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

Oprah's private South African school rocked by SECOND lesbian sex scandal in 18 months

Oprah's private South African school rocked by SECOND lesbian sex scandal in 18 months The Daily Mail- UK, By Jo Clements, March 31, 2009
Oprah Winfrey’s private South African school has been rocked by its second sex scandal in 18 months. Seven pupils have been suspended from the all-girls school, after being accused of touching girls’ private parts and having sexual relationships with other students. One of the suspended girls, who is 15, also allegedly tried to force other girls to have relationships with one another. A letter sent to the pupil, and obtained by an African newspaper, said: ‘You are accused of having physical contact of a sexual nature with another pupil on the campus, intimidation, and that you bullied other pupils on the campus and were dishonest by not telling the whole truth to investigators.’ She claims the accusations are false and has blamed jealous girls for spreading rumours about her. Miss Winfrey, 55, has invested around £30 million establishing the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls, which opened in January 2007. The chat show host claimed the school, based in Henley-on-Klip, 30 miles south of Johannesburg, would be a ‘model school for the rest of the world’ and was praised by Nelson Mandela for her work. But just nine months after its high-profile opening, the academy found itself at the centre of a child abuse scandal. Dormitory matron Tiny Makopo was suspended after being accused of sexually assaulting six pupils, and denies charges of indecent assault, common assault, verbal abuse and soliciting a minor to perform an indecent act. Now, with Miss Makopo’s trial due to resume in June, Miss Winfrey’s Academy has rocked by another sex scandal. A spokeswoman for the TV star confirmed that seven girls had been suspended, but refused to comment further. . .

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. . .

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

The Me Generation: Love is making them happy. Not for them: working all hours, cancelling holidays or missing evenings with friends to prove themselves at work

Women at 30 'more likely to put relationships above career than a decade ago' The Daily Mail- UK, By Julie Moult, March 30, 2009
Women approaching 30 might once have modelled themselves on the feisty, ambitious heroine of the film Working Girl - willing to do whatever it takes to get ahead in business. But it seems today's 30-year-olds are more likely to get their inspiration from hopeless romantic Bridget Jones. Finding a man and settling down is the top priority for two-thirds of women born in 1979, a survey has found. The poll of 1,800 women approaching the milestone birthday found that 70 per cent considered it to be the right time to put their relationships and personal lives ahead of their careers. More than 80 per cent said they thought it was the perfect age to get married. But while love was a priority, only one in five of the women polled said they expected to be more attractive to the opposite sex, the Turning 30 report for Elle magazine found. A third of the women thought they would more unappealing and the same proportion said entering their fourth decade 'filled them with dread'. The survey bucks the trend of the past decade, which has seen women prioritise their career well into their thirties. This has led to a rise in women having their first child in their late 30s and early 40s. The number of live births to mothers over 40 almost doubled between 1997 and 2007, from 12,914 to 25,350. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Why I envy Generation Me who choose love over career - and children above status The Daily Mail- UK, By Lorraine Candy, March 29, 2009
More young women are are fixing their ambitions on emotional fulfilment rather than focusing on a career. And they're happy! Lorraine Candy, editor of Elle magazine, on why she's so jealous of today's carefree thirtysomethings. . . . . .Young women today rarely surprise me. In fact, after 25 years in the business of glossy magazine and newspaper women's pages, I know an awful lot about how they live, from what they wear to who they want to date. But this week I was shocked. Shocked, cross and a little bit jealous. I had commissioned an online survey of 2,000 of my readers at Elle about to turn 30. 'What does a 30-year-old woman want today?' I asked. What they told me represents a seismic shift in attitude and lifestyle from the generation before them. My generation. It seems these women are happiness hunters; they have abandoned career ambition and decided to choose love over work, contentment above the stress of success, marriage and kids above jobs, friends above status. How dare they? These 30-year-olds have absolutely no feminist guilt about putting everything personal above anything work-related. A staggering 80 per cent believe 30 is the perfect age to marry, 70 per cent prioritise relationships rather than promotions at work, and 43 per cent say 30 is the best time to have a baby. Never mind losing their place in the rat race - they don't care about that at all. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Forever Single? Born Too Late? Expect Too Much? Then You May Be... NY Magazine, By Patricia Morrisroe, Published Jul 24, 2008 From the August 20, 1984 issue of New York Magazine
Why am I still single?" It's a question more and more people are asking these days. If the 1970s exalted the single state, focusing on the concept of self-fulfillment through individual achievement, the '80s have signaled a shift toward greater commitment to personal relationships. Members of the baby-boom generation who claimed they didn't need that piece of paper are reconsidering their rebellious ways. "Every time I go to my office, somebody announces his engagement," says a woman who works for a cable-TV station. "Female executives are walking around with Modern Bride in their briefcases. You can't pick up a magazine without reading about wedding gowns and china patterns. Suddenly, it's marriage, marriage, marriage." But is it? Buried in the current hype about the "new traditionalism" is an even more startling trend. A growing number of men and women are not getting married. . . . . Nobody ever told the men and women of the baby-boom generation that you can't always get what you want. "But what will happen," says Schwartz, "is that age will catch up with them. They'll get lonelier. They'll slowly realize that someone may not be the 'ideal' mate, but he or she will be a good mate. They'll learn to compromise." If they don't, says Arlene Saluter of the Census Bureau, "some of them may remain single forever."

'Bisexual' teacher invites students to same-sex ceremony OneNewsNow, By Charlie Butts and Marty Cooper, March 26, 2009
A self-proclaimed bisexual male teacher in New York has invited his seventh-grade students and their parents to witness his commitment ceremony to another man. The New York Times reports 32-year-old Chance Nalley gave slips of paper to his entire seventh-grade class at Columbia Secondary School, inviting them to the upcoming ceremony to be held at St. Paul's Chapel on the campus of Columbia University on April 4. Nalley teaches math, science, and engineering at the school -- "whose mission statement includes a commitment to diversity," notes the Times. Nalley reportedly obtained his principal's support before coming out to his students in the fall of 2007, when the school opened. Frank Russo of the American Family Association of New York calls the Times' report biased. "If a secularist teacher in a school invited his or her students over to a ritual of initiation into becoming a Christian and invited his students to attend this, I could just imagine the hullabaloo that you'd see," he contends, "and The New York Times would not report it in the same fashion as it reported this." Russo admits he struggles to understand Nalley's motives behind the invitations. "For a teacher to invite his students -- seventh graders, typically 12-years-old, possibly 13 -- to attend a gay marriage is mind-boggling to me that he would do that." The family advocate is also encouraging parents not to take their children to a ceremony that he believes "honors" a gender identity disorder. The Times article showed Nalley's students were trying to understand his sexuality. When asked if they were surprised he was "gay," a handful of students noted he was bisexual, not gay. One student added that his coming out to them "showed he trusts us." Interestingly enough, Nalley says six of his students have "come out" to him this year.

'Bisexual' teacher invites students to same-sex ceremony

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. . .

'Family Guy' under fire for recent offensive episode (Click for Related Info & Video)

Parenting Issues: 'Family Guy' under fire for recent offensive episode OneNewsNow, By Allie Martin, March 25, 2009
An Internet activism site is encouraging concerned mothers and grandmothers to lodge a complaint about a recent episode of the television series Family Guy. According to OneMillionMoms.com, on the March 8 episode of the Fox series, a number of scenes were shown promoting homosexuality and mocking Christianity. Now the American Family Association-run website has filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission over the episode. Monica Cole, director of OneMillionMoms.com, says concerned Christians can make a difference. "You can file this complaint, and you may also forward this information to your friends and family," she explains. "And once you get other Christian moms, grandmothers, even dads and granddads -- when you get all those voices together, it makes a big impact." Cole points out that the offensive episode received a TV-14 rating, meaning that in the network's opinion, it was appropriate for 14-year-olds to view.

RELATED INFO & VIDEO: Family Guy: Take Action
WARNING!! The following information is offensive! It is offered as informational evidence of the sickening material broadcast on FOX Network. The March 8 episode of Family Guy, a disgusting cartoon that airs Sunday nights on Fox network, condoned bestiality, gay orgies and babies eating sperm. Your local FOX network affiliate chose to air this repulsive and sickening material. You can do something about it! Click Here to file a formal FCC indecency complaint against Fox network and your local affiliate station.

RELATED ARTICLE: "South Park" vs. Purity Townhall.com, By Brent Bozell III, March 20, 2009
Rock stars are rarely controversial for acting like rock stars. A decadent lifestyle of sex, drugs and alcohol abuse are the expected menu. In our upside-down popular culture, rock stars create controversy only when they advocate an alternative lifestyle -- when they wear purity rings and abstain from sex until marriage. . . . .No matter how much they try to shift the blame, they are the profanity-spewing corporate rats who profit every time children are corrupted. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Fire the Fox Censor Townhall.com, By Brent Bozell III, March 12, 2009
Since 2005, Nicole Bernard has been Fox Television's senior vice president for standards and practices. Someone should put her face on a milk carton, because anyone who watches Fox must suspect she's never shown up for work. Exhibit A (and through Z, and back again) is "Family Guy," Fox's animated Sunday night spectacle of mind-numbing garbage. The March 8 episode, titled "Family Gay," was absolutely riddled with revolting scenes that would make people wonder about if anyone at Fox has an ounce of decency, or taste. Here's what anyone who would dare publicly state, "I work for Fox," knows his company produced: Peter Griffin, the show's idiotic lead character, decides to buy a brain-damaged racehorse as an investment. He also decides to participate in medical experiments for cash, including an injection with the so-called "gay gene." Any one of the following scenes should have waved a red flag inside Fox; all got the All Clear from the standards and practices folks.
1. Horse Love. Peter's horse wanders into his bedroom, where he lays naked next to his wife Lois. The horse licks Peter in the behind, causing Peter to say, "Mmm, what made you come around, Lois?" If that isn't disgusting enough to ruin dinner, try ...
2. Baby Eats Horse Semen. As Baby Stewie sits eating a bowl of cereal, Peter walks in and announces, "Everyone, some of the milk in the fridge is not milk. It's horse sperm. I'm a horse breeder now." Stewie hesitates as he lifts a spoonful of cereal to his mouth but then keeps eating it anyway.
This is funny? This is taste? This is vomitous. . .

Meghan McCain: 'I Was Raised A Christian, But I Was Raised An Open-Minded Christian (Click for Related Video)

Meghan McCain: 'I Was Raised A Christian, But I Was Raised An Open-Minded Christian." Townhall.com Blog, By Greg Hengler, March 24, 2009
I didn't know Jesus Christ said there were many ways to be a Christian--Christian meaning "follower of Christ." How Christians live does not define "Christianity." What defines Christianity is what Jesus said and how He lived (see the Bible). I ask those who make choices opposed to Christ's teachings to pretty please with sugar on top--don't label them "Christian." Call them "Meghan's choices" or "Meghan's progressive Republican choices," but don't use Christ's name for your sake. Another thing: Meghan McCain's pro-life position is admirable but I am afraid she suffers from one of today's most cowardly characteristics: An inability to say anyone is "wrong." We can say we believe that there is a right and a wrong decision for us but we shouldn't dare say what anyone else does is wrong. There is an exception: It is okay to speak when someone does something you consider "right." Killing babies in the womb is wrong for me but if you need a ride to Planned Parenthood to get an abortion--sure, you can use my car! Need help paying for the procedure? Finally, use the label "open-minded" to your heart's content but don't throw in "Christian" when voicing your support for homosexual marriage. If you choose to "believe in gay marriage," we who oppose this definition of marriage will be tolerant--no, loving towards you, but don't disguise the modern-day attempt to redefine marriage as anything Jesus Christ endorsed. If you would rather lead as a "maverick" than follow Christ, fine. But for the love of Christ, drop the label when it's inapplicable. . . . . UPDATE: If you would like to know what a Christian looks and sounds like look no further than HERE. This is Clayton, he is my 18 year old Christian brother. He died last week. This is his 7 minute testimony just before he died. . .

RELATED VIDEO: Meghan McCain: 'I Was Raised A Christian But I Was Raised An Open-Minded Christian." Townhall.com-YouTube, March 24, 2009

RELATED ARTICLE: “Who Are You to Judge Others?” - In Defense of Making Moral Judgments By Paul Copan, Ph.D., Areopagus Journal 1/3 (July 2001): 30-35.
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. But let’s take a closer look at this charge that Christians are judgmental when we speak out on moral issues. . .

Openly-gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) Calls US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a 'Homophobe'

Rep. Frank Calls Justice Scalia a 'Homophobe'
The Massachusetts Democrat told a gay online news agency that he hoped the Supreme Court won't ever get to hear a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act while Justice Scalia is on the bench. FOX News, By Lee Ross, March 23, 2009
Masscahusetts Rep. Barney Frank called Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a "homophobe" in an interview released Monday on a gay online news site, and said he hoped a challenge to a federal law widely disliked in the gay community will not be heard before the high court until new justices are seated on the bench. Frank, who is gay, made the remark in responding to a question about legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. The 1996 law says the federal government and states have no obligation to recognize same-sex marriages even if other states allow them. "At some point, [the Defense of Marriage Act] is going to have to go to the United States Supreme Court," the congressman, a Democrat, said. "I wouldn't want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has got too many votes on this current court." . . . . . .Scalia is no stranger to personal attacks and is a favorite target for gays because of his dissent in a 2003 case that overturned the nation's consensual sodomy laws. In that case Scalia held the majority's ruling represented "a massive disruption of the current social order." He went on to conclude that "the Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are immoral and unacceptable, the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE & COMMENTS: Frank: not all gay-rights opponents are homophobic Boston Globe, By Sasha Issenberg, March 24, 2009
Congressman Barney Frank defended his use of the term "homophobe" to describe Antonin Scalia, the conservative Supreme Court justice who has ruled in favor of limiting legal protections for gays. "What a 'homophobe' means is someone who has prejudice about gay people," Frank told WBZ radio, arguing that Scalia's judicial writing "makes it very clear that he's angry, frankly, about the existence of gay people.". . .

RELATED VIDEO: Frank Calls Scalia a 'Homophobe' 365Gay News- YouTube

RELATED ARTICLE: Media Mum on Barney Frank's Fannie Mae Love Connection Business and Media.org, By Jeff Poor, September 24, 2008
Democratic House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Ninth Circuit Strikes Two Blows Against Defense of Marriage Act CNS News, By Pete Winn, February 10, 2009
- Attorneys on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue agree that two administrative rulings last week from different judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California were blows to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute in Sacramento, Calif., said both decisions are troubling because they ordered the federal government to cover the health benefits of the same-sex partners of two federal lawyers. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Never Mind the Law National Review, By William Duncan, February 11, 2009
A dress rehearsal for a national redefinition of marriage quietly took place last week in a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A single judge, acting in his capacity as chair of the circuit's Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders, wrote the opinion. . . . Since this decision does not create precedent that other courts must follow, what is most important is not the outcome but the reasons given for that outcome. Reinhardt's opinion provides a blueprint for a future federal decision holding not only that DOMA is unconstitutional, but also that the Constitution mandates a redefinition of marriage in every state. His reasoning does not withstand scrutiny, but that has rarely stopped judges intent on writing laws instead of interpreting them (of whom Reinhardt is one of the most flagrant examples). The decision makes three arguments: DOMA constitutes unlawful sex discrimination, DOMA constitutes unlawful sexual-orientation discrimination, and DOMA is not grounded in any rational justification. . .

Vt. committee passes 'gay marriage' bill Baptist Press, By Michael Foust, March 20, 2009
--A Vermont state Senate committee unanimously passed a bill Friday to legalize "gay marriage," marking the first step in a legislative process that could make the Green Mountain State the third state in the nation to redefine marriage -- and the first one voluntarily to do so. The bill, S. 115, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, 5-0, and now heads to the full chamber, where it appears to have the votes to pass. The bill apparently has majority support in the House as well, and the only question may be whether Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, will veto it -- and whether if he does, the legislature will be able to override it. Douglas has said he is opposed to "gay marriage" and has criticized legislators for taking up the bill -- saying they instead should focus on the economy -- but he has yet to promise to veto it. The committee has four Democrats and one Republican, and Democrats hold strong majorities in both chambers. Vermont is on the forefront of the "gay marriage" battle after three states -- California, Florida and Arizona -- passed constitutional amendments last fall defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Thirty states now have such amendments, although a handful of left-leaning states are considering "gay marriage" bills. Vermont has been through a similar debate before, but the first time came via court order when, in 2000, it became the first state to legalize same-sex civil unions. "I think [Vermont legislative leaders] realize that with California, Arizona and Florida this last election, and with secular social science [supporting traditional marriage] ... they had better do it now because they really don't have any arguments for gay marriage since we already have civil unions," Steve Cable, president of Vermont Renewal and spokesperson for the Vermont Marriage Advisory Council (vtmarriage.org), told Baptist Press. "Civil unions provide -- according to every legal expert that's testified to this committee -- every legal benefit and protection that Vermont can provide. The only thing they can get out of this is the social status of marriage.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay Marriage in Vermont Faces Veto by Governor New York Times, By Abby Goodnough, March 25, 2009
— Gov. Jim Douglas of Vermont said Wednesday that he would veto a same-sex marriage bill if it reached his desk, setting a new hurdle for a measure that had been moving swiftly through the legislature. But Mr. Douglas, a Republican, also said that “legislative leaders would not have advanced this bill if they did not have the votes to override a veto.” . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Same-sex marriage measure sails through Vt. Senate USA Today, By Adam Silverman, March 23, 2009
The Vermont Senate on Monday evening overwhelmingly passed a bill legalizing gay marriage, making the state the first in the nation to take legislative rather than judicial steps toward granting marriage rights to same-sex couples. . .

Vermont committee passes 'gay marriage' bill (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: Gay Marriage Testimony WPTZ- You Tube, March 20, 2009
Witnesses took the stand in the last of Vermont's Gay Marriage Hearings.

RELATED ARTICLE: NH House approves gay marriage, sends bill to Sen. Associated Press, By Norma Love, March 26, 2009
The state House on Thursday voted narrowly to make New Hampshire the third state to allow gay couples to marry. The bill, which passed the House 186-179, next goes to the Senate, where its future is uncertain. Democratic Gov. John Lynch opposes gay marriage but has not said specifically that he would veto it — a position that spokesman Colin Manning reiterated after the vote. Two years ago, the Legislature approved, and Lynch signed, civil unions for gays, which provide all the rights of marriage, except in name. . .

RELATED RESOURCE: Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone ImpactApologetics.com
Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt? Using sound reasoning and evidence—not religion—award-winning author Frank Turek shows that everyone will be hurt including children, the nation, and even homosexuals themselves. Turek provides concise answers to objections about equal rights, discrimination, and being born a certain way, and he exposes the real reason gay activists are trying to impose same-sex marriage on the country without a single vote from the people. Turek’s message is direct but respectful. It is correct, not politically correct. And it is a message that we must not ignore. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: A Vote Against Gay Marriage is a Vote FOR Tolerance Townhall.com, By Frank Turek, October 26, 2008
Twenty years ago, a group of prominent homosexuals got together in Warrentown, Virginia to map out their plan to get homosexuality accepted by the general public. In the book [After the Ball] that resulted from their meeting, they revealed a strategy that achieves its effect "without reference to facts, logic or proof . . . the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not." In other words, their strategy was pure propaganda. That propaganda campaign has many people today believing that denying same-sex marriage involves denying rights to a victimized minority. That belief could not be further from the truth. In fact, let me suggest what the same-sex marriage debate is not about. . .

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

RELATED ARTICLE: What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts: It's far worse than most people realize MassResistance.org, By Brian Camenker, October 20, 2008
Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning. . .

Why Women Are Leaving Men For Other Women

Why Women Are Leaving Men for Other Women O magazine— Oprah.com, By Mary A. Fischer, April 2009 Issue
Cynthia Nixon did it. Lindsay Lohan's doing it. TV shows are based on it. Is it our imaginations, or are wives and girlfriends ditching their men and falling in love with other women? New science says that sexuality is more fluid than we thought. . . . . .Feminist philosopher Susan Bordo, PhD, a professor of English and gender and women's studies at the University of Kentucky and author of Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body, also agrees that in the current environment, more women may be stepping out of the conventional gender box. "When a taboo is lifted or diminished, it's going to leave people freer to pursue things," she says. "So it makes sense that we would see women, for all sorts of reasons, walking through that door now that the culture has cracked it open. . . . . .Over the past several decades, scientists have struggled in fits and starts to get a handle on sexual orientation. Born or bred? Can it change during one's lifetime? A handful of studies in the 1990s, most of them focused on men, suggested that homosexuality is hardwired. In one study, researchers linked DNA markers in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome to gay males. But a subsequent larger study failed to replicate the results, leaving the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association to speculate that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes, including environmental, cognitive, and biological factors. Today, however, a new line of research is beginning to approach sexual orientation as much less fixed than previously thought, especially when it comes to women. The idea that human sexuality forms a continuum has been around since 1948, when Alfred Kinsey introduced his famous seven-point scale, with 0 representing complete heterosexuality, 7 signifying complete homosexuality, and bisexuality in the middle, where many of the men and women he interviewed fell. The new buzz phrase coming out of contemporary studies is "sexual fluidity.""People always ask me if this research means everyone is bisexual. No, it doesn't," says Lisa Diamond, PhD, associate professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah and author of the 2008 book Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women's Love and Desire. "Fluidity represents a capacity to respond erotically in unexpected ways due to particular situations or relationships. It doesn't appear to be something a woman can control.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Moral Disgust Linked to Primitive Emotion: Study Shows Our Sense of Right and Wrong Has Roots in a Survival Instinct of Early Humans WebMD Health News, By Salynn Boyles- Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD, February 26, 2009

RELATED RESOURCE: Myths, Facts, and Consequences of the Homosexual Lifestyle EarstoHear.Net

RELATED ARTICLE: Confusion Reigns as Tradition Decays Townhall.com, By Kathryn Jean Lopez, March 21, 2009
This article isn't about closeted homosexuality; it's not asserting that there's a vast population of women who were born to be with women, and are instead trapped in unfulfilling heterosexual arrangements. No, this article, despite its celebration of unconventional lifestyles, boils down to something much more orthodox: Femininity and masculinity mix well together. And women are taking masculinity where they can get it, even if it's in the arms of a fellow female. Normally, one might dismiss an article that explains that "more women may be stepping out of the conventional gender box," -- but this is O magazine. The piece, "Why Women Are Leaving Men for Other Women," appears in an issue that features an exclusive interview at the White House with Michelle Obama. This is mainstream stuff. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: At last, the truth about America: it's becoming less religious The Telegraph- UK, By Damian Thompson, March 10, 2009
A huge survey of American religious belief was published today, and the results are devastating for those who believe that the USA, unlike "secular" Europe, will always be a nation of churchgoers. The percentage of Americans who call themselves Christian has dropped 11 per cent in a generation. And I think this is the beginning of a very long slide. "More than ever before, people are just making up their own stories of who they are," says Barry Kosmin, co-author of the survey. "They say, 'I'm everything. I'm nothing. I believe in myself.' . . . . . I've seen this coming for a long time. Five years ago I was doing academic research on evangelical religion, and I was struck by just how secularised even born-again, Bible Belt Christianity had become. US Christians whom the BBC would describe as "fundamentalist" were becoming increasingly focussed on a narcissistic spiritual journey in which the figure of Jesus was sometimes little more than a disposable spirit guide or a life coach. The fast-growing evangelical churches of America base much of their appeal on experiential excitement and therapeutic storytelling; everything is turned into a commodity, including courses of sermons. No wonder there is a signficant (if unacknowledged) overlap with the New Age. . .

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 ARTICLE: More than a 'gay gene' controlling the media: It's New Age heresy The Real Proposal magazine, April 12, 2008
We can no longer listen to people like Oprah or swallow the media's increasingly ambivalent moral stance on such important issues like homosexuality and gay marriage and not realize there is another agenda afoot. Increasingly, we are being asked, if not legislated, to accept the kind of “tolerance” and “cultural diversity” that effectively renders us amoral as a society and to set aside as inferior or, at the very least, outdated and irrelevant those foundational Judeo-Christian teachings, which declare the existence of absolute truths and God as the source of moral values. For, indeed, in Oprah's mind and those of her ilk, they have surely evolved to what they have deemed a "higher plane of consciousness" that denies even the existence of sin! Seriously. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Born or Bred? Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic. Homosexual activists love to insist that. Concerned Women For America By Robert H. Knight, December 21, 2005
The debate over homosexual "marriage" often becomes focused on whether homosexuality is a learned behavior or a genetic trait. Many homosexual activists insist that "science" has shown that homosexuality is inborn, cannot be changed, and that therefore they should have the "right to marry" each other. Beginning in the early 1990s, activists began arguing that scientific research has proven that homosexuality has a genetic or hormonal cause. A handful of studies, none of them replicated and all exposed as methodologically unsound or misrepresented, have linked sexual orientation to everything from differences in portions of the brain, to genes, finger length, inner ear differences, eye-blinking, and "neuro-hormonal differentiation.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Kinsey's Secret: The Phony Science of the Sexual Revolution Catholic Culture, By Sue Ellin Browder
Alfred C. Kinsey had a secret. The Indiana University zoologist and "father of the sexual revolution" almost single-handedly redefined the sexual mores of everyday Americans. The problem was, he had to lie to do it. The weight of this point must not be underestimated. The science that launched the sexual revolution has been used for the past 50 years to sway court decisions, pass legislation, introduce sex education into our schools, and even push for a redefinition of marriage. Kinseyism was the very foundation of this effort. If his science was flawed — or worse yet, an outright deception — then our culture's attitudes about sex are not just wrong morally but scientifically as well. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together NARTH.com, By Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.
. . . For all these reasons, when as an adult he looked back on his childhood, the now-homosexual man recalls, "From the beginning I was always different. I never got along well with the boys my age and felt more comfortable around girls." This accurate memory makes his later homosexuality feel convincingly to him as though it was "preprogrammed" from the start. . .

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. . .

Elevating homosexuality to new heights OneNewsNow, By Jim Brown, March 18, 2009
The Obama administration and other proponents of a United Nations statement that calls for the decriminalization of homosexuality claim it merely targets the seven countries that put homosexuals to death. But one pro-family activist warns the document elevates homosexual behavior to skin color and religious belief. Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, says the Obama administration has essentially signed its name to a "press release" initiated by the French government in the U.N. General Assembly last fall. Ruse says he fully expected the Obama administration to sign on to the document immediately because it supports the homosexual agenda. "What the press release really does is encourage the acceptance of gender identity and sexual orientation as a category of non-discrimination in human rights treaties," explains Ruse, "so that these categories would stand alongside race, religion, and other widely accepted categories of non-discrimination." Ruse says the Bush administration almost signed on to the U.N. homosexual rights document last fall. He notes there is a "very healthy homosexual lobby" in the State Department and in various parts of the U.S. government. In fact, he reports that for a brief moment last week at the United Nations, the Obama administration endorsed a document titled "The International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS," which calls for criminal penalties for those who criticize homosexuality. . .

Elevating homosexuality to new heights at the United Nations

RELATED SITE: The White House- The Agenda- Civil Rights

RELATED VIDEO: "The Trouble With Gay Men" Part 1 YouTube.com
Simon Fanshawe's examination of gay life— Part 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (final)
(Rating MA: Mature Audiences Only)

RELATED ARTICLE: White House to endorse U.N. 'gay rights' declaration OneNewsNow- AP, By Matthew Lee, March 18, 2009
The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned. U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration's French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: United Nations Urges India to Legalize Sodomy Catholic Exchange, By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, November 15th, 2008
. . .The claim of promoting “public health,” which is also made by anti-family groups in favor of abortion, contraception, and “sex education,” is contradicted by numerous studies linking sodomy to a host of illnesses and pathological behavior, including depression, suicide, violent aggression, drug abuse, venereal diseases, “flesh eating” staph infections, anal cancer, and other related problems. . .

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. . .

Natasha Richardson and Liam Neeson's magical marriage takes tragic turn (Click for Related Video)

Natasha Richardson Dies of Ski Injury ExtraTV, March 18, 2009
Actress Natasha Richardson, 45, has died following a freak ski accident on a beginners' hill in Montreal. . . . "Liam Neeson, his sons, and the entire family are shocked and devastated by the tragic death of their beloved Natasha," said family spokesperson Alan Nierob. "They are profoundly grateful for the support, love and prayers of everyone, and ask for privacy during this very difficult time." Richardson died at Lenox Hill Hospital following removal of life support on Wednesday afternoon. . .
Natasha Richardson and Liam Neeson's magical marriage takes tragic turn NY Daily News, By Patrick Huguenin, March 18, 2009
It's a love story that started on Broadway. The corner of Broadway and W. 45th St., to be exact. Natasha Richardson and Liam Neeson met as the stars of the 1993 revival of "Anna Christie" at what was then the Criterion Center. At the time, Richardson was married to producer Robert Fox, and Neeson was a perennial bachelor who had wooed stars such as Helen Mirren, Julia Roberts, Barbra Streisand and Brooke Shields. Soon they were New York City fixtures, who could frequently be seen at Cafe Luxembourg, an upper West Side bistro near their apartment or, when they started a family, taking their sons to swimming lessons. Their life together in New York let Richardson and Neeson tackle their most challenging stage and screen roles while remaining devoted to each other. . . . . . The pair's chemistry electrified the stage, thrilled critics and earned them both Tony nominations. By April 1993, about a month after closing night, Richardson had ended her four-year marriage to Fox. Rumors of an affair with Neeson had already popped up in the gossip columns. "It was not an easy time when I met Liam," she later told the Daily News, "Working with him, what happened between us, and that becoming public knowledge in conjunction with my marriage falling apart, was kind ofbad (sic) timing. So what can I say? Obviously I fell very much in love with him." It didn't matter to her that Neeson was a well-known ladies man. "I'm pleased that women fall in love with him," she said, "because I know why.". . .

RELATED PHOTO ESSAY: Natasha Richardson: Through the years NY Daily News

RELATED PHOTO ESSAY: Natasha Richardson: Her Life & Loves People magazine
With her tragic death, take a look back at the actress's world as a devoted wife, mother and activist.

RELATED ARTICLE: What is "talk and die" syndrome? Scientific American, By Brendan Borrell, March 18, 2009
The tragic story, if confirmed, is a reminder that even minor blows to the head can lead to devastating bleeding that can cause strokes or otherwise damage brain tissue. . . To find out more about Richardson's potential injury, we spoke with neurosurgeon Keith Black, chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: How To Cope After the Death of Your Spouse About.com, By Sheri & Bob Stritof
The death of a spouse is one of the most difficult things you will ever have to deal with. Difficulty: Hard. Time Required: Varies. Here's How:. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Coping with the Death of Your Spouse: Rebuilding Your Life About.com, By Sheri & Bob Stritof
One day you are married. The next day you are single, alone and grieving. It will happen. Nothing is forever. The bottom line is that everyone will need to journey on this rough passage, through a maze of details, decisions, forms to fill out, shock, loneliness, anger, confusion, fear, and depression. However, there can also be acceptance and new beginnings. Stages of Death and Dying: Elisabeth Kubler-Ross wrote many years ago about the "stages of grieving": denial (shock), bargaining, anger, depression, and acceptance. It is important to realize that these stages don't have any particular order and that some people may find themselves back in a stage they thought they had already conquered. This is normal part of grief. . . . . . Dr. Joyce Brothers wrote in her book, Widowed, "And if there should ever be another good man with whom I share my life, there will still be that empty corner of my soul. I know what I had and what I lost. I hope I will not spend the rest of my life alone. But if I do, I will not be sorry for myself. Life goes on, and I am ready to join the parade again." The U.S. Census states that on the average, widowers will remarry within 3 years of the death of their wives, and widows remarry within 5 years. . .

Martina McBride: This One's for the Gays The Boot, By Stephen L. Betts, March 17, 2009
Martina McBride has taken what many might consider a bold step forward for a mainstream country artist. She's given her first-ever interview to Out.com, an online publication directed mainly at the gay community. "Honestly, I just have to do what's right for me, and what I would tell people is what I believe, which is that tolerance is very important," McBride answers when asked if she'd ever encourage her fans to be tolerant of gays. "I have three daughters, and that's what I teach them. I think we should all be tolerant of each other and embrace each others' strengths and differences and uniqueness and beauty." McBride is well aware of the potential backlash from her more conservative fans. In fact, they're already filling up the message boards with angry comments about the Out.com article: "The Almighty GOD created Adam & Eve and not Adam & Steve," writes Matthew Mason. "She (along with all other parents) MUST teach their children that turning gay is a CHOICE and is not acceptable in today's society," writes another reader. Others are singing McBride's praises for coming out as a supporter of the gay community: "Way to go Martina. You join Garth and the Dixie Chicks in being another smart, intelligent, open country star! Not every country fan or performer is some rude, ignorant redneck!" writes Mark. "Country music needs to drop its homophobia. Thanks for the help. You are a class act," another reader comments. . .

Martina McBride: This One's For the Gays

RELATED ARTICLE: Martina McBride Shines Out magazine, By Chris Azzopardi
In her first major gay press interview, the singer discusses tolerance within the country music community, her new album, Shine, and her hopes for a gay country superstar.

RELATED ARTICLE: “Who Are You to Judge Others?” - In Defense of Making Moral Judgments By Paul Copan, Ph.D., Areopagus Journal 1/3 (July 2001): 30-35.
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. But let’s take a closer look at this charge that Christians are judgmental when we speak out on moral issues. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Intolerance of Tolerance Townhall.com, By Gregory Koukl, December 14, 2006
Probably no concept has more currency in our politically-correct culture than the notion of tolerance. Unfortunately, one of America's noblest virtues has been so distorted it's become a vice. There's one word that can stop you in your tracks. That word is "intolerant." . . . . The tolerant person allegedly occupies neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality where each person is permitted to decide for himself. No judgments allowed. No "forcing" personal views. That all views are equally valid is one of the most entrenched assumptions of a society committed to relativism. And it's a myth. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Homosexuality: Is It Just Another Lifestyle? Exodus International, By Alan Medinger
The fact that homosexuality brings with it great suffering cannot be denied. Normally, confronting a condition or behavior that can bring such human suffering, all efforts are made at prevention and correction. With homosexuality, though, the public pressure to deny the harm, or to shift the blame to society, has all but ruled out society taking any step at prevention or change. And so the suffering goes on. . .

RELATED RESOURCE: National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)
We respect the right of all individuals to choose their own destiny. NARTH is a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality.

Italian popstar Giuseppe Povia creates a stir in the pop music world with his 'ex-gay' song, 'Luca era gay' (Click for Related Video)

The Ex-Gay Story in the Pop Music World NARTH.com, By Roberto Marchesini—NARTH International Representative - NARTH Italia, March 2009
Italy's "Festival di San Remo," the most important musical happening in my country which is seen on T.V. by millions of Italians, became the unlikely platform this year for a powerful ex-gay testimony. The singer, Giuseppe Povia, winner of the festival in 2006, presented a song entitled, "Luca Era Gay" (Luca was once gay). The title of his song, implying that some gays can change to heterosexuality, was sufficient to destabilize the Italian gay movement. Gay activists threatened to block the festival, and Europarlimentary member Vittorio Agnoletto asked for a European resolution to stop Povia from peforming the song. Povia, himself, received death threats. The gay association "Everyone" denounced Povia to the Procura of the Republic for alleged "homophobia." These efforts failing, gay activists then asked the Festival organizers to "counterbalance" Povia with a song by a gay singer, about "the perfection of homosexual love." That effort too, failed. Finally, on February 17th., Povia sang his song on the first evening of the Festival. "Luca Era Gay" recounts the transformation of a man named Luca from the gay lifestyle. Without the help of psychologists and psychiatrists, he digs deep within himself to understand the sources of his homosexual attractions. . . . . . After Povia's song, contrary to all custom, the conductor gave the microphone to Franco Grillini, former parliamentary member and former president of ARCIgay, the foremost gay association in Italy. Grillini said he had received a cellphone message from a friend (although all celphones were supposed to be turned off during the festival...), who had cried when he had just heard Benigni reading "De Profundis," because it brought to mind his partner who had died of AIDS. Grillini concluded by saying that Povia must learn what gay love is. Then, the unforseeable happened: people in the theater started to hiss at Grillini (in Italy, hissing is like booing)! The crowd's sympathy was with Povia, not with the gay activist. . .

RELATED VIDEOS: "Luca Era Gay" (Luca Was Gay) - Giuseppe Povia - Live Performance, Festival di San Remo, February 17, 2009 NARTH.com

RELATED INTERVIEW (PDF doc): Michael Glatze: A former gay activist explains how he left homosexuality NARTH.com, Interviewed by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi
Michael Glatze decided at the age of 13 that he was gay and eventually founded Young Gay America, a nonprofit media outreach project. Through a series of incidents, however, Glatze slowly began to realize that he was not gay at all but was dealing with fears about his own masculinity. He has since rejected his gay identity. His interview with Dr. Joseph Nicolosi describes his spiritual and emotional journey. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Confessions of a former 'gay rights' leader WorldNetDaily, By Michael Glatze, July 10, 2007
I used to be gay, or so I thought. When I was about 13, I decided I must be gay because I was unable to handle my own masculinity. It scared me too much. My father had already given me a lot to be afraid of: He'd cheated on my mother and left her crying, alone and selflessly attempting to salvage a dead relationship. When I was faced with the prospect of either being a "man" or being "me" – who I saw as "better than that" and "not someone who would do such awful things as men do" – I chose "me." Then, because "me" was not "a man," "me" became gay. I'm not saying this is how homosexuality develops for everybody. It's just my story. For me, however, it became all-encompassing because I've always been driven to strive and achieve in everything I do. So I became an activist. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 'Gay'-rights leader quits homosexuality: Rising star in movement says God liberated him from lifestyle WorldNetDaily, By Art Moore, July 3, 2007

RELATED ARTICLE: How a 'gay rights' leader became straight WorldNetDaily, By Michael Glatze, July 3, 2009
Homosexuality came easy to me, because I was already weak. My mom died when I was 19. My father had died when I was 13. At an early age, I was already confused about who I was and how I felt about others. My confusion about "desire" and the fact that I noticed I was "attracted" to guys made me put myself into the "gay" category at age 14. At age 20, I came out as gay to everybody else around me. At age 22, I became an editor of the first magazine aimed at a young, gay male audience. It bordered on pornography in its photographic content, but I figured I could use it as a platform to bigger and better things. Sure enough, Young Gay America came around. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 'Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study Of Religiously Mediated Change In Sexual Orientation' NARTH.com, By George A. Rekers, Ph.D.
This is clearly the best scientific study yet conducted on change of homosexual orientation and on the question as to whether attempts at such change are inherently harmful. My academic peer review found this investigation to be the most rigorous, well-designed empirical study to date on these questions. This study meets the high research standards set by the American Psychological Association that individuals be validly assessed, followed, and reported over time with a prospective, longitudinal outcome research design. Using well-accepted, standard psychological measures, Jones and Yarhouse found solid evidence that homosexual orientation can be significantly changed. And their careful scientific search found no evidence that spiritual or psychological harm directly results from attempting such change. Because so many secular psychologists and psychiatrists mistakenly assumed the opposite of these clear scientific findings, this groundbreaking scientific study sets a new landmark in the field of therapeutic change for unwanted homosexual orientation. . .

RELATED RESOURCE: Exodus International—The largest information and referral ministry in the world addressing homosexual issues

RELATED RESOURCE: Genesis Counseling
A nationally recognized ministry dealing with sexual addiction recovery and homosexuality, founded by Joe Dallas—a former homosexual— who is the author of several books on homosexuality:
* 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

Webster's dictionary redefines 'marriage': Now includes references to same-sex relationships (Click for Related Video)

Webster's dictionary redefines 'marriage': Now includes references to same-sex relationships WorldNetDaily, By Bob Unruh, March 17, 2009
One of the nation's most prominent dictionary companies has resolved the argument over whether the term "marriage" should apply to same-sex duos or be reserved for the institution that has held families together for millennia: by simply writing a new definition. . . . . The new definition references "marriage" as the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife. But the definition also includes "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage." One commenter on the YouTube site said it's just part of the campaign by homosexual activists to take control of the definition of the word and make it align with their goals. "The word 'marriage' has never been synonymous with same sex relationships," said the forum participant. "What is happening is the meaning is being changed to trigger it becoming synonymous, not the other way round." A dictionary version from 1913 that has been posted online not only didn't mention same-sex "marriage," it supplemented its definition of traditional marriage with references from the Bible. . .

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

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

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

Reducing Abortion for Real
The current proposals to lower the abortion rate will only make things worse A Christianity Today Editorial, March 16, 2009
On January 22, the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Obama issued a statement: "While [abortion] is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make." The next evening, after the news people had put away their cameras and notebooks for the day, the President quietly rescinded the Mexico City Policy. This was an executive order first implemented by Ronald Reagan that barred federal funds from groups that perform or promote abortions overseas. Unlike many Democratic lawmakers or abortion supporters, the President has for some time shown signs that he isn't explicitly going to demonize pro-lifers or the "Religious Right." That is good news. The bad news is that Obama declares a false unity. He claims that all Americans share in his goal "to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make." Savvy Rhetoric: Obama is suggesting that abortion is a human need, which can be reduced but never eliminated. He is suggesting that we all will "support" (meaning affirm the decisions of) women and families, even if they abort a child. He assumes that we all can unite, as he said in his Roe anniversary comment, "to ensure that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons," suggesting that abortion is not just a need but also a right. It's savvy rhetoric precisely because it is so subtle. It quietly isolates pro-life advocates (who now appear extremist) while appealing to those who are tired of the abortion debate (with calls to reduce abortion). Even the fiercest abortion supporters are climbing on the bandwagon to "reduce abortions.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Massive German Study Confirms Abortion Significantly Increases Premature Birth Risk LifesiteNews.com, By Kathleen Gilbert, February 11, 2009
A huge German study has further substantiated the link between abortion history and an increased risk of future premature births.
Dr. Manfred Voigt and his German colleagues evaluated over two million pregnancies between 1995 and 2000, making the 2008 study the most massive AVP (Abortion Very Preterm Birth) study in the last 30 years.

RELATED RESOURCE: Abortion in the United States: Statistics and Trends National Right to Life
The Consequences of Roe v. Wade: 49,551,703 Total Abortions since 1973. . .

Reducing Abortion for Real: The current proposals to lower the abortion rate will only make things worse (Click for Related Video)

RELATED BROADCAST: Life: An inalienable right
Near 50 millions babies have died in an "American holocaust." How could we have allowed such a thing to happen? It begins, as always, with semantic manipulation.

RELATED VIDEO: This is Abortion RATED: MA (Mature Audiences Only)
WARNING: Contains graphic post-abortion pictures. Be Warned! The Visual Evidence is Disturbing.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Case for Pro-Life Optimism: Yes, Obama's election is a setback, but things aren't so bad as they seem. National Review Online, By Michael J. New, January 22, 2009
The pro-life movement is despondent. During the recent election cycle, pro-lifers incurred a series of disappointing political defeats, culminating in the election of a president who steadfastly supports keeping abortion legal. Furthermore, some pundits suggest that the Republican party’s pro-life stance hurt its candidates, and thus the party should take a more moderate position. Worse, the new president has pledged to support the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would give the legislative and executive branches’ seal of approval to the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision and roll back many of the pro-life movement’s hard-fought gains. Because of the recent electoral losses in the U.S. Senate, the pro-life movement is desperately scrambling to find 41 senators to mount a successful filibuster. Is this the dystopian scenario we face today? Nope. What I have just described is the political landscape in 1993, the last time the pro-life movement found itself in the political wilderness. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The SLED Test – Four Top Arguments Heartlink.org, By Steve Wagner
We all agree that toddlers are valuable human beings with rights. Yet the unborn differ from toddlers in only four ways, and the first letters of each of these differences spell an easy-to-remember acronym, SLED (Size, Level of Development, Environment, Degree of Dependency). . .

RELATED SITE: THE CASE FOR LIFE: Like You Have Never Heard It Before
Only One Issue: The abortion controversy is not a debate between those who are pro-choice and those who are anti-choice. It’s not about privacy or trusting women. To the contrary, the debate turns on one key question. What is the Unborn?

RELATED SITE: Abort73.com: The Case Against Abortion

New job for laid off moms: Stay-at-Home Motherhood

New job for laid-off moms: stay-at-home motherhood OneNewsNow, By Jocelyn Noveck- AP, March 14, 2009
Soon after New Yorker Geralyn Lucas was laid off from her television job in January, she took her two-year-old son to the playroom of her apartment building. She realized she had never been there before. Within minutes she had inadvertently broken all the cleanliness rules. "I wore shoes," confesses Lucas, 41. "I brought food. I changed his diaper. I didn't know those things weren't allowed." When she took Hayden to his playgroup at a toddler center, she had to ask the little boy for directions to his class. And when she went to the pediatrician's office, the nurses were so used to seeing the nanny that they didn't recognize Lucas. Lucas and other laid-off women like her are involuntarily experiencing the life of a stay-at-home mom, and they are getting to know a lot more about the details of their children's daily existence. They are also discovering some of the things they have been missing. Though the mass layoffs of this recession have so far affected mostly men, more than 800,000 women have lost their jobs since the end of 2007. For the mothers among them, it means that, suddenly, Mommy's home, often for the first time in many years. For many of these women, unemployment has no doubt been terrifying. But for some - particularly those who have the financial resources to ride out the storm - it has been a precious opportunity to get to know their children a little better. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Women wedded to work and needing a wife at home International Herald Tribune, By Shira Boss, August 13, 2007
Now that women have solidly earned their place in the work force, many find themselves still yearning for something men often have: wives.

RELATED ARTICLE: Sorry, but my children bore me to death! The Daily Mail- UK, By Helen Kirwan-Taylor, July 26, 2006
It's the start of the summer holidays, when millions of mothers despair at how to entertain their children for the next six weeks. What none of them dare say is that they would rather their children were still at school or, frankly, anywhere else. Helen Kirwan-Taylor, a 42-year-old writer, lives in Notting Hill, West London, with her businessman husband Charles and their sons Constantin, 12, and Ivan, ten. Here, she argues provocatively that modern women must not be enslaved by their children. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  Desperate Feminist Wives: Why wanting equality makes women unhappy   Slate.com, By Meghan O'Rourke, March 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. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 'Happy' housewives finally get their due   USA Today, By Carol Memmott, October 19, 2005
[Darla] Shine, 39, lives in Head of the Harbor, N.Y., with her husband, Bill, a programming executive at Fox News, and their two children. She says she was provoked into writing her book in part because of the women of Wisteria Lane. . . . . Shine, a former TV producer who is now a stay-at-home mom to her children, Connor, 8, and Hannah, 5, wrote Happy Housewives earlier this year in the afternoons when her daughter was in preschool. She also does a radio segment from home on the syndicated Good Day. "Girls are afraid to say, 'You know, I am happy to be home,' " she says. "I took it upon myself to lead this movement and say, 'You know what? We are taking back the power. We're happy. It's time to admit it and be proud of it.' " To those who complain and act embarrassed about their stay-at-home lives, she says: "Snap out of it. Shut up and stop whining.". . .

Wife or Servant? Why Marriage Is Still Inequitable

Wife or Servant? Why Marriage Is Still Inequitable Alternet, By Alessandra Whitney, March 12, 2009
It’s not easy being a wife. Eight years ago, my friend Olivia was planning her wedding. She and her boyfriend Jack had been together for seven years, living together for four. He had proposed on millennium eve, and they’d spent more than a year organizing a lavish party across the country, where most of her large family lives. However, two months before the big event, with most of the details in place, she called me. "I don’t think I can get married," she said. "Well, that’s okay," I said, snapping into automatic support mode. "You don’t have to. There’s no reason you should marry Jack if you don’t think he’s right for you. Better to realize that now … " "No, that’s not it," she cut me off in mid-support. "It’s not Jack. I just don’t want to be married. I don’t want to be a wife. I don’t want to have the kind of marriage my parents have.". . . . Olivia wound up marrying Jack, but I don’t think I quite understood the depth of her concern until I got married five years later. That’s when I truly understood what a socially fraught term "wife" is, and how, despite the dynamics of my own relationship -- and I find myself happily married to a wonderful man going on three years now -- it is often difficult and tiresome to deal with such baggage. And lately, as the economy quakes and the feminist backlash continues, I worry that the progress wives have made will vanish. True, wifedom has changed in the last century. Just ask Gloria Steinem, who got married at age 63, saying she thought society had made enough strides that an equal partnership between husbands and wives is now possible. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The View's Joy Behar May Finally Marry Boyfriend People magazine, By Marla Lehner, March 17, 2009
Joy Behar's unmarried days may soon be over. The 66-year-old View co-host says she's considering getting married to her longtime boyfriend, Steve Janowitz. "I have been with a guy for 26-and-a-half years," the comedian said on Barbara Walters's SIRIUS XM Radio show Tuesday. Asked if they have talked about marriage, Behar answered, "Yes." The reason behind the move to tie the knot, she said, is mostly practical. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Honey, you're out of date: Why men no longer want a 1950s wife The Daily Mail-Uk, By Olinka Koster, March 5, 2008
In 1955, being the perfect wife meant dinner on the table, a pretty ribbon in your hair and a sympathetic ear for tales of your husband's very important day. These days it is more likely to mean making sure there's enough wine in the fridge so you can have a drink together when you both get home. Or getting the shopping done so he can start on the dinner if he arrives first. Modern wives, it seems, are a long way from the regimented unselfishness of the idealised wife featured in the classic 1955 Good Wife's Guide. In fact a survey carried out for this year's Daily Mail Ideal Home Show has found women who stand up to their husbands, have a strong grip of household finances and enjoy a drink are regarded as today's good wives. The ability to bake cakes, on the other hand, left most modern men cold. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Mad at Dad: We love our husbands -- so why are we so angry at them, so often? Parenting, By Martha Brockenbrough
These are the kinds of things we see parodied on TV sitcoms, where bumbling husbands get laughs for feeding the kids frosting sandwiches and sending them to school in scuba gear. These are the kinds of things we moan and groan about when we get together with our other mom friends, often playing our irritations for laughs. Honestly, though, it's not that funny. None of us signed up to live in a sitcom. Life for women may be better in many ways than it's ever been, but we're far from whistling show tunes. According to Parenting's nationally representative survey of more than 1,000 mothers on MomConnection, an online panel of moms, the majority of us confess to feeling anger at surprising levels. We love our husbands -- but we're mad that we spend more mental energy on the details of parenting. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Parenting Skills You Need for Your Marriage Parenting magazine, By Fernanda Moore
The other day, as I stood in front of the open freezer waiting for a dinner idea to strike, I noticed that the ice tray on top of the stack was empty. So I took it out. The second tray was empty too, as was the tray beneath it, and so on until the sixth and final tray, which held a single cube, spotted with grains of coffee. My husband had evidently been at it again. I was gearing up for a tirade when I heard a calm, reasonable voice in the back of my mind say, "Choose your battles.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Modern Marriage: "I Like Hugs. I Like Kisses. But What I Really Love is Help with the Dishes." Pew Research Center, July 18, 2007
For anyone trying to figure out what makes for a successful marriage nowadays, the scrap of doggerel in the title of this report isn't a bad place to start.

RELATED ARTICLE: The artful dodge of housework Christian Science Monitor, By Marilyn Gardner, July 5, 2005
More men pitch in to help around the house these days. But women still do more. Will the load ever balance out?

Bristol Palin and Levi: Doomed to fail? Chicago Tribune, By Rex W. Huppke, March 12, 2009
When last we left the Palin family, teen-aged daughter Bristol had given birth to a child and was planing a summer wedding with the child's father, the strapping, hockey-playing Levi Johnston. But now the engagement that nearly knocked the GOP National Convention off its platform is kaput, and a voyeuristic nation is again tuned in to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's soap-opera-esque life. So what is there to learn this time? From a statistical standpoint, the outcome of Bristol's relationship with Levi seemed pre-determined. "Despite high expectations, less than 8 percent of teen mothers marry the baby's father within one year of the birth," said Bill Albert, chief program officer for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "That is magical thinking. It almost never happens." And yet following the announcement during the presidential race that Palin had a pregnant teen-aged daughter, the McCain-Palin campaign was quick to assure everyone that the two would be married and the Palins released a statement saying the couple "will have the love and support of our entire family." . . . . . ."The notion that Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston's experience here is in any way unique couldn't be farther from the truth," Albert said. "Marriage and birth patterns in teens have changed over time, shifting from a general trend of marrying before pregnancy to marrying as a result of pregnancy to becoming pregnant and not marrying." And those who do marry don't fare well. Teen marriages are twice as likely to fail as marriages in which the woman is at least 25 years old. Perhaps as predictable as this high-profile breakup is the reaction from gawkers on both sides of the political fence. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Palin's Ex: Need to 'Mature' Before Marriage: Levi Johnston, Father of Bristol Palin's Child, Confirms Marriage Off; Reunion? 'We'll See' ABC News- Good Morning America, By Tom McCarthy, March 15, 2009
Levi Johnston, the former fiance of Bristol Palin, says the couple broke up "a week, two weeks" ago but leaves open the possibility that they could reunite. . .

Bristol Palin, fiance Levi Johnston split. Surprised? (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: Bristol Palin 'On the Record' FOX News

RELATED BLOG & COMMENTS: Richards: Bristol Palin the face of Planned Parenthood? Dallas Morning News- Trail Blazers Blog, March 12, 2008
Comments: Teenagers are about as good at using contraception as they are at making their beds and Planned Parenthood knows that. And they know the heap of money they make when contraception fails... abortion is a big money industry, and Planne (sic) Parenthood wants to make sure kids are having as much sex as possible to keep up the demand for their services. Posted by David @ 5:10 PM Thu, Mar 12, 2009. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Bristol Palin & Fiancé Split People magazine, By Lorenzo Benet, March 11, 2009

RELATED ARTICLE: Teen Sex and Insanity Townhall.com, By Rebecca Hagelin, March 17, 2009
Just when you thought liberal punditry couldn't get any wackier, Newsweek columnist Anna Quindlen reveals yet a new level of insanity and calls for kids to be taught that sex is pleasurable. I'm not kidding. . . . . . . My goodness, Anna. Where have you been? In today's sex-saturated world about the only thing teens seem to understand about sex - whether they've had it or not - is that it can be great fun. Have you listened to pop music lately? Watched MTV - or any TV for that matter? Seen a Victoria's Secret window display? Been online? Do you not know that the media culture pushes the "fun" part about sex and forces our teens to think about it every time they turn around?. . . . . (. . . Since when is it wrong to teach kids that they should remain virgins? We are truly now living in a world where what is "right has been declard (sic) wrong, and what is wrong has been declared right.") My husband is so stunned by what Ms Quindlen wrote that he thinks she might have said it only as a publicity stunt. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Palin Parable -- Bristol Says Abstinence "Not Realistic At All" CrossWalk.com, By Albert Mohler, February 19, 2009
Bristol Palin is back in the headlines, and some Americans may be shocked. Bristol told Fox News that teenagers should not have sex. However, she also said that sexual abstinence for teens is "not realistic at all." These comments seem contradictory, but the national media immediately leapt upon Bristol's apparent rejection of sexual abstinence as an expectation for teenagers. To her credit, she maintained a clear pro-life perspective, even as she admitted the difficulty of being a teenage mother. But the rejection of sexual abstinence as "not realistic at all" caught many off guard. . .

Money matters from God's perspective
To survive the economic downturn, take some advice from the One who wrote the book on money.   One News Now, By Rusty Benson, March 11, 2009
To survive the economic downturn, take some advice from the One who wrote the book on money. What’s the best financial advice you’ve ever received? Perhaps it was one of these maxims:
* Save first, live on what’s left over.
* Know the difference between needs and wants.
* Buy quality.
* Don’t pay interest on anything that loses value.
* Live within your means.
No doubt, these are all valuable nuggets. However, Howard Dayton believes there is a comprehensive source of financial wisdom that supersedes even the most insightful counsel. No, it’s not the latest book from Suze Orman or Dave Ramsey, as valuable as those may be. Dayton is convinced that the ultimate guide to financial contentment is a book that can be found in most homes in America – the Bible. Dayton is the co-founder of Crown Financial Ministries (CFM) of Gainesville, Georgia. CFM is an interdenominational ministry founded in 1976 that is dedicated to equipping people around the world to learn, apply, and teach Biblical financial principles. In light of the nation’s current economic troubles, the AFA Journal asked Dayton to address the financial concerns and anxieties many families are experiencing. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Will repentance restore America's economy? OneNewsNow.com, By Allie Martin, March 17, 2009
"If anything is going to happen in this country, if this country is going to turn around and [if] the economy is going to turn around, it's not because of our new administration," Hill contends. "It will be because of the churches repenting and getting on their faces [before] God, asking forgiveness, and calling out to Him. And I think then He'll heal our land. That's what the Bible says in Chronicles.". .

RELATED ARTICLE: In Crisis, Wall Street Turns to Prayer: Financial meltdown triggers prayer sessions citywide   Christianity Today, By Tony Carnes, September 19, 2008
Starting early last Sunday morning, the turmoil in New York's financial markets triggered a spiritual response among Christian leaders reminiscent of the response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. . . . .Mac Pier of the New York Leadership Center started getting calls from friends who were losing their jobs. "Of course, I prayed with them that God would give them the spiritual and financial resources they need." Pier says that the Wall Streeters who called him were stunned. "It was unnerving to them because of the speed [at which] it happened.". . . . .Rice says the emotional impact of the current crisis on Wall Streeters is amplified by attitudes like those described by the chief operating officer. "There is an element of, 'I am master of my fate. I put in 18-hour days and am making it.' Then, this crisis pulls the rug out from under them. This may be the first dislocation of their lives. Their savings have disappeared in 15 minutes.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Running Out of Miracles: Big Idea creator Phil Vischer had his dream crumble, but he's no longer s-scared. Christianity Today, By Bob Smietana, May 1, 2004
It was early 1992, and Phil and Lisa Vischer were down to their last $10. Phil had quit his job to work on his "big idea"—a video series for kids starring computer-animated vegetables that loved Jesus. But all he had to show for his efforts was a stack of unpaid bills. There was no food in the pantry for their large and hungry dog. The cost of a large bag of dog food: $10. While Lisa went out to buy dog food, Phil sorted through the bills and pondered what do next. Then he found an envelope containing a cashier's check for $400. An anonymous note inside read, "God laid it on my heart that you might need this." The next year, a couple in their Bible study lent Phil $60,000, saying, "Go make your movie." By Christmas 1993, Vischer and two friends completed the first VeggieTales episode, Where's God When I'm S-Scared? Over the next 10 years, VeggieTales sold more than 25 million videos. . .

RELATED VIDEO: Creator of Veggie Tales - Phil Vischer - Part 1/3    Part 2, Part 3 YouTube- 100 Huntley, March 11, 2009

The A-Word, Online: An enterprise that profits from adultery (Click for Related Video)

The A-Word, Online
An enterprise that profits from adultery National Review Online, By Deroy Murdock, March 10, 2009
Some defenders of traditional marriage claim that gay marriage jeopardizes husbands and wives. It’s as if when two Massachusetts men wed, they exchange 24-karat-gold crowbars, all the better to pry straight couples apart. Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum has said that same-sex marriage “threatens my marriage. It threatens all marriages.” Mixed-sex-matrimony guru Maggie Gallagher wrote last June 20, “If the word ‘marriage’ can be redefined as a civil rights imperative, why balk at lesser ideas like ‘monogamy’ or ‘fidelity’?” But as outspoken as these and other social conservatives are about Allen and Steve’s clear and present danger to Adam and Eve, they have held their peace about an enterprise that profits from adultery. AshleyMadison.com calls itself a “dating site specifically designed to help married people cheat on their spouses.” Its slogan is “Life’s short, have an affair.” Its previous tag line was “When Monogamy Becomes Monotony.” It boasts 3.5 million registered users, among whom some 400,000 active members each pay up to $249 quarterly. “Sign up today and if you don’t have an Affair to Remember,” the website promises, “we’ll give you your money back. Guaranteed.” Participants post photographs and profiles and seek other husbands and wives itching for extra-marital copulation, “till death do us part” be damned. “We made tens of millions of dollars” last year, company president Noel Biderman says from its Toronto base. “We are very profitable and successful.” Surely AshleyMadison.com has enough shame to conduct its shady business in the shadows. Wrong! AshleyMadison.com advertises on CNN, ESPN, NBC, and even the conservative-leaning Fox News Channel. . . . . . .Even a business this depraved should remain free to operate. But it should be ridiculed, humiliated, and shunned. Viewers should ask TV networks that broadcast this website’s ads if they are proud to share in the spoils of infidelity. Social conservatives should stop theorizing about gay marriage’s supposed danger to straight matrimony and instead denounce this insidious assault on that institution. Even if same-sex marriage undermined conventional marriage, this would be by unintended consequence, not deliberate broadside. . . . . .According to the Nexis database, key gay-marriage foes are mum about AshleyMadison.com. . .

RELATED VIDEO: AshleyMadison.com Ad YouTube.com

RELATED RESPONSE: Marriage Proposal National Review Online, By Maggie Gallagher, March 10, 2009
Deroy Murdock wants to know why I (among other "socio-cons") haven't spoken out about a famous website devoted to arranging adulterous affairs: "But as outspoken as these and other social conservatives are about Allen and Steve's clear and present danger to Adam and Eve, they have held their peace about an enterprise that profits from adultery." The answer is: I went to the website and looked at how it brags about all the TV publicity it gets. I realized that they consider publicity part of their business model. So, I declined to help pad their profits by useless denunciations. Instead I poured my energy (with other "socio-cons") into something I could actually affect: like giving the people of California a chance to respond to an activist supreme court that tried to redefine marriage. About that website, here's what I would like to do:. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: A Tort of Adultery National Review Online- The Corner, By Maggie Gallagher, March 11, 2009
An updated tort of adultery could look something like the document below the fold. This tort (drafted for Minnesota, don't ask me why) could be either expanded to include "commerical enterprises that intentionally and explicitly attempt to profit from acts of adultery," or we could choose to limit it to commerical enterprises. Such a tort would not prevent websites from facilitating hookups that include adulterous ones. It would prevent them from explicitly incorporating adultery into their advertising plan.

RELATED ARTICLE: Re: Marriage Proposal National Review Online- The Corner, By Maggie Gallagher, March 11, 2009
Another response to Deroy: The thing I would feel subliminally guilty about, were I to feel guilty, is the sudden resurging of the out-of-wedlock birth rates. In my first 20 years of fighting for marriage, we eventually won the argument that marriage matters for children: Mothers and fathers raising their kids together is better than the "all kinds of alternative family structures" hypothesis once so trendy among elites.

RELATED ARTICLE: Life Is Short. Have an Affair, New York: What adultery site Ashley Madison was thinking when it scandalized Times Square The Village Voice, By Bonnie Ruberg, August 21, 2008
When Ashley Madison, a social networking site for married people looking to have affairs, put up a billboard in Times Square, the owners of the building across the way threatened to burn it down. Soon major news teams like Fox were reporting on the complaints the advertisement stirred up among offended passersbys. By Thursday, July 24, only three days after it went up, the billboard was removed. Positioned among sexy Victoria's Secret ads, the Naked Cowboy, and events like National Underwear Day, the image that so scandalized New Yorkers was an open hotel room door with a couple embracing inside. On the door, a sign read, “Life is short, have an affair.”. . .

Preserving Marriage in Substance, Not Just Name
The Prop 8 debate is not a clash between civil liberties and religion. National Review Online, By Ryan T. Anderson, March 11, 2009
Should the state treat marriages the same way it treats baptisms and bar mitzvahs — as purely religious practices properly left to religious institutions? That’s what some are now arguing. If the state didn’t create marriage, they reason, then religion must have; and the state shouldn’t endorse sectarian religious beliefs. But their argument is profoundly flawed. This can of worms is in the news because of the debate generated by California’s Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment enacted last November to restore to the law — after its invalidation by California’s supreme court — the conjugal conception of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Legal scholar Doug Kmiec (who initially endorsed the proposition) now argues that it “is oblivious to the differing faith practices of our citizens.” . . . .Kmiec’s proposal has gotten some traction. In oral arguments last Friday in a challenge to Proposition 8, Justice Ming W. Chin referred to Kmiec’s argument, asking the lawyers on both sides of the case whether his solution would be acceptable. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times ran an editorial endorsing the idea: . . . . .Kmiec and the editors of the Times join a long series of activists who insist on framing the same-sex marriage debate as a clash between civil liberties and religion. But that’s not what it is. This debate is about the substantive differences between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage, whatever they are called. The question is whether the substance of the traditional institution should be endorsed both by voluntary associations (including houses of worship) and by the state as the ideal union of adults and the ideal environment for childbearing and childrearing. Much more than share a television remote, spouses play a crucial public role in any healthy society. Much more than the private union of consenting adults, marriage is vitally important for the well-being of our nation’s children. That’s why Kmiec’s characterization of marriage is unsound. While he is right to note that the state did not create marriage, he is wrong to claim that religion did. Marriage exists as a natural, pre-political, and pre-religious institution based upon human nature and its fulfillment. States and religions rightly recognize and support marriage, but it precedes both.. . .

Preserving Marriage in Substance, Not Just Name

RELATED REPORT: Why Marriage Matters, Second Edition: Twenty-Six Conclusions from the Social Sciences AmericanValues.org
Marriage exists in virtually every known human society. . . . At least since the beginning of recorded history, in all the flourishing varieties of human cultures documented by anthropologists, marriage has been a universal human institution. As a virtually universal human idea, marriage is about the reproduction of children, families and society. . . . Marriage across societies is a publicly acknowledged and supported sexual union which creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children that their sexual union may produce. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: New Gay-Marriage War Coming to California: Many expect state Supreme Court to back Proposition 8 LA Weekly, By Patrick Range McDonald, March 11, 2009
Whether or not the California State Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8, one thing is certain: The battle to legalize or ban gay marriage in California will not end with the justices’ ruling due before June 3. . .

Brazil rocked by abortion for 9-year-old rape victim

Brazil rocked by abortion for 9-year-old rape victim
Church excommunicates mother and doctors – but not accused rapist The Independent- UK, By Guy Adams in Los Angeles, March 9, 2009
Declaring that "life must always be protected", a senior Vatican cleric has defended the Catholic Church's decision to excommunicate the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old rape victim who had a life-saving abortion in Brazil. Cardinal Giovanni Batista Re, who heads the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, told reporters that although the girl fell pregnant after apparently being abused by her stepfather, her twins had, "the right to live, and could not be eliminated". In an interview with the Italian newspaper, La Stampa, the cardinal added: "It is a sad case but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons. Life must always be protected." Police believe the girl was sexually assaulted for years by her stepfather, possibly since she was six. That she was four months pregnant with twins emerged only after she was taken to hospital complaining of severe stomach pains. The controversy represents a PR nightmare for the Vatican. The unnamed girl's mother and doctors were excommunicated for agreeing to Wednesday's emergency abortion yet the Church has not taken formal steps against the stepfather, who is in custody. Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, the conservative regional archbishop for Pernambuco where the girl was rushed to hospital, has said that the man would not be thrown out of the Church, because although he had allegedly committed "a heinous crime", the Church took the view that "the abortion, the elimination of an innocent life, was more serious". The case has set off fierce debate in Brazil, where abortion is permitted only in cases of rape or a medical emergency. . . . . . . The stepfather, who is 23, was arrested last week, apparently trying to escape to another region of the country. Police say he is also suspected of abusing the girl's handicapped 14-year-old sister. He is in protective custody, and if convicted faces up to 15 years in prison. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Nine-Year-Old's Abortion Outrages Brazil's Catholic Church Time magazine, By Andrew Downie- São Paulo, March 06, 2009
The case of the pregnant 9-year-old was shocking enough. But it was the response of the Catholic Church that infuriated many Brazilians. Archibishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the coastal city of Recife announced that the Vatican was excommunicating the family of a local girl who had been raped and impregnated with twins by her stepfather, because they had chosen to have the girl undergo an abortion. The Church excommunicated the doctors who performed the procedure as well. "God's laws," said the archbishop, dictate that abortion is a sin and that transgressors are no longer welcome in the Roman Catholic Church. "They took the life of an innocent," Sobrinho told TIME in a telephone interview. "Abortion is much more serious than killing an adult. An adult may or may not be an innocent, but an unborn child is most definitely innocent. Taking that life cannot be ignored." The case has caused a furor. Abortion is illegal in Brazil except in cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger, both of which apply in this case. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama Nominates Abortion Industry’s Top Governor Human Events Online, By Jennifer Giroux, March 2, 2009
Last year, Planned Parenthood boasted in a Wall Street Journal story they would spend an unprecedented $10 million in the 2008 election cycle to make sure they elected strong allies at all levels of government. With the election of President Obama and a long chain of Planned Parenthood affiliated cabinet and staff members, the investment has paid off. The crown jewel for Planned Parenthood’s portfolio is the appointment of Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas as Secretary of Health and Human Services, deceptively presented in an Associated Press article on February 28 as a lovable Democratic governor “reaching across the aisle” to do whatever she can to “minimize abortion;” the article even credits her with the 9% drop in abortions from 2002-2007. As she now takes center stage, it is important that pro-lifers pull back the curtain and allow America an unfiltered look at what really went on in Kansas under the watch of Governor Sebelius in the state known as “the abortion capital of the world.” . . .

¿The perfect relationship doesn't exist¿: Jennifer Aniston learns to compromise

‘The perfect relationship doesn't exist’: Jennifer Aniston learns to compromise The Daily Mail- UK, By Elaine Lipworth, March 7, 2009
Her love life is rarely out of the headlines, often eclipsing acclaimed big-screen performances. But hitting 40 has been a turning point for the ex-Friend. From now on, it's all change. . . . Jennifer Aniston has a spring in her step as she walks – practically skips – into the room. Her sunny disposition reflects the holiday atmosphere outside the Santa Monica beach-side hotel, where the promenade is crowded with joggers, skateboarders and cyclists. Recently turned 40, she’s hardly wearing any make-up, just lip gloss, and is positively glowing, the picture of sophistication in a black Roland Mouret sheath dress and towering striped platform shoes. Yet the chic look doesn’t conceal her youthful exuberance. ‘I don’t feel 40,’ she says. ‘I don’t really know what it means. I don’t know if I am a late bloomer, but I feel like everything is just beginning.’ Tanned, toned (from years of yoga) and very slim, she certainly doesn’t look her age. And she’s exactly as you’d imagine. Instantly approachable, she doesn’t have the untouchable allure of Nicole Kidman or Angelina Jolie (her ex-husband Brad Pitt’s partner, of course), but when it comes to warmth and charisma, there’s just no contest. . . . . . .There is no comment on her relationship with musician John Mayer. And there is a dignified silence on the subject of Brad and Angelina. While it must be challenging to see the high-profile couple and their six children gracing the covers of every tabloid, it’s clear that Jennifer is firmly focused on her own life. She does say that she has no idealised expectations about anything – including romance. Is there such a thing as a perfect relationship? ‘I don’t have one and I don’t think it exists. We are just fooling ourselves if we think it does. Whoever said that every relationship has to last for ever? That’s hoping for too much. I think every relationship is a world unto itself. . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: John Mayer and Jennifer Aniston Call It Quits – Again People magazine, By Pernilla Cedenheim, March 12, 2009
They wowed Hollywood with a high-profile Oscar date, posing arm-in-arm for photographs in what was largely seen as their official coming out as a couple after a year of off-and-on dating. Then Jennifer Aniston headed to Europe to promote Marley & Me and John Mayer stayed in L.A. to work on his music. And just days after Aniston returned, they were a couple no more, sources confirm to PEOPLE. "They had some disagreements and decided to not continue to see each other," says one source. "Jen is moving on with her life like she always does. She seems happy." A second source says Mayer broke up with Aniston after she returned from Europe. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Why do women feel useless? High-flying career? Tick. Baby? Tick. World travel? Tick? But crazy benchmarks and checklists won't make us happy Times Online, By Shane Watson, March 8, 2009
It starts early. You have a part-time job in the university holidays, but some of your friends are travelling and working, or signed up as film extras. Then you get a full-time job, but a few of your contemporaries have set up businesses, moved in with boyfriends and started writing on the side. You get a promotion; they get a promotion and they get pregnant. Meanwhile, they get a half share in a weekend cottage by the sea and a film deal. You are 35 and you feel the low hum of anxiety, because you still have six significant achievement boxes to tick before you hit 40. There’s a lot of talk about women’s ticking clocks, but the biological one is just the tip of the iceberg. . .

Parenting Issues: Chris Brown and Rihanna: a lesson for teens
The stars' painful drama can start a vital discussion about anger and violence. Los Angeles Times, By Sandy Banks, March 6 2009
For weeks, as rumors flew and details trickled out, I struggled to find a lesson to share in the violent incident/altercation/lover's quarrel -- even the media didn't know what to call it -- between teen music idols Chris Brown and Rihanna. Now, after reading the graphic details in a search warrant affidavit filed by the Los Angeles Police Department, I know what I would call it: A beating, with a victim and a perpetrator. The account describes Brown punching, choking and biting Rihanna and her cowering against the car door trying to block her boyfriend's blows with her legs and arms. It hurt to read, in part because Chris Brown and Rihanna have been a familiar presence in my house for years, favorites of my teenage daughters. Brown's picture hung on one daughter's bedroom wall; Rihanna was a fashion icon for another. I held them in my mind's eye as the perfect couple. Now Brown is charged with two felony counts off assault and making criminal threats. If convicted, he could go from pop star to prison inmate. Already Rihanna's public image has suffered. She's gone from Cover Girl model to poster child for domestic violence. Domestic violence counselors I sought out -- as I tried to turn this into a teachable moment for teens -- said the case is a real-life lesson that might resonate with teens because it busts stereotypes about dating abuse. "It's confusing, and that's good," said Leona Smith of Peace Over Violence, which runs a peer counseling program at Marshall High. "The kids say 'His songs are so nice, he's so cute, he gives such nice interviews.' For him to harm Rihanna -- who is also so cute, so nice and a celebrity -- what does that mean?" It means we have to go beyond blaming Brown and shaming Rihanna. We need a real discussion with our young people. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Rihanna: 9 Days Before Chris Apologized FOX-411, By Roger Friedman, March 6, 2009
What either one of them did for the interceding nine days is unknown. But the report of what the police feel happened on February 8th is clear. If the charges are true, not only should Rihanna not be with Brown, but he needs more than "help." He needs punishment. . . . . No matter how many hit records she has, or fleeting fame, it’s now her parents’ and family’s responsibility to make this young woman come to terms with what happened. Rihanna is a role model for young people. She gave this statement to the police. Pictures of her bruised and bloodied have been widely disseminated. If she doesn’t testify against Brown, put him in jail, and show a sense of self-respect, then she deserves to lose her career and the power that comes with it. For her own sake, and for the millions of girls who look up to her, this is a pivotal moment. And the nine days? Disgusting.

Chris Brown and Rihanna: A Lesson for Teens (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: Police Report on Chris Brown Alleged Attack on Rihanna FOX11, March 5, 2009

RELATED DOCUMENT(PDF): RAW DATA: Read the chilling LAPD affidavit.

RELATED VIDEO: Advice For Rihanna: 'Robin Givens' and 'Denise Brown' speak out on domestic violence. Good Morning America, March 11, 2009

RELATED RESOURCE (PDF doc): A Parent's Guide To Teen Dating Violence LoveisnotAbuse.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Chris Brown and Rihanna Record a Duet People magazine, By Jessica Herndon, March 12, 2009
Even with a criminal case pending, Chris Brown and Rihanna are making music together. Brown, 19, who is charged with two felonies in the alleged beating of Rihanna, recently recorded a duet with her, the song's producer, Polow Da Don, tells PEOPLE. "My heart goes out to both Chris and Rihanna for what has happened in the past," says Polow. "They are both great artists to work with, and I wish them well.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: 'Love Doesn't Hurt,' Oprah Tells Rihanna PopEater, March 8, 2009
Oprah Winfrey strongly cautioned Rihanna from hastily reconciling with her accused attacker Chris Brown, saying during her show on Friday that "love doesn't hurt" and charging that "if a man hits you once, he will hit you again." "You need somebody to tell you the truth in this moment. And the truth is guys, both Chris Brown and Rihanna, if I were your friend, I would call you up and I would say 'Give it some time, get yourself some counseling, take care of yourself, heal yourself first'," she said during the live broadcast. "And also, 'Love doesn't hurt'. I've been saying this to women for years - love doesn't hurt. And if a man hits you once, he will hit you again. He will hit you again. I don't care what his plea is, he will hit you again.'". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Police: Chris Brown Punched Rihanna, Threatened to Kill Her People magazine, By Rennie Dyball, March 05, 2009
A detective's notes from the scene of the alleged Rihanna assault reveal disturbing details about what happened between the singer and her boyfriend Chris Brown in the early hours of Feb. 8. According to a search warrant in the case, Rihanna, 21, read a three-page text message from a woman on Brown's phone, which led to an argument. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Your Teenager in an Abusive Relationship? TBO Blogs—Thanks Mom, By Donna Koehn, February 12, 2009
If you found out your daughter’s boyfriend had physically assaulted her, a number of things might run through your mind, some of them, perhaps, outside the law. But there’s no doubt you would do everything in your power to keep him away from her. Your daughter or her friends might see it differently. After news came out that entertainer Chris Brown had allegedly attacked his girlfriend Rihanna (that’s them in a December photo), an online survey of more than 500 teens and ‘tweens revealed that 40 percent believed the two should not split up. Pangea Pulse, which runs a teen survey Web site, asked this question:
Do you think Rihanna should leave Chris Brown for assulting (sic) her?
• Yes, she should leave him, domestic violence is never okay. 60%
• No, people make mistakes, they should try to work it out. 24%
• No, this could be Rihanna’s fault. She must have done something wrong. 16%
Here are some of the comments received. . . . . . If you are worried about your son or daughter, or if you want some reading to get you stoked to have this talk, pick up a copy of “But I Love Him: Protecting Your Teen Daughter from Controlling, Abusive Dating Relationships,” by Jill Murray. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Teens Break Free From Dating Abuse: Women Ages 16 to 24 Face Fastest-Growing Rate of Abuse in Relationships ABC News- Good Morning America, January 24, 2005
At the beginning, Katie, Laura, Carrie and Shaina were just teenage girls in love. He would just always tell me how beautiful I was and how wonderful I was and how lucky he was to have me and I just was on cloud nine. I felt great," said Katie, now 19. But eventually all of these girls found their boyfriends turning controlling and abusive. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Christianity Today- Today's Christian Woman Cause of the Year
Around the globe, approximately one in four women has been physically abused by an intimate male partner. In the U.S., according to the U.S. Department of Justice, a woman is battered every 15 seconds, and approximately 1.3 million women are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually. Abuse can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, and psychological—and it happens to people regardless of race, age, gender. Or religion. Join us as we bring domestic violence out of the shadows and into the healing light of Christ's power and hope. —the Editors

RELATED RESOURCE & PUBLICATIONS: National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence

Loudly and colorfully, opposing sides debate Proposition 8 (Click for Related Web Cast)

Loudly and colorfully, opposing sides debate Proposition 8 Los Angeles Times, By Maria L. LaGanga, March 6, 2009
God was in the eye of the beholder Thursday morning at the San Francisco Civic Center Plaza, where hundreds of spectators gathered to watch the California Supreme Court on a massive outdoor TV screen and wrangle over the sanctity of marriage. The occasion: Attorneys from both sides of the gay-marriage debate were arguing the merits -- or demerits -- of Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage in California. The dress code: dreadlocks, nose rings, rabbit costumes, clerical collars, wedding veils, hair colors not found in nature (and some that were), rainbow stripes, American flags, suits. The demeanor: loud. "You're bigger, God, much bigger than the small religious boxes that we put you in," Bishop Yvette Flunder of San Francisco's City of Refuge United Church of Christ declared at an al fresco, pre-hearing interfaith service. "We ask you for the freedom today . . . to have our relationships boldly without fear of reprisal." Across the broad, rain-damp plaza, Los Angeles contractor Ruben Israel held in his right hand a sign that declared "Homo-sex" a "threat to national security." In his left hand was a bullhorn. "If you think God is all-forgiving and loving and tolerant," he blared, "where was the tolerance from God when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?" And so it went for the better part of six hours as attorneys argued, justices probed, demonstrators shouted and entrepreneurs hawked buttons, T-shirts, churros, hot dogs, pretzels and lattes. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Prop 8 challenge after today's oral argument. . . The Volokh Conspiracy, March 5, 2009
One more brief note from today’s argument. If it wasn’t clear before today, it is now clear that Attorney General Jerry Brown’s role in the case has not only been unhelpful to the petitioners, but has undermined it. His view is that Prop 8 is an amendment rather than a revision “under existing cases” but that Prop 8 is unconstitutional because it took away a right that is on an unspecified and growing list of “inalienable,” natural rights that can never be taken away by any constitutional change process. Brown thus undermines the petitioners on their strongest argument (the constitutional-procedural one) and offers instead a much weaker one (a constitutional-substantive one). It was plain in oral argument that none of the justices were buying it, and that Brown’s lawyer, given an impossible position to defend, could not defend it.

RELATED ARTICLE: Ruling could mean civil unions for all in Calif. Associated Press, By Lisa Leff, March 6, 2009
The California Supreme Court could decide that there are two kinds of same-sex couples: those who can't get married, and those who already did. A ruling that upholds both voters' November decision to ban gay marriage and the 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted earlier in California could come off as a safe compromise. But it also promises to keep alive an issue that has split the state as few others have. . . . . . While publicly reluctant to read too much into the court's reception, gay-rights leaders already are preparing for a return to the ballot box to have Proposition 8 repealed. The state's largest gay-rights groups have started raising money, airing television advertisements and recruiting volunteers with an eye toward qualifying a ballot measure in 2012, if not next year. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: A Compromise on Gay Marriage Opposing Views, By Laurie Higgins, February 25, 2009
The government has one concern with marriage. The government seeks to support that institution that best serves the needs of the state. Our government, which reflects the collective wisdom and will of its citizenry, has rightly determined that the institution that best serves the needs of a healthy society is that which best serves the needs of children who are essential to the future success of any nation. And what best serves the needs of children is to be raised, when possible, by their biological parents. . . . . . The fact that marriage is inextricably bound up in contractual obligations, often pertaining to financial issues, reflects the government's interest in protecting and preserving the natural family. The government has no legitimate interest in whether marital partners love each other. If the sole purpose of marriage were to publicly recognize, institutionalize, or solemnize sexual attraction and/or emotional affiliation, the government would have no business being involved with marriage at all. The government has no vested interest in whether marital partners love each other. If society is going to regain a proper understanding of marriage, citizens must be disabused of the notion that the government's involvement in marriage has anything to do with sanctioning love. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Same-Sex Marriage — Challenges & Responses Townhall.com, By Gregory Koukl, February 11, 2007
A few years ago, the L.A. Times quoted a homosexual mayor in New York State dismissing the cultural significance of same-sex marriage. “I’ve never heard of anyone’s life being destroyed because someone got married,” he sniffed. Reading this assertion charitably (he couldn’t have meant no one’s life was ever destroyed by marriage), I take it this government official was mystified by the idea that anything bad could come of men marrying men or women marrying women. I immediately knew I was listening to a man who didn’t understand a simple truth: Ideas have consequences. In the case of same-sex marriage, the consequences will be massive. . . . . 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. . .

California Supreme Court looks unlikely to kill Proposition 8 Los Angeles Times, By Maura Dolan, March 6, 2009
The California Supreme Court strongly indicated Thursday it would rule that Proposition 8 validly abolished the right for gays to marry but would allow same-sex couples who wed before the November election to remain legally married. The long-awaited hearing, which came as dueling demonstrators chanted and carried banners outside, was a disappointment for gay rights lawyers. They had hoped the same court majority that overturned the state's previous marriage ban would conclude that Proposition 8 was an impermissible constitutional revision. Two members of that majority -- Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Justice Joyce L. Kennard -- expressed deep skepticism toward the gay rights lawyers' arguments. Without their votes, Proposition 8 appeared almost certain to survive. The other two justices who ruled in favor of marriage rights last year -- Carlos R. Moreno and Kathryn Mickle Werdegar -- seemed more open to the revision challenge. Moreno even helped gay rights lawyers with their arguments. But the court revealed no division on whether to uphold the marriages of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who wed before November. Even Justice Marvin Baxter, the court's most conservative member, observed that the couples got married after receiving the right by "the highest court of the state." "How can we deny the validity of those marriages?" Baxter asked. The court's ruling is due within 90 days. Gay marriage advocates all but conceded defeat. . . . . "It is not unique in the history of California that the initiative process has been used to restrict the right of one minority or another," said the chief justice, who wrote the May 15 landmark marriage ruling. What if gays had won the right to marry by initiative and a later initiative took that right away? George asked. "Are you saying it is a one-way street -- that you can extend rights by way of initiative and take them away only by revision, the same rights?" Exceptions have long been carved from equal protection guarantees, he said. Justice Carol A. Corrigan also observed that people have the right to amend their constitutions: "Isn't the essence of democracy grounded in the right of people to govern themselves?". . .
Supporters of traditional marriage buoyed by arguments
California Supreme Court hears challenge to voters' decision World Net Daily, March 6, 2009
The California Supreme Court today listened to arguments on whether a constitutional amendment approved by voters in November should be allowed to stand after homosexual activists objected to its definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman only. Supporters of traditional marriage said they were pleased by the tone and direction of the questions and answers. Voters in California in 2000 adopted a definition of marriage limited to a man and a woman. But the measure was a state law, and the state Supreme Court in 2008 overturned it, essentially instructing that the state create "marriage" for same-sex couples. The decision was overturned Nov. 4, however, when voters approved Proposition 8, which instantly became a part of the state's constitution. Homosexual activists argue the change should have been called a constitutional revision instead of an amendment, a classification that requires legislative approval before it goes to voters. But the high court already rejected that claim, prior to the election. Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, who participated in a friend-of-the-court brief submitted on behalf of traditional marriage, said the arguments pleased him. He said two of the justices who less than a year ago voted to "invent" homosexual marriages, "seemed to have gotten the message loud and clear, that they have been overruled by the voters.". . .
ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8 Urges California Supreme Court to Uphold Proposition 8
“The constitution has now been amended by the sovereign people who are its creators.” ProtectMarriage.com, By Frank Schubert, March 05, 2009
The lead attorney for the proponents of Proposition 8 and the campaign committee responsible for its enactment today told the justices of the California Supreme Court that, “the constitution has now been amended by the sovereign people who are its creators. That is the beginning and end of this case.” Kenneth W. Starr, lead attorney for Protectmarriage.com, told the Court that the people have the final word on what the state Constitution says. “The people have the inalienable right to control their constitution.” . . . . . Starr spoke before the justices for 60 minutes, the longest period afforded any of the attorneys who presented arguments to the Court. He stated that Proposition 8 was a properly enacted amendment to the state constitution, and not a revision as alleged by those challenging the measure. “Proposition 8’s brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions, or exclusions. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Describing Proposition 8 as a revision to the state constitution, depends on characterizing Proposition 8 as a radical departure from the fundamental principles of the California Constitution. But that portrayal is wildly wrong. Proposition 8 is limited in nature and effect. It does nothing more than restore the definition of marriage to what it was and always had been under California law before June 16, 2008 – and to what the people had repeatedly willed that it be throughout California’s history. It is now part of the state constitution.”. . .

California Supreme Court: proposition 8-- Same Sex Marriage WebCast The California Channel, March 5, 2009
The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Thursday, March 5, 2009, in three cases challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 (Ban on Same Sex Marriage) , a statewide ballot initiative that was passed by a majority of California voters in November 2008.

(Editor's Note: Due to the high demand for this event, if you have problems connecting then the server has reached its limit. Please try back later or watch the video in the archvie).

California Supreme Court Oral Arguments:
TOPIC: Proposition 8 - Same Sex Marriage CASE: (13) Strauss et al. v. Horton (Hollingsworth et al., Interveners) (and two other cases, S168066 Tyler et al. v. State of California et al. (Hollingsworth et al., Interveners) and S168078 City and County of San Francisco et al. v. Horton (Hollingsworth et al., Interveners) The court issued an order to show cause in Strauss, Tyler, and City and County of San Francisco directing the parties to brief and argue the following issues:
(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, §§ 1–4.)
(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

Lawmakers: Court should reject voters' decision: Arguments on California's Prop 8 fight on calendar

Lawmakers: Court should reject voters' decision
Arguments on California's Prop 8 fight on calendar WorldNetDaily, By Bob Unruh, March 3, 2009
A member of the California Assembly has accused fellow legislators of violating the state Constitution by trying to influence the state's Supreme Court in a pending legal argument over the voter-approved constitutional amendment that limits marriage to one man and one woman. Assemblyman Van Tran unsuccessfully opposed legislative resolutions adopted during the height of arguments over the state's cataclysmic multi-billion-dollar budget collapse that expressed the lawmakers' demands for the state court system. On the schedule this week at the state Supreme Court are arguments over Proposition 8, which was approved by 52 percent of voters in November. Tran said lawmakers were trying to "disenfranchise over 7 million voters" and suggested the resolutions should not even be considered by the legislature. "Article III of California's Constitution provides for a government with a separation of powers, where we have three co-equal branches," he told fellow lawmakers. "This provides for a system of checks and balances to further protect the people of California." He said the resolutions, which express lawmakers' belief Proposition 8 is a constitutional revision, "unduly influence the judicial process in the normal review of state law." "HR 5 does nothing except further politicize this process," he said. Officials at the Pacific Justice Institute, which has argued for the constitutional amendment, said the case will have far-reaching effects. "Nothing less than our democracy hangs in the balance as the California Supreme Court considers Prop 8," said PJI's president, Brad Dacus. "Striking down Prop 8 would be one of the most egregious power grabs in California history. "The people deserve better. Same-sex marriage must not be forced on voters who have carefully and clearly settled this issue, not once but twice.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: PJI: Democracy Hangs in the Balance This Week at Calif. Supreme Court Pacific Justice Institute, March 2, 2009

RELATED SITE & RESOURCE: High Profile Case California Courts— Supreme Court
In certain high profile cases, the Supreme Court provides online access to some case documents to increase public access to court information. Marriage Cases: Proposition 8 Supreme Court Filings. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Ken Starr vs. transsexual in Prop 8 case Chicago Sun Times, By Aurielo Rojas- Sacramento Bee, March 3, 2009
Kenneth Starr and Shannon Minter, lead attorneys in the California Supreme Court case that will decide the fate of same-sex marriage in the state, are as different as the competing sides they represent. Starr, dean of Pepperdine University School of Law, is best known for leading the inquiry into President Bill Clinton's affair with a White House intern. Since then, the former federal judge and U.S. solicitor general has dedicated himself to conservative causes, including writing briefs for the Mormon church in a previous gay marriage case in California. Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, is a transsexual who spent his first 35 years as a female. He was a lead counsel in the state Supreme Court case decided last May that allowed same-sex couples to marry, a ruling that was reversed in November when voters approved Proposition 8. Starr and Minter will square off Thursday in the most closely watched California Supreme Court hearing in a generation. . . . . . .Minter calls Thursday's proceedings "much bigger" than the case last May that invalidated Proposition 22; approved in 2000, it also limited marriage to a man and a woman. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Eve of Justice Candlelight Demonstrations Planned for Prop 8 SheWired.com, By Chad Darnell, March 3, 2009
This Wednesday, March 4th, Eve of Justice will hold candlelight demonstrations in cities across the state of California in solidarity against the passing of Proposition 8. The event will fall on the evening before the California Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the validity of Prop 8. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Deja new: Prop. 8 challenge reaches Calif. court Sacramento Bee- AP, By Lisa Leff, March 2, 2009
The question is whether a majority of the justices will defer to popular will or, having already declared that preventing gay people from marrying was unconstitutional, will do so again. Legal experts say it is a tough call and that the court's decision, due within 90 days, will be debated for years to come. "It's very unusual for any kind of state court to do what the petitioners are asking the California Supreme Court to do," said William Eskridge, a Yale University constitutional law professor. . . . In a rare departure, the state's own top lawyer, Attorney General Jerry Brown, has refused to defend the initiative and is urging the justices to invalidate it. Brown says Proposition 8 itself is unconstitutional because the Supreme Court's 4-3 decision last year recognized gays as a minority group entitled to judicial protection and established marriage as a fundamental right. . .

‘Bachelor’ breaks two hearts in season finale
Jason picks Melissa over Molly, then changes his mind in reunion show MSNBC.com, By Andy Dehnart, March 3, 2009
There have been many break-ups of the couples who met during the 12 previous seasons of ABC's "The Bachelor" and four seasons of "The Bachelorette." But until Monday night, none of the couples broke up while the show was actually airing. Jason Mesnick, the single dad whose heart was broken by DeAnna Pappas at the end of "The Bachelorette 4," broke two hearts, not counting viewers who are dismayed by the way he chose Melissa only to dump her during the "After the Final Rose" special and pick Molly, who he'd rejected earlier. The closest the show has ever come to this kind of conclusion is when Brad Womack rejected both of the final two women, and then later faced an angry studio audience at the reunion. Some viewers, it seemed, couldn't fathom that someone would refuse to make a lifelong commitment to a TV date. . . . . . As shocking as the ending may have been — ABC has been teasing it for weeks, and both Harrison and the show's executive producer, Mike Fleiss, have hyped it in the media — it was not a surprise. A little less than two weeks ago, the ending was revealed by a blogger known as Reality Steve, which also claimed that the ending was “fabricated,” although the blogger later admitted, “All the stuff I've speculated about (planned from the beginning, Jason doing what he was told to do, etc), I can't prove.” In an Entertainment Weekly blog post, “Bachelor” host Chris Harrison insisted producers did not and would not fabricate or pre-plan the shocking ending. That Jason would participate in a scripted conclusion seems highly unlikely, especially because he doesn't appear to be a good enough actor to fake his obviously genuine emotions both during the finale and during the “After the Final Rose” special. (Conspiracy theorists might argue that his emotions were about what he was doing or had been asked to do to Melissa, but that's how conspiracy theories work: every piece of evidence can be spun to support the theory.). . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Bachelor’s Melissa: The Ultimate Rebound People magazine- TV Watch, March 11, 2009
What a week it was for Melissa Rycroft! On March 2 viewers saw her get engaged to Jason Mesnick on The Bachelor, then, only minutes later, they saw her get dumped on the After the Final Rose special. One week later to the day, Rycroft emerged smelling like a rose when she performed the Viennese waltz live on Dancing with the Stars. She had the support of not one, but two men — Dancing partner Tony Dovolani and new boyfriend, Ty, a former flame she started seeing after things went south with Mesnick. Rycroft calls Ty, a Dallas-based insurance agent, her “rock.”. . .

¿Bachelor¿ Jason breaks two hearts in season finale (Click for Related Site & Video)

RELATED SITE & VIDEO: The Bachelor ABC TV
Watch Past Episodes

RELATED VIDEO: Ethics Under Fire Ellen DeGeneres Video AOL's TV's TOP FIVE March 5, 2009
Ellen grills 'Bachelor' host Chris Harrison about ethics, and he stalls & squirms.

RELATED ARTICLE: Bachelor Jason: 'I'm Not Proud of What I Had to Do' : Mesnick tells PEOPLE the reasoning behind his shocking decision People magazine- TV Watch, March 3, 2009
He had no choice. That’s Jason Mesnick’s explanation for publicly dumping his fiancee, Bachelor winner Melissa Rycroft, in favor of runner-up Molly Malaney on Monday night’s finale. Jason says he would have preferred to have delivered the news to Rycroft off camera. “There were things I needed to tell her in person and I was not allowed to see her. That was part of the deal. I signed up for it in my contract. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Men, Don't Wipe Away Your Man Tears   Asylum.com, By Brian Childs, March 4, 2009
Even if you think it's OK for a man to cry, did Jason Mesnick go overboard?   Ever since that sorry bastard on "The Bachelor" apparently cried a bunch on national television, there's been a lot of Internet hateration directed at male tears. First off, let me say this: I do not endorse men weeping. If another man is crying, I will quickly leave the room. If I am trapped with this wet blanket I will look away and ignore him, even going so far as to whistle to indicate that I do not notice he is dying inside. But, in spite of being remarkably uncomfortable with the human emotion known as sadness, I will say this: Drop this whole real-men-don't-cry BS. . .

RELATED BLOG: That Was Pathetic to Watch. Really, It Was.   RealitySteve.com, March 3, 2009
No need to gloat really. I told you what their shocker was going to be on January 27th, and it happened. Doesn’t matter how I know, who told me, or how it all came to be. The bottom line was I ruined ABC’s surprise for the season and I’m glad I did. Especially after that abortion they showed us on television last night. I will be honest with you and say I’m sick to my stomach. I mean, the two hour finale was nothing. We all knew what was happening there. But that ATFR show was downright painful. I felt AWFUL for Melissa. Still do. The debate will rage on from this day forward what you want to believe about Jason and Molly’s performance. Was he put up to this? When did he know? When did Molly know and what did she know? That’s all up for each individual to decide. Judging by the message boards and my comments, seems like we’re running about 99% in favor of Jason being named King A-Hole sometime in the near future. Hey, you know all my answers to this. No need to go over it again. Fifty years from now when I’m asked about the Jason Mesnick season of the “Bachelor”, I will firmly believe he was told to do this and agreed to it to create this shocking finale. And no matter what BS Chris Harrison wants to whine about in his blog today, or how many times Jason and Molly want to deny they’ve never contacted each other in the two months he was engaged to Melissa, or how ABC now admits, “Well, we expected it to get leaked”, NOTHING will change my belief of what went down this season. . .

RELATED BLOG: Chris Harrison blogs 'The Bachelor': The Women Tell All Entertainment Weekly- PopWatch, By Chris Harrison, February 24, 2009
I read in the comments that many of you are questioning my parenting skills and if I'm even fit to be a parent. First, let me say it took you all far too long to figure that out, but that's really between my kids and the therapist I'm sure they'll be visiting in about 20 years. Second, let me share a bit of wisdom I often share with my own kids. You are responsible for the choices you make in this life period, end of story. I would go into the story I tell about if Johnny jumped off a bridge would you...but I think you get the idea. I've always felt the genius behind the producing of this show is the environment we create. Now, what happens in that environment -- the decisions made, the things said, and done or left undone -- that is what is truly compelling. Those actions and decisions, and the fact that we love to watch it all unfold, is what drives this show. The beauty of what Mike Fleiss created is that this is not a game show nor is it a scripted soap opera. . .

RELATED BLOG: Bachelor Jason: I Have Found ‘The One’ People magazine- TV Watch, By Carrie Bell, February 27, 2009
Fans have spent weeks speculating and blogging about who will be the last woman standing next to Jason Mesnick on The Bachelor. Before his choice is revealed on Monday’s finale, the single dad from Seattle sat down with PEOPLE.com to talk about the final two women, Melissa and Molly, the return of DeAnna and whether he finally got his happy ending. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Bachelor 13: Meet Jason Mesnick's Ex-Wife BuddyTV, February 22, 2009
[U]p until now, little is known about the former Mrs. Jason Mesnick. Luckily, we've stumbled upon some information about her for all you curious Jason fans out there. Oh, and she has a music video too! Hilary Madison Wynn, supposedly the new name of Hilary Buckholz-Monrean, is the ex-wife of Jason and mother of three-year-old Ty. She's a model who lives in Seattle, Washington, and now aspires to become a fashion designer. For a more detailed bio (including her vital statistics), you can check out her profile on modelmayhem.com. . .

Another blow to fatherhood: IVF mothers can name ANYONE as 'father' on birth certificate

Another blow to fatherhood: IVF mothers can name ANYONE as 'father' on birth certificate The Daily Mail- UK, By Fiona Macrae, March 2, 2009
Family values were under attack again last night with the news that single women having IVF will be able to name anyone they like as their baby's father on the birth certificate. New regulations mean that a mother could nominate another woman to be her child's 'father'. The 'father' does not need to be genetically related to the baby, nor be in any sort of romantic relationship with the mother. Critics said a woman could list her best friend on the birth certificate. The word 'father' may even be replaced with the phrase 'second parent'. The second parent, who will have to consent to being named, will take on the legal and moral responsibilities of parenthood. This raises the spectre of a legal minefield in which female 'fathers' will fight for visitation rights and be chased for child support payments if their fragile relationship with the mother breaks down. The changes, due to come in on April 6, will apply to many of the 2,000 women a year who have IVF using sperm from anonymous donors. The regulations are part of the controversial Embryology Bill passed by Parliament last year. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said they will give lesbian couples in civil partnerships who undergo IVF the same rights as married heterosexual couples. An unmarried man whose girlfriend has fertility treatment will also find it easier to claim full parental rights. The new rules state: 'The women receiving treatment with donor sperm (or embryos created with donor sperm) can consent to any man or woman being the father or second parent.' The only exemption is close blood relatives. Critics said the change would lead to the role of father being downgraded to the one of godfather and warned that the child would be the one to lose out. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Limiting reproduction Baltimore Sun, By Adam Pertman and Naomi Cahn, February 25, 2009
Hard on the heels of the sensational story of Nadya Suleman - the California woman who has added octuplets to her family of six children - comes the news that a 60-year-old woman recently gave birth to twins in Canada. So we are reminded yet again that doctors are getting better and better at delivering what, in years past, would have been reasonably described as miracles. And important questions are being asked as a result, such as: Is it responsible for a woman to bear children regardless of her age or the number of babies involved? Is it ethical for fertility clinics to facilitate a paying customer's pregnancy simply because they know how? To that mix, here's one that's equally controversial: Is it time for federal and state governments to consider legal rules and boundaries for the fertility industry? A new research-based report by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, "Old Lessons for a New World," suggests that the answer may finally be "yes.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: “Designer Baby” Service Criticized as Misuse of Genetic Counseling findingDulcinea.com, By Denis Cummings, March 02, 2009
A clinic claiming that it will soon use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to select cosmetic traits of babies has been criticized for corrupting the intended use of PGD.

RELATED ARTICLE: A Baby, Please. Blond, Freckles -- Hold the Colic Wall Street Journal, By Gauta, Naik, February 12, 2009
Want a daughter with blond hair, green eyes and pale skin? A Los Angeles clinic says it will soon help couples select both gender and physical traits in a baby when they undergo a form of fertility treatment. The clinic, Fertility Institutes, says it has received "half a dozen" requests for the service, which is based on a procedure called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD. While PGD has long been used for the medical purpose of averting life-threatening diseases in children, the science behind it has quietly progressed to the point that it could potentially be used to create designer babies. It isn't clear that Fertility Institutes can yet deliver on its claims of trait selection. But the growth of PGD, unfettered by any state or federal regulations in the U.S., has accelerated genetic knowledge swiftly enough that pre-selecting cosmetic traits in a baby is no longer the stuff of science fiction. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Parent Hood: How technology and social progress are turning procreation into self-actualization The Daily Standard, By Claudia Anderson, December 4, 2006

RELATED ARTICLE: The Revolution in Parenthood: The Emerging Global Clash Between Adult Rights and Children's Needs AmericanValues.org, Principal Investigator: Elizabeth Marquardt
A new report from the country’s leading family experts finds that worldwide trends in law and reproductive technologies are redefining parenthood in ways that put the interests of adults before the needs of children. “The two-person mother-father model of parenthood is being changed to meet adults’ rights to children rather than children’s needs to know and be raised, whenever possible, by their mother and father,” according to the report, "The Revolution in Parenthood: The Emerging Global Clash Between Adult Rights and Children’s Needs.". . .

Suit Seeks to Force Government to Extend Benefits to Same-Sex Couples

Suit Seeks to Force Government to Extend Benefits to Same-Sex Couples New York Times, By Abby Goodnough and Katie Zezima, March 2, 2009
— The legal advocacy group that successfully argued for sex-same marriage in Massachusetts intends to file suit here on Tuesday seeking some federal benefits for spouses in such marriages. The target is the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress in 1996, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. That law denies federal benefits, like Social Security survivors’ payments, to spouses in such marriages. Because same-sex marriage is allowed in only two states, Massachusetts and Connecticut, the number of spouses who are denied such benefits is fairly small. But Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the group planning to file the federal suit, believes the number will grow as more states consider granting gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. At least eight other states, including New York, are considering same-sex marriage bills. “In our view, it’s a straightforward equal-protection issue,” said Mary L. Bonauto, civil rights project director for the group, referring to the constitutional mandate that laws be applied equally to everyone. The suit, to be filed in Federal District Court in Boston, does not challenge a separate provision of the act that says states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. And while the Government Accountability Office has identified more than 1,100 federal statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in rights and benefits, the suit focuses narrowly on equal protection as applied to Social Security, federal income tax, federal employees and retirees, and the issuance of passports. . . . . .Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law scholar and dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine, said that the case seemed strong but that victory was not certain. “I think that under established equal protection law, they have strong claims,” Mr. Chemerinsky said. “But it does raise issues that courts haven’t dealt with before, so that makes it more difficult to predict what the courts will do.”. . .

RELATED SITE: The White House- The Agenda- Civil Rights

RELATED ARTICLE: Ninth Circuit Strikes Two Blows Against Defense of Marriage Act CNS News, By Pete Winn, February 10, 2009
- Attorneys on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue agree that two administrative rulings last week from different judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California were blows to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute in Sacramento, Calif., said both decisions are troubling because they ordered the federal government to cover the health benefits of the same-sex partners of two federal lawyers. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Never Mind the Law National Review, By William Duncan, February 11, 2009
A dress rehearsal for a national redefinition of marriage quietly took place last week in a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A single judge, acting in his capacity as chair of the circuit's Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders, wrote the opinion. . . . Since this decision does not create precedent that other courts must follow, what is most important is not the outcome but the reasons given for that outcome. Reinhardt's opinion provides a blueprint for a future federal decision holding not only that DOMA is unconstitutional, but also that the Constitution mandates a redefinition of marriage in every state. His reasoning does not withstand scrutiny, but that has rarely stopped judges intent on writing laws instead of interpreting them (of whom Reinhardt is one of the most flagrant examples). The decision makes three arguments: DOMA constitutes unlawful sex discrimination, DOMA constitutes unlawful sexual-orientation discrimination, and DOMA is not grounded in any rational justification. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Perspectives: Change we never imagined OneNewsNow, By Matt Barber, January 23, 2009
Well, the high-sheen veneer and cult-of-personality euphoria surrounding America's new oratory endowed president looks to be dissolving rather quickly. While millions had hoped for a political "messiah," it's fast becoming evident that, instead, we've stuck ourselves with an extreme leftist ideologue whose brand of "change we can believe in" is, in fact, "change we never imagined." (Sorry to burst the Barack bandwagon bubble, but I say it like I see it.) The examples are piling up in terms of the radical pro-abortion polices he's planning to implement, the many-times-failed Marxist fiscal policies he's promised to test yet again, and – relative to his national security goals – the noxiously naive peacenik policies that have Mahmoud and Osama giggling themselves to sleep at night. But on issues involving marriage, family and sexual morality, Obama's been even more brazen than some of his most ardent detractors could have expected. (See related article) Literally within minutes after he took the oath of office, the official White House webpage was updated – under the heading of "The Agenda: Civil Rights" – to detail his wholesale "support for the LGBT (homosexual activist) community." His stated plans include the following:. . .

Exclusive! Katie Holmes Talks! Glamour magazine, by Sheila Weller, March 2, 2009
Right now she’s loving her career, ignoring the tabloids and grateful that her husband (Tom Cruise—heard of him?) can cook. If you’ve ever wondered what it’s like to be Katie Holmes, listen in. . . . . .You know the image of the Katie Holmes we always see on the red carpet: hair over one eye, tall and slim, wearing couture and looking very Posh Spice? Well, scratch that. The Katie Holmes who bounds into the Polo Lounge at the Beverly Hills Hotel looks more Dawson’s Creek than Fashion Week. Not a smidge of makeup, short hair tucked behind her ears, gray cardigan over white blouse, fitted black trousers. Not to say she’s the same Joey Potter we fell in love with more than 10 years ago. Having effortlessly morphed from a girl from a big Ohio family into the globe-hopping wife of the planet’s hugest star, Tom Cruise, she’s on a tear workwise: The actress recently finished a Broadway run of Arthur Miller’s All My Sons—never missing a performance, scoring good reviews—and is about to start filming the comedy The Extra Man, with Kevin Kline. Quickly, Katie is on her way to becoming an American icon, for her gracious working-mom flair—and, OK, for her clothes (she stars in a Miu Miu campaign and is trying her hand at designing, too). . . .
GLAMOUR: As you know, the rumor right now is that you are pregnant!
KH: Well, I’m not pregnant right now.
GLAMOUR: The people who print stuff like that…if you could say something to them, what would it be?
KH: Sometimes I think I would say, “Why don’t you come over and have dinner? See what there is to see.”
GLAMOUR: And what would they see? What’s a day in the life of Katie, Tom and Suri?. . . .

RELATED SITE: KATIE HOLMES : The Girl Next Door- News & Notes

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