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

Camille Grammer On 'The View': Talks Sexless Marriage The Huffington Post, By Ashley Reich, January 3, 2011
Camille Grammer made the talk-show rounds today. In a segment on The View, Barbara Walters grilled Grammer about her alleged sexless marriage, based on comments the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star made in last week's reunion show. Never one to shy away from tough questions, Walters implicitly referred to Kelsey's fiancée Kayte Walsh when asking, "Why were you surprised that he wanted someone else?" "There's so much more to marriage than sex," Camille replied. "You'd have to ask him that." Her flustered reply didn't stop Walters: "Well I thought I'd ask you because you're the one that said it. Why would you be surprised that he would look elsewhere?" Camille admitted that her and Kelsey "tried," but "something didn't click with us on an intimate level," and added, "It's too bad that now I've lost my best friend." When questioned about Kelsey's request for a quickie divorce and upcoming nuptials, Camille wasn't shy to reveal her true feelings: "He did rush it. It's a bit impetuous don't you think?" she asked. "He wants what he wants right away. He's almost like a child." Kelsey told David Letterman that he hopes to marry Walsh in February. Will Camille attend the wedding? "No, absolutely not would I want to sit there. That would be awful," she said. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: When Sex Leaves the Marriage NY Times - Well Blog, By Tara Parker-Pope, June 03, 2009
Why do some couples sizzle while others fizzle? Social scientists are studying no-sex marriages for clues about what can go wrong in relationships. Married men and women, on average, have sex with their spouse 58 times a year, a little more than once a week, according to data collected from the General Social Survey, which has tracked the social behaviors of Americans since 1972. But there are wide variations in that number. Married people under 30 have sex about 111 times a year. And it’s estimated that about 15 percent of married couples have not had sex with their spouse in the last six months to one year, according to Denise A. Donnelly, associate professor of sociology at Georgia State University, who has studied sexless marriage. I recently spoke with Professor Donnelly about how much researchers really understand about no-sex marriages. Here’s our conversation. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: "Not Tonight Dear, I Have a Headache": 4 Ways to Save Your Sexless Marriage LifeScript.com, By Emily Battaglia, LifeScript Staff Writer
If you hear “I’m not in the mood” more than you hear “come hither” whispers from your spouse, you may be among the many couples living in a sexless marriage. When couples aren’t connecting intimately, marriages suffer because ignoring each other’s physical and emotional needs is not how to make a marriage last. If this common marriage problem sounds familiar, read on to find out how to turn your chaste union into a nonstop spicy soirée. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Our Best Sex Advice: For 20 years Marriage Partnership has offered real, biblical, practical insight for bedroom issues. Here are 20 of the best Christianity Today- Marriage Partnership, Spring 2008
For 20 years Marriage Partnership has offered real, biblical, practical insight for bedroom issues. Here are 20 of the best. . . . Planning. . . Evaluate priorities. .. . Men and aging. . . .Giving pointers. . .

RELATED VIDEO: Michele Weiner Davis on 20/20: Sex Starved Marriage DivorceBusting, July 08, 2009

RELATED VIDEO: Michele Weiner-Davis: A Sexless Marriage on The Today Show DivorceBusting, June 21, 2011

RELATED RESOURCE: The Sex-Starved Wife
• Are you longing for more touch, sex and physical closeness?
• Have you been feeling hurt, depressed, resentful or angry about your partner's lack of interest in sex?
• Do you question your attractiveness or femininity?
• Do you wonder whether he really loves you?
• Do you feel yourself building a wall around you to protect yourself from feelings of rejection?
• Have you grown increasingly exasperated that you haven’t been able to get your husband to understand what’s missing in your relationship?

Illinois governor signs civil-unions bill ¿ is gay marriage next?

Illinois governor signs civil-unions bill – is gay marriage next?
Illinois will be the sixth state to recognize civil unions for gay couples. Three states have seen civil unions act as a springboard toward the legalization of gay marriage. Christian Science Monitor, By Mark Guarino, January 31, 2011
Illinois became the sixth state in the nation to legitimize civil unions and domestic partnerships Monday with the signing of a bill that creates a foothold for getting gay marriage passed in the state. Illinois joins California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington in giving same-sex couples the right to form a civil union so they can receive all the same benefits of married couples under state law. In some cases, the establishment of legal civil unions has paved the way for gay marriage to follow. In Vermont, New Hampshire, and Connecticut, for example, gay marriage followed the legalization of civil unions. But with only six states sanctioning civil unions and a further five allowing gay marriage, the sample size is too small to draw a direct line from civil unions to gay marriage, says John D’Emillo, an expert on sexuality and public policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “One can say there is a precedent moving step by step, but the truth of the matter is gay marriage exists in too few places right now to really know if it’s going to happen,” he says. Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D) signed the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act Monday, and it will go into effect June 1. Despite opposition by groups including the Catholic Conference of Illinois, public opinion favored the law in the months before passage. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Civil Unions Come Out of the Closet; The Goal is Same-Sex Marriage CitizenLink, By Jenny Tyree, January 31, 2011
Here’s what you should know about civil union legislation: It is being introduced in several states as part of a strategy to redefine marriage. Although it is often denied, a news release by the Illinois ACLU about recently-passed civil union legislation admits this, and also equates “full equality” with same-sex marriage.     Although the passage of civil union legislation represents an important step forward on the road toward full equality for LGBT individuals in Illinois, the ACLU continues to work to achieve the freedom to marry for all couples.

    “We look forward to the day when Illinois joins other states across the nation by making marriage available for all Illinois citizens,” said Colleen Connell, executive director of the ACLU of Illinois. “This new law suggests that the day of complete fairness for lesbian and gay couples is not far away in the Land of Lincoln.”

In addition to this verbal acknowledgement that civil unions are a step toward the goal of same-sex marriage, there is the real evidence. Vermont, Connecticut and New Hampshire started with civil unions but now have same-sex marriage after the LGBT lobby declared civil unions to be inadequate. Civil unions will never be enough for the LGBT lobby, and California is case in point. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Finally, "Straight Talk" From the Homosexual Agenda   Townhall.com, By Austin Nimocks, October 20, 2008
We all love and appreciate honesty, and it’s finally coming from the most unlikely of sources—the homosexual agenda. No matter what side of the issues of homosexual behavior you may find yourself supporting, a standing ovation is appropriate. John Corvino, I salute you. You see, back in August, my jaw hit the floor when I read a column Corvino wrote that was breathtakingly honest. You see, for many years, the homosexual agenda’s intentions, goals, and beliefs have been shrouded in smokescreens of “equality,” “benefits,” and “fairness.” Yet Corvino provided a breath of fresh air, telling us what those who engage in homosexual behavior really want: moral approval. . .

Genetically selecting 'gay' embryos?
America's top ethicist argues couples have 'right' to 'family they choose' World Net Daily, By Drew Zahn, January 23, 2011
If two homosexual men want to use in vitro fertilization to conceive a baby and then use genetics technology to ensure the baby is also "gay," while disposing of any "straight" embryos, would the law have any ethical problems with that? America's leading ethicist in the field of human reproduction has written a paper that argues future homosexual couples should have "the right" to do exactly that. John A. Robertson of the University of Texas Law School is the chair of the Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and an advocate of what his book "Children of Choice" calls "procreative liberty." In a paper for the Washington, D.C., think tank Brookings Institution, Robertson presents a futuristic scenario where advancing science and society's evolving morality could create a once only dreamed-of ethical dilemma: "Larry, a pediatrician, and David, a wills lawyer, meet in their late 20s, fall in love, and marry on June 15, 2025, in Indianapolis," Robertson writes. "By 2030, they are well-enough established in their careers to think about having their own child. Larry's 24-year-old sister Marge has agreed to donate her eggs, and David will provide the sperm, so that each partner will have a genetic connection with the child. … In the process, Larry and David come to realize that they would prefer to have a male child that shares their sexual orientation." He continues, "The clinic doctors are experts in embryo screening and alteration, but cannot guarantee that the resulting embryos will in fact turn out to be homosexual. To increase the certainty, they will insert additional 'gay gene' sequences in the embryos." While Robertson admits no such "gay gene" has yet been identified, he argues that genomic knowledge is "mushrooming." The paper, titled "Reproductive Rights and Reproductive Technology in 2030," is actually the seventh in a Brookings series on the future of the U.S. Constitution, which asks a dozen scholars "of diverse political and jurisprudential worldviews" to imagine technological developments that will "stress" current constitutional law. . . .

Genetically selecting 'gay' embryos? America's top ethicist argues couples have 'right' to 'family they choose'

RELATED ARTICLE: Born or Bred? Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic CWFA, By Robert H. Knight, Updated June 21, 2009
The debate over homosexual "marriage" often becomes focused on whether homosexuality is a learned behavior or a genetic trait. Many homosexual activists insist that "science" has shown that homosexuality is inborn, cannot be changed, and that therefore they should have the "right to marry" each other. Beginning in the early 1990s, activists began arguing that scientific research has proven that homosexuality has a genetic or hormonal cause. A handful of studies, none of them replicated and all exposed as methodologically unsound or misrepresented, have linked sexual orientation to everything from differences in portions of the brain, to genes, finger length, inner ear differences, eye-blinking, and "neuro-hormonal differentiation.". . . . .Because no single study can be regarded as definitive, more research on people who have overcome homosexuality needs to be done. But a considerable body of previous literature about change from homosexuality to heterosexuality has been compiled, and the sheer number of exceptions to the "born gay" theory should be a warning to researchers and media to proceed with caution before declaring that science has "proved" that homosexuality is genetic. Other recent developments also suggest that homosexuality is not genetically determined. The Washington Post reported that bisexuality is fashionable among many young teen girls, who go back and forth from being "straight" to "gay" to "bi" to "straight" again. . .

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
Genes and hormones may predispose a person to one sexuality rather than another. But that’s all. Predisposition and determination are two different things. 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.]

RELATED ARTICLE: "Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project NARTH, By A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D, MBA, MPH, April 4, 2007
Dr. Francis S. Collins, one of the world's leading scientists who works at the cutting edge of DNA, concluded that "there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits. For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive.". . . . Dr. Collins succinctly reviewed the research on homosexuality and offers the following: "An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together NARTH, By Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.
Excerpted from "The Complex Interaction of Genes and Environment: A Model for Homosexuality"

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

IOWA: Same-Sex Marriage Amendment Ready For House Debate

IOWA: Same-Sex Marriage Amendment Ready For House Debate KCCI-8, By Emily Price, January 24, 2011
A ban on same-sex marriage in Iowa cleared some major hurdles at the statehouse Monday. With hundreds of people looking on, a House judiciary subcommittee approved HJR6, the amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. The approval by the subcommittee was the first hurdle. The second would be approval from the full House judiciary committee. . . . Rep. Dwayne Alons, as chief sponsor of the bill, spoke first during the hearing.“This is a time honored tradition: the status of marriage. It started before there was government, and before there was church,” Alons said. Democrats also weighed in. “Denying two people who love one another the right to marry, to me, is a violation of human dignity. It runs contrary to what we as Iowans are all about,” said Rep. Vicki Lensing, D-Iowa City. “Writing discrimination into the Constitution is unjust. It singles out a group of people and categorizes them as less than others, undeserving of legal and economic protections and as second-class citizens,” said Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, D-Ames. Democrats were outnumbered. In the final vote, it was 13-8 in favor of the amendment. Rep. Kurt Swaim, D-Bloomfield, was the only Democrat to break with his party. “The bottom line is simply this: the Iowa people ultimately are the arbiters of their own Constitution,” Swaim said. . .

* Life & style * Family Confessions of a menopausal mother

Confessions of a menopausal mother The Guardian, By Joanna Moorhead, January 22, 2011
It's all change in Joanna Moorhead's household. Her hormones are telling her to stop answering her family's every need, reclaim time for herself – and shout a bit. . . . . There's a new phrase in my lexicon, one I've hardly used in the last 20 years but one which is now, I'm surprised and even rather thrilled to report, tripping regularly off my tongue. In fact, I find I even quite enjoy using it. I like its irony; I like its cheek. But most of all, I like its central, ballsy sentiment. "I'm not available." That's the phrase. Sometimes I vary it a little. "I'm not currently available," I sing out, when they call for me; or "I'm not available now – try me later." At first, I like to imagine, my use of this phrase was greeted by a horrified intake of collective breath around our family home. "Not available?" they must have repeated, eyes wide in shock, or perhaps frustration, or, at the very least, surprise. It was, after all, out of character; for two decades now, a motley collection of children have been shouting, from all corners of our house: "Mum/Mummy/Mother!". Followed, invariably, by some need, favour or requirement. "What's for tea?" "Do you know where my jeans are?" "Could you drive me to Elisa's/Molly's/Hannah's/Gabriella's house?" "Can I borrow a fiver?" "Have you seen my schoolbag?" "Can I use your mascara?" "Will you put my washing on?" Or any of the endless other tasks that have been hurtled in my direction dozens of times a day, hundreds of times a week, thousands of times a year and tens of thousands of times across two decades. Now, though, I have my new response; and I don't just say the words – I mean them. I'm not available; not all the time, not any more. My four daughters, after all, are growing up. They are not babies: two are young women; another is on the brink of adolescence; even the youngest is thinking about secondary school. But it isn't just my girls who have changed. Life feels different for me, too. All that warm, cosy, soft-round-the-edges oestrogen, the hormone that makes mothers revel in our role as chief nurturer and prime custodian of the next generation, has begun to ebb away. No longer do I feel that being a mother is my foremost occupation. Somewhere inside – and sometimes quite angrily – I have started to think that not only do I matter too, but that the time I have left to matter in is considerably reduced since the last time I felt I mattered, which was somewhere around 1992. Don't misunderstand me – parenting has been the central plank of my life's work. . .

Supreme Court refuses to revive effort to put D.C. same-sex marriage law to vote Washington Post, By Robert Barnes, January 18, 2011
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to revive a lawsuit intending to allow a voter referendum on the District's same-sex marriage law. Local courts have said the District's Board of Elections and Ethics was justified in denying attempts by opponents of same-sex marriage to put the issue to a vote. Without comment, the justices said they would not review the latest decision upholding the board's decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals. The board has contended that such a ballot initiative would, if approved, violate the city's Human Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. A judge agreed, and the appeals court by a 5 to 4 vote upheld the ruling. The challenge was led by Bishop Harry Jackson, a D.C. resident who is pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville. He and other opponents, represented by a conservative legal group, said it should not be up to officials to decide when public initiatives are allowed. The D.C. appeals court majority said that the board "correctly determined that the proposed initiative would have the effect of authorizing" discrimination. And the court said the council "was not obliged to allow initiatives that would have the effect of authorizing discrimination prohibited by the Human Rights Act to be put to voters, and then to repeal them, or to wait for them to be challenged as having been improper subjects of initiative, should they be approved by voters." Proponents of the referendum said it is up to Congress, not the council, to set policy on ballot initiatives. They told the court that the issue was of such national importance it should agree to hear the dispute. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Court rejects appeal over D.C. gay marriage law Washington Times- AP, January 18, 2011
The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from opponents of same-sex marriage who want to overturn the District of Columbia's gay marriage law. The court did not comment Tuesday in turning away a challenge from a Maryland pastor and others who are trying to get a measure on the ballot to allow Washingtonians to vote on a measure that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Bishop Harry Jackson led a lawsuit against the district's Board of Elections and Ethics after it refused to put that initiative on the ballot. The board ruled that the ballot question would in effect authorize discrimination. Last year, Washington began issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples and in 2009, it began recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere. . .

Supreme Court refuses to revive effort to put D.C. same-sex marriage law to vote

RELATED ARTICLE: Facebook Co-Founder Seeks Legalized Gay Marriage in NY Chrstian Post, By Stephanie Samuel, January 18, 2011
The co-founder of Facebook and his boyfriend are seeking a same-sex marriage in New York. Chris Hughes of Facebook and Sean Eldridge, political director of the homosexual lobby Freedom to Marry, became engaged on New Year’s Eve and have announced intentions of marrying in New York. . .

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

RELATED ARTICLE: 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. . .

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

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

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. . .

Jennifer Aniston Doesn't Get The Bachelor

Jennifer Aniston Doesn't Get The Bachelor People magazine, By Tim Nudd, January 18, 2011
Like much of America, Jennifer Aniston is intrigued by a certain ABC dating show. But that's because she finds it totally baffling. "You know what I find fascinating? The Bachelor," the actress, 41, tells the Allure in its February issue, on newsstands Jan. 25. "I was mesmerized by how these girls, they meet this guy, they have three dates together or something, and they're weeping as though they've just lost the love of their life. I don't understand that." What she does understand is friendship and fun – in particular, party planning, which she says is the career that got away. . .

RELATED PHOTO EASSAY: Jennifer Aniston: Her Allure Photo Shoot Allure magazine, By Brooke Hauser
Jennifer Aniston hung out with friends—and ate her vegetables—during her shoot with photographer Michael Thompson in New York City. See outtakes here ;
Allure creative director Paul Cavaco drew inspiration for Aniston's shoot from a 1960s photograph of Brigitte Bardot. Hairstylist Chris McMillan used clip-in bangs to fully replicate the look. One hairstyle Aniston never wants to replicate? The Rachel. She told writer Danielle Pergament, "I love Chris, and he's the bane of my existence at the same time because he started that damn Rachel, which was not my best look. How do I say this? I think it was the ugliest haircut I've ever seen.". . .

RELATED BLOG: Brad Womack's Bachelor Blog: A Night of Revelations People magazine, By Brad Womack, January 18, 2011
Hey Everybody! It's hard to believe that we're watching episode three of The Bachelor already! It's so much fun for me to watch and relive every single moment; so many good memories were made this season. This particular episode was pretty heavy, and big revelations were made. While on the singing date, Ashley told me about the loss of her father. Then, Emily told me about her tragic past as well as her 5-year-old daughter. I also realized that none of the women were afraid to test their acting skills or to push themselves physically for our action-adventure film. That would be enough for one episode, but the rose ceremony was pretty dramatic as well...

RELATED BLOG: The Bachelor's Chris Harrison: Emily's Confession 'Destroyed the House' People magazine, By Sara Hammel, January 18, 2011
Viewers who teared up over Emily Maynard's heart-wrenching confession on The Bachelor Monday night were not alone. Upon hearing the story of how she lost her fiancé, Ricky, in a plane crash days before discovering she was pregnant, the contestant's costars dissolved into tears. "We showed a little of the emotion ... [on the show, but] it actually spilled over for hours," host Chris Harrison told Ryan Seacrest Tuesday on his KIIS-FM radio show. "Literally the rest of the day girls were crying. It really just destroyed the house. These girls were torn apart by this story." That's not all: The emotions the story stirred up, says Harrison, "set the ball in motion" for Madison to leave during the rose ceremony. Calling her the "sweetest, most humble human being you've ever met," Harrison says her decision to leave was sincere. "She realized, 'Wow, I am not the same kind of person Emily is,' " he says. "'I'm not here for the same reason Emily and Chantal are. I just need to pull myself out of this.' It was so emotional and so devastating that ... it essentially took her out of the show. I was [surprised].". . .

Don't Try This at Home: Adultery in the Marital Bed

Don’t Try This at Home: Adultery in the Marital Bed NY Times, By Joyce Wadler, January 12, 2011
THE woman who came to see Ken Altshuler, a divorce lawyer, had reason to be enraged: her husband was not only having an affair, he was also having an extravagant, money’s-no-concern, fabled-and-faraway-beaches affair. He had taken his girlfriend to Tahiti, he was sending flowers to her. But what infuriated his wife the most was where he had often made love to his girlfriend: their marriage bed. “She was totally fixated on that,” said Mr. Altshuler, who practices in Portland, Me., and is president-elect of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. “ ‘You had sex with that woman in our bed’ — that was overriding everything else. For a year in the divorce, every time an issue came up, that was part of it. We’d need to talk about placing the house up for sale, she’d say, ‘You mean that house where he brought that so-and-so to our bed?’ Or, when we talked about personal division of property, ‘He can take the bed and shove it’ or ‘He can use it with his next whore.’ ” How did Mr. Altshuler’s client find out her husband was using their bed? “He admitted it when he got caught,” Mr. Altshuler said, in the tone of one who has spent two and a half decades observing the stupidities of humankind and still retains a touching ability to be amazed. “I think she found some of the charges on the credit card, so he fessed up. And she said, ‘Where did you have sex with her?’ And he goes, ‘In our bed, where else?’ Then it’s, ‘Oops, did I say that?’ ” Conventions change. A woman no longer earns a scarlet letter for having a child out of wedlock; divorce is not synonymous with scandal; and it is no surprise to find, when a marriage comes apart, that a third person was involved. But even in a sexually liberal culture, the home is still usually off-limits, as if protected by an invisible force field. And the marriage bed — a phrase that in itself seems quaintly out of date — remains a sacred object. All but one of 18 marriage counselors and divorce lawyers interviewed for this article said they saw at-home adultery rarely, if ever, although the divorce lawyers saw it more often than the therapists. When it does happen, however, the consequences are usually dire: affairs are painful in a marriage, but affairs that take place in the marriage bed can be lethal. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Has Infidelity Gone Legit? It Nabs a Starring Role in The New York Times Time magazine- Healthland, By Bonnie Rochman, Fecember 23, 2010
What's Sunday morning without a frothy latte and The New York Times' weddings section? Readers scan the announcements, but what true devotees really relish is the "Vows" column, which profiles a different batch of lovebirds each week. The Times being The Times, the love stories are usually pretty compelling. But that doesn't even begin to describe last Sunday's feature, which highlighted a couple — Carol Anne Riddell and John Partilla — who dumped their respective spouses for each other and ranked up there with the most scandalous of soap opera scripts. No doubt, it resulted in more than one spilled latte, or as Gawker put it, "this story caused a bunch of people to spit orange juice all over their Sunday Times.". . .

Your BlackBerry or Your Wife: When the Whole Family Is Staring at Screens, Time to Try a Tech Detox

Your BlackBerry or Your Wife
When the Whole Family Is Staring at Screens, Time to Try a Tech Detox Wall Street Journal, By Elizabeth Bernstein, January 11, 2011
When you're out to dinner, does your BlackBerry occupy a seat at the table? Does your spouse ever check email before saying "good morning" to the kids? Does your son sleep with his laptop? It may be time for a technology cleanse. Like an extreme diet that cuts out all processed foods for a short period of time with the promise of lasting good health, a technology cleanse means you unplug for a short time with longer-term benefits for your relationships. But be warned: As with any other diet, it isn't easy. Diane Broadnax, a 50-year-old clinical trial researcher from Mount Airy, Md., recently became fed up with the way her family dispersed to separate computers each evening. Anika, 4, would watch "Dora the Explorer" on a laptop in the kitchen, while Jasmine, 12, would play with her virtual pets online. Ms. Broadnax's husband, Lonnie Broadnax, 50, went to his home office to watch a sci-fi DVD, and she would make dinner—while checking her email. Many nights, each person would eat in front of his or her respective screen. "Days were going by and we weren't talking," Ms. Broadnax says. So one evening last November, she gave her family some news. For one week, they would forgo all computerized entertainment—personal email, texting, Facebook, DVDs and online videos (they don't have a regular TV). Computers and devices would be used only for work and homework. Horrified, her 12-year-old said it was no different than being grounded. Ms. Broadnax persevered: The next night she made her family's favorite dinner (chicken and rice) and set the table with candles. But when everyone sat down to eat, the conversation was stilted. The girls gave one-word answers to their parents' questions. Even the adults felt ill at ease. "I didn't know what to say, so some stuff came out really awkward," Jasmine recalls. "We all thought, 'We are sitting at the table like we're supposed to, but now what do we do?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 11 Social Media Resolutions for 2011 Facebook and Your Marriage, By K. Jason and Kelli Krafsky
Facebook dominated 2010! The surge to half-a-billion users, becoming the year’s most popular website, getting Oscar buzz for the widely-acclaimed movie, and (its founder) receiving Time’s Person of the Year…there’s no doubt that the last 365 days could be titled, “The Year of Facebook.” And all signs indicate that 2011 will be “The Year of Social Media!” With social media mainstreaming into business, advertising, social causes, pop culture, news, and day-to-day communications…it is here to stay! If you’ve been on the sidelines waiting for “the fad” to fade or have been dabbling with social media and waiting for the frenzy to die down, it has cemented itself so much into our culture and way of life that it is not going away anytime soon. In this season of new commitments and hopeful promises, here’s a bit of New Year’s advice: get on the social media train! It will only be gaining momentum as more technology-connecting routes are created. To help you get more out of social media (and for social media to get more out of you), here’s 11 resolutions for you to consider as we kick off 2011.
1) Join the Party – If you’ve been a social media spectator until now, start participating. Connect with people you know on Facebook. Or network with people in your field of business with LinkedIn. Or exchange information with people you may or may not know on Twitter. Or find some other social network to join so that the multi-dimensional, real-time interactions become a part of you and you a part of it. The “party” is waiting for you to arrive!
2) Engage More – There’s a lot of different names for them: virtual voyeurs, online lurkers, or Facebook gawkers. While they’ve joined a social network, they just read what others are posting, and keep to themselves. That’s like going to a party, sitting in the corner and watching people have a good time, listening into their conversations, and ignoring anyone trying to talk to you. If this describes you, then this social media resolution is all about you! There’s a reason social media is called SOCIAL…people engage with each other. Go ahead and give it a try!. . .

Do Nothing: A Novel Approach to Solving Marriage Problems

Do Nothing: A Novel Approach to Solving Marriage Problems Divorce Busting, By Michele Weiner-Davis, January 11, 2011
Some people are fix-it addicts. Fixing their marriages becomes the main focus of their lives. The problem with this is that relationships are like see-saws: the more one person does of something, the less the other one will do. If one person takes out the garbage all the time, the other partner won’t even think about garbage day. If one person remembers family members’ birthdays all the time, the other partner doesn’t have to think about birthdays. If one partner is the marriage handyman or woman, the other partner can put the marriage on the back burner. Sometimes the very best thing a fix-it addict can do is to use an alternative to the do something different approach and do nothing, because by doing so, it gives their partner the opportunity to step in and rise to the problem-solving occasion. Being a fix-it addict myself, I know about the importance of backing off firsthand. My most deeply entrenched more of the same behavior had to do with raising of our daughter, Danielle. I felt Jim was too harsh with her and too rule-bound. I felt that kids need a lot more TLC. He, on the other hand, felt that I was a pushover and that I wasn’t doing Danielle any favors by not having clear expectations of her in every aspect of her life. Because of these basic differences in perspective, we argued a great deal, especially when Danielle was a pre-teenager.The typical pattern was this: Danielle would do something, I would correct her mildly, and Jim would come down on her harder. In order to soften the blow, I would step in and reassure her in some way. This would infuriate Jim and he would lash out verbally at me and then at Danielle as well. When I asked myself what my goal was, it was twofold: one, to help Danielle feel good about herself and two, for Jim and Danielle to have a more loving relationship. Although I knew that my actions were bringing about the exact opposite of what I was hoping for, I continued to do more of the same for years. I had become a fix-it addict. Then one day I decided to practice what I preach. . . .

RELATED RESOURCE: Divorce Busting

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

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

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

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

Behind golden-voiced Ted Williams is ex-wife Patricia Kirtley, the story's real hero NY Daily News, By Joanna Molloy, January 07, 2011
A viral video vaulted Ted Williams and his golden voice to fame, but the real hero of this story is the woman he left behind. Patricia Kirtley raised four daughters alone after Williams split 23 years ago and dove down the rabbit hole of drugs. Not only that, Kirtley took in the baby boy the radioman had with another woman and raised him as her own. Oh, and by the way, she's partially blind. "We survived," Kirtley said Thursday in Reynoldsburg, Ohio. "My children are survivors. They know if we get a little bit that God provides, we make it into a lot. I'm a soup maker. I make potato soup and throw in a lot of vegetables and a little meat. We always ate." Except that Williams, who seems to be a nice guy, just wasn't strong, wasn't around and wasn't contributing financially. Kirtley had to go on the dole. "I still remember my case number," she says ruefully. She eventually went to school and got licensed as a blind vendor. "My mother and sisters pitched in and drove me because I can't see to drive," said Kirtley, now 58, over a din of some of her 16 grandchildren playing. As if that weren't enough, Kirtley said two of her sisters and a cousin each took in a child Williams and his druggie girlfriend couldn't, or wouldn't, care for. "I didn't want to see those children in no foster home," she said. Exactly. It's an all-too-familiar story to the strong members of poor communities - usually women. They are the ones who must provide the backbone, as well as the hugs, for children whose parents get hooked on drugs. Williams called once in a while, and Kirtley would hear that baritone voice she fell in love with at first sound. They stayed friendly, and he might come for Thanksgiving dinner, but otherwise, he would remain AWOL. Daughter Julia Pullien, 30, said she was 7 when Williams left. . .

Behind golden-voiced Ted Williams is ex-wife Patricia Kirtley, the story's real hero

RELATED ARTICLE: Exclusive: Ted Williams and Jack Nicholson Are Not Starring in a Movie Together . . . Yet Fox News, By Hollie McKay, January 09, 2011
EXCLUSIVE: It is the classic rags-to-riches tale, a homeless man who wins over America with his charming voice one day, and then the next day scores a movie role opposite Hollywood’s hottest property, Jack Nicholson. But it is too good to be true – well, at least for now. Despite the plethora of media reports that have already married the new Nicholson/Williams on-screen partnership, the writer/director of the film “Exit 102,” Peter Dobson, has assured us otherwise. “It is absolutely not true, we made it very clear to Ted’s people that we would like to offer a role to him and we’re preparing to offer the lead to Jack next week, but at this stage nothing has happened and he is not attached,” Dobson told FOX411’s Pop Tarts exclusively on Friday. But Williams apparently even told "Entertainment Tonight" that the “As Good As it Gets” star sought him out personally for the role. "As a matter of fact, Jack Nicholson had contacted one of my in-laws who happens to be in Columbus, Ohio," Williams said. "They're supposed to be making a movie in which Jack is playing opposite a disc jockey, which he would like me to portray in the movie.". .

RELATED ARTICLE: Internet Sensation Ted Williams Offered SAG Membership and Slew of Jobs ET Online,By Jackie Willis, January 09, 2011
Ted Williams was literally discovered on a street corner, and now the media can't get enough of this Internet sensation with job and appearance offers pouring in! Most recently, Williams was to receive his SAG (Screen Actors Guild) and AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) memberships, with personal members of the advisory board of the Don LaFontaine Voice-Over Lab at the SAG Foundation covering his initiation fees. In addition to his appearances on both Entertainment Tonight and "The Insider," the man with the "golden voice" has also appeared on "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric," "Late Show with David Letterman," CNN, "CBS Early Show," "Good Morning America," "Tonight Show with Jay Leno" and a number of other television programs. He has also reportedly been bombarded with offers from Oprah Winfrey's OWN, MTV, ESPN, "America’s Next Voice" reality show, Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, MSNBC and NFL Films, to name a few. . .

The Divorce So Bad it Made the Family Judge Flip Out

The Divorce So Bad it Made the Family Judge Flip Out Time magazine- Healthland, By Belinda Luscombe Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Spending days ringside to other people's parents bickering and arguing and general dysfunction takes a soul strong of stomach and long on patience, which is why only a hardy few to be a family court judge. But it doesn't mean they're not funny. Either that, or one Canadian justice found an unusual way to vent. Sick of the shenanigans of a couple from, ironically, the honeymoon capital of Niagara, he ruled that the wife should have full custody of their 13-year-old daughter but that the father should only pay $1 (and that's a Canadian dollar) a month in child support. But it was the way he ruled that has everyone talking. Ontario Superior Court Judge Joseph Quinn's 31-page December decision—which made the local papers and is still doing the rounds of legal circles on the internet—is filled with the kind of black humor and derision one would imagine is usually kept for close be-robed colleagues only. He chided the couple for "marinating in a mutual hatred so intense as to surely amount to a personality disorder," and said the chances of amicable resolution were "laughable." The wife had poisoned their daughter "irreparably" against the father who, the judge admitted, had "a near-empty parenting tool box." Quinn mocked the couple's habit of sending abusive, vulgarity-laced texts to each other and their inability to be civil at their children's sporting events. On one occasion apparently, Catherine, the wife, had tried to run Larry over with her car — "always a telltale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart," the judge noted. . .

RELATED PHOTO ESSAY: 5 New Reasons to Get (or Stay) Married this Year Time magazine-Healthland, By Belinda Luscombe, January 3, 2011
* Finances: Children of Divorce Pay More for College
According to an analysis of the student financial aid statistics released in December in the Journal of Family Issues, parents who are no longer together shoulder a smaller percentage of college costs than those who are. This is only partly a result of the shrinking effect divorce has on wealth; parents who marry someone else and increase their household income still allocate a smaller portion of that income to college costs. A student whose parents are divorced, according to this study, will have to pony up, on average about 58% of all the expenses of going to college. If her parents are remarried, she'll have to scrounge up 47% and if her parents are still together the figure drops to 23%. Plus, if the kid bankrupts herself with student loans, you know where she'll have to live after graduation, right?
* Personality: Married Men Behave Better
* Health: Kids Who Live with Both Parents Are Healthier
* Reputation: Divorce is Big Business for Bloggers
* And, Finally, Celebrity Endorsement. . .

Appeals court turns to state on key Prop. 8 issue

Appeals court turns to state on key Prop. 8 issue San Francisco Chronicle, By Bob Egelko, January 4, 2011
California's highest court, which has issued three rulings on same-sex marriage in less than seven years, was handed another crucial question Tuesday - whether sponsors of a voter-approved measure banning gay and lesbian weddings have the right to defend it in court. The state Supreme Court was brought into the fray by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which heard arguments last month about whether Proposition 8, the 2008 initiative outlawing same-sex marriage, is constitutional. Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and ex-Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to appeal a federal judge's ruling in August that the measure unconstitutionally discriminated based on sexual orientation and gender. So the future of the case depends on whether Prop. 8's sponsor, a conservative religious coalition called Protect Marriage, has legal standing - the right to represent the interests of the state and its voters. If not, the federal appeals court could uphold Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling and restore same-sex marriage in California - legalized briefly by a 2008 state Supreme Court ruling - without deciding whether Prop. 8 is constitutional. Judges' view. The three-member panel, Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Michael Hawkins and N. Randy Smith, made its view clear Tuesday: that California's initiative process "would appear to be ill-served" if elected officials could nullify a voter-approved initiative by refusing to defend it. But the judges said they need advice from the California Supreme Court, the final interpreter of state law, on whether sponsors of an initiative can defend it on their own. The federal court would use that advice to decide whether the case could proceed, a decision that the U.S. Supreme Court might ultimately review. The California court has allowed initiative supporters to argue in favor of a measure's validity but has never said whether they could do so if the state did not join in. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 1997 Arizona case, said it had "grave doubts" that a ballot measure's sponsors could stand in for state officials. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Prop. 8 Case Gets Bumped Over to California Supremes Wall Street Journal, By Ashby Jones, January 04, 2011
Well, a funny thing happened while the Proposition 8 case was on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit kicked the case sideways, over to the California Supreme Court. The court, in this 18-page opinion, ruled that it needed clarification from California’s highest court on a point of law before it could go forward with its review of the case. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit wants California justices to clarify whether defendants in this case have standing. That is, whether the backers of ballot propositions can step in to defend voter-approved measures in court when state officials refuse to do so. Click here for the early AP story; here for all earlier LB coverage of the Prop. 8 case.As the AP reports, the question is central to the future of Proposition 8 because former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to appeal a San Francisco trial judge’s August decision striking down the ban as a violation of gay Californians’ civil rights. The Ninth Circuit framed its question like this:. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Future of an Illusion National Review Online, By The Editors, December 29, 2010
For much of the last decade — which is to say, for his entire national career — President Obama has said that he opposes same-sex marriage. Now he says that his “attitudes are evolving” on same-sex marriage. Let’s review the record. In 1996, at a time when public opinion ran strongly against same-sex marriage, he indicated his support for it on two candidate questionnaires. He has consistently opposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. He opposes state constitutional amendments doing the same thing: In 2008, when the California supreme court ruled that the state constitution required official recognition of same-sex marriages, he said that he “respected” the decision and opposed a ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to undo it. At a time when other Democrats were talking about modifying the Defense of Marriage Act, Obama favored repealing it — and thus forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages established in other states. His administration has made a quarter-hearted defense (if that) of the act’s constitutionality in court, a point which a federal judge cited in striking down the law. So, to recap: President Obama — who has in the past said he supports same-sex marriage, who has consistently opposed any effort to block same-sex marriage, and who says he might support it (again) in the future — opposes same-sex marriage. The Washington Post, speculating in its news pages about Obama’s future evolution to open supporter of same-sex marriage, sounds a cautionary political note: “Indeed, public opinion is so divided on the issue that the president would probably need months to sway voters to his position.” Once he decides what it is, of course. As we have noted before, liberalism has found the perfect division of labor: Elected officials can pretend to oppose same-sex marriage, secure in the knowledge that courts will pretend to interpret the law. Same-sex marriage is the “civil-rights movement” that can’t survive speaking the truth. . .

Protect Kids from Radical Same-Sex Marriage Activists Attempts to Corrupt & Exploit National Organization for Marriage
Editor's Note: MA Rating: For Mature Audiences Only
There's an angry new video out, produced by an organization raising funds to oppose Proposition 8 and support gay marriage advocacy organizations. Already watched by nearly 2 million people, the video uses young children to push its obscene message. The video itself is highly offensive, using repeated obscenities to achieve cheap publicity and public shock value. NOM is urging Americans to demand that the gay rights groups being funded by this video immediately denounce this exploitation of children being filmed using obscene language. Use the form linked here to call upon the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Lambda Legal, Equality California, and the Courage Campaign to put a stop to this abuse of innocent children. No political agenda justifies this sort of repugnant obscenity. . .

RELATED BLOG: Marriage News: Cussing Kids Vid Met w/Silence from pro-SSM crowd; Maggie Gallagher's "Economist" Debate with Wolfson; and Jon Stewart, the RNC Chair & the Marriage Question NOM Blog,
If you have not seen the video, please do so. (Warning: Even with the profanity muted it's still disturbing, so please make sure no children can see.) Thousands of people just like you have signed our petition to protect the kids. NOM's “Pink T-shirt video” is opening a lot of eyes to the hatred-inciting tactics of some prominent gay-marriage organizations who've accepted more than $200,000 raised by this disturbing video. We're asking: Stop using small children shouting obscenities to make your case and raise money for your cause. Is that too much to ask?! The gay press is getting nervous: One gay paper wrote: “The group's first video Prop 8 is H8: Straight Talk on Gay Marriage has been viewed more than 2 million times. But its frequent--some would say excessive--use of the word **** has divided gay rights advocates.” Adam Bink of the Courage Campaign's Prop 8 Trial Tracker (one of the groups profiting from the effort) says he “wasn't thrilled about (a) the strategy of using kids (b) how the video would present to the movable middle.” But so far, not a single so-called “mainstream” gay-rights group has refused to accept the money. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Rudeness Is a Neurotoxin Huffington Post, By Dr. Douglas Fields (Chief of the Nervous System Development and Plasticity Section, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development), January 05, 2011
Americans are rude. I say this not to preach, which is neither my right nor my intention, but as a scientist, a developmental neuroscientist. My concern about American rudeness relates to my scientific research and knowledge about the development of the human brain. . . . . .There is no doubt that American society has changed dramatically with respect to manners and social discourse in a generation. The "Leave It to Beaver" model of American polite society in the 1950s and early 1960s is gone. Those black-and-white sitcoms have been supplanted today by garish reality television programs that showcase domestic and social interactions driven by narcissism, factionalism, competition and selfishness. The contrast between the brash, comparatively disrespectful behavior of Americans today and the courtesy, formal manners, civil discourse, polite behavior and respect for others regardless of social status that is evident in Japanese society is striking. The contrast hits an American like a splash of cold water upon disembarking the airplane in Japan, because it clashes so starkly with our behavior. For an American, Japanese manners and courtesy must be experienced. American children today are raised in an environment that is far more hostile than the environment that nurtured today's adults. Children today are exposed to behaviors, profane language, hostilities and stress from which we adults, raised a generation ago, were carefully shielded. When I was a boy, there were no metal detectors at the entrance to my school. The idea was inconceivable, and there was indeed no need for them. Not so today. I wonder: how does this different environment affect brain development?. . .

Parenting Issues: The Myth of the Perfect Parent:
Why the best parenting techniques don't produce Christian children. Christianity Today, By Leslie Leyland Fields, January 08, 2010
My family and I were traveling in Guatemala a few years ago. We visited a man who had given his life to serving a poor congregation. We sat at the kitchen table with him, a man who had been bent into humility by the burdens of pastoring in a struggling nation while raising four children. Still in the muddy trenches of parenthood with our five sons and one daughter, we confessed to him our feelings of inadequacy. "Your children are grown. What have you learned looking back on your years of child-raising? Do you have any advice for us?" We looked at him, needy, expectant. He would have none of it. "I'm not one to talk to. I don't exactly have a perfect record." One of his children was immersed in an addiction, he told us, visibly sad. Another had a failed marriage. He was silent for a moment, nodding slowly, and then continued. "I never lived up to my mother's expectations either. I've been reading her journal lately, and I see how she prayed for me, what she prayed. And I've never lived up to what she hoped for me," he said, his voice a near-whisper. "I think she considered me a failure." In my mother-mind, I supplied the last words: "And considered herself a failure as a parent." This conversation shook me profoundly, touching one of my deepest concerns. Prevailing Parental Panic: I'm hardly alone in my fixation. More than any other generation, today's parents are worried sick that they will mess up their children's lives. A massive 2006 study revealed that parents post significantly higher rates of depression than adults without children. Judith Warner's 2005 book, Perfect Madness: Motherhood in an Age of Anxiety, captured the national obsession with successful parenting and its overwrought attempts to secure happiness and success for one's offspring—and, by extension, oneself as a parent. Joan Acocella's November 2008 New Yorker article, "The Child Trap," disdainfully chronicled the anxiety and success-driven extremes of overparenting. There is so much fretting that even the backlash has spawned a notable movement and subgenre of its own, the slacker mom, visible in such books as Confessions of a Slacker Mom, The Three-Martini Playdate: A Practical Guide to Happy Parenting, and Bad Mother: A Chronicle of Maternal Crimes, Minor Calamities, and Occasional Moments of Grace. In these and other popular books, women compete to claim the most artful and witty negligence of their mothering responsibilities. I find most Christian parents at the front of the line—the anxiety and success line, not the slacker line. With my own offspring ranging from first grade through college, I take turns stepping into both, perfecting my own blend of angst and aplomb, depending on the issue. This one question, however, sends me elbowing to the front of the anxiety queue, where I find most of my friends and fellow believers. Our most consuming concern is that our children "turn out"—that is, that our Christian faith and values are successfully transmitted, and that our children grow up to be churchgoing, God-honoring adults. It appears that many of us are not succeeding. . .

The Myth of the Perfect Parent: Why the best parenting techniques don't produce Christian children.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Child Trap: The rise of overparenting New Yorker magazine, By Joan Acocella November 17, 2008
We’ve all been there—that is, in the living room of friends who invited us to dinner without mentioning that this would include a full-evening performance by their four-year-old. He sings, he dances, he eats all the hors d’oeuvres. When you try to speak to his parents, he interrupts. Why should they talk to you, about things he’s not interested in, when you could all be discussing how his hamster died? His parents seem to agree; they ask him to share his feelings about that event. You yawn. Who cares? Dinner is finally served, and the child is sent off to some unfortunate person in the kitchen. The house shakes with his screams. Dinner over, he returns, his sword point sharpened. His parents again ask him how he feels. It’s ten o’clock. Is he tired? No! he says. You, on the other hand, find yourself exhausted, and you make for the door, swearing never to have kids or, if you already did, never to visit your grandchildren. You’ll just send checks. This used to be known as “spoiling.” Now it is called “overparenting”—or “helicopter parenting” or “hothouse parenting” or “death-grip parenting.” The term has changed because the pattern has changed. It still includes spoiling—no rules, many toys—but two other, complicating factors have been added. One is anxiety. Will the child be permanently affected by the fate of the hamster? Did he touch the corpse, and get a germ? The other new element—at odds, it seems, with such solicitude—is achievement pressure. . .

Welfare rules discourage marriage, Brownback says

Welfare rules discourage marriage, Brownback says Kansas City Star- AP, By John Hanna, January 03, 2011
Kansas Gov.-elect Sam Brownback promised to attack rules for welfare programs that he said discourage marriage as he announced two appointments Monday to social services jobs in his Cabinet. Brownback said his administration would work to strengthen families and support healthy marriages, and he sees changing the rules for social services as a key issue. He said many participants face losing benefits if they get married, so they remain unwed to avoid having their incomes combined to determine whether they're eligible for benefits. But at least one social service advocate questioned that statement, saying she had not heard of such a problem in Kansas. The governor-elect offered few details and acknowledged that such changes could increase the state's costs, but he said Kansas would achieve long-term benefits. "Studies show a healthy, loving family unit benefits not only the parents but, more importantly, the children," he said. "We will work to remove disincentives to marriage, so more couples can marry without the fear of losing crucial state support during difficult financial times." . . . . .Through SRS, the state provides financial support for poor families and benefits that help them with buying groceries. Eligibility for many SRS programs is tied to the federal poverty level, which rises as the number of people in a family increases. That means it's possible that a single-parent family receiving such benefits could no longer qualify if the parent marries and the new spouse has a modest income, SRS spokesman Steve Mock said. Brownback said he wants to see that changed. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Defining Marriage Down: We need to protect marriage. National Review, By Senator Sam Brownback, July 9, 2004
Marriage is at the center of the family, and the family is the basis of society itself. The government's interest in the marriage bond — and the reason it treats heterosexual unions in a manner unlike all other relationships — is closely related to the welfare of children. Government registers and endorses marriage between a man and a woman in order to ensure a stable environment for the raising and nurturing of children. Social science on this matter is conclusive: Children need both a mom and a dad. Study after study has shown that children do best in a home with a married, biological mother and father. And the government has a special responsibility to safeguard the needs of children; the social costs of not doing so are tremendous. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Real Marriage Penalty New York Times, By Annie Murphy Paul, November 19, 2006
“Some of usare becoming the men we wanted to marry,” Gloria Steinem proclaimed 25 years ago. She meant, of course, that women in large numbers were seizing the places in higher education and the professions that had formerly been closed to them, becoming the doctors, lawyers and executives that they once hoped only to wed. Over the past generation, the liberal notion of egalitarian marriage — in which wives are in every sense their husbands’ peers — has gone from pie-in-the-sky ideal to unremarkable reality. But this apparently progressive shift has been shadowed by another development: America’s growing gap between rich and poor. Even as husbands and wives have moved closer together on measures of education and income, the divide between well-educated, well-paid couples and their less-privileged counterparts has widened, raising an awkward possibility: are we achieving more egalitarian marriages at the cost of a more egalitarian society?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Collapse of Marriage and the Rise of Welfare Dependence The Heritage Foundation, By Jennifer A. Marshall, Robert Lerman, Ph.D., Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Ph.D., Hon. Wade Horn, Ph.D., Robert Rector- Heritage Lecture #959, August 15, 2006 (Delivered May 22, 2006)
This is the first in a series of events that will focus on the tenth anniversary of the welfare reform of 1996. One of the most important features of that reform was to establish in policy that poverty is linked to lifestyle issues like fatherlessness, unwed childbearing, and the loss of a culture of work. In 1996, work requirements and caps on benefits were some of the significant changes in federal welfare policy. As a result of that reform, black child poverty fell to its lowest level in history, and 1.5 million fewer children are in poverty today. But good news like that had been a long time in coming. The link between family breakdown and poverty had been noticed much earlier than the 1990s. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Can Government Strengthen Marriage? Evidence from the Social Sciences Institute for American Values, February 2004
A growing consensus of family scholars confirms that marriage matters: Both adults and children are better off living in communities where more children are raised by their own two married parents.[1] Both adults and children live longer, have higher rates of physical health and lower rates of mental illness, experience poverty, crime and domestic abuse less often, and have warmer relationships, on average, when parents get and stay married. In turn, high rates of family fragmentation generate substantial taxpayer costs. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Welfare 'reform' threatens to leave dads behind USA Today, April 24, 2002
In many ways, the welfare-reform efforts of the past seven years have been an astonishing success. Caseloads have dropped by half, child-poverty rates have fallen significantly, and about 2 million welfare recipients have made the transition to work. In many ways, the welfare-reform efforts of the past seven years have been an astonishing success. Caseloads have dropped by half, child-poverty rates have fallen significantly, and about 2 million welfare recipients have made the transition to work. Of course, that's telling the story from the women's point of view. They were the primary targets of the reform efforts to replace a culture of dependency with a work ethic. But a very different tale unfolds when looking at the unmarried fathers of their children. . .

Traditional Marriage’s Enduring Virtues The Dartmouth Review, By Khin Nyunt,
Over the past few years, lots of money and ink has been spent arguing about gay marriage, but not enough attention has been paid to the implications of this issue for our understanding of what marriage as a relationship and an institution is. The gay marriage debate is just one part of a larger debate about the nature and definition of marriage. At the heart of this argument is a clash between two different conceptions of marriage: the modern and the traditional. In recent decades, society has been engaged in redefining marriage, embracing a new understanding of marriage in order to intellectually legitimize innovations like cohabitation, out of wedlock birth, no-fault divorce, and gay marriage. However, despite the insistence by the educated elite that the traditional definition is bigoted and unreasonable, it is clear today more than ever that it is rationally superior to the modern conception. Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the case that overturned Proposition 8 in California, captures much of the modern understanding. He writes, “Marriage requires two parties to give their free consent to form a relationship, which then forms the foundation of a household. The spouses must consent to support each other and any dependents. The state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace...The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household.” This definition says nothing about the gender or sexual complementarity of the spouses; in fact, the relationship need not be sexual at all. All it requires is that two people agree to form a relationship and live together. The existence of dependents is thought to characterize only some of these unions, and thus they are optional, incidental to the main purposes of marriage. Though Walker concedes here that the state has a legitimate interest in marriage, nevertheless the modern view tends to think of marriage as an essentially private relationship centered on the private purposes of two adults. This is a crucial aspect of the modern conception of marriage; the culture of divorce in America (49% of marriages in America end in divorce) underscores the prevalent view that marriage is to be entered into insofar as it promotes the happiness of both spouses and left behind as soon as one or the other of the spouses becomes unsatisfied with it. A witticism of Zsa Zsa Gabor is very telling on this point: “I am a marvelous housekeeper. Every time I leave a man, I keep his house.” The breezy view towards divorce, and the corresponding understanding that marriage is subordinated to almost every other good, even material possessions, is widely held today. Finally, the private purposes of those entering into marriage are, under this view, pretty much irrelevant; there is no sense in which a particular intent is intrinsic to the modern conception of marriage. The traditional view of marriage — not only as it was upheld by law, but as it was understood by society and enforced by cultural institutions — is radically different. . . . . .RELATED COMMENTS: I am a gay woman, and one half of one of the infamous 18,000 couples married in California during the brief window of legal gay marriages in that state. This is the best article I've read defending traditional, heterosexual, marriage. Despite the common error in such articles of claiming that marriage has always been between only 2 people ("characteristics that it has retained throughout history, like its restriction to two people"), it is is a level headed and romantic defense of traditional marriage. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Why the Ring Matters The NY Times, By W. Bradford Wilcox, December 20, 2010
Cohabitation is now an increasingly attractive option to many Americans — including middle-aged and older adults who have recently lost a spouse to divorce or death. We can debate about whether cohabitation is good for the adults involved, especially given the financial penalties often associated with marriage for low-income and older couples. But a growing body of social scientific evidence strongly suggests that cohabitation and children don’t mix, even though more than 40 percent of American children will spend some time in a cohabiting household. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: RTA: Marriage and the Public Good First Things, By Ryan T. Anderson, August 03, 2006
The Principles are a scholarly tour de force, defending marriage's importance for individuals and societies, from varied academic disciplines: sociology, psychology, biology, history, economics, moral and political philosophy, and law. Though initial reactions focused almost exclusively on the report's take on same-sex marriage, the Principles are concerned with much more. The authors highlight several threats to marriage: a culture of divorce (afflicting even low-conflict marriages), widespread cohabitation, out-of-wedlock births, same-sex marriage, and the unregulated fertility industry. As the Principles make clear, the breakdown of marriage has caused great harm to many Americans. Consider spouses abandoned through avoidable divorce. Consider adults who suffer fleeting flings rather than the protection, resources, and care of a spouse. Consider, above all, children hurt by their parents' divorce; born without the protection and love of a father; or perhaps most appalling, artificially conceived (more accurately, produced) without the commitment of both parents and only to satisfy adult desire. As the authors note, "[M]arriage is losing its preeminent status as the social institution that directs and organizes reproduction, childrearing, and adult life." And the results have been disastrous. . .

RELATED RESOURCE (pdf): Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles The Witherspoon Institute, First Ed.: June 2006: Second Ed.: August 2008

The year of the love rat
Beautiful wives and perfect lives - so why were so many men cheating in 2010? The Daily Mail- UK, By Liz Jones, January 03, 2011
I never knew what it was like for someone to have my back … I never allowed myself to be cared for or protected that way in a relationship.’ So said Sandra Bullock — pathetically, as it turns out — shortly before the news of her husband’s infidelity oozed into the public arena. She barely had eight days in which to enjoy her Best Actress Oscar victory before a woman called Michelle McGee, who uses the word ‘Bombshell’ as her middle name, sold her story for $30,000 to a tabloid newspaper. The Sandra Bullock fable, which broke in March last year, was, to my mind, the biggest celebrity scandal of the year. Sandra reportedly found out that her husband was cheating on her via her publicist. The story of how America’s Sweetheart was betrayed by a man, Jesse James, who was simply not good enough for her, turned out to be the one that was played out over and over again in 2010, the Year of The Love Rat. There are almost too many examples to list of this species who emerged, drooling, during last year, but here goes. There was Tiger Woods, who cheated on his blonde, beautiful wife, the mother of his children, with a succession of waitresses and porn stars. Footballers Wayne Rooney, Peter Crouch and Ashley Cole all played away from home. Pop stars Mark Owen, Howard Donald and Ronan Keating . . . You get the picture. No matter how ugly (yes, you Wayne) or outwardly wholesome (Ronan and Tiger) the man, he is still capable of the ultimate betrayal. . . . . The list is seemingly endless, but the stories are mostly the same. A hugely successful, beautiful woman who is enjoying a career high is brought crashing back to earth by a man who has been feeling emasculated by her prowess. Now, of course, I am going to tell you there is a pattern to all this: the women these men choose to cheat with are always inferior to the woman they promised to worship till death do they part. While their wives are movie stars, TV stars or the ‘nation’s sweetheart’ with a No 1 record, the mistresses are waitresses, porn stars or prostitutes. Should we find it comforting that the women these men, and our men, cheat with are inferior to us?. . . .The Year Of The Love Rat has taught us that when men cheat, it is never about finding someone better. No, no, no. It is about finding someone inferior, who they can boss, lord it over, humiliate, dominate. And the more successful, the more fabulous the wife, the more the man will want to subvert her, to get his own back for being made to feel small. I met a very famous woman just before Christmas who told me she never goes to red-carpet events because her husband is always made to feel uncomfortable because it’s always her name that is called out by the crowd and photographers, not his. Why do we make allowances for their neuroses, time and time again? My view is that if a man is not strong enough to deal with a woman who earns more than he does or attracts more attention, then he is not worth having. But what the inferiority of all these hideous, whorish mistresses really shows us is not how great we are, but how lame and unimaginative men are. How wide is the chasm that separates us from the woman our husband really wants. And as women continue to beat men in the classroom and business, then the more, I fear, he will retreat or ‘down-date’. What I find disappointing, too, is that even if you have money, a lovely house and top-notch dental technicians, stylists and private beach-front villas, you can still be unlucky in love. So if Courteney Cox, Sandra Bullock, Eva Longoria or Cheryl Cole can’t keep a man, what hope is there for the rest of us? On the plus side, I’ve noticed another trend — one that might signal some sort of karmic retribution. A man who has been caught cheating instantly loses his looks. Wasn’t Mark Owen always the cute one in Take That, the one we all fancied? Not any more. He looks old and tired. Lying and cheating takes up so much energy, after all. . .

The year of the love rat: Beautiful wives and perfect lives - so why were so many men cheating in 2010?

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Your Marriage Toxic? A bad marriage may strain your health, as well as your relationship. Find out how to start mending it. WebMD Feature, By Joanna Broder
You may have heard that married people tend to have better physical and psychological health, compared to singles. But here's the fine print: People in unhappy marriages don't seem to get those benefits. In fact, their rocky relationship may make them less healthy. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Modern Love: A Roomful of Yearning and Regret The NY Times, By Wendy Plump, December 09, 2010
NOT long ago, the friend of a friend spent the night in a hotel room, which is sometimes what you do when you find out your spouse has been having a yearlong affair. His flight was sadly predictable — it’s all many of us are capable of after discovering such a betrayal — though I am sure he now realizes that mere movement is not a fix for that kind of agony. I know this for two reasons: No. 1, I have had an affair; No. 2, I have been the victim of one. When you unfurl these two experiences in the sunlight for comparison, and measure their worth and pain, the former is only marginally better than the latter. And both, frankly, are awful. . .

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Is the Grass Really Greener? In marriage, it's important to guard yourself against greener grass fantasies and temptations. FOTF.com, By Scott Stanley
When you pick one path, it's natural to wonder about the others, especially if the path you've chosen gets rocky. In marriage, maybes and what-ifs are most dangerous when your commitment to your marriage is lagging and the person you're thinking of is available (that is, single or in the process of divorce). . .

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

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

RELATED RESOURCE: The Crazy Cycle: Dr. Emerson Eggerichs describes the crazy cycle and how it affects marriages FOTF.com, By Rev. Emerson Eggerichs, Ph.D.
Craziness is when we keep doing the same thing — again and again — with the same ill effect. Marital craziness is when we do the same thing — over and over — with the same negative results. I call it the Crazy Cycle. When hurt and frustrated, we continue reacting in negative ways to motivate our spouse to be positive. Can you believe it? That's like flipping broken light switches for 30 minutes. All who are married go through this cycle. The topics change, and the intensity varies, but the crazy cycle continues. One day the argument may be about a diet book, the next day the argument may be about child-rearing methods. Next month, it's about a marriage book and then about the lack of money. This happens among good willed people. Sadly, some think they have a horrible marriage because of this craziness. Truth is, they are inches away from making an adjustment that can set them in a whole new and positive course. Stopping the Crazy Cycle: The key is to see underneath this "craziness," to the heart of a spouse. Based on Ephesians 5:33, I discovered why a husband and wife react the way they do. We read, "each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband" (NIV). . .

RELATED RESOURCE: Secret that Cracks the Communication Code {Love and Respect.com} By Emerson E. Eggerichs, PhD

More "Marriage" Stories: December 2010