"MARRIAGE" In The News
 (January 2010)

• Do You Feel At All Sorry For Elizabeth Edwards? I Do   Huffington Post, By Jill Brooke, January 28, 2010
  Maybe because I deal with a lot of divorced women who have had their hearts sauteed in a frying pan as a result of infidelity and disappointment, I am not surprised that Elizabeth Edwards could be both Saint Elizabeth and Lady Macbeth. Some women are just driven to it. I am not making an excuse for her behavior but I do understand it. For me the heartbreaking detail was what she said to one of her husband's staffers after living in a bubble of denial for so long about her husband's mistress, Rielle Hunter, and then having her illusions popped so publically. (Babies will do that). As reported in the book "Game Change," she desperately cried out, "I have to believe it," she said. "Because if I don't, it means I'm married to a monster." The guy she married had indeed morphed into an unrecognizable egotistical monster. But he was still the father of her children. I can not tell you how frequently I see clients in my office who share with me how their spouses become unrecognizable over time, yet many hold on to that moment when they first fell in love and hope that somehow that feeling or person will miraculously return. As revealed in the "Game Change," the guy Elizabeth Edwards married in 1977 had turned from the down-to-earth son of a mill worker with big ideas and dreams into what campaign aides called a narcissist self-destructive egomaniac who loved designer suits, first class accommodations and the fawning of aides and female predators with the appropriate last name of "Hunter." Is it really surprising that Saint Elizabeth, who bravely battles terminal breast cancer would derail into a Sybil-like snake hissing at aides in frustration that the Rielle Hunter story wasn't contained and alternatively needed, demanded, begged that they say John Edwards' aide Andrew Young was the father, even though deep in her decaying bones she knew it wasn't true. . .
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  John Edwards's Ex-Aide: Sex Tape Is Somewhere 'Safe'  People magazine, By Michelle Tauber, January 30, 2010
  Andrew Young, the ex-aide to embattled two-time former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, says he has an alleged sex tape depicting the former senator and his then-mistress Rielle Hunter – and that the tape is in a safe-deposit box. "We were offered millions for that stupid tape," he tells PEOPLE. He says he and his wife Cheri found the tape in "a box of trash filled with crinkled paper and tapes" left behind by Hunter. He says they never considered selling it: "We couldn't live with ourselves.". .

RELATED ARTICLE:  John Edwards: I Still Care Deeply About Elizabeth  People magazine, By Sharon Cotliar and Mike Fleeman, January 27, 2010
John Edwards spoke out Wednesday in response to a PEOPLE report he and wife Elizabeth quietly separated before his admission he fathered a love child. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  Why We Can't Celebrate the Edwards Split  Time.com, By  Belinda Luscombe , January 28, 2010
When Jenny Sanford dumped her overly weepy, cheating, lying husband Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina, many people cheered. Some have urged Silda Spitzer and Elin Woods, other wives of big shots who were caught coloring outside the lines, to walk away. But when People confirmed Jan. 27 that Elizabeth and John Edwards had separated and that it was at Elizabeth's behest, there was much less of that you-go-girl! whooping from the grandstand. Her husband's political foes may be happy with his misfortunes, but for Elizabeth's fans, and she used to have many, the news is more dismaying. While John Edwards is arguably the least popular man in America right now, it's still hard to see the dissolution of this marriage as anything but a net loss for all parties. Nobody can fault Elizabeth for wanting to get out; news spread of the separation a week after John acknowledged the child he had spent two years denying he had fathered. But no two marriages are alike, and for various reasons many people were hoping this one might make it. . .  . . Is it that John is simply too much of a biohazard to be near right now? Or is Elizabeth just tired of all the tabloid revelations? People sources suggest that even three years after she discovered the affair, Elizabeth never quite found a way to trust John again, checked up on him constantly, and that the strain proved too much for both of them. As the old marriage saying goes: The problem is not who you lie with. It's who you lie to. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Sacramento Professor Asks 30-Year Couples What Keeps Them Married  Sacramento Bee, Anita Creamer, January 26, 2009
 At the statistical intersection where increased life expectancy balances out the divorce rate, there is a surprising new cultural demographic: More Americans are reaching and exceeding the 40th wedding anniversary. What's keeping more married couples together 'til death do them part? Todd Migliaccio, a Sacramento State associate professor of sociology, is working to figure that out in a series of interviews with area couples married 30 years or longer, or with a surviving spouse. "We tend to focus on the fact that more people get divorced now," said Migliaccio, 37, who set the demographic bar for his research at 30 years of marriage to include more couples' stories. "But maybe we should focus on the increasing number who stay married longer." It's a sunnier approach, after all. There's only so much the group most at risk of divorce -- newlyweds married five years or less -- have to share with the world.On the other hand, couples who have stuck it out through thick and thin might have a few things to teach us. . . . . . "I have students who, at the end of class tell me, 'I don't want to be married,' " he said. "I tell them, 'This is not about scaring you. It's so you can go into marriage with open eyes.' "We have certain expectations of marriage and family that often can't be fulfilled," Migliaccio added. "This is about going in with a realistic viewpoint."Compare that with the pop- culture focus on brides, wedding dresses and ridiculously expensive weddings, which all but ignores the fact that after the wedding comes the marriage. . .


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


RELATED RESOURCE:  Turning Your Marriage Around  FOTF.com, By Mitch Temple
"Remember that whatever you do in life, ninety percent of it is half mental." Yogi Berra. In November of the tenth year of our marriage, Rhonda and I were discussing a sensitive issue that comes up every year: where we were going to spend Christmas. By this time in our marriage, we knew which topics created sparks, and this was one of them. As a result, we were both armed for battle. Rhonda responded to a statement I'd made by saying, "Now you've got an attitude. Stop talking to me like I'm a child! You're being very condescending." Without really thinking, I snapped back, "Hey! This has nothing to do with my attitude! Don't play that card! We went to your folks' for Thanksgiving, so we're going to mine for Christmas!" We didn't know that our then five-year-old daughter, Hannah, was in the living room watching TV and listening to our conversation. Suddenly, her tiny voice rang out, "Whoa! Whoa! Hold it right there, Dad! Barney just said that attitude is the most important thing in life." Hannah had a point. So did Barney. Attitudes and the thoughts that form them are important, especially in marriage. You can attend every marriage conference available and read every book on romantic love out there, but if your marriage is based on destructive attitudes, it's likely that nothing will help. . .

• The Marriage Trial  The Christian Post, By Penna Dexter , January 25, 2010
  As the trial addressing the challenge to Proposition 8 takes place in San Francisco, the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, two same sex couples, are Ted Olson, former Solicitor General of the United States and prominent DC attorney, David Boies.  They are attempting to persuade a federal judge to invalidate California's law, passed by the people, defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Mr. Olsen also makes his case to the readers of Newsweek in a recent cover story. On page 49 of the magazine, Mr. Olson acknowledges that: "It is true that marriage in this nation traditionally has been regarded as a relationship exclusively between a man and a woman, and many of the nation's multiple religions define marriage in precisely these terms." But, in what seems to be a cavalier dismissal of the relevance of such religious beliefs, he goes on to ask, "...what are the justifications for California's decision on Proposition 8 to withdraw access to the institution of marriage for some of its citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation?" Tradition  the fact that marriage between one man and one woman has been the norm for millennia, is not a good reason to keep it, Olson writes. That it's the best venue for procreation and to raise children is trumped by the parties' right to pursue "happiness," he says. Later in the article he states, "...while our constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others." I find this dismissal of Christian values and their influence on our laws shocking especially coming from a prominent conservative.  Christians, of all people, should be encouraged to bring their beliefs to bear in America because they are the beliefs that have been the foundation of a strong nation. Marriage and enduring families make big government less necessary. Christians do not comprise all of the people in America,but are the vast majority.  For Christian beliefs to be dismissed in this way by Ted Olson or any thinking person, especially when they concern an institution, marriage, that predates our Constitution and laws, is simply wrong....and dangerous. . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage: Why same-sex marriage is an American value.  Newsweek.com, By Theodore B. Olson, January 25, 2010
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Newsweek Comes Out of the Closet. . . as a magazine with a political agenda  National Review Online, By Mark Hemingway, December 10, 2008
  Of course, religious Americans are more than used to shoddy coverage of theological debates. So what else is new? Criticism that a Newsweek cover story serves a left-of-center political worldview is almost, well, a weekly occurrence. What is remarkable about this week’s cover story was how Newsweek’s editor, Jon Meacham, has handled the backlash. He hasn’t defended the piece as a matter of opinion or part of a public debate. Rather, Newsweek has apparently come out of the closet as an explicitly ideological magazine editorially endorsing the article’s viewpoint. . . . Odd that Newsweek would have so much to say about the inherent correctness of gay marriage this week — opposing views be damned — but nothing to say about their rapidly diminishing circulation. Perhaps they don’t want to consider that these two developments might be related. . .
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Turning the Bible on its Head -- Newsweek Goes for Gay Marriage  Albert Mohler.com, December 8, 2008
  The national news media are collectively embarrassed by the passage of Proposition 8 in California. Gay rights activists are publicly calling on the mainstream media to offer support for gay marriage, arguing that the media let them down in November. It appears that Newsweek intends to do its part to press for same-sex marriage. Many observers believe that the main obstacle to this agenda is a resolute opposition grounded in Christian conviction. Newsweek clearly intends to reduce that opposition. . . . . . Disappointingly, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham offers an editorial note that broadens Newsweek's responsibility for this atrocity of an article and reveals even more of the agenda: . . .

RELATED BLOG:  Protect Marriage- Yes on 8 Blog

Presentation of Evidence Concludes in Perry v Schwarzenegger Federal Trial   By Andy Pugno - General Counsel, January 27, 2010

Spaghetti Strategy  By Andy Pugno - General Counsel, January 26, 2010

A Vigorous Defense for Traditional Marriage  By Andy Pugno - General Counsel, January 26, 2010

Week Two Wrap-up  By Andy Pugno - General Counsel, January 23, 2010

What First Amendment? By Andy Pugno - General Counsel, January 22, 2010

A Head Shaker of an Afternoon  By Andy Pugno - General Counsel, January 21, 2010. . .

RELATED QUOTE:
"...The plaintiffs put on a spectacular show-trial of irrelevant evidence, calling to the stand many “expert” witnesses to testify that allowing homosexual marriage would: help local governments raise more tax revenues, help gay and lesbian couples to accumulate greater wealth, and improve the self-esteem of homosexuals.  But those are political arguments for society to consider, not legal support for the claim that the US Constitution contains the right to homosexual marriage. The courtroom is simply not the proper forum for what is clearly a social, not a legal, appeal..."  Andy Pugno - General Counsel- Protect Marriage- Yes on 8, January 27, 2010




RELATED REPORT: Prop. 8 trial Day 12: Live coverage from the courtroom  Mercury News, By Howard Mintz, January 27, 2010
12:02 p.m.: Testimony wraps up, closing arguments to be scheduled later
The final witness has finished testifying in the Proposition 8 trial. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has given the two sides until Feb. 26 to file post-trial documents, and he told the lawyers he will then schedule a date for closing arguments. The judge told the lawyers he will "tee up some questions" for them before closings. At this point, it appears it will at least sometime in March before the trial returns to the judge's courtroom. For now, the trial is on hiatus.
(This blog will return for other hearings in the case and the closing arguments when they are scheduled).
11:41 a.m.: Cross-examination of final witness ends, testimony almost finished
10:38 a.m.: Testimony turns to sex and marriage
10:03 a.m.: Cross-examination gets testy again
9:03 a.m.: Calmer cross-examination of Prop 8 witness. . .


RELATED REPORT: Prop. 8 trial Day 11: Live coverage from the courtroom  Mercury News, By Howard Mintz, January 26, 2010
4:44 p.m. Trial wraps up for day, testimony to continue Wednesday
4:14 p.m.: Cross-examination degenerates into testy exchanges
3:27 p.m.: Witness says allowing same-sex couples to wed would erode marriage
2:45 p.m.: Prop 8 witness says marriage not driven by religion
2 p.m.: Expert: Marriage a 'socially approved sexual relationship between a man and a woman'
1:23 p.m.: Prop 8 witness to talk about importance of procreation to marriage
12:07 p.m.: Judge asks question about judicial intervention
11:41 a.m.: Tense exchange between prof and plaintiffs' attorney
10:52 a.m.: Cross-examination of prof continues
9:46 a.m.: Prof's writing: initiatives can be used to repeal benefits for minority groups
8:47 a.m.: Claremont McKenna professor back on the stand. . .


RELATED REPORT: Prop. 8 trial Day 10: Live coverage from the courtroom  Mercury News, By Howard Mintz, January 25, 2010
4:52 p.m.: Plaintiffs' lawyer and prof spar over whether Prop 8 is discriminatory
3:52 p.m.: Prof's reading on same-sex marriage not that extensive
2:43 p.m.: Cross-examination of prof continues
1:59 p.m.: Plaintiffs to begin cross-examination of Claremont-McKenna prof
1:42 p.m.: Prof says gays have made many legislative gains in California
12:18 p.m.: Claremont-McKenna prof says gay and lesbian political clout growing
11:44 a.m.: Plaintiffs challenging whether Prop. 8 expert is an 'expert'
11:08 a.m.: First witness for Prop 8 takes stand
10:47 a.m.: School children will be "indoctrinated" if gay couples allowed to wed, Prop 8 leader said in video
9:53 a.m.: Plaintiffs' lawyers presenting document and video evidence
8:25 a.m.: Prop. 8 defense's first witness expected on stand today. . .

RELATED QUOTE:
"... Only down Professor Segura’s rabbit hole does the fantasy of gays lacking political power exist, leading to the conclusion that gays and lesbians are a defenseless minority entitled to extraordinary legal protection.  In the real world, gays and lesbians are one of the most powerful, effective special interest groups who wield power far in excess of their numbers. The fact that they have amassed untold millions of dollars to fund a legal team that includes dozens of lawyers and some of the nation’s top litigators to come into federal court claiming to be powerless is rich with irony..."  Andy Pugno- General Counsel, Protect Marriage-Yes on 8, January 21, 2010

• In a TMZ World, Marriage Is a Nuisance and Babies Are Accessories  Huffington Post, By Donna Estes Antebi, January 26, 2010
  I'm starting to think I'm an anomaly. And I'll admit it. I run seriously out of step with our fame-obsessed, tabloid-saturated, "hook up" culture. I just don't get the nation's acceptance of casual sex and the rejection of the American family. I just read a new study which shows that the teenage pregnancy rate is up after a 10-year decline, and I am concerned for my daughters. In fact, I am concerned for all American children who are now growing up in an instant gratification, pop culture-obsessed society where rich and famous celebrities are showing off their multiple plastic surgeries, parading around their Size 2 bodies for TMZ cameras, checking in and out of rehab, and treating marriage like a nuisance, men like sperm donors and babies like accessories. And no one calls them out on it. In fact, this ever-extreme, attention-seeking behavior is more likely to land them on the cover of People magazine, or as a feature story on Entertainment Tonight. How are parents supposed to counter this cultural phenomenon? I'm alarmed that this is not just a passing trend, but something deeply corrosive to the foundation of our society. They say decadence preceded the fall of Rome. And I am seeing that all across America, young people are emulating the reckless behavior of celebrities by self-medicating with prescription drugs, having "body part" sex without love, and by desiring the latest, greatest attention grabber: a baby without a marriage. Unfortunately, these young Americans are highly unlikely to grow up to be either rich or famous. They are even less likely to have an entourage around them to pick up the pieces when life doesn't work out by giving them their own reality show. We are now three generations past the 1960s divorce revolution and one thing is abundantly clear: The "divorce revolution" has failed our families, leaving the children of America to pay a tragic price. Bill Cosby said, "I don't know where we lost it or how we lost it, but people aren't parenting." He couldn't be more right. The fatherless crisis that has long plagued the African-American community has now spread like an epidemic across the entire nation. This is an American tragedy. . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Marriage, Parentage, and the Constitution of the Family  The Heritage Foundation, By Chuck Donovan, January 27, 2010
  The family is a prime institution of civil society. In its origins, it is both natural and pre-political. Family is not the creature of the state but a network of relationships between a man and a woman, their offspring (if any), and the families from which they themselves come and that their union will create. In the modern era, temptations to experiment with the institutions of marriage and family have multiplied. With less emphasis on the long-term responsibilities of marriage, the consequences of redefining the institution for children and society are subordinated to the desires of adults. Rather than compound these weaknesses, policymakers and citizens should consider and adopt necessary reforms to strengthen families and rebuild civil society as the engine of the greatest human goods. . . . . . .Decades of Failed Experiments: Current challenges to the primacy of marriage and family as well-established civil institutions are often premised on the assertion that they will inflict little damage beyond that done by previous changes in law and culture. Those prior experiments, however, bear witness to the unintended consequences of ill-considered changes in public policy. . . . No-Fault Divorce: Advocates of no-fault divorce assured policymakers that the impact on children would be minimal if not beneficial.[12] National studies of the children of that generation who are now adults provide a clearer picture, as do surveys of divorced adults. . .
  
  
  
  

• YaVaughnie Wilkins, Mistress of Oracle's Charles Phillips, Put Up Sexy Billboards to Get Revenge    CBS News, By Ryan Smith, January 22, 2010
  YaVaughnie Wilkins might call it love. Oracle's Charles Phillips might call it stalking. In a tale of love meets obsession, Wilkins took it upon herself to plaster three cities with compromising billboards of the two together in better times. "You are my soulmate forever!" read one. "Charles & YaVaughnie," read another. Sweet, huh? Trouble is that Phillips, president of the software giant Oracle, was married to his wife, Karen, during Phillips' eight-and-a-half-year extramarital affair with Wilkins. When Wilkins learned Phillips was reconciling with his wife, she decided to get even, reports the New York Post. Wilkins spent close to $250,000 on the revenge. She developed a website and put a billboard in New York's Time Square, one in Atlanta, and one in San Francisco, where Oracle is based. And it worked. In a statement Thursday, Phillips admitted the affair. “I had an eight-and-a-half-year serious relationship with YaVaughnie Wilkins,” Mr. Phillips said. "My divorce proceedings began in 2008... The relationship with Ms. Wilkins has since ended and we both wish each other well." It's one affair, that won't soon be forgotten.
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Jilted mistress proclaims love for exec ex with billboard  NY  Post, By Emmett Berg, Amber Sutherland and Jeane MacIntosh, January 22, 2010
  Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned -- and then there's this lady. A fuming mistress catapulted retribution into a new orbit by plastering the country with billboards that show her nuzzling a married New York business honcho and adviser to President Obama, sources said. The spurned squeeze, YaVaughnie Wilkins, went nuclear after she learned that Charles E. Phillips -- president of tech conglomerate Oracle and a member of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board -- reconciled with his wife despite his lengthy affair with Wilkins.  Three signs have popped up in the city, as well as one in Atlanta and one in San Francisco -- where Wilkins lives, Phillips owns a home and Oracle's world headquarters are located. The very public humiliation campaign may have cost Wilkins upward of $250,000, at an estimated $50,000 a pop. . .

RELATED VIDEO:  Mysterious billboards   NY Post, January 22, 2010
Oracle's president admits having an affair after billboards of him and a woman are posted in various US cities.


RELATED SITE:  Charles Phillips and YaVaughnie Wilkins

RELATED ARTICLE:  This woman told 20,000 people on Twitter she was having a miscarriage at work. Can't we keep ANYTHING to ourselves anymore?  The Daily Mail- UK, By Linda Kelsey, November 12, 2009
Last weekend, I was seated next to a guy, who I'll call Richard, at a wedding. My friend Carol, who'd been stressing over table plans in her role as mother- of-the-bride, thought that, as we were both newly single, we might get on. She might have been right had the said Richard, who was rather handsome, not told me everything about himself in the first five minutes. Quite unprompted, he chose to inform me that his ex-wife was a bitch; that she didn't deserve half the house, let alone maintenance, as she'd been unfaithful to him; that he didn't want to date lots of women even though he was lonely; and that women 20 years his junior were queuing up to go out with him but he wasn't especially interested. Richard was in therapy and anxious to form a new relationship, even though he didn't trust women any more. He then explained he'd sowed plenty of wild oats in his youth, and was looking more for companionship than sex. Oh yes, and that his cholesterol was down to 4.8 as the result of his new health regime. Following this fascinating piece of news, I found myself looking longingly towards the emergency exit of the hotel ballroom. Haven't you heard the expression 'too much information' I was tempted to yell at him. How about getting to know someone slowly? How about a nice general conversation about the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall or an interesting book or film you've just seen? I think I'd rather have discussed the weather than receive this confessional monologue, this instant, unabridged autobiography. Following my own line of thought, but clearly not his, I asked: 'Did you read about Penelope Trunk, that woman who announced her miscarriage on Twitter while attending a boardroom meeting?' 'Only in America,' he harrumphed. 'What is it with Americans? Is nothing private any more?' The unintentional irony of Richard's remarks, hot on the heels of the furore caused by Trunk's extraordinary revelations, confirmed for me a worrying new trend. We have entered the age of oversharing. . . .

• Cindy McCain’s Support Surprises Calif. Pro-Gay Marriage Group  Wall Street Journal Blog-Washington Wire, By Susan Davis, January 21, 2010
  Cindy McCain is lending her name and image to the NOH8 Campaign, a gay rights group challenging California’s Proposition 8 that would ban gay marriage. The wife of 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain is not known for taking a front-seat role in politics. The campaign’s founders said they were surprised when she approached them about supporting the effort. “In the year since we’ve started the NOH8 Campaign, we’ve often been surprised at some of the different individuals who have approached us showing their support. Few, though, have surprised us more than Cindy McCain,” states the site in a post titled, “Redefining Republican.” It continues: “Aligning yourself with the platform of gay marriage as a Republican still tends to be very stigmatic, but Cindy McCain wanted to participate in the campaign to show people that party doesn’t matter - marriage equality isn’t a Republican issue any more than it is a Democratic issue. It’s about human rights, and everybody being treated equally in the eyes of the law that runs and protects this country.” The McCain’s daughter Meghan is already affiliated with the group and advocates for legalizing gay marriage. “I couldn’t be more proud of my mother for posing for the NOH8 campaign,” Meghan McCain tweeted Wednesday. Gay rights groups are hailing the McCain women’s support. “Cindy and Meghan McCain’s outspoken, public support of full marriage equality for loving and committed same-sex couples further underscores that equality is not a liberal issue or a conservative issue,” said Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign, in a statement. This isn’t a family affair. The senator opposes same sex marriage. “Senator McCain respects the views of members of his family. The senator chaired the effort to successfully pass Arizona Proposition 102, the Marriage Protection Amendment, and his opposition to gay marriage remains the same,” spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan said in a statement. . .

RELATED VIDEO:  Cindy McCain comes out for gay marriage  MarkDayComedy, Janauary 20, 2010
Cindy McCain didn't just come out in favor of gay marriage to piss John McCain off, did she? Maybe her photo shoot for the NOH8 anti- Prop 8 campaign is a late/early anniversary present?

RELATED ARTICLE:  What Do You Think of Cindy McCain's Photo Supporting Gay Marriage? "World News" wants to know what you think.  ABC News.com, January 22, 2010
Cindy McCain, the wife of former Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, is part of a new campaign supporting same-sex marriage. In a new photo, she's pictured with her mouth covered in duct tape and the "NOH8" campaign logo marked on her face. The duct tape is meant to symbolize the loss of voice for gay and lesbian people, and "NOH8" is opposed to Proposition 8, which outlaws gay marriage in California. McCain's daughter Meghan McCain is also a strong supporter of same-sex marriage, though the senator opposes it, as do many Democrats. McCain's opponent in the 2008 race, President Obama, also opposes same-sex marriage. We'll have more on this story tonight on World News, but we want to ask you now: What Do You Think of Cindy McCain's Photo Supporting Gay Marriage?


RELATED QUOTE:
"What do we think? These are a couple of CONFUSED psuedo-conservatives with their own agenda who just muddy the water with their beliefs based upon preposterous premises. They are a house divided, which wisdom tells us cannot stand..."  The Real Proposal magazine, January 22, 2010

RELATED ARTICLE:  Cindy McCain Gay Marriage Supporter? Provocative NOH8 Photos Say Yes   RightPundits, By Shannon Bell, January 21, 2010
Somebody please tell me what the duct tape is for. I’m all for duct taping Meghan McCain’s mouth shut, but really what does it have to do with gay marriage? Cindy McCain’s gay marriage support comes as a bit of a shock, not like drop over dead shocking, but shocking nonetheless. And there are people out there who truly wonder why John McCain lost the Presidential election? . . . . .  The Senator’s office released a statement saying that he believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Makes you wonder what exactly is going on at the McCain household doesn’t it? During the campaign of 2008, Cindy McCain played the doting wife and Meghan played the respectful and obedient daughter. The entire McCain family played conservatives. After Senator McCain was shellacked in the election, daughter Meghan went on the war path, criticizing Sarah Palin and you know the rest of the story. Meghan McCain became an instant media sensation simply based on her critiques of Governor Palin. She now writes for the Daily Beast and shows her cleavage on Twitter. Hey Meghan, here’s a little secret, they’re [liberal media] just using you to trash Palin, and that includes Tina Brown at the Daily Beast. Well back to the topic at hand; you can take from this what you will, but Cindy McCain’s gay marriage support in such a public and provocative way just confirms to me and should to many critics of the conservative movement that conservatism is what will win elections. Conservatism would have won in 2008; these photo shoots are just more proof it was radical liberal vs. liberal light. The radical won. People want real conservatism, not the watered down version. In Senator McCain’s defense, his wife and daughter may have just completely wandered of the reservation on this one. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Meghan Mccain's Big Bust  Townhall.com, By Ben Shapiro, October 18, 2009
Rule No. 1 for Being Taken Seriously: Don't post pictures of yourself on the Internet that are not safe for work (NSFW).
Rule No. 2 for Being Taken Seriously: Don't whine and cry when people criticize you for posting NSFW photos.
Meghan McCain doesn't know either one of these rules. But then, Meghan McCain doesn't know much of anything. McCain is obviously not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. This is a woman who, while appearing on Bill Maher's show, explained that she knew nothing about Ronald Reagan because "I wasn't born yet." (Paul Begala, no intellectual titan himself, quickly responded that though he hadn't been around during the French Revolution, he knew something about it.) She thinks she's being deep when she states, "I am a woman who despises labels and boxes and stereotypes." We in the real world call that a cop-out. . .


RELATED BOLG:  Meghan McCain: 'I Was Raised A Christian, But I Was Raised An Open-Minded Christian."  Townhall.com, Posted by: Greg Hengler, March 24, 2009
I didn't know Jesus Christ said there were many ways to be a Christian--Christian meaning "follower of Christ." How Christians live does not define "Christianity." What defines Christianity is what Jesus said and how He lived (see the Bible). I ask those who make choices opposed to Christ's teachings to pretty please with sugar on top--don't label them "Christian." Call them "Meghan's choices" or "Meghan's progressive Republican choices," but don't use Christ's name for your sake. Another thing: Meghan McCain's pro-life position is admirable but I am afraid she suffers from one of today's most cowardly characteristics: An inability to say anyone is "wrong." We can say we believe that there is a right and a wrong decision for us but we shouldn't dare say what anyone else does is wrong. There is an exception: It is okay to speak when someone does something you consider "right." Killing babies in the womb is wrong for me but if you need a ride to Planned Parenthood to get an abortion--sure, you can use my car! Need help paying for the procedure? Finally, use the label "open-minded" to your heart's content but don't throw in "Christian" when voicing your support for homosexual marriage. If you choose to "believe in gay marriage," we who oppose this definition of marriage will be tolerant--no, loving towards you, but don't disguise the modern-day attempt to redefine marriage as anything Jesus Christ endorsed. If you would rather lead as a "maverick" than follow Christ, fine. But for the love of Christ, drop the label when it's inapplicable.

UPDATE: If you would like to know what a Christian looks and sounds like look no further than HERE. This is Clayton, he is my 18 year old Christian brother. He died last week. This is his 7 minute testimony just before he died.

UPDATE: One final note: It has been put on my heart to remind my brothers and sisters in Christ that Jesus would have not just held a "Yes On Prop 8" sign and called it a day. He would have been in West Hollywood and San Francisco's Castro District mixing it up and loving on people who lived a lifestyle He opposed. If Jesus surounded Himself with drunkards, prostitutes and thieves and showed them the love of God we have no excuse to not follow His example.


RELATED ARTICLE:  School’s in (especially for John McCain): A 'conservative' defense of Marriage  The Real Proposal magazine, May 28, 2008
Anyone who saw the live Ellen DeGeneres interview with John McCain after the California Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage, who has some kind of rudimentary understanding of the real underlying issues surrounding same-sex marriage, and who truly understands how high the stakes are in this on-going battle, would have been hard pressed to restrain themselves from "laying hands" on Mr. McCain with far less than religious intent. This is the “conservative” candidate for the presidency of the United States, who cannot, when asked, give a clearly articulated argument in favor of his foundational beliefs in the institution of marriage? He is an embarrassment. And so are his handlers, who allowed him to wander into "Ellen" territory ill-prepared. Indeed, did they expect that he would make an appearance on a television talk show hosted by a widely popular, openly lesbian comedienne one week after a landmark California Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage in that state and the issue would not be raised? Columnist Paul Edwards analyzes the embarrassing spectacle Mr. McCain made of himself and makes the arguments Mr. McCain should have been, and needs to be, apprised of before contemplating another trek into gay rights territory:. . . .

• How S.D. mayor converted to gay-marriage side   San Francisco Chronicle, By Bob Egelko, January 19, 2010
• -- San Diego's Republican mayor testified emotionally Tuesday about his transformation from a foe to a friend of same-sex marriage and spotlighted a central issue in the Proposition 8 case - whether the law can be based on prejudice against lesbians and gays if many supporters harbor no anti-gay bias. With his daughter and her newlywed wife in the gallery, Jerry Sanders' voice quavered as he described his turnabout in 2007 that led him to sign a City Council resolution supporting San Francisco's lawsuit that sought marital rights for gays and lesbians. As a declared supporter of civil unions and an opponent of same-sex marriage, he had planned to veto the measure. "I think the decisions I made were grounded in prejudice," Sanders testified in federal court in San Francisco at the start of the second week of trial on the constitutionality of Prop. 8, the November 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to opposite-sex couples. "I was discriminating even against my own daughter." Sanders said he witnessed similar discrimination in the 1970s, early in his 26-year career as a police officer, when he saw a gay sergeant driven off the force. He said he felt "overwhelming love" as well as parental fears for his daughter Lisa, now 26, when she told him in 2003 that she was lesbian. What tipped the scales in 2007, he said, was a meeting with gays and lesbians the day before his intended veto of the marriage resolution. They reminded him that they, too, had families with children, and "I was shocked at the depth of (their) hurt," he said. In cross-examination, Brian Raum of the Alliance Defense Fund, a lawyer for Prop. 8's sponsors, grilled Sanders about his assertion that he bore no ill-will toward gays and lesbians during the years he opposed their right to marry. Isn't it true, Raum asked, that many people "voted for Proposition 8 because they believed civil unions were a fair and reasonable alternative to marriage," the view Sanders formerly espoused? Weren't there "sincere religious beliefs on both sides?" Does a voter, Raum asked, have to be a bigot to favor the traditional concept of marriage?. . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Facts, not flattery, about same-sex attraction: Blithe assertions about the gay lifestyle are seldom backed up by scientific studies -- and when they are, the studies are weak. Mercatornet.com, By Ad Hoc Committee on Homosexuality and Scientific Research, May 22, 2007
  Who helps you: someone who fails to tell you the truth or someone who does tell you the truth? The former may make you feel better; they may soothe and flatter, but the truth is more loving. It will help you live a healthier, happier and more fulfilled life. Defenders and promoters of homosexuality try to cover up the scientifically documented serious promiscuity, inability to maintain sexual fidelity, partner abuse and psychological and medical illnesses associated with the lifestyle. Also, they tell persons with same-sex attractions (SSA) that "It's genetic," "You were born that way," or worse "God made you gay.". . .
  

RELATED RESOURCE: 'Born that way' Theory  NARTH.com


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

RELATED REPORT: Prop. 8 trial Day 9: Live coverage from the courtroom  Mercury News, By Howard Mintz, January 22, 2010
4:57 p.m.: Second week of trial ends with final plaintiffs' witness
4:31 p.m.: Prop 8 lawyers complete six-hour cross-examination of UC Davis prof
3:57 p.m. :Freud invoked. 1935 paper says homosexuals can be transformed into heterosexuals
2:48 p.m.: Proposition 8 lawyer and prof joust over whether homosexuality is a choice
1:57 p.m.: Prof sort of agrees that research of sexual orientation open to interpretation
12:29 p.m.: Prop. 8 attorneys pressing prof on homosexuality
10:40 a.m.: Prop. 8 lawyer focuses on definition of sexual orientation
9:44 a.m.: Prof says research shows gays and lesbians don't choose their sexual identities
9:24 a.m.: UC-Davis prof: Marriage 'not simply a word'
8:20 a.m.: Professor to testify on nature of homosexuality. . .



RELATED REPORT: Prop. 8 trial Day 8: Live coverage from the courtroom  Mercury News, By Howard Mintz, January 21, 2010
4:21 p.m.: Prop 8 lawyer depicts proponent William Tam as a renegade
4:07 p.m.: Prop 8 proponent says he didn't get his statements approved by campaign
3:30 p.m.: Prop 8 proponent says allowing gay marriage would lead to incest, polygamy
2:41 p.m.: Prop 8 proponent grilled on views about homosexuality
2:20 p.m.: Prop 8 leader supports domestic partner rights, also supports linking homosexuality to pedophilia
1:40 p.m.: Prop. 8 proponent William Tam begins testimony
1:22 p.m.: Leading Prop. 8 proponent to take stand
12:13 p.m.: Lunch break, then Prop. 8 proponent will be on hot seat
11:22 a.m.: Prof likens gay and lesbian boycotts, protest to civil rights movement of 1960s
10:46 a.m.: Bill O'Reilly makes cameo appearance via video clip
10:05 a.m.: Lawyer introduces information about attacks on Prop. 8 supporters
9:23 a.m.: Prop. 8 lawyer: Religious belief spurred voter attitudes
8:25 a.m.: Cross-examination of Stanford prof about to resume. . .



RELATED REPORT:  Prop. 8 trial Day 7: Live coverage from the courtroom  Mercury News, By Howard Mintz, January 20, 2010
10:46 a.m.: Stanford prof says gays and lesbians don't have much political power
10:23 a.m.: Prop 8 attorney asks "gay conversion" witness only a few questions
10:13 a.m.: Witness testifies parents forced him to undergo treatment to become heterosexual
9:52 a.m.: 'Conversion therapy' testimony to begin
8:15 a.m.: Testimony about 'conversion therapy' expected today


RELATED REPORT:  Prop. 8 trial Day 6: Live coverage from the courtroom    MercuryNews, By Howard Mintz, January 19, 2010
3:44 p.m.: Conflicting views on impact of same-sex marriage on heterosexual marriage
2:54 p.m.: Defense questions expert's estimate of same-sex couples who would marry
1:50 p.m.: Trial back in session after dueling news conferences
12:37 p.m.: Cross-exam of prof expected to last a couple more hours
11:52 a.m.: Professor cross-examined: Is she 'a gay-rights activist'?
11:32 a.m.: Prof: Gay couples prefer marriage over civil unions
10:51 a.m.: Prof: Prop. 8 has damaged California's economy
10:11 a.m.: Defense presses San Diego mayor on views
9:34 a.m. San Diego mayor chokes up describing daughter's quest to marry partner
9:12 a.m.: Conservative S.D. mayor's personal evolution to accept gay marriage
8:57 a.m.: Trial resumes with San Diego mayor testifying. . .

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

RELATED ARTICLE:  Hope for Homosexuals  Good News magazine, Interview with Dr. Joseph Nicolosi conducted by Melvin Rhodes
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi is a clinical psychologist. He is the president of NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a 1,000-member organization. Dr. Nicolosi has successfully treated thousands of patients to help men transition from homosexuality to heterosexuality. He is author of several books, including A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality and Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach. He has spoken at hundreds of conferences worldwide and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs around the world as the preeminent authority on reparative therapy. He also heads the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic in Encino, California. . . . .

GN: In the last few years, AIDS has become primarily a heterosexual problem internationally. In the United States it still affects gays disproportionately. Why is that?

RELATED ARTICLE:  WHAT GOD HATH NOT JOINED:  Why marriage was designed for male and female.  Christianity Today.com, By Edith M. Humphrey, Originally published September 1, 2004
Our radically confused society is debating the meaning of marriage with increasing intensity. That question leads to a host of other issues—especially the boundaries of sexual behavior and the nature of procreation. No one is untouched by this debate. Confusion in society spreads easily to the church. To help bring a biblical perspective to these discussions, Christianity Today offers this special section, the first of a series. Here we focus on the meaning of marriage in light of the national debate about gay marriage. In future issues, we'll go down other paths. As we address these issues over the long term, we hope to communicate two things: First, a definite "no" to calls to lower the moral bar (whether they come from within the church or from secular critics). And second, a decided "yes" to respect and extend compassion to the people who advocate views and practices we oppose. The issues are too important to fall short in either direction.    —Editors

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

• Study: Marriage benefits men economically, too  USA Today, By Sharon Jayson, January 19, 2010
  If you think women still reap more economic benefit than men do from marriage, you may be living in the past. Today, men are better off economically because their wives are, too, suggests a new study on the economics of marriage by the Pew Research Center. It shows women's education and earnings advancements are translating into overall improvement for men. "Marriage is a different deal than it was 40 years ago," says Pew economist Richard Fry, a co-author of the study. "Typically, most wives did not work, so for economic well-being, marriage penalized guys with more mouths to feed but no extra income. Now most wives work. For guys, the economics of marriage have become much more beneficial." Pew used Census data from 1970 and 2007 to compare U.S.-born married people ages 30-44 — ages when "typical adults have completed their education, gone to work and gotten married," the study says. The data show more women than men today have college degrees. In 1970, 64% of graduates were men and 36% were women; in 2007, 53.5% were women and 46.5% were men. Also, women's earnings grew 44% from 1970 to 2007, compared with 6% for men. Although men, on average, still make more, women's sharper gains have narrowed the gap. Now, more women marry men with less education and lower earnings, and more men marry women who are more educated than they are and may earn more, Fry says. "Just as women are saying they want more from marriage than an economic security blanket, men are more open to marrying women with more education and earnings," says historian Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage: A History. But economist Betsey Stevenson, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School in Philadelphia, says Pew's analysis is too limited. . .
  
  
  
  RELATED REPORT:  New Economics of Marriage: The Rise of Wives  Pew Research Center, By Richard Fry and D’Vera Cohn, January 19, 2010
  Executive Summary:  The institution of marriage has undergone significant changes in recent decades as women have outpaced men in education and earnings growth. These unequal gains have been accompanied by gender role reversals in both the spousal characteristics and the economic benefits of marriage. . . .

RELATED VIDEO:  Marriage economy  KXAN, January 19, 2010
It used to be that when women married, their financial situation improved because more husbands worked and wives didn't. But that's changed.

RELATED ARTICLE:  Do We Care About Boys?  RealClearPolitics.com, By Maggie Gallagher, January 21, 2010
The headline from The Washington Post celebrates yet another milestone: "University of Virginia picks its first female president." But meantime, the data continues to mount that our educational system is massively failing one gender: boys. In a new book, "Why Boys Fail," Richard Whitmire points to a study that tracked every graduate of Boston Public Schools in 2007. For every 167 women in a four-year college, there were only 100 men. (Gender beat race as a predictor of college attendance: Black women were 5 percentage points more likely than white men to be in college.) The Boston Public Schools system is hurting boys. And it's not just Boston: Nearly 60 percent of all bachelor's degrees in the country go to women. Do we care about our boys? The Economist recently put Rosie the Riveter on its cover to celebrate a major milestone: In the U.S., women are now the majority of the workforce. Why? Massively greater numbers of men than women are losing their jobs in this recession. Is this really good news? And yet every sign that boys or men are hurting gets determinedly turned around into a happy news story of female success. The disconnect between the happy headlines and the reality underneath will only be solved by women. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Is marriage just a golden meal ticket for men?  The Student Operated Press, January 19, 2010
Talk about conflicting messages. If you were to believe what you saw on television, the movies, magazines or listen to most popular love songs, you would think that finding a man and settling down was in the best interest of all women. Why? Because your life would be complete, you would be secure with a house, kids, money and of course, never ending love and devotion. But, so many recent studies show none of this true at all. In fact, they show women can and often do as well materially and emotionally on their own. So, one has to ask " is there any reason left for women to get married. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  More Men Marrying Wealthier Women  NY Times, By Sam Roberts, January 18, 2010
Beagy Zielinski is a German-born 28-year-old stylist who moved to New York to study fashion in 1995 and stayed. Just before Christmas, she broke up with her blue-collar boyfriend, who repaired Navy ships. “He was extremely insecure about my career and how successful I am,” Ms. Zielinski said. An analysis of census data to be released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center found that she and countless women like her are victims of a role reversal that is profoundly affecting the pool of potential marriage partners. . . . . .. Ms. Zielinski, the fashion stylist, said her best friend, a man, told her once: “ ‘You are confident, have good credit, own your own business, travel around the world and are self-sufficient. What man is going to want you?’ He laughed, but I found that pretty depressing.”. . .

• No Holds Barred: Focus on marital decline, not homosexuality  Jerusalem Post, By Shmuley Boteach, January 18, 2010
  The Jewish community in the United States has an opportunity to lead the country in a true values renewal by shifting the focus away from the country's obsession over gay marriage and onto marital decline and divorce. Whatever your views on gay marriage - whether you are a supporter who believes that gays should have the same rights as heterosexuals or whether you are more religiously inclined and object to gay marriage on biblical grounds - one things is for sure: This has absolutely nothing to do with rescuing the institution of marriage. We straight people don't need help from gays in destroying marriage, having a done an admirable job of it ourselves, thank you very much. . . . .THE REAL cause of marital breakdown in our time is the redefinition of success to encompass only the professional and almost never the personal sphere. We Americans are an ambitious lot. We want to succeed in everything we do. What we fear most in this country is being a failure, a loser. But being a winner has come to mean having money, power and being famous. In Hollywood, you can be on your fourth marriage and have all your kids in rehab. But so long as people are still paying 10 bucks to see your movies, you're a success. On Wall Street, you can be a 30-something trader who takes the American taxpayer to the cleaners and pursues a life of endless womanizing, all fueled by gargantuan, government facilitated bonuses. But as long as you still drive a Ferrari and live in that $25 million Hampton estate, you'll be invited to every cocktail party around. Who then has a real incentive to be a good man? We are all encouraged today to have a career rather than a calling, a focus on our own ambition rather than a cultivation of gifts for the benefit of others. And success is defined not by quality of your relationships but by the quantity in your bank accounts. Marital decay these days begins with the easy hook-up culture of teen-hood where young people are trained to see the opposite sex as a commodity to be exploited. It reaches dizzying heights with the positively rancid culture of male womanizing and female drunkenness that has become so common on the American university campus. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  Pro-marriage campaign grows  Washington Times, By Cheryl Wetzstein, January 19, 2010
In my years of writing about family issues, I've often encountered a dissing of marriage. Marriage is viewed by critics as a man-made arrangement that is good for men and bad for women. Some say its demands for monogamy are biologically unnatural; others say its promises of "happily ever after" are a myth. In many circles, marriage is something wise people avoid. For those Americans who don't feel that way about marriage, the cavalry finally may be on its way. In November, a national campaign called Let's Strengthen Marriage was formed with the goal of getting marriage onto the "national agenda." . . . . . . The Let's Strengthen Marriage campaign summed up the merits of marriage in nine words: "Financial stability. Better health. Less troubled kids. Greater happiness." I would add a 10th word, "Amen."

• Meryl Streep and Sandra Bullock kiss and make up after mock rivalry over shared Best Actress award   The Daily Mail- UK, January 16, 2010
  First there was Madonna and Britney Spears, then there was Kate Moss and Jemima Khan - now Meryl Streep and Sandra Bullock are the latest female celebrities to lock lips in public. The pair, feted as two of Hollywood's best known comic stars, were both named Best Actress at last night's Critics' Choice Movie Awards - Streep for her role as Julia Child in Julie and Julia, and Bullock for The Blind Side, to be released in the UK in March. Each was given the chance to make an acceptance speech, but it was the moment in-between that had everyone talking, after they staged a mock rivalry. As Bullock took to the podium after Streep's speech, she yelled: 'This is bull***!' The glamorous stars then proceeded to face up to one another in mock anger, before sharing a kiss on the lips. Afterwards, the Miss Congeniality actress, 45, told the audience: 'Meryl's a great kisser.' On a more serious note, she added: 'This is an honour. It is a great honour to be in the company of the extraordinary women I was so lucky to be nominated with, because this one here inspired me to do everything better.' . . . .Streep, 60, credited Julie and Julia co-star Stanley Tucci, who also worked with her in The Devil Wears Prada. 'I love acting and I love to work and I love food and I love sex — so did Julia Child, so it wasn't that much of a stretch,' she said. 'I want to thank the embarrassingly gifted Stanley Tucci — he knows why. And we're so lucky to do what we do and to give back and I hope we all do it this week. I'm really very grateful.' Both actresses have been making an impact on the film industry in recent years. Streep, with her latest release It's Complicated, has proved that there is a market for older women as romantic leads, while Bullock's latest film The Blind Side has already become the first film release in history to make more than $200 million with only one female A-list star to support it. . . .
  
  
  RELATED SITE:  Julie and Julia
  
  
  RELATED SITE:  It's Complicated 
  
  
  RELATED SITE:  Sandra Bullock- The Blind Side Movie
  Based on an extraordinary true story...  

RELATED VIDEO:  Sandra Bullock Kiss Meryl Streep   VH-1, January 16, 2010
(Warning: Adult language)

RELATED ARTICLE:  Drew Barrymore and Ellen Page Lock Lips for Marie Claire  Lemondrop, September 09, 2009
"Whip It" co-stars Drew Barrymore and Ellen Page cozied up to each other for the cover of the October 2009 issue Marie Claire. But the image that's getting far more attention is a photo of Barrymore (the film's director) and Page locking lips that appears inside. While the accompanying Q&A opens with the fact that during the interview the two "can't keep their hands off of each other," neither that -- nor their kiss -- is acknowledged by either actress, at least not in the online version of the magazine. But over the weekend Barrymore addressed the kiss in the Toronto Star: "Ellen and I are as just silly, fun girls that love each other and people can make out of it what they will. There's nothing there but fun girlie friendship and affection." Do we buy this explanation? Some will surely use the photo to fuel rumors that Page is a lesbian, and a little girl-on-girl is nothing new for Barrymore. Two years ago magazine editor Jane Pratt claimed to have had a lesbian affair with Barrymore (which the actress never denied), though both Pratt and Barrymore identify as straight (or at least publicly date men). . .


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


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

• Surrogacy Battles Expose Uneven Legal Landscape  Wall Street Journal, By Nathan Koppel, January 15, 2010
  Four years ago, Donald Robinson Hollingsworth and Sean Hollingsworth, a gay couple living in New Jersey, set in motion their plan to become first-time parents. They contracted with a woman to carry an embryo from donated eggs and sperm from Sean Hollingsworth. The surrogate mother, Donald Hollingsworth's sister Angelia Robinson, gave birth to twins in 2006. A legal issue soon arose: Did Ms. Robinson have parental rights over the twins? She had signed a pre-birth agreement indicating she would relinquish her parental rights, but later sued after deciding she wanted to help raise the twins. In December, New Jersey state Judge Francis Schultz ruled that Ms. Robinson is a parent. Surrogacy remains a relatively uncommon pathway to parenthood, in part because it still rests on a somewhat shaky legal ground in parts of the country. Eight states have passed laws prohibiting some or all surrogacy contracts, while courts in other states have refused to enforce such contracts. Ten states have passed laws expressly authorizing surrogacy if certain conditions are met, according to the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. State legislatures continue to address the issue sporadically. . . . . . .The debate over surrogacy touches on what can be deeply held views about the rights of mothers, children and couples who might be unable or unwilling to use more traditional methods of procreation, say attorneys and reproductive-rights experts. Critics say surrogacy often exploits impoverished and relatively unsophisticated women, who are enticed by hefty fees into relinquishing their parental rights. Proponents counter that surrogacy agreements usually are struck by consenting, informed adults, who are in a better position than courts or legislators to determine the best interests of a child. . . . . . Another concern raised about surrogacy is that it is tantamount to baby engineering, since couples can chose egg and sperm donors based on, say, the donor's beauty or intelligence, says George Annas, a bioethics professor at the Boston University School of Public Health. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  Children of Sperm Donors Have Rights, Too  Townhall.com, By Maggie Gallagher, February 20, 2008
Far more children these days are deprived of knowledge of their origins by a totally difference process: artificial insemination. How can we possibly countenance placing burdens exclusively on women who give life and excuse totally the men whose sole contribution to their child was to "donate" into a little cup, usually for money? And our laws are almost totally to blame for keeping children created by reproductive technologies in the dark about their origins. The common law remains the rule for children created by sexual acts: I cannot bargain away at the bar my child's right to the support and care of both his mother and father. The child retains the right to the support of both parents, no matter to what those parents have agreed. But if I go to a doctor or clinic for sperm, adult bargains are suddenly allowed by law to trump the child's natural right to know both his biological parents, wherever possible. .  .


RELATED ARTICLE:  I was the daughter of a sperm donor - shame no-one told me   The Daily Mail- UK, By Alison Smith-Squire, January 30, 2008



RELATED ARTICLE:  Who's Your Daddy? My Father Was an Anonymous Sperm Donor  The Washington Post, By Katrina Clark, December 17, 2006
I really wasn't expecting anything the day, earlier this year, when I sent an e-mail to a man whose name I had found on the Internet. I was looking for my father, and in some ways this man fit the bill. But I never thought I'd hit pay dirt on my first try. Then I got a reply -- with a picture attached. From my computer screen, my own face seemed to stare back at me. And just like that, after 17 years, the missing piece of the puzzle snapped into place. The puzzle of who I am. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  The Revolution in Parenthood: The Emerging Global Clash Between Adult Rights and Children's Needs   AmericanValues.org
A new report from the country’s leading family experts finds that worldwide trends in law and reproductive technologies are redefining parenthood in ways that put the interests of adults before the needs of children. . . . .  Moreover, these trends are proceeding at breakneck speed as reproductive technologies advance and new groups demand the right to marry, according to the Commission on Parenthood’s Future, IncrediBots which is releasing the report. For instance, scientific research in Britain and elsewhere with the DNA in eggs and sperm is raising the possibility that children could be born using the genes from just one person, from two same-sex parents, or from three parents. The report features the experience of the first generation of children conceived with the use of donor sperm, who are just now beginning to speak out about their experience. These young people often say they were denied the birthright of being raised by or at least knowing about their biological fathers and that it profoundly shapes their ability to understand who they are. . .

• U.S. Supreme Court to hear Ref. 71 case
  The U.S. Supreme Court has decided it will hear the case surrounding the public release of names of those who signed petitions for Referendum 71, with any decision likely to have broad ramifications.  The Seattle Times, By Janet I. Tu, January 15, 2009
  The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear the case surrounding the public release of names of voters who signed petitions for Referendum 71. At stake is whether a portion of Washington's Public Records Act, which requires publicly disclosing the identities of those who sign referendum or initiative petitions, violates the signers' First Amendment rights. "It's very encouraging that (the Supreme Court justices) have obviously treated this case with great sensitivity and respect for the privacy rights of citizens. ... And now they're going to consider those rights on the merits," said James Bopp Jr., attorney for Protect Marriage Washington, the religious conservative organization that brought the case. Secretary of State Sam Reed, the defendant in the case, said: "We welcome an opportunity to go to the highest court in the land to defend Washington citizens' strong desire for transparency, openness and accountability in government, and the public's belief that our state and local public documents must be available for public inspection.... "It is not surprising," Reed said, "that the Supreme Court would be intrigued by a nationally-watched case dealing with disclosure, First Amendment considerations and public discourse during the Internet era." Arguments before the court is likely to take place in April, and a possible decision in June. A Supreme Court decision will likely have ramifications beyond this state. Twenty-seven states have either referendum or initiative processes, and the Internet has made it far easier to publicize the names of those who sign petitions for such ballot measures. The case before the Supreme Court stems from Referendum 71, which last fall asked voters to approve or reject a recently expanded domestic-partnership law, granting "everything but marriage" state benefits to gay and lesbian couples. The measure was approved. Religious conservatives, who gathered some 138,000 signatures to get the measure on the ballot, hoping voters would throw out the expanded partnership law, argued those names should not be disclosed, saying signers feared harassment. Some gay-rights activists had asked for the names under the state's public-records act, and said they would post them on a searchable Web site. Protect Marriage Washington sued to block release of the names, saying the state's public disclosure law "chills free speech ... particularly when it is reasonably probable that those exercising their First Amendment rights would be subjected to threats and harassment.". . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  The Price of Prop 8   The Heritage Foundation, By Thomas M. Messner, October 22, 2009
  Abstract: Supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry. Arguments for same-sex marriage are based fundamentally on the idea that limiting marriage to the union of husband and wife is a form of bigotry, irrational prejudice, and even hatred against homosexual persons. As this ideology seeps into the culture more generally, individuals and institutions that support marriage as the union of husband and wife risk paying a price for that belief in many legal, social, economic, and cultural contexts. Support for Proposition 8, the democratically established marriage amendment in California, has come with a heavy price for many individuals and institutions that think that marriage should remain the union of husband and wife. Publicly available sources, including evidence submitted in a federal lawsuit in California,[1] show that expressions of support for Prop 8 have generated a range of hostilities and harms that includes harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry. Because the issue of marriage is still very much alive in California and throughout the nation,[2] the naked animus manifested against people and groups that supported Prop 8 raises serious questions that should concern anyone interested in promoting civil society, democratic processes, and reasoned discourse on important matters of public policy, such as marriage. . .
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  The Tyranny of the Minority: How the Forced Recognition of Same-Sex "Marriage" Undermines a Free Society  Salvo magazine, By S. T. Karnick, Autumn 2008- Salvo 6 Issue
  From the beginning, the debate over "same-sex marriage" has been one of those topsy-turvy issues in which the side that is truly tolerant and fair has been characterized as narrow-minded and oppressive, while the side that is intolerant and blatantly coercive has been depicted as open-minded and sympathetic. Favoring government-enforced recognition of same-sex "marriage" is not, as the media invariably characterize it, a kindly, liberal-minded position, but instead a fierce, coercive, intolerant one. Despite their agonized complaints about the refusal of the majority of Americans to give in on the subject, those who advocate government recognition of same-sex "marriage" want to use coercion to deny other people their fundamental rights. . . . . .[I]t is not correct to argue that government recognition of two-sex marriages is unfair or oppressive. If proponents of same-sex "marriage" ask why the government should be allowed to require people to acknowledge traditional two-sex marriages, the answer is simple: It does not. The institutions of society acknowledge heterosexual marriages on the basis of historical and cultural preferences dating back millennia. The government didn't decide this; society did. Government recognition of traditional marriage was not a change forced upon society, but rather a legal codification of what society had already established. Moreover, even homosexuals agree that marriage is a valid institution. They confirm this powerfully by trying to alter the institution through force of law so that same-sex couples can be included in it. The key difference between traditional marriage and same-sex "marriage," however, is that the government, in acknowledging heterosexual marriage, does not force anything on society; it merely effects the enforcement of a contract that all—or nearly all—people accept as valid and sensible. Same-sex "marriage," by contrast, is not seen as such by most people; forcing individuals to recognize it is not the legal codification of an existing social reality, but instead a radical social change forced by a few on the many. . . . .
  
  
  
  

• Court rejects bid for gay marriage referendum  Washington Post, By Tim Craig, January 15, 2010
  A D.C. Superior Court judge ruled Thursday that same-sex marriage opponents do not have a right to call for a referendum to determine whether such unions should be legal in the District. The decision, a major victory for gay rights activists, makes it more likely that the District will begin allowing same-sex couples to marry in March. In the 23-page ruling, Judge Judith N. Macaluso affirmed a D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics decision that city law disallows the ballot proposal because it would promote discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Macaluso also concluded that previous court decisions outlawing same-sex marriage in the District are no longer valid. Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), the sponsor of the D.C. Council same-sex marriage bill signed last month by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D), called the decision "thorough and far-reaching." "The ruling, which addressed the substantive legal issues before the court, sustains the District's tradition of treating all citizens equally under the law," Catania said. The election board has twice ruled that a referendum on same-sex marriage would violate a city election law prohibiting such a vote on a matter covered by the Human Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination against gays and other minority groups. Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, appealed that ruling to Superior Court. Last week, 39 members of Congress filed a brief in support of Jackson's appeal, arguing that the election board overstepped its authority in denying a public vote on whether marriage should be defined as a being between a man and a woman. Jackson and his attorneys said Thursday that they will appeal Macaluso's ruling. They contend that that the laws in question were written in the late 1970s, long before same-sex marriage was an issue, and should not prevent a referendum. "We are fighting for justice and defending the rights of the people of the District of Columbia," Jackson said. "We have always anticipated that our quest for voting rights on the issue of marriage would end up in our higher appeals court, and today's ruling confirms that is where the issue is headed." In her decision, Macaluso stated the board "properly rejected the proposed initiative" because of the Human Rights Act. The judge also rejected arguments that same-sex marriage should be illegal in the District because of the 1995 Dean v. District of Columbia decision. In that case, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the city did not have to recognize same-sex marriage because the government's intent to oppose such marriages was clear. Now, Macaluso concluded, the intent of the government in favor of allowing two men or two women to marry is clear. "These clear manifestations of intent to alter the traditional definition of marriage did not exist when Dean was decided," the judge wrote. "Dean expressly relied upon the absence of such indications in concluding that the Council intended to retain the definition of marriage as occurring only between a man and a woman. . .
  

RELATED ARTICLE:  Let the People Vote: An Open Letter to Congress  Townhall.com, By Harry R Jackson, January 13, 2010
The following is an excerpt of a letter that was presented to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mike Pence, Mitch McConnell, Barbara Lee and the Congressional Black Caucus this week by national pastors and leaders who want to be counted among those who see marriage as an important issue in America today. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  'Moral Watchmen' Pen Letter to Congress on Gay Marriage  DC-ist, By Martin Austermuhle, January 14, 2010,
Bishop Harry Jackson is pretty much everywhere when it comes to fighting marriage equality in the District. If he's not filing (unsuccessful) legal challenges the city for turning down one of his requests for a vote on the definition of marriage, he's submitting another request for another vote. If he's not hosting a "National Marriage Summit" on the Hill, he's penning a letter to Congress outlining the reasons it should force the city to put same-sex marriage on the ballot. The new letter, which was co-authored by a number of other religious figures who refer to themselves as "moral and cultural watchmen," lays out a number of reasons why Congress should get involved in the District's fight for marriage equality. One reason they cite is 1996's Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. According to the letter, "If the recent DC same sex-marriage law is allowed to stand, people around the nation will ask, 'Why did Congress allow the city to violate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)?'" This argument, which isn't new, claims that since the District is a federal dependency, it is a bound by the terms of DOMA. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  “Who Are You to Judge Others?” - In Defense of Making Moral Judgments  
It’s been said that the most frequently quoted Bible verse is no longer John 3:16 but Matthew 7:1: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”  We cannot glibly quote this, though, without understanding what Jesus meant.  When Jesus condemned judging, he wasn’t at all implying we should never make judgments about anyone.  After all, a few verses later, Jesus himself calls certain people “pigs” and “dogs” (Matt. 7:6) and “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (7:15)!  Any act of church discipline (1 Cor. 5:5) and rebuking false prophets (1 John 4:1) requires judgment.  What Jesus condemns is a critical and judgmental spirit, an unholy sense of moral superiority.  Jesus commanded us to examine ourselves first for the problems we so easily see in others.  Only then can we help remove the speck in another’s eye—which, incidentally, assumes that a problem exists and must be confronted.1  But let’s take a closer look at this charge that Christians are judgmental when we speak out on moral issues. . . . .Closely tied to the notion of “judgment” is “tolerance.”  Although many accuse absolutists of intolerance, these accusers most likely have an unclear and distorted notion of what tolerance really is.  They often are unaware that the concept of tolerance implies a close relationship to truth. Contrary to popular definitions, true tolerance means “putting up with error”—not “being accepting of all views.”. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Same-Sex 'Marriage' Is Not a Civil Right  Family Research Council, By Peter Sprigg, January 27, 2005
Individuals may choose to marry for all kinds of private reasons, but the reason marriage is a public institution is because it brings together men and women for the purpose of reproducing the human race and keeping a mother and father together to cooperate in raising to maturity the children they produce. The public interest in such behavior is great, because thousands of years of human experience and a vast body of contemporary social science research both demonstrate that married husbands and wives, and the children they conceive and raise, are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than people in any other living situation. In fact, I would suggest that the argument in favor of same-sex marriage can only be logically sustained if one argues that there is no difference between men and women--that is, if one argues not merely that men and women are equal in value and dignity, a proposition with which I'm sure we all agree, but that males and females are identical and thus able to serve as entirely interchangeable parts in the structure of marriage. The contention is absurd on its face. Thus, "same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms. . . .

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


RELATED ARTICLE (PDF doc):  Review Of Research On Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, And Foster Parenting  NARTH.com, By George A. Rekers, Ph.D.
NARTH Board Member George A. Rekers, Ph.D., Professor of Neuropsychiatry & Behavioral Science, USC School of Medicine, has written extensively on the impact of gay parenting on children and has testified before state legislatures on the importance of the two-parent home with a mother and father. His paper, "Review Of Research On Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, And Foster Parenting" describes the negative impact that gay parents have on their children. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  What Research Shows: NARTH's Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality   National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality  (NARTH), June 09, 2009
The American Psychological Association (APA) and other mental health organizations have objected to providing psychological care to those who are distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions2 on a number of grounds. These objections include scientifically unsupportable claims that:

1.  There is no conclusive or convincing evidence that sexual orientation may be changed through reorientation therapy.
2.  Efforts to change sexual orientation are shown to be harmful and can lead to greater self-hatred, depression, and other self-destructive behaviors.
3.  There is no greater pathology in the homosexual population than in the general population.

In What Research Shows, we offer a landscape review of more than one hundred years of experiential evidence, clinical studies, and research studies that demonstrate that it is possible for men and women to diminish their unwanted homosexual attractions and develop their heterosexual potential; that efforts to change unwanted homosexual attractions are not generally harmful; and that homosexual men and women do indeed have substantially greater experiences of and risk factors for medical, psychological and relational pathology than do the general population. Based on our review of 600 reports of clinicians, researchers, and former clients—primarily from professional and peer-reviewed scientific journals, we conclude that reorientation treatment has been helpful to many and should continue to be available to those who seek it. Further, mental health professionals competent to provide such care ethically may do so. . .

• Prop. 8 trial: Did animosity drive California's gay marriage ban?
  Lawyers seeking to overturn Prop. 8, California's gay marriage ban, attempted to show Wednesday that the law is unconstitutional because it is the product of animosity toward gays and lesbians.  Christian Science Monitor, By Michael B. Farrell, January 13, 2009
  Anti-gay marriage activists were acting out of animosity toward gays and lesbians when they pushed to pass Proposition 8, the state's ban on gay marriage, lawyers arguing against the law attempted to show Wednesday. The animus, or animosity, argument is a key part of the federal lawsuit against Prop. 8, because the Supreme Court has ruled that animus against any group is not a constitutional basis for forming laws. That argument was the primary issue on Day 3 of the trial. . . . The argument intends to build on the Supreme Court ruling in Romer v. Evans, a 1996 case concerning a Colorado constitutional amendment denying gays and lesbians any special rights or protection under the law. The ruling held that the animus expressed toward a class of people in this case was unconstitutional because it lacked “a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.” This is only one of the legal strategies that Mr. Olson and his fellow attorneys are exploring during the three-week trial. They also claim that the ban denies gay and lesbian couples the right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The animus argument could prove difficult, says Marc Spindelman, a law professor at Ohio State University. “Even if it’s true that the proponents of Prop. 8 are motivated by animus, there’s a question if that’s enough to invalidate a majority of California’s votes," he says. Yet it was at the center of the day's activity, as plaintiffs' attorney Therese Stewart sought to impugn the motivations of the official proponents of Prop. 8. . .
  
  
  

RELATED REPORT:  Same-Sex Marriage Case, Day 4: Economics  NY Times Blog- The Bay Area, By Malia Wollam, January 14, 2010


RELATED REPORT:  Same-Sex Marriage Case, Day 3: The Defense Pushes Back  NY Times Blog- The Bay Area, By Gerry Shih, January 13, 2010

RELATED VIDEO:  State Constitutional Marriage Amendments in Jeopardy  CitizenLink.org, January 12, 2010
Lawyers defending California’s Proposition 8 get an opponent’s witness to admit that no one knows the consequences of gay marriage. . .


RELATED BLOG:  Protect Marriage- Yes on 8 Blog

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

RELATED COVERAGE:  Prop. 8 trial Day 5 (Friday): Live coverage from the courtroom  MercuryNews.com, By Howard Mintz, January 15, 2009
11:19 a.m.: Defense continues cross-examination of Cambridge prof
10:06 a.m.: Expert acknowledges he's a liberal
9:23 a.m.: Expert says children of gay couples are 'well adjusted'
9:01 a.m.: Court back in session; expert testifying on gay parenting. . .

RELATED COVERAGE:  Prop. 8 trial Day 4 (Thursday): Live coverage from the courtroom  MercuryNews.com, By Howard Mintz, January 14, 2009
4:41 p.m.: Defense insists prof's research is hopelessly flawed
3:33 p.m.: Columbia prof acknowledges he contributed to campaign against Prop 8
3:02 p.m.: Prop 8 attorneys about to cross-examine Columbia prof
2:06 p.m.: Prof continues testimony on mental health impact. . .


RELATED COVERAGE:  Prop. 8 trial Day 3 (Wednesday): Live coverage from the courtroom  MercuryNews.com, By Howard Mintz, January 13, 2009
4:20 p.m.: Day 3 testimony ends
3:36 p.m.: Bizarre exchange of the day
3:29 p.m.: A closer look at the Supreme Court ruling on broadcasting the trial
2:44 p.m.: UCLA prof says 2 percent of marriages would be same-sex
2:25 P.M.: Supreme Court indefinitely blocks YouTube broadcastts (sic). . .


RELATED COVERAGE:  Prop. 8 trial Day 2 (Tuesday): Live coverage from the courtroom  MercuryNews.com, By Howard Mintz, January 12, 2009
1:32 p.m.: Professor details history of discrimination against gays
1:51 p.m.: Ivy League professor takes the stand
12:49 p.m.: Defense attorney calls plaintiff's expert testimony a 'disaster'
12:31 p.m.: Trial breaks for lunch
12:20 p.m.: First expert witness wrapping up testimony. . .


RELATED COVERAGE:  Prop. 8 trial Day 1 (Monday): Live coverage from the courtroom  MercuryNews.com, By Howard Mintz, January 11, 2009
3:12 p.m.: Judge asks: What if state got out of marriage business?. . .
3:01 p.m.: Growing up gay in Bakersfield
2:29 p.m.: Berkeley woman describes relationship with partner
1:55 p.m.: Defense cross-examines one of the plaintiffs
12:30 p.m.: Judge recesses for lunch break
12:14 p.m.: Partner testifies
11:41 a.m.: Emotional testimony from plaintiff

• Supreme Court cites 'irreparable harm' in broadcasting Prop. 8 trial
  Justices say the lawsuit over California's ban on same-sex marriage is 'not a good one for a pilot program' to allow video coverage of federal cases. LA Times, By David G. Savage, January 13, 2010
  - By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court this afternoon extended its order blocking video coverage of California's Proposition 8 trial, ruling that the defenders of the ban on same-sex marriage will likely face "irreparable harm" if the proceedings are broadcast to the public. "It would be difficult -- if not impossible -- to reverse the harm from those broadcasts," the court wrote in an unsigned opinion. The witnesses, including paid experts, could suffer "harassment," and they "might be less likely to cooperate in any future proceedings." The high court also faulted U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker for changing the rules "at the eleventh hour" and permitting limited video coverage of the divisive case. "This case is not a good one for a pilot program" to allow broadcasting of federal trials, the court said. Though its opinion was unsigned, it clearly spoke for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. The four other justices dissented, disputing the notion that the lawyers and witnesses in this trial face great harm if the public can observe the proceedings. "The court today issues an order that will prevent the transmission of proceedings in a non-jury civil case of great public interest to five other federal courthouses," said Justice Stephen G. Breyer. "This extraordinary legal relief" is appropriate only for extraordinary situations, he said, and "this case does not, in my view, satisfy a single one of these standards" calling for the court's emergency intervention. Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayer joined the 10-page dissent. The court's order means that the trial can be seen only inside the courthouse in San Francisco. . .
  
  
  RELATED RULING: Read the Supreme Court ruling barring the broadcast of the gay-marriage trial in San Francisco.
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Gay marriage supporters fear Supreme Court's ruling was an omen. When justices intervened to stop proceedings from airing online, some saw sympathy for supporters of Proposition 8 - and a lack of faith in the district judge who will first decide the measure's fate.  Los Angeles Times, By David G. Savage, Janauary 17, 2009
  The U.S. Supreme Court cast its first vote last week on the legal challenge to California's voter initiative barring same-sex marriage, and some experts said it was a bad omen for those who hope gays and lesbians will win a constitutional right to such unions. The 5-4 decision, with conservatives in the majority, intervened in the San Francisco district court trial on behalf of the defenders of Proposition 8. The high court rebuked U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker for seeking to give the public a chance to view the proceedings on the Internet. In its opinion, the majority saw the dispute through the same lens as the opponents of gay marriage and decided that they -- not homosexuals -- faced a hostile public climate of harassment and intimidation. .  .
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Foes of California's gay-marriage ban lose federal appeal:  9th Circuit judges reject the bid to see internal communications of Proposition 8 supporters, saying such a move would violate the 1st Amendment.  Los Angeles Times,  By Carol J. Williams, December 12, 2009
  "We reverse," the three 9th Circuit judges, all appointees of President Clinton, said in an expedited ruling released Friday afternoon. "The freedom to associate with others for the common advancement of political beliefs and ideas lies at the heart of the 1st Amendment." Disclosing the inner workings of the Proposition 8 campaign "would have the practical effect of discouraging the exercise of 1st Amendment associational rights," the judges said, adding that the initiative's foes had failed to show that their need to review the communications outweighed the defendants' rights and interests. Andy Pugno, general counsel for Protect Marriage, said Proposition 8 backers were "very pleased" with the appellate ruling. "It's about the principle, that campaign leaders and workers should not have to be put on trial for their thoughts and beliefs," he said. "Whether they had been able to pry into campaign strategy memos or not, the campaign was singularly focused on protecting marriage and not attacking anyone.". . .
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  The Price of Prop 8   The Heritage Foundation, By Thomas M. Messner, October 22, 2009
  Abstract: Supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry. Arguments for same-sex marriage are based fundamentally on the idea that limiting marriage to the union of husband and wife is a form of bigotry, irrational prejudice, and even hatred against homosexual persons. As this ideology seeps into the culture more generally, individuals and institutions that support marriage as the union of husband and wife risk paying a price for that belief in many legal, social, economic, and cultural contexts. Support for Proposition 8, the democratically established marriage amendment in California, has come with a heavy price for many individuals and institutions that think that marriage should remain the union of husband and wife. Publicly available sources, including evidence submitted in a federal lawsuit in California,[1] show that expressions of support for Prop 8 have generated a range of hostilities and harms that includes harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry. Because the issue of marriage is still very much alive in California and throughout the nation,[2] the naked animus manifested against people and groups that supported Prop 8 raises serious questions that should concern anyone interested in promoting civil society, democratic processes, and reasoned discourse on important matters of public policy, such as marriage. . .
  
  
  

• Prop 8 trial set up aids gay marriage side  CNN.com, By John C. Eastman, Special to CNN, January 12, 2010
  STORY HIGHLIGHTS
      * John Eastman: Prop 8 trial puts voters, traditional marriage on trial in pro-gay marriage city
      * Eastman: Prop 8 sponsors will be unfairly grilled on views about homosexuality, religion
      * Judge's ruling to allow broadcast of proceedings on YouTube is legal theater, he writes
      * Eastman says Supreme Court, not federal judge, will decide law's constitutionality.
  
  The trial to determine the constitutionality of California's same-sex marriage ban, Proposition 8, is being held in San Francisco, one of the most pro-gay marriage venues in the country. This is a decided home-court advantage for those challenging the law and, by implication, the nation's marriage laws. Judge Vaughn Walker has pushed this case to trial despite many objections from the proponents of Prop 8. Already, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has been peppered with appeals from the backers of Prop 8 over Walker's procedural rulings, which have significantly tilted the litigation environment in favor of the opponents. It is virtually unprecedented that Walker is forcing a full-blown trial of this issue. Either limiting the definition of marriage to one man and one woman is constitutional, or it isn't. This is a question of law. That's why every other challenge to a state marriage law has been decided on the basis of legal precedent, analysis of legislative intent, scholarly analysis and expert reports. The constitutionality of Proposition 8 does not hinge on the views of the sponsors of Prop 8 about marriage and sexuality, nor does it depend on the TV commercials and other communications put forth by the campaign in favor of the measure. Yet Walker has not only ruled that these issues are relevant, so are the private thoughts of backers never communicated to voters. Walker will allow the plaintiffs' lawyers to grill the sponsors of the initiative, their campaign consultants and key supporters on the stand. They'll be asked to explain and defend their private views about homosexuality, religion and a variety of other matters. This should make for great legal theater, and the judge has done his best to make sure the show will be broadly disseminated by his unprecedented ruling allowing cameras in the courtroom and videos to be run on YouTube. . . . . The defendants are the sponsors of Prop 8 who have been forced to spend millions of dollars supporting the initiative because Attorney General Jerry Brown has abandoned his responsibilities to the people he was sworn to represent. . .
  

RELATED COVERAGE:  Prop. 8 trial Day 2: Live coverage from the courtroom  MercuryNews.com, By Howard Mintz, January 12, 2009
1:32 p.m.: Professor details history of discrimination against gays
1:51 p.m.: Ivy League professor takes the stand
12:49 p.m.: Defense attorney calls plaintiff's expert testimony a 'disaster'
12:31 p.m.: Trial breaks for lunch
12:20 p.m.: First expert witness wrapping up testimony. . .

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


RELATED ARTICLE:  Born or Bred? Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic. Homosexual activists love to insist that   CWA, By Robert H. Knight, December 21, 2005
The debate over homosexual "marriage" often becomes focused on whether homosexuality is a learned behavior or a genetic trait. Many homosexual activists insist that "science" has shown that homosexuality is inborn, cannot be changed, and that therefore they should have the "right to marry" each other. Beginning in the early 1990s, activists began arguing that scientific research has proven that homosexuality has a genetic or hormonal cause. A handful of studies, none of them replicated and all exposed as methodologically unsound or misrepresented, have linked sexual orientation to everything from differences in portions of the brain,1,2 to genes,3 finger length,4 inner ear differences,5 eye-blinking,6 and "neuro-hormonal differentiation."7 Meanwhile, Columbia University Professor of Psychiatry Dr. Robert Spitzer, who was instrumental in removing homosexuality in 1973 from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders, wrote a study published in the October 2003 Archives of Sexual Behavior. He contended that people can change their "sexual orientation" from homosexual to heterosexual.8 Spitzer interviewed more than 200 people, most of whom claimed that through reparative therapy counseling, their desires for same-sex partners either diminished significantly or they changed over to heterosexual orientation. Although still a proponent of homosexual activism, Spitzer has been attacked unmercifully by former admirers for this breach of the ideology that people are "born gay and can't change." Immutability is a central tenet of demands for "gay rights" and "gay marriage." . . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality  OrthodoxyToday.org, By Dennis Prager
When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world. The Torah's prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  How America Went Gay    Leadership U, By Charles W. Socarides, M.D.
Gays said they could "reinvent human nature, reinvent themselves." To do this, these reinventors had to clear away one major obstacle. No, they didn't go after the nation's clergy. They targeted the members of a worldly priesthood, the psychiatric community, and neutralized them with a radical redefinition of homosexuality itself. In 1972 and 1973 they co-opted the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association and, through a series of political maneuvers, lies and outright flim-flams, they "cured" homosexuality overnight-by fiat. They got the A.P.A. to say that same-sex sex was "not a disorder." It was merely "a condition"-as neutral as lefthandedness. . . 

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


RELATED ARTICLE:  Don't be manipulated by the master marketers  Townhall.com, By Rebecca Hagelin, October 04, 2005
Few people realize it, but the same marketing techniques that companies use to induce us to buy a particular product are just as useful when it comes to selling us an idea. . . We’re bamboozled daily on a wide variety of subjects, from abortion on demand for any reason to same-sex “marriage.” As David [Kupelian] notes in his new book, The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom: “The plain truth is, within the space of our lifetimes, much of what Americans once almost universally abhorred has been packaged, perfumed, gift-wrapped and sold to us as though it had great value. By skillfully playing on our deeply felt national values of fairness, generosity and tolerance, these marketers have persuaded us to embrace as enlightened and noble that which all previous generations since America’s founding regarded as grossly self-destructive -- in a word, evil.”. . .

• 'I did a pretty good hatchet job on my marriage': Mel Gibson back from the Edge of Darkness  The Daily Mail- UK, By Martyn Palmer, January 11, 2010
  'Nobody is without sin. You have to try to make amends if you can. You have to shut up and move on and not whine about it. And you have to deal with it like a man' 'And that's it,' Mel Gibson says. 'Whatever fallout comes from it, be it fair or unfair, you've just got to accept your own culpability. The minute you start whining, it's ridiculous.' Gibson has always been one of Hollywood's more testosterone-driven stars; unashamedly a man's man, while simultaneously sensitive to and idolised by women. He's also full of fascinating contradictions - he's a devout Catholic capable of creating extremely violent films (Braveheart, Apocalypto); a multimillionaire who advocates that wealth should be evenly distributed; and a hugely acclaimed actor and director at the height of artistic success who has, in the past, been brought low by personal demons. The subject of culpability has arisen because, as we meet, Tiger Woods's affairs are dominating the news across the globe. Gibson has little patience for criticism of the personal failings of public figures. 'I feel sorry for Tiger Woods,' he says. 'Why are we talking about this when we're sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan? You've got this history-changing event going on and we're talking about Tiger's private life and golf injuries. He's being used as a diversion and it just drives me crazy. You come out savaged. I just think, 'Who cares?' Gibson knows from personal experience how this feels. The last time he fell off the wagon, it landed him in spectacular trouble, with an arrest for drink-driving near his home in Malibu in July 2006, which spiralled into a full-blown PR disaster when it was reported he made anti-Semitic comments to the arresting officer (he said that 'the Jews are responsible for all the wars'). He admits his remarks were - as he says - despicable. . . . Cigarettes are his only vice these days, though his battle with alcohol is constant. 'It's been three-and-a-half years now (without alcohol). It's cool. But I put some time together before that - one time it was eight years, one time it was five years. I have to be vigilant about these things or it will creep back in.' . . . . . And now he's turned his attention to another acclaimed British drama, 1985's Edge Of Darkness, which starred Bob Peck and Joanne Whalley. Gibson plays Peck's character, detective Thomas Craven, who investigates the murder of his own daughter and discovers she was secretly trying to expose a cover-up at the nuclear plant where she worked. The film, which also stars Ray Winstone, is directed by Martin Campbell, who made the original TV series. It's a gripping, sometimes violent and extremely tense thriller that casts Gibson in one of his favourite roles: the maverick loner. 'It's not just another revenge movie - it's actually rather more than that,' he says. 'It investigates grief and loss, in a good way. . .
  

RELATED MOVIE TRAILER:  Edge of Darkness - Official Trailer [HD]

RELATED ARTICLE:  Sin: The Rest of the Story: What the snark-infested news media just don't seem to understand. Christianity Today, By Mollie Ziegler Hemingway, October 26, 2009
Perhaps the media and popular culture are confused about what Christians believe regarding sin and forgiveness because we are, too. Churches with liberal and conservative doctrine are frequently tempted to reduce Christianity to nothing more than morality. One side may be more interested in social change and the other side may be more interested in personal change. But far too often, churches preach and teach the importance of our own moral actions, thereby belittling the importance of what Christ has done for us. The result is that every time a scandal breaks involving a prominent Christian laid low—South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, Ted Haggard, Mel Gibson—we're treated to an endless news cycle about hypocrisy. But hypocrisy isn't failing to practice what you preach. Hypocrisy is pretending to have beliefs that you don't actually have. Real hypocrisy is rare and difficult to discern. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  Let's End Disposable Marriage  CNN.com, By Leah Ward Sears, July 02, 2009
Story Highlights
*  Leah Sears: My brother despaired at the effects of divorce
*  She says America's disposable marriages are hurting parents and children
*  She says it's become too easy for people to walk away from their marriages

Editor's note: Leah Ward Sears stepped down this week as Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. In 1992, she became the first woman -- and youngest person -- appointed to Georgia's highest court. . .


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

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

• The Woman in 'The Bachelor' Scandal: I Did Not Have Sex with Him  ET Online, January 11, 2010
  She's been accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a member of the production staff. Now the woman at the center of "The Bachelor" controversy -- Rozlyn Papa -- comes to ET to set the record straight! Asked if she had sex with the show producer, Rozlyn replies, "Absolutely not. No. … I made good decisions. I did not choose to have sex with someone else." The story has spread like wildfire. Stunned and shocked, the 28-year-old, divorced single mom told ET's Kevin Frazier in an exclusive interview today that being portrayed as a cheater has hurt her reputation. "I absolutely feel betrayed by the show. ... They want the ratings, and that's what they're getting," claims Rozlyn. "This seeps into my personal life. I have a 7-year-old little boy at home that I want to look up to me, and to have this blatant lie out there perpetuated by the show itself, it's hurtful. It's scary to think what my son will think of me." On Friday, "The Bachelor" star Jake Pavelka exclusively told ET, "All of the rumors are true and one of the bachelorettes entered into an inappropriate relationship with a staff member," and confirmed that it was Rozlyn. The truth, according to Rozlyn, is that inappropriate behavior was a producer being a good friend. Regarding tonight's episode of "The Bachelor" on ABC, which has been promoting the scandal, Rozlyn says, "I'm afraid it'll be shown and I'll be portrayed as a cheater." "It really comes down to my son," she continues. "Why would you go on national television and throw a mom under the bus like that?". . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Spoilers for the rest of the season & the truth behind the “Rozlyn” scandal  RealitySteve.com, January 6, 2010
  I have no reason to lie to you about this. I will tell you what happened and you can either choose to believe me or ABC’s bogus storyline to generate interest in a rather boring season. . . . .The ironic thing about all of this is Chris Harrison saying in a radio interview (that you can read here) “it was embarrassing for us, incredibly unfortunate, and horrible decisions were made.” So if it’s so embarrassing for you guys, why are you about to throw two people under the bus and insinuate a sexual relationship when there wasn’t one? Ratings. They know this will get people talking and tune in. Which is fine. But just remember when you do, it’ll all be speculation from the women in the house, and anything you hear out of Chris Harrison’s mouth will never mention anything about a “sexual affair”. He’ll stick with “inappropriate behavior”, or “relations”. Those are much safer because it’s open for interpretation. Well, the interpretation they want the viewers to make is “sex scandal”. What really happened is a producer confided in a contestant things he shouldn’t have, fell for her, and was fired because of it. . .
  
  
  
  

• Fergie Renews Wedding Vows!  Radar Online  January 10, 2010
  On the eve of their first anniversary, Fergie and Josh Duhamel put aside his recent cheating scandal and renewed their wedding vows in a top secret ceremony outside of Santa Barbara, RadarOnline.com has learned exclusively. The couple married January 10 in Malibu, and threw a lavish party for their friends and family.  This time, it was just the two of them and a minister on a bluff overlooking the ocean. The pair flew by private helicopter into the Santa Barbara Airport Wednesday, January 6 at just before 4 pm.  They were met by a limo from the Bacara Resort which swept them to the lavish hotel 20 minutes away. "They were both dressed nicely and walked right out to the bluff outside the hotel where weddings often take place," an eyewitness told RadarOnline.com.  "A minister was waiting for them. "Fergie was crying and seemed very emotional," the source said, adding that their private ceremony lasted less than 15 minutes. . . . . . Josh was accused of cheating on Fergie last October. Stripper Nicole Forrester claimed she and the actor had a very sexy encounter in Atlanta where he was shooting a film. Through his rep, Josh denied the story but Forrester had passed a polygraph examination before her story was first published. Fergie stood by her man through the scandal and then made headlines of her own with a blockbuster interview with The Advocate where she revealed her bisexual past. . .
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE: INTERVIEW: Fergie Opens Up About Cheating & Her Marriage  Radar Online, November 10, 2009
  Fergie has been tight-lipped about husband Josh Duhamel's rumored affair with an Atlanta stripper, but she recently revealed a lot about the couple's relationship, her bisexual past, and their approach to fidelity in a recent interview. Opening up about her history of relationships with women to The Advocate, Fergie was candid about having always been honest about her sexual preferences, especially to husband Duhamel. "I've been very honest with him from the get-go. I think women are beautiful, I've had a lot of fun with women, and I'm not ashamed of it," she said. "The problem is that I also love a well-endowed man. But just because I enjoy women doesn't mean I'm allowed to have affairs in my relationship.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO:  Video: Josh Duhamel on Renewing Wedding Vows to Fergie  ET Online, January 11, 2010
"We got the idea from Heidi Klum and Seal, they do that. ... and she said 'I want to do that.' ... I thought it was a great idea." . . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  Homosexuality: it isn’t natural: Ignore those researchers who claim to have discovered a ‘gay gene’, says Peter Tatchell: gay desire is not genetically determined  Spiked.com, By Peter Tatchell, June 24, 2008
There is a major problem with gay gene theory, and with all theories that posit the biological programming of sexual orientation. If heterosexuality and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined (and therefore mutually exclusive and unchangeable), how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can’t.   
[Editor's note:  Peter Tatchell is a human rights campaigner, and a member of the queer rights group OutRage! and the left wing of the UK Green Party.]

• Court blocks taping of gay marriage trial   Washington Post, By Robert Barnes, January 11, 2010
  The Supreme Court on Monday morning temporarily blocked a federal judge in San Francisco from showing on YouTube proceedings from a trial that will determine whether a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The court's decision is not the final word; the stay sought by same-sex marriage opponents expires Wednesday. The court said that will permit justices "further consideration." The trial is scheduled to start Monday. Justice Stephen G. Breyer was the only justice to object. "I agree with the court that further consideration is warranted, and I am pleased that the stay is time-limited," Breyer wrote. But he said the court's standards for issuing a stay were not met because there is not a likelihood of "irreparable harm" if the proceedings were available on the Internet. Two bay area couples are asking Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker to rule that same-sex marriage is a right embedded in the Constitution and that it was violated last year when California voters passed Proposition 8, a ballot measure confining matrimony to members of the opposite sex. In an unusual move, Walker ruled last week that the proceedings could be uploaded at regular intervals on YouTube. Proponents of the ban said the exposure could be harmful to those testifying in favor of the proposition. The court said "real-time streaming" of the proceedings is permitted to other rooms in the courthouse. . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Judge has questions during opening statements of groundbreaking gay marriage trial in Calif.  Los Angeles Time- AP, By Lisa Leff, January 11, 2010
  The first federal trial to determine if the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from outlawing same-sex marriage got under way Monday, with a judge peppering both sides with questions during theit opening statements. . . . About 100 people demonstrated outside the federal courthouse. Most were gay marriage supporters who took turns addressing the crowd with a microphone. About a dozen gay marriage foes stood in the back of the gathering and quietly held signs demanding the ban remain in place. Two hours before trial was scheduled to start, the high court blocked video of the proceedings from being posted on YouTube.com. It said justices need more time to review that issue and put the order in place at least until Wednesday. . . .At trial, Walker intends to ask lawyers on both sides to present the facts underlying much of the political rhetoric surrounding same-sex marriage. Among his questions are whether sexual orientation can be changed, how legalizing gay marriage affects traditional marriages and the effect on children of being raised by two mothers or two fathers. . .

RELATED VIDEO:  Groundbreaking Gay Marriage Trial Starts in Calif.  Associated Press, January 11, 2010
The first federal trial to determine if the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from outlawing same-sex marriage got under way Monday. The proceedings involve a challenge to Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban approved by California voters.


RELATED VIDEO: Gay Marriage: Federal Court Trial  CBS News-You Tube, January 11, 2010
California's ban on same sex marriage was challenged in a federal courtroom. As John Blackstone reports, this case could set the precedent on whether same sex marriage should be legal nationwide.


RELATED BLOG:  Protect Marriage- Yes on 8 Blog

RELATED RESOURCE:  Perry vs. Schwarzenegger Trial  Protect Marriage.com
Homosexual marriage advocates are challenging in federal court the constitutionality of Prop. 8, which passed in November 2008 when more than 7 million Californians voted in favor of the constitutional amendment which defines marriage as between only a man and a woman. After its passage, many lawsuits were filed challenging the validity of the measure and in May, 2009, the California Supreme Court held that Prop 8 was indeed lawfully enacted. Three days prior to that ruling, however, a group with independent access to funding filed suit in US District Court, Northern Division on behalf of two same-sex couples in what is the Perry v Schwarzenegger case. This case holds national significance for the future of marriage. The stakes in the Perry case are enormous: a ruling to overturn Prop 8 could nullify the marriage laws in 45 states and imperil the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The proponents of Prop 8, through ProtectMarriage.com, have intervened in this case and are the only ones actively defending the right of California voters to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. What's at stake in the Perry case is not just the right of California voters to reaffirm the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, but whether marriage will be redefined in every state in the nation. It is the first marriage case in the history of the nation where a judge has allowed the thoughts, motivations, and personal beliefs of an initiative's sponsors to be put on trial to search for "improper" intent. . .


RELATED RESOURCE:  Why Marriage Matters  ProtectMarriage.com
The benefits to society of traditional marriage are overwhelming. Read a report from The Witherspoon Institute, and an analysis of the arguments for and against marriage prepared by Harvard Report. . .

• Gay marriage trial to begin in California, could set legal precedent for generations to come  Los Angeles Times- AP, By Lisa Leff, January 07, 2009
  The national debate over same-sex marriage will take center stage in a California courtroom next week at a closely watched federal trial that could ultimately become the landmark case that determines whether gay Americans have a right to marry. The case will decide a challenge to California's gay marriage ban that was approved by voters in 2008, and the ruling will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. How the high court rules in the case could set the precedent for whether gay marriage becomes legal nationwide. . . . . .The case marks the first federal trial to examine if the U.S. Constitution permits bans on gay marriages, and the challenge is being bankrolled by a group of liberal Hollywood activists including director Rob Reiner and producer Bruce Cohen. . . . .Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic Attorney General Jerry Brown are defendants in the lawsuit by virtue of their prominent positions in California government, but both men opposed the ban and have refused to defend the suit in court. Schwarzenegger has taken no position on the case, while Brown filed a brief saying he agreed with the Olson-Boies team that gays have the same federal constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals. . . . . . Presiding over the case is U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, a Republican named to the bench in 1989 by the first President Bush. Walker, who has a reputation as an independent thinker, was randomly assigned the lawsuit, put it on a fast-track to trial and has said he thinks it raises serious civil rights claims. During a pretrial hearing in August, the judge pointedly scolded Schwarzenegger for remaining neutral "on an issue of this magnitude and importance." Walker says the case is so important that the court has taken the rare step of allowing videotaping of the proceedings so the public can watch. The trial, scheduled to start Monday, will air on YouTube every day. . .

RELATED SITE: Yes on 8 Protect Marriage.com

RELATED ARTICLE:  Born Gay or a Gay Basher? No Excuse  Townhall.com, By Frank Turek  November 1, 2008
This “born that way” argument is fueling the case for same-sex marriage in California.  Is it a good argument? I know this is a difficult and emotional issue for many people, but I think the reasonable answer is no. Not only is the evidence for being “born that way” questionable, even if it were true, it should have no impact on our marriage laws. First, after many years of intense research, a genetic component to homosexual desires has not been discovered. Twin studies show that identical twins do not consistently have the same sexual orientation. In fact, genetics probably explains very little about homosexual desires. How would a homosexual “gene” be passed on? Homosexuals don’t pass on anything because they don’t reproduce. . . . .Second, the “born-that-way” claim is an argument from design— “since God designed me with these desires, I ought to act on them.” But the people who say this overlook something more obvious— they were also born with a specific gender. This raises the question:  Why are you following your desires but not your gender? . . . .Third, even if desires are not a choice, sexual behavior always is.  So even if a person honestly believes that he’s been born with homosexual desires, he is certainly capable of controlling his sexual behavior. If you claim that he is not—that sexual behavior is somehow uncontrollable—then you have made the absurd contention that no one can be morally responsible for any sexual crime, including rape, incest, and child molestation. Fourth, being born a certain way is irrelevant to what the law should be. Laws are concerned with behaviors not desires, and we all have desires we ought not act on. In fact, all of us were born with an “orientation” to bad behavior, but those desires don’t justify the behaviors. . . . Some will say, “But homosexual sex is about love.” One can say that, but what’s loving about sexual activity that creates numerous health problems, increases medical costs to everyone, and reduces the lifespan of homosexuals by 8-20 years?  (A homosexual friend of mine fared even worse—he died at age 36 from AIDS.). . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Yes! Yes! and Yes! on California, Arizona and Florida Propositions 8, 102, and 2!  The Real Proposal magazine, October 22, 2008
Who knew that we would ever see the day when it became necessary to define what marriage is in America... or the world for that matter? That said, no one could follow, for any length of time, our continuing coverage on this very critical sociopolitical issue without realizing that, whether we like it or not, the on-going and increasingly aggressive battle to redefine marriage is the next civil rights frontier in America! Most people do not fully comprehend how we got to this place. Many have a distorted perspective on the issues based on what is being fed to us by the mainstream media, who are largely complicit with the homosexual agenda and follow their playbook and manifesto quite diligently in the effort to convert straight America into accepting homosexuality as anything but deviant behavior. Therefore, we urge you to spend some time going through our coverage on the issue. For, without a doubt, the blinders will fall away and it will become clear that there is a very careful, very deliberate, very well financed and orchestrated marketing strategy being executed by radical homosexual activists to normalize same-sex relationships in this country. And you will likely be outraged that somewhere along the way — while most of us who believe in traditional marriage were enjoying our precious freedoms, taking kids to soccer, ordering pizza and watching our favorite shows — we were being manipulated and vilified as society's new "haters," "bigots," and "homophobes.". . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad  Townhall.com, By Frank Turek , May 26, 2008
“One can believe in same-sex marriage. One can believe that every child deserves a mother and a father.  One cannot believe both.”. . . . Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated. . .

• New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill  
  New Jersey's state Senate has defeated a bill to legalize gay marriage, the latest in a string of setbacks for advocates.  FOX News- AP, January 07, 2009
  New Jersey's state Senate has defeated a bill to legalize gay marriage, the latest in a string of setbacks for advocates. The defeat, by a vote of 20-14, likely ends any chance that the state Legislature approves gay marriage soon. Five senators did not vote; there is one Senate vacancy. Gay rights advocates had been pushing hard for the bill because on Jan. 19, new Republican Gov. Chris Christie takes office and he has vowed to veto a gay marriage bill. Outgoing Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine had promised to sign it into law. It was a major effort to get the bill to a full Senate. A vote was canceled last month when it appeared the measure would be defeated there. It wasn't until Tuesday that Senate leaders decided to allow the vote. New Jersey offers civil unions that grant the legal rights of marriage to gay couples.
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Jersey City gay community reacts to Senate gay marriage defeat   NJ.com, By Melissa Hayes/The Jersey Journal, January 07, 2010
  Other opponents of the bill said the legislation was significant enough that it should be put to a public vote. “In over 30 states in this country inhabited by human beings some of whom are gay and some of whom are straight they have dealt with this problem they have put it on the ballot,” Sen. Gerald Cardinale, R-Demarest, said. “In every state where it has been put on the ballot the voters have voted to maintain marriage as between one man and one woman. I find it very difficult to believe that in all 30 of those state there is no respect for civil rights.”. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  The Preposterous Premise for Gay Marriage  Townhall.com, By Frank Turek, November 26, 2008
After the passage of Prop 8 in California, homosexuals are still howling that they don’t have “equal rights.”  Hopefully, the California Supreme Court will respect the equal rights of voters by affirming Prop 8 because the howls of homosexuals are false. The truth is every person in America already has equal marriage rights! We’re all playing by the same rules—we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone—every adult person has the same right to marry. Homosexuals want the court to believe that because of their sexual desires they are a special class of persons that is being discriminated against. In other words, they think that sexual desires guarantee people special legal rights. That’s a preposterous premise! . . . . . . Gay complaints of “discrimination” are bogus as well. Marriage laws do not discriminate against persons, they discriminate against behavior. That’s true of most laws. . . .  The nonsensical comparisons to interracial marriage don’t work either. Race is irrelevant to marriage while gender is essential to it. . .

• The Marriage Recession
  As unemployment rises, so does the divorce rate  The Orlando Sentinel, By Linda Shrieves, January 05, 2010
  Stand on the front lines of the recession, as therapist Erica Karlinsky has, and the view for married couples isn't rosy. Karlinsky, a Lake Mary, Fla., psychologist, now spends a lot of her time counseling men who've lost their jobs -- or wives who are dealing with an unemployed husband who won't get off the sofa or won't stop crying. The stress of job losses is impacting families from all backgrounds, but perhaps none are more affected than blue-collar families, who have been hit hard by the recession, according to a new report from the National Marriage Project. And experts worry that when the recession ends and the economy improves, the divorce rate will spike again -- with many of the divorces concentrated among the working class. That may further widen what sociologists call the nation's "divorce divide" -- a growing gap between the divorce rates of working-class Americans and college-educated Americans. . . . . Men have borne the brunt of this recession, accounting for 75 percent of the job losses, according to the report, titled, "The State of Our Unions, Marriage in America 2009." And blue-collar men have been hit hard. In September, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 4.9 percent of college-educated women and 5 percent of college-educated men were unemployed, while 8.6 percent of women with a high-school diploma and 11.1 percent of men with a high-school diploma had lost their jobs. For those men particularly, the recession has been devastating. . .
  
  
  
  RELATED REPORT (PDF):  The State of Our Unions, Marriage in America 2009: Money & Marriage  National Marriage Project- Editor: W. Bradford Wilcox, Associate Editor: Elizabeth Marquardt, Founding Co-editors: David Popenoe & Barbara Dafoe Whitehead
  The State of Our Unions monitors the current health of marriage and family life in America. Produced annually, it is a joint publication of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and the Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for American Values. The 2009 State of Our Unions makes clear that money matters for contemporary American marriages. In particular, this edition of The State of Our Unions answers the following questions:
  
      * How is the Great Recession affecting the institution of marriage, as measured by changes in marriage and divorce rates in the U.S.?
      * How do family finances—especially credit card debt and family assets—shape the quality and stability of contemporary married life in America?
      * What do evolutionary psychology and the contemporary study of finance have to tell us about the best division of financial labor for husbands and wives?
      * Is the Great Recession likely to foster egalitarian relationships between husbands and wives?. . .
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Marriage and Caste: America's chief source of inequality? The Marriage Gap  City Journal, By Kay S. Hymowitz, January 17, 2006
  For a while it looked like Hurricane Katrina would accomplish what the NAACP never could: reviving civil rights liberalism as a major force in American politics. There it was for the whole world to see: the United States was two nations, one rich, one poor and largely black, one driving away in the family SUV to sleep in the snug guest rooms of suburban friends and relatives, the other sunk in the fetid misery of the Superdome. . .  But what two-America talk doesn’t get is just how much these ominous trends are entangled with the collapse of the nuclear family. While Americans have been squabbling about gay marriage, they have managed to miss the real marriage-and-social-justice issue, one that affects far more people and threatens to undermine the American project.  We are now a nation of separate and unequal families not only living separate and unequal lives but, more worrisome, destined for separate and unequal futures. . . But one can’t disentangle the economic from the family piece. Given that families socialize children for success—or not—and given how marriage orders lives, they are the same problem. Separate and unequal families produce separate and unequal economic fates. . .
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Recently Separated or Divorced? 10 Useful Tax Tips When Filing Your Return   Carolina Newswire.com- By Jessie Danninger, Rosen Law Firm, January 31, 2006
  If you’ve recently divorced or separated from your spouse, here are a few things you should know for the upcoming tax season:
     1. What is my filing status? (Married, Single, Head of Household) Marital standing at year end determines your filing status for the entire year. If you have a decree of divorce or separate maintenance, signed by a judge, you should file as single. Regardless of whether you have a signed decree you may be able to file as head of household. Filing as head of household may reduce your income tax obligation, but to qualify the following conditions must be met:
            * You paid more than ½ the cost of keeping up your home for the tax year,
            * Your home was the main home for your child for more than ½ the year,
            * Your spouse hasn’t been a member of the household for 6 months. If you can’t file as single or head of household, then you must either file as married filing joint or married filing separate.
     2. Should my spouse and I file as married, filing separate or married, filing joint?. . .
  
  
  
  

• Eat, Pray, Love -- Now Marry
  Best-Selling Author Elizabeth Gilbert Tackles Fears of Marriage in New Book 'Committed'  ABC News, By Dan Harris and Karin Weinberg, January 04, 2010
  It's what's been called the "Cult of Liz." More than 6 million people -- mostly women -- have bought Elizabeth Gilbert's best-selling memoir "Eat, Pray, Love." Oprah Winfrey had the author appear on her show twice and has called the book "a modern woman's Bible." "I haven't been this excited since Bono was here," she said on her talk show. "I am quivering now that you're here. I am so thrilled to have you here today." But the legion of Gilbert worshippers, who see the author as an icon of female independence, might be surprised to learn that Gilbert has settled down in suburban New Jersey and is married to the man known in her books as "Felipe." In her new book, "Committed: A Skeptic Makes Peace with Marriage," Gilbert has a new message: women need to adjust their romantic expectations. She writes that she refuses to burden her husband with the challenge of "completing her." "It's the 'Jerry Maguire' fantasy. We've got to drop that," she said. "It makes for such good movies, and it's so lovely and it's so romantic, but...it's a lot to ask, that somebody deliver that, decade after decade." Ironically, the author who is doing her part to debunk the Hollywood version of love is being played by Julia Roberts in a movie version of "Eat, Pray, Love," to be released later this year. "What I'm saying is, turn on the lights, sober up," she said. But how did Gilbert reach this point? In her early twenties, Gilbert worked at a New York City bar called "Coyote Ugly." (Yes, the same bar in the 2000 movie). "I was the ridiculous bar dancer...like, let's make this into a circus of like total stupidity," she said of her time as a bartender. While working there she met her first husband, Michael Cooper. They married when they were both 25. But five years later, they endured a supremely nasty divorce, during which Gilbert found herself sobbing uncontrollably on the streets of New York City. Gilbert took off on a year-long spiritual journey designed to repair and rediscover herself. She ate her way through Italy, prayed and meditated in India, and fell in love with a Brazilian man, Felipe, in Bali. "Eat, Pray, Love," which was published in 2006, chronicles that experience and remains on the bestseller list today.  . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  California Healthy Marriages Coalition Says Elizabeth Gilbert's Book 'Committed' Misrepresents Marriage  PR-USA.net, January 18, 2010
  "The so-called 'Marriage Benefit Imbalance' Elizabeth Gilbert writes about is a distortion of the truth," says Patty Howell, Vice President of the California Healthy Marriages Coalition. "There are other significant inaccuracies in Gilbert's new book 'Committed: A Skeptic Makes Peace with Marriage,'" said Howell. "I see no evidence of a 'Marriage Benefit Imbalance' in which married women are supposedly not as successful in their careers as single women, more depressed, less healthy or more likely to die a violent death than single women. While Gilbert correctly writes about the benefits of healthy marriages for men, she is flawed in her analysis of healthy marriages for women.". . .
  

RELATED MOVIE INFO: Eat, Pray, Love (2010)  NY Times


RELATED SITE:  Elizabeth Gilbert's Official Site

RELATED ARTICLE:  Books: Hitched. In her new memoir, Elizabeth Gilbert gets married.  The New Yorker magazine, By Ariel Levy, January 11, 2010 Issue
We should not be surprised that when Gilbert found herself on the verge of a second wedding, in a state of dread, she decided “to put a little effort into unraveling the mystery of what in the name of God and human history this befuddling, vexing, contradictory, and yet stubbornly enduring institution of marriage actually is.” She consulted books and scholars. She interviewed Hmong grandmothers in the mountains of Vietnam about their level of marital satisfaction. She went to see her grandmother. The result is Gilbert’s new book, a journey through domestic history and her own neuroses, “Committed: A Skeptic Makes Peace with Marriage” (Viking; $26.95). Gilbert had not intended to remarry. Both she and her gentleman friend Felipe—a Brazilian gem trader she met in Bali, who provided her with passion and adoration and a tidy romantic ending for “Eat, Pray, Love”—had been “so badly gutted” by their divorces that they “had sworn with all our hearts to never, ever, under any circumstances, marry.” But Felipe is not an American citizen. After one too many trips to the United States to visit Gilbert and to sell his rocks, Felipe was taken away in handcuffs from immigration control at the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, and told that he could not return to the U.S. unless he had an American wife. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:   Q&A: Eat, Pray, Love Author Elizabeth Gilbert  Time magazine, By  Kristi Oloffson, January 04, 2010
In 2006, author Elizabeth Gilbert chronicled her rocky divorce and subsequent journey around the world in the wildly popular memoir Eat, Pray, Love — a book that has sold millions of copies, is being made into a movie starring Julia Roberts and ended with Gilbert falling in love with a Brazilian man whom she later married. Now, after spending three years researching the institution of marriage — and scrapping her first, 500-page draft — Gilbert has published Committed: A Skeptic Makes Peace with Marriage. She spoke with TIME about the real cost of getting married young, her feelings on prenuptial agreements and what same-sex unions might really mean for marriage and family values. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Why Marry?  Jewish magazine, By Shea Hecht
Why do people marry? What does marriage have to offer? How many of the things that marriage has to offer do we recognize and appreciate - especially if they are not part of our dream?

• COVER STORY: Tiger in the Rough  Vanity Fair, By Buzz Bissinger, Photographs by Annie Leibovitz, February 2010 Issue
  When Tiger Woods finally fell from his pedestal—the car crash, the angry wife, the tales of kinky extramarital sex, the link to a controversial sports doctor—it was one of the greatest recorded drops in popularity of any nonpolitical figure. Given Woods’s impenetrable mask of perfection, and the hints of trouble from one strange glimpse behind it, the revelations were inevitable and very, very costly. Annie Leibovitz catches the icon, pre-scandal, in prophetic isolation, while the author finds the clues in the wreckage. . . .It wasn’t until after the early-morning hours of November 27—when Tiger Woods got into his Cadillac Escalade closely trailed by a golf club carried by his likely very furious wife, drove his car far less distance than he putts a golf ball, and hit a fire hydrant—that the tens of millions of us who admired him suddenly came to a realization: this was the first time we had ever seen him do something human, except perhaps for when, at the Buick Open last year, he was caught on video shaking his leg, apparently farting, and then grinning like a frat boy. We know all too well the unraveling that has gone on since the crash. Tiger’s little car ride was as pregnant with imminent implosion as the one taken by another sports celebrity on the San Diego Freeway, followed by a convoy of Los Angeles police cars, in 1994. Tiger’s story has been driven by sex, tons of it, in allegedly all different varieties: threesomes in which he greatly enjoyed girl-on-girl, and mild S&M (featuring hair-pulling and spanking); $60,000 pay-for-sex escort dates; a quickie against the side of a car in a church parking lot; a preference for porn stars and nightclub waitresses, virtually all of them with lips almost as thick as their very full breasts; drug-bolstered encounters designed to make him even more of a conquistador (Ambien, of all things); immature sex-text messages (“Send me something naughty ... Go to the bathroom and take [a picture],” “I will wear you out ... When was the last time you got [laid]?”); soulful confessions that he got married only for image and was bored with his wife; regular payments of between $5,000 and $10,000 each month to keep his harem quiet. It’s all there and more in what is the greatest single fall in popularity of a nonpolitician in the history of public-opinion surveys: a drop in approval from 87 percent in 2005 to 33 percent, with an unfavorable rating of 57 percent, according to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll. But why?. . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  As Vanity Fair Cashes In, Tiger's Image Gets Tossed Into the Gutter   FanHouse, By Kevin Blackistone, January 06, 2010
  Now there is yet another woman with whom Tiger Woods is linked who is not his wife. Her name is Susie Phipps. . . . .Tiger learned Monday that he is a male Mrs. Phipps. Vanity Fair, a pillar in the virtually all-white magazine industry, refused his desire to be thought of even as Cablinasian, as he coined his mixed-race (Caucasian, black, Native American and Asian) heritage. It invalidated his white bona fides of being raised in the suburbs, mastering golf -- the whitest sport of them all -- and even marrying a quintessential Swedish woman, blond and blue eyed. Instead, Vanity Fair returned Tiger to his late father's dominant race: black. How else can one explain the cover photo Vanity Fair unveiled Monday of a half-naked Tiger lifting iron with a skull cap topping his sullen mug? Tiger got O.J.-ized. . .

RELATED VIDEO:  Inside Story of what happened before the accident  MSNBC.com, January 26, 2010 (Update)


RELATED VIDEO:  Brit Hume: Tiger Woods Must Become Christian To Be Forgiven  FOX News, January 03, 2010

RELATED ARTICLE:  Something about that Name   Townhall.com, By Cal Thomas, January 07, 2009
The secular left -- and some self-described Christians -- criticize Brit Hume, the Fox News commentator, for suggesting that the solution to Tiger Woods' problems is a relationship with Jesus Christ. Hume made his remarks on "Fox News Sunday." Disclosure: I also appear on Fox News. Hume said, "My message to Tiger would be: Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world." That is a message shared for 2,000 years by those who follow Jesus of Nazareth. It apparently continues to escape the secular left that Christians feel compelled to share their faith out of gratitude for what Jesus has done for them (dying in their place on a cross and offering a new life to those who repent and receive Him as savior). In a day when some extremists employ violence to advance their religion, it is curious that many would save their criticism for a truly peace-bringing message such as the one broadcast by Brit Hume. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Brit Hume: Tiger Woods Should 'Turn to the Christian Faith'  Politics Daily, By David Sessions, January 04, 2010
On "Fox News Sunday" yesterday, Fox anchor Brit Hume suggested that Tiger Woods should trade his Buddhist faith for Christianity if he wants to make a personal comback. When host Chris Wallace asked the show's roundtable to predict the biggest sports story of 2010, Hume said:

    "Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person I think is a very open question, and it's a tragic situation for him. I think he's lost his family, it's not clear to me if he'll be able to have a relationship with his children, but the Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies out of this scandal -- the extent to which he can recover -- seems to me to depend on his faith. He's said to be a Buddhist; I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.'". . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  Woods Scandal Costs Shareholders Billions  Sphere.com, By David Knowles, December 28, 2009
Infidelity has its price. Just ask shareholders of Nike, Pepsi and EA Sports, three of Tiger Woods' biggest corporate benefactors. According to a new study by economists at the University of California Davis, the Woods scandal has cost those who own stock in the golfer's chief sponsors an estimated $12 billion. The study, conducted by economics professors Christopher R. Knittel and Victor Stango, charted the stock performance of the top eight companies sponsoring Tiger Woods in the wake of the revelations stemming from his late-night car wreck. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  AMERICA’S IDOLS Why the Obsession With the Rich and Famous?  The Real Truth magazine, By Justin T. Palm, Nov-Dec 2006 Issue
Millions sit hypnotized by the celebrity life. Why are the lives of the rich and famous so fascinating?. . . . Few understand that fame and wealth are not all there is in measuring true success. . .

 "Marriage" News: December 2009

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' 


2010 'MARRIAGE' News Archives:  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