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

The Marriage Myth: Why do so many couples divorce? Maybe they just don't know how to be married.

The Marriage Myth: Why do so many couples divorce? Maybe they just don't know how to be married. Washington Post magazine, By Ellen McCarthy, June 27, 2010
As a punishing rain lashed across the narrow peninsula of Ocean City, Heidi and Kirk Noll stood facing each other in a windowless conference room of the aging Carousel Resort Hotel Amid stackable chairs and retractable walls, they and a half-dozen other bleary-eyed couples clasped hands and pledged their lives to each other. Heidi's hair was still damp for the 9 a.m. ceremony, which took only 15 minutes, despite multiple interruptions from hotel staffers opening heavy doors that led to an atrium where the hum of a Zamboni on an indoor ice rink mingled with the smell of maple syrup from breakfast. Vows successfully exchanged, and blessed by an Army chaplain, the couples clambered back onto the chartered bus that had brought them here, and made the wearing slog home to Washington. It was an experience, the Nolls insist, that saved their marriage. What's more: Had they gone through something similar years before, both say they might still be married to their first spouses. The Nolls were on a marriage education retreat -- in this case, a free, two-day event that was part of an Army-wide initiative called Strong Bonds. What it meant for Kirk and Heidi was 36 hours away from their daily routine, time they spent thinking critically about their relationship. Together with their group -- all military families -- the Nolls watched videos of spouses fighting, did a bit of arguing themselves and listened as the round-faced chaplain told stories about his home life. They filled out questionnaires to determine their personality types, discussed gender differences in communication styles and took notes on the factors that can increase a couple's chances for divorce. Courses such as the one taken by the Nolls mark a sea change in the way some marriage experts view an institution that remains the fundamental unit of our society but is so shaky that it crumbles about half the time. The marriage education movement has already spawned a cottage industry of trademarked seminars and self-help manuals. It has popped up, in varying forms, at community centers and churches across the nation. And it has successfully persuaded leaders of the federal government and the U.S. military to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars a year attempting to disseminate its teachings to the masses. At its core, it's a movement that would ask of every divorcee: What if the truth was that you didn't marry the wrong person? What if you just didn't know how to be married?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Post Magazine: What every couple should know about marriage Washington Post Magazine, By Ellen McCarthy and Diane Sollee, June 28, 2010
Why do so many couples divorce? What if the truth was that you didn't marry the wrong person -- you just didn't know how to be married?. . .

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

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

Angeline Jolie on Marriage, the Kids, and Retiremen

Angeline Jolie on Marriage, the Kids, and Retirement Vanity Fair, June 28, 2010
“No, I’m not pregnant,” Angelina Jolie tells Vanity Fair contributing editor Rich Cohen, from the set of her movie in Venice, Italy. Perhaps in the future? “We’re not opposed to it. But we want to make sure we can give everybody special time. They’re kids now, and can play together, but they’re going to need a lot more talking in the middle of the night, like I did with my mom for hours. We want to make sure we don’t build a family so big that we don’t have absolutely enough time to raise them each really well.” Jolie says she and Brad Pitt also are not “against getting married,” but “it’s just like we already are. Children are clearly a commitment, a bigger commitment [than marriage]. It’s for life.” Despite her dedication to her work, she thinks she won’t do it much longer: “It’s not the most important thing in my life. Acting helped me as I was growing up. It helped me learn about myself, helped me travel, helped me understand life, express myself, all those wonderful things. So I’m very, very grateful, it’s a fun job. It’s a luxury. Look, I’m at work today in the middle of Venice. But I don’t think I’ll do it much longer.” Jolie says this reassessment is mostly due to her family: “Because I have a happy home….I got back from work last night, and everybody was playing music and dancing and I suddenly found myself dancing around with a bunch of little fun crazy people.” Jolie talks extensively about her children, explaining that “Mad’s a real intellectual, which I can take no credit for genetically. He’s great at school, great at history. He feels like he could be a writer or travel the world and learn about places and things. Zahara’s got an extraordinary voice and is just so elegant and well spoken. Shiloh’s hysterically funny, one of the goofiest, most playful people you’ll ever meet. Knox and Viv are classic boy and girl. She’s really female. And he’s really a little dude.” Jolie says that when she was growing up she was most like her daughter Shiloh: “Goofy and verbal, the early signs of a performer…. I used to get dressed up in costumes and jump around. But at some point, I got closed off, darker. I don’t remember anything happening. I think you just get hit with the realities of certain things in life, think too much, start to realize the world isn’t as you wished it would be, so you deepen. Then, as I had kids and got older—being goofy, lighter—it all came back.” And what does Angelina think of Brad’s strange, wispy beard? “I love Brad in every state.”. . .

'Twilight' bares fangs: No longer just for teen girls, the franchise's third movie, 'Eclipse,' is badass and bloody (Click for Related Movie Trailer)

'Twilight' bares fangs
No longer just for teen girls, the franchise’s third movie, ‘Eclipse,’ is badass and bloody NY Post, By Sara Stewart, June 27, 2010
Maybe the “Twilight” franchise was just feeling a little emasculated. Can you blame it? Last year, when someone asked hunky “True Blood” star Alexander Skarsgard what he thought of Edward Cullen and Co., he laughed it off: “They’re cute,” he said. But no more! Enter British director David Slade, whose last two films have been anything but cuddly. Surely the guy who made audiences literally squirm as Ellen Page tortured Patrick Wilson in “Hard Candy” could bring a little blood back to the vampires of Forks, Washington. In “The Twilight Saga: Eclipse,” the series’ third installment, that’s what he set out to do. “One of my goals . . . was to make Edward scary,” Slade told IGN. “Because he’s a vampire. And there’s a carnivore under that surface.” Not that you’d know it from the first two movies, which made Edward (Robert Pattinson) look like a bit of a powder puff. At his angriest, you’d find him looking really menacingly at a group of thugs, throwing a hissy fit when his girl talks to her teen-wolf friend or getting tossed around like a rag doll by some Italian vampires. In most vamp mythology, they burst into flames in the sunlight. Not Edward — he sparkles. Even the menacing wolf-boys of “New Moon,” led by newly ripped Taylor Lautner, seem to have mainly existed to show off their six-packs, in human form, and CGI technology, in wolf form. If the boyfriends of swooning female fans were ever going to be persuaded to show up for yet another dose of Edward and Bella, sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g, the action would have to be ramped up. Things would actually have to get bloody. “This book, of all the books, is the darkest,” says screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg, who predicts male viewers will dig the many fight scenes — wolf vs. vampire, old vampire vs. new vampire, Rosalie vs. a throng of Victorian gentlemen — depicted throughout. “It’s conflict [men] respond to and there’s just a great deal more of them in this one.”. . .

RELATED SITE: StephenieMeyer.com
The Story Behind Twilight.

RELATED SITE & TRAILER: The Twilight Saga: Eclipse - Official Movie Site

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: 'Twilight: Eclipse' Stars Talk Marriage & Awkward Kisses ET Online, June 24, 2010
Chills, thrills, and of course, romance! 'The Twilight Saga: Eclipse' promises excitement galore, and ET is with Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner as they dish about their views on marriage and sharing onscreen smooches. In the film, Bella (Stewart) continues her quest to evade vampire Victoria (played in 'Eclipse' by Bryce Dallas Howard), who is bent on vengeance after Edward (Pattinson) killed her main squeeze James in the first 'Twilight.' Bella is also confronted with a choice -- does she want to spend eternity with vampire Edward, or will she choose a human life with werewolf Jacob (Lautner)? In the beginning of 'Eclipse,' Edward has just proposed to Bella and is waiting on her answer. Stewart comments on her personal feelings toward marriage, telling ET, "It's kind of sad that people cringe at the word marriage but it's totally common. It is just our generation. ... Maybe if you're in the right place, it could be the right thing for you." Stewart has a few kissing scenes in the sequel with both Pattinson and Lautner. "Whenever there's a kiss, there's always an awkwardness in the scene," Pattinson says of the smooches. "I guess it's not so nerve racking anymore." The actress adds, "Kisses in movies tend to be a little awkward because you have to show the camera that you're kissing and typically if you just do it naturally, it's the back of your head." Lautner also had some awkward moments on set, telling ET, "It is uncomfortable sometimes mainly because I'm the only person on the entire set without a shirt." 'The Twilight Saga: Eclipse' hits theaters on June 30. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: More Dangerous Than Vampires: True love is not about losing oneself in another Kyria Blog, By Kelli B. Trujillo, December 02, 2009
Golden-eyed vampires with bodies like marble and a (nearly) unquenchable thirst for blood. Shape-shifting werewolves that prowl through the night. Stuck in the middle: a love-struck 17-year-old girl. Yes, I’m talking about the Twilight saga that’s taken teen-girl-dom (and some of their mothers) by storm. Rather predictably, many Christians have been up in arms about Twilight since the first best-selling book was published in 2005. It is about vampires after all—those denizens of evil and death that have creeped out readers since Bram Stocker first wrote Dracula. Personally, I don’t see a problem with reading fiction about mythical creatures. But there is something very insidious in Twilight . . . something much more dangerous and threatening than werewolves and vampires. . . . . .But what’s really dangerous about Twilight is that it takes this teen version of love way too far. Bella doesn’t merely daydream about Edward; Edward becomes her entire world. Within days of meeting him, nothing else in Bella’s life is really important to her anymore. She’s willing to leave her family forever. She even says she’s willing to be killed by Edward. Rather than enhancing Bella’s life, loving Edward diminishes who she is. This kind of love is dangerous . . . and it’s anything but true. I’ve seen this kind of love in action in the lives of grown women and the results aren’t pretty. . . . . What is God’s design for romantic love? Certainly there is an element of being enamored with the other—of thinking about the other a lot and of being emotionally dependent on that person to some degree. In marriage, God intends us to treasure our spouse above all others; in that sense, our lover is at the center of our life. But God-honoring romantic love should never diminish us. True love is not about losing oneself in another. Romantic love that honors God is a love in which we as women have a strong sense of ourselves, our interests, our gifts, and our passions. Rather than neglecting those things in our love for the other, our sense of identity should be enhanced, emboldened, and strengthened. Our lover helps us see and know and embrace who we are. We feel a confidence in who God made us to be and we offer that to our spouse just as he brings many things to us. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The "Twilight" Phenomena Caryl Productions, By Caryl Matrisciana and Paul Villanueva, December 2008
. . . In only a few short years I’ve watched the occult addiction mushroom amongst teens and develop aggressively into a yearning that they’d even sell their eternal souls for. Think of it, the love of a vampire, a being the Bible describes as demon possessed, musters the longing to remain lost for eternity - the very state Jesus Christ died to save sinners from. How diabolical is Satan’s message to our young innocents luring them, through a lust-filled romance, to spend eternity with him and away from the presence of our God of love? Twilight takes occult darkness, introduced in Potter, to deeper, decadent fathoms: overt vampirism, acceptable blood-sucking (in this movie its only animal blood – later? Wait and see!) and sexual lust for the possessed soul (made appealing in its fictionalized form!). The books, akin to the Potter’s series, promote and familiarize their audience with magick, Wicca, supernatural powers and demon possession. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: What Girls Want: An Edward Cullen to Love Them Townhall.com, By Dr. Miriam Grossman, M.D., December 8, 2008
American girls have a new heartthrob: a tall, gorgeous vampire who is in the eleventh grade. He thirsts for the blood of Bella, his human girlfriend, but learns to “just say no.” What is it about Edward Cullen, the male protagonist of the blockbuster Twilight series, that sends girls from Atlanta to Anchorage swooning? I asked three teen girls I know.
Nava is 14. “He’s cute, and he’s really nice to Bella.”
Kayla is 16. “He’s caring, and genuine. He expresses his love, and risks his life to protect her. And he’s handsome.”
Tanya is 19. “Edward loves Bella and wants to be with her forever, so he controls himself. The self-discipline is very hard on him, but seeing her hurt would be even worse.”
Not bad, huh? Now if only the professionals running our country’s sex education could figure that out. Because that’s what the Twilight craze is about: a guy who adores his girl so much, he’ll do anything to protect her. A guy who won’t allow his girl to get hurt, even if it means saying “no” to himself. That’s what girls want. Contrast that with Planned Parenthood’s description of the “perfect partner”. . .

How I went from committed lesbian to a happily married mother of four The Daily Mail- UK, By Jackie Clune, June 26, 2010
Looking at my four children racing around the garden with their father, it seems almost impossible to believe that only a few years ago I never imagined having a family. Or rather, when I did stop to think of myself as becoming a mother, I imagined the only way I'd do so would be through an anonymous sperm donor. Today, with five-year-old triplets, Thady, Frank and Orla, and a seven-year-old daughter, Saoirse, a husband and a home in a leafy London suburb, I could be viewed as the archehtypal wife and mother, even if - as a stand-up comedian and actress - I don't have a conventional career. But through my 20s and 30s, I cut a very different figure altogether: I was a lesbian. So, what turns a woman like me straight? Did I simply cave in to conventionality later in life? Was my biological clock too deafening to ignore the desire for a child? Do some women simply play at lesbianism because it appears cool? Or are some gay women much more flexible about who they fall in love with? These were certainly the questions on many people's lips this week, when it was revealed that Cabinet Minister Chris Huhne's mistress, Carina Trimingham, had dropped her female partner of a number of years in favour of a man. For some, this fact was more shocking than the betrayal of Huhne's wife, which is a familiar enough yarn in the world of politics. Of course, I can't speak for another woman, but I do arrive at this story with baggage - of a very personal nature. For 12 years, between the ages of 22 and 34, I was in several long-term lesbian relationships. From 1988 until 2000 I lived in lesbian households, drank in lesbian pubs, went on gay rights marches and viewed my long-term future as being exclusively with women. In fact, I was convinced that - having made what seemed at the time as a very certain leap into lesbianism - I would never again have cause to go out with a man. Of course, that's not how I saw my life panning out when I was a child. I was brought up in Essex by very traditional Irish Catholic parents and attended a Catholic comprehensive school. As a young girl, perhaps as a result of my family background and education, there was no question I'd ever be anything other than heterosexual. It never occurred to me that there was anything else to be. The only time I ever heard the word 'lesbian' was as a term of abuse towards tennis ace Martina Navratilova, and it certainly never occurred to me to desire anther woman. I fell in love at 17 with Tim, a hugely attractive pupil at the local grammar school. It was a very intense relationship and I believed I would be with him for ever. We talked about getting married and having children. We carried on dating even when we went to separate universities - he to Cambridge and I to Kent. Tim was incredibly bright and extremely good looking. He was my first love and we had a passionate physical relationship. But as I reached 22 I realised that the people I liked best were all women and in truth always had been, if only on a friendship basis. I had studied feminist literature at university and it opened my eyes to the possibility of sexuality as a life choice. . .

How I went from committed lesbian to a happily married mother of four

RELATED VIDEO: Homosexual Activist Says There’s No "Gay Gene" CitizenLink, August 07, 2008
Peter Tatchell says genetics isn’t the only factor in whether a person will identify as gay.

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

Supreme Court rules for disclosure of initiative signatures

Supreme Court rules for disclosure of initiative signatures Los Angeles Times, By Kathleen Hennessey, Tribune Washington Bureau, June 25, 2010
In a case triggered in part by the battle over same-sex marriage in California, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that disclosing the names of people who signed initiative petitions generally did not violate their right to free speech. The 8-1 decision is a partial victory for gay rights advocates who have used the "outing" of same-sex marriage foes as a political tactic. Same-sex marriage opponents in Washington state had argued that the signatures should remain secret — like ballots — under the protection of the 1st Amendment. They also claimed that, given the controversial topic, they faced a particular threat of harassment and intimidation that required anonymity. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. came down on the side of disclosure, ruling that in most cases the benefit of public petitions outweighed the "only modest burdens" that come with the disclosure. The justices left it to a lower court to decide whether privacy is warranted in this particularly controversial petition; however, a majority of justices seemed unsympathetic to the argument. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. The decision in Doe et al vs. Reed was somewhat of a surprise, given that many had believed that by taking up the case the high court had indicated it was partial to the 1st Amendment argument. The case arrived at the court after a gay rights group said it planned to publicize the names of those who signed a Washington state petition seeking to repeal a same-sex domestic partner law. The names were public record under state law, and the group, KnowThyNeighbor.org, said the move was an attempt to generate useful discussion between political adversaries. After the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the state to release the petition, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the claim, blocking the release of about 138,000 names just before election day. The advocacy group Protect Marriage Washington appealed to the court, saying signers of the petition had reason to fear retaliation for their political views. They pointed to reports of harassment, scorn and verbal abuse lodged at those who signed initiative petitions for California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage. But in his decision, Roberts wrote that plaintiffs did not present enough evidence that such concerns applied to the vast majority of petitions used to change state laws. Disclosing the names of signers can prevent fraud and promote open government, Roberts wrote.. . .

RELATED SITE: Protect Marriage Washington

RELATED ARTICLE: Will death threats by 'gays' convince judges? Court case seeking protection for signers of pro-marriage petition WorldNetDaily, By Bob Unruh, June 26, 2010
Arguing death threats have a significant "chilling" effect on free speech, an attorney representing supporters of Washington state's traditional-marriage referendum says he's confident a lower court will decide to protect their names and addresses. James Bopp Jr. of the James Madison Center, who represents the Protect Marriage Washington campaign in the dispute, has been trying to protect the 138,000 people who signed Referendum 71 petitions from homosexuals who publicly have stated they want to post personal-contact information on the Internet so activists can find them for "uncomfortable conversations." "We've got affidavits from more than 60 people who were targeted, harassed. There are newspaper reports of more cases. This seems to be a concerted campaign … to attack and stifle the opposition through harassment," Bopp told WND today. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week it would not issue a blanket ban on the release of signatures on petition documents. The high court, however, explained its decision did not prevent the Washington state petition signers from gaining an exemption from public disclosure at the lower court. Bopp was successful at the district-court level, obtaining an injunction preventing the public disclosure of any petition signatures "because the court found there was a First Amendment right that protects signing these petitions.". .

RELATED RESOURCE: U.S. Supreme Court Returns Petition Signing Case to District Court ProtectMarriageWashington, Contact James Bopp, Jr., June 24, 2010
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States, in an 8-1 vote, issued its opinion in Doe v. Reed. The opinion allows Protect Marriage Washington to ask the District Court in Washington for an exemption from publicly reporting the personal information of those who support traditional marriage. Although the Supreme Court denied Protect Marriage Washington’s request to keep petition signers’ personal information private in all situations, the Court agreed with Protect Marriage Washington that people who sign a petition are exercising their First Amendment right to free speech and can act to protect their privacy when supporting traditional marriage. . .

RELATED REPORT: Executive Summary: The Price of Prop 8 The Heritage Fondation, By Thomas Messner, October 22, 2009
Supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry. Arguments for same-sex marriage are based fundamentally on the idea that limiting marriage to the union of husband and wife is a form of bigotry, irrational prejudice, and even hatred against homosexual persons. As this ideology seeps into the culture more generally, individuals and institutions that support marriage as the union of husband and wife risk paying a price for that belief in many legal, social, economic, and cultural contexts. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Tyranny of the Minority: How the Forced Recognition of Same-Sex "Marriage" Undermines a Free Society Salvo magazine, By S. T. Karnick, Autumn 2008- Salvo 6 Issue
From the beginning, the debate over "same-sex marriage" has been one of those topsy-turvy issues in which the side that is truly tolerant and fair has been characterized as narrow-minded and oppressive, while the side that is intolerant and blatantly coercive has been depicted as open-minded and sympathetic. Favoring government-enforced recognition of same-sex "marriage" is not, as the media invariably characterize it, a kindly, liberal-minded position, but instead a fierce, coercive, intolerant one. Despite their agonized complaints about the refusal of the majority of Americans to give in on the subject, those who advocate government recognition of same-sex "marriage" want to use coercion to deny other people their fundamental rights. . .

Reconciling homosexuality and Christianity CNN.com, By Tony Brown, Special to CNN, June 25, 2020
As a child I was taught to believe in myself, in family and in God. To a confused adolescent struggling with his sexuality, that was easier said than done. Being the victim of constant and severe bullying due to my perceived sexuality, I developed a strong aversion to organized religion. After all, every religious voice I heard in my youth - whether it was from the pulpit or in the news - told me that I was evil and that there was something wrong with me. My heart said otherwise. As I later learned, so did God. After feeling uncomfortable with my Methodist upbringing, I searched for meaning in a Christian organization called Young Life. We met once a week during my high school years and I thought that I had found a way to love God and have friends that accepted me at the same time. But I wasn’t honest with them. Perhaps if I had told them that I was gay they would have accepted me, but I doubt it. The rhetoric was clear: if you weren’t heterosexual, you weren’t welcome. So I hid my truth until it became impossible to hide anymore. Love is an amazing thing. When I met my husband Gary, I finally accepted that there wasn’t anything wrong with me all along. As a matter of fact, God wanted me to be happy and to accept love into my life. What an awesome realization that was. For once I could simply be… No more pretenses or fear… I was able to love myself, and in doing so, I found a path to back to my own spirituality, which had been dormant and rejected for so long. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gary and Tony Have a Baby! FamilyScholars.org, By Alana S. June 23, 2010
CNN is doing a documentary on one gay couple’s journey to have a family using donor eggs and surrogacy. It airs tomorrow night at 8 pm EST. The teaser lays down a history of Gary and Tony’s twenty-year-strong bond. The two men are committed. They are likable. They appear to be great candidates for fatherhood. The only problem is… neither of them have a functioning uterus. Or eggs. But that’s not a problem a little cash can’t fix. Watching them stroll along a New York sidewalk with Soledad, greeting strangers’ toddlers, pining for their own tykes, my mind is overwhelmed. I want Gary and Tony to be happy. I like them. They appear to be great guys. I respect their story and so, I respect them. But I can’t separate my life experience from this issue of gamete donation and surrogacy. As much as I want to be a yea-sayer to Gary and Tony’s deepest desires, I know so intimately the pain of being DENIED a biological parent (and being taught that it was a good thing!). . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Collateral Damage? Children With a Gay Parent Speak Out FOTF, by Amy Tracy
In addition to feeling a sense of loss, especially if a parent has left the home, children may experience shame, humiliation, fear, instability, and confusion.

RELATED INFO: Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media MassResistance.org
Read below: The powerful, sophisticated psychological techniques that the homosexual movement has used to manipulate the public in the media. If you think that the radical changes in the minds of Americans -- and in your own mind -- about homosexuality in the last decade are an accident, you must read the section below from the 1989 book, "After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s" (Penguin Books), which immediately became a beacon for the then-emerging homosexual movement. Building on the basic strategies outlined in Marshall Kirk's groundbreaking 1987 article, "The Overhauling of Straight America", this book puts forth the very sophisticated psychological persuasion and propaganda mass media techniques that we've all seen and been affected by over the years -- but never understood what was happening. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Reengineering the Family: We can’t yet know the full consequences of our institutionalized severing of biology from parenthood? National Review Online, By Heather MacDonald, February 01, 2010
An image from a TV ad for gay marriage, reproduced in the January 18 New Yorker, provides a Rorschach test for reactions to America’s ongoing revolution in family structure. Two men in black suits stand shoulder-to-shoulder in a group of people, looking into each other’s eyes. In their arms are two newborns in white baby clothes and blankets. Though it’s not immediately apparent from the photo, the men are at a baptism for their infants. The ad, still being test-marketed, is called “Family Values,” and is intended to emphasize the “conventionality of gay couples,” explains The New Yorker. If your reaction to the image is: “Where’s the mother(s)?” you may not yet be fully on board the “conventionality” bandwagon. If your reaction to the foregoing question, however, is: “Why does it matter?” then you are keeping pace with the revolution. “Why does it matter?” may ultimately prove the more appropriate response, but no one should pretend that it represents anything other than a radical revision of the traditional relationship between parents and children — one whose consequences no one can predict. . .

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

RELATED ARTICLE: 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?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: What's Best for the Children: Public policy regarding adoption should not be directed by the desire of adults to become parents Concerned Women for America, February 17, 2005
Testimony of Robert H. Knight
Director, Culture & Family Institute
Concerned Women for America
Courts of Justice Committee, Virginia Senate
Regarding HB 2921
February 16, 2005

Good afternoon. We're here to talk about what's best for children and how to secure for them the best possible adoptive homes. Public policy should be guided not by what some adults want but by what's actually best for children. In most debates, homosexual activists argue that they "deserve" to be parents or that they "want" to be parents. Well, that's understandable. There's a universal longing to be a father or a mother, but this doesn't mean everyone is equally qualified. The activists also assert that this is about "equality," but that's not true. A household that is missing an entire parental sex, that is, missing a mother or a father, is not equal to a married household. . .

Woman sues church over gay marriage CNN.com, June 24, 2010
Years before the nation's capital legalized same-sex marriage in March, one church in Washington, D.C., opened its doors to gay couples as part of its mission to establish an "inclusive body of Biblical believers." Pastors Christine and Dennis Wiley performed a 2007 commitment ceremony at their altar. That action split the historically black church, prompting half of the congregation to leave. Yvonne Moore not only left Covenant Baptist, where she had worshipped for nearly 40 years: she filed a lawsuit for her weekly tithes because, as she said, "They didn't respect the members enough to listen to us." Moore said she attended the 2007 commitment ceremony and found it "totally disgusting." "I don't believe in that, I'm southern Baptist," Moore told CNN's Soledad O'Brien. "The bible speaks against that. You cannot take that in the church." So she sued the church for a portion of the estimated $250,000 that she estimates she had paid in weekly donations over the past 37 years. Moore's now former pastors believe that gay rights are a natural extension of the black Civil Rights movement. "I don't think we as a people have a lock on civil rights," Pastor Dennis Wiley said. The struggle for civil rights is something that Moore can relate to: Growing up in Florida, she said she was one of the first blacks to eat at a lunch counter in her hometown. But she is still on the fence about comparing her situation, as an African-American, to that of the gay community. She said Dennis Wiley asked her to consider the situation of her friend, who is gay. "Dennis asked me ... 'How do you feel the way you were treated and just think about the way he was treated.' And I was like, 'Oh, OK,'" Moore said. She later dropped her lawsuit, but has not returned to the church. . .

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

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Top 10 Things Not To Do In A Relationship Dating Dish, March 24, 2010
Having been in a relationship that lasted almost three and a half years, I have learned some of the ins and outs of what one should and shouldn't do in a relationship. There were many times when I probably should not have done the things that I did, and times when he should not have done things. If these things are happening in your relationship... something might be wrong. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Top Ten List of What to Do and What Not to Do in Relationships E-zine Articles, By Kim Oliver
Most of us who have been intimately involved with someone beyond the infatuation stage know that relationships are like a rollercoaster ride. When things are good, they are very, very good. When things are bad, they are very, very bad. As a relationship coach, I have developed Top 10 Lists---one for men and one for women on 10 things to do and not to do in relationships.

MEN: DO:
1. Just listen to your partner without offering advice.
2. Trust and respect her.
3. Treat her as an equal partner in your relationship.
4. Stay and support her when she gets emotional. She is looking for understanding, not solutions.
5. Continue your courtship even after she's committed to you. Continue to create romance in your relationship. . .

RELATED RESOURCE: When Expectations Meet Reality FOTF.com
Before Cynthia said her marriage vows, she joked with her mother that she could leave out the phrase "for better for worse." She was confident there wouldn't be any "worse." Sam was the perfect man for her. He was emotionally attentive, a dynamo at fixing things around the house, ambitious, funny and caring. He even laughed at her jokes. Now, five years into marriage, Sam is emotionally distant and says he doesn't have the energy to help with anything around the house, let alone chat with his wife about how she feels. Cynthia sometimes jokes that aliens snuck into her home while Sam was sleeping, took out his brain and replaced it with someone else's. "He's not the man I married!" she quips. However, it's no laughing matter. Her heart is breaking. There are many things that newlyweds experience and one of them is disillusionment. We know it can be painful and we hope this series of articles can instruct and encourage you to reconnect with the one you married. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Are Fathers Really Fungible? Family Scholars blog, By W. Bradford Wilcox, June 14, 2010
I have a lot of respect for Pamela Paul. So it pains me to say that her new piece in The Atlantic, "Are Fathers Necessary?", gets it wrong, and in two very big ways. The gist of her argument is that sociologists Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey are right in claiming that fathers play no essential role in the lives of their children. Or, in their words, "based strictly on the published science, one could argue that two women parent better on average than a woman and a man..."

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad Townhall.com, By Frank Turek, Monday, May 26, 2008
Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt? Children and the rest of society. That’s the conclusion of David Blankenhorn, who is anything but an anti-gay “bigot.” He is a life-long, pro-gay, liberal democrat who disagrees with the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior. Despite this, Blankenhorn makes a powerful case against Same-Sex marriage in his book, The Future of Marriage. . . . The law is a great teacher, and if same-sex marriage advocates have their way, children will be expelled from the lesson on marriage. This leads Blankenhorn to assert, “One can believe in same-sex marriage. One can believe that every child deserves a mother and a father. One cannot believe both.” . . .

Princess Victoria of Sweden marries a 'commoner.'

Princess Victoria's Wedding & The Triumph Of Style In Sweden Huffingon Post, June 20, 2010
In regal and triumphant fanfare, Sweden's next Queen, Crown Princess Victoria tied the knot on June 19 in the largest royal wedding since Charles and Diana. In Stockholm Cathedral, 1,200 royal guests and dignitaries watched the nuptials, along with 500,000 people who lined the streets, and an estimated 500 million TV viewers from around the world. Yet the princess only had eyes for her groom, Daniel Westling - now Prince Daniel, as she calmly spoke her vows, tenderly wiped a tear from his eyes after exchanging rings, and at one point, even winked at him during the service. The radiant and beaming 32-year old bride walked down the aisle on the arm of her father, the king, in a cream-colored duchess satin gown with short sleeves and an off-the -shoulder, rounded neckline. Designed by Pär Engsheden, the dress has a V-shaped back and a 16.5 foot train fastened from the waist. Topping off the look, as everyone predicted, was the Cameo tiara which the bride's mother, Queen Silvia, also wore to her own wedding on the same day in 1976. Made of gold, pearls and cameos, the tiara's center cameo depicts Cupid and Psyche from Greek mythology. Cameo drop earrings and a cameo and pearl bracelet completed the look. In this gender equalitarian society, Swedish weddings usually have the bride and groom walking to the altar together. However, it was Victoria's wish to have her father escorting her, and it is meant as a symbolic gesture of the king walking the heir of the throne down the aisle. . . . . .The royal couple's journey of love had been long and not always easy, with the crown princess fighting initial resistance to her choice of beau. However, Victoria is clearly a determined young woman who knows her own mind, and she is just as sure-footed when it comes to the fashion stakes. Going by her choices in the few days of the wedding festivities, Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden has emerged as the new royal "Queen of Style.". .

RELATED ARTICLE: Monaco's Prince Albert to Marry People magazine, By Stephen M. Silverman and Peter Mikelbank, June 23, 2010
One of the world's most eligible bachelors is off the market. Prince Albert II of Monaco will marry South African former swimmer Charlene Wittstock, the Mediterranean principality's royal palace confirmed to PEOPLE on Wednesday. "Everyone here is extremely, extremely happy," the palace said. No wedding date has been for the prince, 52, and the former schoolteacher, 32. The couple first appeared in public together at the 2006 Winter Olympic opening ceremonies in Turin, and Wittstock has been living in Monaco since 2007, when she unofficially ended her training. She has become friends with and been tutored in protocol by both his sisters, Princesses Stephanie and Caroline. "But she knows instinctively what is expected of her," a royals source tells PEOPLE. Last weekend, Albert and Wittstock were in Stockholm to attend the wedding of Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden and Prince Daniel Westling, Duke of Vastergotland. . .

Now, Dad Feels as Stressed as Mom New York Times, By Tara Parker-Pope, June 18, 2010
Father’s Day brings this offering of a dubious milestone: Husbands are now just as stressed out as their harried wives. For decades, the debate about balancing work and family life has been framed as an issue for women. Many studies have shown that motherhood is more taxing than fatherhood; mothers typically reported higher levels of unhappiness than women without children or men in general. Over the years, this disparity has helped fuel the gender wars, in policy debates and at home, often over a pile of dirty laundry. Men, the truism went, did not do their share of the grocery shopping or diaper changing. They let women pull the double shift. But several studies show that fathers are now struggling just as much — and sometimes even more — than mothers in trying to fulfill their responsibilities at home and in the office. Just last week, Boston College released a study called “The New Dad” suggesting that new fathers face a subtle bias in the workplace, which fails to recognize their stepped-up family responsibilities and presumes that they will be largely unaffected by children. Fathers also seem more unhappy than mothers with the juggling act: In dual-earner couples, 59 percent of fathers report some level of “work-life conflict,” compared with about 45 percent of women, according to a 2008 report from the Families and Work Institute in New York. The research highlights the singular challenges of fathers. Men are typically the primary breadwinner, but they also increasingly report a desire to spend more time with their children. To do so, they must first navigate a workplace that is often reluctant to give them time off for family reasons. And they must negotiate with a wife who may not always recognize their contributions at home. . .

Prop. 8 backers: Marriage promotes procreation San Francisco Chronicle, By Bob Egelko, June 16, 2010
Winding up a historic trial over same-sex marriage in California, the lawyer for Proposition 8's sponsors told a federal judge Wednesday that allowing only men and women to wed promotes responsible sex and child-rearing, and ultimately ensures the future of humanity. During more than two hours of intense and sometimes skeptical questioning by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, attorney Charles Cooper maintained that society is entitled to reserve its approval of marriage for those who can naturally conceive children. "The marital relationship is fundamental to the existence and survival of the race," Cooper said in closing arguments before a packed San Francisco courtroom. The reason the state regulates marriage, he said, is to steer "procreative sexual relationships" into a stable family environment so that children can be raised by their biological parents. Other federal courts have relied on that argument to uphold measures such as Prop. 8, a November 2008 initiative that prohibited same-sex marriages in California less than six months after the state Supreme Court had legalized them. Judge skeptical: But Walker, who presided over the nation's first federal trial on the issue, sounded dubious. He note that the state allows couples unable or unwilling to have children to marry, suggesting that the institution has a broader purpose that same-sex partners might equally fulfill. "Marriage is a right which extends fundamentally to all persons, whether they're capable of producing children, incarcerated or behind in their child-support payments," Walker said, citing Supreme Court rulings that allow people in all those situations to marry. People marry not to benefit the state, but because they believe that "I'm going to get a life partner, who I'm going to share my life with and maybe have children," the judge said. "Why don't those same values apply to gay couples and lesbian couples loving one another?" Cooper replied that same-sex couples are incapable of "irresponsible procreation," which he said marriage laws are designed to discourage. . . . What's next in the Proposition 8 case. A ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, probably in July, on whether the ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional guarantee of equality. If Walker overturns Prop. 8, its sponsors will seek a stay from the judge or from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to keep the ban in effect. The losing side in Walker's court will appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which might issue a ruling by this time next year. The loser at the appeals court could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the court accepts the case, it could issue a ruling in 2012 on either the constitutionality of the California ballot measure or the overall right of same-sex couples to marry. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Both Sides in California’s Gay Marriage Fight See a Long Court Battle Ahead NY Times, By Jesse McKinley, June 26, 2010
Just hours after Judge Vaughn R. Walker banged the final gavel in the trial of Proposition 8 — California’s same-sex marriage ban — the two top lawyers challenging the law, David Boies and Theodore Olson, were holding court again: this time at a small private dinner with donors in San Francisco. The meal, with a handful of people who have given money to the group challenging the ban, could well be seen as the opening maneuver in the second act of the saga of Proposition 8, which both sides expect to wind its way up the federal judicial food chain, most likely all the way to the Supreme Court. “We would immediately appeal,” Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for the proponents of Proposition 8, said when asked if his side were to lose in Judge Walker’s court. The plaintiffs agree. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: California court hears closing arguments in same-sex marriage case Washington Post, June 16, 2010
Interpreting the Constitution is not a job that allows a judge to wait until the public opinion polls improve, Olson said. "Some judge is going to have to decide what we've asked you to decide," he said. The personal notes came at the end of a long day. Walker had presided over a 2 1/2 -week trial in January, but procedural matters delayed closing arguments until Wednesday. When he entered the packed courtroom -- a pro-gay-rights audience crowded two additional courtrooms with closed-circuit video broadcasts of the proceedings-- Walker saw tables filled with high-powered lawyers from Washington, New York and California. . .

RELATED REPORT: Prop. 8 trial closing arguments: Live coverage from the courtroom Mercury News, By Howard Mintz, June 16, 2010
The final arguments in the landmark Proposition 8 trial have ended, with the case now in the hands of Judge Vaughn Walker. Read Howard Mintz's recap of the day's proceedings later today online on this Web site and in tomorrow's Mercury News, Contra Costa Times, Oakland Tribune, and other Bay Area News Group papers.
4:02 p.m.: Arguments end, case in judge's hands
As he winds up his rebuttal argument, plaintiffs attorney Theodore Olson is pouncing on the lack of evidence presented on the other side for denying same-sex couples the right to marry. "You have to have a reason for that," he said. ' "I don't know, I don't have any evidence,' doesn't cut it."
Walker has just ended the session for the day and the fate of Prop. 8 is now in the judge's hands. . .

Gay Marriage Ban Trial Resumes In S.F.
Judge will ask opposing lawyers specific questions before ruling. KTLA News, June 13, 2010
The landmark federal trial over the constitutionality of California's gay marriage ban is scheduled to resume after a 4 1/2 month hiatus this week with closing arguments. But instead of oratory from opposing council, the presiding judge wants them to answer 39 questions before he delivers his verdict. Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker has heard 12 days of testimony in the civil rights case. He has prepared a list of questions...12 unique questions to each lawyer representing gay rights advocates and Proposition 8 sponsors. He will then ask each side another 15 general questions. Lawyers representing two same-sex couples with be asked for empirical proof that gay men and lesbians to marry would reduce discrimination against them. Judge Walker will ask lawyers who are arguing on behalf of the marriage ban's sponsors if they have evidence to support their claim that same-sex marriage would have negative consequences to the institution of marriage. . . . The plaintiffs also are seeking an injunction that would prohibit the state from enforcing the measure and immediately allow gay marriage to resume in the state. They maintain that preventing gays from getting married violates their civil rights and should be declared unconstitutional in the same way that laws against interracial marriage were. No matter how Judge Walker rules, the case is expected to be taken all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Marriage equality for all couples Post, By John D. Podesta and Robert A. Levy, June 08, 2010
Nearly a century after the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that "marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.' " That 1967 case, Loving v. Virginia, ended bans on interracial marriage in the 16 states that still had such laws. Now, 43 years after Loving, the courts are once again grappling with denial of equal marriage rights -- this time to gay couples. We believe that a society respectful of individual liberty must end this unequal treatment under the law. Toward that goal, we have agreed to co-chair the advisory board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. The foundation helped launch the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which is currently before a federal district court in California but is likely to be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Perry case -- scheduled for closing arguments next Wednesday -- was brought by two couples whose relationships are marked by the sort of love, commitment and respect that leads naturally to marriage. Kris Perry and Sandy Stier and their four children, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, ask for no more, and deserve no less, than the equal rights accorded to every other American family. But they are blocked from obtaining marriage licenses under California's Proposition 8. The plaintiffs' legal team, headed by former Bush v. Gore antagonists Theodore Olson and David Boies, has demonstrated that no good reason exists for the denial of fundamental civil rights under Proposition 8. We support that position. . .

RELATED RESOURCE: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Answering the Toughest Questions National Organization for Marriage
Strong majorities of Americans oppose gay marriage. Supporters of SSM therefore seek to change the subject to just about anything: discrimination, benefits, homosexuality, gay rights, federalism, our sacred constitution. Our goal is simple: Shift the conversation rapidly back to marriage. Don’t get sidetracked. Marriage is the issue. Marriage is what we care about. Marriage really matters. It’s just common sense. . .

RELATED LETTER: There's no fundamental right to same-sex marriage Washington Post, June 13, 2010
Regarding the June 8 op-ed "Marriage for all" by John D. Podesta and Robert A. Levy:
Same-sex marriage is not one of the fundamental rights of man. Americans have a civil right to organize to protect marriage as the union of husband and wife, an idea with deep roots in our history, in common sense and in the social science affirming that children long for their mom and dad. Overturning California's Proposition 8 would be an outrageous violation of the rights of the 7 million Californians who voted to protect marriage in their state constitution as well as the rights of millions of other Americans in other states with similar marriage amendments.
Maggie Gallagher, Washington
The writer is chairman of the National Organization for Marriage.

RELATED QUOTE ". . . The 1967 case, Loving v. Virginia case, which ended bans on interracial marriage in the remaining 16 states that still had such laws, is IRRELEVANT to the arguments for same-sex marriage because the definition of marriage was not in dispute. Having the right to enter into marriage is not the same as having a right to make up your own definition. Nobody has a right to demand that society make up bogus definitions for marriage — or pretend that it doesn't matter which two people enter into such an arrangement — just to accommodate a tiny sector of the population's peculiar ideology. Moreover, the Loving v. Virginia case, while declaring, Marriage to be one of the "basic civil rights of man," also decared it to be "fundamental to our very existence and survival", which begs the question: How does same-sex marriage accomodate, or is fundamental to, our survival and very existence when two people of the same sex cannot reproduce?. . ." The Real Proposal magazine, June 14, 2010

RELATED ARTICLE: Who decides what ‘marriage’ means Boston Globe, By Jeff Jacoby, - Globe Columnist, May 12, 2010
When Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, same-sex marriage did not exist in the United States. Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s 4-3 decision finding a right to same-sex marriage in the state constitution, was still seven years in the future. But the crusade to fundamentally redefine marriage was already in progress, and Washington understood that once gay marriage was legalized anywhere, supporters would go to court to demand that it be recognized everywhere. So Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act to make two things clear: First, that no state could be forced to deem a same-sex couple “married’’ merely because another state did so. And second, that as far as the federal government and federal law were concerned, “marriage’’ would continue to mean what it had always meant: the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. . . . The 1996 law does not “single out’’ same-sex marriages for invidious purposes, as GLAD argues in its brief. DOMA simply does what countless federal laws do: It defines basic legislative terms. Considering how frequently the terms “marriage’’ and “spouse’’ are used in federal statutes, rulings, and regulations, it is nonsensical to claim that Congress has no right to clarify their meaning — as nonsensical as claiming that Congress is barred from defining “wetland’’ or “endangered species’’ or “disability.’’ To be sure, an individual state is free to adopt an irregular definition of marriage — or anything else — for purposes of state law. But it doesn’t have a constitutional right to impose that definition on the rest of the nation. Massachusetts could decide to recognize martial-arts studios as institutions of higher education, and to make them eligible for state-subsidized education loans. Plainly, that anomalous definition of “higher education’’ would not be binding on the federal student loan program. By the same token, Massachusetts can decide (or be required by its supreme court) to treat same-sex partners as married spouses. But it can hardly insist that its definition of “married spouses’’ trumps that of the federal government and 45 other states. . . . The Defense of Marriage Act understandably sticks in the craw of those who want marriage to mean something the vast majority of Americans have never accepted. But is the longstanding national definition unconstitutional merely because some people reject it? The federal courts have never said so before; there is no reason for them to say so now. . .

Put a ring on it'
Marriage beats cohabitation in quest for happiness Washington Times, By Janice Shaw Crouse, June 11, 2010
Once again, popular music follows contemporary culture. Beyonce's pop hit "Single Ladies" looks at today's cohabitation scene. With nearly 50 percent of young adults aged 20 to 40 cohabiting, living together has become a far-too-typical experience marking a young woman's coming of age. Beyonce's lyrics treat the reality of cohabitation with typical sass: "Cuz I cried my tears, gave three good years." Actually, the typical cohabiting relationship lasts just 18 months, and usually it is the guy rather than the girl who determines when it ends and whether it will lead to marriage. Perhaps Beyonce's hit song gives a small glimmer of hope that, in addition to reflecting a new consciousness in the popular culture, she will magnify the influence on the culture of this budding new realism - the age-old idea that men should "put a ring on it." She wistfully declares that though "we just broke up ... your love is what I prefer." Nevertheless, the song stresses that the singer "deserves" much more: a lasting, permanent love, one that "delivers me to a destiny, to infinity and beyond." In addition to her popularity and talent, Beyonce was almost guaranteed a hit because the number of "single ladies" sharing a living space with "benefits" has increased dramatically - up 1,000 percent in the U.S. since 1970 and more than tripled in the United Kingdom between 1976 and 2004 (from 9 percent to 28 percent). While increasingly common among college students and young professionals, living together without marriage is even more common among the uneducated and poor. In addition, by age 20, nearly three out of four young women have experienced premarital sex (74 percent). . . . . The big question is: Why have our values changed? Why are young people falling for these contemporary trends? One answer is that the popular culture inundates them with myths and literally pushes them to "find themselves" through risky, promiscuous sexual experimentation. Nobody tells them about the consequences; indeed, the opposite is true. Young people are fed myths and are encouraged in their rebellion against moral boundaries by the aging veterans of the sexual revolution.

Kids of lesbians have fewer behavioral problems, study suggests. Really??

Kids of lesbians have fewer behavioral problems, study suggests CNN.com, By Madison Park, June 7, 2010
A nearly 25-year study concluded that children raised in lesbian households were psychologically well-adjusted and had fewer behavioral problems than their peers. The study, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, followed 78 lesbian couples who conceived through sperm donations and assessed their children's well-being through a series of questionnaires and interviews. Funding for the research came from several lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocacy groups, such as the Gill Foundation and the Lesbian Health Fund from the Gay Lesbian Medical Association. Dr. Nanette Gartrell, the author of the study, wrote that the "funding sources played no role in the design or conduct of the study.". . . . Wendy Wright, president of the Concerned Women for America, a group that supports biblical values, questioned the legitimacy of the findings from a study funded by gay advocacy groups. "That proves the prejudice and bias of the study," she said. "This study was clearly designed to come out with one outcome -- to attempt to sway people that children are not detrimentally affected in a homosexual household.". . . . .Gartrell studied only lesbian families, because circumstances surrounding gay male families are different. Gay men becoming fathers is newer in comparison with lesbians, because their options have been limited to adoption or surrogacy. Lesbians often conceive through donor insemination. "This study shows that the 17-year-old adolescents who have been reared by lesbian families are psychologically happy and high functioning," said Gartrell, a Williams distinguished scholar at the UCLA School of Law. Restrictions of child custody and reproductive technologies based on sexual orientation are not justified, she said. Wright questioned the objectivity of Gartrell's research, saying the author can "cherry pick people who are involved and the info they release." "In essence, this study claims to purport that children do better when raised by lesbians," she said. Studies have shown that children thrive having both a mother and a father, Wright said. "You have to be a little suspicious of any study that says children being raised by same-sex couples do better or have superior outcomes to children raised with a mother and father," she said. "It just defies common sense and reality.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Adult children speak out about same-sex parents TownHall.com, By Maggie Gallagher, July 7, 2007
It was the TV pictures that first got to Bronagh Cassidy. Same-sex couples marrying in San Francisco: "They were so proud of themselves. And then they had these little children with them." Cassidy, a 27-year-old married mother of two, sighs. "Something inside of me wants to be able to help those kids, because I know they are going to have problems." Sound ignorant, maybe even bigoted? This week, as the Senate is expected to begin debate on a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, many voices will try to convince you that people like Cassidy are, as Cheryl Jacque, head of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, put it in a recent letter, "hate-filled people who will stop at nothing to achieve their discriminatory, offensive goals." But Cassidy knows better: She is one of the first generation of "gayby boom" babies, raised by two moms. Adult children of same-sex parents are rare. I recently came across Cassidy's story by accident, after she e-mailed a friend of mine who is a family scholar. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Dont be manipulated by the master marketers TownHall.com, By Rebecca Hagelin, October 4, 2005
We’re bamboozled daily on a wide variety of subjects, from abortion on demand for any reason to same-sex “marriage.” As David notes in his new book, The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom: “The plain truth is, within the space of our lifetimes, much of what Americans once almost universally abhorred has been packaged, perfumed, gift-wrapped and sold to us as though it had great value. By skillfully playing on our deeply felt national values of fairness, generosity and tolerance, these marketers have persuaded us to embrace as enlightened and noble that which all previous generations since America’s founding regarded as grossly self-destructive -- in a word, evil.”. . .

No TV for closing arguments in Prop. 8 trial San Francisco Chronicle, By Bob Egelko, June 10, 2010
The only members of the public who will get to watch next week's closing arguments in the trial over same-sex marriage in California will be the ones who make it to the courthouse. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued a brief order Thursday denying a request by media organizations to televise the arguments, scheduled to last all day Wednesday in San Francisco. The organizations included Hearst Corp., which owns The Chronicle. The denial means "the public will again only hear about this case second-hand," said Thomas Burke, the media groups' lawyer. Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for sponsors of the ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage, countered that "the purpose of the court is not to entertain or educate the public, but to protect the right to a fair and impartial trial." The sponsors had opposed televising any trial proceedings. Two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco have sued to overturn Proposition 8, the November 2008 initiative that amended the California Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Walker presided over the non-jury trial in January. He had proposed to televise the trial live to several federal courthouses around the nation and record the proceedings for a delayed Internet posting on YouTube. The telecast, which would have been the first for a federal court in California, was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court just before the trial started. In a 5-4 ruling, the court said Walker hadn't given the public enough time to comment on the proposed change in court rules. The court also cited claims by Prop. 8's sponsors that showing the proceedings outside the courthouse might intimidate witnesses. Media organizations asked Walker last month to approve televising the closing arguments. They said that airing a hearing that included only lawyers and the judge couldn't affect witnesses or the fairness of the trial. But Prop. 8's backers argued that cameras can distract judges and lawyers and prompt "grandstanding and avoidance of unpopular decisions or positions." Walker did not spell out his reasons for denying the media request. The arguments will still be shown on closed-circuit TV, but only in an overflow courtroom at the San Francisco courthouse at 450 Golden Gate Ave. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

No TV for closing arguments in Prop. 8 trial

RELATED BLOG: Protect Marriage- Yes on 8 Blog

RELATED ARTICLE: The Marriage Trial The Christian Post, By Penna Dexter , January 25, 2010
As the trial addressing the challenge to Proposition 8 takes place in San Francisco, the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, two same sex couples, are Ted Olson, former Solicitor General of the United States and prominent DC attorney, David Boies. They are attempting to persuade a federal judge to invalidate California's law, passed by the people, defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Mr. Olsen also makes his case to the readers of Newsweek in a recent cover story. On page 49 of the magazine, Mr. Olson acknowledges that: "It is true that marriage in this nation traditionally has been regarded as a relationship exclusively between a man and a woman, and many of the nation's multiple religions define marriage in precisely these terms." But, in what seems to be a cavalier dismissal of the relevance of such religious beliefs, he goes on to ask, "...what are the justifications for California's decision on Proposition 8 to withdraw access to the institution of marriage for some of its citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation?" Tradition the fact that marriage between one man and one woman has been the norm for millennia, is not a good reason to keep it, Olson writes. That it's the best venue for procreation and to raise children is trumped by the parties' right to pursue "happiness," he says. Later in the article he states, "...while our constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others." I find this dismissal of Christian values and their influence on our laws shocking especially coming from a prominent conservative. Christians, of all people, should be encouraged to bring their beliefs to bear in America because they are the beliefs that have been the foundation of a strong nation. Marriage and enduring families make big government less necessary. Christians do not comprise all of the people in America,but are the vast majority. For Christian beliefs to be dismissed in this way by Ted Olson or any thinking person, especially when they concern an institution, marriage, that predates our Constitution and laws, is simply wrong....and dangerous. . .

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

RELATED ARTICLE: 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. . .

Friends not surprised that Karenna Gore's marriage has run into problems

Friends not surprised that Karenna Gore's marriage has run into problems NY Daily News, By Frank Digiacomo, June 10, 2010
As Karenna Gore became the third member of the Gore family dynasty to pull back the curtain on her foundering marriage, friends of the once-golden Upper East Side-couple say they're saddened by the news, but not surprised. Wednesday, the 36-year-old Gore and her husband since 1997, Andrew Schiff, confirmed to various media outlets that they had been separated for several months and were in couples counseling. But friends wonder if they'll be able to find enough common ground to save their struggling marriage. "It's very sad," says one friend of the couple, who notes that a certain "tipping point" seems to have occurred in the Gore family when it comes to marital woes. In May 2009, Karenna's younger sister, TV writer Kristin Gore, filed for divorce from her husband; and a little over a year later, the girls' parents Al and Tipper Gore announced their separation. . . . .Schiff is former doctor-turned-biotech venture capitalist. Gore was the Youth Outreach Chair for her father's campaign and got a $200,000 advance to write a book that grew out of her political activism called: "Lighting The Way: Nine Women Who Changed Modern America." The couple also managed to find time to raise three children. "There was always a next thing: an election, another child, a book, an Academy Award [which her father won for his documentary on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth."]," the friend explains. "Once the music stopped, it was just them." However, another source close to the family tells Gatecrasher: "They are in marital counseling. They are working on things." The future said the source is "TBD: to be determined." Another confidant describes the couple as "lovely people, but restless souls--Karenna especially. I think she's always been looking for a place [IN THE SUN]for herself," the friend adds. "I think finding fulfillment in addition to raising a family is very difficult." In other Gore family news, Montecito Journal columnist Richard Mineards tells Gatecrasher that his lead column story today reports on the $8.75 million five-bedroom, nine-bathroom Spanish style mansion in Santa Barbara that the Gores purchased shortly before their split was made public. Mineards says he was told that the house, which sits on 1.5 choice acres in Montecito (home to Oprah Winfrey, Rob Lowe, John Cleese and Kirk Douglas), was acquired "with the specific intention of giving Tipper a suitable home for herself after they announced their separation.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gore Marriage Breakups: 5 Risk Factors for Divorce: Yes, divorce might be contagious. Just ask the Gores. Watch out for these 5 risk factors US News & World Report, By Deborah Kotz, June 10, 2010
If spring is the season for love, is summer the season for divorce? A rash of recently announced celebrity divorces and separations—Tiger and Elin, Al and Tipper, and now the Gores' daughter, Karenna—makes it feel as if everyone is untying the knot these days. Some married couples can't help but wonder, are they all on to something? "I think divorce could be contagious," says Robi Ludwig a New York City-based psychotherapist who previously hosted the reality TV show, One Week to Save Your Marriage. " If there's a trend where people handle glitches in their relationship by ending them, that could be seen [by others] as a possible solution." Al and Tipper may have been inspired to split after living through both of their daughters' marital woes, she says. Karenna separated from her husband several months ago, according to their statements to various media outlets. And the Gores' younger daughter, Kristin, filed for divorce from her husband in 2009. While it's well established that children from divorced homes are more likely to get divorced themselves, parents may not be immune to their children's divorces, either. . . .Unfortunately, there is no expiration date on any marriage. Couples can be together for 40 years, like Al and Tipper, and still decide to call it quits. "One would think after several decades together, a couple would have a found good ways to iron out all the kinks in a relationship, but no marriage is ever completely safe," says Ludwig. Here are 5 factors that can ruin any relationship: . . .

Kagan's 'full faith' in same-sex marriage

Kagan's 'full faith' in same-sex marriage
Old memo puts nominee to the left of legal and moral tradition Washington Times- EDITORIAL, June 08, 2010
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has a dubious history when it comes to forcing states to accept marriages that contradict their own laws. As senators prepare for her confirmation hearings, one fundamental question that needs to be asked is: Would Ms. Kagan as a high court justice try to resurrect the same discredited legal theory she embraced in 1988 as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall? At an Oct. 24, 2008, forum at Harvard Law School moderated by then-Dean Kagan, one questioner specifically asked if the Full Faith and Credit Clause could be read that way. Although liberal Harvard Law demigod Laurence Tribe is an advocate for same-sex "marriage," he immediately rejected the notion. "I do not think the Full Faith and Credit Clause makes marriage exportable," Mr. Tribe said. "There is a public-policy exception in the Full Faith and Credit Clause. ... Same-sex marriage in Connecticut or Massachusetts or California is not going to have to be recognized in other states." Without mentioning it by name, Mr. Tribe was referring to the well-established 1939 case of Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident, which ruled that "the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state." The subject has more than theoretical importance. Left-wing advocates for homosexual "marriage" often cite a clause from Article IV of the U.S. Constitution - "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state" - to argue that a same-sex union performed in Massachusetts must automatically be recognized, under law, in Mississippi or Utah or any other state where such a thing seems anathema. Despite this precedent, on July 12, 1988 - 20 years ago, but also half a century after the Pacific Employers case - Ms. Kagan described to Justice Marshall a petition for high court review in which a New York prisoner serving a life sentence tried to force New York to recognize a "proxy marriage" into which he entered, via his attorney, in Kansas, even though New York law clearly forbade it. Ms. Kagan's memo explained that the prisoner staked his claim specifically on the Full Faith and Credit Clause. "I think the [petitioner's] position is at least arguably correct," wrote Ms. Kagan. Ms. Kagan's advocacy for legal privileges for homosexuals stands out because it comes in the midst of a career of avoiding controversy like the plague. In 1988, she was ready to advise Justice Marshall to ignore 49 years of precedent for a prisoner's marriage. Senators would be derelict if they do not ask if she would now ignore 71 years of precedent in order to spread same-sex "marriage" to states that do not want it. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: White House complains about CBS News blog post saying that possible Supreme Court nominee is gay Washington Post, By Howard Kurtz, April 16, 2010
The White House ripped CBS News on Thursday for publishing an online column by a blogger who made assertions about the sexual orientation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, widely viewed as a leading candidate for the Supreme Court. Ben Domenech, a former Bush administration aide and Republican Senate staffer, wrote that President Obama would "please" much of his base by picking the "first openly gay justice." An administration official, who asked not to be identified discussing personal matters, said Kagan is not a lesbian. CBS initially refused to pull the posting, prompting Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director who is working with the administration on the high court vacancy, to say: "The fact that they've chosen to become enablers of people posting lies on their site tells us where the journalistic standards of CBS are in 2010." She said the network was giving a platform to a blogger "with a history of plagiarism" who was "applying old stereotypes to single women with successful careers." The network deleted the posting Thursday night after Domenech said he was merely repeating a rumor. The flare-up underscores how quickly the battle over a Supreme Court nominee -- or even a potential nominee -- can turn searingly personal. Most major news organizations have policies against "outing" gays or reporting on the sex lives of public officials unless they are related to their public duties. A White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said he complained to CBS because the column "made false charges." Domenech later added an update to the post: "I have to correct my text here to say that Kagan is apparently still closeted -- odd, because her female partner is rather well known in Harvard circles." . . .

Is “Ever After” Just Too Long? Marriage and Modernity
We have become a culture that believes that staying together unto death is just too much to ask. Albert Mohler.com, June 8, 2010
The announcement that Al and Tipper Gore are separating after forty years of marriage has captured the attention of the American public to a rather surprising degree. After all, divorce is hardly uncommon these days, and the Gores are famously part of the Baby Boom generation — the generation of couples with the highest divorce rate in history. . . . Nevertheless, the entire nation soon began talking about the Gore’s separation and marital breakdown. Some political pundits jumped immediately to the emergence of the Gores who, along with Bill and Hillary Clinton, were catapulted onto the world stage as the ultimate Baby Boomers. Who would have guessed, asked columnist Margaret Carlson, that it would be the Gores, and not the Clintons, who would make such an announcement?. . . . .Perhaps the most interesting analysis of the Gore announcement and its meaning for marriage came from Jeffrey Zaslow of The Wall Street Journal. Consider this paragraph from his report: The Gores aren’t offering explanations, but marital therapists and divorce attorneys say the breakup of long-term marriages is routine these days—for reasons of longevity, economics and cravings for happiness and self-expression that were less prevalent in previous generations. People are living longer, and they’re less willing to spend their last decades with someone who leaves them unfulfilled. At the same time, working wives are less dependent on husbands for financial support, and husbands have Viagra and other new incentives to find other romances. An entire moral revolution is found with those words. As Zaslow explains, we now face the reality that, as people are living longer, older couples are breaking up because of the desire of spouses to find happiness and self-expression. Add money and Viagra to the mix, and a whole new world of possibility beckons. . . . The modern age has been toxic to marriage. Its economic and cultural transformations have changed marriage as an institution and as an experience, and the cults of self-expression and personal autonomy have done their work as well. The knowledge of marriage as an enduring covenant has been replaced with the concept of marriage as a contract of unknown duration — with terms to be determined later. Christians observing the conversation in the culture spawned by the Gore separation should note carefully how this chatter reveals the fundamental transformation of marriage in the modern age. Those who are committed to the biblical understanding of marriage as an enduring and holy covenant cannot even entertain the notion of marriage as a commitment open to future reconsideration. If anything, the cultural conversation about the breakup of the Gores’ marriage indicates something of how difficult it is to contend for Christian marriage in the context of modernity. Nevertheless, this is the battle — and the commitment — to which we are called. Perhaps the marriage of Al and Tipper Gore may yet be saved. We must prayerfully hope that it might be so. But their announcement has revealed a break-up on an even larger scale — the break-up of a cultural commitment to marriage as an enduring institution. We have become a culture that believes that staying together unto death is just too much to ask. . .

Is ¿Ever After¿ Just Too Long? Marriage and Modernity

RELATED ARTICLE: Speaking Out: Learning from the Gores about the Grace of Separation: Why separating can be pro-family Christianity Today, By Glenn T. Stanton - Director of Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family, June 04, 2010 June 04, 2010
There are inconvenient truths. Earlier this week, Al and Tipper Gore announced to a small circle of close friends via e-mail—and thus to the world—that they are separating after 40 years of a seemingly very happy and successful marriage. Far too often we are surprised by news that a couple is divorcing when we all thought things were fine. But seldom do we hear, as we did with Al and Tipper, that a couple is separating. Was this carefully crafted PR language to avoid the "d word"—or is this truly descriptive of their situation? Few know. Regardless, it provides an opportunity to discuss marital separation and what it can mean for marriage. There can be a profound difference between the two ways of describing the new status of a marriage. Divorce is always the end of a marriage. It is the absolute death of a small civilization, as novelist Pat Conroy said of his own divorce. And that death has large ripple effects, since no marriage—by its very nature—is an island. Separation, however, can be an extreme and wise life-giving move for a marriage. It can allow a troubled couple to take a critical time-out from their seemingly hopeless marriage for antiseptic distance and hopefully a new perspective on what they have together, while making intentional plans for the road to health. In this sense, separation can be sad but praiseworthy. Although we don't know how the Gores are approaching their separation, it can serve as a teachable moment for all of us. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Permanence Before Experience - The Wisdom of Marriage Christian Post, By Albert Mohler, March 04, 2010
Rightly understood, marriage is all about permanence. In a world of transitory experiences, events, and commitments, marriage is intransigent. It simply is what it is - a permanent commitment made by a man and a woman who commit themselves to live faithfully unto one another until the parting of death. That is what makes marriage what it is. The logic of marriage is easy to understand and difficult to subvert, which is one reason the institution has survived over so many millennia. Marriage lasts because of its fundamental status. It is literally what a healthy and functioning society cannot survive without. And yet, modernity can be seen as one long attempt to subvert the permanent - including marriage. The modern age has brought the rise of individual autonomy, the collection of populations in cities, the weakening of family commitments, the waning of faith, the routinization of divorce, and a host of other developments that subvert marriage and the commitment it requires. Added to this list is the phenomenon of cohabitation. . .

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. . .

Parenting Issues: Student called a “Stupid Little Bigot” by Bus Driver United Families Inernational, June 7, 2010
The last thing that you expect when your child boards the school bus is that they will be berated for their beliefs and political positions— by the bus driver no less. If you don’t think that traditional and conservative values are under relentless attack, watch this video. It is bizarre, but not unheard of, that a bus driver should think that part of their job is to lecture and indoctrinate a student to their way of thinking. But it is outrageous that school administrators would not see a problem with the bus driver’s behavior. Both the bus driver and the school need to be held accountable. If it takes the parent’s filing a lawsuit to get their attention and to send a message to all those who think that their job is to indoctrinate someone else’s children—so be it. Unfortunately we live in a time when our children may be subjected to this type of political correctness, brainwashing and sometimes bullying by those who purport to know what’s best. The National Education Association (NEA) is complicit with this type of brainwashing as is academia as a whole. Prepare your children for when their values and beliefs may be challenged. Keep those lines of communication open so you know if there is a problem. Maybe it should be part of the “stranger danger” conversation. What occurred with this young student while riding the bus is definitely strange and it is absolutely dangerous.

If you’d like to communicate your feelings on this situation, you can reach the Superintendent of this Indiana School District at (317) 844-9961, Ext. 1048

Interfaith marriages are rising fast, but they're failing fast too

Interfaith marriages are rising fast, but they're failing fast too Washington Post, By Naomi Schaefer Riley, June 6, 2010
When Joseph Reyes and Rebecca Shapiro got married in 2004, they had a Jewish wedding ceremony. He was Catholic but converted to Judaism after they married, and they agreed to raise any children in the Jewish faith. However, after their daughter Ela was born, Reyes began to worry about the fact that she had not been baptized. "If, God forbid, something happened to her, she wouldn't be in heaven," he told me. Today, two years after the Illinois couple's bitter divorce battle began, the fight over Ela's religious upbringing involves criminal charges. The fight escalated in November, when Reyes had Ela baptized in a Catholic church and e-mailed his estranged wife a photo. She filed a complaint, and a judge barred Reyes from exposing his daughter to "any other religion other than the Jewish religion." In January, Reyes violated the judge's order and brought Ela to church again, with a camera crew in tow. The divorce was settled in April. Reyes is once again allowed to take his daughter to church. But he faces up to six months in jail. The Reyes-Shapiro divorce is about as ugly as the end of a marriage can get. Some of the sparring is an example of the bad ways people act when a union unravels. But the fight over Ela's religion illustrates the particular hardships and poor track record of interfaith marriages: They fail at higher rates than same-faith marriages. But couples don't want to hear that, and no one really wants to tell them. . . . . The American Religious Identification Survey of 2001 reported that 27 percent of Jews, 23 percent of Catholics, 39 percent of Buddhists, 18 percent of Baptists, 21 percent of Muslims and 12 percent of Mormons were then married to a spouse with a different religious identification. If you want to see what the future holds, note this: Less than a quarter of the 18- to 23-year-old respondents in the National Study of Youth and Religion think it's important to marry someone of the same faith. . . . .But the effects on the marriages themselves can be tragic -- it is an open secret among academics that tsk-tsking grandmothers may be right. According to calculations based on the American Religious Identification Survey of 2001, people who had been in mixed-religion marriages were three times more likely to be divorced or separated than those who were in same-religion marriages. In a paper published in 1993, Evelyn Lehrer, a professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago, found that if members of two mainline Christian denominations marry, they have a one in five chance of being divorced in five years. A Catholic and a member of an evangelical denomination have a one in three chance. And a Jew and a Christian who marry have a greater than 40 percent chance of being divorced in five years. . . All in all, millenials may be more suited to making interfaith marriage succeed. Maybe they will care less about the strictures of religion, or they won't be as emotionally attached to the rituals of their religious communities. And maybe the

RELATED DISCUSSION: Outlook: Interfaith marriage Washington Post, June 07, 2010

RELATED ARTICLE: The Emotional Challenges of Interfaith Marriage Psych Central, By Allan Schwartz
There is a rapid rate of intermarriage among people of different faiths in the United States. Estimates are that 50 percent of Jewish men and women intermarry. Several articles about the Catholic Church have pointed out that many young people have left the Church and have intermarried. These facts are indicative of the high degree of assimilation and tolerance that is practiced in this country. This is taken as evidence of the declining role of faith and religious identity in the minds of many young Americans. Surveys, in fact, show that many do not identify themselves with any religion. Interfaith marriage usually occurs between one person who is Jewish and another who is Christian. However, there are increasing numbers of young Catholics and Protestants intermarrying. Generally, this is viewed as less difficult for the young couple because of a commonly shared theology and culture. Nevertheless, even among Christian sects, interfaith marriage poses serious problems and creates crises for the couple and their respective families. Separation and Guilt: According to Judith Wallerstein, author of The Good Marriage: How & Why Love Lasts (Warner Books, 1996), for a marriage to succeed, the young couple must psychologically and emotionally separate from their families of childhood. If the in-laws are against intermarriage, the stage is set for conflict, bitterness and misunderstanding, with damaging and long-lasting consequences for these relationships. Also, such hostility can provoke enormous guilt for the young bride or groom. This guilt makes the task of emotional separation more difficult to achieve. Perhaps the greatest task of all is coping with feelings of guilt about having left the fold and defied the family.

RELATED ARTICLE: Interfaith Marriage in Islam: Does Islam permit marriage outside of the faith? About.com Guide, By Huda,
The Qur'an lays out clear guidelines for marriage. One of the main traits you should look for in a potential spouse is a similarity in religious outlook. For the sake of compatibility, and the upbringing of future children, it is most recommended for a Muslim to marry another Muslim. However, in some circumstances it is permissible for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim. Muslim Man and Non-Muslim Woman: In general, Muslim men are not permitted to marry non-Muslim women. "Do not marry unbelieving women until they believe. . .

Wedding goes on - at hospital - after fatal crash

Wedding goes on -- at hospital -- after fatal crash IndyStar.com, By Gretchen Becker, June 6, 2010
A wedding day is supposed to be filled with laughter and happiness, but the big day was bittersweet for one newlywed couple. Tom Hanley, 23, and Lauren Magee, 24, were riding with their bridal party on a shuttle bus Saturday when the day turned tragic. They were headed for wedding-day picture taking when the bus collided with another vehicle at a Downtown intersection, killing a groomsman and injuring more than a dozen other bus occupants, including the wedding couple. Despite sorrow, bandages, bruises and cuts, the wedding party persevered, with the couple exchanging vows later in the day in a conference area of Methodist Hospital's emergency room. While they made the best of the situation, those at the wedding said they did not want to dwell on the tragic crash and death with the media. . . . .The bride works in IMPD's crime analysis unit, he said. The wedding had been scheduled for 5:30 p.m. Saturday at Mavris, 121 S. East St. After the hospital wedding, the party did go there for a prayer service and dinner. At the wedding, nurses transformed into wedding planners, gathering cookies and punch, setting up chairs and using hydrogen peroxide to get bloodstains out of dresses. Carrying gerbera daisy bouquets, the bridesmaids and bride all wore hospital-issued socks, captured in a photo by the wedding photographer. About 100 teary-eyed guests gathered for the short ceremony, where the bride and groom exchanged vows and rings. "We got their medical needs tended to, and we found out they wanted to get married here," said Kelly Owens, an emergency room nurse. Owens' husband picked up a replacement tuxedo for the groom, while security officers from Methodist went to Wishard to pick up the best man and rings. "I've been here 10 years," Owens said. "I've seen one or two brides come in, but this is definitely the first time we've done a wedding. It makes the best of a bad situation.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: Wedding Day Turns Tragic: 1 killed, 14 hurt in limo, bus crash WISH-TV 8, June 06, 2010
- One person is dead after a small limo bus carrying a wedding party was involved in a crash in downtown Indianapolis.

RELATED PHOTOS: Couple wed in hospital after fatal crash IndyStar.com, June 6, 2010

Rush Limbaugh married, again The Palm Beach Post, June 05, 2010
As the stifling evening fell on The Breakers Saturday in Palm Beach, Conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh tied the knot with his much younger sweetheart, West Palm Beach resident Kathryn Rogers, before a plethora of celebrities gathered at the resort’s gilded Ponce de Leon ballroom. . . . . . According to sources at The Breakers, Limbaugh hired as many as 50 private security guards (that’s one per eight guests) and three uniformed Palm Beach Police cops, including two in boats at sea. The hotel was shut down to those who didn’t have a room key most of the day. Rogers, 33, and El Rushbo, 59, met in 2004 as she ran a charity golf tournament for golfer Gary Player’s non-profit and Limbaugh was a celebrity duffer. Not everyone, however, had warm feelings on Limbaugh’s happy day. As many of the guests hung out at the pool or on the beach Saturday afternoon, a small plane flew overhead with a banner that read: “Rush, congrats on your fourth marriage. XO. Gawker.” The New York website Gawker.com ran a readers contest this week in which the best congratulatory message to Limbaugh would be flown over the wedding. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Rush Limbaugh Weds for 4th Time, and Elton John Sings People magazine, By Stephen M. Silverman, June 06, 2010
Talk about an odd couple: conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh and outspoken gay-marriage advocate Elton John. But, according to a News Corporation (which owns Fox News) wire report, the Rocket Man, 63, serenaded the 400 guests into the wee hours Saturday night to celebrate the marriage of Limbaugh, 59, to Kathryn Rogers, 33, in the Ponce de Leon ballroom of Florida's fabled Breakers hotel in Palm Beach. Sir Elton's fee: $1 million, the report notes. . . . The couple met six years ago, while she was running a charity golf tournament and Limbaugh was in the process of divorcing for the third time. Sunday morning, a source tells PEOPLE, the newlyweds hopped Limbaugh's private Gulfstream jet for a honeymoon in Mexico, Africa and a couple other spots. Rogers is a direct descendant of President John Adams, and her father attended the U.S. Naval Academy with the future Arizona Senator (and 2008 Republican Presidential candidate) John McCain, reports NewsCore. . .

Rush Limbaugh married to wife #4 Kathryn Rogers

RELATED ARTICLE: Congratulations Rush Limbaugh! Gawker.com, June 06, 2010
Rush Limbaugh and his bride, Kathryn, have tied the knot. We weren't invited to the exclusive event this evening. But, as you can see above, we were there in spirit! The winner of our plane-banner contest—and 15 runners-up—below. We received many, many excellent and creative submissions on how best to congratulate Rush on his special day. You went all out and for that we thank you. After much debate, we went with Oryx's suggestion, a very simple message of congratulations for Rush on his special 4th wedding day—as one commenter put it, very likely the 4th happiest day of his life. So why did we go with this one? Well, there were a bunch of considerations. Many of the messages we liked were too controversial for the pilot we hired to fly the banner over Palm Beach. (He lives there and has a business to run, and he was skittish about pissing off everyone in town.) Many others referenced Limbaugh's years-old prescription drug arrest, which seemed like a bit of a cheap shot no matter how clever they were, or how much he might deserve it. There were quite a few good political ones, too, touching on gay marriage and the oil spill. But we'll leave staging protests at weddings to the Westboro Baptist Church. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: All You Need is Love (and a Prenup) CBN.com, By Chuck Colson, June 30, 2005
--The picture in the Washingtonian magazine perfectly symbolized a nation with the highest divorce rate in the world. It featured a wedding cake with a bride and groom on top. Lurking behind them were two gloomy, dark-suited figures: two little lawyers, each one holding a copy of the prenuptial agreement. “Love is all you need—unless the marriage ends in divorce,” wrote Washingtonian editor Kim Eisler. “Then a prenuptial agreement is the best defense.” He called the prenup “a divorce insurance policy.” Well, that’s probably true—but wouldn’t it be better for couples to have a marriage insurance policy? . . .

We Don't Believe You, Mr. President Human Life International, By Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer - President, Human Life International, June 04, 2010
Dear President Obama,
Every citizen with a modicum of insight into public affairs would say that America is now at a crossroads of decision about what kind of future we want for our nation-and, by extension, for the rest of the world. Whether we like it or not, you are the one who is designated by a vote of the electorate to lead us in that decision-making process. You have asked for the job, and you have proposed yourself as being competent for it. History will judge your Administration on its own merits when your term is complete, but we, the citizens of this country, must judge it for what we see happening before our very eyes. Quite frankly, the picture isn't pretty, and you haven't earned our respect as a leader. The reason for this, Mr. President, is that we can't believe what you say, and frankly, what you do is utterly unbelievable at times. The recent Gulf Coast oil spill disaster is indicative of your utter carelessness with the onerous burden of governance. Not only did you dis the families of the 11 workers killed in the disaster, but you also attended fundraisers in CA, a trip to the golf course and several state parties in the White House during the whole time the Governor of Louisiana has been screaming frantically for your attention. How can you expect us to believe that you were actually "in charge" of handling the disaster?. . . We have seen your ideological hacks take over whole industries, plunder the private sector, abuse the good will of states and consume sound American institutions as if they were your enemies and with a ferocity that would befit only those who we would call our true national enemies. Like the Gulf oil spill, your Administration is out of control, and every day is another step closer to disaster. As the oil continues to pollute, kill and damage the external beauty and economy of a whole region, you and your team are doing the same with the trust of the people who built this great country. We deserve better, Mr. President, and it's time you start doing your job. . .

When Daddy's Name is 'Donor' Townhall.com, By Maggie Gallagher, June 03, 2010
What is it like to be a child conceived using the sperm of a man whom the law says has no obligations to you at all, that you don't even have a right to know his name? As many as 1 percent of all children born in America are created by reproductive technology, and yet few people have bothered to ask that question. Until now. Thanks to an extraordinary new report just released by the Institute for American Values, "My Daddy's Name Is Donor," we can now begin to look for answers. The groundbreaking study by Elizabeth Marquardt, Norval Glenn and Karen Clark looks at almost 500 young adults created by donor insemination. . . . .There are worse things, clearly. But just as clearly, children conceived by reproductive technologies are struggling with the meaning of their origins, and they are struggling largely alone. On IAV's FamilyScholars.org blog, Olivia Pratten, who is a donor offspring, writes about what it felt like to show up at infertility industry conferences: "I quickly realized I was a black sheep there. Much like my experience with the physician who engineered my conception, people in the infertility industry didn't know what to say to me. The message was clear: I wasn't supposed to be there. I was supposed to be somewhere else with no thoughts or feelings about all of this." She says, "If knowing your biological roots didn't matter, then genealogy wouldn't exist. ... If knowing your biological roots didn't matter, anthropologists wouldn't have found that varying forms of ancestor worship can be found throughout all cultures throughout time. ... If biology didn't matter, donor anonymity would have never started in the first place." She's right: The whole billion-dollar fertility industry is predicated on the truth that biological connection matters.. . . . .We live in a society that seeks to fragment experience in order to reduce barriers to desire. First we separated sex from marriage, then marriage from reproduction, and then, finally, reproduction from sex. Biology doesn't matter, we say, because love makes a family. . . .

RELATED REPORT: My Daddy's Name Is Donor: A New Study of Young Adults Conceived Through Sperm Donation Institute for American Value, Elizabeth Marquardt, Norval Glenn, and Karen Clark May 31, 2010
The Commission on Parenthood's Future today released internationally the groundbreaking report My Daddy's Name is Donor: A New Study of Young Adults Conceived Through Sperm Donation, co-investigated by Elizabeth Marquardt, Norval D. Glenn, and Karen Clark. The report reveals stunning findings about the lives of adult offspring of sperm donation, one of the most common reproductive technologies and one that has been practiced widely in the U.S. and around the world for decades. "Many people think that because these young people resulted from wanted pregnancies, how they were conceived doesn't matter to them," says co-investigator Elizabeth Marquardt. Co-investigator Karen Clark adds, "But this study reveals that when they are adults, sperm donor offspring struggle with serious losses from being purposefully denied knowledge of, or a relationship with, their sperm donor biological fathers.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Who Did I Come From? The Children of Donor Dads Grow Up: A revealing new study shows that, for donor offspring at least, being wanted isn't everything. MercatorNet, May 30, 2010
Experts estimate that there could be around one million young people alive in the world today as a result of sperm donation. How are they doing? Elizabeth Marquardt of the Institute for American Values and colleagues have done a unique study based on a large, representative US survey and, in a report published today, tell us that the kids, many of them, are not okay. In this interview with MercatorNet during a recent conference hosted by the Social Trends Institute in Barcelona, she talks about some of her findings. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Birds and the Bees (Via the Fertility Clinic) New York Times, By Ross Douthat, May 30, 2010
If you want to adopt a child in the United States, you'll face an array of bureaucratic roadblocks and invasive interrogations. Adoption agencies will assess your finances, your relationships, and your fitness as a potential guardian. The interests of the child, not the desires of the would-be parent, will be treated as paramount throughout. If you want to procure sperm or eggs, the process is completely different. You can shop for gametes the way you'd go shopping for a house or a car -- buying ova from an Ivy League undergraduate, or sperm from a 6-foot-8, athletic, blue-eyed Dane. The person selling you the right to bear and rear their biological offspring can do so anonymously, with no future strings attached at all. The result is a freewheeling fertility marketplace whose impact on American life keeps increasing. Sperm donations generate between 30,000 and 60,000 conceptions every year, and roughly 6,000 children are conceived through egg donation annually as well. About a million American adults, if not more, are the biological children of sperm donors. . .

My Husband Cheated on Me, Just Like Sandra's -- Here's Why I Stayed LemonDrop, By Anne Bercht, June 03, 2010
When I was 38, I found out my husband was having an affair. To answer your first questions: No, I never saw it coming. And if I could, I wouldn't go back and change what happened to us, for one simple reason: It has allowed our love, and our marriage, to reach levels they never would have otherwise. Right now, everyone is consumed by Sandra Bullock and her plight: Should she stay, or should she go? Jesse is making the rounds on the morning shows, contrite. What I would tell Sandra is: Hang on, and don't make a rash decision in the moment. If the love was real, it can survive. I won't pretend it's easy. It's a long road to recovery. And I know, because after living it, I wrote the book that I couldn't find out there to help people like me heal. I didn't want to read about cheating from some academic in an ivory tower. I wanted to hear answers from a real woman who'd lived through infidelity. Now I have, and as the author of "My Husband's Affair Became the Best Thing That Ever Happened to Me," I can tell you why Sandra or Silda or Hillary -- or millions of women you don't know by just their first name who feel the same pain -- are equally anguished by the decision of whether to walk out that door. Here's what happened in my marriage, and why I'm still proud to call Brian my husband today. Brian and I had been married 18 years at the time of his affair. We had a strong marriage; that was safe to say. And I didn't see it coming at all. In fact, I distinctly remember the night I found out. I was taking voice lessons, and I was in the car when that Toni Braxton song "Unbreak My Heart" came on. I was singing out loud and proud, the way you do in the car, thinking, This is such a great song, and it's right in my range. Oh, those words are so depressing, but I have such a great marriage. That could never happen to me. When I got home that night, Brian said to me, "Anne, I have to tell you something." I went into complete shock. There had been zero signs it was happening. And I'm now completely embarrassed by the first words that flew out of my mouth, which were "I forgive you." Say what?! Now, I know that those words weren't acceptance; they were denial. But at the time, I thought if I just said them, we'd go back to our happy Cinderella life and I could pretend nothing had happened. But no sooner had I said that than a totally different wave of emotion washed over me. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Sandra Bullock Celebrates MTV Generation Award With Kiss From Scarlett Johansson MTV.com, June 06, 2010
Bullock puckered up with her 'Proposal' co-star Ryan Reynolds' wife during her acceptance speech. . .

My Husband Cheated on Me, Just Like Sandra's -- Here's Why I Stayed (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: Jesse James: The Full Interview ABC News- Nightline, May 26, 2010
Sandra Bullock's ex says he threw away an amazing marriage by cheating.

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

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

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

Obama extends benefits of gay federal workers

Obama extends benefits of gay federal workers Washington Post, By Ed O'Keefe, June 03, 2010
President Obama extended Wednesday a wider range of benefits to the same-sex partners of eligible federal workers, including access to medical treatment, relocation assistance, credit unions and fitness centers. The move goes beyond a memo Obama signed last June, which permitted same-sex partners to use the government's long-term-care insurance and other fringe benefits. The Office of Personnel Management said Tuesday that same-sex partners will become eligible for such insurance next month. Obama also ordered federal agencies last year to identify other benefits that could be offered to same-sex partners. . . . . These benefits do not cover uniformed members of the military. Last week, the House voted to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bans gays and lesbians from openly serving in uniform, and the Senate is scheduled to vote on a repeal in the coming weeks. If a repeal is included in the final version of the annual defense spending bill, the Pentagon would take steps next year to address the treatment of gay and lesbian service members. Though Obama has extended a greater number of benefits to gay federal workers than any of his predecessors, he is prevented by federal law from providing full benefits to same-sex partners. To that end, he reiterated support for House and Senate legislation that would grant all federal benefits to same-sex partners. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama Makes Taxpayers Foot the Bill for Marriage Benefits for Homosexual Couples LifesiteNews.com, By James Tillman, June 03, 2010
As the openly-homosexual John Berry, Director of the Office of Personnel Management, wrote in a directive detailing implementation of the President’s memorandum, these new benefits include: access to fitness facilities, adoption counseling, childcare services, medical treatment, lodging, accidental death and dismemberment insurance, and dental insurance, among many others. In June of 2009, President Obama had extended a few federal benefits to same-sex partners; however, the new directive goes well beyond that measure. . . . . .The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996 by a veto-proof majority, and says that no state will be forced to consider a relationship between two persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is so considered in another state. It also says that the federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman. . . . . The Family Research Council's Tony Perkins called the move "a gratuitous swipe at the Defense of Marriage Act, carving out a position that's well outside the mainstream of most Americans (72%) who define marriage as the union of a man and woman." Contrary to Obama's claim to have worked within the law, Perkins said the "special perks already violate U.S. marriage law and 31 state marriage amendments." "Interestingly enough, the benefits don't apply to unmarried heterosexuals, meaning that this White House is promoting the same kind of 'discrimination' it's supposedly working to end!" he added. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Why we're losing the 'gay' debate OneNewsNow, By Peter Heck - Guest Columnist, June 01, 2010
. . . [T]he proper debate regarding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should not be held as one that will determine whether certain people can serve. That is a false premise. The debate should be held over whether or not those who do serve should be banned from participating in certain sexual behaviors. Since the Uniform Code of Military Justice seeks, "to promote the well-being, morale...and good order and discipline" of our armed forces, we should be asking whether the open practice of men having sex with men is dangerous to military cohesion. We should be asking whether or not the devastating physical effects of men having sex with men are conducive to a healthy and strong fighting force. We should be asking if the preponderance of sexual transmitted diseases found in men having sex with men represents any concerns with the necessity of battlefield blood transfusions. We should be asking if the same reasons the military forbids men and women from sharing barracks (avoiding sexual aggression, harassment and counterproductive distractions) should not preclude the open acceptance of men having sex with men. These are the rational grounds upon which this debate should be fought. Failing to recognize, articulate and demand as much guarantees the outcome – one in which grounded and clear thinking individuals are labeled bigots, and in which the most powerful military in world history surrenders to its most dangerous foe...political correctness. . .

RELATED INFO: Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media MassResistance.org
Read below: The powerful, sophisticated psychological techniques that the homosexual movement has used to manipulate the public in the media. If you think that the radical changes in the minds of Americans -- and in your own mind -- about homosexuality in the last decade are an accident, you must read the section below from the 1989 book, "After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s" (Penguin Books), which immediately became a beacon for the then-emerging homosexual movement. Building on the basic strategies outlined in Marshall Kirk's groundbreaking 1987 article, "The Overhauling of Straight America", this book puts forth the very sophisticated psychological persuasion and propaganda mass media techniques that we've all seen and been affected by over the years -- but never understood what was happening. . .

RELATED QUOTE: ". . . All it would take to undo this fraudulent charade is basic common sense – the greatest enemy of political correctness. So here it is: all sexual behavior – married heterosexual conduct, adulterous heterosexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, homosexuality, pedophilia, coprophilia, polyamory...ALL of it – is chosen behavior. No one is compelled into any sexual conduct. Even those who choose to abide by God's design for sex within the confines of a married, monogamous, man/woman relationship, how, when and if they engage in sexual behavior, is a choice. It has nothing to do with unalterable, unchangeable, immutable characteristics. . . " Peter Heck, One News Now, June 01, 2010

RELATED ARTICLE: From Bush to Obama: Sanctity of Human Life Day to Gay Pride Month LifesiteNews.com, By John-Henry Westen, May 31, 2010
President Barack Obama has for the second year in a row issued a proclamation declaring June "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month." While prior to his leaving office President George W. Bush issued a Sanctity of Life Day proclamation for 2009, such a proclamation was rejected by President Obama for 2010. Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America was not surprised by President Obama's actions. "Obama is consistent," Wright told LifeSiteNews. "He takes the side that is short-sighted, harmful to individuals and society, and focused on self. He sides with those demanding that the innocent be discriminated against and the immoral celebrated. He is consistently wrong on moral issues.". . .

Fran Drescher 'Blessed To Have Met' Gay Ex-Husband PopEater, June 03, 2010
In a bombshell interview with In Touch Weekly, Fran Drescher has revealed that her ex-husband, Peter Marc Jacobson, to whom she was married for more than 21 years, is gay. Although he broke the news to her after they divorced in 1999, Drescher has finally come clean about her ex's sexuality, admitting his confession brought them closer together. "Peter and I feel so blessed to have met each other and to still have a caring, loving relationship," Fran says. "Love is what we're all about." In the interview, Drescher speaks candidly about her openly gay ex-husband and the traumatic burglary that changed everything. The two first met while attending Hillcrest High School in Jamaica, Queens. The couple married in 1978 when Drescher was 21 -- shortly after she made her film debut in 1977's 'Saturday Night Fever.' In hindsight, Drescher admits young love had its pitfalls, but the two went through life-changing experiences that would later define their careers in Hollywood. "Peter and I met when we were 15," Drescher tells In Touch. "We were just kids and didn't know who we truly were. We went through a lot together." Jacobson and Drescher became an unstoppable team when he wrote, directed and produced her signature television series, 'The Nanny.' But not everything was as simple as it seemed. The couple had quite a few ups and downs -- including a traumatic experience in January 1985 when two armed robbers broke into their Los Angeles apartment. While one robber ransacked their home, the other sexually assaulted Drescher at gunpoint. Jacobson was also physically attacked, tied up and forced to witness the entire ordeal. . .

Fran Drescher Talks About Her Gay Ex-Husband Peter Marc Jacobson

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Fran Drescher: Meet my gay ex-husband In Touch Weekly, June 03, 2010
Fran Drescher has never been shy about voicing her support for gay rights: In 2008, she and her former husband co-hosted a cocktail party in LA to benefit an organization that has sought to block California’s ban on same-sex marriage. But it turns out that the cause was even closer to the Nanny star’s heart than her fans could have guessed — as In Touch can now exclusively reveal, Peter Marc Jacobson, the man to whom Fran, 52, was married for more than two decades, is gay. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 'I Discovered My Husband Was Gay' LemonDrop, By Joy Marie, May 28, 2010
One night, I was lying in bed feeling extremely sad and lonely. I had been crying all day. My husband was sound asleep beside me. Something told me to listen to Gary's cell phone messages. I slid out of bed and took his cell phone into the bathroom. My hands were already shaking, it was almost as if I knew something disturbing was about to happen. Suddenly, I heard a man's voice calling my husband, "Baby.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Facts, not flattery, about same-sex attraction: Blithe assertions about the gay lifestyle are seldom backed up by scientific studies -- and when they are, the studies are weak. Mercatornet.com, By Ad Hoc Committee on Homosexuality and Scientific Research, May 22, 2007
Who helps you: someone who fails to tell you the truth or someone who does tell you the truth? The former may make you feel better; they may soothe and flatter, but the truth is more loving. It will help you live a healthier, happier and more fulfilled life. Defenders and promoters of homosexuality try to cover up the scientifically documented serious promiscuity, inability to maintain sexual fidelity, partner abuse and psychological and medical illnesses associated with the lifestyle. Also, they tell persons with same-sex attractions (SSA) that "It's genetic," "You were born that way," or worse "God made you gay.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE (PDF): NATIONAL GAY MEN’S HIV/AIDS AWARENESS DAY Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Statement by Dr. Jonathan Mermin— Director, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, September 27, 2009
September 27, 2009 is the second annual National Gay Men’s HIV/AIDS Awareness Day (NGMHAAD). I applaud the efforts of the National Association of People with AIDS (NAPWA) and many other organizations throughout the United States who are participating in this important event. HIV touches all segments of American society—individuals, families, and communities, young and old, men and women, black and white. However, since the beginning of the epidemic in the United States, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men have been disproportionately affected by HIV. Of all the people newly infected with HIV, men who have sex with men is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among men who have sex with men has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s. . .

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

RELATED QUOTE: "...Are you left wondering WHY more and more people are coming out of the closet? It's because the world is becoming just as dark as the closets used to be!..." The Real Proposal magazine, March 29, 2010

What Pets Can Teach Us About Marriage NY Times- Well Blogs, By Tara Parker-Pope, June 02, 2010
Do you greet each other with excitement, overlook each other’s flaws and easily forgive bad behavior? If it’s your pet, the answer is probably yes. But your spouse? Probably not. In an article on PsychCentral, clinical psychologist Suzanne B. Phillips of Long Island University explores what our relationships with pets can teach us about our relationship with a spouse or romantic partner. “What is interesting in my work with couples is that although couples may vehemently disagree on most topics, they usually both soften in manner and tone to agree that the dog, cat, bird or horse is great,” Dr. Phillips writes. She argues that we all have much to learn from the way we love our pets. People often describe pets as undemanding and giving unconditional love, when the reality is that pets require a lot of time and attention, special foods and care. They throw up on rugs, pee in the house and steal food from countertops. Yet we accept their flaws because we love them so much. Dr. Phillips suggests we can all learn how to improve our human relationships by focusing on how we interact with our pets. Among her suggestions: . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: “Can Pets Improve Your Relationship?” Psych Central, By By Suzanne Phillips, Psy.D., ABPP
Can we learn something from our relationship with pets that might enhance our relationship with partners? Yes, if we are willing to take a closer look at ourselves. The old expression “you get what you give” may apply here. Maybe you give something very positive to your pet that invites the unconditional love and connection that makes you feel so good. Maybe it has potential to enhance your relationship. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Repeat after me: 'Welcome home, dear' Boston Globe, By Maggie Jackson, February 12, 2006
''Hi Honey, I'm home!" This classic phrase conjures visions of mothers in aprons coming to the door to greet fathers with briefcases. A peck on the cheek, dinner on the table -- all that seems so passé. Now we check in by cellphone, rush home to do more work, juggle, hurry, multitask. Who needs to mark the arrival at the end of the day? We do, more than we think. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: What Shamu Taught Me About a Happy Marriage New York Times, By Amy Sutherland, June 26, 2006
Like many wives before me, I ignored a library of advice books and set about improving him. By nagging, of course, which only made his behavior worse: he'd drive faster instead of slower; shave less frequently, not more; and leave his reeking bike garb on the bedroom floor longer than ever. We went to a counselor to smooth the edges off our marriage. She didn't understand what we were doing there and complimented us repeatedly on how well we communicated. I gave up. I guessed she was right — our union was better than most — and resigned myself to stretches of slow-boil resentment and occasional sarcasm. Then something magical happened. For a book I was writing about a school for exotic animal trainers, I started commuting from Maine to California, where I spent my days watching students do the seemingly impossible: teaching hyenas to pirouette on command, cougars to offer their paws for a nail clipping, and baboons to skateboard. I listened, rapt, as professional trainers explained how they taught dolphins to flip and elephants to paint. Eventually it hit me that the same techniques might work on that stubborn but lovable species, the American husband. The central lesson I learned from exotic animal trainers is that I should reward behavior I like and ignore behavior I don't. After all, you don't get a sea lion to balance a ball on the end of its nose by nagging. The same goes for the American husband. . .

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

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Catch 22: Get caught in a good marriage YourHub.com, By Jan Fallon, August 21, 2006
Does this sound familiar? A wife has exhausted herself pursuing a husband who has disengaged from her and the kids. She finally reaches her limit and threatens to file for a divorce. That gets his attention and he makes an attempt to engage - perhaps by asking her out on a date, or by taking the kids to the zoo. He soon discovers he's not earning any points. His wife is distant and unimpressed. He ends up thinking, "Why do I bother?" Catch-22 is in full swing. . . .

Sarah Jessica Parker’s Health & Marriage Are A Mess BackseatCuddler, June 01, 2010
Sarah Jessica Parker has been glamming it up on red carpets on both sides of the Atlantic to promote Sex and the City 2. But apparently her constant work is taking its toll on her health and her marriage to Matthew Broderick. Sarah said: “I’m really lucky he’s the father of my children. But that doesn’t mean we always agree on everything. I’m happy to be with him regardless, but I’m sure there are many times he wishes he wasn’t with me. We’ve had some rather treacherous train rides. Lack of communication is where things go wrong for people. I’m certainly no expert in relationships, God knows. My main concern is that my husband and children have enough time. I’ve felt very conflicted.” And maybe Matthew’s not getting enough time after all, or perhaps he’s still getting his needs met elsewhere, because Sarah also reveals: “He isn’t jealous when I’m in a movie with a sexy guy. He doesn’t seem to show any degree of being threatened by it. I don’t know, maybe he doesn’t care.”. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: SJP: 'My marriage has been like a treacherous train ride' News of the World, By Dan Wootton and Jennifer Wiley, May 30, 2010
MOVIE queen Sarah Jessica Parker took Britain by storm on Thursday at the London premiere of Sex And The City 2 - but behind all the showbiz glamour SJP has endured two years of a secret personal hell. Friends fear the 45-year-old actress's health is starting to suffer as her marriage to screen star Matthew Broderick is STRAINED, her weight is PLUNGING and the fragile relationship with her co-stars is near COLLAPSE. Friends insist she and husband Matthew, 48, have never really recovered from the scandal over an alleged affair with a 25-year-old woman while Sarah was away filming the first Sex And The City movie. Matthew has never denied the accusation. And when filming on SATC No 2 finished at the end of last year mum- of-three Sarah admitted her busy schedule meant the couple had been out together just TWICE since the arrival of their twin daughters, born to a paid surrogate 11 months ago. Talking frankly about Matthew, she confessed: "I'm really lucky he's the father of my children. But that doesn't mean we always agree on everything. "I'm happy to be with him regardless, but I'm sure there are many times he wishes he wasn't with me. "We've had some rather treacherous train rides. . .

Sarah Jessica Parker¿s Health & Marriage Are A Mess

RELATED ARTICLE: Kim Cattrall blames show for marriage break down AskMen.com, October 30, 2005
Kim Cattrall has blamed 'Sex and the City' for the breakdown of her marriage. The stunning actress claims her now-ex-husband Mark Levinson didn't like the raunchy storylines of her sex-mad character Samantha Jones. She also admits he was unhappy with the long hours she had to work on the hit show. Kim revealed to Britain's New magazine: "He was a fan of the show, but I think he had problems with some of the episodes and storylines, although I did not feel that way. "And I was also on a schedule that never stopped. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Kim Cattrall's Busy Schedule Ruins Relationship With Alan Wyse AceShowBiz, February 01, 2010
You work 12-hour days, and something like a series literally consumes your life,' the Samantha Jones of 'Sex and the City' reveals the reason behind her break up with chef Alan Wyse. "Sex and the City" star Kim Cattrall blames her busy work schedule for the breakdown of her relationship with chef Alan Wyse - but is still hopeful she will find lasting love. The actress split from Canadian cook in 2009 after a five-year romance and had previously been married three times. But despite being single at 53, the feisty blonde is sure she'll settle down again for good. She says, "It's very hard for someone not involved in this business to really understand what it's about. You work 12-hour days, and something like a series literally consumes your life. I think it's just time not there, really. But I'm still hopeful that I'll meet someone." Kim Cattrall was previously married to Larry Davis in 1977. But after only two years of togetherness, the marriage was annulled. The 53-year-old actress then married Andre J. Lyson from 1982 to 1989. And her third wedlock was with audio designer named Mark Levinson, which lasted from 1998 to 2004. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Yes, women had it all - but can they STILL have a career, husband and children? The Daily Mail- UK, By Becky Sheaves, April 4, 2008
Plenty of women were sacrificing motherhood and marriage for careers, but not so many were managing to achieve all three. The bad news is that two decades on, and armed with wisdom, experience and hindsight, all three women believe it is harder than ever for women to "have it all". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Desperate Feminist Wives: Why wanting equality makes women unhappy Slate.com- By Meghan O'Rourke, Mar 6, 2006
In The Feminine Mystique, the late Betty Friedan attributed the malaise of married women largely to traditionalist marriages in which wives ran the home and men did the bread-winning. Her book helped spark the sexual revolution of the 1970s and fueled the notion that egalitarian partnerships—where both partners have domestic responsibilities and pursue jobs—would make wives happier. Last week, two sociologists at the University of Virginia published an exhaustive study of marital happiness among women that challenges this assumption. Stay-at-home wives, according to the authors, are more content than their working counterparts. And happiness, they found, has less to do with division of labor than with the level of commitment and "emotional work" men contribute (or are perceived to contribute). But the most interesting data may be that the women who strongly identify as progressive—the 15 percent who agree most with feminist ideals—have a harder time being happy than their peers, according to an analysis that has been provided exclusively to Slate. Feminist ideals, not domestic duties, seem to be what make wives morose. Progressive married women—who should be enjoying some or all of the fruits that Freidan lobbied for—are less happy, it would appear, than women who live as if Friedan never existed. . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: A Revolution Without a Man to Love Townhall.com, By Suzanne Fields, December 08, 2005
Women have come a long way from merely challenging "The Feminine Mystique," which Betty Friedan identified as a little voice within that cried: "I want something more than my husband and my children and my home." More is a relative term, of course, and sometimes more is less, and a house is not a home.. . . The cruelest irony of the revolution that changed the relationships of the sexes is the shortage of eligible men. It's not that there are fewer men statistically, but there are fewer desirable men statistically. A headline in The Washington Post complains: "Disappearing Act: Where Have the Men Gone? No Place Good." . . . One of the depressing consequences is that increasing numbers of women find their children at sperm banks. Some are women whose husbands are unable to procreate, but many (and they're not all lesbians) simply don't want to bother with a man in their lives. They think they can do it better alone. By some estimates, the number of single women seeking donor sperm has doubled in a decade. A customer with money confronts no social stigma. The celebrity magazines are awash with stories of women who are "single mothers by choice." But these designer children suffer just like children without fathers have always suffered. . .

Al and Tipper Gore Separate People magazine, June 01, 2010
It was a Washington love story that followed a Hollywood script: But now Al and Tipper Gore's marriage is coming to an end. The former Vice President, 62, and his wife, 61, are separating, they announced Tuesday. The couple, who have four children, have been married for 40 years. The Gores said it was "a mutual and mutually supportive decision that we have made together following a process of long and careful consideration, according to an e-mailed statement obtained by The Associated Press Tuesday. Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider confirmed the statement came from the couple, but declined further comment. Animal Magnetism: Gore met Mary Elizabeth "Tipper" Aitcheson at a high school dance in 1965. The following year, when he enrolled at Harvard, Tipper also attended college in Boston to be close with him. "Absolute pure animal magnetism," Tipper told PEOPLE in 1994 about what she thought when she first met him at the Washington prep school function. Gore's college roommate, Tommy Lee Jones, even said women didn't chase Gore at Harvard because "they were all afraid of Tipper." Five years after first meeting, the couple wed at Washington's National Cathedral on May 19, 1970, less than a year before he was sent to Vietnam as an army journalist. Tipper often played a pivotal role in her husband's career. While campaigning, Gore relied on his wife as one of his key campaign advisers, "helping to soften her husband's stiff image at public appearances," the Washington Post reported. Aides also credited Tipper for being able to bring out a more animated side of her husband than he normally showed on the campaign trail, at one time even famously exchanging a long kiss with her husband on stage at the 2000 Democratic National Convention. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Al and Tipper Gore to separate Politico.com, June 01, 2010
In an “Email from Al and Tipper Gore,” the couple said: “We are announcing today that after a great deal of thought and discussion, we have decided to separate.“This is very much a mutual and mutually supportive decision that we have made together following a process of long and careful consideration. We ask for respect for our privacy and that of our family, and we do not intend to comment further.” The e-mail was obtained by POLITICO and confirmed by Kalee Kreider of the office of Al and Tipper Gore. Kreider said there would be no further comment. . .

RELATED PHOTO ESSAY: Al and Tipper Gore to separate Washington Post, June 03, 2010

RELATED ARTICLE: Al and Tipper Gore's sad love story: Where do we begin . . . to express our sadness? Washington Post, By Ellen McCarthy, June 3, 2010
Forty years. Hasn't the finish line been crossed by the time you reach 40 years together? Seems like this ought to be the time for an Alaskan cruise victory lap, not a move to separate residences. And, statistically, that should be the case. No more than 1 percent of all divorces occur after 40 years of marriage. Half of them take place within the first seven years of marriage. So this doesn't just make us sad. It makes us scared. It means that maybe marriage isn't something we can conquer. That you can have all the necessary ingredients -- romance, good morals, mutual respect and a healthy family -- and still see this precious thing, built over decades, crumble in the end. It makes us frightened for our parents, our friends, ourselves. . . . . It's hard to conceive of the equation that could make them conclude that life on the other end of a split will be better than it was before. After sticking around that long, what could persuade a couple to forfeit all they had together? The end of incessant arguing? The prospect of another romance?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Clintons Messy Marriage Outlasts Staid Gores Business Week- Bloomberg, By Margaret Carlson, June 02, 2010
Al and Tipper Gore are separating after 40 years of marriage, after four children and three grandchildren, after just buying a $9 million house in Montecito, California, two weeks after celebrating their anniversary. Is there nothing in this life you can count on? What could have happened now, after all that has happened over four decades, to split these two apart? They weathered so much -- the near death of their son hit by a car leaving a baseball game in 1989 and the death of his ever becoming president. It’s why on Tuesday we stopped and gawked at the news crawling across the screen that the Gores of all people were separating, diverting us momentarily from the endless loop of our planet being ravaged by an under-regulated corporation that created a catastrophe too big to fix. . . . .The Gore’s marriage was almost as famous as the Clinton’s but for opposite reasons: the Gores were stable, peaceful and monogamous; the Clinton’s limited partnership was rocky and beset by lounge singers and interns. The Clinton’s marriage seemed calculated and forced, the Gore’s natural and genuine. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Al, Tipper Gore split puts focus on late-stage divorces USA Today, By Sharon Jayson, June 03, 2010
The split that nobody saw coming isn't such a shocker to those who deal every day with marriage, separation and divorce. Divorce attorneys and relationship counselors around the country say they've been seeing more "late-stage" divorces among Baby Boomers. And it's not because the kids have grown up and moved out. These separations occur well after the nest has emptied. Breakups after 30 or 40 years of marriage, as in the case of Al and Tipper Gore, stem from a variety of factors, including longer life spans, different generational expectations about marriage, and feelings about divorce, personal fulfillment and happiness, divorce and marriage experts say. "It's the whole phenomenon of living longer, of having sex longer, of being healthier, oftentimes of being wealthier and feeling that they can easily pursue a no-fault divorce," says divorce lawyer John Mayoue of Atlanta. "I think we're seeing persons in long marriages questioning whether in fact there's a better life out there." Mayoue says he has seen an increase in such splits over the past five years. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Divorce & Separation: Making the right decision for your marriage & family FOTF.com
When Bob wanted a divorce, he sought the counsel of many people. His best friend said divorce was the best decision he'd ever made; a misinformed pastor said, "Divorce is made in heaven," and his new Internet friends said, "It's best to do it now since your kids are out of the house." That convinced Bob that divorce would help him recapture his youth, find another woman and finally live happily ever after. Anyone who feels trapped in a marriage can find many marriage "counselors," each with their own opinions, to tell them what's best. But when it comes to divorce, it takes more than an opinion to discover the right thing to do — it takes wisdom. . .

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Myths about Divorce Boundless.org, By Scott Stanley
It's no secret a large segment of young adults wants to marry, but are apprehensive about it because of the pain they experienced when their own parents divorced. The prospect of marriage scares them. Though they are statistically more likely to repeat their parents' mistakes, they are not doomed to do so. The victory of life-long marriage stems from the commitment of both husband and wife. You must be able to say, "As strongly as I believe in marriage, I'm equally firm that I do not believe in divorce." Your actions will flow from your beliefs. Entering marriage convinced of divorce's harm is a strong antidote against it. In this culture, where divorce comes easy and often, it's essential for singles contemplating marriage to have good reason to be against divorce. That's where Dr. Stanley comes in. . . .

Editor's Note: This article was adapted from Scott Stanley's book, The Power of Commitment: A Guide to Active, Lifelong Love. For the complete text and more advice on forming matches that will go the distance, please consult his book. . .

RELATED ARTICLE & RESOURCE: Foundations of a Lifelong Marriage FOTF.org, By Louis McBurney, M.D
There are many principles that, if practiced, can help you build a solid marital foundation. Here are some of those key principles:
Commitment: "Commitment" is not a popular word in our culture. Our society emphasizes individual rights, personal freedom and mobility. The idea of giving these up because of dedication to another person or loyalty to a relationship makes a lot of people feel trapped. But I don't think you can have it both ways. You can't build a divorce-proof marriage and remain unbending toward your personal rights. That doesn't mean you give up all your freedoms or choices, but it does mean your commitment to the relationship supersedes your individual rights. Commitment means putting your spouse's needs above your own. . .

Liz and Dick: The Ultimate Celebrity Couple Vanity Fair.com, By Rebecca Sacks, June 01, 2010
Before Brangelina, before TomKat, before … Speidi … there was Liz and Dick—that is, Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, the super-couple who set the standard all others can only aspire to in terms of modern celebrity. What other couple has been condemned both by the Vatican and on the floor of the House of Representatives? What other couple lived as decadently, as opulently, and as passionately? What other couple could conquer both Hollywood and Broadway the way these two did over a span of two decades? In an excerpt from their upcoming book, Furious Love: Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, and the Marriage of the Century, featured in the July issue of Vanity Fair, contributing editor Sam Kashner and co-author Nancy Schoenberger trace the arc of this epic, turbulent love affair, which appropriately began on the set of Cleopatra—a story about another romance for the ages, and one of the most expensive films ever made—and ended spectacularly with jealousy, anger, and divorce, despite the fact that Taylor and Burton never really fell out of love. Kashner and Schoenberger scored a major coup in persuading Taylor to allow them to publish scores of never-before-seen letters that Burton wrote to her, and passages from many of the letters are included in the excerpt. In addition to demonstrating that Burton was a gifted, lyrical, playful writer who could effortlessly summon the beauty of the Shakespearean language he so loved, the correspondence reveals poignant and intimate truths about the power of the bond that Taylor and Burton shared—sexual, creative, and spiritual. Highlights from the excerpt include: . .

Liz and Dick: The Ultimate Celebrity Couple

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Are We So Obsessed with Celebrities? Americans are living in an ever-increasing virtual version of life. Is this why celebrities seem more real to us than our own family and friends? Buzzle.com, By Anastacia Mott Austin, July 04, 2007
Media moguls will tell you that they are only responding to public demand, though it’s a chicken-and-egg argument. Are we watching because the rich and famous are always in front of us, or are they followed because the public demands information about them? With all of our instant access and supposed need for more and more "stuff" of the this-minute variety, we’re suffering from a low-level cultural depression. If we buy this or that product, maybe it will turn us into someone special. "The notoriety of the entertainer and the almost religious fervor of their most dedicated adherents is a symptom of self-imposed dissatisfaction with one’s own predicament," writes Makena Walsh, runner-up of the Textbookx.com’s fall 2006 essay contest about celebrity obsession. "Star-worship is a religion of self-deception, one requiring its participants to continually deceive themselves into believing the next product they purchase will be the capstone on their hodgepodge of useless materials, enabling them to finally start living a meaningful existence." Star-gazing as a quest for the meaning of life? Maybe. It seems like a stretch, but experts on generational social trends say that the young people coming of age now – Generation Y (or is it Z by now?) – feel that fame is the most important thing in life, like, ever. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: AMERICA’S IDOLS: Why the Obsession With the Rich and Famous? The Real Truth magazine, By Justin T. Palm, Nov-Dec 2006 Issue
Millions sit hypnotized by the celebrity life. Why are the lives of the rich and famous so fascinating? They act. They sing. They dance. They give award-winning performances in dramas and comedies. Magazines glamorize them. The public envies them. Off screen, they marry, have children and get divorced. Some get arrested, “find religion” or take on a political voice. They adopt, fight poverty or combat the spread of AIDS. Actors become directors. Musicians become actors. Singers become authors. Sports superstars sign movie contracts. There are seemingly no limits or bounds to what celebrities can do. The media hype surrounding these “beautiful people” is like nothing else. Magazines report the latest celebrity news, and the Internet is swarming with it. Celebrity faces are splashed across advertisements and billboards for all to see. Their lives are on constant display. People are entranced by celebrity news—why? . . . .

As gay marriage heads back to court, political proponents are split

As gay marriage heads back to court, political proponents are split SF Public Press, By KristinenMagnuson, June 01, 2010
Lawyers aiming to overturn California’s ban on same-sex marriage will make their closing arguments on June 16. But some gay-rights supporters have not waited for the outcome of the legal battle over 2008’s Proposition 8. Instead they launched an ambitious, though unsuccessful, political push-back this year. Two nonprofit groups — Restore Equality 2010 and Love Honor Cherish — attempted to get the matter back on the ballot this November. But for a number of reasons, they failed to get enough valid signatures by the April deadline. Since the passage of Proposition 8 in 2008, there has been a substantial divide among gay-rights groups over whether to concentrate efforts and resources on working at the ballot box to defeat Proposition 8 in 2010 or in 2012. Equality California, one of the most prominent groups challenging Proposition 8, decided to concentrate its efforts on 2012, and most organizations followed its lead. Restore Equality 2010 and Love Honor Cherish did not. . . . . Conservatives cite public opinion: Jim Campbell, litigation staff counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a nonprofit group that provides legal backing for cases involving religious freedom and is defending Proposition 8, said failure to get enough signatures for the measure was not unexpected. “It’s not surprising, given that the people of California, just a little more than a year and a half ago, enacted a constitutional amendment defending marriage as a union of one man and one woman,” he said. But Campbell also said it did not mean there was any lack of political influence by same-sex marriage supporters: “It merely shows that those organizations that are advocating to change marriage were not all committed to this signature-gathering effort.” Testimony in the court challenge, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ended in January in the San Francisco federal courtroom of Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. The federal lawsuit claims that Prop. 8, which states that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, violates provisions of the U.S. Constitution, including equal protection under the law. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Prop. 8 repeal bid fails to make November ballot San Francisco Chronicle, By Wyatt Buchanan, April 13, 2010
Backers of an initiative to repeal Proposition 8, the California ban on same-sex marriage, have failed to gather enough signatures to place it on the ballot in November. The supporters say they will try to qualify the measure for the November 2012 election. Gay rights activists had been split on whether to push such a measure this year or in 2012. The largest groups supported waiting for the next presidential election. Those supporting a vote this year said the division hampered their fundraising and volunteer efforts. They needed slightly more than 694,000 signatures of registered voters to place the measure on the ballot and had until Monday to collect that amount. Leaders of the effort would not disclose how many signatures they gathered. "It wasn't close enough to submit signatures to county registrars," said Sean Bohac, who was chairman of an advisory panel for the effort, called Restore Equality 2010. The group raised about $10,550, according to the California secretary of state. Prop. 8 supporters said the failure shows that voters in California prefer allowing only heterosexual couples to marry. "Even the minority of Californians who voted against Prop. 8 have accepted that the majority rules and moved on to other issues," said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, a major backer of Prop. 8. Prop. 8 passed in November 2008 with 52 percent of the vote. Opponents have filed a federal lawsuit over the ban, which could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. A poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California last month found for the first time more voters support same-sex marriage than oppose it, with 50 percent in favor and 45 percent in opposition. . . .

RELATED BLOG: ProtectMarriage.com

RELATED ARTICLE: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Answering the Toughest Questions National Organiztion for Marriage
Strong majorities of Americans oppose gay marriage. Supporters of SSM therefore seek to change the subject to just about anything: discrimination, benefits, homosexuality, gay rights, federalism, our sacred constitution. Our goal is simple: Shift the conversation rapidly back to marriage. Don’t get sidetracked. Marriage is the issue. Marriage is what we care about. Marriage really matters. It’s just common sense. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Judge Walker’s Skewed Judgment National Review Online- The Corner Blog, By Ed Whelan, February 07, 2010
According to this column in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, “The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.” In terms of his judicial performance in the anti-Proposition 8 case, the bottom-line question that matters isn’t whether Walker is straight or gay. It’s whether he is capable of ruling impartially. I have no reason to doubt that there are homosexuals who could preside impartially over this case, just as I have no reason to doubt that there are heterosexuals whose bias in favor of, or against, same-sex marriage would unduly skew their handling of the case. From the outset, Walker’s entire course of conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case has reflected a manifest design to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Prop 8’s sponsors. Consider his series of controversial — and, in many instances, unprecedented — decisions: . . . . . Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation: that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage. Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now. . .

"Marriage" News: May 2010