'MARRIAGE' In The NEWS- July 2010: The REAL Proposal For Marriage magazine

Clinton Wedding Raises Questions of Interfaith Marriage Townhall.com, By Janice Shaw Crouse, July 28, 2010
When asked about the significance of her daughter, Chelsea, marrying Marc Mezvinsky, who is Jewish, and thus being married in an interfaith union, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded, “Over the years, so many of the barriers that prevented people from getting married, crossing lines of faith or color or ethnicity have just disappeared.” True, the barriers have disappeared, but serious difficulties remain. While some scholars argue that mixed-faith unions “serve as a refiner’s fire” that make the relationships stronger, the statistical evidence indicates this is all too frequently not the outcome. The American Religious Identification Survey of 2001 noted that mixed marriages are three times more likely to end in divorce or separation than same-religion marriages. According to Tina Molly Lang in Associated Content, studies of marriages between Jews and Christians indicate that they face even higher risks, with a greater than 40 percent chance of divorce within five years. Even so, estimates are that up to 50 percent of those in the Jewish faith intermarry, which is viewed as a grave threat by many in the Jewish community who watch the continual shrinkage of their numbers with dismay. . . . . Worldview perspectives, it turns out, are important on a daily basis. The Christian worldview is rooted in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ — making him the Lord over the Christian’s life. The Christian faith — indeed, virtually all religious faith, if taken seriously — is inherently exclusive because it is the lens through which all of life is viewed and shaped. If doctrine is more than just cultural observances, there is no way it can merely be a casual, insignificant part of a believer’s life. For the true Christian believer, this means a life lived in light of Christ’s singular claim that He is “the way, the truth, and the life.” Taking His claim seriously, that He is the only way to the Father (John 14:6), means that all decisions are made in light of His teaching and commands. This includes His teaching that marriage is intended by God to be a life-long covenant — not just between the couple, but sealed by God and witnessed by fellow believers in the couples’ church community. That said, real Christian marriage includes a commitment to follow Christ, both in lifestyle and in childrearing. Religion that is not practiced is little more than a set of myths and of no more significance than the fairy tales told to toddlers at bedtime. Faith that does not make demands on behavior is not faith at all. Inevitably, a lack of unity in faith entails multiple problems on both the little and the large issues that couples continuously encounter as they face the task of building a strong, meaningful, harmonious marriage. How could it possibly be otherwise?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Chelsea Clinton Really Embarking on an Interfaith Marriage? Everyday Christian, By Karyn Brownlee, July 29, 2010
In the Washington Post, Dr. Marion L. Usher posted a series of “interfaith” articles exploring what he believes is central, saying: “The salient question every interfaith couple needs to answer is, "Will we practice both religions equally or will we choose one religion to be the 'lead religion' in our home?" Usher’s work focuses on bridging the gaps between couple’s religions for harmonious unions. His motive seems to promote peace and goodwill for all; however, it misses the most critical point of all: belief. What do the two people believe? One cannot build a bridge between belief in Jesus as the Way to eternal life in heaven, and belief that he was merely a man who began a movement. When it comes to Christianity and Judaism specifically, one cannot combine the notions that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah and also that He was not, that some other Savior is yet to come. Such beliefs clearly oppose one another. Usher counsels those who want to settle not differences of faith, but differences in tradition. Faith and tradition are not two sides of the same coin. What one believes is true and what one adopts as practice are no more the same than peanut butter and jelly. . .

Clinton Wedding Raises Questions of Interfaith Marriage (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: Chelsea Clinton Wedding Could Cost $5 Million Associated Press, July 29, 2010
The planned wedding of former first daughter Chelsea Clinton could cost between $3 million and $5 million, according to experts, but details of the celebration are hard to find.

RELATED VIDEO: Chelsea Clinton Wedding Chatter Associated Press, July 28, 2010

RELATED PHOTO ESSAY: First Daughters – and Their Dads! People magazine, July 2010
From a preteen Chelsea snuggling with Bill to Tricia Nixon's wedding day, see some memorable Presidential daughters from Life.com!

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama Not Invited to Chelsea Clinton Wedding FOX News, Published July 28, 2010
President Obama is no stranger to having unexpected guests "crash" his White House parties, but he'll have to do just that if he wants to attend Chelsea Clinton's wedding this weekend. The president announced on ABC's "The View" Wednesday that he wasn't given an invitation to the wedding of the daughter of former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "I was not invited to the wedding because I think Hillary and Bill, properly, want to keep this thing for Chelsea and her soon-to-be husband," the president said. He did joke to the ladies of "The View," though, "You don’t want two presidents at one wedding. All the secret service, guests going through [metal detectors], all the gifts being torn apart.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: State Secret: Chelsea Clinton’s Wedding Plans NY Times, By Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Nate Schwebwe, July 16, 2010
One weekend afternoon in April, Dan Bleen, the manager of Le Petit Bistro, an upscale French restaurant in Rhinebeck, N.Y., a quaint Hudson Valley town, received a mysterious telephone call from the owner of Astor Courts, the centerpiece of a nearby 50-acre estate. The caller wanted to make a reservation, she told him, “for some very special guests,” whose identities she would reveal moments before they arrived. The guests, it turned out, included Chelsea Clinton, the publicity-shy daughter of the former president and current secretary of state. Ms. Clinton and three girlfriends sat at a secluded table, chatting animatedly and sampling appetizers, salads, entrees and a dessert, accompanied by a nice Beaune Burgundy. It seemed unremarkable at the time. But now, the dinner has become yet another morsel of evidence in a New York-to-Washington web of intrigue over the social event of the season: the impending marriage of Ms. Clinton, 30, to Marc Mezvinsky, 32, an investment banker at 3G Capital Management and a son of two former Democratic members of Congress, one of whom served prison time for fraud. The wedding, set for July 31, is so cloaked in secrecy that in Washington, where the mother of the bride holds down a day job running international diplomacy for President Obama, details are harder to ferret out than the president’s Afghanistan strategy. Even guests do not know the locale; invitations came with instructions to be within driving distance of Manhattan, plus a promise that specifics would be sent a week before the big day. That has not prevented some educated guessing. . .

Sleeping apart: A threat to marriage?
A writer urges an end to the supposedly troubling trend. Here's another idea: Stay out of other people's bedroom Salon.com, By Tracy Clark-Flory, July 26, 2010
The sanctity of marriage is once again under attack. This time, though, the enemy isn't the gays or pornography or hyphenated last names, but couples who sleep in separate beds. In the New York Times, Bruce Feiler reports that "the marital bed, once the symbol of American matrimony on a par with the diamond ring, the tiered wedding cake and his-and-hers martinis, is threatened with extinction. 'Till Death Do Us Part' is fast becoming 'Till Sleep Do Us Part.'" The dubious basis Feiler gives for this supposed trend: "Nearly one in four American couples sleep in separate bedrooms or beds, the National Sleep Foundation reported in a 2005 survey. Recent studies in England and Japan have found similar results. And the National Association of Home Builders says it expects 60 percent of custom homes to have dual master bedrooms by 2015." Also: Some famous people are doing it, so it counts. Let's set aside questions about just how legitimate the trend is -- and what the age breakdown is and what the stats are on the particular reasons why couples are sleeping apart -- in the interest of addressing a larger philosophical issue: his assumption that sleeping apart is necessarily bad news for the institution of marriage, and that sleeping together is necessarily good news. He does provide some support for his pro-co-sleeping argument (it's convenient if your partner happens to have a medical emergency, ladies "feel safer from intruders when sleeping with another person," and -- and! -- it might mean more sex) but I'm unconvinced. Full disclosure: My parents have had separate rooms for the entirety of their absurdly happy 35-year marriage. Sometimes they sleep in the same bed, sometimes they don't. Over those many years, there have been plenty of interruptions to co-sleeping: a cuddle-hungry baby (that grew into a cuddle-hungry child), snoring, hot flashes and the simple desire for a little personal space. But they've never seen sleeping in the same bed as a symbol of the state of their relationship, and it has rarely reflected anything about their friendship, emotional intimacy or sex life. All their sleeping apart reflected was a dedication to each other, and what worked for them, not to some perceived norm. . . .

Gay rights advocates protest marriage defenders The Daily Caller, By Caroline May, July 25, 2010
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is traveling around the country on a month-long tour promoting traditional marriage. The “Summer for Marriage Tour 2010: One Man One Woman” is targeting some of the key battleground areas in the ongoing debate over gay marriage. Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and one of the event’s speakers, told The Daily Caller that the group plans to stop in 23 cities in 19 states. “We recognize we need to get out there and rally the troops,” she said. “Our goal is to attract and educate supporters and activists” While tour participants have been peaceful, gay rights activists at a couple stops have responded with venom, according to Brian Brown, president of the NOM. Last Saturday, the tour stopped in Albany, New York and last Sunday in Providence, Rhode Island. In both places, Brown said, marriage advocates were besieged by gay rights protesters. In Albany, activists surrounded the NOM crowd — carrying rainbow umbrellas and wearing red shirts that said “see my love” — and pushed their way onto the stage, as seen in a YouTube video provided by the NOM. There were also reports of individual incidents of intimidation, including harassment of a nursing mother, a verbal threat to kidnap a participant’s child, and garden variety name calling. “Their goal was intimidating my family, me, and my three small children,” a nursing mother said on the YouTube video of the event provided by the NOM. “I think they did the job.” In Providence, the protesters got much more out of hand, Brown told TheDC. “I’d never seen anything like it in my life,” he said, “and I’ve been involved in the same-sex marriage issue for years…Ive been in the heart of these debates and at a lot of rallies and have never experienced something like this.” During the Providence rally at the state’s Capitol building, an estimated 150 protesters surrounded the rally of nearly 250, shaking rocks in bottles to make loud noises, according to Brown. Brown said the protesters then entered the crowd shouting in the faces of the marriage supporters. Several even rushed the stage during Brown’s speech. . .

RELATED RESOURCE: Summer for Marriage Tour 2010, One man, One Woman National Organization for Marriage (NOM)

RELATED BLOG: National Organization for Marriage (NOM)

RELATED QUOTE: "... It remains our steadfast belief that we cannot responsibly publish a magazine predicated on the issues surrounding marriage if we cannot define with any sense of integrity exactly what Marriage is. For us, that means one man, one woman in a covenant relationship... ideally, for life..." The Real Proposal magazine, July 19, 2010

The Case Against Marriage, Courtesy of Newsweek

The Case Against Marriage, Courtesy of Newsweek
One essential task for the Christian Church is to rebuild and maintain a marriage culture — even when marriage itself no longer makes sense to so many around us. AlbertMohler.com, June 25, 2010
“Once upon a time, marriage made sense.” So write Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison in the June 11, 2010 edition of Newsweek magazine. The two women who wrote the article are both young adults who identify themselves as “committed to our careers, friendships, and, yes, our relationships.” But, as for marriage, not so much. As Bennett and Ellison explain their case, marriage once made sense, at least for women, because it “was how women ensured their financial security, got the fathers of their children to stick around, and gained access to a host of legal rights.” But now, thanks largely to the feminist movement, they claim, the financial and legal rights are theirs without marriage. They never actually get around to saying much about fathers sticking around to take responsibility for children. The Newsweek article represents what may be the most direct journalistic attack on marriage in our times. Though only an op-ed column, it presents arguments that had to date been made largely, if not exclusively, outside of mainstream circles. Consider this column an opening salvo in a battle to finish marriage off, once and for all. Both women identify themselves as secular, and their rejection of marriage reflects the inevitable crumbling of a marriage culture in the wake of a moral revolution. As they explain, reserving sex for marriage is simply unthinkable to them and their peers. “And the idea that we’d ’save ourselves’ for marriage? Please.” Interestingly, they quote a young man who makes a remarkable case for why the loss of moral stigma for premarital sex breaks down the institution of marriage itself: “If I had to be married to have sex, I would probably be married, as would every guy I know.” And when it comes to having children without marriage: “We know that having children out of wedlock lost its stigma a long time ago.” . . . . .And just who are they seeking as partners, anyway? They explain that their generation of young women is looking for a “soulmate” — a fantasy they admit is hard to define and even harder to find. And an adult lifetime is just too long for any realistic commitment, they insist. “With our life expectancy in the high 70s, the idea that we’re meant to be together forever is less realistic.” So while their generation of young women is, by their admission, unrealistic in what they are looking for in a partner, they are supposedly cold sober realistic when it comes to calculating the value of marriage, and finding it wanting. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Newsweek Comes Out of the Closet. . . as a magazine with a political agenda National Review Online, By Mark Hemingway, December 10, 2008
Of course, religious Americans are more than used to shoddy coverage of theological debates. So what else is new? Criticism that a Newsweek cover story serves a left-of-center political worldview is almost, well, a weekly occurrence. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 'I Don't': The case against marriage. Newsweek, By Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison, June 11, 2010
Every year around this time, the envelopes begin to arrive. Embossed curlicues on thick-stock, cream-colored paper ask for “the pleasure of our company” at “the union of,” “the celebration of,” or “the wedding of.” With every spring, our sighs get a little deeper as we anticipate another summer of rote ceremony, cocktail hour, and, finally, awkward dancing. Sure, some weddings are fun, but too often they’re a formulaic, overpriced, fraught rite of passage, marking entry into an institution that sociologists describe as “broken.” Once upon a time, marriage made sense. It was how women ensured their financial security, got the fathers of their children to stick around, and gained access to a host of legal rights. But 40 years after the feminist movement established our rights in the workplace, a generation after the divorce rate peaked, and a decade after Sex and the City made singledom chic, marriage is—from a legal and practical standpoint, anyway—no longer necessary. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: In a TMZ World, Marriage Is a Nuisance and Babies Are Accessories Huffington Post, By Donna Estes Antebi, January 26, 2010
I'm starting to think I'm an anomaly. And I'll admit it. I run seriously out of step with our fame-obsessed, tabloid-saturated, "hook up" culture. I just don't get the nation's acceptance of casual sex and the rejection of the American family. I just read a new study which shows that the teenage pregnancy rate is up after a 10-year decline, and I am concerned for my daughters. In fact, I am concerned for all American children who are now growing up in an instant gratification, pop culture-obsessed society where rich and famous celebrities are showing off their multiple plastic surgeries, parading around their Size 2 bodies for TMZ cameras, checking in and out of rehab, and treating marriage like a nuisance, men like sperm donors and babies like accessories. And no one calls them out on it. In fact, this ever-extreme, attention-seeking behavior is more likely to land them on the cover of People magazine, or as a feature story on Entertainment Tonight. How are parents supposed to counter this cultural phenomenon? I'm alarmed that this is not just a passing trend, but something deeply corrosive to the foundation of our society. They say decadence preceded the fall of Rome. And I am seeing that all across America, young people are emulating the reckless behavior of celebrities by self-medicating with prescription drugs, having "body part" sex without love, and by desiring the latest, greatest attention grabber: a baby without a marriage. Unfortunately, these young Americans are highly unlikely to grow up to be either rich or famous. They are even less likely to have an entourage around them to pick up the pieces when life doesn't work out by giving them their own reality show. We are now three generations past the 1960s divorce revolution and one thing is abundantly clear: The "divorce revolution" has failed our families, leaving the children of America to pay a tragic price. Bill Cosby said, "I don't know where we lost it or how we lost it, but people aren't parenting." He couldn't be more right. The fatherless crisis that has long plagued the African-American community has now spread like an epidemic across the entire nation. This is an American tragedy. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Marriage, Parentage, and the Constitution of the Family The Heritage Foundation, By Chuck Donovan, January 27, 2010
The family is a prime institution of civil society. In its origins, it is both natural and pre-political. Family is not the creature of the state but a network of relationships between a man and a woman, their offspring (if any), and the families from which they themselves come and that their union will create. In the modern era, temptations to experiment with the institutions of marriage and family have multiplied. With less emphasis on the long-term responsibilities of marriage, the consequences of redefining the institution for children and society are subordinated to the desires of adults. Rather than compound these weaknesses, policymakers and citizens should consider and adopt necessary reforms to strengthen families and rebuild civil society as the engine of the greatest human goods. . . . . . .Decades of Failed Experiments: Current challenges to the primacy of marriage and family as well-established civil institutions are often premised on the assertion that they will inflict little damage beyond that done by previous changes in law and culture. Those prior experiments, however, bear witness to the unintended consequences of ill-considered changes in public policy. . . . No-Fault Divorce: Advocates of no-fault divorce assured policymakers that the impact on children would be minimal if not beneficial.[12] National studies of the children of that generation who are now adults provide a clearer picture, as do surveys of divorced adults. . .

A Brief History Of International Gay Marriage

A Brief History Of International Gay Marriage Time magazine, By Dan Fastenberg, July 22, 2010
On the evening of July 21, the President of Argentina, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, convened a ceremony at the Casa Rosada government house in downtown Buenos Aires to formally sign into law a bill legalizing gay marriage. The measure, narrowly passed by the Argentine Congress on July 15, was no small leap for the land of the laconic gaucho, a place whose constitution required the head of the Argentine state to be Catholic until a 1994 reform. "In a few years, this debate will be absolutely anachronistic," said Kirchner to a room filled with activists chanting "Igualdad" (Equality). In signing the law, Kirchner made the South American country the 10th in the world — and the first in Latin America — to codify gay marriage. Argentina's breakthrough has already sent shock waves through the Americas. Several conservative magistrates in Argentina have said they would refuse to conduct same-sex marriages, even in the face of warnings from officials that such a move would be grounds for dismissal. In a sign of solidarity, the tourism board of Mexico City, where gay marriage has been legal since last year, has offered an all-expenses-paid vacation to the first wedded Argentine gay couple. (That marriage is scheduled to take place on Aug. 13 in the trendy Buenos Aires neighborhood of Palermo.) For a region in the thrall of progressive leadership, left-leaning legislators have even conceded in interviews with the local press that Argentina's legalization of gay marriage could make their countries appear "conservative" by comparison. (See pictures of the gay-rights movement.) The legalization draws on a rich history of international contributions to the gay-rights movement. When the modern concept of being gay began to take root in the 19th century, the lifestyle soon became the target of governments the world over, including Germany in the 1870s. The notorious Paragraph 175 of the German penal code criminalized sexual relations between men, but its draconian nature inspired first-of-their-kind gay-rights protests, literature and research institutes. And while the horrors of fascism wiped out any progress, the tactics used in Berlin, London and Paris through the 1920s became a blueprint for activism in the U.S. in the 1960s. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Argentina legalizes gay marriage Dallas Morning News, By Michael Warren - AP, July 16, 2010
Argentina on Thursday became the first Latin American nation to legalize gay marriage, granting same-sex couples all the legal rights, responsibilities and protections that marriage brings to heterosexuals. The 33-27 Senate vote was tallied shortly before dawn, after a marathon debate that touched on religion, ethics, the legacy of Argentina's dictatorship, and the challenges of raising children. There were three abstentions. Since the lower house already approved it, the law takes effect within days. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Bishop on same-sex marriage: not now, not ever… The Herald- Scotland, By Rebecca McQuillan, July 23, 2010
The Catholic Church will never celebrate same-sex unions – “not now, not in the future, not ever” – even if the law changes to allow religious celebrants to conduct gay marriages, the Bishop of Paisley, Philip Tartaglia, has told the Prime Minister. The bishop has written to David Cameron, quoting comments the Prime Minister made during a Gay Pride reception at 10 Downing Street in June. Cameron said then: “I am pleased to announce that we are taking a further step, and I think a good step and a right step – and I say this as someone who believes in marriage, who believes in civil partnership, who believes in commitment – and that is to say that if religious organisations, if churches, if mosques, if temples want to have civil partnerships celebrated at religious places of worship, that should be able to happen and we should make that happen.” Now the bishop has written to Cameron, saying: “Your statement is vague enough to have more than one outcome in practice. But you and your Government need to be aware from the outset that the Catholic Church will not register civil partnerships nor celebrate same-sex unions: not now, not in the future, not ever, no matter what legislation or regulations your Government enacts or endorses.” Since 2005, same-sex couples have been able to enter into civil partnerships, which provide the same legal rights as marriage. . .

Religion and Morality in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate The Heritage Foundation, By Thomas Messner, July 20, 2010
Abstract: Some same-sex marriage activists might wish to exclude certain moral and religious viewpoints from the same-sex marriage debate. Evidence shows, however, that religion and moral argumentation are often harnessed in support of same-sex marriage. People of all faiths or no faith at all should be free to participate in the marriage debate and bring moral viewpoints to bear on the issues.

TALKING POINTS

   1. Support for marriage as the union of husband and wife does not require belief in the religious teachings of any particular faith.
   2. Many arguments for marriage focus on it as a natural, pre-political social institution intrinsically connected to the vital public interest in the begetting and raising of children.
   3. Many activists enthusiastically mix religion with law and politics in support of same-sex marriage.
   4. The question of how marriage should be defined in law raises inescapable moral considerations that should be faced straight on.
   5. As President Obama has said, “Our law is by definition a codification of morality” and “secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.”
   6. It’s not fair for activists who use morality and religion to support their positions to object when people with opposing viewpoints do the same thing.
   7. The marriage debate should include a diversity of viewpoints.

This report discusses:

    * Definition Of Marriage
    * Family And Marriage: The Evidence
    * Marriage
    * Religion and Civil Society
    * Religious Practice: Evidence Outcome. . .

Religion and Morality in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

RELATED PHOTO ESSAY: Pro, anti-gay marriage groups rally at Statehouse NJ.com, July 20, 2010

RELATED ARTICLE: N.J. groups rally in Trenton to support, protest gay marriage NJ.com, By Matt Friedman, July 20, 2010,

America Doesn¿t Even Know What Marriage Is Anymore

America Doesn’t Even Know What Marriage Is Anymore The North Star National, By Joe Bell, July 18, 2010
America is a confused nation. The simplest questions that were once considered answered are today debated with a seriousness that would rival Moses upon his return from the mountain. There is even a sense of bewilderment over a question that was decided thousands of years ago: What is marriage? On July 8, a federal judge in Boston struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and woman. Judge Joseph Tauro said the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, violates the rights of same sex couples as well as the federal tradition that permits states to establish their own marriage laws. Same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts in 2004. This decision illustrates a misunderstanding of the issue on at least two points. First, marriage should not be a state issue – it belongs in the federal arena. Second, Tauro and those who support gay marriage approach the topic from a civil rights perspective even though it is not a civil rights issue. Marriage is the fundamental component of any social infrastructure. Therefore it must be defined at the national level. Marriage is not like a speed limit on a state highway. There are no social ramifications if a driver must slow down from 65 miles per hour in one state to 60 miles per hour when crossing into an adjacent state. But marriage cannot mean one thing in Michigan and another in Maine. To ensure social stability marriage must be uniform across the nation. It is not a state issue. In Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003), which declared same sex marriage to be Massachusetts policy, the Massachusetts Supreme Court said marriage is “an evolving paradigm.” The phrase is gibberish; the court is wrong. Marriage is society’s underpinning and due to liberal judicial activism it is now necessary and appropriate that marriage be defined and defended by a constitutional amendment. It is regrettable that circumstances have brought America to this juncture, but those who would legislate through the courts and judges that are more interested in unearthing “evolving paradigms” than respecting the law have forced the situation. In his dissent in Goodridge, Justice Francis Spina offered clarity by writing, “What is at stake in this case is not the unequal treatment of individuals or whether rights have been impermissibly burdened… The power to regulate marriage lies with the legislature, not with the judiciary.” The attempt to link the 1960s civil rights movement with homosexual marriage fails because gender is not related to skin color and skin color is not related to conduct. Shelby Steele, from the Hoover Institution, has pointed out that once proponents of same sex marriage drape their case in the morality of civil rights they can avoid any discussion of homosexuality, marriage or social stability. Once homosexual marriage becomes a civil rights issue the only things that matter are justice and fairness. It would be wrong to rewrite America’s civil rights history to bolster the case for gay marriage. As Steele has pointed out, same sex marriage “is not a struggle for freedom.” Gays and lesbians already have the same right to marry that heterosexuals have, that is, to marry someone of the opposite sex. A right that individuals decline is not the same as a right denied. The issue is not whether homosexuals are being deprived of their civil rights but whether society will enact a new right that will allow men to marry men and women to marry women. . .

RELATED RESOURCE: Summer for Marriage Tour 2010, One man, One Woman National Organization for Marriage (NOM)

RELATED BLOG: National Organization for Marriage (NOM)

Levi and Bristol, Modern-Day Romeo and Juliet? (Click for Related Video)

Levi and Bristol, Modern-Day Romeo and Juliet? Huffington Post, By Stanton Peele, July 15, 2010
Levi Johnston has decided he really loves the 19-year-old mother of his infant son, Bristol Palin, after all, and they're going to get married. She made fun of his hair! If that doesn't say love, I don't know what does. Levi's put all of that Hollywood stuff in the closet, and returned to Wasilla to be with his teen-age true love. They're like Romeo and Juliet, only in that depressing play, Romeo didn't survive his exile. But, after all, R & J were troubled kids. Like Romeo, Levi doesn't seem to have much to do besides be in love. How did Romeo make a living, anyhow? As for Levi -- how does he support himself, anyhow? And that kooky teen Juliet, who seemed to have a parental problem (her father wanted her to marry that old guy, remember?). Well, what do you call what Bristol has with her mom? She didn't tell Sarah she was screwing Levi in the first place, of course. But now she didn't tell her they were getting back together -- let her read it in the celebrity magazines, like everyone else! At least we know the answer to the question, "What the hell did Juliet do for money, anyhow?" as it applies to Bristol. She sells her story! In fact, she seems to have sold her "exclusive" story to both Us Weekly and People -- way to go Bristol Bristol's been lecturing kids on teen pregnancy, and appearing in teen pregnancy television shows. That should be enough to pay for her, Levi, and their son in Wasilla, right? (Speaking of which, what was the cost of living like in Padua? Whenever I dream about what if Romeo and Juliet really got together, I worry about them supporting themselves.) Now, let me see, how does their re-engagement affect Bristol's effectiveness as a preacher for abstinence? I know -- they'll have to avoid premarital sex, which they didn't do well at first time around. That's why they're talking about getting married in six weeks. I don't usually give marital advice -- but, kids, can you make it any sooner -- know what I mean?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: HAGELIN: Bravo to Bristol Palin for marriage plans Washington Times, By Rebecca Hagelin, July 25, 2010
While I have no way of knowing whether Bristol and Levi's relationship will mature into a solid, committed marriage, I applaud their desire to give their son the benefit of being raised by married parents. How to save your family from indifference towards marriage. Like young Davie Melton, our culture delivers two contradictory messages about marriage. We know it's a good thing — the best way, in fact, to raise children. But when our own marriages struggle or our loved ones fail at marriage, it's easy to fall silent about the goodness that marriage brings. We pretend it really doesn't matter whether or not parents are married. The research is clear, and we should say so. Married couples are healthier, happier, wealthier and live longer than divorced or single people. Even most unhappily married couples who stick it out (often because of the children) rediscover happiness within five years of their marital low point. Children raised by their married father and mother do better than children of divorced or never-married mothers on every measure of well-being. . .

RELATED VIDEO: Palin's teen daughter to marry ITN News, July 14, 2010

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: Bristol Palin: How Levi Johnston Proposed Us magazine, July 15, 2010
Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston announce in the new Us Weekly that they're engaged -- and in this exclusive video, they reveal how he popped question. Watch Levi, 20, turn red as Bristol, 19, teases him about his romantic proposal two weeks ago at her condo in Anchorage, Alaska. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Bristol's Ex Slams Levi The Daily Beast, By Shushannah Walshe, July 15, 2010
As Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston reunite, Shushannah Walshe talked to Ben Barber, the boyfriend Bristol just broke up with, about Levi’s failings and Bristol’s pregnancy rumors. . . . It's a testament to true romance: If Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston are back together, maybe love can conquer all—even the fact that your parents hate your fiancée's guts. While it seems Sarah Palin has made peace at least publicly with her daughter's recently announced engagement, some within the family are less than pleased. In an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast, Ben Barber, Bristol's ex-boyfriend, described how surprised he was by the news—and how upset her brother Track was to hear it. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: So, what should we start calling these two? CNN Blog- Marquee, July 15, 2010
Now that we see this marital news isn't going away anytime soon, what are we going to call them? Surely we shouldn’t be forced to say “Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston” every single time. And besides, everyone knows you can't get married unless your names boil down to something ridiculous like "Bennifer" or "Brangelina.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Bristol Palin Talks Marriage with Levi Johnston People magazine, July 14, 2010
It's been a tumultuous couple of years for Bristol Palin and her ex-fiancé Levi Johnston – but she says the two are looking to change all that, and possibly in a very big way. Following Johnston's recent public apology, in which he admits he "said things about the Palins that were not completely true," Bristol, 19, tells PEOPLE in its new issue, "I forgive him for what he did. He was young, mad, misguided. We're moving on." Amid reports that the two are planning to tie the knot – a move they reputedly have yet to run by her parents – Bristol, who did not wear an engagement ring during her conversation with PEOPLE, replied to the question of if they would marry: "Yeah. I mean, I don't really want to get into detail about what's in store for our future, because who knows? But all I'd like to say about it is, hopefully we will be a family.". . .

Presbyterian leaders OK gay, lesbian clergy, shelve same-sex marriage proposal KansasCity.com, By Jean Hopfensperger and Mary Lynn Smith, July 09, 2010
Hours after giving their blessing to ordaining noncelibate gays and lesbians, leaders of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) declined late Thursday to change the church's definition of marriage, in effect refusing to allow same-sex marriages within their denomination. If the proposal had been approved, the church's definition of marriage would have changed from a commitment between "a woman and a man" to "two people" and allowed church weddings in states that have legalized gay marriage. The late-night decision to table the proposal and subject it to two more years of study caught many delegates at the denomination's gathering at the Minneapolis Convention Center by surprise, and there was a stunned silence as delegates absorbed the action. One, Virginia Thibeaux of San Anselmo, Calif., said she was "devastated and disappointed" by the shelving of a decision on whether to change the church's definition of marriage. "It's the M.O. for Presbyterians to do more studying," she said. Cindy Bolbach, the general assembly's moderator, said the proposal's failure indicated that delegates just weren't ready to make a decision on the marriage definition question, and "want to continue to talk about it." The gay ordination proposal, which did pass, still must be approved by the majority of the church's 173 local "presbyteries," or district governing bodies, within the next year before it can take effect. Had the marriage measure passed, it, too would have had to be approved by the presbyteries. Only a few mainstream Christian denominations now conduct same-sex marriages, but many, like the Presbyterians, are debating the issue as uncertainty grows over churches' role in such marriages, now the law of the land in five states and Washington, D.C. Legalized gay marriage "puts pastors in a bind," Bolbach said. "Let's say you have gay or lesbian members of your congregation who want to get married. The law allows it. What are they supposed to do?" The Presbyterians' discussion was "a reflection of what's going on in the secular world," she said. . .

Presbyterian leaders OK gay, lesbian clergy, shelve same-sex marriage proposal

RELATED ARTICLE: PCUSA delegates OK gay clergy, table marriage proposal Baptist Press, July 9, 2010
Delegates to the Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly in Minneapolis voted July 8 to allow the ordination of noncelibate homosexuals but shelved a proposal to redefine marriage in a way that would include same-sex couples. By a vote of 373 (53.59 percent) to 323 (46.41 percent), delegates approved the measure on homosexual clergy, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported. That proposal now must be ratified within 12 months by 173 regional presbyteries. The General Assembly has approved homosexual ordination three times before, only to have it rejected on the district level, the Star Tribune noted.The proposal to redefine marriage as being between "two people" instead of between "a man and a woman" was referred back to committee for further study by a 51 percent majority, the AP reported. . . . . .Alan Wisdom of the Institute for Religion and Democracy said the General Assembly votes "are are not a cause for rejoicing." "Leaders of the PCUSA are still confused about the biblical teaching that channels sexual expression through the marriage of man and woman," Wisdom, IRD vice president for research and programs, said in a news release. The IRD is Washington-based organization that monitors mainline denominations for left-leaning positions and liberal theology. "But we can take comfort that people in local Presbyterian churches do uphold the [Bible's] teaching," Wisdom said. "It is unfortunate that we will have to summon them again to defend that biblical standard in another set of presbytery votes over the coming year. But defend it they will." Wisdom called the decision for further study of the redefinition of marriage "a relief.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Responding to Pro-Gay Theology Leadership U, By Joe Dallas**
This three-part series will address the pro-gay theology by dividing its arguments--or tenets--into three categories: social justice arguments, general religious arguments, and scriptural arguments. A brief description of these arguments will be provided, followed by a response/rebuttal to each. . . . .When God is reputed to sanction what He has already clearly forbidden, then a religious travesty is being played out, and boldly. Confronting it is necessary because it (the pro-gay theology) asks us to confirm professing Christians in their sin, when we are Biblically commanded to do just the opposite. . . ** Editor's Note: The author of this article, Joe Dallas, is the Founder of Genesis Counseling. He has authored several books on homosexuality, among them: * A Strong Delusion: Confronting the "Gay Christian" Movement * Desires in Conflict * Unforgiven Sins * The Game Plan: The Men's 30-Day Strategy for Attaining Sexual Integrity * When Homosexuality Hits Home: What to Do When a Loved One Says They're Gay. A former gay rights activist and staff member of the largely gay Metropolitan Community Church, he has worked with hundreds of men and women struggling with homosexuality and related problems. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Dale Martin's "arsenokoites and malakos" tried and found wanting By Gary R. Jepsen, October 2006
In the multifaceted debate regarding homosexuality and the church, an issue that has surfaced is the proper interpretation of 1 Cor 6:9-10, where Paul writes that neither "homosexuals nor sodomites" (NKJV) shall inherit the kingdom of God. At first glance, the meaning of "homosexuals and sodomites" seems rather clear. But "Not so!" say those who advocate the normalization of homosexuality. Thus, this passage has become a hot issue with scholars aligning themselves along two basic lines of thought. Some say that the original words in Greek have been translated in an unnecessarily harsh way that condemns all homosexual behavior when in fact, they contend, Paul was merely condemning homosexual rape and other forms of sexual exploitation. Others reject this revisionist interpretation and hold that the traditional translation of the text (for example, as rendered above in the NKJV) is fair and accurate. This would be a traditionalist approach. So, who's right?. . .

Judge declares US gay marriage ban is unconstitutional

Judge declares US gay marriage ban is unconstitutional Boston Globe, By Mihael Levenson, July 08, 2010
A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman. Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws. "This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status," Tauro wrote. "The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state." Tauro drew on history in his ruling, writing that the states have set their own marriage since before the American Revolution and that marriage laws were considered "such an essential element of state power" that the subject was even broached at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Tauro noted that laws barring interracial marriage were once at least as contentious as the current battle over gay marriage. “But even as the debate concerning interracial marriage waxed and waned throughout history, the federal government consistently yielded to marital status determinations established by the states,” Tauro wrote. “That says something. And this court is convinced that the federal government’s long history of acquiescence in this arena indicates that, indeed, the federal government traditionally regarded marital status determinations as the exclusive province of state government.” Gay rights activists cheered the ruling, saying it affirmed that same-sex couples are entitled to the same federal spousal benefits and protections as other married couples. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Judge Tauro Does DOMA National Review Online, By Haadley Arkes, July 09, 2010
. . . Up until the early 1990s, when judges started acting as engines to install same-sex marriage, it did not seem to occur to most people that marriage meant anything other than the marriage of men and women. Judge Tauro’s affectation is to have us believe that it is quite as natural and legitimate now to assume that any couple of the same sex would be as plausible a candidate for marriage as the coupling, more familiar, of a man and a woman. One would hardly know, from Tauro’s opinion, that there are compelling arguments, grounded in nature and moral reasoning, that call into serious question the coherence of any arrangement that would call itself “marriage” while detaching itself from the union of a man and a woman. Tauro might have serious arguments to make against that case, but that argument has to be made. This late in the seasons of our experience, the overthrow of the traditional understanding of marriage is an act still sufficiently momentous that it deserves to have the reasons assembled to justify itself. Tauro simply begins by presupposing the legitimacy of same-sex marriage and the “irrational prejudice” of anyone who would deny it. As Bertrand Russell once said, presupposing has every advantage over demonstration that theft has over honest labor. But from that sleight of hand, Tauro fell into arguments that virtually turned on themselves and self-destructed. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Kagan Testimony Review—Action as SG on Defense of Marriage Act National Review Online, By Ed Whelan, July 02, 2010
As a sequel to my post on Elena Kagan’s actions as Solicitor General to undermine Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and as further evidence that she would indulge her strong ideological bias on gay rights as a justice, let’s look at her role in undermining another federal law that she was dutybound to defend: the Defense of Marriage Act. . .

Why parents hate parenting. NY Magazine, By Jennifer Senior, July 4, 2010
There was a day a few weeks ago when I found my 2½-year-old son sitting on our building doorstep, waiting for me to come home. He spotted me as I was rounding the corner, and the scene that followed was one of inexpressible loveliness, right out of the movie I’d played to myself before actually having a child, with him popping out of his babysitter’s arms and barreling down the street to greet me. This happy moment, though, was about to be cut short, and in retrospect felt more like a tranquil lull in a slasher film. When I opened our apartment door, I discovered that my son had broken part of the wooden parking garage I’d spent about an hour assembling that morning. This wouldn’t have been a problem per se, except that as I attempted to fix it, he grew impatient and began throwing its various parts at the walls, with one plank very narrowly missing my eye. I recited the rules of the house (no throwing, no hitting). He picked up another large wooden plank. I ducked. He reached for the screwdriver. The scene ended with a time-out in his crib. As I shuffled back to the living room, I thought of something a friend once said about the Children’s Museum of Manhattan—“a nice place, but what it really needs is a bar”—and rued how, at that moment, the same thing could be said of my apartment. Two hundred and 40 seconds earlier, I’d been in a state of pair-bonded bliss; now I was guided by nerves, trawling the cabinets for alcohol. My emotional life looks a lot like this these days. I suspect it does for many parents—a high-amplitude, high-frequency sine curve along which we get the privilege of doing hourly surfs. Yet it’s something most of us choose. Indeed, it’s something most of us would say we’d be miserable without. From the perspective of the species, it’s perfectly unmysterious why people have children. From the perspective of the individual, however, it’s more of a mystery than one might think. Most people assume that having children will make them happier. Yet a wide variety of academic research shows that parents are not happier than their childless peers, and in many cases are less so. This finding is surprisingly consistent, showing up across a range of disciplines. . .

Elin Nordegren Walks With $100 Million Forbes.com By Caroline Howard, July 03, 2010
Earlier this week it was reported that Elin Nordegren, estranged wife of Tiger Woods, was going to net $750 million as a divorce settlement. Which seemed off, considering his net worth is about $600 million, as reported by Forbes' Kurt Badenhausen. Now TMZ says it's closer to $100 million, which is reportedly considerably more than the couple's prenup agreement but just one-sixth of his golf fortune still padded by endorsements deals with Nike and others. There's no word if the $100 million stipulates that Elin keep quiet about details of the breakup and Tiger's infidelities. The couple was married for five years. That's $20 million for each year of marriage. In the pantheon of the most expensive celebrity divorces, that scores near the top. Rupert and Anna Murdoch were married for some 30 years when they divorced in 1999. They settled at $1.2 to $1.7 billion (both numbers have been reported), or between $40 to $56 million for each year she was his wife. Adnan and Soraya Kashoggi had been married for 21 years when they split in 1982. In an out-of-court settlement she netted nearly $42 million for each year of marriage, for a total of $874 million. Director Steven Spielberg and actress Amy Irving's 1989 divorce settlement gave his wife of four years half his fortune at the time, $100 million, or $25 million a year. He's now worth $3 billion. The ex-Mrs. Paul McCartney, Heather Mills, received $50 million for four years of marriage. That's $12.5 million for each year. In 1994 Harrison Ford split with his wife of 18 years and mother of two of his two children, Melissa Mathison, paying her $90 million, or $5 million a year. Michael and Diandra Douglas were married for 23 years before their divorce. She was awarded $45 million, or almost $2 million for each year they were together. But wait. With Wall Street 2 coming out, the ex-Mrs. Douglas is looking for a cut of his new earnings, claiming their 2000 settlement awarded her a financial share from spin-offs of films he made while they were together. . .

Mel Gibson's Love Child Screaming In Background As He Curses Oksana In Racist Rant Radar Online, July 01, 2010
Mel Gibson called his baby mama a "bitch" and "f** king fake" while his eight-month-old daughter Lucia screamed and cried in the background, RadarOnline.com is reporting exclusively. RadarOnline.com broke the world exclusive story early Thursday that Mel is captured on audio tape in a vile, racist rant during a conversation with Oksana Grigorieva. Now we are revealing that as Mel rants against Oksana, their baby is wailing while Mel continues to berate his former lover. He also tells Oksana their relationship is a “horror.” RadarOnline.com has heard the tapes. In the recordings , Mel told Oksana he would burn down her home, but not until after she performed oral sex on him. On tape, he says: "I am going to come and burn the f**king house down... but you will blow me first." “You're an embarrassment to me," Mel says at one point. And in one of the most disgusting comments a celebrity has ever been caught making, Mel says on tape, "You look like a f** king pig in heat, and if you get raped by a pack of n***ers, it will be your fault." The emergence of the explosive evidence contradicts the couple’s public statements that their split was amicable. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Mel Gibson's Racist Rant Caught On Tape - Tells Oksana She Would Get 'Raped By N***ers' Radar Online, July 01, 2010
In one of the most explosive, racist and vile outbursts by a celebrity ever caught on tape, Mel Gibson told the mother of his love child that the way she was dressed would get her "raped by a pack of n***ers," RadarOnline.com has learned exclusively. It's a shocking and blockbuster development in the couple's bitter legal battle, and Mel's disgusting words are on audio tape. His racist, misogynist statement is one of the secrets lurking in his war with his former girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva. RadarOnline.com has heard the tape, which also includes Mel telling Oksana he will burn down her home. Drunken Mel previously shocked the world with his anti-Semetic comments when busted for DUI. Now, the new racist outburst has taken the Oscar winner to an even deeper low. . .

Mel Gibson's Love Child Screaming In Background As He Curses Oksana In Racist Rant

RELATED ARTICLE & CLIP: WORLD EXCLUSIVE AUDIO: Mel Gibson's Explosive Racist Rant -- Listen To It Here Radar Online, July 10, 2010
Mel Gibson was caught on tape spewing a vile, hate-filled racist rant. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 'I did a pretty good hatchet job on my marriage': Mel Gibson back from the Edge of Darkness The Daily Mail- UK, By Martyn Palmer, January 11, 2010
'Nobody is without sin. You have to try to make amends if you can. You have to shut up and move on and not whine about it. And you have to deal with it like a man' 'And that's it,' Mel Gibson says. 'Whatever fallout comes from it, be it fair or unfair, you've just got to accept your own culpability. The minute you start whining, it's ridiculous.' Gibson has always been one of Hollywood's more testosterone-driven stars; unashamedly a man's man, while simultaneously sensitive to and idolised by women. He's also full of fascinating contradictions - he's a devout Catholic capable of creating extremely violent films (Braveheart, Apocalypto); a multimillionaire who advocates that wealth should be evenly distributed; and a hugely acclaimed actor and director at the height of artistic success who has, in the past, been brought low by personal demons. . .

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Fight for Mel Gibson's fortune: After actor's frolic with brunette his wife of 28 years calls in lawyers The Daily Mail- UK, By Richard Simpson, April 13, 2009
Mel Gibson's wife of 28 years has filed for divorce, setting the stage for one of most expensive splits in legal history. It emerged tonight that Robyn Gibson lodged legal papers in Los Angeles Superior Court just weeks after the actor was snapped frolicking on a beach in Costa Rica with another woman. Under Californian law, Robyn could take half of her husband's £640million fortune. The legal action comes as rumours abound that the Australian-born actor became close to a musician simply named Oksana on the set of his most recent film. In court papers, filed at the end of last week, Robyn, 52, has cited 'irreconcilable differences' as the reason of the split. She has also listed the couple's separation date as 'to be confirmed'. The couple, who have seven children, asked for privacy in a joint statement. . .

Carrie Prejean Lost Her Crown, Gets the Guy: Scandalized Miss California to Wed Oakland Quarterback Kyle Boller

Carrie Prejean Lost Her Crown, Gets the Guy
Scandalized Miss California to Wed Oakland Quarterback Kyle Boller Friday ABC News, By Luchina Fisher, July 01, 2010
What a year it's been for the scandalized beauty queen Carrie Prejean. After making controversial comments about gay marriage at the 2009 Miss USA pageant, being stripped of her Miss California crown months later and weathering the release of an embarrassing sex tape , Prejean, who is 23, is set to marry Oakland Raiders quarterback Kyle Boller on Friday. One question remains: will she wear white -- or will it be patriotic red, white and blue for the pre-Fourth of July nuptials? Whatever she does, Prejean's wedding, scheduled at the The Grand Del Mar hotel in San Diego, is a noteworthy postscript for the embattled blond beauty who first attracted national attention for her response to peagant judge Perez Hilton's question about same-sex marriage. "She's certainly coming full circle," US Weekly senior editor Lindsay Powers told ABCNews.com. "She rose to fame talking about how marriage should be between a man and a woman, and she's fulfilling that statement." As to whether Prejean's wedding will redeem her after a year of scandal, Powers says no. "She will always be known for her comments -- for being self-righteous and then being exposed," Powers said. "Just because she may be putting on a white dress doesn't mean she's suddenly virginal again." "Her lasting legacy will be those multiple dirty videos and half-naked photos," she said. And, of course, her controversial answer to Hilton's question. "In my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be, between a man and a woman," she said to boos and applause at the pageant on April 19, 2009. . . . . Prejean sued pageant officials in August for more than a million dollars for religious discrimination, and pageant officials countersued demanding she pay them back $5,200 for breast implants. But the beauty queen withdrew her lawsuit in November when a racy sex tape she had made surfaced. By February, when Prejean got engaged to Boller, 28, she seemed to have put the difficult year behind her. But even with her wedding a day away, Powers said, "Just because you get married, your whole past is not forgotten." . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Christian Views on Homosexuality Deemed "Hate Speech" by European Rights Agency LifeSiteNews.com, By Hilary White, June 30, 2010
When a European Christian pro-family group applied to join the Fundamental Rights Platform (FRP) of the EU’s Human Rights Agency, they did not expect to be denounced as promoters of “hate.” The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) objected to a statement by the Alliance of Romania’s Families (ARF) calling same-sex “marriage” an example of “human degeneration,” and denied their request for membership. The ARF, a group lobbying to retain Romania’s traditional Christian social and legal underpinnings, had written on their website that, “So-called alternatives such as ‘families’ consisting of same-sex, are nothing but expressions of human degeneration.” The FRA responded, saying, “The qualification of other people’s sexual orientation as human degeneration is not an acceptable basis for creating a structured and fruitful dialogue.”. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Carrie Effect: Notes from the Frontlines of the Marriage War National Review- Cover Story, By Maggie Gallagher, August 10, 2009
The headline on the story about a new CBS News/New York Times survey was interesting: "Poll: Support for Gay Marriage Dips." How fast and how far had support for gay marriage had to drop before a mainstream-media headline acknowledged it, even as a "dip"? Here's the answer: 9 percentage points. That's right: In just a few short months, support for gay marriage in this poll plunged 9 percentage points, from its all-time high of 42 percent to 33 percent. A reporter for New York magazine recently called me to ask about the cause of a similar abrupt drop in support for gay marriage in a poll of voters in New York State. "Did the National Organization for Marriage" -- of which I am president -- "cause that decline?" he asked. I suspect he wanted me to claim credit, to give him a more dramatic narrative. After all, if you run a large activist organization directly involved in politics, your professional obligation is to be a blowhard. (And indeed, the 2 million robocalls and the ad campaign NOM had launched must have helped.) But I turned in my professional-blowhard card by saying, "No, I really think that it was Carrie Prejean." The Carrie Effect? How can one beauty queen cause a swing of almost ten points in national polls on a hotly debated issue?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Why We’re Losing Our Right to Speak Out Townhall.com, By Chuck Colson, May 1, 2008
David Woodward is a political science professor at Clemson University—one who has first-hand experience on how dangerous it can be to speak out in favor of traditional values: He almost lost his job over it. In 1993, Woodward was asked to testify about the political power of homosexual groups in American life. He agreed to serve as an expert witness for the state of Colorado, which was fighting to defend the recently passed Amendment Two, which made it illegal to give protected status based on sexual orientation. In his new book, Why We Whisper: Restoring Our Right to Say It’s Wrong, co-authored by my friend, the able South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, Woodward writes, “In that one decision, I unexpectedly jeopardized my academic career and entered . . . into the fiercest battle of the emergent culture wars.” To publicly oppose the campaign for same-sex “marriage” and gay rights was, he writes, “the equivalent to being sent to the university Gulag.” He was denied an administrative position on the grounds that he was “ideologically incompatible” with the values of the university. He often found the word homophobe scribbled on his office door. The press viciously attacked him for his views. But in private, Woodward was hearing a different message. People would call to whisper encouragement. So did parents and university staffers. Some students came into his office, carefully closed the door, and whispered their support. “The one thing they all had in common is that they were all scared, and they all spoke in whispers,” Woodward writes. Homosexuality is not the only issue Americans can no longer speak freely about. . .

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

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

Wis. & Hawaii latest marriage battlegrounds Baptist Press, By Michael Foust, July 01, 2010
-Supporters of traditional marriage gained a big legal win at the Wisconsin Supreme Court June 30, although both sides in the nationwide struggle over marriage's definition now are watching Hawaii and California, two states where the next round of political and legal battles will take place. The Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state's constitutional marriage amendment, approved by 55 percent of voters in 2006, does not violate the state constitution's two-subject ban. Opponents argued that because the amendment prohibited both "gay marriage" and same-sex civil unions, it was unconstitutional. But the court, in a 7-0 ruling, disagreed. "Both sentences of the marriage amendment relate to marriage and tend to effect or carry out the same general purpose of preserving the legal status of marriage in Wisconsin as between only one man and one woman," the court ruled. The suit was filed by William McConkey, a University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh political science instructor. Wisconsin is among the states whose constitutions prevent amendments that are placed before voters from dealing with more than one subject. Similar lawsuits in Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Louisiana have failed. Thirty states have marriage amendments, although not all of them prohibit civil unions. "The lawsuit's accusation that the marriage amendment addresses multiple subjects was just a sneaky attempt to tear down what the voters clearly wanted," Wisconsin Family Council President Julaine K. Appling said in a statement. "The court was right to reject this baseless lawsuit. Judges and politicians should never toss aside the will of the people in order to impose a system that intentionally deprives children of a mom and dad. Which parent doesn't matter: a mom or a dad?". . . . . . In California, a federal judge, Vaughn Walker, is expected to issue a decision this summer in a high-profile case that -- if it makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court -- could make "gay marriage" the law of the land. The lawsuit seeks to overturn California's marriage amendment, known as Prop 8. The trial concluded in June. . .

Wis. & Hawaii latest battlegrounds for same-sex marriage

RELATED ARTICLE: Hawaii Update: Gov. Linda Lingle Vetoes Civil Unions, ‘Too Much Like Marriage’ CitizenLink.org, July 09, 2010
In a highly anticipated announcement, Hawaii’s Gov.Linda Lingle vetoed the civil unions bill, as it was too similar to the definition of marriage. The law would have allowed gay and lesbian-identified couples the same rights and privileges of married couples. In her veto message, Lingle stated that an issue as contentious as this should not be up to one person to decide. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Did Pioneering Pro-Homosexual Judge Have a Conflict of Interest? FRC Blog, By Peter Sprigg, July 9, 2010
Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle has vetoed the bill to create “civil unions” that the legislature passed in a last-minute legislative maneuver in April. It was refreshing to see Gov. Lingle declare straightforwardly, “I have been open and consistent in my opposition to same gender marriage and find that HB 444 is essentially marriage by another name.” It’s refreshing mostly because last year, two other governors—New Hampshire’s John Lynch and Maine’s John E. Baldacci—caved to homosexual activists under similar circumstances, and signed bills to legalize same-sex “marriage.” However, in reading a news report about the veto, something else caught my eye. Here’s what the Honolulu Star-Advertiser said about one of the critics of the veto: 'It’s beyond problematic,” said Steven Levinson, a retired associate justice of the state Supreme Court, whose daughter is a lesbian. . . . Levinson authored the landmark 1993 ruling that held that it was discriminatory for the state not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Now wait a second. The author of the very first court decision in American history that was supportive of same-sex “marriage”—has a lesbian daughter? Doesn’t that suggest a little problem of judicial ethics known as a “conflict of interest?”. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Marriage in Wisconsin survives 'sneaky attempt' OneNewsNow, By Charlie Butts and Jody Brown, July 01, 2010
A pro-family spokesperson in Wisconsin labels a losing lawsuit's argument as "just a sneaky attempt to tear down what the voters clearly wanted." It was announced on Wednesday that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has upheld that state's constitutional ban on homosexual "marriage" and civil unions. All seven justices voted to uphold the vote of the people that was registered on the matter more than three years ago. The court rejected a lawsuit that claimed the amendment approved by voters violated a rule that limits referendum questions to a single subject. The person who filed the lawsuit had argued that homosexual marriage and civil unions were two different subjects. But the court disagreed, stating that "the general purpose of the marriage amendment is to preserve the legal status of marriage in Wisconsin as between only one man and one woman.". .