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

RELATED ARTICLE: Parenthood alters marriage, for better    McClatchy Newspapers, By Scott Fowler, November 13, 2007
My wife and I have been married for 10 years now. For all but the first 10 months of our marriage, we've also been parents. We don't do everything well, but we are good at being fruitful and multiplying. We have produced four kids at last count. And believe me, we count all of the time to make sure we're not missing one. When I was younger, I heard many sets of parents call each other "Mom" and "Dad" rather than by each other's first names. That's sad, I thought. They are so consumed with children that they have turned into nothing more than parental teammates. Now my wife and I refer to each other as "Mom" and "Dad" almost all of the time. When she says my first name, I know either I'm in trouble or one of the kids is. Long ago, we had time for romance. That was before I stopped sending flowers and started giving her presents like a wheelbarrow for our anniversary and a screen door for Valentine's Day (in my defense, she asked for both). . .

RELATED ARTICLE: How parenthood changes marriage: wife on how she had to manage her anger once children were born    MSNBC- TODAY, July 6, 2007
Once the kids arrive, mom and dad may want to be more careful about where, when and how often they allow themselves to argue in the presence of their children. This is the focus of Ilene Rosenzweig's "Anger Management," which is featured in "Cookie" magazine and anthologized in “Blindsided by a Diaper," edited by Dana Bedford Hilmer. Here's her essay: . . . . That’s not to say we’d fight over everything. We never fought about traditional things. Like when I found boxes of slides of him and his ex-girlfriend on a romantic weekend in Nova Scotia chilling in our freezer, I didn’t clobber him with a frying pan. That I handled with cool ironic detachment, smoothly proffering the slide box and asking if that’s what broke the defrost. In general, Rick and I tend to get along well because we share a sense of humor and agree about big issues. Perceived slights and insults on minor issues are the things that get our Mr. and Mrs. Roper dynamic flaring. And we were fine with that. We accepted this about our relationship. Until I got pregnant. The pregnancy was only partially planned. Rick goaded me into “trying” because, based on his calculations of how many months of ovulation therapy and sperm spinning our friends had undergone, it would take years for us to conceive. Then we walked into the bedroom and moments later I walked out pregnant. I don’t think we even had sex. We weren’t ready. .

RELATED ARTICLE: De-stressing Relationships in a Fast-Paced World: How to get a higher EQ -- emotional quotient -- to keep the lines of communication open.    WebMD Commentary, By Patricia A. Farrell, PhD
The more devices we invent to improve communication, the more difficult it often becomes to effectively communicate with our loved ones. But a loving, secure relationship is serious business, and harder than ever to manage in this stressful, hi-tech world we inhabit. Stress may not be apparent to you, but your partner may be able to see it just in the way you enter a room, or the way your eyes seem to dart about rather than glance around you. There's a hint of something in the air and you're giving off signals that all is not well with you. So, how do you manage to keep the relationship on an even keel when the stress of today's 24/7 world has you feeling a bit rocky? Researchers have come up with some interesting approaches that you can apply to stress in your relationship. Much of this work was done several decades ago; we first heard of it as "body language," in which meaning is inferred from nonverbal body cues. . .

Marriage-Maker Claims Are Tied in Knots. Online Dating Sites Say Hordes of People Ultimately Marry, but Their Methods Have Plenty of Hitches of Their Own

Marriage-Maker Claims Are Tied in Knots.
Online Dating Sites Say Hordes of People Ultimately Marry, but Their Methods Have Plenty of Hitches of Their Own Wall Street Journal, By Carl Bialik, July 29, 2009
Online-dating sites have changed romance for millions of Americans. But claims that such dating leads to hordes of newly wedded couples may be fairy tales. EHarmony claims in television or online ads in the U.K., U.S. and Australia that 2% of Americans who got married last year met through its site. But the stat is based on an online survey. Similarly, a Match.com media kit claimed that 12 marriages a day trace their roots to the site, but the company now says it's inaccurate. And Markus Frind, chief executive and founder of Plenty of Fish, doesn't advertise about marriages, but says his site brings about 100,000 marriages a year, a figure based in part on "some study I found online." Companies' own numbers have gained notice in part because other marriage researchers don't have a strong handle on the quantitative impact of online dating on mating. It's a surprising void after a decade in which electronic winks and flirts may have proven more fruitful than bar pickup lines. . . . The closest thing to an election-quality poll didn't directly measure online-originating marriages. The Pew Internet & American Life Project, a research group, surveyed 3,215 adults in 2005, and based on its findings, reported that three million Americans had entered into long-term relationships or marriages with people they met on dating Web sites. But Pew didn't specify how many of those were marriages. And it isn't planning any major follow-up, in part because Web-traffic monitors report a stabilization or decline in traffic for many major dating sites. One obstacle to further research is that newlyweds are hard for researchers to find. So online-dating companies looking to tout their success as matchmaking yentas have sought novel ways to enumerate marriages. Match.com has taken the most varied approach. For years, the company counted member reports of marriages -- a total of 1,100 by 2002. Then Match shifted gears, claiming in press releases that it "is credited with more marriages than any other site," citing a 2005 poll by Weddingchannel.com. That site has since been acquired by The Knot, whose spokeswoman couldn't say how that survey was conducted. Match continued citing that survey through at least 2007. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 'Bachelorette' Jillian Harris and Ed Swiderski Share Wedding Plans: Couple Answer Questions from Viewers and 'Good Morning America' Staffers ABC News- Good Morning America, By Kate Escherich, Lindsay Goldwert, and Momo Zhou, July 29, 2009
In their first live joint interview, "Bachelorette" Jillian Harris and her fiance, Ed Swiderski, told "Good Morning America" that they're excited to go public with their relationship and that they plan to get married in Canada in the next year and a half. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Bachelorette’s Wes: Don’t Believe All You See on TV People magazine- TV Watch, July 14, 2009
“There’s an old saying here in Texas,” says ex-Bachelorette contender Wes Hayden. “Believe nothing you hear and half of what you see … On that show, I wouldn’t believe anything.” After the July 6 episode, which showed the Austin singer apparently confessing to having a girlfriend and other villainous acts after getting the boot from Jillian Harris, Wes is dealing with the fallout — and contending that what people saw was not the real Wes. And after PEOPLE spoke to accused girlfriend Laurel Kagay, Wes and his ex, who he says “was 100 percent telling the truth,” have been bombarded by angry calls and emails. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Melissa Rycroft Announces She's Engaged to Tye Strickland: 'Sometimes, the Stars Align': 'GMA' Special Contributor Announces Engagement ABC NEWS- Good Morning America, By Katie Escherich and Imaeyen Ibanga, June 30, 2009
"Good Morning America" special contributor Melissa Rycroft, who famously had her heart broken on "The Bachelor," has found her happily ever after. And, instead of a rose, this time it was a ring. Rycroft, 26, announced live on "GMA" today that she and boyfriend Tye Strickland became engaged this weekend in Texas. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 'Bachelor' Jason Mesnick and Molly Malaney Will 'Absolutely Someday' Get Married
'The Bachelor' Stars Appear on 'Good Morning America' ABC NEWS- Good Morning America, By Mariecar Frias and Katie Escherich, July 2, 2009
"The Bachelor" star Jason Mesnick and his girlfriend Molly Malaney are still together, nearly five months after Mesnick reunited with Malaney, the woman who was initially his second choice. Mesnick and Malaney stopped by "Good Morning Amerca" for their first joint interview since "The Bachelor: After the Final Rose" and said they plan to spend the rest of their lives together.
Mesnick said "things are going great" and they will "absolutely someday" get married. Mesnick and Malaney, a department store buyer from Milwaukee, were recently spotted on vacation together in the Turks and Caicos islands with Mesnick's son, and while they aren't currently living together, she plans to move to his hometown of Seattle. . .

Newlyweds Bounced By ABC New York Post- Page Six, July 25, 2009
A Newlywed couple from Minnesota became the latest victims in the vicious morning TV booking wars, when ABC had them thrown out of their hotel and canceled their airline tickets to fly home. Kevin and Jill Heinz were left stranded after they committed the unpardonable crime of appearing on NBC as well as ABC. "We've been kicked out of our room," Kevin told Page Six yesterday from the lobby of the Millennium Hotel. "New York is cut-throat. That's what we've learned." The Heinzes became a sought-after "get" for ABC's "Good Morning America" and NBC's "Today" after the video of their June 20 wedding march -- featuring the ushers and bridesmaids doing a funky dance down the aisle -- became a sensation on YouTube, with 1.4 million hits. Producers at "GMA" booked the couple on yesterday's show, flew them to New York and put them up at the Millennium, but the newlyweds also agreed to pretape an appearance on "Today." "We did it by the book," a "Today" exec told Page Six. "We said, 'Come in at 6:15 and we'll have you out by 6:30,' which is exactly what we did." But particularly galling to the ABC execs, "Today" aired its Heinz segment before "GMA" put them on air live. Then, when ABC execs learned that NBC had agreed to fly in the ushers and bridesmaids to reenact their dance with the newlyweds on this morning's "Today" show, they decided to cancel the couple's hotel and flights. NBC quickly moved the couple to another hotel and agreed to fly them home tomorrow. "We figured they'd be happier staying with their whole wedding party on the 'Today' show's tab. It certainly makes us happier," a "GMA" exec told Page Six. As for the Heinzes, maybe they picked Chris Brown's "Forever" as their nuptial dance track because of the lyrics: "We can be two rebels breaking the rules, me and you, you and I.". . .

Newlyweds in Viral Wedding Dance Video Bounced By ABC (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: Wedding Party Recreates Blissful Boogie MSNBC.com- Today, July 25, 2009

RELATED VIDEO: Wedding Party Boogies Down the Aisle MSNBC.com- Today, July 24, 2009

Have Traditional Marriage Proponents secured enough signatures to stop Domestic Partnership law in Washington state?

138,000 with a few more to come    HeraldNet- The PetriDish, By Jerry Cornfield, July 25, 2009
A law expanding rights of state-registered domestic partnerships won’t be taking effect as planned Sunday. Opponents of the law delivered what they said was 138,000 signatures for Referendum 71 to the Secretary of State’s Office this afternoon. This measure aims to repeal the law. It was a little after 3 p.m. when organizers of the referendum campaign and a host of volunteers started bringing in the petitions. Among the volunteers were Sen. Val Stevens and Rep. Matt Shea. Members of Washington Families Standing Together, a coalition dedicated to protecting the law and defeating the referendum, were on hand to observe. Signatures of at least 120,577 registered voters are needed to qualify the referendum for the November election. State election officials have said roughly 150,000 signatures are needed to ensure there are enough valid ones to cover those discarded as duplicates or invalid. If there are enough, the law would not take effect unless approved by voters. If it turns out there are too few then the law will go into effect immediately. It may be mid-August before the verification process is finished. Gary Randall of the Faith and Freedom Network said earlier this week the effort was too close to call. He sounded much more confident today and predicted the law will be repealed if it reaches the voters. Stevens was one of a handful seated on folding chairs at the foot of the Capiol tallying signatures collected on petitions in the last few days. "You can't ever have a big enough cushion. I guess I would say God is in control," she said. If the effort comes up short? "We'll go for an initiative," she said. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Wash. D.P. Foes Short on Signatures? The Advocate, By Julie Bolcer, July 27,2009
Opponents of the recently expanded domestic-partnership law in Washington state turned in signatures on Saturday seeking to qualify a citizen referendum to overturn the measure, though it appeared uncertain the effort would succeed, reports the Seattle Post-Intelligencer . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Backers of Gay Marriage Rethink California Push     New York Times, By Jesse McKinley, July 26, 2009
Discouraged by stubborn poll numbers and pessimistic political consultants, major financial backers of same-sex marriage are cautioning gay rights groups to delay a campaign to overturn California’s ban on such unions until at least 2012. Earlier this year, many supporters of same-sex marriage seemed eager to mount a 2010 campaign to overturn Proposition 8, which was passed by California voters in November and defined marriage as “between a man and a woman.” But the timing of another campaign has since been questioned by several of the movement’s big donors, including David Bohnett, a millionaire philanthropist and technology entrepreneur who gave more than $1 million to the unsuccessful campaign to defeat Proposition 8. . . . . The issue of when to go back to the polls was also the central topic at a contentious “leadership summit” held Saturday at a church in San Bernardino, east of Los Angeles, where about 200 gay rights advocates gathered to discuss their next step. It was the second large meeting of gay leaders since late May when the California Supreme Court ruled against a legal challenge to Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote. Shortly after the court’s decision, officials at Equality California, one of the largest gay rights groups in California, issued an online plea for donations for a possible 2010 campaign, citing a need to capitalize on anger over the decision and on the seeming momentum from the recent legalization of same-sex marriage in several other states. But that thinking has apparently evolved. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Judge in Tacoma bars release of Ref. 71 petition signers — for now: A federal judge in Tacoma has temporarily blocked release of the names of those who signed petitions for Referendum 71, which would repeal a recent law giving gay couples new marriagelike benefits.    The Seattle Times, By Lornet Turnbull, July 30, 2009 (Update)
Protect Marriage Washington sued to block release of the names on constitutional grounds, claiming state 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 Gay Marriage Debate: Where It Stands Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life, By David Masci, July 10, 2009

Editor's Note: The following is the introduction to a special report on the same-sex marriage debate by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. The complete package can be found on their website

In recent years, the debate over same-sex marriage has grown from an issue that occasionally arose in a few states to a nationwide controversy. Indeed, in the last five years, the debate over gay marriage has been heard in the halls of the U.S. Congress, at the White House, in dozens of state legislatures and courtrooms, and in the rhetoric of election campaigns at both the national and state levels. Moreover, the battle over whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to wed shows no signs of abating. In the last year alone, three states have banned same-sex marriage and four states have legalized the practice. Recently, both sides in the debate have scored important victories. . . . Gay marriage advocates hope that their recent victories in Iowa and Vermont will give their cause momentum in other states. And indeed, other state legislatures -- in New Jersey and New York -- have recently considered measures that would make gay marriage legal. Opponents of same-sex marriage note that whenever voters have had an opportunity to weigh in on the issue -- even in a more socially liberal state such as California -- they almost always vote against gay marriage. These opponents hope to continue placing constitutional bans on the ballot and are targeting Iowa, among other states, in the hope of reversing that state's recent Supreme Court decision. Both sides also are gearing up for a renewed fight at the federal level. For example, there has been some movement in the U.S. Congress to amend or repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, a step President Obama supports. Indeed, in June 2009, when Obama granted limited benefits to the same-sex partners of federal workers, he stated that he could not offer them medical insurance because of the federal DOMA and took the opportunity to call for its repeal. While it is difficult to predict where the next battle will be fought and what the outcome will be, it is safe to assume that the gay marriage debate will remain part of the nation's legal and political landscape for years to come. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Phantom Gay Past GaysDefendMarriage.com
The idea that being gay is a naturally occurring orientation in a minority of the human population everywhere has achieved wide acceptance in our society. Many voters and legislators have been approaching the question of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples with that idea in mind. The problem is, that idea just isn’t true. And the scholars who have provided us with the data showing that being gay is actually a product of Western society originating about 150 years ago are overwhelmingly gay and lesbian (and supporters of “marriage equality”) themselves. These intrepid social scientists have examined the evidence of homosexuality in other times and cultures (documents, field studies) to see how the gay minority fared in other milieux. But such historians and anthropologists haven’t found much. Sure, there’s substantial evidence of same-sex relationships, love, and sex in pre-modern times, sometimes in very open contexts. But there’s no evidence of a same-sex oriented minority or even individuals with gay or lesbian orientations in any society before the 19th century. (There isn’t any evidence of straight people either. As far as we can tell, in societies before the 19th century, even happily married people were assumed to be capable of enjoying intercourse with either sex, and only our own society includes people believed to be unidirectionally oriented. The best book on the recentness of straightness is Jonathan Ned Katz’s The Invention of Heterosexuality.) The experts at homosexuality across the centuries and the continents have thus asserted, overwhelmingly, that being gay is a relatively recent social construction first arising in Western culture about 150 years ago. To my knowledge (and I’ve looked), there isn’t a single scholar with a Ph.D. in anthropology or history of any repute writing and teaching about homosexuality at a major American university who believes gays have existed in any cultures before or outside ours, much less in all cultures. These women and men work closely with an ever-growing body of knowledge that directly contradicts the “born that way” ideology that has been key to the spread of the belief that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality in every way. It can be lonely to be the one of the few people in gay circles with knowledge about the phantom gay past, while everyone else is certain gays have always existed. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Nine Scholars GaysDefendMarriage.com
In preparing for an April Jerusalem Post column entitled “God didn’t make me gay,” I surveyed twenty experts in gay and lesbian history and eight experts in gay and lesbian anthropology. I asked them whether they agreed with the following statement: “Being gay is pretty much a naturally occurring sexual orientation that has existed throughout history. Every society and culture has always had a minority of gay and lesbian members, whether they come out or not.” I call that statement the Essentialist Credo, because I think there’s a broad consensus in the LGBT community that it’s true. I wanted to find out whether there was a similar consensus in the scholarly community of people who study homosexuality across space and time. Only four of those surveyed (all history specialists) said they agreed with the statement. The other 86% disagreed with the statement. . .

Editor's Note: GaysDefendMarriage.com is a website for LGBT folks who support marriage as the union of husband and wife—and getting the gay leadership to return to more pressing LGBT issues for our community. Gays Defend Marriage is a website founded by David Benkof (formerly David Bianco), author of Gay Essentials: Facts for Your Queer Brain (Alyson, 1999), as a discussion site for LGBT people and others to question and debate the rigidly prevailing gay view that redefining marriage is good for gays and lesbians and for American society. .

RELATED ARTICLE: Christian teachers - It's time to fly! OneNewsNow, By Peter Heck - Guest Columnist, July 20, 2009
It was indeed a heartwarming moment. With teachers, representatives, and affiliates to the National Education Association's annual convention gathered around, the NEA's retiring General Counsel Bob Chanin took to the stage to deliver his outgoing remarks. His inspiring and uplifting message asserted the profound commitment held by the NEA to the betterment of American society: "We are not paranoid, someone really is after us. Why are these conservative and right-wing b****rds picking on NEA and its affiliates? I will tell you why: it is the price we pay for success." As one of those right-wing "fatherless lads" Mr. Chanin was referring to, I found myself moved at how open-minded and inclusive his speech sounded. But more than that, Chanin did a masterful job of demonstrating what the true priorities of the NEA are when he stated that what makes the group effective is, "not because of our creative ideas, it is not because of the merit of our positions, it is not because we care about children, and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power." Now there's a relief. Perhaps the NEA should put that quote on its promotional fliers? After all, who would want the largest association representing teachers in the country to be basing its effectiveness on its ability to improve the lives of children?! Thankfully, the leadership of the NEA has sought a pursuit of raw political power instead. And why are they so successful in this pursuit? Mr. Chanin explains, "And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year." Keep in mind that many of those 3.2 million are faithful Christian teachers who seem to turn Mr. Chanin's stomach. Not that any of this should come as a surprise. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: NEA General Counsel Complains of Attacks from "Right-Wing Bastards" Lifesite News.com, July 09, 2009
The general counsel for the National Education Association (NEA), America's largest teacher's union, complained last week of the "conservative and right-wing bastards" that are "after" the NEA. At the same meeting, the NEA rejected a proposal that would have ceased their abortion advocacy, and went on record in support of same-sex "marriage." "We are not paranoid, someone really is after us," said General Counsel Bob Chanin in an address to NEA affiliates on the occasion of his retirement. "Why are these conservative and right-wing bastards picking on NEA and its affiliates? I will tell you why: it is the price we pay for success. NEA and its affiliates have been singled out because they are the most effective unions in the U.S." Chanin also noted that, in his opinion, NEA's advocacy is "effective" "not because of our creative ideas, it is not because of the merit of our positions, it is not because we care about children, and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Elementary School Children to be Indoctrinated with New Gay Curriculum
Alameda Unified School District Adopts Lesbian, Gay, Transgender Education for Students as Young as Five Years Old ProtectMarriage.com, May 27, 2009
– Providing yet another example of the threat that gay marriage and the gay agenda provides to school children and parental authority, the Alameda Unified School District last evening adopted a new curriculum, over the objections of hundreds of parents who testified at the board hearings. The newly adopted curriculum specifically elevates respect for gay, lesbian and bisexual students and their families over respect for diverse racial and religious backgrounds. . .

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

Jilted NBA Bride: 'No Hard Feelings'
Kesha Nichols: 'Heartbroken,' But Decision to Cancel Wedding Was Mutual ABC News-Good Morning America, By Imaeyen Ibanga and Roger Fortuna, July 22, 2009
Tabloids and gossips rags have painted Kesha Nichols as a jilted bride whose NBA star boyfriend left her at the altar days before the ceremony. But the founder of Sugar&SpiceNYC dance group and former New Jersey Nets dancer resents being depicted as a weak girl who was ditched at the altar; she sees herself as a strong woman who is dealing with a temporary setback. "That's my philosophy, just keep dancing for life," Nichols told "Good Morning America" today. "Just keep picking up the pieces and keep going." Nichols, who dated popular San Antonio Spurs forward Richard Jefferson for five years, said the entire ordeal had been humiliating, but she that she held no ill will toward her former partner. She denied reports that she'd been dumped in an e-mail but said there was an e-mail that simply "confirmed what we already talked about." I have no hard feelings. I will always care about him. ... My heart is broken. I'll miss him as a friend," she said. Nichols said she wasn't mad at Jefferson and wouldn't have stayed in the relationship with him for so long if he wasn't a good person. She added that she still hasn't had a chance to digest what has happened and has relied heavily on family, friends and a vacation to ease her mind. Nichols said she hasn't had a chance to miss Jefferson yet, though at some point she will because he was her best friend. She hasn't spoken to the NBA star in "two weeks and two days" and had an agreement not to for some time, she said. Perhaps in the future they can be friends, but for now, she said she needs him out of her life so that she can think clearly about what she wants to do next. . . . . .Reports claimed the ceremony had a $2 million price tag and that Jefferson broke up with Nichols via e-mail. Nichols said neither of those claims is true. . .

Kesha Nichols: 'Heartbroken,' But Decision to Cancel Wedding to NBA star Richard Jefferson Was Mutual (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: Kesha Nichols Breaks Down Her Breakup MSNBC.com, July 22, 2009

RELATED ARTICLE: An E-Mail Slam Dump! Ex-Net used Net to Ditch His Bride NY Post, By Lachlan Cartwright and Jeane MacIntosh, July 16, 2009
Former Net star Richard Jefferson admitted yesterday that he told his beautiful bride-to-be that their wedding was off in an e-mail -- stunning her just days before their planned posh nuptials. Kesha Ni'Cole Nichols got the heart-wrenching message after a tense Fourth of July weekend, Jefferson told The Post. . . . . "My family didn't take this well. I'm the last one not to have married," said Jefferson, the son of Christian missionaries. "My family was looking forward to me starting a family of my own." Jefferson flew to Paris last week with some basketball buddies. He went "only because I care about her so much that I didn't want to change my mind after those emails were sent," he said. "I didn't want to start missing her and decide, 'let's do this."' "It's so crazy, the divorce rate out there," Jefferson added. "If you aren't 100 percent certain about something, you shouldn't do it.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Jilted bride calls $150,000 jury award ‘justice’. RoseMary Shell gave up her job for fiancé: ‘He made a promise to me’ MSNBC.com- Today, By Bob Considine, July 25, 2008
Men (or women) who decide to get on bended knee: Be warned. You could find yourself on both knees, facing a judge instead of a justice of the peace. That’s what happened in Florida this week, when a woman was awarded $150,000 after suing her former fiancé for calling off their wedding. For RoseMary Shell, the jilted bride-to-be who left a high-paying job in Pensacola to live with her prospective partner in Gainesville, there was a “wow” in lieu of a vow. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Calling off the Wedding - How to Survive a Broken Engagement American Chronicle, By Cori Russell, December 1, 2006
It’s sadly ironic that during a time intended to prepare for lifelong commitment, it’s the relationship with your fiancé that often suffers neglect. In our culture of naively blissful engagements culminated by blowout gala weddings, the idea of halting the engagement fast train and disembarking from the euphoria is absurd. Caught up in exponential to-do lists of wedding planning, couples will head to the altar amidst serious misgivings and uncertainty - anything to avoid the hideously ugly and seemingly permanent blemish of a broken engagement. In reality, the act of being engaged doesn’t necessarily guarantee a happily ever after. If a pre-nuptial couple faces indisputable evidence that their relationship isn’t working, calling off the wedding is sometimes the healthier alternative to saying “I do” with reservations. Unfortunately, these couples often have no where to turn for advice and counsel; there’s no arsenal of planning tips and checklists to prepare them for the emotional roller coaster that is about to ensue. So what should you do when you find yourself in the middle of a wedding that almost was?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Got Cold Feet - How to Cope with Pre-Wedding Jitters Elegala.com
How do you know if it’s just wedding nerves or something more? Here’s how to cope when you want to say “I Don’t.”

Ryan O’Neal reveals Farrah’s final struggle.
Actress’ longtime love says: ‘She never closed her eyes; she was holding on’ MSNBC.com- TODAY, By Michael Inbar, July 21, 2009
Cancer took its final, ultimate toll on beloved American actress and sex symbol Farrah Fawcett, but the spark of life never left her eyes until the moment of death. In an exclusive interview on TODAY Tuesday with Meredith Vieira, Farrah’s romantic companion of 30 years Ryan O’Neal described in heart-wrenching detail the end of his beloved’s life. “She never closed her eyes; her eyes were open for the last three weeks of her life,” a still emotional O’Neal told Vieira. “She was watching us. She didn’t speak much, but she watched us. And then, finally, she closed her eyes.” Final fight: Fawcett, a 1970s pop icon through the TV series “Charlie’s Angels” and her best-selling swimsuit pinup poster, passed away June 25 at age 62, the final, sad chapter in a 2½-year battle with cancer. Fawcett remained brave throughout her battle, allowing pal Alana Stewart to document both her trips to the doctor and her private moments at home in a TV documentary, “Farrah’s Story,” which aired May 15 on NBC. The show netted Fawcett a posthumous Emmy nod as executive producer when the nominations were announced July 16. . . . . . Still, O’Neal did not suggest that Farrah could have held on until the Emmy announcements. He described in vivid detail the final weeks of Farrah’s life, when she was in considerable pain but continued to battle. “I think she was holding on,” O’Neal told Vieira. “I didn’t think she wanted to go. She had things left on her plate to finish, to accomplish.” O’Neal also described the anguish of watching Farrah pass from this world in a long-drawn-out process he called “horrible.”. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Dying Mother Creates 'Masterclass in Motherhood' for Husband PatrentDish, By Susan Wagner, July 17, 2009
When Jemma Oliver was diagnosed with terminal cancer, she set about preparing her family for her death. But rather than focusing on the funeral arrangements, the mother of two gave her husband, Jason, a detailed crash course in caring for the couple's two children, son Keaton, 4, and daughter Codi, 2. Jemma, 29, walked her husband through every aspect of being a mom and left him plenty of instructions about what to do once she was gone. . . . . .But Jemma's masterclass didn't just focus on chores and clothes; she also chose schools for the children, and left cards for their birthdays and written instructions about how she wants them to be raised. Jemma Oliver died at her home in Wales in February, with her husband and children by her side; now that she's gone, Jason finds comfort in her notes. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: "In sickness and in health..." It's for more than just the flu Editorial- The Real Proposal magazine, By Donna Kassin, Originally Published June 24, 2009
On May 19, 2009, my husband died. He was 57. As foreign and inconceivable as these words still appear to my present consciousness, I have awakened each morning since to this stark reality with the deepest and near palpable sense of loss imaginable. I not only loved my husband. I was also still very much in love with him when he died, which is what, perhaps, has tipped the scales towards my ultimate acknowledgement that this profound experience of losing a spouse is nothing akin to a divorce. After the failure of my first marriage, I had come to the unfortunate conclusion that divorce was like a death, except the person from whom you were now divorced was still very much alive. Now, I realize the falsity of that conclusion as I am humbly and indelibly struck by the finality of “till death do us part..."

Saving black marriages: Does it take a village?

Saving black marriages: Does it take a village? CNN.com, By Tina Matherson, July 20, 2009
From the outside, Johnny and Shanna Woodbury looked like the perfect couple. They had been married 13 years, owned multiple properties and were successful managers. They also had four beautiful children -- a son and a daughter fresh out of college they had prior to getting married and a 12-year-old daughter on the cheerleading team and an 8-year-old son on the honor roll. Together they had built and moved into their 7,200-square-foot dream home in Prince George's County, Maryland, with five bedrooms, six bathrooms, two sunrooms and a basement. Both were Christians who regularly attended the New Samaritan Baptist Church. But privately, the Woodbury's marriage was in turmoil. "I love my husband" said Shanna Woodbury of their marriage. "But I feel so overworked and underappreciated. I work full-time like my husband, but if I don't maintain the domestic responsibilities of the house, nothing gets done. Added to that, I manage our rental properties and take care of everything for our kids, alone." Her husband started to echo similar frustrations. "I'm faithful to my wife, I give her my whole paycheck but I work the late shift and my job is demanding. When I come home, I don't need to hear her mouth -- I just need to watch my favorite football game in peace." Shanna grows more overwhelmed, tempers flare and the two begin arguing more and listening less. Tension took over their home and their fighting began to take a toll on the rest of the family, resulting in disciplinary issues with the kids. "I realized my family was dysfunctional," says Shanna Woodbury. "But we also knew that divorce was not an option." The Woodburys knew they needed help. So a friend introduced them to Basic Training for Couples -- a class that had helped pull their friends' marriage back from the brink of divorce. Shanna and Johnny Woodbury enrolled. . . . . . Black couples in crisis inspired Slack and Nisa Muhammad to create Basic Training for Couples. The free eight-week program educates dating, engaged or married couples in groups of five to 15. The lessons cover the value of commitment, responsibility to the black community, psychological differences between the sexes, sexual intimacy and conflict resolution. Slack created the male-friendly portion while Muhammad, who founded National Black Marriage Day and the Wedded Bliss Foundation, created the female-friendly portion. "Marriage belongs to the community," says Muhammad. "An unhealthy marriage relationship gives children an inaccurate representation of marriage, which they in turn replicate for generations." In the program, couples also learn about the history of the African-American marriage and many for the first time plot their family tree to trace marriage and divorces. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Basic Training for Couples curriculum CNN.com, By Nisa Muhammad and Dr. Rozario Slack, July 20, 2009

RELATED SITE: Black in America 2 CNN.com

RELATED RESOURCE: Wedded Bliss Foundation
A community based organization helping teens, singles and couples develop healthy relationships and healthy marriages to improve their lives, better the outcomes for children and create stronger communities. We accomplish this in three ways. Our signature program is Black Marriage Day, the fourth Sunday in March every year. Join Wedded Bliss Foundation, Inc., as we organize churches, community groups, families and couples to celebrate marriage in the Black community, Sunday, March 28, 2010. Our theme next year: Celebrate the Joy. Visit www.blackmarriageday.com for more information.

RELATED ARTICLE: Basic Training for Couples curriculum CNN.com, By Nisa Muhammad and Dr. Rozario Slack, July 20, 2009
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Nisa Muhammad and Rozario Slack created a Basic Training for Couples
The eight-week program helps dating, engaged and married couples stay on track
Unhealthy relationships give kids inaccurate views of marriage, says Muhammad. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Obamas’ Relationship Stimulus Plan: Their 7 Secrets for a Rock-Solid Partnership Essence magazne, By Claire McIntosh, July 20, 2009
I find President and Mrs. Obama to be so much more relatable than any previous White House occupants. And it's not just their brown skin. Two kids. Two careers. PB&J in the pantry and playthings in the yard. They seem a lot like my husband and me. And as they approach 17 years of marriage, they always appear so loving toward each other. When I see reports of them having date night at the theater or in an intimate bistro, I'm frequently reminded that it's the little things, done consistently, that make love last. Barack and Michelle demonstrate that brand of authentic commitment we see often in our communities but so rarely in the media. As I look forward to celebrating seven years with my sweetie next month, I thought I'd share (and remember to take to heart) seven keys to Love, Obama Style. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Frank Hatley – the Latest Victim of Paternity Fraud Mens' News Daily, By Robert Franklin, Esq., July 17, 2009
I've written about similar cases before. They're not uncommon. Indeed, they're pretty much the meat and potatoes of paternity fraud. And speaking of paternity fraud, what legal price has Essie Morrison paid for her false claim to Georgia welfare authorities that Hatley was the father? If she's paid any price at all, it's not been reported in any of the several articles I've read on the case. . . .There's a simple solution to this type of case. When a state is seeking a father to reimburse welfare payments, and the mother names someone, the state should do genetic testing to find out who the true father is. Simply relying on the mother to tell the truth has proven itself to be too thin a reed too many times. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Duped Dads Men Fight Centuries-Old Paternity Laws ABC News, By Geraldine Sealey, October 2, 2002
"Is it yours? If not, you still have to pay!" That statement, plastered on a New Jersey billboard above a picture of a visibly pregnant woman, is enough to make many male motorists slow down in rush hour traffic. Patrick McCarthy, president of New Jersey Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, the group sponsoring nine of these billboards across the state, says he's just trying to prevent the victimization of other men. Three years ago, McCarthy found out he was not the biological father of his then-15-year-old daughter. Though divorced from her mother for well over a decade and not intimately involved in her life, McCarthy paid child support for the girl. When McCarthy, remarried with two other children, petitioned the courts for relief from his financial obligations, he discovered he had little recourse. The DNA test McCarthy paid for could not be presented in court. As far as the state of New Jersey was concerned, McCarthy still bore financial obligations to a child who was not his. McCarthy testified this week before a New Jersey legislative committee in support of a "paternity fraud" bill, which would allow a man to challenge paternity at any time. . . . . .Roots in Common Law: Angry men calling themselves "duped dads" are waging a state-by-state battle to change centuries-old laws they say are biased against them. Bills are pending in seven states — Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Vermont — that would relieve some men of paternity obligations based on DNA testing. . .

RELATED ARTICLES: Paternity Fraud and Children's Human Identity Rights Canadian Children's Rights Council
The children's rights movement calls it "child identity fraud". The father's rights movement calls it "paternity fraud". It's the same thing by a different name. There are 3 primary victims in cases of paternity fraud: the child, the biological father and the male falsely identified by the mother to be the child's father. Other victims are the close relatives such as other children and relatives of the mother, alleged father and the child's bio-father. It involves a fraud perpetrated when a woman who knows, or who should know, or who has reasonable grounds to know the true biological father of her child, falsely identifies the wrong man as the biological father of her child. Child identity fraud is the violation of a child's right to know his/her own identity and the identity of his/her father. The child has a right to have a relationship with his/her biological father and mother as provided for in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child . . .

Sotomayor sees 'seriousness' of marriage definition debate Baptist Press, by Michael Foust, July 16, 2009
Pressed for her views on one of the nation's most controversial subjects, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor said Thursday that she understands the "seriousness" of the nationwide debate over the definition of marriage, although she didn't disclose where she stands. Sotomayor was asked about "gay marriage" and an obscure 1972 Supreme Court case pertaining to that issue as the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded its final day of questioning, with each senator getting 10 minutes in a "third round" to probe Sotomayor. Although the panel's social conservatives had focused on abortion during the first two days of questioning, they increasingly turned to the issue of marriage during the final day and a half of the confirmation hearing. Liberal groups are counting on Sotomayor to provide a Supreme Court vote for "gay marriage," but no one knows for sure what she believes. She has not ruled on the issue as a judge on the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. S"If the Supreme Court in the next few years holds that there's a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, would that be making the law or would that be interpreting the law?" Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas asked, noting that Sotomayor previously had labeled as interpretations of the law several Supreme Court decisions that conservatives have heavily criticized. Sotomayor began her response by saying if she answered it directly it would be viewed as pre-judging the case. But she continued, "I understand the seriousness of this question, and I understand the seriousness of same-sex marriage, but I also understand and know -- as I think all America knows -- that this issue is being hotly debated on every level of our three branches of government." She said she has not pre-judged the issue and would not let her own personal views determine the outcome. . . . . . The issue of "gay marriage" was first raised late Wednesday when GOP Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa) asked Sotomayor about Baker v. Nelson, the nation's first "gay marriage" case. It originated in the early 1970s when the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that two homosexual men did not have a right under the U.S. Constitution to "marry.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Of Race, Gender and Justice Townhall.com, By Linda Chavez, July 17, 2009
This week I was asked to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Here's what I said. I testify today not as a wise Latina woman, but as an American who believes that skin color and national origin should not determine who gets a job, promotion, or public contract, or who gets into college or receives a scholarship. My message today is straightforward. Do not vote to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor. I say this with some regret, because I believe Judge Sotomayor's personal story is an inspiring one, which proves that this is truly a land of opportunity where circumstances of birth and class do not determine whether you can succeed. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: NEWS ANALYSIS: A Nominee on Display, but Not Her Views New York Times, By Charlie Savage and Peter Baker, July 16, 2009
“I think through these proceedings the American people have gotten to know you,” Senator Patrick J. Leahy told Judge Sonia Sotomayor on Thursday, excusing her from her Supreme Court confirmation hearing after four days of testimony. Plenty of legal observers across the ideological spectrum disagreed. Despite some 583 questions from senators amid wall-to-wall news media coverage, her hearing may prove to be as notable for what the country did not learn about her as much as for what it did. When asked what the hearings revealed about Judge Sotomayor’s legal views, the Harvard Law School professor Laurence H. Tribe, a longtime adviser to President Obama who supports her confirmation, had a simple reply: “Nothing.” And M. Edward Whelan III, the president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center and a critic of Judge Sotomayor, said she simply walked away from her own past controversial statements, and senators failed to get her to say anything of substance. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Lies, Leahy and the wise Latina OneNewsNow, By Robert Knight, July 16, 2009
If Sotomayor is so committed to the rule of law, why has she been reversed four out of six times when her rulings have come before the Supreme Court? Leahy again: "She has said that 'ultimately and completely' a judge has to follow the law, no matter what their upbringing has been. That is the kind of fair and impartial judging that the American people expect. That is respect for the rule of law. That is the kind of judge she has been." Really? Then why did Sotomayor summarily dismiss the reverse racism claim in the Ricci case from New Haven, Conn. white firefighters (and even one Hispanic) who had scored high enough but were denied promotions simply because of their skin color? Should they have spent more time in the tanning booth?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Sonia Sotomayor Gay? Newser.com, By Michael Wolff, May 29, 2009
Well there, I asked the question. It might as well be asked. It is being asked. It’s the question mark about every single public person without a spouse or children or a big time social life. This is partly for a very good reason: A great number of public people are gay. A great number of public people are obviously gay and for so long we’ve been complicit in pretending that they’re not. And, indeed, it may not matter that they are. Except for the dark and dismal air of dishonesty and subterfuge—which, of course, in politics is business as usual, gay or not. . .

NAACP weighs support of gays who want to marry

NAACP weighs support of gays who want to marry San Francisco Chronicle, By Joe Garofoli, July 16, 2009
The NAACP, the nation's oldest civil rights organization, today will consider approving a task force's recommendation to support gays who want to marry, a step that one national board member hopes could move the group toward supporting same-sex marriage. President Obama's speech at the NAACP's national convention, which ends today in New York, will be a headline-grabbing emotional moment for the nation's first African American president and the organization. But if the NAACP's executive board approves the mission statement of its new GLBT Task Force, which includes supporting the nondiscrimination of gays wanting to marry, "it would be significant," said Robert Smith, a professor of political science at San Francisco State University and nationally known expert on African American history. "It would be significant because the NAACP is a middle-class, middle-aged, church-going population," Smith said, and a bastion of opposition to same sex marriage. Alice Huffman, president of the California branch of the NAACP, co-chair of the national GLBT Task Force and a member of the NAACP's national board, said, "If this passes then we know that we're on our way somewhere." Her state organization felt a lot of heat from its membership when it opposed Proposition 8, the voter-approved measure that banned same sex marriage in California last year. Only two of California's 52 local chapters supported Prop. 8, she said. Supporting Huffman is the co-chair of the task force, NAACP national chair Julian Bond, a same-sex marriage supporter. First-year NAACP President Benjamin Jealous, a native of Pacific Grove (Monterey County) and former Alameda resident, is also sympathetic. But in an interview with CNN this week, Jealous said he would allow the organization to come to a decision on the issue on its own time, acknowledging the fierce disagreement in his ranks. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Countering the lie of same-sex attractions OneNewsNow, By Rebecca Grace, July 04, 2009
Homosexuality is becoming a way of life for many young people who are buying the lie that they are born homosexuals. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Deafening silence from black leaders OneNewsNow.com, By Meeke Addison, July 12, 2009
Black Americans, do you wonder why our "leaders" aren't getting involved? The answer is: they can't. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton especially have aligned themselves in cause with the homosexual movement. When homosexuals began demanding civil rights and comparing their plight to that of black Americans, Sharpton agreed. (Now while it pains me to do so, I must commend Jackson for condemning this comparison.). . . . . . Now I may be forced to turn in my "black card" after this next comment, but I'm forging ahead. Just as most black Americans voted for Obama because of his color (without any real understanding of his policies, I might add), so now black Americans allow individuals who haven't had a true cause since the '60s to align them with practices they condemn. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: NAACP Los Angeles President Alice Huffman Sells Out Black Families ProtectMarriage.com- Media Advisory, October 30, 2008
Campaign finance records reveal that Alice Huffman, President of the California State NAACP, the only major African American leader in California to endorse legalized gay marriage, has received nearly $200,000 from the NO on 8 campaign in “fees” through her company AC Public Affairs. African American leaders throughout California were shocked when Huffman, as a member of the NAACP Board, endorsed the No on 8 campaign despite the statewide, unified voices of African American political and religious leaders in support of traditional marriage. Huffman has never taken a vote of NAACP chapters and members, which is customary before endorsing any state measure or proposition. Records show that Alice Huffman, through her AC Public Affairs Company, received $100,000 from NO on 8 on October 2nd of 2008 and another $98,000 on the 14th of October 2008. Trina Williams, Vice President of Inglewood’s NAACP Chapter, said today that “no endorsement of ANY proposition is ever authorized without a resolution, a vote, and a majority vote of its members.” Williams indicated that to date, “the Inglewood NAACP has yet to receive any word from the national organization telling us to vote NO on Proposition 8.” Huffman appears in print advertising and mailers for NO on 8 along with one or two civil rights leaders supporting NO on Proposition 8. . .

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. . . . .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: 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. . .

Pupils told: Sex every day keeps the doctor away

Parenting Issues: Pupils told: Sex every day keeps the GP away Times Online-UK, By Jack Grimston, July 12, 2009
A National Health Service leaflet is advising school pupils that they have a “right” to an enjoyable sex life and that regular intercourse can be good for their cardiovascular health. The advice appears in guidance circulated to parents, teachers and youth workers, and is intended to update sex education by telling pupils about the benefits of sexual pleasure. For too long, say its authors, experts have concentrated on the need for “safe sex” and loving relationships while ignoring the main reason that many people have sex, that is, for enjoyment. The document, called Pleasure, has been drawn up by NHS Sheffield, although it is also being circulated outside the city. Alongside the slogan “an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away”, it says: “Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes’ physical activity three times a week. What about sex or masturbation twice a week?” Steve Slack, director of the Centre for HIV and Sexual Health at NHS Sheffield, who is one of the authors, argues that, far from promoting teenage sex, it could encourage young people to delay losing their virginity until they are sure they will enjoy the experience. Slack believes that as long as teenagers are fully informed about sex and are making their decisions free of peer pressure and as part of a caring relationship, they have as much right as an adult to a good sex life. Anthony Seldon, master of Wellington College, Berkshire, who introduced classes in emotional wellbeing, said the approach was “deplorable”. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Who's in charge here? OneNewsNow, By Marcia Segelstein, July 14, 2009
OK. So we're the psychologically-enlightened Baby Boomer parents sensitive to our children's emotional well-being. We don't discipline; we discuss. We don't punish; we have "lap time-outs." And just how is all this working out? If you don't already know, just visit a mall, or your local high school, or the children's section of your library, or a family restaurant and it will become clear soon enough. . . . . .The current crop of parents and teachers, on the other hand, seems to have difficulty being in healthy authority over children. Far too often we choose to do things to make children feel good, rather than do things that are for their own good. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 1 in 4 teen girls has sexually transmitted disease: Virus that causes cervical cancer most common, government study finds MSNBC.com- AP, March 11, 2008
Startling government research on teenage girls and sexually transmitted diseases sends a blunt message to kids who think they’re immune: It’s liable to happen to you or someone you know. In the first study of its kind, researchers at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found at least one in 4 teenage American girls has a sexually transmitted disease. The most common one is a virus that can cause cervical cancer, and the second most common can cause infertility. Nearly half the black teens in the study had at least one sexually transmitted infection, versus 20 percent among both whites and Mexican-American teens. The study, released Tuesday at an STD prevention conference, has adolescent-health specialists pointing to possible reasons and offering potential solutions. Blame is most often placed on inadequate sex education, from parents and from schools focusing too much on abstinence-only programs. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Unprotected Townhall.com, By Mona Charen, January 5, 2007
Meet the liberated college woman. You may pity her. "Unprotected" is a hard slap at the sexual free-for-all that prevails on American campuses and throughout American life. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Get Chaste: The Dawn and the Eden of a countercultural revolution National Review Online, By Kathryn Jean Lopez, December 5, 2006
Dawn Eden, an editor at the New York Daily News and blogger with an eclectic background, is author of a new book published by Thomas Nelson called The Thrill of the Chaste: Finding Fulfillment While Keeping Your Clothes On. Eden’s tried it both ways, and in the book describes the life-changing experience that came with her decision to stop having lots of sex in the city. .

The Steve McNair Dilemma: How to mourn a sinner (Photo: Steve McNair, pictured here in happier times, with wife Mechelle)

How to mourn a sinner? Get Religion, Posted by Mollie, July 10, 2009
Can you imagine learning that your spouse, the father of your four children, was cheating on you? Can you imagine learning that little tidbit because his mistress killed him? It’s just horrifying and my heart goes out to the family of Tennessee Titan great Steve McNair. One of the themes that’s emerging in the coverage is that the image of this man in death is in great conflict with the image he held in life. His family, fans and friends, it seems, viewed him as an upstanding and honorable man. This disparity provokes so many interesting religious themes. As a pastor’s kid, I’ve been to many funerals. Some stay with you. I will never forget, for instance, the funeral for the man who killed himself after murdering his wife. How do you mourn someone who sinned so visibly in death? ESPN has a story that asks that question:

It’s a moral dilemma in Nashville, a town that worships its sports heroes and believed, for the better part of 10 years, that Steve McNair was its most perfect role model: How do you mourn a man whose imperfections were exposed in his shocking death? This is the question that Bishop Joseph Walker will try to answer in the next couple of days. Walker is the pastor at Mount Zion Baptist Church, the place where thousands will gather Thursday for a memorial service. He was there at the McNair house on Saturday afternoon, when police told Mechelle McNair that her husband was dead. Walker says he has talked to her at least five times a day since the ordeal started, and the picture of McNair’s affair with Sahel Kazemi came into focus on national TV. “This situation has hit Mechelle like Katrina hit New Orleans,” Walker says. “It’s like someone comes home and their house is on fire. It’s something you don’t expect to happen to that magnitude. “But Mechelle is not a scorned woman. She’s a woman of integrity and character. She has held her head up. She will get through this.” Nashville will get through this, Walker says, because it’s a loving community. They’ll get through it, he believes, because 36 years can’t be defined by a few final mistakes.

These are great questions and some interesting beginnings of answers. Unfortunately, that’s the sum total of the religious exploration on display in the story. I was left wanting a lot more. Why was Walker at the McNair house when the police notified Mechelle of her husband’s death? Why will the funeral be at Mt. Zion? Is it because the Walkers are members there? And what’s the doctrinal understanding that underlies these various statements Walker is making?. . . . . . And another thing. As commenters in yesterday’s look at McNair media coverage have noted, the proper word to describe the woman who you’re cheating on your wife with is not girlfriend. And what you’re doing is not dating. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: God and Steve McNair Get Religion Posted by Brad A. Greenberg, July 08, 2009
Disappointed? Me too, but it should be more than that. Though it’s really difficult to expect better from professional athletes. I’m not sure if Steve McNair was a God-fearing man — his funeral is being held tomorrow at Mount Zion Baptist — but you don’t have to be religious to know that adultery is wrong. And what about Kazemi? When I first heard her name, I assumed she was Persian and wondered if she was Muslim. But it wasn’t until I saw a story in the Tennessean that I realized Kazemi was Baha’i. . . . . . .As you can imagine, murder is forbidden by the Baha’i. So too are alcohol and drugs — another knock on Kazemi. As for adultery, that’s, to use a Christian expression, a cardinal sin. Baha’i believers are very traditional on that point, too. Marriage, according to Baha’u’llah, is “a fortress for well-being and salvation” and the foundation for human unity. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Steve McNair's death brings other side of his life to light USA Today, July 05, 2009
McNair met his wife at Alcorn State, where McNair finished third in Heisman Trophy voting his senior year. Despite having a millionaire husband, Mechelle earned a nursing degree at Belmont University in Nashville and put her studies to work on him. During his NFL career, she wrapped his ankles, knees and ribs and gained expertise about turf toe. "When I'm achy, she helps me a lot," McNair said in 2003. "It's been a good investment, and it will last a lifetime." At the time, Mechelle told USA TODAY she was determined to have a career option despite her husband's success. "Nothing is ever guaranteed in life," she said then. "If I have to go out and work and put my skills to work, I can. There's no guarantee that Steve and I are going to be together forever.". .

RELATED ARTICLE: Victim's sister: 'Third person involved' in Steve McNair's death USA Today, July 05, 2009
The sister of Sahel Kazemi, the 20-year-old woman found shot dead with former NFL QB Steve McNair on Saturday, says she was a young woman who wanted to have fun and couldn't have hurt anyone — not herself, nor anyone else. Kazemi was actually the aunt of Sepideh Salmani, but they were raised as sisters. Salmani's mother adopted her when she was 9, after Kazemi's mother was killed in their native Iran. Salmani talked to her sister every day, and said she was very happy in her relationship with Steve McNair. She doesn't believe her sister killed McNair, or herself. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Is There Hope for the American Marriage? Time magazine, By Caitlin Flanagan, July 02, 2009
Around the time of my parents' 50th wedding anniversary, I turned to my father at the dinner table one night and said, "It's amazing, Dad — 50 years, and you never once had an affair. How do you account for that?" He replied simply, "I can't drive." Watching the governor of South Carolina cry like a little girl because his sexy e-mails got forwarded to his local newspaper, the State, made me wonder whether the real secret to a lasting marriage lies in limiting your means of escape. Whether you're putting the Buick Regal in reverse or hitting Send on a love note, you're busting out of your marriage, however temporarily, and soon enough there will be hell to pay. . . . . When a married man begins a secret, solicitous correspondence with a beautiful and emotionally needy single woman, he has already begun to cheat on his wife. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Adultery Is Killing the American Family Renew America.org, By Nathan Tabor, September 22, 2005
We hear a lot of talk these days about the need to protect and strengthen the traditional American family. Certainly, it is true that the institution of marriage is under attack from every side. But the real threat comes from the multitudes of couples that fail to honor their marriage vows. . . . . Americans have a schizophrenic attitude toward adultery. While 90 percent admit that adultery is morally wrong, according to a Time-CNN poll, 50 percent say that President Bill Clinton's morals are "about the same as the average married man." While 35 percent think that adultery should be a crime, 61 percent think it shouldn't. Having an affair simply doesn't carry the social stigma that it once did. . .

Recession Marriage Trend: Living Apart ABC News, By Michelle Goodman, July 9, 2009
After getting laid off from her job as an advertising executive last Thanksgiving, Leslie Singer co-founded the branding consultancy HS Dominion. The hitch: she had to hang her shingle in New York City, two-and- a-half hours from the Madison, Conn., home she shares with her partner of 17 years and their two teenage children. "I don't have the kind of business that I could do remotely," said Singer, 52, who's the breadwinner of her family. "It's a people business. And you have to go where the business is.". . . . . To cut down on the onerous commute, Singer stays in a Manhattan apartment two to three nights a week. But she's no carefree city gal those evenings.According to the Center for the Study of Long-Distance Relationships, a Web-based clearinghouse of data on the subject, 3.6 million Americans lived apart from their spouses in 2005 for reasons other than marital strife -- a 30 percent increase from 2000. Many commuter couples aren't as fortunate as Singer and Hook, who share the same bed much of the month. As the recession forces more people to accept work anywhere they can, some spouses find themselves living in two different time zones. So how do couples separated by the recession make it work? Besides swapping text messages during snoozy staff meetings and rendezvousing late-night via Skype, how do they keep their relationship -- and household -- from unraveling?

The Biggest No-No: Mixing Business with Pleasure: A common mistake that commuter couples make is not separating their personal connection from the trivialities of daily life, said Tina B. Tessina, psychotherapist and author of "The Commuter Marriage: Keep Your Relationship Close While You're Far Apart." Instead, Tessina suggests handling mundane matters by e-mail and text message, and reserving phone calls and Webcams for catch-up chats and pillow talk. . . . . . Separation Has Its Benefits: As many commuter couples will attest, there's truth in that old saw about absence making the heart grow fonder (or at least less likely to take your partner for granted). . . When All Else Fails, Change the Game Plan . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: It's Not Just a Recession. It's a Mancession! The Atlantic blog, By Derek Thompson, June 29, 2009
What is a mancession, you ask? It's not this. It's a recession that hurts men much more than women, and we are allegedly in the worst mancession in recent history. Eighty percent of job losses in the last two years were among men, said AEI scholar Christina Hoff Summers, and it could get worse. Here some graphs provided by Mark Perry, an economist from the University of Michigan who coined the term mancession that, with any luck, is not long for our world. Unfortunately this trend doesn't look to be reversing itself any time soon. . .

Federal DOMA law excluding gay marriage is under siege (Click for Related Video)

Federal law excluding gay marriage is under siege
Massachusetts is not the first to sue against the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. But it could be the most important. Christian Science Monitor, By Michael B. Farrell, July 9, 2009 edition
Five years after it became the first state to marry same-sex couples, Massachusetts is taking on the federal government’s definition of marriage. While other lawsuits have challenged the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed in 1996 and defined marriage as between a man and woman, Massachusetts is the first to argue that Congress overstepped its bounds and violated a state’s right to determine what constitutes marriage. The lawsuit once again places Massachusetts at the edge of the same-sex marriage debate. Observers say the suit could become a landmark case in an issue playing out across the country, and add to growing pressure to undo the federal DOMA, which many groups opposed to same-sex marriage see as paramount in holding the line against marriage reform. “Marriage discrimination in states, and at the federal level, all boils down to the question of whether there is any legitimate reason to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples,” says Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, a leading gay and lesbian rights organization. She says Massachusetts has a strong case because it challenges DOMA at a fundamental level – family law has historically been the province of states. At least two other suits are challenging the federal DOMA. One filed in March by several same-sex couples argues that the act unfairly prevents them from benefiting from some 1,000 federal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. Supporters of the federal DOMA say that the act promotes states rights since it protects states from having to recognize same-sex couples married elsewhere. . . . . .There are 37 states limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley argues that it’s unconstitutional “for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first- and second-class marriages.” Gay and lesbian couples legally married in Massachusetts are blocked from federal programs such as Social Security survivor benefits and federal estate tax exemptions because of DOMA, she says. Her suit focuses on two programs: MassHealth, the state’s Medicaid program, and the burial of Massachusetts veterans and their spouses at cemeteries owned by the state. If Massachusetts were to extend benefits to same-sex couples under those programs, it could lose millions in federal funding. . .

RELATED VIDEO: Massachusetts Suing Over Gay Marriage WWLP.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Defending DOMA Townhall.com, By Harry R. Jackson, Jr., June 15, 2009 DOMA is a legitimate exercise of Congressional power under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and does not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Is White House coordinating attack on DOMA? OneNewsNow, By Charlie Butts, July 09, 2009
Attorney Mat Staver is convinced the Obama administration is behind a federal lawsuit filed yesterday in Boston challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The first state to legalize homosexual "marriage" has filed suit against the federal government to overturn DOMA -- the Defense of Marriage Act -- which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. On Wednesday, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley filed the lawsuit in federal court in Boston. The suit claims DOMA interferes with the right of Massachusetts to define marriage as it sees fit. . . . . ."That's [Obama's] political preference [that DOMA be overturned]," Staver says. "There's no doubt in my mind, absolutely no question at all, that he and some of those in the Department of Justice are coordinating with individuals -- and perhaps even the attorney general in Massachusetts -- to literally bring these lawsuits and have a very weak defense so that the courts will ultimately overturn it without having the politicians and the president go on record showing that they are in favor of same-sex marriage.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: MASSACHUSETTS: State Sues U.S. Over Marriage Law Washington Post, July 9, 2009
Massachusetts sued the U.S. government Wednesday over the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said the law interferes with the right of Massachusetts to define and regulate marriage as it sees fit. The 1996 law denies federal recognition of same-sex marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, argues the act "constitutes an overreaching and discriminatory federal law." Before the law was passed, Coakley said, the federal government recognized that defining marital status was the "exclusive prerogative of the states." The U.S. law's definition of marriage denies same-sex couples access to benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including federal income tax credits, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments, the lawsuit says. The Justice Department had not seen the lawsuit and cannot respond until it has a chance to review it, spokesman Charles Miller said. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Polyamory: When One Spouse Isn't Enough: Some See Polyamorous Marriage as the Next Civil Rights Movement ABC News, By Susan Donaldson James, June 18, 2009
She has a birth name but calls herself "Ashara Love," because most people don't understand her unconventional family. ove, a 51-year-old insurance underwriter from California, has been married to her husband "Cougar" for a decade, but they've had numerous sexual triads, which they insist have enriched their relationship. "I am living my life partially hidden and partially open," said Love, whose friends and boss know about her sexuality, but her parents do not. "Many of us adopt another name because it provides us with protection from being outed," she said. "We are the next generation after the gay and transgender communities." As polyamorists, the couple belongs to a small group that believes people have the right to form their own complex relationships with multiple partners. The most vocal want the right to marry -- as a cluster. "We have rights to love any way we want unless we are harming other people," said Love. "Like the air we breathe, we have a right to be and do and say whatever is our full expression, and this to me is a civil right." The polyamory movement grew out of the communes of the 1960s and the swingers of the 1970s, but today, with gay marriage legal in six states, some, such as Love, say their cause should be next. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Deceit of Gay "Marriage" Boundless.org, By David Orland
To justify giving privileges or exemptions or subsidies to some particular group in society, the benefit of doing so for society at large must first be shown. With heterosexual marriage, the case is clear enough. Heterosexual marriage is a matter of genuine social interest because the family is essential to society's reproduction. The crux of my argument, in other words, was that married couples receive the benefits they do, not because the state is interested in promoting romantic love, or because the Bible says so or because of the influence of special interest groups but rather because the next generation is something that is and should be of interest to all of us. And, by definition, this is not a case that can be made for homosexual unions. To that degree, the attempt to turn the question of domestic partnership into a debate about fairness falls flat. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Deceit of Gay "Marriage" -Round Two Boundless.org, By David Orland
On reflection, it’s amazing that supporters of gay marriage have gotten this far. Set aside the hype with which the issue is usually presented and one is left with a surprisingly feeble argument for an imaginary right. The standard argument for gay marriage goes something like this: Heterosexual marriage is legal (true). In most states, homosexual marriage is not (also true). Therefore, gay marriage advocates conclude, the civil rights of gay Americans are being violated (false!). Where to start? In the first place, homosexuals are not denied the right to marry — they are denied a right to marry other homosexuals, which is something else altogether. Next, the argument trades on the idea — superficially appealing but practically empty — that discrimination is by definition a bad and evil thing. Denying legal status to gay marriage does indeed involve discrimination — but it is discrimination of a perfectly legitimate kind. Finally and most crucially, the argument assumes what it is meant to prove: the rights of gays are being violated only if you already agree that one of their rights is to get married to a person of the same sex as themselves. But that, of course, is precisely what is at issue. It’s as if proponents of gay marriage believe that saying you have a right, loud enough and often enough, gives you one. While this tactic may succeed in silencing some of their opponents, it falls miserably short of making the sort of case that needs to be made if a specifically “gay right” to marriage is to be recognized. If gays hope to show that they have a right to marry one another, they will have to prove that they meet the same conditions that give heterosexual couples this right. There’s no way around it: any discussion of gay marriage must begin with a discussion of marriage in general. So why is heterosexual marriage recognized as a right?. . .

Couples Study Debunks 'Trial Marriage' Notion of Cohabiting

Couples Study Debunks "Trial Marriage" Notion of Cohabiting USA Today, By Sharon Jayson, July 8, 2009
Most unmarried couples who live together aren't trying to test their relationship. They just want to spend more time together. That finding, from a new national study of dating and cohabitation, seemingly contradicts the popular wisdom of cohabitation as a trial marriage. It's among early results from the study, scheduled to continue for years, and it gives researchers new insight into the burgeoning number of couples who cohabit. Cohabitation has increased so rapidly that the data about it haven't kept pace with the growing numbers, researchers say. The latest U.S. Census for 2008 reported 13.6 million unmarried, heterosexual couples living together. Researchers say 50% to 60% of couples who marry today lived together first; some note that 70% of young adults will cohabit. Most couples who live together either marry or break up within two years. This first snapshot of the new federally funded study of 1,294 unmarried Americans ages 18 to 34 will be presented today at a convention of marriage and family experts in Orlando. Those who study cohabitation say it will provide good documentation for years on how such relationships evolve and on the changing role of cohabitation. . . . . . . .Other initial findings:

•Most couples didn't consciously decide to live together; two-thirds of cohabitors said they either "slid into it" or "talked about it, but then it just sort of happened." Just one-third talked about it and made a decision to live together.

•The more religious are less likely to cohabit: 49% of dating couples and 30% of cohabitors surveyed agree that "my religious beliefs suggest that it is wrong for people to live together without being married." . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Living together no longer 'playing house': Most people today reject the notion that couples who live together before marriage are more likely to get divorced, finds a weekend USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,007 adults. USA Today, By By Katye Martens, USA TODAY, July 28, 2009
A generation ago, unmarried couples who lived together were often derided for "shacking up" or "playing house." Studies in the 1980s supported those negative stereotypes, suggesting that cohabitation could doom a long-term relationship, substantially raising the risk of divorce. While researchers say the overall divorce rate is higher among those who lived together before marriage, now they don't blame cohabitating. . .

In gay-marriage battle, D.C. shapes up as next big prize
As of Tuesday, Washington gives same-sex spouses the same rights as heterosexual couples. A full legalization of gay marriage could follow, some say. Christian Science Monitor, By Michael B. Farrell-Staff writer, July 7, 2009 edition

Washington began recognizing gay marriages performed in other states Tuesday – a move that is being called a potential first step toward allowing same-sex couples to wed in the nation’s capital. The district’s measure stops short of other laws in states such as Iowa and Vermont, which allow for same-sex wedding ceremonies. But it adds to their momentum. Moreover, Washington would be a unique prize in the battle over gay marriage. Not only does it bring the issue to where the nation’s lawmakers live – making it part of the city’s culture – but it also marks gay marriage’s first foray into a predominately black community. Washington’s city council passed the law to give married same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples by a

12-to-1 margin in May – a vote that supporters hail as significant. “Nationally, anti-gay rights activists have had a great deal of success in encouraging black voters to oppose gay rights, partially because [gay rights] are seen – incorrectly – as a ‘white issue,’” writes Adam Serwer on the website of American Prospect, a liberal magazine. “But in Washington, D.C., the diverse composition of the marriage-equality movement means that marriage-equality activists don’t have to ‘reach out’ to the black community, because they’re already part of it,” he adds. But black leaders have said that the 12-to-1 vote is not reflective of the community at large. In a city where 56 percent of residents are African-American, there is little chance a gay-marriage law would be approved if put to voters, says Derek McCoy, a pastor at Hope Christian Church in suburban Washington. He says the law is yet another example of a legislative branch “pulling a fast one on the constituents.” A group of black ministers filed a lawsuit in an effort to stall the bill until a referendum could put the question to Washington voters. A judge dismissed the suit. Black ministers have led much of the opposition to the law, rallying the city’s black churches as

well as the broader African-American community. Surveys have shown that a majority of blacks oppose gay marriage. Some 70 percent of blacks in California voted in favor of Proposition 8, the ballot measure that bans same-sex marriages. Mr. McCoy says he is “continuing to push a battle on the issue.” But he agrees with proponents of same-sex marriage on at least one thing: “I do believe [recognizing gay marriage in Washington] puts it on a national scale, and at least brings that level of attention to it.”.

. .

In gay marriage battle, D.C. shapes up as next big prize

RELATED POLL RESULTS: Majority of Americans Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage Gallup.com, By Jeffrey M. Jones, May 27, 2009
Americans' views on same-sex marriage have essentially stayed the same in the past year, with a majority of 57% opposed to granting such marriages legal status and 40% in favor of doing so. Though support for legal same-sex marriage is significantly higher now than when Gallup first asked about it in 1996, in recent years support has appeared to stall, peaking at 46% in 2007. . .

Can SC Gov. Mark Sanford save his marriage? Probably not. (Click for Related Video)

Can Mark Sanford Save His Marriage? Probably Not US News & World Report, By Deborah Kotz, July 02, 2009
I couldn't help cringing yesterday when I heard a marriage therapist comment on Good Morning America about the state of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's marriage. "I see this all the time," marriage therapist Terry Real said on the broadcast. "The big secret . . . 'I'm not in love with my wife.' Not being in love with your spouse is part of marriage. It doesn't mean you're in a bad marriage . . . It's perfectly normal not to be in love." Can a marriage truly work if a couple isn't in love? I pose that question to Helen Fisher, a relationship researcher at Rutgers University and author of Why We Love, and she responds with an interesting statistic: More than 80 percent of men and women say they wouldn't marry a person they weren't in love with—even if they were compatible in all other ways. What's more, it's certainly possible to be deeply in love after decades of marriage. Fisher and her colleagues recently demonstrated through brain imaging that a group of happily married individuals (wedded for an average of 21 years) have activation in the same areas of their brains, when thinking of their spouses, as those who are newly in love. this brain region, called the ventral tegmental area, produces the brain chemical dopamine, a powerful stimulant that triggers feelings of euphoria and ecstasy. Those in the early stage of love also have lower activity in the cortical areas of the brain, says Fisher, the ones responsible for decision making. That could explain Sanford's rash oh-so-secret trip to Argentina and his rambling confessions revealing that he had numerous flirtations with other women and that his Argentine paramour was his "soul mate." Yet he also eagerly promised to try to "fall back in love" with his wife of 20 years. But that may not be possible if he's already in love with someone else. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Jenny Sanford Joins the Cheated-On Wives Club Politics Daily, By Bonnie Goldstein, June 25, 2009
After Gov. Mark Sanford's press conference announcing his "bottom line" affair and heartbreaking break-up ("I spent the last five days of my life crying") with his lover in Argentina, the example of cuckolded South Carolina first lady Jenny Sanford's low-key response was simple and loaded with subtext. Jenny Sanford told reporters she was "being a mother" while her itinerant husband was missing in action. When he surfaced and confessed to adultery, but obfuscated their marital status (QUESTION: Are you separated from the first lady? MR. SANFORD: I -- I don't know how you want to define that. I mean, I'm here and she's there), his wife handed reporters a written statement to clarify: "I therefore asked my husband to leave two weeks ago." Jenny Sanford is a problem solver. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Sanford Confession: But Wait! There’s More! Wall Street Journal Blogs- Washington Wire, By Mary Lu Carnevale, June 30, 2009

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: Jenny Sanford: I warned him Politico.com, By Andy Barr, June 26, 2009
Jenny Sanford said Friday that she warned her husband not to travel to Argentina last week to visit his mistress. . .

RELATED VIDEO: Sanford Admits Affair CBS News

RELATED ARTICLE: Intern, Boyfriend Tangle Tenn. Sen. Paul Stanley in Sex Scandal: Intern's Boyfriend Arrested for Extortion After Discovering Photos From Senator's Affair ABC News, By Sarah Netter, July 29, 2009
What began as a government internship for a one-time honors student with a questionable past has become a full-blown sex scandal that ensnared a married Tennessee state senator and led him to resign.Republican Sen. Paul Stanley had maintained a low profile until his announcement late Tuesday that he was resigning from the state Senate effective Aug. 10, after his affair with a 22-year-old intern and a subsequent extortion attempt was revealed to the public. Stanley, a 47-year-old evangelical Christian with two children, said in his resignation letter that he has "decided to focus my full attention on my family.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Let's End Disposable Marriage CNN.com, By Leah Ward Sears, July 2, 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 ARTICLE: The Way We Love Now New York Times, By Ross Douthat, June 29, 2009
It's been a good month for reckless romance in America. The nation's most famous reality-television father, Jon Gosselin of "Jon and Kate Plus Eight," threw over his marriage for a fling with a 23-year-old schoolteacher. Not one but two prominent conservative politicians torpedoed their careers with public confessions of adultery -- with Mark Sanford's Argentine disappearing act eclipsing John Ensign's accusation of extortion against his lover's spouse. These irrepressible passions make a fascinating counterpoint to the complaint, advanced this month by two of the nation's finest essayists, that modern relationships have been drained of danger and purged of eros. In her new polemic "A Vindication of Love," an assault on the idea of safety in romance, Cristina Nehring complains that contemporary couplings have so restrained true passion that "the poor beast has become as impotent as it is domestic." In a post- divorce essay for The Atlantic, Sandra Tsing Loh autopsies not only her own marriage but those of her peers, a cohort of middle-aged Los Angelenos who've let the quest for security turn them into sexless drudges. Both writers depict a country where pragmatic anxieties -- think of the children! think of the mortgage! -- are forever trumping romance and dulling the libido. Theirs is a nation of nesters who have clipped their own wings. So which is the real America?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off The Atlantic, By by Sandra Tsing Loh, July/August 2009
Sadly, and to my horror, I am divorcing. This was a 20-year partnership. My husband is a good man, though he did travel 20 weeks a year for work. I am a 47-year-old woman whose commitment to monogamy, at the very end, came unglued. This turn of events was a surprise. I don’t generally even enjoy men; I had an entirely manageable life and planned to go to my grave taking with me, as I do most nights to my bed, a glass of merlot and a good book. Cataclysmically changed, I disclosed everything. We cried, we rent our hair, we bewailed the fate of our children. And yet at the end of the day—literally during a five o’clock counseling appointment, as the golden late-afternoon sunlight spilled over the wall of Balinese masks—when given the final choice by our longtime family therapist, who stands in as our shaman, mother, or priest, I realized … no. Heart-shattering as this moment was—a gravestone sunk down on two decades of history—I would not be able to replace the romantic memory of my fellow transgressor with the more suitable image of my husband, which is what it would take in modern-therapy terms to knit our family’s domestic construct back together. In women’s-magazine parlance, I did not have the strength to “work on” falling in love again in my marriage. And as Laura Kipnis railed in Against Love, and as everyone knows, Good relationships take work. Which is not to say I’m against work. . . . . . Do you see? Given my staggering working mother’s to-do list, I cannot take on yet another arduous home- and self-improvement project, that of rekindling our romance. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Crazy in Love: A new book makes the case for passionate obsession. Slate.com, By Meghan O'Rourke, June 19, 2009
After the free-love ardor of the 1960s sexual revolution cooled down, a brave new vision of marriage emerged from its ashes. This has come to be known as "companionate marriage." In such a partnership, spouses have a mutual interest in career and home, and share in raising children. They talk over dinner, take turns doing dishes, fret together over the children's schooling, and arrange the occasional date night. To many Americans, the Obamas' recent studiously scheduled outing together would represent the apogee of a successful equitable marriage. To Cristina Nehring, author of the ambitious polemic A Vindication of Love: Reclaiming Romance for the Twenty-First Century, one suspects, it would represent all that is wrong with marriage today. Nehring yearns for a revival of a messier ardor. In her view, we have domesticated love past all recognition, turning what is rightly leonine, destructive, and majestic into a yawning, chubby house cat. Hers is no modest project. She wants nothing less than to radicalize our framework for love, mainly by restoring its chaotic potential: "Romance in our day is a poor and shrunken thing," she writes. "Among the many rights we must reclaim in love is the right to fail." A Vindication of Love is not a book that will persuade every reader to jump off the couch and into the arms of a dark, smoky-eyed stranger, but it will rearrange your tidily laid out mental furniture while you're not looking. For at its core is a well-taken point: With its emphasis on equitable marriage, "choice feminism" has endorsed a tyrannical habit of trying to subordinate passion to reason. And along the way it has demonized obsession. What, Nehring asks, is so wrong with being crazy in love?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Values Dance Joseph C. Phillips.com, October 15, 2007
In America we do not anoint royalty infallible, but public servants with “servants” being the operative word. Our elected officials serve at the pleasure of the people. We rightly expect that those entrusted with the nation’s security and purse strings will exercise their obligations with prudence and clarity. It is not scandal mongering that sparks our interest in the private lives of public servants but the fact that public indiscretion calls into question one’s decision making skills. Or at least it should. Trust is essential to public service. In truth though, if a man would break a sacred vow he makes to the mother of his children, why should we believe for one moment that he holds the promises he made to nameless faceless citizens in any higher esteem. I struggle with the idea that any man bent on fulfilling his own personal desires, even at the expense of the best interests of his children, can be trusted to oversee the interests of the general public. . .

Jackson’s ex Rowe says, ‘I want my children’
Pop star’s wife of three years willing to submit to DNA testing MSNBC.com- Today, By Jonathon Lloyd and Chuck Henry- NBCLosAngeles.com, July 02, 2009
Debbie Rowe wants custody of the two children she had with Michael Jackson. “I want my children,” Rowe said during a 90-minute phone conversation Thursday morning with Chuck Henry of KNBC in Los Angeles. Rowe said she was willing to submit to any testing, including DNA, to prove that she is the children's true biological mother. Rowe also said she would submit to psychological testing. She also said she would seek a restraining order to keep Jackson's father, Joe Jackson, away from the children. During a press conference on Thursday, Rowe's lawyer, Eric George, said his client “has not reached a final decision pending final custody.” He added, “It would be distortion to allow that snapshot to stand as truth of Debbie's position on these matters.” The current custody agreement does allow for visitation, but Rowe said it's a very difficult process. "I am stepping up," Rowe said. "I have to." Rowe said she was still grieving. She said she decided she had to seek custody after Jackson's death. Jackson, who died at age 50, left behind three children: son Michael Joseph Jr., known as Prince Michael, 12; daughter Paris Michael Katherine, 11; and son Prince Michael II, 7. Rowe was the mother of the two oldest children. The youngest was born to a surrogate mother, who has never been identified. Rowe said she was concerned about splitting up the children. She said she did not expect the court to grant custody of the third child, but added that she would be willing to accept custody. Rowe, who was married to Jackson in 1996 and filed for divorce three years later, surrendered her parental rights. An appeals court later found that was done in error, and Rowe and Jackson entered an out-of-court settlement in 2006. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Katherine Jackson to Get Full Custody of Michael's Kids People magazine, By Mike Fleeman and Michael Y. Park, July 30, 2009 (Update)
he 79-year-old mother of Michael Jackson will receive full custody of the pop singer's three children under the terms of a deal that has just been reached, lawyers said Thursday. Deborah Rowe, the mother of Jackson's two oldest children – Prince Michael I, 12, and Paris, 11 – will get visitation rights with her kids based on a schedule worked out with a child psychologist. Rowe also will receive continued spousal support from her marriage to the singer. . . . . ."We were all united in our goals to do what is best for Michael's wonderful children, and both Mrs. Jackson and Debbie Rowe were on the exact same page. Accordingly, although important issues had to be resolved, this was no legal contest but rather simply a process doing the right thing for the right reasons." . . .

Michael Jackson's children were banned from looking in mirrors and had their toys thrown away each night. So what kind of father was Jacko? The Daily Mail - UK, By J Randy Taraborrelli, July 02, 2009
They met as children and for 40 years he was Michael Jackson's confidant. Now, in an intimate account, J. Randy Taraborrelli writes about the Michael Jackson he knew. He reveals what sort of father Jackson was, and explains the great sadness of his mother, Katherine, who has been granted temporary custody of her grandchildren. . .
Jermaine Jackson: 'I wish it was me'
Michael’s brother reveals new details of death scene: ‘I kissed his forehead’ MSNBC.com- TODAY, By Mike Celizic, July 02, 2009
The scene is still fresh in Jermaine Jackson’s mind: his mother’s grief-choked voice on the phone telling him the awful news; rushing to UCLA Medical Center and seeing the helicopters hovering overhead; kissing his brother’s lifeless form; watching the three children of Michael Jackson being brought in with a therapist to stand by their father’s body. “There is nothing to be compared to this, ’cause we lost our brother, our hero. The world is mourning. We are mourning. The fans are mourning. It is unreal. Unbelievable,” Jermaine Jackson told TODAY’s Matt Lauer in an exclusive interview recorded at the famous Neverland Ranch of the “King of Pop” — the first in-depth interview with any Jackson family member since the singer’s shocking death last week. . .
Jackson’s Will Could Set Off Legal Struggle New York Times, By Randal C. Archibold and Jonathan D. Glater, July 1, 2009
Nearly a week after he died, Michael Jackson still has not been buried, new complications have arisen over settling his vast estate, and his will has given up tantalizing details, including his choice of Diana Ross as a guardian of his children if his mother were unable to care for them. One thing was made clear by the family’s latest publicists: despite gathering fans and a swirl of news reports, there would be no memorial for Mr. Jackson at Neverland, the ranch he once owned in Santa Barbara County, near Los Angeles. The family, however, was planning a public memorial for Mr. Jackson, 50, who died Thursday of undetermined causes. No details were released. Officials in Santa Barbara County confirmed that representatives of Colony Capital LLC, the company that acquired the ranch last year as Mr. Jackson’s finances spiraled out of control, had approached them Tuesday about a burial there. . . . Debbie Rowe, the mother of Mr. Jackson’s two oldest children, has not made a claim for custody, nor has the mother of the youngest child. That woman’s name has not been revealed. In a further sign of the legal flurry and Mr. Jackson’s capacity to attract the bizarre, a London woman filed a rambling, handwritten petition that claimed she had married Mr. Jackson in 1970 — when he was 11 — and demanded his assets, among other things. It was not clear if the will filed Wednesday was the only one. With Mr. Jackson employing a revolving door of advisers over the years, Mrs. Jackson’s lawyer, Burt Levitch, did not rule out the possibility of multiple wills. But if the 2002 will is deemed valid and a trust receives all of Mr. Jackson’s assets, many of the details of his finances could remain secret. The trust documents are private. . .

Jackson's Will Could Set Off Legal Struggle (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: Today Show: Jermaine Jackson: 'I wish it was me' MSNBC.com-Today, July 02, 2009
Jermaine Jackson on Michael’s shocking death. . .

RELATED VIDEO: One of Jackson's Final Rehearsals MSNBC.com- Today, July 02, 2009

RELATED VIDEO: Custody Battle for Jackson's Kids Begins The Associated Press, June 29, 2009

RELATED DOCUMENT: Michael Jackson's Will Original Document (PDF)
The 2002 document leaves Michael Jackson's entire estate to a family trust. It names his mother, Katherine Jackson, as legal guardian of his three children and beneficiary of the trust. If she were incapacitated or died, the singer Diana Ross would get custody of his children. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Let's mourn the real American heroes OneNewsNow, By Michelle Malkin, July 08,2009
Jacko fever spread to the Beltway, where the House of Representatives held a moment of silence for the entertainer. President Obama sent a highly publicized letter of condolence to the Jackson family. And topping them all, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, drafted a 1,600-word congressional resolution that "recognizes Michael Jackson as a global humanitarian and a noted leader in the fight against worldwide hunger and medical crises; and celebrates Michael Jackson as an accomplished contributor to the worlds of arts and entertainment, scientific advances in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, and global food security."   Jackson-Lee laundry-listed every charitable act and donation by Jackson in the House resolution -- and would have included all the times he said "thank you" and "God bless you" if there had been more room. Is it too much to ask our lawmakers to restrain themselves from acting like Entertainment Tonight spokesmodels and Tiger Beat correspondents?   I stand with GOP Rep. Peter King of New York, who rightly skewered these celebrity-worshiping warped priorities as "an orgy of glorification." Jackson could sing and dance. But he was no American hero. In a YouTube video over the weekend, King lambasted the media circus:   "All we hear about is Michael Jackson. Let's knock out the psychobabble. He was a pervert...and to be giving this much coverage to him, day in and day out, what does it say about us as a country? ...I just think we're too politically correct. No one wants to stand up and say, 'We don't need Michael Jackson!' He died, he had some talent, but fine, there are people dying every day. There are men and women dying every day in Afghanistan, let's give them the credit they deserve."   Yes, let's do that.

RELATED ARTICLE: Celebrities At The End Townhall.com, By Brent Bozell , July 01, 2009
The surrealism of celebrity pop culture erupts when a major celebrity dies. The sudden, mysterious death of Michael Jackson caused a near-total eclipse of the real news. The cable-news channels blurred into 24-7 wailing walls for the so-called "King of Pop." Television ratings surged with a big ka-ching. So much for the "news" business. On Friday, for example, just 24 hours after the death news broke, anchors like NBC's Brian Williams fit the "news" of Congress, the recession and Iran into a neat thimble of snippets so they could devote most of the newscast to continued mourning of the man with the glittery glove. But what, exactly, is it that Michael Jackson brought to America that was so essential?

RELATED ARTICLE: Debbie Rowe: Kids are mine biologically TVNZ, July 02, 2009
Debbie Rowe has denied claims she is not the mother of Michael Jackson's children. Debbie's lawyer Marta Almli insists there is no truth in allegations that Prince Michael, 12, and Paris, 11, were conceived using a donor egg and sperm - with Debbie acting as a surrogate. Almli said: "We refuse to be drawn into addressing the various rumors and speculation swirling in the media. The vast majority of what is out there is untrue. Particular hurtful and insidious is the most recent rumor - which is entirely false - concerning the maternity of the children. Ms. Rowe is the biological mother of the two oldest children.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Rowe claims Jackson not biological father TVNZ, June 29, 2009
Debbie Rowe has claimed Michael Jackson wasn't the biological father of their two children. The former nurse - who was married to the Thriller singer from 1996 to 1999 - has alleged Prince Michael, 12, and 11-year-old Paris were conceived through artificial insemination using sperm from an anonymous donor. Speaking about her relationship with Michael - who died on Friday after a suspected cardiac arrest - she told journalist Rebecca White: "Michael was divorced, lonely and wanted children. I was the one who said to him, 'I will have your babies.' "I offered him my womb - it was a gift. It was something I did to keep him happy. "I was just the vessel. It wasn't Michael's sperm. I got paid for it, and I've moved on. I know I will never see my children again. . .

Kevin Jonas Gets Engaged to Danielle Deleasa! (Click for Related Video)

Kevin Jonas Gets Engaged! People magazine, By Sharon Cotliar, July 01, 2009
Kevin Jonas surprised his girlfriend Danielle Deleasa by showing up at her doorstep in New Jersey early Wednesday morning and dropping down to his knee to ask her to marry him. Presented with a cushion-cut diamond ring that Jonas designed with Jacob & Co., Deleasa couldn't believe what was happening. Then, "She said yes, yes, yes like 500 times super fast in a row," the oldest of the Jonas Brothers tells PEOPLE exclusively. Jonas, 21, and Deleasa, 22, who met in May of 2007 while vacationing with their families in the Bahamas, haven't set a wedding date yet. "It still feels like a dream," she tells PEOPLE. When Deleasa, a former hairdresser, first met Jonas two years ago, she admits, "I didn't know who the Jonas Brothers were." It was Kevin who eagerly pursued her after meeting her and then spotting her walking on the beach with a flower in her hair. Jonas popped the question after arriving in New Jersey on an overnight flight from a concert in Vancouver. "It was tough performing last night, knowing that I was going to ask the biggest question in my life to the most amazing girl in the world," he says. And while the news is bound to break a lot of young girls' hearts, the Jonas family couldn't be happier. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Total Awesomeness of Being the Jonas Brothers: How does the biggest teen-brother band in America since Hanson fend off the screaming girls? With purity rings, of course. Details magazine- Men.Style.com, By Jeff Gordinier, February 18, 2008
On a quiet Friday morning in a dressing room at Madison Square Garden, the Jonas Brothers hold out their hands to show off their purity rings. Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas—the teen-pop trio who stand, at this very moment, on the brink of hugeness—wear the metal bands on their fingers to symbolize, as Joe puts it, "promises to ourselves and to God that we'll stay pure till marriage.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: What Does a Biblical Relationship Look Like? Boundless magazine, By Scott Croft
The motive for dating or courting is marriage. The practical advice I give the singles at our church is, if you cannot happily see yourself as a married man (or woman) in less than one year, then you are not ready to date. . .

RELATED RESOURCE: I am Worth the Wait - Sex Education Program Univ. of Texas Dept. of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Being a teen can be exciting, confusing, and scary all at the same time. We're here to help you sort through the mixed messages and conflicting emotions you face every day. We have solid facts, figures, suggestions and advice to empower you to choose what is best for you when it comes to sexual activity.

FACT: 55% of boys and 72% of girls who had sex wished they had waited.

RELATED SITE: Jonas Brothers

RELATED ARTICLE: Tim Tebow Proudly Lives His Faith Fanhouse- NCAA Football, By Clay Travis, July 23, 2009
Thursday I asked Tim Tebow whether he's saving himself for marriage. The question itself led to more than a bit of conversation, but to me, the answer, not the question is the story. Tebow demonstrated that he lives his life according to his own religious principles. Completely. Even, perhaps, bravely in an era where it's easy to conform and make the popular choice. I asked because I believe it's newsworthy and because, believe it or not, I thought Tim Tebow would answer the question by saying: "Yes, I am." Which is exactly what he did. Why did I believe this? Because Tebow lives his faith. And I believe that living his faith is not artificial, he's not pretending to be something he's not. Further, I don't believe that saving yourself for marriage is something to hide from. Not in the evangelical Christian faith that Tim Tebow practices in a Southern church and not in the evangelistic Southern church where I was raised. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Celibate Celebs Reclaim Their Innocence: Are Celebs Vowing Celibacy to Make Money or Stay True to Their Beliefs? ABC News, By Emily Friedman, April 1, 2008
They're young, they're hot and have the world at their fingertips – but there's one thing they say they're not interested in. Sex. The newest crop of teen celebrities – Disney's Miley Cyrus and boy band The Jonas Brothers – as well as slightly older stars such as Victoria's Secret model Adriana Lima, are all toting the same accessory: their virginity. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Singers Turn 'American Idol' into Platform for Abstinence Christian Post, By Elena Garcia, January 24, 2008
At the Dallas auditions last Wednesday, 19-year-old Bruce Dickson also stood by his position on abstinence. Asked to share something about himself, Dickson told judges and millions of viewers that he had never kissed a girl. "What?" Randy Jackson asked. "On purpose?" "On purpose," Dickson said. "On my wedding day, that will be my first kiss." He told judges that he wanted to "save everything for that one special woman." But his commitment to purity was not well received. Jackson's advice to Dickson after judges voted him out was to "go kiss some girls." Ryan Seacrest, the host of the show, ended the segment with these remarks: "Maybe next year he'll come back less a boy and more a man." However, Dickson said he has not been dissuaded from his decision despite the ridicule he has received. In response to Seacrest's comments, Dickson replied, "A real man would rather wait than just do whatever with whoever," reported Cybercast News Service. "I respect women and don't think of them as a sexual object, and I'm the freak?" Dickson said. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Book Review: Forbidden Fruit: Sex & Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers. Even Evangelical Teens Do It: How religious beliefs do, and don't, influence sexual behavior SLATE, By Hanna Rosin, May 30, 2007
A 19-year-old virgin walks into a bar. He's got his lucky cross in his pocket and his best jersey on. Please God, he says to himself, let this be the night. He spies a girl sitting at a table--blonde, wholesome-looking, just his type. He sidles up closer to the girl, who is chatting with some friends. Over the din, he can make out snippets of her conversation: at Bible study the other night...Pastor Ted says...saving it for marriage. Discouraged, he walks away in search of a more promising target. Did he make the correct decision? Or did he make a hasty judgment and miss a chance for a possible love connection? The answer to such a question can be found in Forbidden Fruit: Sex & Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers by Mark Regnerus, a professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. The book is a serious work of sociology based on several comprehensive surveys of young adults, coupled with in-depth interviews. But it could also double as a guide for teenage boys on the prowl (who's easier, a Catholic girl or a Jew?) or for parents of teenage girls worrying about what will happen if their daughters keep skipping church. . . . Teenagers who identify as "evangelical" or "born again" are highly likely to sound like the girl at the bar; 80 percent think sex should be saved for marriage. But thinking is not the same as doing. . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Is celibacy the new virginity? Living the single life without sex Ebony magazine, By Nikitta A. Foston, January 2004
After a string of failed relationships, broken promises and a parade of commitment-phobic men, Shandra Johnson (not her real name) decided that she'd had enough. Rather than delving into another emotionally draining relationship, she decided to save herself, her sanity and her body for the right man--not the next man. Vowing to make herself the prize and not a product, Johnson took the road of celibacy, promising to God, herself, and her potential partner, that she would not engage in sex until she was married--a transition that proved challenging, given the temptations and occasional late-night phone calls from an ex. But Johnson and other determined men and women have successfully removed the sex from sensuality and discovered, they say, an unexpected fulfillment that nourishes the heart, soul and spirit. . .

Obama Laments 'Worn Arguments and Old Attitudes' Holding Back Gay Liberation NewsBusters.org, By Tim Graham, July 1, 2009
The Washington Post put the first White House celebration of Gay Pride Month on the front page Tuesday, but reporter Michael Shear left out some of the president’s most liberal and most supportive lines from the transcript. Obama pledged to be "an ally and a champion" of the gay left’s agenda and hailed gay activists "who have refused to accept anything less than full and equal citizenship." He implied there was still work to do with all those fuddy-duddies who still followed the "worn arguments and old attitudes" from old sources like the Bible: There are unjust laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop. And though we've made progress, there are still fellow citizens -- perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones -- who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes, who fail to see your families like their families and who would deny you the rights that most Americans take for granted. And I know this is painful. And I know it can be heartbreaking. . . . . . .Shear's account in the Post didn't note this was the first-ever White House Gay Pride Month event, but suggested it was an event "marking the 40th anniversary of the riots surrounding New York's Stonewall Inn." It might seem amazing -- and yet amazingly ordinary -- that Shear and the Post never found terms like "liberal" or "left-wing" worth using in the entire piece, even for radical activists and bloggers who didn't get invited to the White House because they've been too fierce. Shear even let Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs claim that the even was "not designed as a way to mollify the gay community or reward its support during the campaign.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: An Open Letter to President Obama Townhall.com, By Harry R. Jackson, July 13, 2009
The following is an excerpt from a letter that will be sent this week to President Obama from leaders in the African-American community. Two events have precipitated the writing of this letter.
1. The President hosted a Stonewall Riot 40th anniversary celebration at the White House, when no such meeting has been afforded to African-American clergy to date.

2. The legal attempt to overthrow the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that has come out of Massachusetts last week.

All too often, both the press and politicians view the African-American community as a monolithic group that will go wherever the cultural winds blow them. This is not true. We want to express our concerns and be heard. The following letter is an attempt to encourage the president to consider our viewpoint on the redefinition of marriage. . .

Obama Laments 'Worn Arguments and Old Attitudes' Holding Back Gay Liberation

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama hopes to persuade all Americans to accept homosexuality OneNewsNow- AP, June 30, 2009
President Barack Obama says that while he's dedicated to expanding homosexual rights, many Americans still cling to what he calls "worn arguments and old attitudes.". . .

RELATED RESOURCE (PDF): Barack Obama and Homosexuality/Gender issues: A Brief Summary The Family Research Council, June 2009
President Obama's record on homosexual issues. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 'No truth' in Obama's speech before homosexuals OneNewsNow, By Jim Brown, July 01, 2009
A black evangelical Christian pastor and former NFL linebacker says there was "absolutely no truth in anything" President Obama said in his speech to homosexuals in the East Room of the White House Monday. President Obama promised LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) supporters Monday at a White House "gay pride" celebration that he "will continue to be an ally and a champion" for their agenda, once again vowing he will repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Ken Hutcherson, senior pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Washington state, says it is "a shame" that the president is "supporting what destroys the family." "There's absolutely no truth in anything he said, from beginning to the end," says Pastor Hutcherson. "There is no such thing as [a] biblical stance for homosexuality, if you use the Bible. If you want to use any other denomination, feel free -- but where I stand is...biblical; it is marriage between one man [and] one woman, and that is the relationship, heterosexual, that is ordained, blessed, and called by God." In his talk, Obama acknowledged that many Americans still disapprove of homosexuality. . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: At White House, Obama Aims to Reassure Gays Washington Post, By Michael D. Shear, June 30, 2009
President Obama opened the doors of the White House to hundreds of gay and lesbian leaders yesterday, continuing his cautious outreach to a constituency that has loudly criticized his efforts on its behalf. In an event in the East Room marking the 40th anniversary of the riots surrounding New York's Stonewall Inn, where gay patrons rose up against a police raid in Greenwich Village, Obama sought to reassure guests that he had not abandoned the issues important to them. He also drew a parallel between the progress gays and lesbians have made in recent decades and the struggles of black Americans to win equality. . .

RELATED PRESS RELEASE: President Obama Violates the Letter If Not the Spirit of DOMA Family Research Council, June 17, 2009
Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins released the following statement in response to President Obama's expected executive order extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. "President Obama's expected Executive Order extending benefits to homosexual partners appears to be a violation of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and clearly violates the spirit of the federal law which defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. In 1996, DOMA passed overwhelmingly in both the House and Senate and was then signed by President Clinton. "President Obama's planned Executive Order uses taxpayer money to placate an angry portion of his base at the expense of the rule of law. Ironically, Mr. Obama has pursued an aggressive pro-homosexual agenda - but his actions to date are, apparently, insufficient for the radical homosexuals pushing their extreme demands. "This order raises the question of whether the President has the authority to ignore DOMA and bypass the legislative process. We will review the order and confer with our legal counsel to determine an appropriate response. President Obama is clearly using this executive order to single out a single group for special preferences. "However, beyond the potential legal violations, it's troubling that the President would act in response to homosexual groups which are threatening to withdraw from an upcoming fundraiser. Rather than placing politics above the law, he should abide by the Defense of Marriage Act and fulfill his oath to 'faithfully execute the office of President of the United States.'". . .

Federal judge taking long look at Proposition 8

Federal judge taking long look at Prop. 8 San Francisco Chronicle, By Bob Egelko, Wednesday, July 1, 2009
A federal judge said Tuesday he's inclined to leave California's ban on same-sex marriage in effect for now, but wants an early trial to determine whether the voter-approved prohibition violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equality. In his first response to the lawsuit challenging Proposition 8, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco said the case raises numerous issues that may need to be considered at a trial, including the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians and the intent and effects of the state constitutional amendment. Two same-sex couples filed the federal suit last month, four days before the state Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8 in separate proceedings as a valid amendment to the California Constitution. The November ballot measure invalidated the court's May 2008 ruling that struck down a law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The couples, represented by Theodore Olson and David Boies - the lawyers for George W. Bush and Al Gore in the case that decided the 2000 presidential election - say Prop. 8 violates the U.S. Constitution by denying equal treatment to gays and lesbians. Gay-rights groups did not raise that issue before the California court, unwilling to risk a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the right to marry. Olson and Boies asked Walker to issue an injunction at a Thursday hearing that would suspend Prop. 8 and allow same-sex couples to marry while the case proceeds. In Tuesday's order, the judge said he has tentatively decided instead to move "directly and expeditiously" to a trial on the constitutionality of the measure. Halting enforcement of Prop. 8 at this stage "may inject still further uncertainty," Walker said. He noted that any couples who married as a result of an injunction would be unclear about their status until a final ruling. The judge said lawyers at Thursday's hearing could discuss how the case should proceed. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Another Legal Victory for Traditional Marriage as Challenge to Proposition 8 is Tossed by Federal Judge ProtectMarriage.com, July 17, 2009 (Update)
—A federal judge granted another strong legal victory for Proposition 8 today by throwing out the challenge that directly attempted to overturn the measure on federal constitutional grounds. United States District Court Judge David Carter threw out the challenge to Proposition 8 and dismissed the state of California as a defendant in the case of Smelt vs. United States. The judge indicated in his ruling that since the plaintiffs in the case were legally married before the enactment of Proposition 8, and because the California State Supreme Court recently held that such marriages would remain intact, they had no “injury” or standing to challenge the measure. Portions of the case challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will be heard in August. . .

RELATED POLL: Support For Gay Marriage Dips CBS News Blog, By Stephanie Condon, June 17, 2009
The poll found 33 percent favor marriage for same-sex couples, down somewhat from a high of 42 percent in April, and another 30 percent support civil unions. A third of Americans think there should be no legal recognition of a same-sex couple’s relationship. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Same-sex 'marriage' loses support among Americans One News Now, By Charlie Butts, June 28, 2009
A recent poll indicates that Americans are not as supportive of homosexual "marriage" as they once were. A CBS-New York Times survey shows that support for redefining marriage to include same-gender couples has declined. Jenny Tyree of Focus on the Family Action tells OneNewsNow that, according to The New York Times, the figure dropped slightly -- but she believes nine percentage points is more than slightly. . .

RELATED SITE: Yes on 8 Protect Marriage.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay Marriage and the Constitution: Why Ted Olson and I are working to overturn California's Proposition 8 Wall Street Journal, By David Boies, July 20, 2009
When I got married in California in 1959 there were almost 20 states where marriage was limited to two people of different sexes and the same race. Eight years later the Supreme Court unanimously declared state bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional. Recently, Ted Olson and I brought a lawsuit asking the courts to now declare unconstitutional California's Proposition 8 limitation of marriage to people of the opposite sex. We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause, and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it. . .. . . Moreover, there is no longer any credible contention that depriving gays and lesbians of basic rights will cause them to change their sexual orientation. Even if there was, the attempt would be constitutionally defective. But, in fact, the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians is as much a God-given characteristic as the color of their skin or the sexual orientation of their straight brothers and sisters. It is also a condition that, like race, has historically been subject to abusive and often violent discrimination. It is precisely where a minority's basic human rights are abridged that our Constitution's promise of due process and equal protection is most vital. . . . . COMMENTS: Joseph Lewis wrote: Why do Mr. Boies and Mr. Olsen persist in comparing marrying someone of an alternative skin color to marrying someone of an alternative gender? There are fundamental differences between genders. There is no comparable fundamental difference between races. I would like to think that after we have come so far in eliminating racism in our country that we would not hear public voices declaring the differences between genders as analogous to differences between races. . .

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. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay "Marriage" Townhall.com, By Thomas Sowell, August 15, 2006
The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Same-Sex marriage: Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy
The indiscriminate promotion of various social groups' desires and preferences as "rights" has drained the moral authority from the civil rights industry. The Weekly Standard- By Eugene F. Rivers & Kenneth D. Johnson, June 1, 2006
It is precisely the indiscriminate promotion of various social groups' desires and preferences as "rights" that has drained the moral authority from the civil rights industry. Let us consider the question of rights. What makes a gay activist's aspiration to overturn thousands of years of universally recognized morality and practice a "right"? Why should an institution designed for the reproduction of civil society and the rearing of children in a moral environment in which their interests are given pride of place be refashioned to accommodate relationships integrated around intrinsically non-marital sexual conduct?. . . . . People are equal in worth and dignity, but sexual choices and lifestyles are not. That is why the law's refusal to license polygamous, polyamorous, and homosexual unions is entirely right and proper. In recognizing, favoring, and promoting traditional, monogamous marriage, the law does not violate the "rights" of people whose "lifestyle preferences" are denied the stamp of legal approval. Rather, it furthers and fosters the common good of civil society, and makes proper provision for the physical and moral protection and nurturing of children. . .

Spiritual Profile of Homosexual Adults Provides Surprising Insights The Barna Group
The gay and lesbian population, which constitutes about 3% of adults, has garnered national attention in the past several years thanks to issues like gay marriage, gay adoption, and other gay rights conflicts. In the wake of those controversies and the spotlight aimed at gays, Americans have developed numerous assumptions about the lives of the homosexual population. A new survey by the Barna Group explores the spiritual life of gay and lesbian individuals, providing some surprising results. . . . . . Comments about the Findings: George Barna, whose company conducted the research, pointed out that some popular stereotypes about the spiritual life of gays and lesbians are simply wrong. “People who portray gay adults as godless, hedonistic, Christian bashers are not working with the facts,” declared the best-selling author of numerous books about faith and culture. “A substantial majority of gays cite their faith as a central facet of their life, consider themselves to be Christian, and claim to have some type of meaningful personal commitment to Jesus Christ active in their life today. “The data indicate that millions of gay people are interested in faith but not in the local church and do not appear to be focused on the traditional tools and traditions that represent the comfort zone of most churched Christians. Gay adults clearly have a different way of interpreting the Bible on a number of central theological matters, such as perspectives about God. Homosexuals appreciate their faith but they do not prioritize it, and they tend to consider faith to be individual and private rather than communal. . .

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