"MARRIAGE" In The News
(February 2011)

'Marriage' In The News is NOT a representation of The Real Proposal™ magazine...

 The news articles and features presented below are simply an indication of how topical, controversial, and all-encompassing the issues surrounding marriage are throughout our society—and the world—today. Some of the views and opinions expressed, and their respective web sites, do NOT reflect the views or opinions of The Real Proposal™ magazine. Many are highlighted largely to reiterate that the alarming statistical trends on the chaotic state of "Marriage" and "Family"—outlined in"A Mere Glimpse"—will continue unabated without a fundamental grasp and purposeful dissemination of TRUTH on the issues.

• Sex Is Cheap
  Why young men have the upper hand in bed, even when they're failing in life.  Slate, By Mark Regnerus, February 25, 2011
  We keep hearing that young men are failing to adapt to contemporary life. Their financial prospects are impaired—earnings for 25- to 34-year-old men have fallen by 20 percent since 1971. Their college enrollment numbers trail women's: Only 43 percent of American undergraduates today are men. Last year, women made up the majority of the work force for the first time. And yet there is one area in which men are very much in charge: premarital heterosexual relationships. When attractive women will still bed you, life for young men, even those who are floundering, just isn't so bad. This isn't to say that all men direct the course of their relationships. Plenty don't. But what many young men wish for—access to sex without too many complications or commitments—carries the day. If women were more fully in charge of how their relationships transpired, we'd be seeing, on average, more impressive wooing efforts, longer relationships, fewer premarital sexual partners, shorter cohabitations, and more marrying going on. Instead, according to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (which collects data well into adulthood), none of these things is occurring. Not one. The terms of contemporary sexual relationships favor men and what they want in relationships, not just despite the fact that what they have to offer has diminished, but in part because of it. And it's all thanks to supply and demand. To better understand what's going on, it's worth a crash course in "sexual economics," an approach best articulated by social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs. As Baumeister, Vohs, and others have repeatedly shown, on average, men want sex more than women do. Call it sexist, call it whatever you want—the evidence shows it's true. In one frequently cited study, attractive young researchers separately approached opposite-sex strangers on Florida State University's campus and proposed casual sex. Three-quarters of the men were game, but not one woman said yes. I know: Women love sex too. But research like this consistently demonstrates that men have a greater and far less discriminating appetite for it. As Baumeister and Vohs note, sex in consensual relationships therefore commences only when women decide it does. And yet despite the fact that women are holding the sexual purse strings, they aren't asking for much in return these days—the market "price" of sex is currently very low. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  The child-man in the Promised Land:Today's single young men hang out in a hormonal limbo between adolescence and adulthood   City Journal, By Kay Hymowitz, Winter 2008- Vol. 18, no.1
It’s 1965 and you’re a 26-year-old white guy. You have a factory job, or maybe you work for an insurance broker. Either way, you’re married, probably have been for a few years now; you met your wife in high school, where she was in your sister’s class. You’ve already got one kid, with another on the way. For now, you’re renting an apartment in your parents’ two-family house, but you’re saving up for a three-bedroom ranch house in the next town. Yup, you’re an adult! Now meet the twenty-first-century you, also 26. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  A Real Man's Responsibilities Townhall.com, By John Hawkins, May 16, 2008
You can scarcely pick up a paper these days without reading about someone talking about "rights." However, the word "responsibilities" doesn't seem to come up as often. That's a shame because our "responsibilities" are every bit as important as our "rights." In fact, the "responsibilities" are more important in some ways because of our nature. We human beings are born savages, not much different than highly intelligent wolves. It's only because we have been socialized, civilized, taught better, and bathed in the grace of God that we have the wherewithal to live together respectfully in a civilized society. Moreover, because men are bigger, stronger, and more naturally aggressive than women, we particularly need to be schooled on what our duties are -- not just as human beings, but as men. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Feminists created Mr Sensitive, but what we REALLY want is a man to fix the car  The Daily Mail- UK, By Lowri Turner, May 15, 2008
I am part of a generation which has spent the past 20 years proving to men that we don't need them. In doing so, we have painted ourselves into a corner, literally in some cases since we have given up waiting for the men in our lives to redecorate the spare room and girls are now doing it for themselves, as well as everything else. I look at myself and my girlfriends, all so tired from being bravely, fabulously independent, and I wonder if, in wanting to show we are not silly damsels in distress, we have let men off the hook? When it comes to domestic chores, we do seem to have a bad deal. These days, we do our mother's work, the cleaning, cooking etc, and our father's DIY, putting stuff in the loft, as well. This is, admittedly because it's often quicker to do it ourselves than wait for the men to get off the sofa and we don't have to waste energy nagging. But it is exhausting. For those of us who are single parents with sons, the example we set is worrying. I look at my two boys, seven and five, and wonder if they will grow up to assume that women do the shopping, cleaning, cooking, washing, car maintenance, DIY etc. while men tinker round the edges, doing the odd run to the bottle bank or buying overpriced salami at the organic deli. Yes, it's good to show boys that a woman's talents have no limit, but not if it means they are going to sit on their bottoms and expect their girlfriends to put the rubbish out. So, perhaps the time is now ripe for the return of Macho Man, not the knuckle-dragging Neanderthal but a chap who knows where to put water in the car, decides where to go for dinner and can clear blocked guttering. Emotional intelligence is all very well, but if a pigeon dies in your cold water tank, it's not much use being able to discuss how you feel, you want someone to get the blinking thing out. .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Why women are to blame for killing off real men   The Daily Mail- UK, By Carol Sandler, May 7, 2008
When we longed for the coming of what we once liked to call the New Man, don't you sometimes think we should have been more careful what we wished for? Back then, we thought we knew what we wanted. Moreover, what we thought we wanted didn't sound unreasonable. Put-upon women - run ragged by Neanderthal demands that we perform in the office, kitchen and bedroom - believed that if our partners could just be kicked up the backside of their latent sensitivity, they'd graduate from cavemen to soul-mates, and our lives would be that much easier for it. . . . . You could call it turning the tables...but two wrongs don't make a right. And now, after all these years of our efforts to "retrain" men, up to and including ridiculing them, what have we really achieved? We have achieved a generation of women who still earn, as a national average, only 70 per cent of men's wages, and who still do five hours of housework to every measly hour's contribution from the man of the house. Yet we have also achieved a new generation of men who, worrying signs suggest, are turning into a bunch of sissies. So well done, ladies. Take a look at your handiwork now. . . . And worse is on the way. The latest casualty of our well-meaning efforts, research says, is a huge decline in male libido. It's not that they can't have sex (we've got Viagra for that). No, it's that they won't have sex. Not interested. Can't be bothered. . .

• Donor-Conceived and Out of the Closet
  The children of anonymous sperm donors are growing up, speaking out, and demanding rights in a forum fraught with controversy   Newsweek, By Alessandra Rafferty, February 25, 2011
  When she was younger, Alana S. used to experiment and tell people her dad died when she was a baby and that she didn’t really ever get to know him. She would get a sincere hug and a heartfelt, “I’m so sorry.” But when she told people the truth of her father’s whereabouts, she got a response mostly filled with confusion. “When I tell people I’m donor conceived, God, the blank expression on their face,” Alana said. “They’re shocked, they’re paralyzed.” The reaction propelled her to create AnonymousUs.org, a no-names online story collective for donor-conceived people, their families, donors, and medical professionals. “The goal is for it to be a healing resource, and also I want to find the patterns. I feel like I’m a tile in a big mosaic and I want to see other people’s tiles and get a big picture,” she said. AnonymousUs.org is part of the growing online presence and increasing visibility of the adult children of anonymous sperm and egg donors—kids who are not quite all right. Unlike Joni and Laser, the donor-conceived teenagers of lesbian couple Jules and Nic in the recent film The Kids Are All Right, very few donor-conceived people have access to their donor’s information. Most donors are anonymous and wish to remain so, and most records are destroyed. And that is the way we seem to want to keep it. For Alana S.; Lindsay Greenawalt, author of the Confessions of a Cryokid blog; and Olivia Pratten, a Toronto journalist waiting for a Canadian court to hand down a landmark ruling on disclosing donor records, that’s simply unacceptable. They argue that their genetic makeup, their biological fathers, are very much a real and visceral part of who they are, and they have the basic, empirical human right to know that heritage: “Every time I look in the mirror I see my father,” says Alana S. Currently, in the United States, you need a license to sell a condo or cut hair in a salon, but not to broker human life. The $3 billion fertility industry goes largely unregulated, offering blank pages to those searching for information where the rest of us are free to access vital statistics of public record. “I’m not a treatment, I’m a person, and those records belong to me,” says Pratten. . . . . . Another complicating factor toward bringing the voices of the donor conceived to the fore is the perception that those who want to know their original heritage are ungrateful for the families they already have. Many people even believe that it’s a nonissue: “love is enough”—but won’t address the hypocrisy inherent in an infertile couple’s desire to have a biological child and yet deny that child’s desire to know his or her biological roots. The mainstream media is interested only in portraying Oprah-like happy “reunions” (not years of fruitless, painful searching) but refuses to address the emotions behind why those meetings are so affecting. Activists want to make clear their intention is not to hurt their families; they simply want to put an end to the frustration. Says Pratten, “I am happy. I am loved. My dad is my dad. My parents support my case. They were in court with me every day. I still want to know.”. . .

RELATED BLOG: Confessions of a Cryokid
“What happens when little bundles of artificially created joy begin to speak for themselves? Revolt! I'm a product of an anonymous sperm donor and now that I'm an adult I'm searching for answers and speaking out. And this is my story..."

RELATED ARTICLE:  The Sperm-Donor Kids Are Not Really All Right: A new study shows they suffer.  Slate magazine,  By By Karen Clark and Elizabeth Marquardt, June 14, 2010
The Kids Are All Right, due out in July, is being praised for its honest portrayal of a lesbian couple, played by Julianne Moore and Annette Bening. But what seems most revelatory about the movie is its portrayal of their two teenage children who track down their sperm donor biological father and insist on forging a connection with him. Finally, we have an exploration of how children born from such procedures feel, because in fact it turns out that their feelings about their origins are a lot more complicated than people think. . .


RELATED STUDY:  My Daddy’s Name is Donor: A New Study of Young Adults Conceived through Sperm Donation: A Report Released Internationally by the Commission on Parenthood's Future  FamilyScholars.org, By Elizabeth Marquardt, Norval D. Glenn, and Karen Clark, Co-Investigators

• Chris Medina: The 'Idol Worship' Interview:
  The Season 10 standout opens up to THR about his early elimination, future in music ("X-Factor," anyone?), and fiancee Juliana's healthcare -- paid for by Starbucks before donations started pouring in The Hollywood Reporter, By Shirley Halperin, February 25, 2011
  Eliminated American Idol hopeful Chris Medina's inspirational story prompted super-producer Rodney Jerkins (Britney Spears, Michael Jackson) to put pen to paper. The result: a just recorded single, "What Are Words," and an accompanying video premiering on Friday at 2 p.m. EST on aol.com. "The song embodied what I'm going through and the promises that I kept," explains Medina, who pledged to take care of his fiancee Juliana following crippling car accident. Medina's Milwaukee audition made him a instant household name, but his fan favorite status didn't save him from the judges' wrath -- which, in Jennifer Lopez's case, turned into a full-on meltdown. How did Chris Medina handle his early exit and where is headed next? THR caught up with the Oak Park, Illinois native 24 hours after his farewell episode aired, and just before he went shopping for a new blazer to wear on Friday's Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
  
  THR: How hard has it been to be home and keep all of your Idol experiences a secret?
  Chris Medina: It was pretty easy. I didn't go out. I just stayed in my house and didn't talk to anybody. Every week, I’d get a phone call saying "Hey, this is so-and-so from TMZ, is this Chris Medina from American Idol?" And I'm, like, "No! But I've been getting that all week." I kind of pretended I wasn't myself and just ignored them.
   
  THR: Every Idol hopeful has that moment when he/she realizes the show is much bigger than they ever imagined, when was yours?
   
  Medina: The day that my audition aired. I was at a bar with my family watching [the show] – kissing, crying and happy – and my buddy pulls me aside and says, "You’re the number one trending topic on Twitter and Google." I was, like, "This is not happening.” It was this weird Twilight Zone stuff, like it isn't real." The a few days after it aired, Juliana's cousin, who’s a volleyball coach, invites my whole family to this grammar school game, and as soon as I walk through the parking lot, someone recognized me. In the gym, this kid asked me to sign his arm. I look at the stands and everyone is going berserk. I hugged a kid and he started crying. A mom got red in the face telling me, "You need to take a picture with my daughter!" That's when I realized that this was way bigger than anything I'd ever done. . . 
  
  
  
  

• U.S. won't defend law that bans gay marriage  USA Today, By Kevin Johnson and Joan Biskupic, February 23, 2011
  The Obama administration will no longer defend a federal law that bans recognition of same-sex marriage, marking a major legal reversal that reinvigorates a national debate over gay rights. The decision, outlined Wednesday by Attorney General Eric Holder, represents the administration's strongest legal advocacy to date for the rights of gay men and lesbians, who have strongly opposed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The law defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. "Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA," Holder said. "The Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional. Congress has repealed the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy... But while both the wisdom and the legality of DOMA will continue to be the subject of extensive litigation and public debate, this administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court." Holder noted his action departed from a "long-standing practice" of defending federal laws. Yet he said the legislative record that led to DOMA's passage contained "numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate family relationships — precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection clause is designed to guard against." . . . . ."While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Republican House Speaker John Boehner. Republican House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith of Texas called the decision "irresponsible.". .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Obama DOJ to Stop Defending Defense of Marriage Act: Do You Agree?  ABC Nighline, February 23, 2011
  In a major policy shift, President Obama today ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. According to the latest ABC News poll, Americans divide about evenly on gay marriage – when we last polled on it a year ago, 47 percent said it should be legal, 50 percent illegal, with strong opinions on both sides (but stronger among opponents). The result was a sharp shift from as recently as 2006, when 36 percent were in favor, 58 percent opposed. Do you agree with the president's move? Why do you think he did it--and why now?
  
  
  
  RELATED POLL:  Question of the Day: Should gay marriage be legal in the U.S?  Wall Street Journal, February 23, 2011

RELATED ACTION: URGENT ACTION NEEDED!!! Obama refuses to defend DOMA – Time for Congress to step up!
It’s not too late. Attorney General Holder admitted that Congress now has the ability to step in and defend DOMA.

RELATED ARTICLE:  It's Time To Fight - Alliance Defense Fund speaks out on USDOJ refusal to protect law.  The Chuck Colson Center,
By Alan Sears, President ADF, February 24, 2011
It’s time to fight… We wanted to update you on the litigation involving the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA – which essentially is the law that defines marriage to include one man and one woman for federal government purposes, and allows each state to define marriage without imposing any re-definition on another), and especially the impact of Eric Holder’s unprecedented announcement yesterday that the Department of Justice will no longer defend the law (and in fact actively oppose it). As you know, the Attorney General’s announcement only confirms what has been a reality since the Administration began “defending” DOMA in the seven jurisdictions in which it is currently being challenged. It’s no exaggeration to say that the President’s team has been throwing the cases. The Administration has expressly waived advancing winning legal arguments and intentionally failed to cite binding legal precedent in each case. In fact, the Administration has “expressly disavowed” the winning legal arguments that the Bush Administration had made in previous cases. In short, it is clear that the President and his lawyers have been actively sabotaging DOMA in court. That is why we have put so many resources into DOMA’s defense. . . . .. It’s an outrage that the President and his Attorney General would not only fail to defend the law, but actively side with those who seek to redefine marriage and label the majority of Americans as the equivalent of bigots motivated by “animus” for believing marriage is the union of one man and one woman. (After all, not only have 30 state marriage amendments been passed by usually overwhelming margins across the country, DOMA was passed in the House of Representatives by a bi-partisan vote of 342-67, and in the Senate 85-14 and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton). But this Administration has made no secret about what it thinks when religious liberty collides with those who seek to redefine marriage. As the President’s pick as head of the EEOC said, “…we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people,” “it’s a zero-sum game.”. . .



RELATED EDITORIAL:  Yes, we did. But we're not ready to throw confetti.  Editorial: The Real Proposal magazine, Originally Published November 08, 2008
The people of America have spoken. And who among us could not feel pride at this transcendental moment in American history when we, the people, elected the first African-American president of the United States of America? To not acknowledge and savor this historic moment in a nation that once considered blacks property would be churlish. Indeed, Mr. Obama is to be sincerely congratulated. It is a historic accomplishment for him to become the first African-American to be elected to the highest office in the land, and we can understand the nation's pride and jubilance in this achievement. Many of us desired to vote for Mr. Obama not just because of its historical significance but because, to be sure, on several other levels he is qualified for the office of the presidency. But we couldn’t. And, instead, many of us find ourselves in a grieving process of sorts, not because of Mr. Obama's victory but because his advent represents a potential threat to what many in this country revere as core foundational principles that have been the cornerstones upon which our great nation has been built, and upon which we have thrived to become, certainly, one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations on this planet. To be sure, the institution of marriage as it has been defined for millennia as the union of one man and one woman is no longer secure with Mr. Obama at the helm. . .

• Maggie's Report from New Hampshire  NOM Blog, By Maggie Gallagher, February 17, 2011
  Just returned from the magnificent state house in Concord, New Hampshire. The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, dapper and bow-tied, was a rare combination of humor and dignity. “This is the most democratic legislature in the United States,” he said, “we are the third-largest democratic body in the world.” As all of us speaker’s tended to get long-winded he also jumped in with things like “The Chairman’s Motto: “Nicer is concise.” And he began with a joke: “Obviously good people can disagree, otherwise there would never be any marriages at all!” Kevin Smith, leader of the local family policy council Cornerstone, gave a great testimony. My favorite Kevin Smith line: “The sky didn’t fall in 2008 when the voters repealed same-sex marriage. The sky didn’t fall in Maine either the next year in 2009, when the voters repealed gay marriage passed by the legislature.” I began by thanking the chairman for asking for a debate that was not just civil but “friendly.” The state house, the chamber, the crowds, the looming giant portraits of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and other more local heroes (excuse me a minute I’m going to Google "John Hale"). “What unites us as Americans is greater than what divides us—even across as great a divide as this” I said. “The majority of courts, as well as the majority of people, have rejected the idea that gay marriage is a right. Why? It is not discrimination to treat different things differently. Our historic understanding of marriage is not discriminatory—I realize many people here disagree-but that is our actual position. Marriage is the union of husband and wife for a reason: these are the only unions that make new life and connect those children in love to their mother and father. Marriage addresses a unique problem and offers a unique opportunity—and in both ways the public good is involved in these unions in a distinct way. My three minutes was almost up so I did not get a chance to say to the handful of conservative Republican legislators pushing to get government out of the marriage business: “This is not the reason that individual couples marry, necessarily, but it is necessarily the reason why the government is in the marriage business. The close relationships between marriage and regulating procreation explains what is otherwise inexplicable: why the government is in the love business at all.” 
  
  
  
  

RELATED AUDIO:  Maggie's Testimony in New Hampshire  NOM Blog,
Maggie was in New Hampshire yesterday, and published a report of her impressions here. Below is the audio of the testimony she gave before the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Comments were limited to under three minutes:. . . SEE RELATED COMMENTS: "... 3) The practice of homosexuality is sexually deviant, abnormal behavior practiced by less than 3% of the population. We should not raise the abnormal to the level of the normal by cloaking it in the institution of marriage..."

• Prop. 8 delay: California court will decide if gay-marriage foes can appeal
  The California Supreme Court will answer a sticky legal question: Can the opponents of gay marriage who backed Prop. 8 defend it in court? Oral arguments won't start before September.   Christian Science Monitor, By Elizabeth Fuller, February 16, 2011
  The latest question in California’s ongoing legal battle over same-sex marriage is now in the hands of the California Supreme Court. California’s highest court announced Wednesday it would decide if the original sponsors of Proposition 8 – which banned same-sex marriage in California in 2008, then was subsequently overturned in federal court – have the legal standing to defend the measure. The issue arises because the state of California declined to appeal the ruling of Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker that the initiative violated the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Prop. 8’s supporters then looked for someone else with the legal right to appeal. In the name of a deputy clerk from Imperial County and on behalf of their own organization, Protect Marriage eventually filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In January, the Ninth Circuit asked California’s highest state court to answer a sticky legal question: Can Project Marriage speak for the state? The California Supreme Court said Wednesday that it will take up the question, hearing oral arguments no earlier than September. Lawyers for the two couples that had first challenged Prop. 8’s constitutionality argued before the Ninth Circuit that neither the clerk nor Protect Marriage have any right to speak for the state of California. They also noted that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the proponents of a ballot initiative in Arizona did not have standing to defend it in federal court. Attorneys for Protect Marriage have argued that somebody had to speak for the voters, or else then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision not to appeal would effectively nullify voter will. . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE: California Supreme Court considering pivotal issue in gay marriage legal fight today  Los Angeles Times, February 16, 2011
  The California Supreme Court will meet behind closed doors Wednesday to deal with a pressing question in the legal battle over gay marriage in California. The justices will review a request by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether Proposition 8's sponsors have the legal standing to defend the ballot measure that reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage. A federal judge in San Francisco struck down Proposition 8 in August, ruling after a 12-day trial that the 2008 ballot measure violated equal-protection guarantees under the U.S. Constitution. Experts testified during the trial that one's sexual orientation was largely fixed and that matrimony benefits the families of gays and lesbians. State officials refused to appeal the ruling. Now the 9th Circuit must determine whether Proposition 8's sponsors, ProtectMarriage.com, have legal standing to challenge the trial court's decision. . .
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Gay marriage simmers as issue: Lawmakers take up or revive debate   Concord Monitor, By Anonymous, February 13, 2011
  Lawmakers in Rhode Island and Maryland are taking up bills to legalize gay marriage, advocates in New York are making a renewed push, and opponents are fighting for constitutional bans in Indiana and Wyoming and to re-impose bans in Iowa and New Hampshire. The flurry of activity nationwide has activists on both sides of the gay marriage debate encouraged that 2011 will be a year of gains for them. . . . . Gay marriage is legal in a handful of states besides Massachusetts: Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Iowa, as well as in the District of Columbia. In California, supporters of gay marriage are mounting a challenge in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage there after voters approved it in 2008. On the other side, 30 states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriages. . . .
  
  
  

• Mr. Hannah Montana's Achy Broken Heart  GQ magazine, By Chris Heath, March 2011 Issue
  These days Billy Ray Cyrus's life is imitating a bad country song: He's headed for a messy divorce, his record company just delayed his latest comeback, and his cherished 18-year-old daughter seems destined to rip bong hits at every party in the U.S.A. No wonder he's muttering about the end times. . . . He has a favorite chair at the circular wooden table in the modest kitchen of his Tennessee mansion where he spends much of his time, and he prefers it here with the lights out. When I first arrive he makes me a cup of tea in the microwave, and we face each other as people generally do, fully illuminated, but after a while he asks me whether I'd mind. He flicks a switch behind him, and sinks into shadow. The last few months, he's been living here alone. At the end of August he left the Los Angeles house where his family moved four years ago after his daughter Miley was cast in the Disney teen drama Hannah Montana, the show that would launch her as the pop-culture sensation of her day. He returned to the hundreds of acres of prime Tennessee countryside he had bought with cash in the early '90s in the wake of "Achy Breaky Heart," the song that launched him as the pop-culture sensation of his day. In late October he filed for divorce from Miley's mother, Tish. It's been a tough year, and it keeps getting tougher. This is exactly where he was sitting five days earlier when he opened a link on his Mac PowerBook and—alongside millions of voyeurs with far less at stake—watched footage of Miley smoking a bong and talking some kind of crazed nonsense in celebration of her eighteenth birthday.1 This is where he was when he tweeted his response: Sorry guys. I had no idea. Just saw this stuff for the first time myself. Im so sad. There is much beyond my control right now. . . . . "For the record," he abruptly announces, "to set it straight, I want to tell you: I've never made a dime off of Miley. You got a lot of people have made percentages off of her. I'm proud to say to this day I've never made one commissioned dollar, or dime, off of my daughter." He knows that people often assume he is Miley's manager, perhaps because of the dual father-manager role he plays on Hannah Montana, but that is something he has never been. And now that he has raised the subject, it seems there are a few other things he'd like to mention. "See," he begins, "I've not been able to have a voice." He explains how, with each major or minor PR uproar in recent years, he has been expected to sail in and smooth everything over. He clearly has regrets. "Every time something happened in Miley's career, every time the train went off the track, if you will—Vanity Fair,2 pole-dancing,3 whatever scandal it was—her people, or as they say in today's news, her handlers, every time they'd put me... 'Somebody's shooting at Miley! Put the old man up there!' Well, I took it, because I'm her daddy, and that's what daddies do. 'Okay, nail me to the cross, I'll take it....' " As soon as he begins to talk about all this, anguish builds in his voice; the anguish, say, that any father might feel when he can no longer clearly see the right way to guide a daughter or keep her safe, but the kind that is compounded by a cauldron of celebrity and public humiliation and ambition and avarice and hysteria, so that it's hard for anyone, let alone someone at its center, to maintain any perspective, to be able to distinguish between sensible concern and panic-stricken paranoia, which may be somewhere close to how Billy Ray Cyrus feels right now. "All those people around, they used me every time. It became so obvious that, man, no matter what happens, they're going to put you up there and let you take the bullet." When he heard about her upcoming eighteenth-birthday party, he decided he wasn't going to play that role anymore. . .

RELATED VIDEO:  Miley Cyrus on her 18th birthday smoking bong TMZ.com, December 10, 2010
Miley Cyrus celebrated her 18th birthday by experimenting with a bong and catching a case of the giggles -- but sources say she was not smoking marijuana.    The video was shot during a party at Miley's L.A. area home 5 days after her 18th birthday. . .

• Adultery Incorporated — The Infidelity Industry
  It seems that many human beings will abandon their moral principles when faced with the opportunity to commit adultery. Ashley Madison exists to create even more of those opportunities.  AlbertMohler.com, February 14, 2011
  “Monogamy, in my opinion, is a failed experiment.” That is the declaration of Noel Biderman, a Toronto businessman who wants to sell you an adulterous affair. As the current cover story of Bloomberg Businessweek reveals, Mr. Biderman is doing a great deal of business. The magazine describes AshleyMadison.com as “the premier ‘dating’ website for aspiring adulterers.” Biderman says he came up with the idea after serving as an agent for professional athletes. That job required him to negotiate around the adulterous affairs of his clients. Biderman came to the conclusion that adultery could be big business. Now, Ashley Madison grosses $60 million in yearly revenue and produces $20 million in annual profits. Biderman himself is making millions of dollars a year, and adultery appears to be a growth industry. The idea behind Ashley Madison is easy enough to understand. Biderman’s plan was to create a website that would appear to cater to women seeking an adulterous partner, while actually attracting men seeking the women for an adulterous liaison. Clients of the site establish a personal profile, check off their “availability status,” and mark their personal preferences. The real money flows to the site when men connect online with women and then have to pay rather steep fees for the privilege of continuing the conversation. If all goes according to plan, adultery soon follows. Businessweek’s reporter, Sheelah Kolhatkar, describes Noel Biderman as “a lone genius — possibly evil and certainly entrepreneurial.” He serves as chief executive officer of Avid Life Media, the parent company for Ashley Madison. He is also the married father of two young children. In his office the computer monitor flashes his company’s promotional message: “Life is short. Have an affair.” Biderman’s wife, Amanda, seems unconcerned about both the business and her husband’s chosen role as the captain of the adultery industry. In a statement of almost complete moral evasion, she says: “Really, the business itself doesn’t match who he is as a person — it’s not our lifestyle or value system or any of that.” Well, here’s a clue: if you conceive, establish, and run the business, it is your value system. When “Life is short. Have an affair.” is your motto, adultery is “who you are as a person,” even if you never have an actual affair. She went on: “I mean, yeah, I’d love it if he were working on a cure for cancer. But it’s a business, and that’s how we look at it.” The same could be said for a house of prostitution, of course. . .

RELATED VIDEO: The View Hot Topics - Ashley Madison, Cheating and Infidelity Web site

RELATED ARTICLE:  Cheating, Incorporated: At Ashley Madison's website for "dating," the infidelity economy is alive, well, and profitable  BusinessWeek- Cover Story, By Sheelah Kolhatkar, February 11, 2011
Do you want to have an affair? After hearing an ad on Howard Stern's radio show or seeing a schlocky commercial on late-night TV, you might find yourself on AshleyMadison.com—the premier "dating" website for aspiring adulterers. Type in the URL, and as the page loads a gauzy violet backdrop appears with a fuzzy image of a half-dressed couple going at it beyond a hotel doorway. "Join FREE & change your life today. Guaranteed!" Setting up a profile costs nothing and takes about 12 seconds. First you check off your availability status: "attached male seeking females," "attached female seeking males," or, even though the concept of the site is that all users are in relationships and therefore equally invested in secrecy, "single female seeking males." Next you're asked for location, date of birth, height and weight, and whether you're looking for something "short term," "long term," "Cyber affair/Erotic Chat," "Whatever Excites Me," and so on. If you're like me, you choose a handle based on the cupcake you most recently ate—"redvelvet2"—and then shave a few years and pounds off your numbers. Once you provide an e-mail address that your spouse would presumably never have access to, you're thrust into Ashley Madison's low-tech pink and purple interface. And then, if you're a woman, the onslaught begins. There's a lone genius—possibly evil and certainly entrepreneurial—behind Ashley Madison. His name is Noel Biderman, and he's the chief executive officer of Avid Life Media, based in Toronto. "Monogamy, in my opinion, is a failed experiment," he declares. It's unclear if Biderman actually believes this—he's married and has two young kids—but like Hugh Hefner before him the business he has created pretty much requires that he say it. Behind his desk, in an office so lacking in embellishment it almost looks like a hastily assembled low-budget film set, is a large flat-screen monitor promoting his company's flagship brand. It reads: "Life is short. Have an affair." Adultery has been good to Biderman, but defending his product is a full-time job. . .


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


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


RELATED ARTICLE:  Building Hedges Around Your Marriage  FOTF.com, By Erin Prater
Hedges. You probably don't spend much time thinking about them. Bills? Yes. Work? Yes. The kids? Yes. But not hedges. What comes to mind when you think of one, anyway? A hedge fund? A hedgehog? An oddly-shaped row of bushes awkwardly leveled-off at the top, prickly and just about as appealing as a bad haircut? While a hedge might not be what your property needs, it is what your marriage needs. When we talk about building a hedge in your marriage, we're actually talking about constructing a mutually protective investment that will allow your marriage to flourish like never before. The series of articles that follows will explore the concept of "hedging" your marriage — what it means, why you should do it, and how to go about it. . .

• The coming fight over .gay domain (Q&A) CNET, By Declan McCullagh, February 14, 2011
  -Scott Seitz has the dubious distinction of proposing what might become the most controversial new top-level Internet domain: .gay. Seitz, the chief executive of dotGAY, is the founder of SPI Marketing, which bills itself as a "full service" gay marketing, public relations, and event planning agency. Clients include Absolut Vodka, American Express, Subaru, and Travelocity; campaigns included a Ru Paul drag race. Now, as soon as the application period begins, Seitz is planning to ask the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, to approve .gay. At least 115 proposals are expected, including .car, .health, .nyc, .movie, and .web. Controversial Internet suffixes have a history of suffering the geopolitical equivalent of being referred to a committee that never reaches a decision. An entrepreneur named Stuart Lawley applied for the rights to run .xxx in 2004, and thanks to opposition from the Bush administration and nations including Brazil, it still has not been approved. That could happen again. As CNET reported last week, the Obama administration is quietly seeking the power for it and other governments to veto future top-level domain names; that proposal will be incorporated into a so-called "scorecard" that's expected to be released in the next few days. Milton Mueller, a professor of information studies at Syracuse University and author of a new book on Internet governance, says conversations with government officials in conservative Arab countries have made it clear they'll try to veto .gay. CNET sat down with Seitz last Friday at the .nxt conference, organized by longtime ICANN-watcher Kieren McCarthy, where scores of hopeful applicants gathered to figure out how to raise money and piece together a compelling application. ICANN is expected to finalize the process during its March or June meetings. . .
  
  

• Halle Berry Takes The "One-Drop Rule" From Tragedy to Farce
  The "One-Drop Rule" has returned  Psychology Today, By Perry R. Branson, M.D. February 11, 2011
  One of the more interesting bits of knowledge that has emerged from the Psychoanalytic study of the mind over the last century is that unconscious conflicts can often be expressed in two diametrically opposed outcomes. On the larger level society often has difficulty coming to terms with conflicted beliefs. The Civil war was fought because society came to the understanding that slavery is a moral blight and that no man could be held in bondage in a nation which purported to celebrate Freedom. The legal freeing of the slaves required a war but the conflicted feelings toward the Negro persisted (and persists). In the hundred years after the Civil war it was widely accepted that Negroes were inferior. One reflection of this belief was the "One Drop Rule" which held that anyone with even one drop of "Negro blood" was considered a Negro. The one-drop rule is a historical colloquial term in the United States for the social classification as black of individuals with any African ancestry; it is an example of hypodescent, the automatic assignment of children of a mixed union between different socioeconomic or ethnic groups to the group with the lower status. The one-drop rule was put into law in the twentieth century, for instance in Virginia under the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 (following the passage of similar laws in numerous other states). Despite the strictures of slavery, in the antebellum years free people could have up to one-eighth to one-quarter African ancestry (depending on the state) and be considered legally white.[2] Community acceptance, carrying out community responsibilities, and appearance were often the most important factors if a person's racial status were questioned. . . . The One-Drop Rule reflected the idea that Negro blood was tainted and that its inclusion in a person's ancestry represented contamination of a more idealized form by a devalued. Negroes who passed as white were law breakers; anti-miscegenation laws remained on the books until 1967!. . . .The election of Barack Obama, with a Black African father and white mother, represented the apotheosis of this transformation. After a youth spent being "white" Barry, using all the privileges accorded Black Americans by white elites, he became the Black Barack Obama of his young adulthood. His early adulthood was spent acquiring and developing his "authenticity" as a Black man. Yet rather than finally lay to rest our obsession with race, the One-Drop Rule has now become farcical: Halle Berry Cites 'One-Drop' Rule in Battle Over Whether her Daughter Is Black or White:  Halle Berry said she is in a war of words with her ex-partner, Gabriel Aubry, about their daughter's racial identity. . . This is a fascinating bit of cultural development. Halle Berry would no more raise her child and send her to a "Black" primary school than would Barack and Michelle Obama. Their "Blackness" is an affectation rather than an identity forged in the "authenticity" of the streets. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Halle Berry Taking Nahla To New York; Aubry Drops Suit, Pursuing Paternity Action Huffington Post, February 16, 2011
UPDATE II: TMZ reports that Halle Berry was given permission by an LA judge to take Nahla to New York to film "New Years Eve," a project she initially dropped out of after the custody fight began. Gabriel Aubry indeed has dropped his custody suit, but will continue to pursue joint custody by filing a paternity action. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  Halle Berry Cites 'One-Drop' Rule in Battle Over Whether Her Daughter Is Black or White: Custody Battle Ignites War Over Racial Identity in Biracial Children   ABC News, By Susan Donaldson, February 09, 2011
Halle Berry said she is in a war of words with her ex-partner, Gabriel Aubry, about their daughter's racial identity. Berry, 44, is the daughter of a white mother, who was a psychiatric nurse, and a black father, who was a hospital attendant in the same ward. Aubry is French-Canadian and white. The couple is in the middle of a bitter custody battle over their 2-year-old girl, Nahla. "I feel she's black. I'm black and I'm her mother, and I believe in the one-drop theory," Berry said in an interview with Ebony magazine. The "one-drop" rule refers to Jim Crow laws passed in the South during the 20th century to further disenfranchise African Americans. It varied from state to state, but generally, if a person had "one drop" of black blood, they were forbidden to pass as white. "I'm not going to put a label on it. I had to decide for myself and that's what she's going to have to decide -- how she identifies herself in the world," Berry told Ebony. "What I think is that that's something she's going to have to decide." "And I think, largely, that will be based on how the world identifies her. That's how I identified myself," she said. "But I feel like she's black." Berry's remarks underscore an ongoing debate about racial identity in a country that is becoming much more multi-ethnic. One in seven new marriages is between spouses of different races or ethnicities, according to data from 2008 and 2009 that was analyzed by the Pew Research Center. The United States is having a demographic shift driven by immigration and intermarriage, one that is expected to accelerate. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Black? White? Asian? More Young Americans Choose All of the Above  NY TImes, By Susan Saulny, January 29, 2011
In another time or place, the game of “What Are You?” that was played one night last fall at the University of Maryland might have been mean, or menacing: Laura Wood’s peers were picking apart her every feature in an effort to guess her race. “How many mixtures do you have?” one young man asked above the chatter of about 50 students. With her tan skin and curly brown hair, Ms. Wood’s ancestry could have spanned the globe. “I’m mixed with two things,” she said politely. “Are you mulatto?” asked Paul Skym, another student, using a word once tinged with shame that is enjoying a comeback in some young circles. When Ms. Wood confirmed that she is indeed black and white, Mr. Skym, who is Asian and white, boasted, “Now that’s what I’m talking about!” in affirmation of their mutual mixed lineage. Then the group of friends — formally, the Multiracial and Biracial Student Association — erupted into laughter and cheers, a routine show of their mixed-race pride. The crop of students moving through college right now includes the largest group of mixed-race people ever to come of age in the United States, and they are only the vanguard: the country is in the midst of a demographic shift driven by immigration and intermarriage. . .

• Rhode Island: Same-sex marriage bill packs the halls  The Providence Journal, By Katherine Gregg and Tom Mooney, February 10, 2010
  The same-sex marriage debate played out at high volume at the State House on Wednesday, with advocates waving “vote for love” signs, and opponents arguing that nothing less than the soul of Rhode Island, the well-being of its children and the “sanctity of marriage” are at stake in a year when the state’s new governor and openly gay House speaker are enthusiastically backing gay nuptials. From a news conference to a rally to a lengthy House Judiciary Committee hearing, the arguments for and against same-sex marriage raged with so many people packing the marble stairs and hallways, the Capitol Police, in a rare but not unprecedented move, temporarily closed off the Smith Street entrance to the State House. . . . .A smaller group of people opposed to gay marriage took up their own posts in the crowd, with small blue signs that showed a math equation of “1 man + 1 woman = marriage.” Among them was Adam Jaquith, 28, of Woonsocket, who said he was here because “I’m a Christian man. I believe that God loves everyone. I have gay friends, but I believe that God has made it one man for one woman for marriage.” Same-gender marriage is already legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont, and was allowed in Maine until voters overturned the state Legislature’s approval of same-sex nuptials. In Rhode Island, it has been proposed every year since former state Rep. Michael Pisaturo, D-Cranston, introduced the first same-sex marriage bill in 1997. While no vote was taken, Wednesday night’s hours-long hearing may have set the stage for Rhode Island’s own lawmakers to finally decide where they stand. . . . . But opponents from as far away as California, and as near as the Catholic Diocese of Providence and the Congdon Street Baptist Church, disputed the contention that the fight for same-sex marriage is akin to the battle by blacks for civil rights. Leading off their news conference was state Sen. Harold Metts, D-Providence, a black man, who said “many in my community do not think that what people do in the bedroom, the privacy of their bedroom, is civil rights.” Later, the Rev. Bernard Healey, speaking on behalf of the Catholic diocese, said advocates wrongly reduce marriage to a “bundle” of social benefits to be attained rather than an institution to be preserved. Maggie Gallagher, the chairwoman and founder of the National Organization for Marriage, said her group would prefer same-sex marriage be put to a popular vote. But “we do not believe that our marriage laws are discriminatory,” she said. “We think that marriage is the union of husband and wife for a reason … [because] the unions really are unique. They are the only ones that can make [new] lives and connect those children in love to their mother and father.” Local lawyer Joseph V. Cavanagh went further, telling the lawmakers that “by leaping into this abyss, we will undermine forever the ideal that marriage between a man and woman is the preferred family — which it should be and always has been in human history.” “It doesn’t mean that same-sex couples can’t have relationships,” he said. “But let’s not redefine marriage. The difference is the difference. It’s a man and a woman who only themselves, uniquely coming together, can perform this act of love between themselves, to have a child, children, and raise them. That’s what we’re talking about. That’s what marriage is.” “Same-sex marriage with all due respect, is an oxymoron,” he said. . .
  
  

RELATED VIDEO:  INDIANA: Committee pushes same sex marriage ban
The Republican majority in the Indiana House of Representatives is pushing a new effort to create a constitutional ban on same sex marriage in this state. An Indiana House committee voted 8- 4 for the marriage amendment, restarting a process first began in 2004.

RELATED ARTICLE:  IOWA:  Marriage bill dead but door left open for resurrection, Republican says  Des Moines Register, By Jason Clayworth, February 09, 2011
A legislative proposal to allow Iowans to deny service to people whose marriages they disapprove of is dead, the chairman of the House Judicial Committee said today. Rep. Richard Anderson, R-Clarinda, told a group of about 75 people today that House Study Bill 50 would not receive further consideration. But after the meeting he indicated to reporters that work will continue on the bill. . . . Any goods or services that recognize marriage – including employment, housing, and education– could be denied to Iowans involved in a relationship that someone disagrees with because of their religious beliefs under House Study Bill 50. The bill, known better as the “Religious Conscience Protection Act,” was intended to allow organizations, businesses and people to deny services to married gay people.  That within itself is deeply troubling, multiple civil rights groups said. However, additionally troubling was that the bill was so broad that it would legalize a wide spectrum of other discriminatory acts, constitutional scholars and civil rights advocates said. They raised questions about whether services could be denied if, say, a Christian were married to a Jew or if someone objected to a couple who were unable to have children since Anderson himself has said the state’s prime role of marriage is in promoting “responsible procreation.”. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  Myth Buster Monday: Same-sex relationships and marriage are the same as heterosexual marriages and relationships. United Families International, February 7, 2011
“Homosexual lives and relationships are just the same as heterosexual lives and relationships” is a common declaration of same-sex advocates and the media that supports them.  But is true?   Below are just a few facts; they tell a different story.  We prefer to not overwhelm you with statistics, but if you would like more information on this topic, we direct you here. Or here. 


RELATED ARTICLE:  Same-Sex 'Marriage' Is Not a Civil Right  Family Research Council, By Peter Sprigg, January 27, 2005
Mr. Sprigg delivered the following remarks at a "Defend Maryland Marriage" rally at the State House in Annapolis, Maryland, on January 27, 2005:
"Good afternoon. My name is Peter Sprigg and I serve as the senior director of policy studies at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. I am also a proud resident of Montgomery County, Maryland. In addition, I am the author of Outrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges Are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage, a book published last year. Today I'd like to share with you just a few points that I made in my book. The first point is that same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Gay Rights: A Summary of the Debate  FaithFacts.com
There are several basic aspects to the cultural debate surrounding homosexual behavior. Here is a brief summary from a Christian perspective. Fairness:. . . While it is very important to strive for fairness for everyone, it is equally important to consider an important concept: While all people are created equal, not all ideas or behaviors are equal. There is, in fact, a hierarchy of ideas. This is intuitively obvious, as well as biblically obvious. And it is the place at which we must begin. It is the key statement that must be made in this debate. In the area of human sexuality, for example, adultery is not morally equivalent to fidelity. Prostitution is not morally equivalent to sex with love. Fornication is not morally equivalent to the virtue of chastity. . . .The Bible. . . The Theology. . . Sanctity of Marriage. . . Born That Way. . . Ravages of the Lifestyle. . . A Loving Lifestyle?. . .  A Way Out?. . .


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


RELATED ARTICLE:  The Homosexual Agenda: The Principal Threat to Your Religious Freedom  Alliance Defense Fund
The homosexual legal agenda is one of the greatest threats to religious freedom in America today. For decades, radical activists, led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its allies, have tried to divorce America from its Christian heritage and values. Their strategy is twofold: dilute moral values so that homosexual behavior is thought to be normal, natural, and good, while suppressing the religious and free speech rights of those who disagree. If they successfully impose their radical legal agenda, then all people – especially Christians – who do not affirm homosexual behavior could be silenced, punished, and possibly even jailed for so-called discrimination and intolerance. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Answering the Toughest Questions  National Organization for Marriage,
Strong majorities of Americans oppose gay marriage. Supporters of SSM therefore seek to change the subject to just about anything: discrimination, benefits, homosexuality, gay rights, federalism, our sacred constitution. Our goal is simple: Shift the conversation rapidly back to marriage. Don’t get sidetracked. Marriage is the issue. Marriage is what we care about. Marriage really matters. It’s just common sense.
I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:
Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:
"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.". .

• Debunking 'Biblical marriage': Why the Bible can't dictate today's sexual morals  The Washington Post, By Jennifer Wright Knust,  February 08, 2011
  Lately biblical interpretation has become the frontline in a heated battle to determine what God really thinks about sex and marriage. As a biblical scholar, historian and Baptist pastor, however, I find this debate to be misguided and destructive. The Bible is simply too complicated and too contradictory to serve as a guide to sexual morals. Treating the Bible as a rulebook impoverishes the biblical witness and short-circuits our ability to speak honestly about sex. Since the Bible never offers anything like a straightforward set of teachings about marriage, desire, or God's perspective on the human body, the only way to pretend that it does is to refuse to read it. If we do take the time to read the Bible, we are likely to discover that the biblical writers do not agree with us, whatever version of sexual morality we are seeking to promote. Written more than 2,000 years ago at a significant historical and cultural distance, the Bible gathers together a diverse collection of ancient books, edited over time, not a coherent, divinely inspired set of instructions that can easily be applied. Tracing even a few, limited topics from one biblical book to another can make the point: If one book forbids marriage between foreigners and Israelites, the next depicts such marriages as a source of blessing, not only to Israel but to all of humankind. If one insists that women are saved by childbearing, the next recommends that women avoid childbearing altogether in order to devote themselves more fully to God. If one suggests that sex with a relative, the wife of another man, or with a male lover will certainly lead to the nation's downfall, the next depicts heroic kings engaging in precisely these forms of sex. And these are just a few examples. Is it any wonder, then, that the Bible has failed to settle current debates about what a divinely sanctioned sexual morality might look like? Perhaps it is time to stop pretending that it can. The Bible can, however, invite further reflection about what means to have a body, to be human, and to love one another. I first learned this principle from my mother, who read biblical stories to me every day before school. Waiting for the school bus, we would open the pages of our oversize picture Bible and read all about Abraham, Moses, Jesus and just about everything in between. Instead of trying to make the Bible dictate morality to us, we asked questions about the stories we encountered, guessing at what they might mean. Thanks to my mom, by the age of nine I already knew that the Bible is filled with curious, contradictory and sometimes troubling stories. I sometimes wonder how a lesson taught to me when I was a little girl can seem so elusive to adult purveyors of "biblical morals" today. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  “Debunking” Biblical Marriage  The Reformed Pastor, By David Fischler, February 08, 2011
Jennifer Wright Knust is an ordained American Baptist minister and assistant professor of New Testament and Christian origins at Boston University. She takes to the “On Faith” column of the Washington Post today with a startingly original thesis encapsulated in the title of the piece: “Debunking ‘Biblical marriage’: Why the Bible can’t dictate today’s sexual morals.” Never, ever thought I’d hear that from a mainline religion department professor. . . . Treating the Bible solely as a rulebook does indeed “impoverish the biblical witness,” because it is not meant to be first and foremost a rulebook, but the revelation of God to humanity for the latter’s salvation. Does that mean that there are no rules, no laws, no commandments that are applicable for 21st century Christians? Apparently so.

"... If we do take the time to read the Bible, we are likely to discover that the biblical writers do not agree with us, whatever version of sexual morality we are seeking to promote..."

I would hope not. They aren’t supposed to agree with us, we are supposed to agree with them, though Dr. Knust seems to reject this idea as well.. . .

• Why Romance Is Important  FamilyLife Today, By Dennis and Barbara Rainey
  Have you ever read an engagement story? We've come across some real winners! One man proposed to his girlfriend, a kindergarten teacher, by making an announcement over the school's public address system during class. Another pre-recorded his propsoal and arranged for it to be aired on a local radio station in the middle of his girlfriend's favorite song. It seems there is no end to our innovation when we're trying to win the one we love. So what is it about marriage that seems to dull our romantic creativity? As some point in almost every marriage, a couple realizes their engagement was like an exciting introduction to a dull book. An everyday diet: Romance is not the foundation of a marriage. It is the fire in the fireplace—the warmth and security of a relationship that says, "We may have struggles, but I love you, and everything is okay." We ought to make romance a part of our everyday diet in our marriage relationship. Look at what the Bible speaks of in proverbs 5:18-19: "… and rejoice in the wife of your youth, as a loving hind and graceful doe, let her breast satisfy you at all times. Be exhilarated always with her love." That's a powerful image—to be literally exhilarated by your spouse. This type of romance is part of what sets a marriage apart from just a friendship. Barbara is my friend, but there is also a side of our friendship that goes way beyond that—we share a marriage bed together, and we dream thoughts and exchange intimacies that are shared with nobody else on this planet. That's what God intended, we believe, in the marriage relationship. God created romance: We find it interesting that God found romance and sex so important that He dedicated an entire book in the Bible, Song of Solomon, to encourage us to experience it. This poetic book provides a rich description of what a romantic, sexual relationship between man and wife should be like. Just look at how the book begins:  "May he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! … Draw me after you and let us run together!" Song of Solomon 1:2a, 4a Throughout the book, Solomon and his beloved, Shulamith, talk enthusiastically about romance, sexual love, and each other's bodies. Note what Solomon says about Shulamith: "How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O prince's daughter! The curves of your hips are like jewels, the work of the hands of an artist. Your navel is like a round goblet which never lacks mixes wine; your belly is like a heap of wheat fenced about with lilies. Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle … Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I said, 'I will climb the palm tree, I will take hold of its fruit stalks.' Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine, and the fragrances of your breath like apples, and your mouth like the best wine!" Song of Solomon 7:1-3, 7-9. And Shulamith does not mince words either:  "My beloved is dazzling and ruddy, outstanding among ten thousand … and he is wholly desirable" Song of Solomon 5:10, 16a. Romantic love is a part of God's character. He made us in His image, and He gave us emotions. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  The Glorious Story of Sexuality: Christians have a far more beautiful story to tell about the glorious nature of human sexuality than most imagine.  FOTF.com, By Glen Stanton
Christians have a far more beautiful story to tell about the glorious nature of human sexuality than any other story occupying the cultural stage now or ever. None of the rivals are even close. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Three-Legged Stool of a Blessed Marriage  Leading the way, By Michael Youseff,
Martin Luther said that God established three essential institutions: marriage, the ministry of the Word, and the state. Luther went on to say that "both in chronological order and in significance, the home precedes both the ministry of the Word of God and the state." And yet, many people today try to demote marriage to a human invention. But the Scripture tells us that marriage was created by God. Imagine your marriage as a three-legged stool, and the three legs are selflessness, forgiveness, and communication. Without one of the legs, the stool will fall down. A good marriage needs all three components to be well-balanced and strong. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  What Your Marriage Needs To Survive  The Good Men Project, By SPSMM, February 8, 2011
Joy, passion, great sex: when a cou­ple heads into marriage, this is what they have in mind. Of course they want their relationship to last—but without losing a shred of that initial high from when they first met, began courting, and fell in love. But people change. Relationships change. Some couples’ bonds deepen and relationships flourish over time; other partnerships don’t fare as well. When our relationships lose intimacy—as many of us fear they will—is the love lost forever or just temporarily misplaced?. . . .UCLA’s Family Studies Center researched 1,500 couples who had been together for five or more years and who acknowledged having a strong, close, deeply committed bond. The couples revealed six com­mon characteristics:
   1. There was a physical attraction between them.
   2. They were in the relationship out of clear choice rather than out of obligation or fear of being alone.
   3. They shared fundamental values, beliefs, interests, and goals.
   4. They were able to express anger clearly and directly and they resolved differences through communication and compromise.
   5. They experienced laughter, fun, pleasure, and play with each other.
   6. They were able to express support for each other and support each other’s activities, interests, and careers. . .



RELATED ARTICLE:  My Less-Than-Perfect Marriage of Bliss  Less-Than-Perfect Life of Bliss, By Julie, February 8, 2011
I wish I could type out a tutorial for you today on how to construct the perfect marriage, complete with the list of materials, detailed instructions, and great pictures. But I can't. In fact, I don't even know exactly what I'm going to say. I'm not really qualified. I don't have all the answers, but for some reason, I feel like the Lord wants me to write this today. There must be someone who needs this. Maybe it's you. Hey-maybe it's me. I'm not sure, but I woke up this morning thinking of how thankful I am that after 15 years of marriage, I'm still crazy about my husband. We live a less-than-perfect life in a less-than-perfect home with less-than-perfect people, yet somehow, it's BLISS. . .

• 6 mistakes men make on Valentine's Day  Shine from Yahoo! By Piper Weiss, January 28, 2011
  Memo to men: Valentine’s Day is on February 14. In years past, Yahoo.com has noticed a spike in men searching for an answer to the question: “When is Valentine's Day?” as the day fast approaches. Of all the holidays on the yearly calendar, the one designated for romance never fails to trip guys up. Blame mixed messages: While retailers consider the holiday worthy of diamonds, many women take the stance that it's no big deal. Don’t fall for any of it. Valentines Day is when a guy’s affection, compatibility, and commitment are put to the test. Forgetting the day is just the first mistake to avoid. There are six other common mistakes men make on February 14. Here's a cheat sheet.
  
  Mistake #1: Getting words of wisdom from your local drug store.
  There's a time and a place for Hallmark poetry and it's never on Valentine's Day. No matter how cursive, heartfelt, and close-to-home the text, you still didn't write it.
  Why it’s bad: Women want to feel special. Giving a card that’s designed to cater to millions of women on Valentine’s Day sends the message that your love is a lot like everyone else's. It also suggests you bought some Rite Guard in the next aisle while you were at it. Nobody wants to feel like one of two birds.
  The fix: Cliché as it seems, the thought really does count. More than 75 percent of women claim to want nothing more than a heart-felt love letter on February 14. Relationship psychologist Dr. Terri Orbuch also suggests a personal note trumps even chocolate. "Which says 'I love you' more: a box of candy or a handwritten note telling your partner you'd still choose him/her if you had to do it all over again?" asks Orbuch. "Show your partner why he/she matters so much to you."
  
  Mistake #2: Letting a bear do your bidding.
  Stuffed animal tricks are for kids. Giving your special lady a teddy bear holding a balloon with a pun like "I Yearn Fur You" is sweet if you're both in junior high. But in a poll by ShopRunner, a women's shopping site, members claimed teddy bears were the worst gift they had ever received on February 14. Flowers and chocolates (standard accompaniments to the stuffed animal) aren't going to win her over either.
  Why it's bad:. . .    
  
  

RELATED ARTICLE:  The History of Valentine's Day  History.com
Every February, across the country, candy, flowers, and gifts are exchanged between loved ones, all in the name of St. Valentine. But who is this mysterious saint and why do we celebrate this holiday? The history of Valentine's Day -- and its patron saint -- is shrouded in mystery. But we do know that February has long been a month of romance. St. Valentine's Day, as we know it today, contains vestiges of both Christian and ancient Roman tradition. So, who was Saint Valentine and how did he become associated with this ancient rite? Today, the Catholic Church recognizes at least three different saints named Valentine or Valentinus, all of whom were martyred. . . . While some believe that Valentine's Day is celebrated in the middle of February to commemorate the anniversary of Valentine's death or burial -- which probably occurred around 270 A.D -- others claim that the Christian church may have decided to celebrate Valentine's feast day in the middle of February in an effort to 'christianize' celebrations of the pagan Lupercalia festival. In ancient Rome, February was the official beginning of spring and was considered a time for purification. . .



RELATED ARTICLE:  For Husbands Only  Grace to You, By John MacArthur
Valentine's Day may be the one time each year that most husbands let down the macho exterior and actually demonstrate their love for their wives in tangible ways. You might shower your wife with flowers or candy, or take her out on a romantic evening. Some of you may even make greater sacrifices, such as cleaning the house, treating her to breakfast in bed, or buying some cherished gift. But once the day ends, so does Prince Charming, and you revert to your normal self and usual role. Ask many Christian husbands to summarize their biblical duty in one word, and they will answer, "Leadership." Scripture answers the question with a different word: love. . .

• For Some, a Recession-Proof Marriage  NY Times- Well Blog, By Tara Parker-Pope, February 07, 2011
  Economic setbacks like unemployment or mortgage woes are linked to big declines in marital happiness, but a minority of married Americans say the recession has deepened their commitment to their spouse, according to a new report. The study, compiled by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, concludes that the recession has both “stressed and strengthened” American marriages. The study authors said while the recession has brought “considerable stress” to many American couples, it has also forged stronger ties in some relationships and delayed divorce among some unhappy couples who can’t afford to separate. The results are based on a nationally representative sample of 1,197 married Americans ages 18 to 45. The findings, based on information gathered in December and January, offer a recent snapshot of how the current economic climate is affecting married couples in the United States. The data show that the more economic stress men and women face, the less happy they are in marriage. Over all, 82 percent of respondents reported being “very happy” or “happy” in their marriages. However, financial stress was a strong predictor of lower marital happiness. Among men and women with no financial stress, 87 percent reported being happy or very happy in marriage. The number dropped to 84 percent among those who reported one major economic worry. But among those who had two or three financial worries, only 67 percent reported that they were happy in marriage. It’s long been known that economic downturns can artificially dampen divorce rates as unhappy couples stay together primarily for financial reasons. Among the respondents in the University of Virginia study, about 5 percent said they were contemplating separation or divorce, but nearly four in 10 of those people said the recession had prompted them to postpone plans to split up. . .
  
  
  
  
  

• Q & A:  Will my new love last when there are no sparks in the bedroom?  The Daily Mail- UK, By Rowan Pelling, February 07, 2011
  Q: After my marriage broke up in my 30s, I spent ten awful years on my own. So you can imagine my delight when I met a man who is great company, adored by all my friends and who talks of long-term commitment. But what I don’t dare admit to anyone — especially him — is that there are no sparks in the bedroom. I feel we are both just going through the motions. So I dread the end of the evening, when I either have to make excuses or grin and bear it. I hate the idea of splitting up, but can things really work out for us when the sex is so lacklustre? Is sexual chemistry vital?
  
  A: Well, let’s put it like this: it’s nature’s magic glue that makes people lust and cleave and breed and take delight in one another long years after they met. If you were 25, I would not hesitate to say you’d be crazy to settle for ­someone where there’s no electric spark. Most youthful relationships face enough strains without comm­encing matters on such a deeply flawed basis. However, what we’re talking about here is a later-­flowering love and only a fool wouldn’t admit that priorities can and do shift in middle age. While some people remain driven by desire, many others find ­companionship and shared ­interests rocket higher up their list of ­exigencies. One 50-year-old ­glamour puss I know, who always insisted erotic connection was key to any relationship, now says all she wants is: ‘A kind man, who will share the cooking and watch Downton Abbey with me.’ The strongest ­emotion in your ­letter is your dread of loneliness. It’s clear that your ten years in the ­dating wilderness have traumatised you and you’d do almost anything to avoid returning to that position. What you seem to be saying is that your dread of being on your own is greater than your dread of bad sex. Why else would you put yourself in a situation where intercourse is a matter of grinning and bearing it? That’s not fair on you and it certainly isn’t fair on your partner. Pretending a major aspect of your relationship is dandy when it’s ­terrible is the worst possible way to start a long-term relationship. You two should both be adult enough to face some painful realities. Have you ever considered that your boyfriend might feel the same as you?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  Sexual Desire Disparity: When One Wants and the Other Doesn't: If only you wanted what I want then no problem. Psychology Today, By Isadora Alman, MFT, February 07, 2011
It should be simple. If the two people in a committed couple differ about how to spend leisure time they could each spend some in his or her preferred way and some together. If the two people have wildly differing food tastes some accommodation can be made so that they can eat together, one on organic veggies and one on roast beef. If, however, two people in a monogamous relationship are not in agreement on sexual matters - when to have it, where to have it or how to have it - there is rarely a satisfactory compromise. At its simplest, if one person prefers sex at night and the other sex in the morning, sex at noon will satisfy neither. And it is rarely that basic or simple. . .


RELATED ARTICLE: Modesty is Destroying Your Sexual Intimacy  Intimacy in Marrige, By Julie Sibert, January 30, 2011
Is it possible for a Christian wife to be sexually confident — to love sex, to get crazy with passion beneath the sheets with the man to whom she pledged her life? Well, certainly it’s possible. Anything’s possible.  But that’s not really the issue, is it? Sure, you may convince yourself that it’s possible.  But is it likely?  You don’t have to verbally say “no” to me. I hear it resoundingly clear in the painful and confused expressions I see upon the faces of countless Christian wives. Now we’re getting at the heart of your bewildering agony, aren’t we?  As a Christian wife, modesty is your hallmark by day.  And maybe the only message about sex you heard from the church or your parents while growing up was, “Don’t do it.” (Some Christian women in your life may even have gone as far as to tell you that sex is disgusting and is just a necessary marital obligation. A pathway to children. Nothing more. Nothing less). So here you sit, smack dab in the middle of marriage, trying to flip a switch and reverse the impact of lifelong skewed messages.  Feels like mission impossible. . .  Can you relate to any of this?  Not only does sexual confidence within your marriage feel incongruent with your commitment to modesty, sexual confidence looks painfully similar to your past promiscuity. Those are some awful murky waters that are sabotaging sacred oneness in your marriage bed. So, let’s peel the layers back.  Let’s get real.  Here are three steps to help you walk in sexual confidence:. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Sex in the Real World: Discouraged About Sex in Your Marriage? Take Heart – And Action  The Marriage Bed, By Julie Siebert, December 26, 2010
Sex in the real world – your world – doesn't look like your favorite romantic movie, does it?  When you and your husband make love, the lighting isn't perfect and there's no carefully-crafted sound overlay of "When a Man Loves a Woman" playing in the background.  And I bet not once when you envisioned what sex would be like with your husband did it include things like awkwardness, miscommunication and an occasional leg cramp. I talk to enough wives to know that we are so wired for the "sweep me off my feet" kind of feeling.  Good Lord, we design our entire weddings while peering through that lens – the romance, the perfect moments, the tender touches, and the beauty of love played out so completely. Then we are married. And marriage doesn't look anything like the wedding. Or the romantic movie. Or the magazine spread in Real Simple or Good Housekeeping.  Marriage is hard (not sweltering-in-the-hot-sun-on-a-construction-crew hard, but hard nonetheless). . .

• Movie Review:  There Are Strings Attached  The Cornell Daily Sun, By Erin Keene, February 04, 2011
  Can friends casually have sex? Absolutely. Too good to be true? Absolutely. Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher star in the newest Hollywood romantic-comedy No Strings Attached, a new-age When Harry Met Sally, concluding once more that at the end of the day, we need the strings. Proving she could handle epilepsy and schizophrenia in her previous roles in Garden State and more recently, Black Swan, the only disorder Portman’s character Emma suffers from is the inability to emotionally commit to someone (a feeling I’m sure very few college students are familiar with). She is a new doctor in her first year of residency with neither time for a relationship nor energy for its baggage. Her attitude exemplifies the difficulty in daring to love someone in spite of the risk, the resounding theme of the film. Emma’s awkwardly affectionate ways are balanced by her charismatic cohort Adam, played by Kutcher, a veteran in this cutesy genre; but despite his playful charm, Emma is not about to abandon her emotionless love strategy. A relationship officially termed “friends with benefits” is thus laid out very clearly, with exactly what “strings” are forbidden including cuddling, presents, jealousy, and the biggie: breakfast. . . . . The underlying message remains that we need more in our lives than casual sex, regardless of how hard we try to submerge our emotions. Emma’s sister Katie (Olivia Thirlby) is the poster-child for long-term relationships and does her best to assure Emma that the strings are worth it. . .
  
  
  
  RELATED REVIEW:  No Strings Attached  By Roger Ebert- Chicago Sun Times, January 19, 2011
  All of this is fun while it lasts. Then the wheels of Hollywood morality begin to grind. There was a time when the very premise of this film would have been banned, but times change, and now characters can do pretty much anything as long as they don't get away with it. Although “No Strings Attached" might have been more fun if Adam and Emma had investigated the long-term possibilities of casual sex, it is required that the specter of Romantic Love raise its ominous head. Are they ... becoming too fond? Emma suggests they try sleeping with others so, you know, they won't get too hung up on each other. If you've ever seen a romantic comedy you know how that works. Experience shows that not sleeping with others is the foolproof way of not getting too hung up, etc. This is a strange film. Its premise is so much more transgressive than its execution. It's as if the 1970s never happened, let alone subsequent decades. Emma and Adam aren't modern characters. They're sitcom characters allowed to go all the way like grown-ups. . .
  
  
  RELATED SITE:  No Strings Attached (2011)  IMDb, January 21, 2011
  
  
  RELATED SITE:  No Strings Attached (Official Site)
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE & STUDY:  Young Adults Are NOT that into Recreational Sex  CWA Blog, By Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, February 03, 2011
  Two Notre Dame professors, Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker, analyzed data from the National Study of Youth and Religion, the National Survey of Family Growth, and the College Social Life Survey (and others), in their effort to understand premarital sex among young Americans. Their book, Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying, is a 312-page review of the current sexual situation for contemporary young adults. Naomi Schaefer Riley reviews the book for Commentary. Miss Riley reports:
  # Young adults today do not associate sex with marriage.
  # An “increasing share” of young adults don’t even think about getting married.
  # 84 percent of 18- to 23-year-olds have had premarital sex.
  # College students are less promiscuous than those who are not in college.
  # Serial monogamy is the typical pattern for today’s young adults.
  # Men tend to overestimate their peers’ sexual activity.
  # Half of the women, and 25 percent of men, engaged in “unwanted” sexual activity in the two weeks prior to the survey conducted by one study.
  # Young adults have bought into some significant myths:
          *  They believe married sex is a “let down,” when, in truth, married couples have more and more satisfactory sex than unmarried couples.
          *  They are under the mistaken impression that cohabitation is a good “testing ground” for marriage, when numerous studies disprove that myth and, in fact, show that cohabitation is more a guarantee of divorce and unhappy married relationship. . .
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  The Glorious Story of Sexuality: Christians have a far more beautiful story to tell about the glorious nature of human sexuality than most imagine.  FOTF.com, By Glen Stanton
  Christians have a far more beautiful story to tell about the glorious nature of human sexuality than any other story occupying the cultural stage now or ever. None of the rivals are even close. The Christian story of sexuality is true to the fullness in which God made us as humans and true to the nature of what is ultimately behind everything in the universe: God, who is love and who dwells in loving intimacy. We shouldn't be shy about telling it with the power and beauty of our lives. . .
  
  
  
  
  
  

• Single Ladies, Don't Despair: Men Do Want to Commit
  Surprising Survey Turns Around Conventional Wisdom On Men and Women  ABC News- Nightline, By Olivia Katrandjian, February 03, 2011
  The largest and most comprehensive study of singles in the United States has been released just in time for Valentine's Day, and the surprising results dispel long-held beliefs about singles, according to Match.com which commissioned the survey, entitled "Single in America." The study included 5,200 single men and women between the ages of 21 and 65. "[The study] is based on the [U.S.] Census Bureau. We have the right number of people from each region, right number of men, right number of women, age groups from 21 to 65 plus," Dr. Helen Fisher, a cultural anthropologist, told ABC News. Fisher helped conduct the survey in conjunction with the Institute of Evolutionary Studies at Binghamton University. "We've known for a long time that we're seeing growing economic equality between the sexes, but it was surprising to me that men are adopting some of the attitudes that we've long attributed to women, and women are adopting the attitudes that we've long attributed to men," said Fisher, who is the chief scientific advisor to Chemistry.com, a division of Match.com. Men are stereotyped as being less interested in settling down and having children than women, but the study shows otherwise. "Men in just about every cohort are just as eager to marry or more eager to marry as women are. It's not true that they don't want to commit. Particularly young men, age 21 to 34, are more eager to marry than women are. Throughout every single cohort, men are more eager to have children than women are." According to the study, 51% of men and 46% of women want to have children between the ages of 21 and 34, which are peak reproductive years. "[Men] also fall in love faster, they're more likely to bring a woman home to introduce her to their parents sooner, they're more likely to marry a woman who's got everything they're looking for in a partner but they're not sexually attracted to that person, than a woman is," said Fisher. The study found that 54% of men say they have experienced love at first sight, compared to 41% of women. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  Everything You Think You Know About Singles is Wrong: We separate fact from fiction with the first comprehensive study of singles in America  Match.com, February 04, 2010
As a leader in the online dating industry, Match understands and serves the American single.   And while we ask our members questions, gather feedback, glean insight from their actions on our site and do lots of research, we felt it was time for a more rigorous study that would carefully define exactly who singles are in 2011.  Put aside what you used to think and get ready to have a very different view about the single people in your life.  They’re not who you think they are. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Aren’t You Glad You Weren’t Single Fifty Years Ago?  Match.com, By Stephanie Coontz, February 04, 2010
A half century ago, being single was a very different proposition than it is today. First of all, you were considered deviant.  As one of the leading family experts of the late 1950s put it, “Except for the sick, the badly crippled, the deformed, the emotionally warped, and the mentally defective,” almost everyone could and should wed. In a 1957 poll, bachelors were categorized as “immature,” narcissistic,” or even “pathological.”  Single women were described by leading psychiatrists of the day as sexually warped, lacking in “the feminine instinct,” and probably suffering from a bad case of “penis envy.” Women expressed much more anxiety about being single, even for relatively short times, than they do today. Surveys in the 1950s and early 1960s found that single women were far more likely than their married counterparts to regard marriage as the single best option for self-fulfillment and happiness. As for the few people who became single after divorce, they were typically regarded as “damaged goods.”. .

• Nicole Kidman: I was 'really damaged' after split from Tom Cruise  NY Daily News, By Cristina Everett, February 03, 2011
  She's "crazy in love" with current husband Keith Urban, but Nicole Kidman doubted she would ever find love again after her highly public split from Tom Cruise. The actress, who is nominated for an Oscar for her portrayal of a grieving mother in "Rabbit Hole," opens up in the new issue of Marie Claire UK about the insecurities she felt following the end of her first marriage. "That was a great relationship. I think it ran its course," Kidman, 43, tells the mag. "I was really damaged and not sure whether that was ever going to happen again to me." During their 11-year marriage, Kidman says she made personal sacrifices for the "Top Gun" superstar. "I was never seeking to be a celebrity, but I was prepared to do that for love," she says. "It's hard when you're young. But I'm ready to give up anything for love because, ultimately, that is what you have. You get so much from a relationship when it is filled with love." Kidman and Cruise, who first met in 1989 after working on "Days of Thunder," became one of Hollywood's hottest couples when they began dating. "You don't think of yourself like that," Kidman continued. "I knew he was a really big star, but after a while, to get to a real place in a relationship, that has to wear off." The actress goes on to describe that she and Cruise were "very private," which may be one reason they lasted longer than most celebrity couples in the spotlight. During their union, they adopted two children: daughter Isabella, now 18, and son Connor, 15. Both children have chosen to live in Los Angeles with Cruise, who also has a 4-year old daughter, Suri, with current wife Katie Holmes. . .
  

• Is Eva Longoria ready to go public with Eduardo Cruz? Rumoured new couple spend romantic afternoon on a yacht  The Daily Mail- UK, February 06, 2011
  They've been romantically linked as far back as October. But Eva Longoria and rumoured new love Eduardo Cruz  have so far gone to lengths to avoid being spotted together. But just over a week after her divorce from Tony Parker was finalised, the Desperate Housewives star enjoyed a very public date with the 25-year-old Spanish crooner. The pair were spotted enjoying the sunset aboard a luxurious yacht in Miami yesterday. . .

RELATED RESOURCE: Divorce Busting

RELATED ARTICLE:  Divorce IS devastating but follow my advice and Get Over It!  The Daily Mail- UK, By Nora Ephron, February 07, 2011
In part two of the Mail’s exclusive serialisation, author and screenwriter Nora Ephron, famous for movies such as When Harry Met Sally and Sleepless in Seattle, writes with refreshing honesty and her trademark humour about infidelity
and divorce — and how to survive them. . . . .The most important thing about me, for quite a long chunk of my life, was that I was divorced. Even after I was no longer divorced but remarried, this was true. I have now been married to my third ­husband for more than 20 years. But when you’ve had children with someone you’re divorced from, divorce defines everything; it’s the lurking fact, a slice of anger in the pie of your brain. Of course, there are good divorces, where everything is civil, even friendly. Child ­support payments arrive. Visitations take place on schedule. Your ex-husband rings the doorbell and stays on the other side of the threshold; he never walks in without knocking and helps himself to the coffee. In my next life I must get one of those divorces. One good thing I’d like to say about divorce is that it sometimes makes it possible for you to be a much better wife to your next ­husband because you have a place for your anger — it’s not directed at the person you’re currently with. Another good thing about divorce is that it makes clear something that marriage obscures, which is that you’re on your own. There’s no power struggle over which of you is going to get up in the middle of the night; you are. But I can’t think of anything good about divorce as far as the children are concerned. You can’t kid yourself about that, although many people do. They say things like: ‘It’s better for children not to grow up with their parents in an unhappy marriage.’ But unless the parents are beating each other up, or abusing the children, kids are better off if their parents are together. Children are much too young to shuttle between houses. They’re too young to handle the idea that the two people they love most in the world don’t love each other any more, if they ever did. They’re too young to ­understand that all the wishful ­thinking in the world won’t bring their parents back together. And the new-fangled rigmarole of joint ­custody doesn’t do anything to ease the cold reality: in order to see one parent, the divorced child must walk out on the other. The best divorce is the kind where there are no children. That was my first divorce. You walk out the door and you never look back. . .



RELATED ARTICLE:  Does divorce make you a better wife second time round?  The Daily Mail- UK, By Tessa Cunningham and Eve Ahmed, November 18, 2010
Does suffering the pain of divorce mean you will try harder to make your next ­marriage work and, therefore, be a better wife? In her new book, I Remember Nothing, Nora ­Ephron, writer and director behind such films as When Harry Met Sally and Sleepless In ­Seattle, claims this is true. Here, two twice-married writers give their opposing views. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  10 Steps for Avoiding Divorce   Divorce Busting, By Michele Weiner-Davis, March 23, 2010
Although relationships often seem daunting, by following these ten simple steps, you can build the foundation for a strong, happy marriage.
1) Spend time together: The number one cause for the breakdown in marriage today is that couples aren’t spending enough time together or making the relationship a priority. Everything else seems to take precedence- work, children, hobbies, relatives, community commitments.  And when include children on this list,  most people say, “But Michele, we both work, so on weekends or evenings, we don’t want to be away from our children.”  To that I say, “The best thing you can do for your kids is to put your marriage first.”  Marriages that are time-starved are at risk of divorce because partners stop being friends.  This leads to a lack of connection which leads to a multitude of problems.  Avoid this by planning time together…alone!
2) Have sex: Sex is one of the most important connections in marriage. Do whatever it takes to keep passion alive.  Desire is a decision. . .



RELATED ARTICLE:  How To Prevent a Divorce – The Last Resort Technique  Divorce Busting, By Michelle Weiner-Davis, April 19, 2010
If your spouse told you it’s over, it doesn’t necessarily nail the marital coffin shut.  There are still things you can do to revive your flat-lined relationship.  One thing you should consider is The Last Resort Technique. The Last resort Technique is exactly what it says it is.  You use it as a last resort.  In theory, this technique is identical to doing a 180, but you put it to use when your situation is extreme.  What do I mean by extreme?  It’s imperative that you begin doing the last-resort technique immediately if:

   * Your spouse has said to you in no uncertain terms that s/he wants to get a divorce and it appears as if s/he really means it.  It wasn’t just said in the heat of battle.
    * You and your spouse are separated physically.
    * You and your spouse still live together but have very little to do with each other.  You may be sleeping in separate rooms, have virtually no communication, and little or no sexual contact.
    * Your spouse has filed for divorce

Although it’s true that many marriages do end in divorce, just because your marriage is really fragile right now doesn’t mean you have to become a statistic.  There are many people who beat the odds.  Don’t feel hopeless.  I will give you specific instructions about what you should do to try to get things back on track.  Although the last-resort technique doesn’t always work, it works often enough for you to be eager to give it a shot.  I have worked with many clients and have received many letters, phone calls, and e-mails from people whose relationships were on the their marital death beds but were successful at turning things around by using the last-resort technique.
Step 1 – Stop the Chase:. . .

• Int'l Pro-Family Group Defends Chick-fil-A in Marriage Controversy  The Christian Post, By Stephanie Samuel, February 01, 2011
  International pro-family group World Congress of Families is stepping into the fray, defending Chick-fil-A against gay rights advocates who have accused the fast food chain of financially supporting the anti-gay marriage movement. The Congress’s managing director Larry Jacobs criticized gay activists that are attacking Chick-fil-A as attempting to “crush” any dissenting views of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender movement. “They fear an open debate on their agenda and discussion of the importance of natural marriage, they invariably seek to silence dissenting voices," Jacobs said. The pro-family leader maintains that Chick-fil-A’s strong support for heterosexual marriage is a worthwhile cause and should be not be controversial at all. “I wish other corporations did half as much for the natural family, as Chick-fil-A, which promotes pro-family values through its WinShape Foundation, including helping orphans and sponsoring seminars that help people strengthen their marriages and become better parents," said Jacobs. Last month, a controversy erupted after a local Chick-fil-A offered food donations to help Pennsylvania churches holding a marriage seminar. The LGBT blog Good as You (GAY) first spotted the chain’s name on the Pennsylvania Family Institute’s Art of Marriage flier and advised its readers to “plan your fried carnivorousness accordingly.” Change.org editor Michael Jones formed a petition demanding that Chick-fil-A pull sponsorship from anti-Gay events. However, Chick-fil-A has said in two statements that it never endorsed PFI’s seminar. “Providing food to this event or any event is not an endorsement of the mission, political stance or motives of this or any other organization,” wrote Dan T. Cathy, the company’s president, on Facebook. The PFI president also told The Christian Post on Jan. 5 that the involved Pennsylvania Chick-fil-A branches were simply trying to "be good neighbors" to the two local churches hosting the Art of Marriage seminars, not politically endorse them. Still, thousands have listened to gay advocates’ call for protest. Jones’ petition has over 25,000 signatures as of Feb. 1. Plans to boycott the chain have reached the Chick-fil-A Facebook page where a commenter wrote, “I'm pledging to boycott my beloved Chick-fil-A until they stop fighting gay marriage.” Just last week, a student movement led Indiana University to cut the chicken sandwich fast food chain from its list of retailers. Another student movement is working to do the same thing at Florida Gulf Coast University. Focus on the Family’s Jim Daly said the demonizing of Chick-fil-A is part of an “ominous trend developing for those who support traditional biblical principles.” Daly believes that the fast food chain is being bullied when it comes to its freedoms of speech and religious liberty. “To bully corporate America in this manner is unsavory and in this instance, counterproductive,” he wrote in a FOTF blog. . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Chick-fil-A Responds to Marriage Backlash  CBN.com, By Heather Sells, February 02, 2011
  Chick-fil-A, Inc. has established a media hotline to deal with the backlash from the public after gay activists targeted the restaurant chain over a marriage seminar. While the company has turned down interview requests, a statement was issued highlighting the restaurant chain's long history of marriage-friendly policies. . .
  

RELATED ARTICLE:  America's pro-homosexual giants: 2010: Companies offering most support for 'gay,' lesbian, transgender workers  World Net Daily, By Joe Kovacs, October 28, 2009
Below is the list, in alphabetical order, of companies scoring a perfect 100 percent on the Human Rights Campaign's 2010 Corporate Equality Index, with policies beneficial toward homosexuals:. . .


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. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Queer Inc.: How Corporate America fell in love with gays and lesbians. It's a movement.  CNN Money (Fortune magazine), By Marc Gunther- Fortune senior writer,  November 30 2006
. . . Last June the gay rights movement quietly achieved a milestone: For the first time, more than half of Fortune 500 companies - 263, to be precise - offered health benefits for domestic partners, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Ten years ago only 28 did. Along with health benefits for their families, many workers also get bereavement leave when their same-sex partner dies, adoption assistance or paid leave if they have children and relocation assistance for their partners if they are transferred. Put another way, gay marriage - an idea that has been banned by all but one of 27 states that have voted on it - has become a fact of life inside many big companies. . .

• Bush daughter backs gay marriage  Reuters, February 01, 2011
  Former President George W. Bush’s daughter Barbara is speaking out in support of same-sex marriage. “I’m Barbara Bush and I’m a New Yorker for marriage equality. New York is about fairness and equality and , everyone should have the right to marry the person that they love. Join us,” she says in a brief video released by the advocacy group Human Rights Campaign. n a break with her father, Ms. Bush, who lives in Manhattan, joins other prominent New Yorkers in calling on New York to legalize gay marriage, The New York Times reported Monday. Human Rights Campaign said Barbara Bush’s position reflects a generational attitude, with a majority of young adults (18-34) supporting marriage for same-sex couples in New York, Human Rights Campaign said. She’s not the only daughter of a prominent Republican to be on the other  side of what’s been a wedge issue in U.S. politics and red meat for conservative voters. Meghan McCain, daughter of Arizona Senator John McCain, has all spoken out in support of gay marriag During his presidency, the  ex-president called for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. Former first lady Laura Bush has also hinted that she may think along the same lines as her daughter over what has been a wedge issue in U.S. politics. During a book promotion tour, Mrs. Bush said and she and the ex-president “disagree” on legalizing same-sex marriage. . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Bush’s Daughter, in a Break, Endorses Gay Marriage  New York Times, By Michael Barbaro, January 31, 2011
  The Bush dynasty is no stranger to generational conflict: father and son differed over deposing Saddam Hussein, raising taxes and the role of the United Nations. Now it is father and daughter who find themselves at odds over a weighty issue. Barbara Bush, one of the twin daughters of George W. Bush, will endorse same-sex marriage on Tuesday, publicly breaking ranks with a father who, as president, pushed for a constitutional amendment banning such unions. Ms. Bush, 29, has taped a video calling on New York to legalize gay marriage. A bill to do that was defeated in the state in 2009. She describes the issue as a matter of conscience and equality. “I am Barbara Bush, and I am a New Yorker for marriage equality,” she says in the brief message, sponsored by an advocacy group. “New York is about fairness and equality. And everyone should have the right to marry the person that they love.”. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  A Vote Against Gay Marriage is a Vote FOR Tolerance  Townhall.com, By Frank Turek, October 26, 2008
Twenty years ago, a group of prominent homosexuals got together in Warrentown, Virginia to map out their plan to get homosexuality accepted by the general public. In the book [After the Ball] that resulted from their meeting, they revealed a strategy that achieves its effect "without reference to facts, logic or proof . . . the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not." In other words, their strategy was pure propaganda. That propaganda campaign has many people today believing that denying same-sex marriage involves denying rights to a victimized minority. That belief could not be further from the truth. In fact, let me suggest what the same-sex marriage debate is not about.

               It is not about equality or equal rights.
               It is not about discrimination against a class of people.
               It is not about denying homosexuals the ability to commit to one another.
               It is not about love or private relationships.
               It is not about bigotry or homophobia.
               It is not about sexual orientation or being born a certain way.
               It is not about race or the civil rights struggle.
               It is not about interracial marriage.
               It is not about heterosexuals and divorce.
               It is not about the separation of church and state.
               It is not even about religion.

“But that’s all I hear about,” you say.  Of course, that’s because the propaganda campaign continues to be successful. Those topics are all smokescreens designed to divert you. . . .  Greg Koukl puts this very well: “Same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It is about validation and social respect. It is a radical attempt at civil engineering using government muscle to strong-arm the people into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally repugnant.”. . .

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. . .

More "Marriage" Stories: January 2011

Get 2 Free Preview Issues!

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

2012:  January 2012  |  February 2012  |

2011:  December 2011  |  November 2011  |  October 2011  |  September 2011  |  August 2011  |  July 2011  | June 2011  |   May 2011  |  April 2011  |  March 2011  |  February 2011  | January 2011 

2010:   December 2010  |  November 2010  |  October 2010  |  September 2010  |  August 2010  |  July 2010  |  June 2010  |  May 2010  |  April 2010  |  March 2010  |  February 2010  |  January 2010 

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

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

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

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

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