familiarity. And it is possible to envision a day in the not-too-far-off future when one might return to an old-fashioned pastime, like doing one’s nails, over the vicarious pleasures of comparing and contrasting the suntans and blown-out blondness that beset the Real Housewives of Orange County. Meanwhile, though, one stays tuned, fascinated by the mindless commotion, caught on the hook of the souped-up dramas that barge into every episode, unsure whether one is watching a version of oneself or a counter-version or perhaps an alternate version. Which brings me to the question: Who might one be if one were to be played by a reality-show star? Who might one want to be?. . .

'I'm so in love!': Bachelorette Ali accepts proposal after choosing Roberto in romantic finale

'I'm so in love!': Bachelorette Ali accepts proposal after choosing Roberto in romantic finale The Daily Mail- UK, By Daily Mail Reporter, August 03, 2010
She endured heartache and humiliation during a drama-filled season, but it was a happy ending for Ali Fedotowsky on tonight's finale of The Bachelorette. The 25-year-old became engaged to insurance agent Roberto Martinez, 26, against a romantic Tahitian backdrop after choosing him over landscaper Chris Lambton, 33. While dropping to one knee, Roberto said: 'I want to make you smile. I want to make sure you wake up every morning for the rest of your life knowing that you're so, so loved. 'Share your life with me. Be my wife. Will you marry me?' Quashing wide-spread rumours she ended the show alone, an emotional Ali immediately replied: 'Yes!' Before he popped the question, she admitted: 'I am in love with Roberto. The love I have for him is so strong, I couldn't possibly be wrong. 'I don't know what I did in this life to deserve his love.' He slipped a dazzling Neil Lane diamond ring onto her finger and swept her up in a huge embrace. But the former Facebook employee, who started her search for love with 25 suitors, did initially agonise over her final pick. 'They’re both great guys,' she said at the start of the show. 'But I need to pick who’s right for me.' Her final date with Roberto helped to make her decision crystal clear. The pair enjoyed a day of jet-skiing, swimming among a school of stingrays and picnic on a private beach. They shared intense kisses in the rain, with Ali calling him one of the 'sexiest men' she's ever met. 'My heart is exploding,' she said. 'Everything I came here to find, I found in Roberto.' . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 'The Bachelorette: After the Final Rose': Ali and Roberto Talk Marriage, Chris Gets Closure BuddyTV, By Meghan Carlson, August 02, 2010
On tonight's Bachelorette finale, Ali (to quote Chris Harrison) "broke the rules again" when, after introducing both final men to her family and going on a romantic Last Chance Date with Roberto, she let go of Chris before his final date and the Final Rose Ceremony. (Read the full Bachelorette live recap for all my color commentary on tonight's two-hour finale.) But for a woman who broke the rules, Ali came out smelling like roses, and got everything she wanted: The man of her dreams, a beautiful proposal and no dumping (and therefore no tears) on the day of her engagement. She even managed to keep the love and respect of Chris, who thanked her for letting him go and sparing his feelings before the big day. That's called "breaking the rules"? Maybe Mike Fleiss and his Bachelor minions should change the rules. During tonight's The Bachelorette: After the Final Rose, Chris Harrison spoke with Ali, her new fiance Roberto and Chris about those final days in Tahiti, and it was all smiles and hugs--even from Chris, who may not have "cemented those feelings" with Ali like he hoped in Bora Bora, but who certainly cemented his place as America's #1 choice for the next Bachelor. Frank the No-Show: First, happily engaged Ali joined Chris to talk about tonight's finale. Before he could let her get to the good stuff, Chris Harrison had to ask Ali about Frank, the guy who flew to Tahiti only to immediately bolt for his not-so-ex-girlfriend back in Chicago. Chris Harrison said that Frank was originally supposed to appear on the After the Final Rose special, but backed out at the last minute. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: If You're Thinking of Marrying Part I Townhall.com, By Dennis Prager, December 6, 2005
      Decades of radio counseling, personal experience, and public and private discussions about marriage prompt me to write this list of questions for anyone contemplating marriage.
       1. Is the person your best friend or at least becoming so?
It is easy to find a lover. It is easy to get excited about a new person. But if you cannot say that the person you are considering marrying has become or is becoming your best friend, you need to figure out why before you decide to marry. This is probably the single most overlooked question among couples, especially young ones. . . . . One of the most devastating ideas of the last generation was that needing or depending upon another person is a sign of weakness. The opposite is true. The inability to need is a sign of weakness -- you are afraid to relinquish power or afraid to be hurt.
        2. Aside from sex, do you enjoy each other?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: If You're Thinking of Marrying- Part II Townhall.com, DC, By Dennis Prager, December 13, 2005
      It is exceptionally difficult to find the right person to marry. This is especially true for first marriages. That is why it is so important to think through your decision by asking and answering critical questions. In Part I, I offered five. Here are seven more:
      6. What problems do the two of you now have? And what inner voice of doubt, if any, are you suppressing? Here is a rule that is rarely broken: Whatever problems you have before the wedding day, you will have during your marriage. Do not think that marrying will solve any problem you have with the person. You therefore have three choices: Make peace with the problem, see if it can be solved before deciding to marry, or don't marry the person. It is imperative that you be ruthlessly honest with yourself. And that is very hard. Nothing in life is easier than denying problems when you are in love. That is why it is important to pay attention to inner doubts.
      7. How often do you fight? . . .

Chelsea Clinton's Interfaith Marriage Challenge: Kids, Holidays, Soul-Searching
Chelsea Clinton is a Methodist, Marc Mezvinsky is Jewish; The Obstacles They May Face ABC News, By Luchina Fisher, August 02, 2010
Now that they have officially said "I do," Chelsea Clinton and husband Marc Mezvinsky have joined the growing ranks of interfaith marriages. Mezvinsky, 32, is Jewish, while Clinton, 30, was raised Methodist, like her mother Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Their Saturday ceremony, which was co-officiated by Rabbi James Ponet, a Jewish chaplain at Yale, and the Rev. William Shillady, a Methodist minister from New York City, was a nod to both their faiths. It featured many Jewish traditions: the couple married under a chuppah or canopy; the groom wore a yarmulke or skull cap and tallis or prayer shawl; friends and family recited the Seven Blessings typically read at traditional Jewish weddings. "To me that's an indication that the groom identifies Jewishly," Edmund Case, the head of InterfaithFamily.com told ABCNews.com. "It's also apparent that Chelsea must have been fine with it or it wouldn't have happened. Also, given the prominence of her famiy, they must have been accepting of it." There were concessions to Clinton's faith, as well. Besides the inclusion of a Methodist minister, the ceremony took place before sunset, the official end of the Jewish sabbath. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Chelsea Clinton's Interfaith Ceremony Ends Wedding Speculation, But Not Marriage Debate BeliefNet, August 02, 2010

RELATED VIDEO: 'Secretive' Clinton Wedding Unveiled ABC News, August 01, 2010
Clinton and Mark Mezvinsky's wedding was top notch.

RELATED VIDEO: The Buzz: Picture Perfect Wedding FOX News, August 02, 2010
Chelsea Clinton and her longtime boyfriend were married over the weekend in an ultra private New York state wedding.

Chelsea Clinton marries Marc Mezvinsky! (Click for Related Video)

RELATED PHOTO ESSAY: Chelsea Clinton's Storybook Wedding People magaine, August 01, 2010
The former First Daughter says "I do" – and beams with joy. . .