'MARRIAGE' In The NEWS- February 2009: The REAL Proposal For Marriage magazine

9th Circuit Backs Church on Disclosure of Donors to Campaign Against Gay Marriage Law.com, By Cheryl Miller- The Recorder,
February 26, 2009
Attorneys trying to shield the names of donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign say a 9th Circuit ruling breathes new life into their so-far unsuccessful efforts. A three-judge panel in Seattle on Wednesday held that the state of Montana went too far in requiring an East Helena church to publicly disclose its financial involvement in a 2004 initiative campaign to ban same-sex marriage. . . . . .The panel did not suggest what level of contribution should trigger a campaign filing requirement. "The fixing of any such level is for the Montana authorities in the first instance," Canby wrote. "We are satisfied, however, that the application of Montana's disclosure requirements to the Church because of its de minimis activities in this case impermissibly infringes on the Church's free speech rights." James Bopp Jr., the Indiana attorney representing Yes on 8 donors, said the ruling has major implications for ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen. In that case, now before an Eastern District judge, Bopp argues that the public disclosure of pro-Prop 8 donor names has subjected them to ridicule, harassment and physical threats. On Jan. 30, U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. denied the donors' request for a preliminary injunction that would have shielded their identities. Bopp said Thursday that he's preparing new pleadings in the case based on the 9th Circuit's ruling. "The cavalry just came over the hillside," Bopp said. . . . . . Bopp appears to have a strong ally in Judge John Noonan Jr., who wrote a passionate concurrence to Canby's lead opinion. Noonan said "unregulated unregistered churches" are as important to American democracy as a free press. Strict disclosure laws like Montana's threaten churches' ability to confront society's "greatest issues," Noonan wrote, noting religious leaders' historic work in ending slavery and fighting for civil rights. "The memory of the memorable battles grows cold," Noonan wrote. "The liberals who applaud their outcomes and live in their light forget the motivation that drove the champions of freedom. They approve religious intervention in the political process selectively: It's great when it's on their side. "In a secular age, freedom of speech is more talismanic than freedom of religion. But the latter is the first freedom in our Bill of Rights. It is in terms of this first freedom that this case should be decided." . . .

9th Circuit Backs Church on Disclosure of Donors to Campaign Against Gay Marriage

RELATED SITE: Yes on 8 — Protect Marriage.com (Final Approval 52.3%)

RELATED SITE: Above the Hate
Please sign the petition below to join us as we stand together to say "Enough!" to the campaign of hate and intimidation being waged against the LDS Church and other supporters of California's Proposition 8

Bon Appetit Townhall.com, By George Will, February 26, 2009
Put down that cheeseburger and listen up: If food has become what sex was a generation ago -- the intimidatingly intelligent Mary Eberstadt says it has -- then a cheeseburger is akin to adultery, or worse. As eating has become highly charged with moral judgments, sex has become notably less so, and Eberstadt, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, thinks these trends involving two primal appetites are related. In a Policy Review essay "Is Food the New Sex?" -- it has a section titled "Broccoli, pornography, and Kant" -- she notes that for the first time ever, most people in advanced nations "are more or less free to have all the sex and food they want." One might think, she says, either that food and sex would both be pursued with an ardor heedless of consequences, or that both would be subjected to analogous codes constraining consumption. The opposite has happened -- mindful eating and mindless sex. . . . . If food is the new sex, Eberstadt asks, "where does that leave sex?" She says it leaves much of sex dumbed-down -- junk sex akin to junk food. It also leaves sexual attitudes poised for a reversal. Since Betty's era, abundant research has demonstrated that diet can have potent effects, beneficial or injurious. Now, says Eberstadt, an empirical record is being assembled about the societal costs of laissez-faire sex. Eberstadt says two generations of "social science replete with studies, surveys and regression analyses galore" have produced clear findings: "The sexual revolution -- meaning the widespread extension of sex outside of marriage and frequently outside commitment of any kind -- has had negative effects on many people, chiefly the most vulnerable; and it has also had clear financial costs to society at large.". . .

The men who put a spark back into the lives of heartbroken divorcees... but don't expect them to marry you The Daily Mail- UK, By Diana Appleyard, February 26, 2009
Jennifer Aniston calls them 'defibrillator men' - the lovers who put a spark back into the lives of heartbroken divorcees. Just one thing... don't expect them to marry you. . . . .The relationship Francine enjoyed with Michael was, she says, just what she needed to jolt her back to life emotionally and sexually following the drawn-out anguish of divorce. That's why men like Michael have been dubbed 'defibrillator men' - after the medical device for restarting hearts - because they provide the perfect opportunity for women bruised by a painful separation to be brought back to some kind of happiness. The phrase was coined recently by actress Jennifer Aniston when she announced that the actor and comedian Vince Vaughan had been her defibrillator man, after her painful divorce from Brad Pitt. 'He brought me back to life,' the actress said in an interview. 'He made me laugh, and put the spring back in my step.' From the viewpoint of most people, there seemed little chance that the somewhat chubby Vaughan was ever going to step into the shoes of her ex. But, like so many other women who have been through divorce. Aniston felt the need for a fling which wasn't going to go anywhere, but which would re-establish her faith in herself as a sexy, fun woman. Karen Mooney is a divorce expert and runs an introduction agency, Sara Eden, for professionals. She says: 'After divorce women feel deflated, they lack confidence and they are very wary of falling into the same trap again. In my experience, newly divorced women want a man as different from their ex-husband as possible. 'Jennifer Aniston choosing Vince Vaughan was a classic case. . .

Jennifer Aniston says Vince Vaughn was the 'defibrillator' she needed after the breakup of her relationship with Brad Pitt

RELATED ARTICLE: Jen Aniston and John Mayer: One Year Later and Still in Love People magazine, February 26, 2009

RELATED ARTICLE: Timeline of a Love Affair WebMD, By Martin F. Downs--Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
Being in love is a powerful experience unlike anything else. It's an altered state in which people think and act very differently than usual. Some people never get to experience it, but many of us do at least once in a lifetime. Those who have experienced it also know that the powerful rush doesn't last forever. And when those feelings end, the relationship often ends, too. Yet many couples manage to move on from that stage to keep their love affair going. We used to turn to poets for insight on the mysteries of love, but now we ask doctors and researchers. Science offers two basic ways of understanding love affairs. One is to look for what many different people in different love relationships tend to have in common. The other is to look at how chemicals in the brain mix to make us feel various emotions related to sex and love. But first things first. Just what is it that makes two people fall in love, hard and fast?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 10 Surprising Health Benefits of Love: Lower Blood Pressure, Fewer Colds, Better Stress Management Are Just the Beginning WebMD, By Sherry Rauh-- Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
“I need somebody to love,” sang the Beatles, and they got it right. Love and health are intertwined in surprising ways. Humans are wired for connection, and when we cultivate good relationships, the rewards are immense. But we’re not necessarily talking about spine-tingling romance. “There’s no evidence that the intense, passionate stage of a new romance is beneficial to health,” says Harry Reis, PhD, co-editor of the Encyclopedia of Human Relationships. "People who fall in love say it feels wonderful and agonizing at the same time.” All those ups and downs can be a source of stress. It takes a calmer, more stable form of love to yield clear health benefits. “There is very nice evidence that people who participate in satisfying, long-term relationships fare better on a whole variety of health measures,” Reis tells WebMD. Most of the research in this area centers on marriage, but Reis believes many of the perks extend to other close relationships -- for example, with a partner, parent, or friend. The key is to “feel connected to other people, feel respected and valued by other people, and feel a sense of belonging,” he says. Here are 10 research-backed ways that love and health are linked:. . .

Oscar Winner Says Marriage Advocates Should Feel Shame CitizenLink.org, February 23, 2009
As Sean Penn walked away with the Best Actor Oscar at Sunday's Academy Awards ceremony, he took the opportunity to throw stones at supporters of Proposition 8. “I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage,” Penn said, “to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that way of support.” In November, Californians approved Prop. 8, to amend their state constitution to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Focus on the Family research analyst Caleb Price said Penn took a page from the gay-activist playbook “After the Ball,” which was written in the late '80s. "It's all about making people feel shame for not thinking, feeling or acting like one of the pack," Price said. "And this is exactly what Sean Penn did in his Oscar acceptance speech." "Milk," starring Penn, was nominated for eight Academy Awards; it won two. The California Supreme Court will consider a legal challenge to Prop. 8 in March.

RELATED BLOG: Sean Penn, 'Milk' writer continue talking politics backstage Chicago Sun Times Blog, By Thomas Conneron, February 23, 2008

RELATED VIDEO: Screenwriter for gay-activist movie 'Milk': Very soon--I promise--you will have = rights federally. You Tube.com

RELATED INFO: Harvey Milk Wikipedia.com

Oscar Winner Sean Penn Says Marriage Advocates Should Feel Shame (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: Speechless: Silencing the Christians (Watch the 1-hr special here)
Two TV stations, WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids, MI and WSYX-TV in Columbus, OH, have banned a television special showing how the media is silencing Christians. The stations bowed down to the demands of a handful of homosexual activists and banned the showing of the TV special "Speechless...Silencing the Christians."

RELATED INFO: Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media MassResistance.org
Read below: The powerful, sophisticated psychological techniques that the homosexual movement has used to manipulate the public in the media. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Sean Penn's acceptance speech was anything but accepting South Florida Sun-Sentinel, By Gary Stein, February 23, 2009
I have no problem with Sean Penn and his causes. . . . What I can't buy, however, is Penn pompously and hypocritically ripping into protesters who were lining the streets near the Oscar show, apparently in favor of Proposition 8 and against gay marriage. In his speech, Penn tried to shame these people, belittle them, and basically shame anybody who might have supported Proposition 8, which passed in California. Fact is, the protesters were only exercising the same right that Sean Penn himself has exercised -- the right to assemble and protest. Sean Penn has long been a staunch anti-war protester. He has protested other causes. So if it's his cause, it's fine and ethical and moral to protest and make a statement. But if it's a cause that Penn doesn't like, then he doesn't like you protesting. Stick to acting, Sean. The hypocrisy in personal politics is showing. And it's not pretty.

RELATED BLOG: There it is! Big Hollywood.com, By Ben Shapiro, February 22, 2009
“Those who saw the signs of hatred, I think it is a good time for those who voted against gay marriage to contemplate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes. We need to have equal rights for everyone.”
Way to win over the opposition, Sean. And you can go to hell, you sanctimonious whiner. Perhaps in your magical little world, speaking to your best friends who already believe in gay marriage about gay marriage counts as courage. Perhaps in your magical little world, hanging out with Saddam and Chavez counts as courage, when they whisk you around town in limos while their citizens are murdered in secret prisons. Out here, the rest of us think you’re just preaching to the crowd, and that you’re an offensive political hack to boot — and not just that, you enable dictators who are guilty of human rights abuses of the worst sort. Nobody gets to get on their high horse about marriage after marrying Madonna.

RELATED ARTICLE: Welcome to “Fantasy Island” – ACLU Style Townhall.com, By Alan Sears, February 20, 2009
Well, the irony is that even while the ACLU is suing to allow communist indoctrination into public school libraries, it is suing to keep a lot of other books – which don’t line up with ACLU ideology – out. Want your child to learn about other views besides evolution? The ACLU says no. Evolution must be taught, and other options, such as intelligent design, must be silenced. Want your child to learn that marriage is the union of one man and one woman? The ACLU says no. “Alternative lifestyles” must reign supreme in the classroom – all in the name of tolerance and “diversity.” Want your child to learn that abstinence is the only 100-percent effective way to prevent teen pregnancy? The ACLU says no. Schoolchildren must learn how to engage in potentially harmful sexual behaviors at any time and any place. When it’s something the ACLU wants your children to learn, regardless how inaccurate the presentation, they will sue to silence parents and force-feed their leftist view of “education” on America’s children. . .

Is a Reconciliation on Gay Marriage Possible?

A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage   New York Times, By David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch, February 21, 2009
In politics, as in marriage, moments come along when sensitive compromise can avert a major conflict down the road. The two of us believe that the issue of same-sex marriage has reached such a point now. We take very different positions on gay marriage. We have had heated debates on the subject. Nonetheless, we agree that the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead. It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill. For those not immersed in the issue, our proposal may seem puzzling. For those deeply immersed, it may seem suspect. So allow us a few words by way of explanation. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  A Compromise on Gay Marriage Opposing Views, By Laurie Higgins, February 25, 2009
The government has one concern with marriage. The government seeks to support that institution that best serves the needs of the state. Our government, which reflects the collective wisdom and will of its citizenry, has rightly determined that the institution that best serves the needs of a healthy society is that which best serves the needs of children who are essential to the future success of any nation. And what best serves the needs of children is to be raised, when possible, by their biological parents. . . . . . The fact that marriage is inextricably bound up in contractual obligations, often pertaining to financial issues, reflects the government's interest in protecting and preserving the natural family. The government has no legitimate interest in whether marital partners love each other. If the sole purpose of marriage were to publicly recognize, institutionalize, or solemnize sexual attraction and/or emotional affiliation, the government would have no business being involved with marriage at all. The government has no vested interest in whether marital partners love each other. If society is going to regain a proper understanding of marriage, citizens must be disabused of the notion that the government's involvement in marriage has anything to do with sanctioning love. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Same-Sex Marriage — Challenges & Responses   Townhall.com, By Gregory Koukl, February 11, 2007
A few years ago, the L.A. Times quoted a homosexual mayor in New York State dismissing the cultural significance of same-sex marriage. “I’ve never heard of anyone’s life being destroyed because someone got married,” he sniffed. Reading this assertion charitably (he couldn’t have meant no one’s life was ever destroyed by marriage), I take it this government official was mystified by the idea that anything bad could come of men marrying men or women marrying women. I immediately knew I was listening to a man who didn’t understand a simple truth: Ideas have consequences. In the case of same-sex marriage, the consequences will be massive. . . . . 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. . .

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

A Preteen's Pro-Life Speech Goes Viral (Click for Related Video)

Preteen pro-life speech goes viral OneNewsNow, By Pete Chagnon, February 20, 2009
The mother of a 12-year-old girl whose pro-life speech has become a hit YouTube video says her daughter's passion for the unborn is genuine. Lia is a preteen from Canada who decided to speak out against abortion in her school's speech contest, despite teachers and school officials who encouraged her to pick a different topic. "What if I told you that right now someone was choosing if you were going to live or die? What if I told you that this choice wasn't based on what you could or couldn't do, what you had done in the past, or what you would do in the future? And what if I told you [that] you could nothing about it? Fellow students and teachers, thousands of children are right now in that very situation," she says in her speech. Kimberly, Lia's mother, says Lia was told by school officials that if she chose the topic of abortion, she would not be allowed to participate in the speech contest. But both were surprised when Lia's pro-choice teacher had a change of heart. "Her teacher was really impressed by this speech and perhaps moved by it, and therefore her teacher kind of was a real supporter of [Lia] winning for the class," Kimberly notes. "And she had to go through a couple of hoops and get clearance from a couple of other teachers before she could be declared winner of the class." Another controversy erupted when the panel of judges had a supposed big disagreement and one stepped down. Initially Lia was disqualified, but later the panel declared her the winner. . .

RELATED VIDEO: 12-year-old speaks out on the issue of abortion

RELATED BROADCAST: Life: An inalienable right

RELATED ARTICLE: Unborn Child Saved by 12-Year-Old's Popular Pro-Life Presentation LifeSiteNews.com, By Kathleen Gilbert, February 18, 2009
Though 12-year-old Lia's popular pro-life presentation did not win a regional speech competition last night, she and her family are celebrating what they call the "best trophy ever" - the saving of an unborn life, after Lia's words convinced a stranger not to abort her child. . . . .Lia's mother told Matt Lockett of the Moral Outcry blog that Lia presented the speech at the regional contest flawlessly, and though many testified to hers being the strongest speech, the family believed she likely lost because she spoke on the topic of abortion. After learning she had lost the competition, Lia's mother wrote: "Lia wasn't really that upset though, especially when she considered that the only difference between winning the competition and not winning was having a couple extra pictures taken and being given a small trophy. "Lia has a much bigger trophy - somebody commented to us on our YouTube account that her aunt watched Lia's video and decided to NOT have an abortion because of it. . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The SLED Test – Four Top Arguments Heartlink.org, By Steve Wagner
We all agree that toddlers are valuable human beings with rights. Yet the unborn differ from toddlers in only four ways, and the first letters of each of these differences spell an easy-to-remember acronym, SLED (Size, Level of Development, Environment, Degree of Dependency).

RELATED SITE: THE CASE FOR LIFE: Like You Have Never Heard It Before
Only One Issue: The abortion controversy is not a debate between those who are pro-choice and those who are anti-choice. It’s not about privacy or trusting women. To the contrary, the debate turns on one key question. What is the Unborn?

RELATED SITE: Abort73.com: The Case Against Abortion

RELATED VIDEO: This is Abortion RATED: MA (Mature Audiences Only)
WARNING: Contains graphic post-abortion pictures. Be Warned! The Visual Evidence is Disturbing.

The Palin Parable -- Bristol Says Abstinence "Not Realistic At All" CrossWalk.com, By Albert Mohler, February 19, 2009
Bristol Palin is back in the headlines, and some Americans may be shocked. Bristol told Fox News that teenagers should not have sex. However, she also said that sexual abstinence for teens is "not realistic at all." These comments seem contradictory, but the national media immediately leapt upon Bristol's apparent rejection of sexual abstinence as an expectation for teenagers. To her credit, she maintained a clear pro-life perspective, even as she admitted the difficulty of being a teenage mother. But the rejection of sexual abstinence as "not realistic at all" caught many off guard. . . . . But, leaving Bristol's personal situation aside for now, her comment deserves a closer look. Is sexual abstinence realistic for teenagers and young adults? Well, abstinence is certainly not realistic when teenagers put themselves or are put into a situation where sexual activity is likely. At some point, sexual abstinence becomes very unrealistic indeed. The real issue for Christian teenagers and their parents is not to debate whether sexual abstinence before marriage is realistic or not. The larger and more important issue is that sexual abstinence until marriage is the biblical expectation and command. Once this is realized, the responsibility of all concerned is to ensure that expectations and structures are in place so that abstinence is realistic. The debate over whether abstinence is realistic or not misses the more important issue -- abstinence must be made realistic. . .

The Pailn Parable -- Bristol Says 'Abstinence Not Realistic At All' (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: Bristol Palin 'On the Record' FOX News

RELATED ARTICLE: Bristol Palin: Teen Abstinence 'Not Realistic at All' People magazine, By Stephen M. Silverman, February 17, 2009

RELATED ARTICLE: America's Teens: Not As Raunchy or Irresponsible as You Think Townhall.com, By Michael Medved, February 25, 2009

RELATED STUDY: The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and for All Fifty States AmericanValues.org, By Benjamin Scafidi, Principal Investigator, April 15, 2008
In first-ever research, a new report quantifies a minimum $112 billion annual taxpayer cost from high rates of divorce and unmarried childbearing. It identifies national, state and local costs which account for more than $1 trillion in the last decade. This landmark scholarly study, entitled “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and All 50 States,” was released on April 15th at the National Press Club by four renowned policy and research groups—Institute for American Values, Georgia Family Council, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and Families Northwest. “This study documents for the first time, that divorce and unwed childbearing—besides being bad for children—are also costing taxpayers a ton of money,” said David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values. “Even a small improvement in the health of marriage in America would result in enormous savings to taxpayers,” he continued. “For example, a 1 percent reduction in rates of family fragmentation would save taxpayers $1.1 billion.”. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: "The Myth of Rampant Teenage Promiscuity," New York Times, By Tara Parker-Pope, January 26, 2009
Have American teenagers gone wild? Parents have worried for generations about changing moral values and risky behavior among young people, and the latest news seems particularly worrisome. It came from the National Center for Health Statistics, which reported this month that births to 15- to 19-year-olds had risen for the first time in more than a decade. . . . The news is troubling, but it’s also misleading. While some young people are clearly engaging in risky sexual behavior, a vast majority are not. The reality is that in many ways, today’s teenagers are more conservative about sex than previous generations. . .

Pro-Life African-American Pastor, Walter Hoye, Sentenced to Jail for Opposing Abortion on Public Sidewalk (Click for Related Video)

African American Pastor Sentenced to Jail for Opposing Abortion on Public Sidewalk Christian Newswire, Contact: Dana Cody, Executive Director, Life Legal Defense Foundation, February 19, 2009
-- Today the Rev. Walter Hoye of Berkeley, California was sentenced to serve 30-days in county jail by Judge Hing of the Alameda Superior Court after being found guilty on January 15, 2009, of unlawfully approaching a person entering an abortion clinic in Oakland. The court is allowing Rev. Hoye to serve his time by an alternative method like community service. Reverend Hoye was fined a total of $1,130 and ordered to stay away from the clinic. Dozens in the African-American community from around the nation who came out in support of Rev. Hoye were outraged by the sentence. The consensus of these leaders is that it was a travesty that Rev. Hoye was found guilty in the first place for standing in the gap for black children targeted by the abortion industry. Now they are simply enraged. . . . . . Rev. Hoye is an African-American pastor who feels a special calling to work for the end of the genocide-by-abortion taking place in the African-American community. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Pastor sentenced for Oakland abortion protest San Francisco Chronicle, By Henry K. Lee, February 19, 2009
A pastor at a Berkeley church was sentenced Thursday to three years' probation and fined $1,000 after becoming the first person convicted under an Oakland ordinance barring protesters from coming within 8 feet of anyone entering an abortion clinic. Walter Hoye could have faced up to two years in jail after a jury convicted him last month of two misdemeanor counts of unlawfully approaching patients at the Family Planning Specialists Medical Group at Second and Webster streets at Jack London Square. The case was an emotional one, and pro-choice and anti-abortion advocates jammed the Oakland courtroom for the sentencing hearing Thursday. Dozens of people unable to find seats filled the hallway outside. . . . . [Judge Stuart] Hing asked if Hoye would abide by an order requiring him to stay 100 yards away from the Oakland clinic, and the pastor said no. The judge then imposed the stay-away order, fined Hoye and sentenced him to three years of probation and 30 days in jail. Hoye can serve his time in a sheriff's work detail or by volunteering. After Hoye said he didn't agree with the sentence, the judge said it would be imposed anyway. That prompted an angry outburst . . .

RELATED VIDEO: Walter's Story YouTube.com

RELATED SITE: Issues4Life

RELATED VIDEO: Planned Parenthood Exposed (Exposed!) YouTube- LiveAction Films

RELATED VIDEO: Planned Parenthood Racism Investigation Part 1 Part 2 YouTube

RELATED ARTICLE & COMMENTS: Root of nation's economic crisis is moral crisis OneNewsNow, By Star Parker, February 16, 2009
A travesty of justice has occurred in Oakland, California. But realities surrounding this local issue point to how the economic crisis in our nation is symptomatic of and flows from a deeper fundamental moral crisis. A black pastor awaits sentencing, which could amount to two years in prison and $4,000 in fines, for standing outside an inner city abortion clinic holding a sign saying "Jesus Loves You & Your Baby, Let Us Help You," and offering pro-life literature. Walter Hoye, founder and chairman of the Issues4Life Foundation, was found guilty of "unlawful approach" under the "Access to Reproductive Health Care Facilities Ordinance" enacted in Oakland in 2008. . . . . .The stated purpose of the Oakland ordinance, which may send Walter Hoye to jail, is to protect "right of privacy." "Right of privacy" of teenage girls not old enough to vote, but who can get a state-funded abortion without informing a parent. Yet the first amendment of our Constitution no longer protects the freedom of a pastor to peaceably stand in front of an abortion clinic and tell these lost young women there is another way. Something is wrong in America today. Very, very wrong. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Berkeley Preacher calls for blacks to fight abortion San Francisco Chronicle, By Leslie Fulbright, January 7, 2008
Saying they are faced with a civil rights crisis that demands immediate attention, African American anti-abortion advocates will hold three events in the Bay Area later this month in an aggressive push to combat the high number of abortions among black women. "The abortion issue is huge. It is the Darfur of America," and it's time to educate the public about it, said Walter Hoye, a Berkeley preacher who founded the Issues4Life Foundation, a recently formed Union City-based organization intent on drafting more African Americans into the fight against abortion. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Born at just 23 weeks, the baby who defied our abortion laws The Daily Mail- UK, December 30, 2008
When Lexie Slater-Folksman was born at 23 weeks - an age at which babies can still be aborted - she weighed just 1lb 8oz. She was put on a life support machine and her parents were warned their daughter might not pull through. She was so premature her eyes hadn't even developed properly. . . . . Anti-abortion campaigners had argued the time limit for termination was too long, saying a baby's rights should be considered at the point it had the 'chance of life'. It is a stance Miss Slater shares. Speaking at the family home in Wigan, she said: 'We're so glad to have Lexie home with us at last and it just shows how outmoded our laws on abortion are. 'Some mothers-to-be would be able to legally terminate their pregnancy at 23 weeks - yet my Lexie is living proof babies can survive being born so prematurely. 'I never realised a baby would be so well developed at 23 weeks and they do have a chance of life.'. .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger's EUGENIC Plan for Black Americans Life Education And Resource Network (L.E.A.R.N), By Tanya L. Green
Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and "purity"," particularly of the "Aryan" race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the "fit" to reproduce and the "unfit" to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the "inferior" races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.

Federally funded ad campaign holds up value of marriage USA Today, By Sharon Jayson, February 17, 2009
Marriage has turned into quite a quandary for many young adults. Should they or shouldn't they? Can they escape divorce? Will moving in together forestall a breakup? These conflicted feelings haven't gone without notice in Washington. Carrie and Joe Burns of St. Louis are 24 and 26. They met when she was 16 and he was 18 and dated for eight years. Then they lived together for nine months. Then they were engaged an additional 18 months. They finally got married in August. For Katie D'Hondt, 18, of Grosse Pointe, Mich., "marriage isn't something I think about right now." The University of Michigan freshman hasn't yet even decided on a major. The average age at first marriage is now almost 26 for women and 28 for men. And a growing percentage of Americans aren't marrying at all: Provisional federal statistics released Tuesday report 7.1 marriages per 1,000 people in 2008, down from 10 per 1,000 in 1986. Faced with such numbers, the federal government is funding a $5 million national media campaign that launches this month, extolling the virtues of marriage for those ages 18 to 30. "We're not telling people 'Get married' but 'Don't underestimate the benefits of marriage,' " says Paul Amato, a Pennsylvania State University sociologist and adviser to the National Healthy Marriage Resource Center, which is spearheading the campaign. The resource center, a federally funded virtual clearinghouse, works under an agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families. Research suggests a bevy of benefits for those who marry, including better health, greater wealth and more happiness for the couple, and improved well-being for children. Some say the government has no business using tax dollars to promote marriage. But others say the campaign is just like those conducted by other federal agencies to encourage the use of seat belts and discourage drug use, smoking and drunken driving. With ads on social networking sites Facebook and MySpace, videos on YouTube, spots on radio talk shows, ads in magazines and public transportation and a new website (TwoOfUs.org), creators say the aim is to start a national conversation about marriage. . .

Federally funded ad campaign holds up value of marriage

RELATED SITE: TwoofUs

All My Children soap opera features TV's first lesbian wedding (Click for Related Video)

Soap features daytime TV's first lesbian wedding CNN.com, February 16, 2009
Story Highlights
* "All My Children" episode features characters who take part in a lesbian wedding
* Ceremony features both women wearing designer dresses and holding red roses
* Gay and lesbian groups hail the televised wedding as a victory
* At least one religious group expresses its disapproval of the nuptials
-- Lavish weddings on soap operas are commonplace -- beautiful, wealthy characters united amid copious tears, heaps of flowers and exquisite attire. Monday's ceremony on ABC's "All My Children" was much the same, except for the couple: Bianca Montgomery and Reese Williams, both wearing designer dresses, united in daytime television's first lesbian wedding. "When my character did first come out of the closet, there was a lot of negative reaction," said Eden Riegel, the actress who plays Bianca. Her character is the daughter of Erica Kane, a longtime mainstay on the show played by Susan Lucci. "People were very protective of Erica Kane's daughter, and I think that the beauty of the show is that we were able to reach people and get people sort of used to the idea," Riegel said. . .

RELATED VIDEO: Soap's first lesbian wedding CNN.com, February 16, 2009

RELATED ARTICLE: More Shows Try Going Both Ways This Fall PopEater.com, November 2, 2008
It seems like the writers of popular medical shows 'Grey's Anatomy' and 'House' have diagnosed their characters with an onset of sudden bisexuality. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Here Come the Brides: CNN Promotes a Social Engineering Soap Opera Newsbusters.org, By Colleen Raezler, February 16, 2009
In a bizarre leap of logic, CNN's John Roberts proposed same-sex marriage as "perhaps another path [that] needs to be taken" in response to high divorce rates. Roberts' comment during the Feb. 16 "American Morning." followed a segment in which entertainment correspondent Lola Ogunnaike promoted daytime television's first lesbian wedding, which is scheduled to air this week on ABC's "All My Children." Roberts framed the segment as taking "a look at the groundbreaking nuptials and the controversy surrounding them." But Ogunnaike only included one critical comment in the nearly three-minute story about "All My Children's" latest wedding. Glenn Stanton of the conservative Focus on the Family told CNN, "I think it's really important to understand that there are a lot of things that people really don't want to see and don't want coming into their home, and lesbian weddings are certainly one of them.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The "Gay Gene" Controlling The Media The Real Proposal magazine, April 1, 2008
Either way, the mere fact that we are even contemplating this as a possible scenario is a sure-fire indication that, if ever as a society, we were waiting for that defining moment in which we ought to reconsider the primrose path along which gay rights activists are leading us, it would be now. . . . [The] story follows the script proposed in the gay strategic manual After the Ball, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. The two Harvard-trained PR experts set out to “overhaul straight America,” which was the title of an article out of which After the Ball was born as a full-length book in 1989. The authors tell activists to use the media to portray homosexuality as in-born, and homosexuals as victims. The heavies in the drama are proponents of traditional morality – especially Christians — who are to be depicted as ignorant at best, and haters and bigots at worst. The authors further advise that under no circumstances should the public be informed of actual homosexual behavior. Over the years, the media rarely have veered from the script. . .

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. This amounted to a full approval of homosexuality. Those of us who did not go along with the political redefinition were soon silenced at our own professional meetings. Our lectures were canceled inside academe and our research papers turned down in the learned journals. Worse things followed in the culture at large. Television and movie producers began to do stories promoting homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. A gay review board told Hollywood how it should deal or not deal with homosexuality. Mainstream publishers turned down books that objected to the gay revolution. Gays and lesbians influenced sex education in our nation's schools, and gay and lesbian libbers seized wide control of faculty committees in our nations' colleges. State legislatures nullified laws against sodomy. If the print media paid any attention at all, they tended to hail the gay revolution, possibly because many of the reporters on gay issues were themselves gay and open advocates for the movement. And those reporters who were not gay seemed too intimidated by groupthink to expose what was going on in their own newsrooms. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy Leadership U, By Charles W. Socarides, M.D., (Source: Collected Papers from the NARTH Annual Conference, Saturday, 29 July 1995.)
Those who wished to retain homosexuality as a valid diagnosis had been essentially silenced at meetings, lectures, and publications--a silencing that originates both from within our organizations and from other sources. Political parties and religious leaders have been utilized to reinforce this silence. The press was thoroughly influenced; the electronic media, television, and movies began to promote homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle and censored all information that might show homosexuality as a disorder. Movies have been routinely censored by a gay Hollywood review board for the last 7 to 8 years; other films critical of homosexuality have been boycotted at the box-office; books which portray homosexuality in any unfavorable way have not been published, and many books have been removed from library shelves in universities and public libraries. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The dark, intolerant, and abusive nature of the gay agenda RenewAmerica.org, By Fred Hutchinson, April 28, 2004
Over twenty years ago, I had an intermittent conversation about homosexuality with an (sic) gay man at work. Although he persistently brought up the subject, he would periodically fly into a rage and call me a bigot when I disagreed with him. That man went on to become a key homosexual organizer in my city. . . . . Are gays inherently hysterical, hateful, and intolerant of disagreement, I wondered, or are they reading off the same script? Are they systematically organized to strike out at opponents, and to silence them through intimidation? The answer is that no, homosexuals are not necessarily hysterical, hateful, or intolerant by nature — but yes, this is something they have learned. It is a technique called "jamming" which is part of an elaborate program to further the gay agenda. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: First 'gay wedding' for Archers: BBC Radio 4's soap opera The Archers is to feature the first "gay wedding" in its 55-year history BBC News-UK, December 4, 2006
The civil partnership between Adam Macy and Ian Craig, played by Andrew Wincott and Stephen Kennedy, will take place in the episode broadcast on 14 December. The farmer and chef first kissed two-and-a-half years ago. But fans of the rural drama will hear Adam facing a potential family crisis on his big day when his stepfather, Brian Aldridge, threatens to stay away. . . . The Archers is the world's longest-running soap opera on the radio and has been broadcast on weekdays since January 1951. . .

Pro-marriage speech garners professor's profane wrath OneNewsNow, By Charlie Butts and Jody Brown, February 16, 2009
After being called a "fascist" by his professor, a Christian California student has filed suit against his college for violations of his free-speech rights. Less than a month after voters in California decided to amend their state constitution and protect traditional marriage, Jonathan Lopez -- in a public speaking class -- shared his beliefs on faith and marriage. David French of the Alliance Defense Fund picks up the story. "Jonathan talked about his faith -- and one of the things he talked about in context of his faith was...marriage," says French. "He read from the dictionary definition of marriage. The professor stopped the class, called him a 'fascist b_____d' -- [he] used the expletive -- [and] told the class that anyone who wanted to could leave if they were offended...." According to an ADF press release, when no one got up to leave, the instructor simply dismissed the class, effectively ending Lopez's speech -- which violated the student's free-speech rights, adds the attorney, especially since other students made speeches on other subjects. Religious speech, notes French, apparently was excluded from the open-ended speech assignment. . .

RELATED PRESS RELEASE: Calif. professor to student: "Ask God what your grade is": ADF attorneys file suit against L.A. Community College District after professor calls student 'fascist bastard' for sharing beliefs on faith and marriage Alliane Defense Fund, February 12, 2009

Pro-marriage speech garners professor's profane wrath (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: Speechless: Silencing the Christians
Two TV stations, WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids, MI and WSYX-TV in Columbus, OH, have banned a television special showing how the media is silencing Christians. The stations bowed down to the demands of a handful of homosexual activists and banned the showing of the TV special "Speechless...Silencing the Christians." The one-hour TV special was scheduled to be shown on the stations, but the stations yanked the program after agreeing to run it. The American Family Association was paying for the time.

RELATED ARTICLE & COMMENTS: Ask God What Your Grade Is Townhall.com, By Mike S. Adams, February 16, 2009
Naturally, the combined effect of Professor Matteson’s remarks about Proposition 8 and his remarks about Lopez’ informative speech have created a chilling effect on First Amendment expression. It is likely that students other than Lopez are refraining from expressing political, religious, and social beliefs not in line with Professor Matteson’s. . . . Following the inaction of Dean Jones, Mr. Lopez sent, via counsel, a second letter demanding action in his case. Dean Jones responded by saying that the situation had been appropriately addressed. She then brazenly stated that any service of process or tort claims could be served on the District’s General Counsel. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Transgender janitor shocks elem. school parents OneNewsNow, By Pete Chagnon, February 16, 2009
A pro-family advocate says parents in one Massachusetts town were perplexed when they received a letter from the school district explaining changes the janitor made over the summer break. At the beginning of the 2008-09 school year, parents at the Clara Barton Elementary School in Oxford, Massachusetts, received a letter from the principal and superintendent, informing them that one of the school custodians had "changed his gender role" and is now a woman. The school officials then informed parents that if their children, whose ages range from five-to-ten years old, ask school employees any questions concerning the custodian, they believe that "the best thing to tell them is that our custodian used to be a man. She has changed her gender and is now a woman.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE (PDF): The Non-Factsheet NARTH.com, By Dale O'Leary, Dean Byrd, Ph.D., Richard Fitzgibbons, M.D.
The APA and the other 12 organizations that comprise the Just the Facts Coalition recently published a new edition of Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel. The Coalition has mailed copies of the factsheet to all 16,000 public school superintendents in the United States. It is important that parents understand the threat this document poses and are able to respond to the so-call “facts.” The factsheet claims to present accurate scientific information, which will help schools protect at-risk students, and prevent violations of the separation of Church and state. The factsheet fails to accomplish any of these objectives.
1) It is not a factsheet, but a political statement.
2) It puts youth at risk – particularly adolescent males experiencing SSA.
3) It violates separation of church and state.
What are the facts?. . .

Baby-faced boy Alfie Patten is father at 13. Picture with 'girlfriend' Chantelle and their newborn baby, Maisie (Photo Courtesy: The Sun- UK)

Baby-faced boy Alfie Patten is father at 13 The Sun- UK, By Lucy Hagan, February 13, 2009
Boy dad Alfie Patten yesterday admitted he does not know how much nappies cost — but said: “I think it’s a lot.” Baby-faced Alfie, who is 13 but looks more like eight, became a father four days ago when his girlfriend Chantelle Steadman gave birth to 7lb 3oz Maisie Roxanne. He told how he and Chantelle, 15, decided against an abortion after discovering she was pregnant. The shy lad, whose voice has not yet broken, said: “I thought it would be good to have a baby. “I didn’t think about how we would afford it. I don’t really get pocket money. My dad sometimes gives me £10.” Alfie's story, broken exclusively by The Sun today has sparked a huge political storm with Tory leader David Cameron saying: "When I saw these pictures this morning, I just thought how worrying that in Britain today children are having children. "I hope that somehow these children grow up into responsible parents but the truth is parenthood is just not something they should be thinking about right now." PM Gordon Brown refused to comment directly on the story but said it was important that the Government did all it could to prevent teenage pregnancies. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Schoolboy father: Alfie Patten 'distraught' at claims Maisie not his The Telegraph- UK, By Lucy Cockcroft, February 16, 2009 (Update)
Alfie Patten is "distraught and devastated" by claims that he is not the father of baby Maisie, after two other teenagers claimed they had a relationship with his girlfriend. . .

RELATED VIEWPOINT: My View The Sun, By Jane Moore, February 13 2009
At first glance, Alfie Patten looks like a young lad proudly welcoming his new baby sister into the world. To learn this baby-faced child is actually the father of the newborn shocked me to the core. Twelve-year-old boys should be playing football and computer games — not having sex and playing dad. His assertion that he “will be good and care for it” is heartbreakingly naïve. How? He doesn’t even get pocket money. Neither Alfie nor his “girlfriend” seemed to have the faintest clue about what might be the life-changing consequences of their actions. What a damning indictment on Britain’s hugely expensive sex education programme in schools. When boys as emotionally and physically child-like as Alfie start creating babies, it’s the thin end of a wedge that will break the existing cracks in society so wide open that there’ll be no hope of repair.

RELATED ARTICLE: Benefit bonanza if pair 'move in' The Sun- UK, By David Wooding, February 14, 2009
Schoolgirl mum Chantelle could claim hundreds of pounds in child support benefits for Maisie — and the baby’s dad. She could become chief carer for boyfriend Alfie if they decided to move into a love-nest once she turns 16. She would become entitled to taxpayer-funded handouts — including a free council flat. . .

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: Feeding, nappies... and PlayStation The Sun- UK, By Lucy Hagan, February 14, 2009
Innocent-eyed Alfie Patten spent his first night acting as a 13-year-old dad and declared: “It was easier than I thought.” The four-footer — who looks no more than eight — said: “I know I’m young, but I plan to be a good dad.” As he went on the PlayStation with 15-year-old girlfriend Chantelle Steadman, he added: “I think we’ll be good parents. I’ll have to work extra hard at school.”. . .

RELATED VIEWPOINT: Alfie Patten - the exploited face of broken Britain The Telegraph- UK, By Judith Woods, February 16, 2009
The tale of 13-year-old father Alfie Patten has shocked us all. Yet it is the actions of the adults in the story that are truly deplorable. . . . Every so often, a news story emerges that is so disturbing as to prompt complete strangers to pass comment about it on trains, at bus stops and over the headlines in the corner shop. So it is with baby-faced Alfie, who stands, bewildered and exploited, at the centre of this immorality tale for our times. . .

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: Lad's sister blames their Dad The Sun- UK, By Lucy Hagan, February 14, 2009
Schoolboy Alfie Patten’s sister yesterday laid the blame for him becoming a father at 13 on their own feckless dad running off with a teenage girl. Dennis Patten, 45, tore his family apart by dumping them for a 19-year-old friend of his stepdaughter. The father of seven — who is also dad to three stepkids — is still living with new love “Maz”, now 21. Daughter Nicole — Alfie’s 19-year-old half-sister — declared: “I blame my dad for Alfie getting Chantelle pregnant. “If it wasn’t for him, Alfie wouldn’t be in this situation. When Dad left it tore the family to pieces. “Alfie’s mum took her eye off the ball — and Alfie looked for comfort somewhere else to take his mind off things.”. . . . . Along with the three kids Dennis had with Alfie’s mum, he is father to Nicole’s brother Richard, 23, and sister Suzannah, 22. A seventh child Leyton — now 23 — he fathered with a previous lover. Nicole said of the tangled family: “My mum had children when they met. There are ten of us altogether.” They include a 21-year-old stepdaughter Jade — who Alfie’s mum was raising when she met Dennis. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Welcome to Britain, land of the rising scum.... We've cornered the market on welfare layabouts, drug addicts and feral gangs The Daily Mail- UK, By Richard LittleJohn, November 14, 2008
Britain seems to have cornered the market in welfare layabouts, drug addicts, feral gangs of obese children and hideous, drunken scrubbers, littering the gutters of even our more genteel suburbs. The women are the worst of the lot, giving birth to a procession of bay-bees by different, transient fathers and expecting — nay, being encouraged by — the state to pay for their upbringing. The Government’s preferred solution is to keep on throwing money at the problem, hiring legions of social workers and ‘parenting skills advisers’ to keep the scum in check, while importing hundreds of thousands of immigrants to do the jobs our indigenous idle are paid not to do. It doesn’t work and things aren’t going to get any better. It’s at least 20 years too late. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Study Links Sex On TV Shows To Teen Pregnancies, NPR, By Allison Aubrey, November 3, 2008
Popular TV shows among teens — like reruns of Sex And The City and Friends — are full of flirting, kissing and scenes laced with sexual innuendo. A new study in the November issue of the journal Pediatrics suggests that sexually active teens who watch a lot of these types of programs are about twice as likely as those who don't to get pregnant or get a partner pregnant. Researchers from RAND Corp., a nonprofit research organization, interviewed 2,003 boys and girls, aged 12 to 17 years old, by telephone between 2001 and 2004. The researchers asked specific questions about television viewing habits, including how often they watched more than 20 popular TV shows that were found to contain lots of sexual or suggestive content. Of the 718 boys and girls who said they were sexually active, 58 girls reported becoming pregnant over the course of the study. And 33 boys reported that they had gotten a girl pregnant during this period. Those who were in the 90th percentile, in terms of the amount of exposure they had to sexually explicit shows, were nearly twice as likely as those in the 10th percentile to have gotten pregnant — or gotten someone else pregnant.

RELATED ARTICLE: Teen Pregnancy and TV Townhall.com, By Brent Bozell III , November 5, 2008
The Rand recommendation to broadcasters is something -- but falls short. What they should have pushed, but couldn't find the nerve to push, is the simple idea that broadcasters should stop promoting adult messages about sex to impressionable children.

RELATED ARTICLE: Sex and the Single Kid Townhall.com, By Mona Charen, November 4, 2008
So, here we are. For decades the overwhelmingly liberal cultural arbiters in Hollywood and in the music industry have denied that they are having any negative effect at all on children. While degrading our culture and raking in the cash, they've disclaimed all responsibility. Parents can turn it off, they sniff. (Though they are so careful to excise smoking.) The studies accumulate. The sexual invitation that is modern entertainment continues unabated. The violence gets more graphic daily. And the kids get the abortions, and the STDs, and the emergency room visits, and the heartache. . .

Obama marriage inspires fascination, imitation The Washington Post- AP, By Jocelyn Noveck, February 12, 2009
-- She's a busy mother of two and a full-time executive at a film distribution company, but sometimes Susan Margolin can't help it: She Googles Barack and Michelle Obama, not to check on his latest policy initiatives, but to see what they're doing as a couple. They went to the Kennedy Center with the girls the other night," she reported recently. "Isn't that cool? And I love how they always make time for date night. They seem to have a real romance going." Just in time for Valentine's Day, it's the season of the PDA in the White House _ and we're not talking about President Obama's prized BlackBerry. The first couple's constant Public Displays of Affection have many people across the country fascinated, charmed and even a little jealous of this 21st-century White House marriage. To be sure, the Obamas aren't the first openly romantic couple in the White House. Ronald and Nancy Reagan, in particular, had a famous love story. But to many, the Obama marriage represents a much more modern kind of White House romance: Two people who've both had important careers, who are trying to balance professional success with family stability, who are both playful with each other and mutually respectful, and who aren't afraid to display their affection and chemistry _ again and again. Remember when she leaned in for a quick snuggle as they walked the parade route together on Inauguration Day? It was gone in a flash, yet the photo made front pages across the country. Or the widely documented moment on Election Night in Chicago's Grant Park, when the two embraced, he whispered something into her ear and she whispered back: "I love you.". . . . . .A scholar of the American marriage, Stephanie Coontz, is struck by how different the Obama marriage is to White House partnerships that preceded it. "We've seen love in the White House before, but in many cases it was the adoring wife, along the lines of Nancy Reagan," says Coontz, a professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash. "What the Obamas have is a jocular, playful love, a mutual respect, and on Michelle's part, a lack of awe and of adoration.". . .

Obama marriage inspires fascination, imitation

RELATED ARTICLE: Michelle Obama Is Vogue Cover Model AOL News, February 11, 2009
- Michelle Obama cements her role as America's new fashion icon by posing as cover girl of the March 2009 edition of Vogue magazine. In an accompanying interview with Vogue editor-at-large Andre Leon Talley, the first lady opens up on a variety of topics, from motherhood to her personal style. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The First Lady who found she couldn't have it all - a new biography on Michelle Obama reveals her cruel awakening The Daily Mail- UK, By Liza Mundy, November 27, 2008
She's the boss; gotta check with the boss, is Barack Obama's standard comment, reinforcing his wife's image as the coolly impressive power behind the new U.S. President-elect. Indeed, some say Michelle Obama is even smarter than her husband. Well organised and a formidable list-maker, she can be forceful and at times intimidating. Former colleagues describe her as a better boss than an employee. Barack and Michelle's united ambition has taken them to the pinnacle of power. But as she oversees the packing for the move to Washington, Michelle surely cannot help but reflect that had her husband been prepared to do as she had once demanded, his career in politics would have been over before it had even begun. Less than ten years ago, Michelle was decidedly hostile about her husband's political ambitions. . . . . . .She was also unfazed by another inevitable aspect of her husband's rising profile - female competition. 'I never worry about things I can't affect, and with fidelity... that is between Barack and me, and if somebody can come between us, we didn't have much to begin with.' Valerie Jarrett, one of Michelle's oldest friends, puts it a little more vividly. 'He knows that if he messes up, she'll leave him. She'll kill him first - and then she'll leave him. And I think there is a subtle element of fear on his part, which is good.'. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Has Valentine’s Day Been Massacred? Townhall.com, By Harry R. Jackson, Jr., February 16, 2009
Let me restate some thing obvious to folks over 40. The skill to maintain long term, romantic relationships is failing in this generation. In fact, the media seems to be sold on painting true romance as fleeting and unpredictable - like the relationships depicted on the afternoon soap operas or paper backed novels. . . . . But while many in the media and academia are singing the same old song about the decline of the family, some of us see it much differently. The evidence actually suggests that amidst all the bad news, a revival of traditional marriage and family may well be in the works. It is happening mostly below the radar at the grassroots level in churches, communities, and legislatures to strengthen the family. I am convinced that belying the success of marriage amendments in the 2008 election cycle in Arizona, California, and Florida is a resurgence of faith in marriage. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: A Look at 10 Modest Movie Marriage Proposals The Washington Post, By Jen Chaney, February 10, 2009
When most of us imagine the typical Hollywood movie marriage proposal, we envision a scene with a string quartet, hundreds of flickering tealights and rose petals sprinkled as far as the camera can shoot. But surprisingly, plenty of characters have popped the question onscreen in casual, realistic and occasionally even awkward ways. In the spirit of Valentine's Day, a holiday that many consider the perfect, Hallmark-ready time to get engaged, I offer the following list of unique film proposal moments. All 10 of them can be viewed on DVD, and each one may inspire your own pitch to that potential spouse ... or, perhaps, provide a solid example of how not to ask for someone's hand in marriage. . .

Keeping your recession-strained marriage fresh this Valentine's Day Pantagraph.com, By Paul Swiech, February 10, 2009
-- The recession is hurting more than paychecks and causing more than headaches. As more people lose their jobs and as the workplace survivors find their job responsibilities increasing, it isn’t just those people who are hurting. Their spouses and significant others are feeling the pain as well. That can put a lot of strain on a relationship. When one spouse is laid off or is working harder and longer, that may throw an already rocky marriage into the gravel pit and put a strong marriage to the test, said David Coleman, an author and professional speaker known as “The Dating Doctor.” “When you come home from work that evening and tell your spouse that you’re without a job, with no income after two weeks, and you’re not sure how you will pay your bills, the last thing on your mind is making love to each other,” Coleman said. But strong marriages can survive this recession. The attitude should be ‘Let’s do this together,’” Coleman said. Coleman — whose books include “Date Smart! How to Stop Revolving and Start Evolving in Relationships” — spoke with The Pantagraph in advance of his appearance as the keynote speaker at the 11th Annual Women’s Health Night on Feb. 24 at the Interstate Center, Bloomington. He will discuss “Making Marriage Matter.” Coleman, who has won 11 national speaking awards, was booked for the health night because healthy, personal relationships — especially the relationship you have with your husband, wife or significant other — contributes a lot to your emotional health, explained Kathi Franklin, executive director of the Illinois Heart & Lung Foundation, which presents the health night. Emotional health contributes greatly to physical and mental health, she said. How can couples keep love and passion alive after one of them is laid off or as their jobs become more demanding? . . .

Keeping your recession-strained marriage fresh this Valentine's Day

RELATED ARTICLE: For Men Only: Valentine's Day Gifts She Really Wants ExpertClick.com, February 10, 2009
Forget the flowers, pajama-gram, and teddy bears. And don’t even think about those chocolates. Don’t go buying anything at Victoria’s Secret either – c’mon guys, you know that negligee is more of a gift for you than her; and if you don’t get the right size, you’re in the deep stuff. Way too risky. Listen up! If you’re in a serious relationship, including marriage, your sweetie doesn’t want some contrived demonstration of love. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Out of love, out of pocket AsiaOne, By Lorna Tan, February 8, 2009
With Valentine's Day just six days away, it's an opportune time to consider the costs and benefits of love. As much as most of us would like to think of love in non-monetary terms, love, or the lack of it, does have an impact on us financially. After all, financial disasters are not always triggered by bad investments. The choice of your life partner and how you nurture that relationship could have a critical bearing on your financial happiness too. Divorced couples can attest to that. Businessman Lionel Lim, 45, says that if he has any regret in his life, it would be his failed marriage, which lasted 10 years. As a result of the divorce, he had to sell his matrimonial home so that the proceeds could be divided between him and his former wife. But as the property market was down in 2000, he ended up losing about $300,000. On top of that, he is obliged to support his child by way of alimony cheques to the tune of $2,000 a month. Mr Lim attributes his failed marriage to his not spending enough time with his family as his business always took priority. He adds that if he could turn back the clock, he would have worked harder at the marriage. It had not occurred to him how much a failed marriage would set him back financially. The winners in all divorces are usually the lawyers. . .

Ninth Circuit Strikes Two Blows Against Defense of Marriage Act

Ninth Circuit Strikes Two Blows Against Defense of Marriage Act CNS News, By Pete Winn, February 10, 2009
- Attorneys on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue agree that two administrative rulings last week from different judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California were blows to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute in Sacramento, Calif., said both decisions are troubling because they ordered the federal government to cover the health benefits of the same-sex partners of two federal lawyers. “These two judges took administrative actions that basically declared that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, and federal employees who have a partner are entitled o be able to receive benefits if they are in a state – like California – which recognizes homosexual marriage,” Dacus said. New York Law School professor Arthur Leonard agreed, but added -- “I guess the significance is that it shows that a judge from the right and a judge from the left agree that DOMA raises serious constitutional questions.” In one ruling, Judge Stephen Reinhardt actually overturned DOMA, which limits marriage to one man and one woman, and bars states from being forced to accept same-sex marriage by means of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. That provision requires the courts in states to give “full faith and credit” to the l "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states. . . . . . Reinhardt, a liberal whose decisions are frequently overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, is the same judge who declared the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional in 2005 because it contains the phrase, “one nation under God.” Dacus told CNSNews.com that despite its limited scope, the ruling was still wrong -- and unwelcome. "Unfortunately the 9th Circuit has refused to respect the legislative branch and its authority to decide how benefits are to be given and appropriated," he said. In the other decision, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who is generally regarded as a conservative, also granted benefits to the same-sex spouse of a staff attorney for the court. But he stopped short of overturning the DOMA statute, according to Leonard, a pro-homosexual legal scholar. “In his decision, Judge Kozinski said he could reinterpret the benefits law in such a way that it doesn’t require recognition of the (same-sex) marriages as such -- he could just recognize these people as members of the family,” Leonard told CNSNews.com. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Q&A With Judge Robert Bork: Moral Life of Nation Could be Decided by One Judge CNS News, By Terence P. effrey, Editor-in-Chief, February 07, 2009

RELATED ARTICLE: Never Mind the Law National Review, By William Duncan, February 11, 2009
A dress rehearsal for a national redefinition of marriage quietly took place last week in a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A single judge, acting in his capacity as chair of the circuit's Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders, wrote the opinion. . . . Since this decision does not create precedent that other courts must follow, what is most important is not the outcome but the reasons given for that outcome. Reinhardt's opinion provides a blueprint for a future federal decision holding not only that DOMA is unconstitutional, but also that the Constitution mandates a redefinition of marriage in every state. His reasoning does not withstand scrutiny, but that has rarely stopped judges intent on writing laws instead of interpreting them (of whom Reinhardt is one of the most flagrant examples). The decision makes three arguments: DOMA constitutes unlawful sex discrimination, DOMA constitutes unlawful sexual-orientation discrimination, and DOMA is not grounded in any rational justification. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Federal judge rules denial of health coverage to same-sex spouse unconstitutional Los Angeles Times, February 5, 2009
A federal judge has deemed unconstitutional the government’s denial of healthcare coverage and other benefits to the same-sex spouse of a Los Angeles public defender, calling into question the validity of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt said the federal government’s refusal to grant spousal benefits to Tony Sears, the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson, amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. “Because there is no rational basis for denying benefits to the same-sex spouses of [Federal Public Defender] employees while granting them to the opposite-sex spouses of FPD employees, I conclude that the application of [federal statutes] so as to reach that result is unconstitutional,” Reinhardt wrote in an order to the U.S. Courts administration to submit Levenson’s benefits election form. The ruling was issued Monday and published Wednesday. “The denial of federal benefits to same-sex spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or a desire to deprive same-sex spouses of benefits available to other spouses in order to discourage them from exercising a legal right afforded them by a state,” Reinhardt wrote. . .

Desperation all too real on 'Real Housewives of Orange County' (Click for Related Site)

CRITIC'S NOTEBOOK: Desperation all too real on 'Real Housewives of Orange County' Los Angeles Times, By Mary McNamara, February 10 2009
Four women sit at a table attempting to counsel a fifth. The youngest of the group has brought up that, while her much older and very wealthy fiancé is dying of cancer -- he is languishing in the hospital as they speak -- and she has been his primary caretaker for the last two years, she does not know if she is a beneficiary of either his will or his insurance policy. What should she do? In the hands of a novelist or playwright, this would be one of Those Moments, in which the small tap of a simple question shatters the brittle facade of social convention and reveals the true nature of things. Marriage or money, the bitter complications of love or the irreducible chasm between expectation and reality. Instead, the conversation quickly devolves into a petty power play, suffocated by a narcissism so dense you would think it was made of Spanx. Vicki Gunvalson, Jeana Keough and Tamra Barney all advise Gretchen Rossi to get on that beneficiary list before it's too late, because that's what they'd do. When Lynne Curtin disagrees, Vicki accuses her of being rude and confrontational, and flounces off. So it's true then. John Updike is dead, and we are left with “The Real Housewives of Orange County.”. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: TV REVIEW: "Real Housewives of Atlanta": Tacky knows no color! Palm Beach Post, By Leslie Streeter, October 8, 2008
I have been eagerly waiting for the premiere of Bravo's new indulgence-fest "The Real Housewives of Atlanta" since I saw a sneak preview at my sister's house this summer. It was so over-the-top and fabulous in a hideous way that we were afraid we'd hallucinated the whole thing in a haze of plum wine and that endless "Law and Order" marathon we'd been watching for four hours. But "Real Housewives: Atlanta" is, indeed, a reality, and its pilot Tuesday night proved that Bravo is truly a crusader for equality - it's proved that just as there is no certain race, gender or sexual orientation required to be a talented hair dresser, fashion designer, interior decorator or chef, there is truly no reason that rich black women can't be every bit the materialistic, petty, social-climbing nightmares as their Caucasian sisters. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: TV REVIEW: Poor excuse for N.Y. 'Housewives' New York Daily News, By David Hinckley, March 3, 2008
Just a few more programs like "The Real Housewives of New York City," and television will be able to start a whole new 24/7 channel. We'll call it "Ridicule the Rich." Only thing is, it would be nice if future programs in the genre would be a little better than this one, which is as shallow as its subjects.

Chris Brown and Rihanna: A fairy tale romance gone awry

Chris Brown & Rihanna: A Fairy-Tale Romance Gone Awry People magazine, By Anne Marie Cruz, February 09, 2009
Sunday night, R&B's hottest couple, Chris Brown and Rihanna, were supposed to light up the Grammys. Instead, the normally affectionate twosome were embroiled in a domestic violence drama that left Brown, 19, booked on felony criminal threats charges and posting $50,000 bail after turning himself in to the LAPD on Sunday at 6:34 p.m. PST. Sources say that Rihanna (real name: Robin Fenty), 20, was the victim in the alleged assault which occurred around 12:30 a.m. on Sunday. Responding to a 911 call about a disturbance, the LAPD took statements from a female with visible injuries, who named Brown as her attacker. Just hours after the incident, witnesses spotted Brown and Rihanna leaving the London Hotel together around 7:30 a.m. on Sunday. Later that evening, during the Grammy telecast for which both Brown and Rihanna were no-shows, bodyguards for the couple were seen moving their luggage out of the London. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Source: Chris Brown 'Knocked Around' Rihanna People magazine, By Joey Bartolomeo, February 10, 2009
New details have emerged about the midnight altercation between Chris Brown and Rihanna that led to Brown being booked on a felony criminal threat charge on Sunday. "Chris knocked her around," says a source close to the couple. "Black eye, blood, bruises. She had to be treated by a doctor." The Barbados-bred beauty, 20 – who is currently in "a safe place," says a friend – is cooperating with detectives, according to the L.A. Times. . . . . . .What makes the allegations even more shocking is that Brown has claimed his mother was physically abused by his former stepfather. "He made me terrified all the time," Brown told Giant, adding, "I hate him to this day.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: A 'Saddened' Chris Brown Releases Statement People magazine, February 15, 2009

RELATED ARTICLE: Rihanna assisting police in Chris Brown case: A fight in Hancock Park after a pre-Grammy Awards party left the R & B singer with bruises and a scratched face, police say Los Angeles Times, By Richard Winton and Harriet Ryan, February 10, 2009

RELATED RESOURCE & PUBLICATIONS: National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence

RELATED ARTICLE: Eyewitness At Hospital: "I Could Hear Rihanna Screaming" Radar Online, February 9, 2009
A source inside Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles has confirmed exclusively to RadarOnline.com that pop star Rihanna was in fact treated there for injuries, allegedly inflicted by her boyfriend R&B singer Chris Brown. Since Brown's bombshell arrest on Sunday, there has been widespread speculation that the victim was 20-year old Rihanna. Now, RadarOnline.com can confirm it's true from an eyewitness who saw her inside the hospital. . . . ."I knew the person was famous because of all the attention she was being given by security and medical staff. However, they didn't draw the curtain all the time and I was finally able to make out that the woman they had brought in was Rihanna. She was lying in bed. While the two police officers waited outside, Rihanna was seen by the doctor. When he left, a plain clothes officer in a mismatched suit went in. . .

RELATED ARTICLE (PDF doc): When Domestic Violence Starts Young: A Classroom Campaign and New Hot Line are Part of a Nationwide Push to Prevent Abuse Chicago Tribune, By Bonnie Miller Rubin, February 8, 2007
– Scrapping his usual lesson for the day, a South Shore high school teacher asked his students a question: Is it ever OK to be abusive with a boyfriend or girlfriend? A 16-year-old boy spoke up. “If she does something to provoke you, then you have to put her in her place,” he said nonchalantly. “I’m not going to hit her in the face ... but I’m not going to run, either.” With that, a candid discussion got under way that gave teacher Scott Steward an earful. “A guy may need to get a little physical ... to know where his girlfriend is at all times,” one boy argued. “It’s a way to show how he cares about you,” another said. Until recently, most interventions for domestic abuse were geared to older perpetrators and victims. But increased awareness of violence among teens is sparking a flurry of initiatives for teens, including the lesson plan taught by Steward. In a related program, the country’s first national abuse hot line for teens will open Thursday. When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveyed 14,000 high school students as part of a 2005 study, 9.2 percent said they had been “hit, slapped or physically hurt” by their dating partners in the previous 12 months. Perhaps surprisingly, the incidence was about the same among girls and boys. . .

RELATED SURVEY: Technology & Teen Dating Abuse Survey 2007 Love Is Not Abuse.com
A survey on teens and dating abuse reveals that an alarming number of teens in dating relationships are being controlled, threatened and humiliated through cell phones and the Internet with unimaginable frequency. The research also reveals disturbing data that a significant majority of parents are completely unaware of this type of dating abuse and the dangers facing their teens. The survey was conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited (TRU) for Liz Claiborne Inc. Teens surveyed range in age from 13-18. . .

RELATED ARTICLE (PDF doc) Abuse Common among Dating Teens, Study Finds: 1 in 4 girls have been pressured into sex National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence- Reuters, June 9, 2005
WASHINGTON – When Erika Eckstrom began dating her boyfriend at the start of her College freshman year at 18 things were great, but her situation deteriorated and she soon was friendless, isolated and the victim of domestic violence. “Everything was great and when it started really getting bad I don’t know if it was denial, but I knew something was wrong, because I was without a support system,” said Eckstrom, now 20 and still in college in Washington but dating someone else. Her story is apparently common among teenagers. According to a study released Thursday, more than half of America’s teens know friends who have experienced physical, sexual or verbal abuse in their dating relationships. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The abusive date. Why are we surprised? Townhall.com, By Cal Thomas, August 9, 2001
The latest signpost on our road to cultural (and possibly literal) hell comes from a survey which found that one in five high school girls has been physically or sexually abused by a dating partner. The survey, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, suggests a link between dating abuse and self-destructive behavior by girls. Some abused girls were found to engage in binge drinking, promiscuity and drugs, and use laxatives and vomiting to lose weight. Perhaps we truly are the Great Satan. This is not a problem that will soon be solved by legislation or more "prevention programs," as the lead author of the study suggests. Such programs and legislation treat only results, not causes. Something has clearly gone wrong in culture. . .

Divorce: Money in misery
International marriages are crumbling with the global economy, revealing unseen pitfalls in cross-border divorce law. Good news for lawyers. The Economist, February 5, 2009
Marriages that thrive on money may wither with thrift. That is a depressing lesson from the world economic crisis, which has brought a surge in business for divorce lawyers in former boomtowns such as London and New York. When one or both spouses is from a foreign country, divorce is not just sad but complicated too—especially when most assets may be in a third country, a pension in a fourth, and offspring in a fifth. lobalisation has made binational marriages, once exotic, much more common among high-earning, highly mobile families. When they stop being high-earning, life gets tricky. Louise Spitz of Manches, a London law firm, has observed an “exceptional” period since September. “With the redundancies in the City there has been a concomitant wave of marital upheaval,” she says. “Families used to living on huge bonus income are unable to continue with the commitments they have taken on—housing and school fees and the cost of living the high life.” Manches has taken on eight more divorce lawyers to cope with the extra work. A high proportion, Ms Spitz and other lawyers reckon, of the once-rich couples now breaking up include at least one foreign spouse. So who sues whom for divorce and where? How much money will be awarded to whom? Will it be collected? And how? The answers are far trickier than most non-lawyers would imagine. . .

International marriages are crumbling with the global economy, revealing unseen pitfalls in cross-border divorce law (Photo Courtesy: The Economist.com)

RELATED ARTICLE: Planning Divorce: The Benefits of Divorce Mediation Instead of Litigation XStilla.com- Resource for Divorce
The divorce mediation process uses the services of a third, neutral party whose purpose is to help both spouses to reach an agreement as to the terms of their divorce settlement. These terms must be mutually accepted by both sides before their attorneys takes the agreed upon draft and prepare a formal agreement for the divorce. Mediation is most always less expensive than litigation, which is why a large majority of couples choose this option when trying to agree upon financial or custody issues. The mediation process doesn't require any court appearances, and the mediator will obtain and prepare all of the necessary legal documents. Mediation avoids the hostility or resentment that often results after court appearances, and helps to outline a custody agreement that's fair to all with the children's best interests put first. . . .
Developing an Exit Plan When Nothing Else Works
Tips to Prepare Your Child for an Impending Divorce
Planning Your Divorce When You're Broke
Understanding the Difference Between Legal Separation and...
Choosing a Divorce Attorney
How to Choose the Right Marital Counselor
Stress Busting During the Divorce Process
Preparing for Divorce - Getting Your Finances in Order
How to Prepare Yourself Emotionally for a Divorce
Divorce Help - Legal Terminology Explained
Divorce: What Happens?

Artist Maureen Mullarkey, Known for Gay Subjects, ¿Outed¿ As Prop. 8 Supporter (Photo Courtesy: MaureenMullarkey.com)

Artist Known for Gay Subjects ’Outed’ As Prop. 8 Supporter Edge Boston, By Kilian Melloy, February 5, 2009
Often art and politics don't mix. But usually the artists are on one side - smearing dung on the Virgin Mary, perhaps - and the politically active on the other - like Mayor Rudolph Giuliani decrying the depiction as an attack on Catholicism. It's rare that one person embodies both, as appears to be the case in Chappaqua with local artist Maureen Mullarkey. Mullarkey is a painter who has done a series of works, well known in the gay community, depicting drag queens and inspired by gay pride parades. But she also donated $1,000 to the campaign for Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. That has raised calls of hypocrisy among gay rights groups and on blogs following the intense Proposition 8 debate. . . . . Mullarkey, whose seemingly incongruous role in the controversy was first reported in The Daily News this week, responded yesterday to the criticism by condemning what she called the intimidation of artists who supported Proposition 8. Mullarkey, 66, said she favored the measure, which passed in November overturning an earlier court ruling legalizing gay marriage in California, because she believes "marriage is the union of husband and wife — a premise so simple, so fundamental that nature and civilization itself both testify to the truth of it." She likened the attacks to Nazi "brownshirt tactics" and expressed concern for people in the arts who had suffered reprisals for opposing gay marriage. "Artists are not in the habit of imposing ideological conformity on one another or demanding it from others," Mullarkey said. "Moreover, regard for individual gay persons does not require assent to a politicized assault on bedrock social reality and the common good." Maggie Gallagher of Ossining, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, whose California arm Mullarkey donated to, said Mullarkey's critics refuse to acknowledge that people can be sympathetic to gay people but also believe in the traditional definition of marriage. "The reason that seems so incongruous to some people is because they think the marriage issue is about whether you like or hate gay people," Gallagher said. The article about Mullarkey is part of an organized attempt to harass people who oppose gay marriage, she argued. Some people have been threatened or lost their jobs after their employers were targeted, Gallagher said. . .

RELATED SITE: Maureen Mullarkey.com

RELATED ARTWORK: Guise and Dolls By Maureen Mullarkey

RELATED INTERVIEW: IS MARRIAGE A RIGHT? Maureen Mullarkey MarriageDebate.com, January 5, 2009

RELATED ARTICLE: Prop 8 Urges Court to Enjoin Campaign Finance Reporting Rules That Have Resulted in Harassment of Prop 8 Supporters   ProtectMarriage.com- Yes on 8, Contact: Frank Schubert, January 29, 2009
Acting on behalf of supporters of Proposition 8 who have experienced extensive acts of harassment including death threats, the ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8 committee today urged a federal court judge to issue a preliminary injunction prohibiting the state from requiring further disclosure of the committee's donors. .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay marriage backers have lost moral imperative   The Daily Democrat, By Jake Dorsey, January 25, 2009
Councilman William Marble gave $250 to the Yes! on Proposition 8 campaign. Nicole Ochoa, who listed herself as a homemaker, donated $1,000. Homemaker Terry Gray gave $25. How do I know? The donor lists to political action committees in California are public record, but I didn't have to mine for the data -- eightmaps.com told me everything I needed to know, including roughly where they live. The site, created by the other half of the war over Prop. 8, is a tool created in part to spur supporters of gay marriage into action. It is, in a very real sense, a Google-based map that shows where the enemy is. Don't mistake the word usage. "Enemy" I believe is an accurate term for describing how many gay marriage supporters view those who helped pass the measure. Supporters of gay marriage have proven that when it comes to their issue, the moral imperative can be tossed aside to allow the use of political tools some might find offensive or dirty. . . . .The attitudes behind the online map make the debate far too personal, not to mention political, for gay marriage supporters to claim they fight a moral fight. This is meant to pit neighbor-versus-neighbor in ways that don't promote discussion and debate about the issue. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Tom Hanks issues apology for calling Mormon Proposition 8 supporters 'un-American'   NY Daily News, BY Neil Nagraj, January 24th 2009
Actor Tom Hanks has apologized for comments made to FOXnews.com in which he said Mormons supportive of California Proposition 8, a constitutional ban on gay marriage in the state, were 'un-American'. FOXnews.com reports that in a statement issued through his publicist, Hanks said "I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination . . .But everyone has a right to vote their conscience; nothing could be more American . . . To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are 'un-American' creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement. No one should use 'un- American' lightly or in haste. I did. I should not have." Hanks made his initial remarks to FOXnews.com at the Los Angeles premiere of the HBO series "Big Love", of which he is a producer. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Divide and Conquer The Advocate, By Michael Martin, March 2009
The Episcopal Church may have just lost 100,000 members because of its pro-gay stance, but Bishop V. Gene Robinson says the denomination isn’t about to waver in its support. . . . . “Just like the Federal Marriage Amendment was used as a wedge issue in presidential politics, gays have been used in Anglican politics,” says the Reverend Susan Russell, a priest at All Saints Church in Pasadena, Calif., and president of Integrity USA, a group working for gay inclusion in the Episcopal Church. She expects the church to move forward on approving marriage rites for same-sex couples as early as this summer. “A lot of other mainline denominations are watching us very carefully, to see if we’re going to move forward,” Robinson says. “What’s happening with us is part of what’s happening in the culture in terms of fuller LGBT inclusion in our common life.”

RELATED ARTICLE: First gay Episcopal bishop leads Senate prayer Baltimore Sun- AP, February 3, 2009
The first openly gay bishop in the U.S. Episcopal Church led a prayer in the Maryland Senate Monday night in which he asked God to bless the legislators with "anger at discrimination in all its forms." The Rev. V. Gene Robinson also asked for the legislators to be blessed with "freedom from fear," including fear of their next election and criticism from unpopular votes during the invocation prayer. Robinson is a bishop in New Hampshire, but he is in Annapolis to lobby for a gay marriage bill and a measure that prohibits discrimination against transgender people. Maryland Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller said he hasn't had a chance to read either measure yet, but that based on past history, the bills might face difficulty in the Senate.

RELATED ARTICLE: NH gay bishop backing same-sex marriage bill WCAX.com- AP, February 3, 2009
The U.S. Episcopal Church's first openly gay bishop is supporting a bill to allow same-sex marriage in New Hampshire. The Rev. V. Gene Robinson testified in favor of the bill at the State House on Thursday, calling it a matter of fairness. He urged lawmakers to ignore objections opponents may have on religious grounds. . . . . . Emotions ran high for over 100 supporters and opponents at three hearings on the issue Thursday. Many lawmakers supporting the bill have a personal connection to the matter. Democratic state Rep. Edward Butler, a co-sponsor of the bill, testified with his civil union partner, Leslie Schoof. New Hampshire began issuing civil unions to gay couples last year. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: AFTAH: Obama’s Choice of Homosexual Bishop (Vicki) Gene Robinson to Pray at Inaugural Event Is a Slap in the Face to Christians Americans For Truth about Homosexuality, January 13, 2009
– Peter LaBarbera, President of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH), issued the following statement regarding President-elect Barack Obama’s selection of V. (Vicki) Gene Robinson, the openly homosexual Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, to deliver the invocation at an official inaugural event Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial: “President-elect Obama has signaled a tragic departure from America’s godly, Judeo-Christian heritage with his choice of a defiant homosexual activist, (Vicki) Gene Robinson, to recite a prayer at an official Inaugural event Sunday. Choosing Robinson — who supports homosexual ‘marriage’ and compares his agenda to mainstream sinful and changeable homosexual behavior to the noble Black civil rights struggle — is a sop to ‘gay’ activists who blasted Obama’s for picking evangelical pastor Rick Warren to say an Inauguration Day prayer. “By choosing Robinson, who left his wife and family to embrace homosexuality – and who claims to revere the Bible as ‘holy and sacred’ while defying its clear teachings on sex and marriage – Barack Obama has given his first indication of how he could use the bully pulpit to undermine biblical values. (Obama promised homosexual activists that he would work to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents states from being forced to recognize out-of-state same-sex ‘marriages.’ He pledged that as President he would advocate for homosexual adoption, and has distorted the Bible to justify his support for homosexual relationships.) “Bishop Robinson is a radical sexual activist masquerading as a man of God. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Responding to Pro-Gay Theology NARTH.com, By Joe Dallas
This three-part series will address the pro-gay theology by dividing its arguments--or tenets--into three categories: social justice arguments, general religious arguments, and scriptural arguments. A brief description of these arguments will be provided, followed by a response/rebuttal to each. . . . When God is reputed to sanction what He has already clearly forbidden, then a religious travesty is being played out, and boldly. Confronting it is necessary because it (the pro-gay theology) asks us to confirm professing Christians in their sin, when we are Biblically commanded to do just the opposite. . .

Editor's Note: The author of this article, Joe Dallas, is a former gay rights activist and staff member of the largely gay Metropolitan Community Church. He is the Founder of Genesis Counseling and has worked with hundreds of men and women struggling with homosexuality and related problems. He has authored several books on homosexuality, among them: * A Strong Delusion: Confronting the "Gay Christian" Movement * Desires in Conflict * Unforgiven Sins * The Game Plan: The Men's 30-Day Strategy for Attaining Sexual Integrity * When Homosexuality Hits Home: What to Do When a Loved One Says They're Gay

RELATED ARTICLE: Dale Martin's "arsenokoites and malakos" tried and found wanting
In the multifaceted debate regarding homosexuality and the church, an issue that has surfaced is the proper interpretation of 1 Cor 6:9-10, where Paul writes that neither "homosexuals nor sodomites" (NKJV) shall inherit the kingdom of God. At first glance, the meaning of "homosexuals and sodomites" seems rather clear. But "Not so!" say those who advocate the normalization of homosexuality. Thus, this passage has become a hot issue with scholars aligning themselves along two basic lines of thought. Some say that the original words in Greek have been translated in an unnecessarily harsh way that condemns all homosexual behavior when in fact, they contend, Paul was merely condemning homosexual rape and other forms of sexual exploitation. Others reject this revisionist interpretation and hold that the traditional translation of the text (for example, as rendered above in the NKJV) is fair and accurate. This would be a traditionalist approach. So, who's right?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality Orthodoxy Today, By Dennis Prager
When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world. The Torah's prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity. . . . .The revolutionary nature of Judaism's prohibiting all forms of non-marital sex was nowhere more radical, more challenging to the prevailing assumptions of mankind, than with regard to homosexuality. Indeed, Judaism may be said to have invented the notion of homosexuality, for in the ancient world sexuality was not divided between heterosexuality and homosexuality. That division was the Bible's doing. Before the Bible, the world divided sexuality between penetrator (active partner) and penetrated (passive partner). . .

California State High Court to Hear Proposition 8 Case on March 5, 2009

State high court to hear Prop. 8 case March 5 San Francisco Chronicle, By Bob Egelko, February 3, 2009
The state Supreme Court will hear arguments March 5 on the validity of Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage that California voters approved in November. The court said today that it would hold a three-hour hearing, from 9 a.m. to noon, at its chambers in San Francisco. The proceedings will also be televised statewide on the California Channel, the court said. A ruling is due within 90 days of the hearing. Prop. 8, approved by 52 percent of the voters on Nov. 4, amended the state Constitution to declare that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. It overturned the court's May 15 ruling that recognized a constitutional right for gays and lesbians to marry. The court will hear lawsuits by same-sex couples and a group of local governments, led by the city of San Francisco, challenging Prop. 8. The plaintiffs argue that a measure eliminating fundamental rights from a historically persecuted minority amounts to a revision of the Constitution and exceeds the power of initiatives. A revision can be placed on the ballot only by a two-thirds legislative vote or by delegates to a state constitutional convention. The court has upheld such challenges to initiatives only twice in its history, in 1948 and 1990. Opponents of Prop. 8 also argue that it violates the constitutional separation of powers by stripping the judiciary of its ability to protect a minority group. Attorney General Jerry Brown has sided with opponents of the measure and argues that it is invalid for another reason: that it abolishes "inalienable rights," guaranteed by the state Constitution, without a compelling justification. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay-Marriage Ban Sets Up Host of Battles: California's Proposition 8 Is Challenged in State Court; What Happens to Previously Wed Couples? The Wall Street Journal, November 7, 2008
California voters on Tuesday approved Proposition 8, which adds to the state constitution the following sentence: "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." While the wording is simple, the situation quickly became complicated. For example, what happens to those same-sex couples who married before the ruling? Legal challenges filed Wednesday raised other questions: Was the referendum process itself lawful? Does the new language conflict with other parts of the state constitution? Separately, should Proposition 8 opponents have filed challenges saying the proposition violated the U.S. Constitution? David Cruz, a constitutional-law expert at the University of Southern California, has some answers. . . . .WSJ: Please explain the grounds upon which Proposition 8 is being challenged in court. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Reasons to Oppose Gay Marriage Short Report.com
This whole debate has been recast as gays demanding their civil rights. I find this wrong-headed and I couldn't disagree more with their thinking on two levels. First, our "rights" are given to us by God and only "secured" by our government. As is stated in the Declaration of Independence. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. . . . . Our rights do not come from government -- they come from God. Government should look to God to define those basic human rights that He has granted to us. It is important to recognize that God would never grant us a "right" to do what is wrong! When a government grants rights not given to us by God, it inevitably will infringe on the rights of others. . .

Couple Whose Battle Legalized Gay Marriage Files For Divorce
Women Had Been Married For Four Years WCVB- WCVB 5 ABC- The Boston Channel, February 3, 2009
The gay couple whose court battle led to the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts has filed for divorce. Hillary and Julie Goodridge, who share custody of their 12-year-old daughter, filed divorce papers in Suffolk Probate Court last week. "I wish I could talk them into staying together, but I don't see how," Hillary’s mother, Ann Kiernan Smith, told the Boston Herald. Smith did not offer a reason for the couple's divorce. "They went through an heroic battle on behalf of all of us in the state, and as a result of their willingness to participate in it, their relationship suffered in significant ways, but we all benefited at the end of the day," said Arline Isaacson, of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. Family lawyer Ed Dombroski said the divorce is more symbolic than legally significant. "Opponents of gay marriage are going to use this as the example, as proof positive, as to why marriage should not be allowed between gay couples," he said. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts: It's far worse than most people realize MassResistance.org, By Brian Camenker, October 20, 2008
Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning. . .

Lesbian Couple, Hillary and Julie Goodridge, Whose Battle Legalized Gay Marriage Files For Divorce (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: Couple Whose Battle Legalized Gay Marriage Files For Divorce The Boston Channel

RELATED ARTICLE: Lesbian Couple Who Forced Homosexual "Marriage" On Massachusetts Have Filed For Divorce LifesiteNews.com, By Thaddeus M. Baklinski, February 3, 2009
The two lesbians, who share custody of their 12-year-old daughter Annie, "married" on May 17, 2004, the first day same-sex “marriages” became legal under a Massachusetts court ruling. It was reported that the couple broke up two years after their ground-breaking "wedding.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Mrs. Kramer Vs. Mrs. Kramer Newsweek, By Lorraine Ali, December 6, 2008
It's an old story—parents split and fight for custody. But when both are women, and one says she is no longer gay, it gets complicated. . . . . Isabella hardly knows that she's at the center of a much bigger drama, a landmark custody battle between two women—both of whom she calls Mommy. Her parents are Miller, 40, who's fighting for exclusive, sole custody, and Janet Jenkins, 44, who's arguing for parental and visitation rights. Their case is the first to tackle the recognition of same-sex unions, marriage and the rights of homosexual parents across ideological, biological and state lines. And, uniquely, across religious lines once Miller became a devout Baptist, renounced her homosexuality and said she was determined to protect her daughter from a "lifestyle that's fundamentally wrong." . . .

RELATED RESOURCE: Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone ImpactApologetics.com
Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt? Using sound reasoning and evidence—not religion—award-winning author Frank Turek shows that everyone will be hurt including children, the nation, and even homosexuals themselves. Turek provides concise answers to objections about equal rights, discrimination, and being born a certain way, and he exposes the real reason gay activists are trying to impose same-sex marriage on the country without a single vote from the people. Turek’s message is direct but respectful. It is correct, not politically correct. And it is a message that we must not ignore. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Born Gay or a Gay Basher? No Excuse Townhall.com, By Frank Turek, November 1, 2008
This “born that way” argument is fueling the case for same-sex marriage in California. Is it a good argument? I know this is a difficult and emotional issue for many people, but I think the reasonable answer is no. Not only is the evidence for being “born that way” questionable, even if it were true, it should have no impact on our marriage laws. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It’s Bad Townhall.com, By Frank Turek, May 26, 2008
Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt? Children and the rest of society. Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. . .

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

California Releasing Donor List for $83 Million Marriage Vote

California Releasing Donor List for $83 Million Marriage Vote New York Times, By Jesse McKinley, February 2, 2009
Nearly 14,000 donors — including homemakers, priests and a former member of the Los Angeles Dodgers — poured millions of dollars into the last two weeks of the campaign to pass Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage in California. According to a campaign finance report made public on Monday, in all, both sides spent more than $83 million. The report came just days after supporters of the ballot measure lost a suit in Federal District Court in Sacramento that sought to prevent the names of donors from being revealed. The suit argued that past disclosures had led to donors’ receiving harassing e-mail, death threats and boycotts of businesses. The court said the release of the names was particularly important in such expensive campaigns. Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind Proposition 8, said he had received no reports of harassment on Monday. A summary report of opponents’ donations, meanwhile, showed the losing side spent $43.1 million. A more detailed report of those names — which ran some 7,600 pages — was still being formatted by the office of the California secretary of state. The report on the ban’s supporters, which covered the closing days of the campaign, shows a wide variety of backers. They include Jeff Kent, the recently retired second baseman who donated $15,000, and a janitor from Cupertino, Calif., who donated $99. Jeff Klein, a lawyer for Mr. Kent, said he had no comment on his client’s donation. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is under investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission on accusation of underreporting its contributions, also released a final accounting of some $190,000 in nonmonetary contributions, up from a total of about $50,000 reported in previous filings. . . . Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote, is under review by the State Supreme Court, which had legalized same-sex marriage in May. The court, which could hear oral arguments in March, is also expected to rule on the legitimacy of some 18,000 same-sex ceremonies that were held in California between the court’s initial decision and the passage of Proposition 8.

RELATED ARTICLE: Prop 8 Urges Court to Enjoin Campaign Finance Reporting Rules That Have Resulted in Harassment of Prop 8 Supporters ProtectMarriage.com- Yes on 8, Contact: Frank Schubert, January 29, 2009
Acting on behalf of supporters of Proposition 8 who have experienced extensive acts of harassment including death threats, the ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8 committee today urged a federal court judge to issue a preliminary injunction prohibiting the state from requiring further disclosure of the committee's donors. .

RELATED SITE: Yes on 8 — Protect Marriage.com (Final Approval 52.3%)

RELATED SITE: Above the Hate
Please sign the petition below to join us as we stand together to say "Enough!" to the campaign of hate and intimidation being waged against the LDS Church and other supporters of California's Proposition 8.

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

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Political bullying works Jewish World Review, By Cal Thomas, April 5, 2001
Gay rights groups are experienced intimidators. Add to that the effective infiltration of the media, academia, religion and psychiatry by gay rights activists and their sympathizers and you see how this issue has been turned around in a single generation. . .

And Baby Makes 14 Townhall.com, By Mona Charen, February 3, 2009
When a woman finds herself pregnant with so many at once, it's a failure of assisted reproduction, not a triumph. A few days after the octuplets' birth, news about their mother began to leak out. We have learned that Nadya Suleman, 33, is a single, unemployed woman who already has six children between the ages of 2 and 7 (one of whom suffers from autism). The father of her new brood is reportedly a friend who donated his sperm, and Suleman is said to be hoping that Oprah Winfrey will pay her $2 million to appear on her program. Maybe the party was premature. . . . . Still, if her fertility doctor ill-served her, so did her society, by treating childbearing as a kind of self-expression. "She was obsessed with having children since she was a teenager," we learned from her friends. Well, fine. But she was clearly not obsessed with creating the proper environment in which to raise children. That environment would include, just for starters, a husband. An income would be nice as well, as would her own home. But movie and sports stars don't do those things, nor even members of Congress these days. Consider Rep. Linda Sanchez, who represents the district in which Suleman lives. She announced last November that she is pregnant, though single. "I don't know how it'll be received," Sanchez told the Los Angeles Times. "I hope people will recognize that to be able to plan that in your life -- I don't think that marriage and childbirth are black and white. There are certain instances in which you have to do things in reverse order." Yes, well, she needn't have worried. Everyone was totally understanding. No marriage yet either. People think the old stigma about unwed childbearing was all about sex. It wasn't. It was about children and what's best for them. Of course some women want babies the way others crave shoes, but babies are not, or at least shouldn't be treated as, consumables. Badly done all around.

RELATED ARTICLE: Octomom Now Accepting Cash & Credit Card Donations Online People magazine, February 11, 2009

RELATED ARTICLE: Octuplet mom defends her ‘unconventional’ choices MSNBC.com- Today, By Mike Celizic, February 6, 2009
Nadya Suleman denies being selfish, says she holds each baby 45 minutes.

And Baby Makes 14 (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: First Look: Octuplet mom shows off babies MSNBC.com, February 9, 2009 (Update)

RELATED VIDEO: Octuplet mom: ‘All I wanted was children’ MSNBC.com, February 6, 2009
TODAY’s Ann Curry talks to Nadya Suleman, the woman who gave birth to octuplets last week, about her dreams of having a large family and how she plans to raise her 14 children.

RELATED VIDEO: Sharing the wealth: The cost of raising octuplets MSNBC.com

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: Too many babies: What went wrong?: Birth of octuplets is not a 'medical triumph,' caution fertility experts MSNBC, By By Linda Carroll, January 29, 2009

RELATED ARTICLE: Octuplets' Mom Is Receiving Food Stamps People magazine, February 10, 2009 (Update)
Shortly after Nadya Suleman said on national TV that she's not on welfare, her publicist admitted to PEOPLE that the mother of octuplets gets $490 a month in food stamps and disability payments for three of her six older children. When asked how that squared with Suleman, 33, telling Ann Curry on the Today show that she doesn't receive welfare, publicist Michael Furtney said, "She doesn't regard that as welfare, but as payments available to people with needs." The revelation, brought to light by the Los Angeles Times, stoked concerns that Suleman, 33, will become a heavier drain on public assistance once her six new sons and two new daughters are sent home in a few weeks from Kaiser Permanente Bellflower Medical Center, where they were born Jan. 26. They are the U.S.'s oldest surviving octuplets. The newspaper also reported that Kaiser has asked California's health plan for the poor, which is Medi-Cal, to cover the enormous cost of delivering the babies. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Yowza! Cost of raising 14 kids: At least $1.5M: Actual price tag could be much higher; emotional toll may greatest of all   MSNBC.com- TODAY, February 10, 2009
No matter how you slice it, kids are expensive. Even if you try every cost-saving measure in the book — from relying heavily on hand-me-downs to becoming a coupon-clipping fiend — you’ve still got to cover the costs of their diapers, food, transportation, health care, education and day care. That’s a tall order for many parents of one, two or three children. But how about if you’re a single mother with 14 children — including eight newborns? With news of the first surviving set of octuplets dominating headlines in recent weeks, TODAY set aside time on Tuesday to provide a reality check about the true costs — both financial and emotional — of raising so many children from birth to age 18. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Dysfunctional Family Making   Townhall.com, By Debra J. Saunders, February 8, 2009
You can say her fertility doctors -- whoever they are -- should have refused to impregnate an overburdened single mother. They should have. However, in August, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a San Diego fertility clinic had no right to refuse to inseminate a lesbian in a partnership on religious grounds. What happens if doctors refuse a single mom, who can sue based on state law banning discrimination based on marital status?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Octuplet Mom: A Huge Family Was 'Always a Dream' People magazine, By Mike Fleeman and Howard Breuer, February 05, 2009
Meanwhile, PEOPLE uncovered new details about Suleman's medical and financial history, with documents showing she received nearly $168,000 in disability benefits. Suleman got the payments because of injuries she suffered during a 1999 riot at a California mental hospital where she worked, leaving her with chronic back pain. She was still receiving disability payments at about the time she was inseminated with octuplets, and doctors had precluded her from taking any job that involved "prolonged sitting, standing and walking," according to workers' comp documents. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Octuplets’ mother wants Oprah to turn her into a $2m TV star   Times Online-UK, By John Harlow, February 1, 2009
THE single mother of octuplets born in California last week is seeking $2m (£1.37m) from media interviews and commercial sponsorship to help pay the cost of raising the children. Nadya Suleman, 33, plans a career as a television childcare expert after it emerged last week that she already had six children before giving birth on Monday. She now has 14 below the age of eight. Although still confined to an LA hospital bed, she intends to talk to two influential television hosts this week — media mogul Oprah Winfrey, and Diane Sawyer, who presents Good Morning America. . . . Her earning power, though, could be diminished by a growing ethical and medical controversy. Experts believe that the unnamed fertility specialists who gave her in vitro fertilisation (IVF) should not have implanted so many embryos, and in choosing to carry all eight to term, Suleman ignored guidelines, risking both their health and her own. US public reaction has been mixed: many have asked how an unemployed single mother can raise 14 children, as her first six have already strained the family budget. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Grandma: Octuplets mom obsessed with having kids   AOL News, By Raquel Maria Dillon- AP, January 31, 2009
-The woman who gave birth to octuplets this week conceived all 14 of her children through in vitro fertilization, is not married and has been obsessed with having children since she was a teenager, her mother said. Angela Suleman told The Associated Press she was not supportive when her daughter, Nadya Suleman, decided to have more embryos implanted last year. "It can't go on any longer," she said in a phone interview Friday. "She's got six children and no husband. I was brought up the traditional way. I firmly believe in marriage. But she didn't want to get married." . . . . Little psychological research has been conducted on the reasons some mothers seem hooked on repeated pregnancies. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Octuplets' Mother Describes 'Miraculous Experience' People magazine, January 29, 2009
The mother of octuplets spoke out for the first time Thursday, saying in a statement she was "ecstatic" and thanked the public for their "positive thoughts, prayers and generosity." In the statement issued though Kaiser Permanente hospital in Bellflower, Calif., the anonymous mother says: "We understand that you are all curious about the arrival of the octuplets and we appreciate your respect for our family's privacy. Please know, in our own time, we will share additional details about this miraculous experience. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Parent Hood: How technology and social progress are turning procreation into self-actualization The Daily Standard, By Claudia Anderson, December 4, 2006

RELATED ARTICLE: The Revolution in Parenthood: The Emerging Global Clash Between Adult Rights and Children's Needs   AmericanValues.org, Principal Investigator: Elizabeth Marquardt
A new report from the country’s leading family experts finds that worldwide trends in law and reproductive technologies are redefining parenthood in ways that put the interests of adults before the needs of children. “The two-person mother-father model of parenthood is being changed to meet adults’ rights to children rather than children’s needs to know and be raised, whenever possible, by their mother and father,” according to the report, "The Revolution in Parenthood: The Emerging Global Clash Between Adult Rights and Children’s Needs.". . .

Computers and TV blamed for teenage violence and casual sex

Parenting Issues: Computers and TV blamed for teenage violence and casual sex The Daily Mail- Uk, By Steve Doughty, February 3, 2009
Computers and television have pushed a generation of children towards violent behaviour, early sex and mental illness, a large-scale study said yesterday. It cited celebrity culture, advertising and peer pressure among the reasons why girls often have sex as soon as they reach the age of consent. And it blamed computer games, the internet and television for 'the lurch to more and more violence which we know can breed violence and increase mental illness'. The warnings came in the second stage of the Good Childhood report for the Children's Society. The first stage, published at the weekend, blamed family break-up and the lack of a father living at home for the misery of millions of children. Yesterday's analysis also linked the spread of early sex and the growing interest of young people in violence to selfish behaviour by adults. Their aggressive pursuit of personal success has pushed the needs of children aside and amounts to the greatest threat to their welfare, it said. The report concluded: 'The belief among adults that the prime duty of the individual is to make the most of their own life, rather than contribute to the good of others, is causing our young people a range of problems.' The Good Childhood study was carried out by a panel of independent experts for the charity. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 2 Kids + 0 Husbands = Family New York Times, By Emily Bazelon, January 29, 2009
In 1960, unmarried mothers accounted for about 5 percent of births in the United States. Now they are having almost 40 percent of the country’s babies. About half of these women are on their own, and the other half are living with a man at the time of the birth, according to Pamela Smock, a sociology professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. The stock characters of the explosion of out-of-wedlock births are feckless fathers and hapless young mothers. It’s true that most unmarried mothers are still in their 20s — and less often in their teens — and have no more than a high-school education. But as television’s Murphy Brown predicted in the 1990s, an increasing number of unmarried mothers look a lot more like Fran McElhill and Nancy Clark — they are college-educated, and they are in their 30s, 40s and 50s.

RELATED BROADCAST: Hollywood's Four Lies- Part 1 Truths That Transform.org, Speaker: Michael Medved
The number one myth about today's entertainment media is that they merely provide harmless entertainment that doesn't influence anyone's behavior. How can you expose this dangerous lie?

RELATED BROADCAST: Hollywood's Four Lies - Part 2 Truths That Transform.org, Speaker: Michael Medved
What does the American entertainment industry teach about family values? According to noted film critic Michael Medved, their message is that "any kind of sexual expression is fine, except between husbands and wives." How can you respond to their lies?

Credit crunch sends record numbers of couples down the aisle… but rich men head to the divorce court The Daily Mail- UK, February 2, 2009
The credit crunch is leading to record numbers of young couples getting married. It is believed the trend is down to more people seeking security and stability during a time of financial uncertainy. Some wedding venues have seen an increase in business of 70 per cent compared to 12 months ago while register offices are fully booked for months ahead. But it is a different story for men suffering financial pressures. Divorce lawyers have reported a surge in demand from rich men who - who have either been made redundant, or fear their jobs may go - are leaving their partners because they know they will most likely have to fork out less in settlements if they aren't earning big money anymore. The wedding industry was expecting to be hit in the recession like other businesses. But Chrissie Stainton, a registrar in Poole, Dorset, for 16 years said she has never been busier. She said: 'It is beyond belief. It is always busy after Christmas but we are struggling to fit people in. Weddings seem to be on the up.' Tara Howard, managing director of the historic Langtry Manor Hotel in Bournemouth, said: 'It has been amazing. We have been rushed off our feet. We were bracing ourselves for a bit of a downturn due to the recession but if anything it is the opposite.' And after just one month of this year the Westminster register office in London already have 776 bookings for 2009 compared with 1,457 services conducted for the whole of 2008. . . . . .Lancaster University social scientist Professor Cary Cooper, said: 'The increase in marriages makes sense. If you are feeling insecure, as people are now, then you are going to want to try to bring some stability to their lives. 'When times get tough you are going to look more for security in relationships.' The biggest rise in marriages during the last century came in 1940, triggered by the start of the Second World War. But it is not just young couples who are reassessing their lives in the face of financial gloom. . .

Credit crunch sends record numbers of couples down the aisle¿ but rich men head to the divorce court

RELATED ARTICLE: Marriage grants needed Washington Times, By Cheryl Wetzstein, January 27, 2009
Did you swoon over the presidential inauguration? Many observers in the marriage movement did. It was hard to miss the genuine electricity flowing between President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama, especially when they danced at the balls "like the bride and groom on top of the wedding cake," one marriage leader said. Clearly, the first couple understands the value of marriage. But for weeks, I have been hearing chatter about how the Obama administration and the Democrat-led Congress are going to kill or divert the funds now flowing to hundreds of marriage-education programs. Many of these programs are aimed at helping couples - especially low-income couples - figure out how to create a stable, secure and faithful relationship, i.e., marriage. The funding I am referring to is the $150 million-a-year grants for healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood, awarded October 2006. If the grants go their full five years, the outlay would be $750 million. The rumblings say that Mr. Obama and the Democrats like the funding for fatherhood but not for marriage. (Marriage, according to critics, is a patriarchal institution that enslaves women, leads to domestic violence and/or needlessly privileges some people over others.). . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Cosby and Breaking the Cycle EURWeb.com, By Joseph C. Phillips, October 27, 2005
Marriage is the most effective anti-poverty program ever created! If a child finishes high school, marries before having children and marries after the age of 20, there is only an eight percent chance of ending up impoverished. Study after study shows that children raised in homes without fathers are more prone to sexual and physical abuse and are more likely to experiment with drugs and sex at an early age. Married women also suffer fewer instances of physical and sexual abuse. Studies also show that married men have lower rates of almost every social ill on which statistics are kept: criminal behavior, crime victimization, unemployment, drug addiction, and suicide. The solution to breaking the cycle may not be easy but it is not all that complicated. It must certainly begin with a readjustment of our cultural sense and the outright rejection of the relativist ideology that separates sex from love and love from marriage that has hijacked the principle of family and turned it into "whatever floats your boat.". .

The Super Bowl Commercial You Won't See OneNewsNow, by Marcia Segelstein
That wonderful pro-life Obama commercial you may have seen here recently was supposed to run during the Super Bowl on Sunday. After first accepting it, NBC apparently changed its collective mind, saying it wasn't going to run advocacy ads during the big game. Brian Burch, President of Fidelis, a Chicago-based Catholic organization responsible for the commercial, says that NBC initially responded positively and he was raising money to pay for it. Watch the commercial below, and imagine the impact it could have had on the millions who watch the Super Bowl. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: NBC nixes Super Bowl pro-life ad OneNewsNow, By Charlie Butts and Jody Brown, January 30, 2009
NBC has rejected a pro-life ad for the Super Bowl, citing its policy not to run ads involving "political advocacy or issues." The 30-second television spot, a project of CatholicVote.org and financed by The Fidelis Center for Law & Policy, actually emerged just before the inauguration of President Barack Obama. Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote.org, explains there is nothing objectionable in its "life-affirming" message, which features ultrasound pictures of a baby in a mother's womb. . . . . The CatholicVote.org spokesman points out in a press statement that NBC appears to be inconsistent in applying its "no advocacy ads" policy. He notes the network rejected an ad produced by PETA -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals -- because of its suggestive sexual content. . .

RELATED VIDEO: Super Bowl Ad NBC Rejected

RELATED BROADCAST: Life: An inalienable right

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama's First Export: Abortion Townhall.com, By Laura Hollis, January 27, 2009
Well, that didn’t take long. Only 72 hours after he took the oath of office, newly-minted President Barack Obama signed an executive order releasing federal funds to agencies that promote and provide abortion overseas. Known as the “Mexico City Policy,” this has gone back and forth since Reagan instituted the original ban. Bush I kept it in place. Bill Clinton lifted it. Bush II put it back into place. Obama has lifted it again. Yes, I know everyone expected it. I know the issue of abortion is sooooo last administration. I know that nothing will take the bloom off of Obama’s rose. And yes, I know that a lot of people don’t care. But they should. Obama ran as the candidate of “hope” and “change we can believe in.” With nearly 50 million children destroyed by abortion in the United States alone since 1973, do we really need more? Technology like 3-D ultrasound has demonstrated that the human child in the uterus is far more developed and biologically sophisticated much earlier in gestation than we knew 36 years ago. (Remember “it’s just a clump of cells”?). . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The SLED Test – Four Top Arguments Heartlink.org, By Steve Wagner
We all agree that toddlers are valuable human beings with rights. Yet the unborn differ from toddlers in only four ways, and the first letters of each of these differences spell an easy-to-remember acronym, SLED (Size, Level of Development, Environment, Degree of Dependency).

RELATED SITE: THE CASE FOR LIFE: Like You Have Never Heard It Before
Only One Issue: The abortion controversy is not a debate between those who are pro-choice and those who are anti-choice. It’s not about privacy or trusting women. To the contrary, the debate turns on one key question. What is the Unborn?

RELATED SITE: Abort73.com: The Case Against Abortion

RELATED VIDEO: This is Abortion RATED: MA (Mature Audiences Only)
WARNING: Contains graphic post-abortion pictures. Be Warned! The Visual Evidence is Disturbing.

Brand-New Mom Naomi Watts: 'I Had To Start All Over Again' Parade magazine, By James Kaplan, February 1, 2009
Naomi Watts may be the biggest movie star who could walk right by you on the street without your knowing. She’s well aware of this. “I don’t have a striking, distinctive face,” she tells me. “My features are not too big. I think I’ve got a blank canvas that can take on different qualities.” Variety has its uses. . . . . .But when success came, old connections felt even more important, especially Australian ones. After Kidman broke up with Cruise in 2001, she moved in with Watts for a while. And in 2002, while making the Australian film Ned Kelly, about that country’s legendary bandit, Watts fell in love with the man playing the title role—her co-star and countryman Heath Ledger. “I hadn’t really been that familiar with his work,” Watts recalls. “Then, when I got to the set and did that first scene with him, I was like, ‘Wow! This guy is alive.’ It was just something deep in his eyes. You could look into them, and they would tell a thousand stories in one glance. There was a wonderful mixture of power and fragility at work in everything he did, which just pulls you in. His strength didn’t scare you. It intrigued you. And his fragility touched you.” The couple parted amicably in 2004, separated by the distance of two growing careers, but stayed friends until Ledger’s tragic death from an accidental overdose in early 2008 at age 28. “It’s still incredibly difficult,” Watts says, her voice trailing off. In 2005, she connected with Liev Schreiber, a powerful actor in his own right. “I started out living in L.A., and then I met this guy who hates L.A.!” Watts says, laughing. Her partner’s dark intensity compelled that side of her own personality. “He’s a complicated man, which I’ve always been drawn toward in men,” she says. “He’s fiercely intelligent.” Watts refuses to say when or even if she and Schreiber will conventionalize their relationship. . .

RELATED PHOTO ESSAY: Over-40 Hollywood Moms Parade magazine

"Marriage in the News" is not a representation of The Real Proposal magazine...