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

Ricky Martin Is Livin' La Vida Open, Says He's Gay
Ricky Martin confirms the rumors: 'I am a fortunate homosexual man' ABC News, By Nekesa Mumbi Moody, March 29, 2010
Ricky Martin is no longer denying the rumors: He's gay. n a statement posted via Twitter in both Spanish and English, and later confirmed with his representative, Martin said: "I am proud to say that I am a fortunate homosexual man. I am very blessed to be who I am." For many, Monday's announcement will come as no surprise; the "Livin' La Vida Loca" singer's sexuality has been speculated about for years. But the Puerto Rican star, who got his start as a child in the teen group Menudo, never directly addressed it and was usually seen at events with beautiful women on his arm. Martin, 38, said he decided to reveal the truth after working on his memoirs helped him realize that he had to be free with himself, and not keep any more secrets. "From the moment I wrote the first phrase I was sure the book was the tool that was going to help me free myself from things I was carrying within me for a long time. Things that were too heavy for me to keep inside," he said. "Writing this account of my life, I got very close to my truth. And this is something worth celebrating." Martin said one of the reasons why he kept his homosexuality hidden was because he was told by some that it would hurt his career. While his U.S. career peaked after the release of his 1999 self-titled English album, a multiplatinum success that included the hits "Livin' La Vida Loca" and "Shake Your Bon-Bon," he is still a hugely successful Latin artist."Because all this advice came from people who I love dearly, I decided to move on with my life not sharing with the world my entire truth," he said in his statement. "Allowing myself to be seduced by fear and insecurity became a self-fulfilling prophecy of sabotage. Today I take full responsibility for my decisions and my actions." Martin, who is the father of two boys born via surrogate in 2008, said he couldn't continue to hide his sexuality now that he is a father: "Enough is enough. This has to change.". .

Ricky Martin Is Livin' La Vida Open, Says He's Gay, confirms the rumors: 'I am a fortunate homosexual man'.

Saying 'I do': Black marriage campaign is growing (Click for Related Video)

Saying 'I do': Black marriage campaign is growing The Washington Post, By Megan K. Scott- AP, March 26, 2010
-- For Kenny and Lynette Seymour, last weekend's black marriage gala was about celebrating their seven-year marriage. They got to meet other black couples while spending a romantic evening together. "Every time you meet another couple, you learn something new about yourself and relationships in general," said Kenny Seymour, a 39-year-old Broadway music director who lives in Queens. "It was beautiful to be around a bunch of married people in love." Other black couples will be marking the eighth annual Black Marriage Day this weekend, by attending workshops, black-tie dinners and other activities. Some groups have held events throughout the month, although Black Marriage Day, which celebrates matrimony in the black community, falls on the fourth Sunday in March. The founder estimates more than 300 celebrations are being held this weekend. The aim is to try to stabilize, if not reverse, the trend of non-commitment within the black community. Studies show blacks are less likely to marry than other ethnic groups and more likely to divorce and bear children out of wedlock. Experts blame the disparities in part on high black male unemployment, high black male imprisonment and the moderate performance of black men in college compared with black women. They also note the lack of positive images of black marriage in the media and several misperceptions about matrimony - that it's for white people, that it's a ball and chain, that fatherhood and marriage are not linked. . . . . . .Gerard Abdul, 45, a who lives in East Orange, N.J., and runs an entertainment company, has never seen himself as the marrying type. He has nine children by five women. He said he cared about them all, and each wanted to marry him. But he wasn't interested. "Because I'm so independent and on my own, I really didn't see the science of marrying them when I really didn't have to," Abdul said. . . . . . Despite those attitudes toward marriage, there are a handful of campaigns to get blacks to walk down the aisle, from the federal government's African American Healthy Marriage Initiative to Marry Your Baby Daddy Day, with 10 unwed couples with children tying the knot later this year in New York. "You Saved Me," a documentary that explores the marriages of eight black couples, will be screened in more than 20 cities this weekend as part of a Black Marriage Day premiere. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: A celebration of marriage: Couples inducted into Black Marriage Hall of Fame The Daily Citizen, By Misty Watson Dalton Daily Citizen, March 28, 2010
Diane and Charles Bonds admit their 35 years of marriage haven’t always been easy. But they say by making God their top priority, they have been able to “make it through” every situation they’ve faced. The Bonds, of Dalton, were one of 22 couples nominated for the Black Marriage Hall of Fame this year for their dedication to their marriage. The nominees were presented at Family Framework’s Black Marriage Day celebration on Sunday at True Gospel Pentecostal Church. The day has been celebrated locally for three years. . .

RELATED INFO: Official Theatrical Trailer: You Saved Me

RELATED REPORT: Marriage and Cohabitation in the United States: A Statistical Portrait Based on Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth CDC- The National Center for Health Statistics, February 2010

RELATED ARTICLE: Education and Religion's Effect on the Likelihood to Wed New York Times, By Nicholas Bakalar, March 22, 2010
The National Center for Health Statistics this month published a new analysis of data on marriage and cohabitation [pdf] that concentrated on relationships in the context of childbearing. Using a nationally representative sample, limited to men and women 15 to 44, researchers gathered data on previous experience with marriage and cohabitation, the sequencing and stability of the relationships, and various characteristics of partners. Most people in the survey, conducted in 2002, were single -- 42 percent of men and 46 percent of women were married, and about 9 percent of both were living together, unmarried, in a sexual relationship. There were variations, sometimes quite large, among racial and ethnic groups. Forty-four percent of white men were married, compared with 43 percent of Hispanics and 32 percent of non-Hispanic blacks. Among women, 51 percent of whites were married, compared with 45 percent of Hispanics and 26 percent of blacks. The higher the level of education, the more likely people were to wed, and the less likely they were to live together. More than 60 percent of people with a college degree or higher were married. Religion also played a role. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Black and single: Is marriage really for white people? CNN.com, By Dionne Hill- CNN Producer, July 22, 2008
Story Highlights
* Growing up Dionne Hill, 28, dreamed of having a career, kids and a husband
* Study: 43 percent of black women in U.S. have never been married
* Despite the bleak statistics, Hill is optimistic that she will find "The One"
* Until then, she enjoys her work, traveling and spending time with family
-- Mrs. Allen had it all. A career she enjoyed, a nice home, two adorable children and a husband. She shared her tools for success with me at an early age. She went to college, got married and waited until she was 26 to have her first child. The perfect life. The perfect plan. It was one I decided to model. My aspirations for both a career and family were set at the age of 12. I knew I could accomplish what Mrs. Allen, my fifth- and seventh-grade teacher, had. But as I approach 30 and measure the goals I had at 12 against the reality of life, the only thing I can check off that list is a college education. I am a statistic. And there are millions more like me. Forty-five percent of black women in America have never been married, compared with 23 percent of white women, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey in 2006. Articles like the one published in the Washington Post two years ago could lead me to believe that it's because "Marriage is for White People." The difference between Mrs. Allen and me: She was white. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 'Marriage Is for White People' Washington Post, By Joy Jones, March 26, 2006
I grew up in a time when two-parent families were still the norm, in both black and white America. Then, as an adult, I saw divorce become more commonplace, then almost a rite of passage. Today it would appear that many -- particularly in the black community -- have dispensed with marriage altogether. But as a black woman, I have witnessed the outrage of girlfriends when the ex failed to show up for his weekend with the kids, and I've seen the disappointment of children who missed having a dad around. Having enjoyed a close relationship with my own father, I made a conscious decision that I wanted a husband, not a live-in boyfriend and not a "baby's daddy," when it came my time to mate and marry. My time never came. For years, I wondered why not. And then some 12-year-olds enlightened me. "Marriage is for white people.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Marriage: What Social Science Says and Doesn't Say The Heritage Foundation, By Jennifer A Marshall, May 17, 2004
Social science data indicate that the intact family—defined as a man and a woman who marry, conceive, and raise their children together—best ensures the current and future welfare of children and society when compared with other common forms of households. As alternative family forms have become more prevalent since the 1960s, social science research and government surveys have indicated an accompanying rise in a number of serious social problems. . .

A Magazine's Marriage Column Takes a Dramatic Turn; Will These Videos Be Viewed? (Click for Related Site)

A Magazine’s Marriage Column Takes a Dramatic Turn; Will These Videos Be Viewed? NY Times, By Joseph Plambeck, March 24, 2010
If there’s one thing that has lasted as long as marriage, it’s marital discord. And for nearly as long – O.K., 1953, if you want to be precise — The Ladies’ Home Journal has kept tabs on those riffs through its popular column, “Can This Marriage Be Saved?” Now, the magazine has taken the column into the Internet age – introducing online videos that are a sort of mix between “The Marriage Ref” and “Unsolved Mysteries.” The videos are based on the first half of a column from the magazine’s archives, dramatizing the predicament through actors and a melodramatic narrator who stands on a dark street. In one of the three webisodes now on the site, CanThisMarriageBeSaved.com, a new dog has come between the couple. “Somebody’s got to go,” the husband says. “It’s either me or that dog.”
“Penelope” – the dog – “ain’t going nowhere,” she says.
And then cut to the narrator: “Who will end up in the doghouse?”
To get to the second half of the story, in which a therapist describes how the couple dealt with the problem (no spoilers here!), viewers need to click through to the Ladies Home Journal’s Web site, where they’ll get the full column. “We like to think of ‘Can This Marriage Be Saved?’ as the original reality entertainment – a ‘he said-she said’ that lets spouses tell their stories to a therapist, who gives them advice and then reveals how the marriage turned out,” Sally Lee, the editor in chief of The Ladies’ Home Journal, said in a statement. . .

RELATED SITE: Can this Marriage be saved? Ladies Home Journal magazine
Can This Marriage Be Saved? Find out if our expert relationship advice can fix the common problems these couples face...

RELATED ARTICLE: 'The Marriage Ref': It doesn't deserve its bad rap, but it could be better. Here's how. Los Angeles Times, By Jon Caramanica, March 28, 2010
No recent show has inspired blood-in-the-water frenzy like "The Marriage Ref," the Jerry Seinfeld-steered reality program about quibbling couples that's among the most widely reviled new shows in recent memory. For Seinfeld, who's stacked the show's early episodes thick with celebrity friends to little avail, it's been framed as a possible legacy-killer. For NBC, it's seemed like little more than a Hail Mary pass to resuscitate the 10 p.m. time slot in the wake of Jay Leno with another familiar, if deflated, hometown brand. But all that's a bum rap. "The Marriage Ref" is clever and funny, a sharp amalgam of docusoap drama and game-show slickness, with untethered celebrity commentators. At least that's what it could be, with just a few tweaks. Here's how to redeem a show worth thinking hard about, and saving: . . .

RELATED TV REVIEW: 'Marriage Ref': Having a tiff? Let Sarah Silverman or Larry David help you Los Angeles Times, By Robert Lloyd, March 02, 2010
Comedians mediate marital woes. Sounds genius, but why isn't it funnier?. . .

God, Sex, and “Christianity Lite” Albert Mohler.com, March 24, 2010
A news report from Washington, D.C. tells the story of vestigial Christianity unhinged from biblical authority. Religion News Service [RNS] reports that many pastors in the nation’s capital are struggling with just how they can go about the wedding of same-sex couples now that gay marriage is legal in the District of Columbia. “As gay rights spread through civil society, an increasing number of clergy are…caught by conflicting loyalties, forced to choose between church law and civil law in pastoring to their gay and lesbian congregants,” the news service reports. Amy Butler, pastor of Calvary Baptist Church, is one minister who plans to move ahead with same-sex weddings. Of her colleagues caught between church policy and the same intention, she says: “My heart breaks for them because they do not know what to do.”. . . . . A clear pattern is evident in this report and in the larger context — the churches and denominations that are supporting, recognizing, and conducting same-sex marriages are those that have adopted very liberal stances on other theological issues. This should not be surprising, since any approval of same-sex marriage requires a rejection of clear biblical teachings. Churches that accept and approve same-sex marriage must first find some way to subvert or neutralize the authority of the Bible and to revise the Gospel. This brings to mind a recent essay by Mary Eberstadt. In “Christianity Lite,” published in the journal First Things, Eberstadt argues: “Rewriting the rules about sex does not, historically speaking, end with sex. Time and again, that rewriting has coincided with departures from traditional teaching in other areas too.”. . . . .“Christianity Lite” is a new religion that presents itself as an updated and modernized Christianity. But the effort to reject Christianity’s understanding of biblical sexuality goes hand-in-hand with the rejection of an entire range of biblical doctrines. Nothing less will sustain their effort. You cannot leave a biblical conception of sin and salvation in place if you are determined to deny the sinfulness of a behavior condemned in the Bible. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: “D.C. Churches Torn on Defying Gay Marriage Rules,” Religion News Service, By Daniel Burke, March 23, 2010.
In this city, the Rev. Mary Kay Totty can now marry same-sex couples. But in the United Methodist Church, the denomination that ordained Totty two decades ago, that act could get her defrocked. Totty, 46, said she’s willing to take the risk. . . . Nineteen other current and former United Methodist clergy in this city have signed a statement supporting Totty and Dumbarton UMC, the small, liberal congregation that she’s pastored since July. Many others campaigned to legalize gay marriage here. But only Totty, so far, is willing to put her job on the line. . . . .As gay rights spread through civil society, an increasing number of clergy are, like Snyder, caught by conflicting loyalties, forced to choose between church law and civil law in pastoring to their gay and lesbian congregants. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Can Christian Organizations Remain Christian in a "Tolerant" Age? Albert Mohler.com, March 22, 2010
Can a Christian organization remain Christian in a culture of postmodern “tolerance?” That question is the focus of a case soon to come before the U. S. Supreme Court. . .

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

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

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

Trial in Same-Sex Marriage Case Is Challenged New York Times, By Adam Liptak, March 22, 2010
Opponents of same-sex marriage have long said the issue does not belong in the courts. Lately they have gone a step further. They say Judge Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, made a serious mistake by calling for a trial in a challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage rather than deciding the case based on paper submissions. “To think that somehow the rules of evidence can lead you to the right answer is just not right,” said Jordan W. Lorence, a lawyer with Alliance Defense Fund and a member of the trial team for the people and groups who intervened to defend the ban after state officials would not. “There should not have been a trial.” The trial took place in January, but Judge Walker has not yet scheduled closing arguments. In the meantime, the defendants and their allies are calling the legitimacy of the proceedings into question. “The plaintiffs put on a spectacular show-trial of irrelevant evidence,” Andrew P. Pugno, the general counsel of Protectmarriage.com, the leading sponsor of Proposition 8, said in a blog post. . .
Campaign memos must go to gay marriage ban backers San Francisco Chronicle- AP, March 22, 2010
Several civil rights groups that campaigned against California's same-sex marriage ban have lost an attempt to keep internal memos and e-mails from lawyers for the other side. U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Monday that they must surrender the campaign documents as evidence in a federal trial on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Walker's decision upholds a previous ruling by a federal magistrate. The trial is the first in a federal court to examine whether the U.S. Constitution prevents states from outlawing gay marriages. Walker's decision could delay a verdict. The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the three groups that must turn over the campaign materials, has said it would appeal if Walker upholds the magistrate's order. . .

Judge in Perry v. Schwarzenegger rules campaign memos must go to same-sex marriage opponents

RELATED BLOG: ProtectMarriage.com

RELATED BLOG: AP’s odd wording The Daily Mail, By Don Surber, March 22, 2010
A federal judge ruled that what is good for the goose is good for the gander in requiring groups that opposed Proposition 8 must share their internal memos just as they seek to have supporters disclose theirs. The Associated Press is not supposed to take sides. Yet it reported: “Civil rights groups that campaigned against California’s same-sex marriage ban have lost an attempt to withhold internal memos and e-mails from lawyers for the other side.” Civil rights groups? Really? An argument could be made that those who seek to define marriage as between a man and a woman are fighting for their civil rights to religion as well — especially as opponents have harassed selective groups of supporters of Prop 8. . .

RELATED BLOG: A Promising Development ProtectMarriage.com, By Andy Pugno - General Counsel, March 15, 2010
Last week, we finally received some good news about our efforts to level the playing field in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case. . . . . Despite being outnumbered in the courtroom by 10-to-1, our attorneys clashed once again in the San Francisco Courtroom, arguing forcefully that the “No” campaign should be held to the same legal standards that the “Yes” campaign has had to endure in this case. Last week, Magistrate Spero ordered the No on 8 groups (Equality California, Californians Against Eliminating Basic Rights, an ACLU campaign committee, and the No on Prop 8 umbrella campaign) to produce to our attorneys copies of all their internal documents “that contain, refer or relate to arguments for or against Proposition 8.” They have until March 31 to produce these documents to us. . .

RELATED BLOG: Political Powerlessness in Action ProtectMarriage.com, By Ron Prentice, Executive Director, March 01, 2010
You may recall from one of my earlier e-mails that the plaintiffs’ lawyers, in their bid to overturn Prop 8, asserted during the Perry v Schwarzenegger federal trial that homosexuals are “politically powerless.” They tried to make the case that this alleged political disadvantage is so extreme that it must be corrected by providing homosexuals special protection under the United States Constitution. When our team of able legal experts questioned the plaintiffs’ witnesses on this matter, they were forced to acknowledge that the “gay agenda” has a bevy of esteemed and active elected officials in their stable of support, including both California U.S. Senators, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Governor, the current, openly homosexual California Assembly Speaker, several openly homosexual state senators and/or assembly members, the current mayors of California’s largest cities and the state’s Attorney General. By that measure alone, it is difficult to accept the notion that homosexuals are a politically powerless lot. Let’s not be naïve, the homosexual lobby holds powerful sway over what goes on in the halls of our state Capitol. Further, last Friday was the final day lawmakers could introduce legislation in the current session. And guess what? California’s largest homosexual advocacy group, Equality California, sponsored three bills to further advance their agenda, one of which would eliminate what they consider a barrier to legalizing same-sex marriage. . .

RELATED BLOG: Demonstrating the intolerance of ‘the tolerant’ and the power of ‘the powerless’ ProtectMarriage.com, By Ron Prentice, Executive Director, February 24, 2010
In public, the leaders of the same-sex marriage movement portray themselves as tolerant and loving, seeking only to access marriage as a way of validating their “loving and committed relationships.” In court, they claim to be politically powerless, requiring judicial intervention to overturn our state constitutional provision defining marriage as between one man and one woman, thus forcing homosexual marriages onto society. However, outside of court they are anything but powerless or tolerant. Two recent examples illustrate this. . . . . .Aggressive protests like the one aimed at a 96-year-old community volunteer are, unfortunately, all too representative of the type of intimidation and harassment that has consistently been demonstrated by the homosexual marriage movement during and since the Proposition 8 campaign. In fact, the examples of harassment are so extensive and have become so well documented (they were chronicled in this report by The Heritage Foundation) that they have begun to be mentioned by various commentators, experts and courts, including the United States Supreme Court. . .

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

The Future of Marriage and Non-Traditional Relationships

The Future of Marriage and Non-Traditional Relationships KPBS.org, By Maureen Cavanaugh, Renee Villasenor, March 18, 2010
From an early age, society teaches that monogamy is the only option for having a family and living a long, happy life. But does society have room for those who do not fit this mold? What are the legal, individual and social ramifications for those who seek non-monogamous relationships? We speak with a law professor, marriage and family therapist and a pioneer in the polyamory community about the future of relationships.

MAUREEN CAVANAUGH (Host): I'm Maureen Cavanaugh, and you're listening to These Days on KPBS. The big news about marriage recently is how many more people want to give it a try. Many gay and lesbian couples are working hard to achieve the right to marry in California, a right same sex couples have already achieved in five states and the District of Columbia. In addition to being part of a struggle for equal rights, the move toward same sex marriage might also be seen as a validation of monogamous relationships. But not everyone agrees. At the same time that some are working for marriage, the polyamory movement is gaining strength in some urban areas and on the internet. Polyamorists believe in ethical non-monogomy by openly engaging in intimate relationships with more than one person at a time. And if that sounds like old fashioned hippie free love to you, you may not be so far off the mark. . . . . . Dossie Easton is a marriage and family therapist. She’s coauthor of a book called "The Ethical Slut: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships and Other Adventures." Dossie, good morning and welcome to These Days. . . . . And we’d like to invite our listeners to join the conversation. Do you think open relationships can be healthy? Give us a call with your questions and your comments. The number here is 1-888-895-5727. Dossie, I’d like to start with you, if I may, and “The Ethical Slut” is a provocative name for a book. I wonder why you chose it and what does it have to say about polyamory? . . .

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Avoiding Threats to Your Relationship FOTF.org, By Louis McBurney, M.D
There are a lot of problems that can cripple or fatally wound a marriage, whether it's just starting or yet to come. Here are some of the common ones:
Relying on Feelings Rather Than Commitment: Romantic feelings come and go, and many spouses get nervous when the flame dies down. They begin to doubt their relationship and wonder if they married the wrong person. A lot of those misgivings are fueled by the media, which says any successful relationship must run on high-octane passion. You're setting yourself up for disappointment if you think marriage will be one long, steamy love scene. Sometimes it's pure commitment and persistence that keeps a marriage together. In all marriages there are times when the tingle of romance fades. At those times, commitment is the force that pulls you through. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay marriage now, polygamy later U.S. News & World Report, By John Leo, March 22, 2006
Bloggers are probably getting too worked up over the new polygamy TV show, Big Love. One show doesn't create a real-life trend. But critics are right (as Rick Santorum was right) when they say the gay marriage debate opened the door to legal approval of polygamy. A New Jersey appellate court judge wrote that if marriage is couched only in terms of privacy, intimacy, and autonomy, then what nonarbitrary ground is there for denying the benefit to the polygamous unions whose members claim the arrangement is necessary to their self-fulfillment? Traditional conceptions of marriage and the "privileging" of marriage drop out of the debate once courts, such as Massachusetts's highest court, define marriage in terms of feeling and choice. . .

Michelle 'Bombshell' McGee's Jesse James Affair Claim: Is Sandra Bullock's Husband Cheating? Huffington Post, March 17, 2010
Did Sandra Bullock's husband cheat on her or is a tattoo model trying to drum up some publicity - or both? Michelle "Bombshell" McGee claims she slept with Jesse James for about eleven months, and provides intimate details like his endowment and penchant for not wearing underwear, which has landed the allegations on the cover of In Touch magazine. The magazine trumpets their exclusive, and the press release about the story is below. Some photos of her from her website are also below. When Sandra Bullock thanked her bad-boy husband, Jesse James, as she accepted her best actress Oscar for The Blind Side, she may not have known that while she was away shooting the film, Jesse was carrying on a steamy affair with a tattoo model. While Jesse has had an 11-month affair, including five weeks of sex, with Michelle "Bombshell" McGee, she believed he and Sandra were no longer together. "I would never have hooked up with him if I thought he was a married man," Michelle tells In Touch in an exclusive interview. "He gave me the impression they were separated." For weeks, while Sandra was in Atlanta shooting The Blind Side, Michelle had sex at least once a week with the Monster Garage star. Far from a one-night stand, his relationship with Michelle was intimate and highly charged. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: A Fourth Woman Alleges Affair with Jesse James People magazine, By Oliver Jones, March 25, 2010 (Update)
For Jesse James, it's another day, another bombshell. A fourth woman is claiming that she had an affair with Sandra Bullock's husband – and alleges that the relationship only ended after the news of James's cheating scandal broke last week. The woman, who has chosen not to identify herself, is being represented by celebrity attorney Gloria Allred – the same lawyer who is representing a woman who claims to have had an affair with Tiger Woods. In a statement, Allred describes the accuser as "a beautiful model and business woman" who was pursued by James. "He had strong feelings for her," says Allred. As for any evidence of the supposed relationship, Allred says her client has "hundreds of texts, emails, and photos" documenting the years-long relationship. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Rep: Sandra Bullock Not Seeking a Divorce Lawyer People magazine, March 23, 2010
Sandra Bullock has not been looking for a divorce lawyer – and neither has husband Jesse James, their reps tell PEOPLE. TMZ reported Tuesday the actress's representatives "had been in touch with several high-end divorce lawyers," while James's reps had "contacted several lawyers" in case Bullock filed for divorce following his reported infidelity. Bullock's rep tells PEOPLE: "Neither she nor her representatives have contacted or shopped around for divorce lawyers." . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Jesse James Apologizes to Sandra Bullock and His Children People magazine, By Elizabeth Leonard, March 18, 2010
Jesse James has broken his silence. Facing allegations of infidelity, James issued an apology Thursday to his wife Sandra Bullock and his three children, taking full responsibility for their heartbreak. In a statement provided to PEOPLE, he says: "The vast majority of the allegations reported are untrue and unfounded. Beyond that, I will not dignify these private matters with any further public comment. "There is only one person to blame for this whole situation, and that is me. It's because of my poor judgment that I deserve everything bad that is coming my way. "This has caused my wife and kids pain and embarrassment beyond comprehension and I am extremely saddened to have brought this on them. I am truly very sorry for the grief I have caused them. I hope one day they can find it in their hearts to forgive me.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Source: Sandra Bullock Has Left the Family Home People magazine, By Mike Fleeman, March 18, 2010
Sandra Bullock and Jesse James are not living under the same roof right now. The actress left the Southern California house she shares with James just days before a report of infidelity by her husband surfaced, a source tells PEOPLE. . .

RELATED PHOTO ESSAY: Oscars 2010: Cursed? From Oscar to Split! People magazine- Style Watch
Go to the awards together – and break up within a year. From Reese & Ryan to J.Lo & Ben, see the couples who were casualties of the Oscar jinx!

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

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

The price of an affair? $9 million NewsRecord-Greensboro, NC., By Jennifer Fernandez, March 18, 2010
— A jury in Guilford County District Court this week awarded $9 million to a former Greensboro woman, agreeing that her husband’s lover ruined their marriage. Cynthia Shackelford, 60, who now lives in Raleigh, sued Anne Lundquist in 2007 for having an affair with her husband, Allan Shackelford. In the lawsuit, Cynthia Shackelford said her husband began an affair with Lundquist before the Shackelfords separated in April 2005. She said she and her husband were still in love when Lundquist broke up the marriage. Cynthia Shackelford said in a telephone interview Wednesday that her husband, a Greensboro attorney at the time, met Lundquist while providing legal services for Guilford College. Lundquist was the dean of campus life at the private school. “If you want to know the truth, I am still like in a fog,” Cynthia Shackelford said. She said the two-day trial, which ended Tuesday, was difficult. Testimony included the private investigator detailing times that he saw her husband spending time with Lundquist, she said. “I really loved him, and I really thought he loved me,” Cynthia Shackelford said. “I had not a clue that Allan would wander. He kept telling me 'Oh, she’s just a friend. There’s no affair. I love you.’” Lundquist did not return a call late Wednesday afternoon. She is the dean of students at Wells College, according to the Web site of the small private school in central New York. In 2007, she and Allan Shackelford co-authored a book through LRP Publications. Court records show the Shackelfords’ divorce has not been finalized. Cynthia Shackelford said she believes Lundquist and her husband are still a couple. The jury awarded Cynthia Shackelford money for alienation of affections, criminal conversation (legal speak for adultery) and intentionally or recklessly causing severe emotional distress. North Carolina remains one of a few states that allow someone to sue the person alleged to have interfered in a marriage — called alienation of affections. More than 200 such cases are filed statewide in an average year, according to the Rosen law firm in Raleigh. The firm cites several high-dollar cases over the years, but none near the mark of the Shackelford-Lundquist case. . . .

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

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

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

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

When Couples Fight on Facebook, Everyone Knows the Score.

I Need to Vent. Hello, Facebook. New York Times, By Douglas Quenqua, March 17, 2010
WHAT is the sound of an awkward silence on Facebook? If you have to ask, then you probably don’t have friends like James Gower and Ashley Andrews, high school sweethearts from Spring, Tex., who are both 22 and engaged to be married this May. Mr. Gower, a master of the passive- aggressive status update, lobbed this one in January: “How is it my birthday is only one day, but my woman’s last a whole damn week?” Ms. Andrews, seemingly not one to watch a ball go by, took a full swing with this comment: “GET OVER IT!!! UGH!!!!!!” Mr. Gower replied by calling his fiancée a name that can’t be printed here, until the exchange became the social networking equivalent of shattered china at a dinner party. Eventually, Skyler Hurt, 22, a friend and a bridesmaid, intervened: “Hey, you guys know we can still see this right ...?” It’s a question being asked a lot these days as couples, who once had to leave the house to fight in public, take their arguments onto Facebook. Whether through nagging wall posts or antagonistic changes to their “relationship status,” the social networking site is proving to be as good for broadcasting marital discord as it is for sharing vacation photos. At 400 million members and growing, Facebook might just replace restaurants as the go-to place for couples to cause a scene. As score-settling on Facebook has grown commonplace, sites like Lamebook have begun documenting the worst spats (which also happen to be the most humorous). On Facebook itself, people can join several groups with names like “I Dislike People/Couples Who Argue Publicly on Facebook.” For most couples, the temptation to publicly slander each other is overpowered by the instinct to prove to their friends how happy they are, reality notwithstanding. But for others, arguing in front of others comes as naturally as slamming doors. While a hot temper (or two) is often to blame, there are people, like Mr. Gower, who view Facebook as an opportunity: How better to show everyone what his future wife puts him through? . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Breaking Up in a Digital Fishbowl New York Times, By Laura M. Holson, January 06, 2010
THERE is a scene in the movie “He’s Just Not That Into You” in which Mary, played by Drew Barrymore, laments the numerous technological ways she is being rebuffed by a potential beau. E-mail. Text messages. MySpace. “It’s exhausting,” she complains. Well, Mary, it’s even worse after the relationship. . . . . . A new dating order has emerged in the era of social media. Couples who used to see each other’s friends only at parties now enjoy 24-hour access to their beloved’s confidants thanks to Facebook. Sharing passwords to e-mail accounts, bank accounts and photo-sharing sites is the new currency of intimacy. And courtship — however brief or intense — is wantonly scrutinized by the whole world on Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook. As a result, the idea of what it means to break up is also being redefined. Where once a spurned lover could use scissors (literally) to cut an ex out of the picture, digital images of the smiling couple in happier days abound on the Web and are difficult to delete. Status updates and tweets have a way of wending their way back to scorned exes, thanks to the interconnectedness of social media. And breakups, awkward and drawn-out in person, are even more so online as details are parsed by the curious, their faces pressed against the digital glass. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Facebook and Your Marriage: Is Facebook a Cyber Threat to Your Marriage? Marriage Junkie.com, By K. Jason & Kelli Krafsky, January 22, 2009
Ever since the internet has become a regular part of the human experience, cyberspace has been implicated as an accomplice in online affairs, real life adultery, and the break-up marriages. With every new online fad have come the stories of spouses wandering away from their marriage to a new cyber love interest. Media has spotlighted tales and trends of online affairs starting through chat rooms, MySpace, Second Life, websites and online forums. Is Facebook, the world’s fastest growing online social network, just another in a long list of cyber threats to your marriage?. . . . . . Five Ways to Diffuse the Cyber Threats to Your Marriage. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Facebook and Your Marriage: How Facebook Can Improve Your Marriage Marriage Junkie.com, By K. Jason & Kelli Krafsky, January 23, 2009
Facebook has become the new method of communication for people of all ages. It is a convenient way to keep in touch with friends, family, old acquaintances, and childhood pals. So, whether you are an active Facebook user or have a tepid interest in joining one of the largest online social networks in the world, how can Facebook improve and enhance your marriage? As a married couple and regular users of Facebook, this communication vehicle has helped us connect with each other more when we’re both online and sparked meaningful conversations about our FB friends when we’re face-to-face. We have also found Facebook to be more fun and interactive then simply texting or emailing with one another. It is much more dynamic. Here are five practical ways to improve your relationship through Facebook. . .

Same-sex marriage, different response   GetReligion.org, Posted by Mollie, March 17, 2010
Apparently I wasn’t the only Washington Post reader who thought the paper’s coverage of same-sex marriage last week was a bit lopsided. I noticed one of the reader questions posed in an on-line chat to the Post’s Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli mentioned it as well:

Alexandria, VA: In the week after gay marriage was legal, the Post devoted 543 column inches to gay issues. Those stories quoted gay marriage advocates 67 times compared to opponents just 6 times. How can you defend how the Post has handled this story, especially since for all your push for home rule, this decision never even went to the voters who likely would have rejected it.

    Marcus Brauchli: The polls don’t necessarily support your view that gay marriage would have been rejected by voters (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/06/AR2010020602300.html). But, in any case, the issue of gay marriage crosses a lot of important terrain—civil liberties, religion, local economics, national politics and, yes, home rule. I don’t know how you’re counting quotes. We quoted many people who were able to marry because of the legal change; it’s hard to see how you’d cover a change of this magnitude without talking to the people most affected by the change. I can assure you, though, that we were just as intent on reflecting the views of those who opposed the ideas as we were those who favored it.

Yikes! One gets the idea that the editor has trouble even considering how coverage could be improved. . . . . .One of the things that annoys me about media coverage in general is an inability to treat members of minority groups as individuals who might have views that are different from others in the group. So I am really glad to see the Post digging down here. I have gay friends who plan to wed and I have gay friends who say that they think marriage is a hetero-normative institution that they abhor. That’s because each individual person is allowed to have different ideas about marriage. This should not be shocking anymore than it is shocking that straight individuals have different ideas about marriage. This article covers a wide variety of perspectives and reasons for and against couples deciding to marry. But I was hoping for even more diversity. What about gay individuals who won’t marry for religious reasons?. . .

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. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: WaPo Editor Responds to CMI’s Complaint about Pro-Gay Marriage Bias Newsbusters.org By Matthew Philbin, March 16, 2010
Last week, the Culture & Media Institute published a study of The Washington Post's coverage of the legalization of same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia. CMI found overwhelming bias in the Post's reporting during the seven days after gay couples could begin applying for marriage licenses. The celebratory tone of many of the articles was enough to merit charges of bias, but CMI had numbers to back them up. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Bias by the Numbers: WaPo Giddy Over Gay Marriage Newsbusters.org, By Colleen Raezler, March 12, 2010
In seven days, the Washington Post:
    * Ran 11 articles related to D.C.'s new law allowing same-sex marriage.
    * Devoted 543 inches of column space to the ruling - equal to nearly four full pages.
    * Printed 14 photos of gay celebrations, including a prominent one of two men kissing.
    * Quoted supporters 11 times more often than opponents - 67 to 6.
    * Repeatedly compared gay marriage to the historic civil rights movement.
Nobody can accuse The Washington Post of being objective when it came to covering the District of Columbia's decision to legalize same-sex marriage. The Post has reported on the event with a celebratory zeal more appropriate to The Advocate or The Blade. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Unfair and Unbalanced: The Washington Post Townhall.com, By Harry R. Jackson, Jr., February 08, 2010
I wish the Post would stop writing sophisticated trash talk and encourage the DC City Council, the US Congress, and the Courts to let the people vote. Since their own polls suggest that most Washingtonians would like to vote on this issue, we should let the people vote. . . . From every conceivable vantage point, the Post seems to be committed to spending barrels of ink attempting to sell the citizens that a host of other issues are “their” ideas. The newspaper has been especially biased with regard to same-sex marriage. I could point to any number of instances in which this pro same-sex marriage bias has reared its manipulative head. Let me cite just one example. . .

Hello, America, My Name Is Rielle Hunter (Click for Related Video)

Hello, America, My Name Is Rielle Hunter GQ magazine, By Lisa DePaulo - Photographs by Mark Seliger, April 2010 Issue
We've heard from former senator John Edwards, we've heard from his soon-to-be-ex-wife, Saint Elizabeth, and we've heard (bleh) from Andrew Young, the former Edwards aide and faux father. But through it all—the affair and the cancer-stricken spouse, the doomed campaign and the love child, the sex tape, all of it—we've never heard from the woman at the heart of the story. Now, after years of silence, the other woman speaks. . . . . I met rielle hunter for the first time the day of our first interview, at her home in Charlotte, North Carolina, though we'd already spoken for some months on the phone. And would continue to, as more developments were reported. (Are she and John Edwards engaged? "I am not engaged.") There were no conditions, no ground rules, no topics or questions that were off-limits. Just a request that her words be her words, unfiltered and unspun. While everyone else in the Edwards drama has said their piece, in books and/or television interviews, the mistress and campaign videographer and mother of his child has, in her own words, "kept my mouth shut." Until now (as they say in the tabloids). My first impression of Hunter, when she opened the back door of the screened porch filled with toys and strollers in the three-bedroom house she is renting (for $1,500 a month), her hair pulled up in a scrunchy, was that she was much prettier, and a whole lot softer, than all those National Enquirer spy photos suggest. She was wearing size 2 jeans, a Ralph Lauren turtleneck, and Uggs. No makeup. And she was laughing. Because Quinn, her 2-year-old daughter, had just done something particularly adorable. The child is gorgeous and, yes, looks exactly like John Edwards, but she also has her mother's spirit. Which is to say, a combination of serenity and spunk. Hunter had fluffed up the tiny guest room upstairs—carefully placing a Zen-sayings paperback beside the twin bed—and invited me to stay overnight, with a warning that the three of us (she, Quinn, and I) would have to share the one bathroom, where the tub is filled with her daughter's rubber duckies. I accepted. . . . . . .You haven't uttered a word so far. Why now? I feel comfortable talking now, because Johnny went public and made a statement admitting paternity. I didn't feel like I could ever speak until he did that. Because had I spoken, I would have emasculated him. And I could not emasculate him. Also, it is not my desire to teach my daughter that when Mommy's upset with Daddy, you take matters into your own hands and fix Daddy's mistakes. Which I view as one of the biggest problems in all female-and-male relationships. . .

RELATED VIDEO: Hasselbeck: Rielle Hunter Is 'Disgusting' ABC News, March 15, 2010
"View" co-host criticizes John Edwards' mistress for her GQ photo shoot.

RELATED ARTCLE: Do You Feel At All Sorry For Elizabeth Edwards? I Do   Huffington Post, By Jill Brooke, January 28, 2010
Maybe because I deal with a lot of divorced women who have had their hearts sauteed in a frying pan as a result of infidelity and disappointment, I am not surprised that Elizabeth Edwards could be both Saint Elizabeth and Lady Macbeth. Some women are just driven to it. I am not making an excuse for her behavior but I do understand it. For me the heartbreaking detail was what she said to one of her husband's staffers after living in a bubble of denial for so long about her husband's mistress, Rielle Hunter, and then having her illusions popped so publically. (Babies will do that). . .

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

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Adultery Is Killing the American Family   Catholic Culture, By Nathan Tabor
We hear a lot of talk these days about the need to protect and strengthen the traditional American family. Certainly, it is true that the institution of marriage is under attack from every side. But the real threat comes from the multitudes of couples that fail to honor their marriage vows. Adultery is one of the most terrible "facts of life" in contemporary America. If you watch the daily soap operas on TV many of which are just soft-core pornography you might get the impression that there are more people cheating on their spouses than remaining faithful. And you might be right. How many people have affairs? That¹s hard to say because not everybody will answer honestly. . .

As news broke of Kate Winslet and Sam Mendes's amicable split Monday, the couple was thousands of miles apart.
Kate Winslet and Sam Mendes to Divorce Oscar-winning Actress, Director Split After 7-Year Marriage ABC News, By Russell Goldman, March 15, 2010 Oscar-winner Kate Winslet and her director-husband Sam Mendes will dissolve their marriage just two years after working together on a film about a turbulent marriage torn asunder. The couple reportedly split earlier this year, but a London-based law firm only released a statement today announcing the pending divorce, saying it is "entirely amicable and is by mutual agreement." "Both parties are fully committed to the future joint parenting of their children," the statement said. Married in a beach ceremony in 2003, the same year their son Joe was born, the couple became Hollywood royalty, with scores of nominations and awards for their work. Together they also raised Kate's daughter Mia, from her first marriage to Jim Threapolton. Mendes, an Oscar-winning director for 1999's "American Beauty" and Winslet, who won the Academy Award in 2009 for her role in "The Reader," were not seen together at this year's Academy Awards. Before her 2009 win, Winslet had been nominated five times for roles in "Titanic," "Sense and Sensibility," "Iris," "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Little Children." Mendes directed his wife in 2008's "Revolutionary Road," in which she played a bored suburban housewife against Leonardo DiCaprio. Mendes directed the two, who first starred together in "Titanic," in a racy sex scene. Upon winning a Golden Globe for her role in "Revolutionary Road," Winslet thanked Mendes, whom she affectionately called "babe." "Thank you for directing this film, babe, and thank you for killing us every single day and really enjoying us actually being in such horrific pain," she said. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Academy Award winner Kate Winslet's marriage to Sam Mendes latest cursed by Oscars The Daily Telegraph, March 18, 2010
The marriage break-up of Academy Award winner Kate Winslet and her husband Sam Mendes is just the latest in a line of Best Actresses to be cursed by Oscar. It should be one of the most brilliant days in an actresses' life but a string of film stars have discovered that heartbreak follows the acclamation. . .

As news broke of Kate Winslet and Sam Mendes's amicable split Monday, the couple was thousands of miles apart.

RELATED ARTICLE: Sam Mendes and Kate Winslet's marriage over? That’s showbiz Times Online- UK, By Graeme Meadows, March 17, 2010
There is no suggestion of a third party being involved. But you can bet your last Malteser that the demands of showbusiness will have played their part in the break-up. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: So why can't Kate Winslet make her marriages work? The Daily Mail- UK, By Alison Boshoff, March 16, 2010
Word has it that she isn't - by Hollywood standards, anyway - a diva. And there's no doubt in anyone's mind that she's a great mother, as well as a great beauty. So why is it that Kate Winslet's romantic history has been so dismal? .. . . . I was told last year that Sam was unamused by her habit of flirting with her leading men, but it has been suggested that both parties are afflicted by something best described as a roving eye, which is perhaps why the separation has been described as 'amicable' with each party equally at fault. And then there is what is being referred to as the Eyes Wide Shut factor - just like Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman before them, their marriage foundered when the two of them worked together. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Kate Winslet escapes down Mexico way with her two children after splitting from second husband The Daily Mail- UK, March 16, 2010
A source close to Mendes explained the break-up by saying: 'He became bored working on his latest theatrical project, and he took that boredom home with him. And that led to the spark being taken out of their marriage.'. . . . .The couple are keen to avoid an unseemly court battle of the custody of their child and their estimated £30million joint fortune. The friend added: 'Kate is devastated. She thought their marriage was for ever and now she has two children from two marriages and both are not living with their fathers.' During the making of Revolutionary Road, Miss Winslet told how she felt awkward being directed by her husband - particularly during sex scenes with her former Titanic co-star Leonardo DiCaprio. She said last year: 'I just kept saying, "This is too weird". Leo told me to get over it, but I said, "You're my best friend and he's my husband. This is definitely a bit weird". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Kate Winslet and Sam Mendes: What Went Wrong? People magazine, March 16, 2010
As news broke of Kate Winslet and Sam Mendes's amicable split Monday, the couple was thousands of miles apart. The distance underscored what the pair said Monday through their lawyers – "that they separated earlier this year." The Oscar-winning actress was with friends and her children in Mexico (where the U.K newspaper The Sun pictured her recreating the arms-out Titanic pose on an inflatable dinghy). Mendes, 44, was reportedly with friends in New England. . . . Now the British papers are abuzz that it was during the filming of Revolutionary Road that strains in their marriage began. The film happens to be about a couple in a disintegrating marriage. Perhaps Mendes unwittingly gave a clue to the downside of living and working together when that same January, he told The Daily Telegraph it was "exhilarating" working with his wife, but, "I tend to cut off at the end of the day and watch a baseball game or something. I don't like to bring work home. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Ten Secrets to a Successful Marriage: Here are ten principles that will help you create and maintain a successful marriage. FOTF, By Mitch Temple
Successful couples are savvy. They read books, attend seminars, browse Web articles and observe other successful couples. However, successful couples will tell you that they also learn by experience – trial and error. Here are ten principles of success I have learned from working with and observing hundreds of couples:
1. Happiness is not the most important thing. . . . . 2. Couples discover the value in just showing up. . . . .3. If you do what you always do, you will get same result. . . . . 4. Your attitude does matter. . . . .5. Change your mind, change your marriage. . .

Heidi Montag: Husband Spencer Pratt Is No Longer My Manager

Heidi Montag's New Psychic Manager: I Hear Dead People People magazine, By Mike Fleeman, March 12, 2010
Skeptics, beware: Aiden Chase knows what you're thinking, and it's not just because he's psychic. The new manager for Heidi Montag accepts and understands that not everybody's onboard with his profession – he's called a "healer and intuitive" – and he's OK with that. In fact, he's in the OK business. He helps people feel better about themselves and guide their futures – futures, he says, he can often see (unless sports bets are on the line). He also says he has the ability to communicate with spirits, including dead celebrities. From PEOPLE's chat with the Malibu-based man who'll now be overseeing Montag's career instead of her husband Spencer Pratt, here are six things you need to know about Aiden Chase:
1. He's a Recent Part of Montag's Life: "One of my clients referred me to Spencer and Heidi. I went up to their house, just after Heidi's surgery, doing healing work, energy clearing, helping put their future paths on the map. For about a month, Heidi has been asking me: 'Be my manager.' When I really thought about it, really meditated, I realized I have been doing the job anyway. They had been consulting with me, [asking]: 'What do you think about this?' It had been working for them." 2. "It" Is Sort of Like What Mom Used to Do: . . . . 3. Yes, He Knows Some People Think He's Nuts:. . . . .4. He Can See the Future:. . . . .5. But He Doesn't Know Who'll Win the College Basketball Tournament:. . . . 6. He Speaks to Spirits, Some of them Famous:. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Heidi Montag: Husband Spencer Pratt Is No Longer My Manager People magazine, By Jennifer Garcia, March 10, 2010
Married almost one year ago, Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt have decided to go their separate ways – in business that is. Pratt, who has managed the couple since the day they met nearly five years ago – when Montag was 19 years old – is being replaced with a Malibu-based psychic named Aiden Chase, the reality star tells PEOPLE. "After the incredible experiences I have had healing my life and truly connecting to my dreams with healer intuitive Aiden Chase, I have officially asked him to become my manager," Montag says. "Having an intuitive psychic leading my team gives me an edge no one else has." "No longer is my husband the face of my business or managing my career," she adds. "I am going to have Aiden Chase help manage my new life and career in a very different and positive way with light and love. The time for change is now. Never mix business and pleasure. We are no longer Speidi but Spencer and Heidi.". . .

Sarah's mother thought she'd done everything to keep her 12-year-old safe online. She couldn't have been more wrong.

Parenting Issues: Sarah's mother thought she'd done everything to keep her 12-year-old safe online. She couldn't have been more wrong The Daily Mail- UK, By Laura Topham, March 11, 2010
On first impression, the pretty, porcelain-skinned teenager seems incredibly impolite. She won't say hello when she meets you, doesn't make eye contact and just scribbles ferociously on a piece of paper in front of her. At times during our - interview, she stands up and starts - talking into her mobile phone. The truth is, however, that Sarah isn't rude - she simply has a problem with strangers, as you might expect from a girl who was groomed online from the age of 12. 'It's a barrier,' explains her mother Janet, 48, whose name has also been changed to protect her daughter's identity. 'She writes notes or talks on the phone, so she doesn't have to look at people.' But little wonder Sarah admits to being 'uptight' around new people. The last time she trusted someone she didn't know - a 26-year-old man who befriended her on a social networking website - she was persuaded to perform sexual acts on a webcam, and ruthlessly pursued when she attempted to evade him. And although the predator is now in prison, serving a lengthy sentence for the abuse he inflicted on more than 30 girls and boys, Sarah's distress is increasing. It's not just that she's terrified he will find her and seek revenge because of her part in sending him to jail, but also because it is only as she grows older (she is now 17) that she appreciates just how sexually depraved his behaviour was. Only as she learns about other girls groomed online - particularly Ashleigh Hall, whose Facebook killer was jailed for life earlier this week - have the - dangers really hit home. Ashleigh, a shy 17-year-old who was desperate for a boyfriend, was murdered by serial rapist Peter Chapman, 33, who posed as a teenager online before luring Ashleigh to her death and dumping her body in a ditch. But five years ago the man Sarah met was no more than a friend making strange requests she didn't understand. . . . . .For the first few months I only talked to my friends online because Mum had asked me to stay safe,' she says. 'But then I accepted the request from a guy I didn't know to become his "friend" online because I could see we had mutual friends on the website. They hadn't mentioned anything bad about him, so I thought it would be all right to talk to him, and we started chatting online every evening. Whenever I was on the internet he would be there, asking about my day and what I'd done at school.' What Sarah didn't realise was that her friends did not know him, either. . .

How to train your husband like a dog! Hilarious book reveals that you can keep him on a tight leash The Daily Mail- UK, By Amy Sutherland, March 11, 2010
My husband Scott is well read, adventurous and makes me laugh: I love him. But he's also forgetful, untidy and a terrible time keeper. He suffers from serious bouts of spousal deafness, but never fails to hear me when I curse him under my breath from afar. Some years ago we took possession of Dixie, an eight-week-old excitable puppy that I took to obedience class. Over six weeks, I watched her transform and marvelled at how I had managed to change and control another species. I wrote in my diary: 'Try on husband.' I did - and it worked. Here's how:
1) STOP NAGGING, STOP SHOUTING:
I was a nag. About the screwed up tissues, the towels on the floor, taking too long in the bathroom. You name it, I was there nagging. I felt Scott's behaviour had forced me to whinge and complain. But, animal trainers don't nag and, most of the time, they don't even correct bad behaviour - they have an approach called 'gentling' or 'affection training' which means rewarding the behaviour they like and disregarding what they don't like. Nagging and shouting doesn't work. I'd done it for years and Scott was still messy, forgetful and always late. We humans assume that pointing out what we don't want makes clear what we do desire. Punishment tends to have nasty side-effects such as apathy, fear and aggression. None of these are conducive to learning. A scared or raging animal does not make a good student.
2) IDENTIFY YOUR SPECIES: . . . . 3) IGNORE BAD BEHAVIOUR . . . .4) GOOD BOY!. . . .5) LURING AND BAITING. . . .6) ONE SMALL STEP FOR MAN. . . . 7) DON'T TAKE THINGS PERSONALLY. . . .8) DON'T DOMINATE . . . .9) PICK YOUR MOMENT. . . .10) READ THE CUES. . . . . . .COMMENTS: Great advice if you want to destroy any chance of a decent sex life.- tj, preston, 11/3/2010 10:00. . . .This article is really crass, and I'm a woman. I completely agree that had this been written by a man about 'training women' there'd be uproar. Learn to love our differences, openly discuss your issues with your partner, love and respect each other and try not to pee anywhere other than in the bowl... then we should all get along just fine...- Mikala, Coventry, UK, 11/3/2010 09:53. . . .

How to train your husband like a dog! Hilarious book reveals that you can keep him on a tight leash

RELATED BOOK REVIEW: How to Train a Husband: Want an obedient spouse? A new book says you should coach them like animals. Newsweek, By Jennie Yabroff, February 18, 2008

RELATED SITE: Amy Sutherland.com

RELATED ARTICLE: 'Shamu' Teaches Humans a Thing or Two National Public Radio- Talk of the Nation, March 04, 2008
In 2006, the most e-mailed story in The New York Times was an op-ed about one woman's attempt to get her husband to pick up his dirty laundry using the same techniques employed by animal trainers. Now, author Amy Sutherland has turned the op-ed into a book: What Shamu Taught Me About Life, Love, and Marriage: Lessons for People from Animals and Their Trainers. In what Sutherland calls a kind of "reverse anthropomorphism," she says that she couldn't help but see parallels between animal and human behavior. "True, people are more complicated than animals," she writes, "but maybe not as much as we assume ... Animal trainers showed me that there are universal rules of behavior that cut across all species. Why should we be any different?". . .

RELATED RADIO INTERVIEW & EXCERPT: Amy Sutherland: 'Shamu' Teaches Humans a Thing or Two National Public Radio- Talk of the Nation, March 04, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: What Shamu Taught Me About a Happy Marriage New York Times, By Amy Sutherland, June 26, 2006
AS I wash dishes at the kitchen sink, my husband paces behind me, irritated. "Have you seen my keys?" he snarls, then huffs out a loud sigh and stomps from the room with our dog, Dixie, at his heels, anxious over her favorite human's upset. In the past I would have been right behind Dixie. I would have turned off the faucet and joined the hunt while trying to soothe my husband with bromides like, "Don't worry, they'll turn up." But that only made him angrier, and a simple case of missing keys soon would become a full-blown angst-ridden drama starring the two of us and our poor nervous dog. Now, I focus on the wet dish in my hands. I don't turn around. I don't say a word. I'm using a technique I learned from a dolphin trainer. I love my husband. He's well read, adventurous and does a hysterical rendition of a northern Vermont accent that still cracks me up after 12 years of marriage. But he also tends to be forgetful, and is often tardy and mercurial. He hovers around me in the kitchen asking if I read this or that piece in The New Yorker when I'm trying to concentrate on the simmering pans. He leaves wadded tissues in his wake. He suffers from serious bouts of spousal deafness but never fails to hear me when I mutter to myself on the other side of the house. "What did you say?" he'll shout. These minor annoyances are not the stuff of separation and divorce, but in sum they began to dull my love for Scott. I wanted — needed — to nudge him a little closer to perfect, to make him into a mate who might annoy me a little less, who wouldn't keep me waiting at restaurants, a mate who would be easier to love. So, like many wives before me, I ignored a library of advice books and set about improving him. By nagging, of course, which only made his behavior worse: he'd drive faster instead of slower; shave less frequently, not more; and leave his reeking bike garb on the bedroom floor longer than ever. We went to a counselor to smooth the edges off our marriage. She didn't understand what we were doing there and complimented us repeatedly on how well we communicated. I gave up. I guessed she was right — our union was better than most — and resigned myself to stretches of slow-boil resentment and occasional sarcasm. Then something magical happened. . .

Gay Rights: An Audience Online Pew Research: Project for Excellence in Journalism, March 11, 2010
Last week, bloggers returned to the hot-button subject of gay rights, a topic that has repeatedly proven to be of more interest to commentators online than to the mainstream press. From March 1-5, 16% of the week's links in the blogosphere were about gay rights issues in the news, according to the New Media Index from the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. This is the second time in a month that the topic has been among the most discussed subjects. During the first week of February, gay issues, including the military's policy of "don't ask, don't tell," were a major subject of discussion. It is also the sixth time the subject finished in the top five subjects since PEJ began its New Media Index in January 2009. This past week, several different incidents drove the conversation. These included a protest at a Catholic Mass in the Netherlands, a change in health coverage for employees of Catholic Charities and the acceptance of same-sex marriage license applications in Washington, D.C. A few commentators condemned the Dutch protestors for interrupting a religious ceremony, but the vast majority of those who discussed the D.C. cases were in favor of same-sex marriage and critical of the Catholic Church's position. . . . . . .Gay Rights: Several different events involving gay rights drew bloggers' interest last week. First, on Sunday, Feb. 28, hundreds of Dutch activists dressed in pink wigs and clothes to stage a protest at a Roman Catholic Mass over the Church's policy to deny communion to homosexuals. . . . . . "Since the left wing of the Church has become the useful idiots of the gay lobby, you can expect more of this entitlement mentality in the future," predicted Suzanne at Big Blue Wave. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Unfair and Unbalanced: The Washington Post Townhall.com, By Harry R. Jackson, Jr., February 08, 2010
I wish the Post would stop writing sophisticated trash talk and encourage the DC City Council, the US Congress, and the Courts to let the people vote. Since their own polls suggest that most Washingtonians would like to vote on this issue, we should let the people vote. . . . From every conceivable vantage point, the Post seems to be committed to spending barrels of ink attempting to sell the citizens that a host of other issues are “their” ideas. The newspaper has been especially biased with regard to same-sex marriage. I could point to any number of instances in which this pro same-sex marriage bias has reared its manipulative head. Let me cite just one example. . .

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

As gay marriage begins in Washington, opponents vow to fight (Click for Related Video)

As gay marriage begins in Washington, opponents vow to fight
Gay marriage officially became legal in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday. Many same-sex couples embraced the opportunity to get married, but some opponents want to put gay marriage on the ballot through the District’s initiative process. Christian Science Monitor, By Michael B. Farrell Staff writer, March 9, 2010
Gay rights groups celebrated the start of same-sex weddings Tuesday in Washington, D.C., but gay marriage foes say the issue is not yet settled. Before the Washington City Council finalized its decision to legalize same-sex marriage last year, a coalition of the area’s religious leaders tried to put the question to voters through a citywide referendum. That move was blocked by the city’s board of elections and later by the a D.C. Superior Court judge (The Monitor covered the ruling here). But same-sex marriage opponents are now trying to put the question on the ballot through the District’s initiative process, which gives voters the opportunity to weigh in on existing legislation. “It’s not over in D.C. by any means,” wrote Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, on the group’s blog. “The people of D.C. have a right, granted by Congress in their charter, to vote to overturn legislation passed by elected officials, just as people in many states (like Maine) have that right.” In an interview, Mr. Brown said a case over the initiative is pending in the D.C. Court of Appeals. If the ballot initiative is allowed, many expect that voters would overturn gay marriage. Same-sex marriage has been defeated in the 31 states where the question was put to voters. Before the city’s law took effect last week – the District granted same-sex marriage licenses last Wednesday, but Tuesday was the first day for gay marriage ceremonies – opponents of the new marriage law asked the US Supreme Court for a temporary injunction. In the court’s decision not to get involved, Chief Justice John Roberts said the case should be handled in the local courts, but that gay marriage opponents had “some force” to their arguments. “Clearly the law is on our side, and I think the courts will be sympathetic,” says Brown, regarding the effort to have a ballot initiative on the gay marriage question. . .

RELATED VIDEO: Washington Weddings for Same-sex Couples AP, March 09, 2010
Tuesday was the first day that same-sex couples could get married in Washington DC. Dozens of DC's residents wasted no time in taking the plunge. . .

RELATED BLOG: NOM Marriage News: March 5, 2010 National Organization for Marriage, By Brian Brown
A few words about where we are in D.C. Notice the headlines from the mainstream media: a persistent drumbeat of despair. Recognize that the keenest weapon in the hands of our opponents are these spiritual weapons--which means they are weapons we can strip from them any time we see that they are being wielded against us. That's a longwinded way of saying: Don't believe the lies. It's not over in D.C. by any means. Here's what really happened. . .

Simon Cowell plans to marry his current girlfriend, Mezhgan Hussainy. Bryony Gordon wonders what could drive a girl into his waxed arms The Telegraph- UK, By Bryony Gordon, March 09, 2010
Clocks stopped, ravens were spotted leaving the Tower and there was a nip in the air down in hell when Simon Cowell announced on Saturday night that he had met “the one”. The entertainment supremo’s heavily Botoxed face expressed something near emotion as he spoke of his new love, Mezhgan Hussainy. “She’s very special,” he said during a tear-jerking interview with Piers Morgan. “You know when you’ve found somebody very special.” Mezghan must be very special indeed because Cowell has bought her a £250,000 engagement ring, with a wedding apparently planned for the summer. This comes as somewhat of a surprise, given that the X Factor judge is 50 years old and has not expressed a desire to commit to any of his previous girlfriends – he never told the last one, Terri Seymour, that he loved her, though he did buy her a house in Los Angeles when they broke up. Indeed, Cowell has been vehemently anti the institution of marriage, describing it as an “outdated contract”. “I don’t believe in marriage, certainly not in this business. The truth is that you get married and in a year or two they clean you out.”. . .

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: Now Simon Cowell gets a kiss from American Idol judge Ellen DeGeneres The Daily Mail- UK, By Chris Johnson, March 11, 2010
With two TV kisses in two days, Simon Cowell's heart-throb status can be in no doubt. Okay, the first smacker was from his fiance and the second from a famous lesbian, but at the age of 50 most men happily accept affection from any source. The first kiss, from Mezhgan Hussainy, appeared to catch Cowell out on the Jay Leno show on Monday. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Blushing Simon Cowell (Sort of) Confirms He's Engaged People magazine, By Cynthia Wang, March 08, 2010
Simon Cowell scowling – typical. Simon Cowell blushing? Indeed. The famously cantankerous American Idol judge squirmed in his seat on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno on Monday as the host dissected reports of Cowell's engagement to Idol makeup artist Mezhgan Hussainy. "Are rumors you're engaged true?" Leno asked. Cowell took a moment and responded carefully, "Are they true? Well, I do have somebody in my life now, Jay, yes. And I kinda made a decision this year to make somebody happy." As the audience cheered, Leno asked about the huge ring Hussainy has been sporting on her left hand. "I thought she broke her arm," Leno joked. Cowell responded, "It's quite a big one, yes." When Leno called Cowell out for turning red, Cowell confessed, "I am blushing." Leno asked, "Where did you, or may have, gotten engaged?" Cowell said, "I find this very uncomfortable. I was asleep, I think. No, look, I bought her the ring in London." Later, Leno spotted Hussainy, 36, in the audience and invited her to come on stage to join Cowell, 50. The pair looked giddy and comfortable with each other, said a witness. . . .

Simon Cowell plans to marry his current girlfriend, Mezhgan Hussainy.

RELATED RESOURCE: The National Marriage Project- University of Virginia: Annual Reports- State of our Unions

RELATED RESOURCE: Ten Things to Know Series The National Marriage Project- University of Virginia

RELATED ARTICLE: Simon Cowell declares that new girlfriend Mezhgan Hussainy is 'the one' The Telegraph-UK, February 17, 2010
Simon Cowell has told how his new girlfriend is "the one" and hinted for the first time that he may be ready to settle down and have children. The X Factor judge has had a string of high profile relationships, notably with the singer Sinitta and his most recent ex Terri Seymour, but has never married. His romance with Mezhgan Hussainy, 36, who worked as a make-up artist on American Idol, was made public recently after they were photographed out on a date. Now, in a television interview to be screened on ITV1 next month, Cowell hinted to Piers Morgan that the pair could be engaged, according to The Mirror. He said: "I’m smitten with Mezhgan, I think she’s the one. She’s very special. “You know when you’ve found somebody very special.” Then, on the subject of children, he added: “I think I need to have little Simons around.” His comments come after years of cultivating an image as the eternal bachelor, during which he even publicly vowed that he would "never marry". Cowell, 49, first hinted the relationship with Miss Hussainy was serious last week when he kissed her at a Britain’s Got Talent audition. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Golden goodbye: Simon Cowell hands ex-girlfriend Terri Seymour £6million The Daily Mail- UK, By Simon Cable, November 2008
On television he revels in his role as Mr Nasty.But away from the cameras it looks as if Simon Cowell is in danger of turning into Mr Nice Guy. The X Factor judge and music mogul has reportedly handed over almost £6million as a 'parting gift' to former girlfriend Terri Seymour. . . . Their relationship ended over his reluctance to marry and have children. Cowell said earlier this week: 'I know some find it hard to fathom, but it's who I am. 'Bottom line is, I'm married to my job. She wants a different path in life, I totally respect that.'. .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Marrying Kind: Which Men Marry and Why The National Marriage Project- The State of Our Unions 2004, By Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe
Challenging the popular stereotype of the marriagephobic male, findings from a new national survey of young heterosexual men, ages 25-34, indicate that while men are delaying marriage until older ages, most men are “the marrying kind.” Among all men surveyed, those from traditional, religiously observant family backgrounds are more likely to be married, to seek marriage and to have positive views of marriage, women, and children than young males from nontraditional and nonreligiously observant family backgrounds. Among the unmarried men surveyed, however, there is a small but significant subset of men who are personally averse to marriage. Slightly more than two out of ten expressed strongly negative views about their own personal desire to marry as well as more negative attitudes toward marriage, women, and children. Compared to other unmarried men in the survey sample, they are significantly more likely to come from nontraditional and nonreligiously observant families. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Ten Important Research Findings on Marriage and Choosing A Marriage Partner: Helpful Facts for Young Adults The National Marriage Project- Rutgers University, By David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, November 2004
Counters prevalent myths about marriage and highlights facts that may change the way young adults think about marriage. Cited resources for each point. November 2004. . . . .1. Marrying as a teenager is the highest known risk factor for divorce. People who marry in their teens are two to three times more likely to divorce than people who marry in their twenties or older. 2. The most likely way to find a future marriage partner is through an introduction by family, friends, or acquaintances. Despite the romantic notion that people meet and fall in love through chance or fate, the evidence suggests that social networks are important in bringing together individuals of similar interests and backgrounds, especially when it comes to selecting a marriage partner. According to a large-scale national survey of sexuality, almost sixty percent of married people were introduced by family, friends, co-workers or other acquaintances. 3. The more similar people are in their values, backgrounds and life goals, the more likely they are to have a successful marriage. . .

Oscar Night = Date Night Sleek Gossip, Posted by: Tallia, March 08, 2010
Best actress winner Sandra Bullock, along with husband Jesse James took home another award last night: sweetest couple at the Oscars. The pair showed nothing but affection for each other as they made their way down the red carpet and later took their seats side-by-side in the Kodak Theatre. After her name was announced as the winner in the best actress category, a shocked Bullock automatically leaned closer to James as he whispered something in her ear. Another winning moment: both James and Bullock tearing up as the best actress made her speech. Nominees in respective best actor in a supporting role and best actress categories, The Last Station costars and fellow Brits Christopher Plummer and Helen Mirren attended the event together. The pair joked about their age on the carpet with Mirren saying, "He can laugh at my bad back and I can laugh at his bad knees." The deejay for the event, Joel Madden, hit the red carpet with fiance Nicole Richie, who joked with Ryan Seacrest about details of their upcoming nuptials. When pressed for a date, Richie responded, "Tomorrow." As far as big or small, she wants a big wedding while he would prefer to keep it small, Madden explained. Presenter Miley Cyrus hit the red carpet with a special date: her mom. But all talk was about her current boyfriend and The Last Song costar Liam Hemsworth. When asked by Seacrest if she was in love, the starlet replied with a coy "maybe" and a grin. Best actor nominee Jeremy Renner also brought this mom along as a date. Thought the actor didn't go home with a date, he may have a romantic plus one in his future. Rumor has it the Renner exchanged numbers with Jessica Simpson at a pre-Oscar bash last week. Couples we'd like to have seen: Friends and costars, Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner made a cute pair presenting together, but we would have loved to finally see Stewart and rumored boyfriend Robert Pattinson debut their relationship on such a high profile red carpet. Jennifer Aniston and Gerard Butler made such a dashing pair as presenters at the Golden Globes earlier this year. Who wouldn't have liked to see a repeat performance? Bradley Cooper served as a presenter alongside Butler, but where was his rumored girlfriend Renee Zellweger? We would have loved to see the pair together--and Renee's signature style--on the red carpet. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Oscar 2010: Jesse James: Sandra Bullock 'Takes My Breath Away' People magazine, By Alexis Chiu and Aaron Parsley, March 09, 2010
Jesse James may be a tough guy who builds motorcycles and performs death-defying stunts, but he's not above the pomp of the Oscars – or being a plus-1 to the night's most celebrated actress, his wife Sandra Bullock. "It's awesome," he told PEOPLE of being her date as they made their way into the Governor's Ball at the Hollywood & Highland Grand Ballroom after the Oscar ceremony Sunday. "It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to support my wife and her work. She does it all the time for me. She goes to Mexico, to the desert, to the hospital – a lot – to support me and my work. The least I can do is put on a suit and support her." James may be more comfortable in his garage than on the red carpet, but he was bursting with pride as he checked out his wife and her shimmering, gold-beaded Marchesa gown. "She's beautiful. She's amazing. She takes my breath away,” James said. "Sometimes I look at her and I do, I just lose my breath.". . .

RELATED VIDEO: Sandra Bullock, Kathryn Bigelow on Oscar Wins CBS News Online, March 08, 2010
Oscar winners Sandra Bullock, best actress, and Kathryn Bigelow, best director, spoke to Harry Smith outside the Governors Ball about their awards and the historic night for women.

Five Myths about Same Sex Marriage Townhall.com, By Janice Shaw Crouse, March 09, 2010
March 9, 2010, is the first day that same-sex couples in District of Columbia (D.C.) will be able to have legal marriage ceremonies. More than 100 couples — some coming from nearby states — have licenses for ceremonies. So-called same-sex “marriages” are legal in five other states — Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont — where the words “bride and groom” are replaced with the names of the individuals, who are each called “spouse” or “Person A” and “Person B.” Those who oppose same-sex “marriage” are called by derogatory labels: bigot, narrow-minded, hate-filled among the nicest. Such name-calling obscures the very real problems associated with watering down and denigrating traditional marriage. Let’s begin with the basic argument that people are “born gay.” Apparently, activists are operating under the assumption that if they say this long enough, people will believe it. Yet the science is not there to substantiate their oft-stated premise that homosexuality is genetic and is immutable. The studies that purport to support the idea have not been replicated; instead, they have been repudiated or considered inconclusive. The generally accepted theory is that some people may be predisposed to emotional vulnerabilities that can be exacerbated by external factors, such as parental approval, social acceptance and gender affirmation. Indeed, a growing number of individuals have chosen to reject the homosexual lifestyle. In addition, there is an acknowledgement, even among homosexuals, that persons can “choose” their sexuality (be bisexual or not). Let’s look at five other myths associated with same-sex “marriage.”: Myth #1: Having same-sex couples celebrate their love does nothing to harm anybody else’s marriage or damage the institution of marriage. . . . . .Myth #2: Same-sex “marriage” is an “equal rights” issue. . . . .Myth #3: Any group of people — including homosexual couples — can contribute to the well-being of children and form a productive unit of society. . . . Myth #4: Same-sex “marriage” is a matter of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. . . . . .Myth #5: “Same-Sex Marriages” are just like heterosexual marriages. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: First same-sex marriages celebrated in D.C. Washington Post, By Ann E. Marimow and Keith L. Alexander, March 9, 2010
There were yellow roses, champagne toasts and tiered white-frosted cakes to celebrate the District's first same-sex marriages Tuesday morning. In a joint ceremony at the downtown headquarters of the Human Rights Campaign, three of the first gay couples to marry under the city's new law said their vows and exchanged rings in services that underscored the historic significance of the day. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay Marriage v. Religious Freedom: A Cautionary Tale The Christian Post, By Chuck Colson, March 08, 2010
Catholic Charities in Washington, D.C., has announced changes to its employees’ health care benefits. Normally, this wouldn’t be big news. But this story isn’t only about deductibles and co-pays-it’s about the increasingly fragile state of religious freedom in the America.Employees were told that starting March 2, Catholic Charities would “not offer benefits to spouses of new employees or to spouses of current employees not already enrolled” in the health plan. Spouses currently covered under the plan would still be covered. The timing of the changes wasn’t a coincidence. On March 3, same-sex “marriage” became legal in the District of Columbia. In connection with the new law, the D.C. Council insisted that, as a city contractor, Catholic Charities had to offer the same benefits to same-sex couples that it did to heterosexual ones. In other words, Catholic Charities had to choose between church teaching and ministering to the city’s neediest residents. To put it mildly, the Council wasn’t sympathetic to the Archdiocese’s concerns. One Council member called them “childish.” It’s also no surprise that the D.C. Archdiocese is being portrayed as the villain. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Putting Religion on Trial? Townhall.com Columnist, By Maggie Gallagher January 27, 2010
I have my speech tonight. I can explain why every human culture across millennia has recognized marriage as the union of male and female. These unions are unique. They create life and connect children to their mother and father. When I point this out, typically half the audience gets it. The other half stares blankly: How will gay marriage change anything? Why do you care?. . .

Anti-Gay Lawmaker At Gay Club Before DUI Arrest CBS-13, March 04, 2010
Sources tell CBS13 that a state senator from Southern California was arrested for allegedly driving drunk after leaving Faces, a gay nightclub in midtown Sacramento, early Wednesday morning. The California Highway Patrol pulled over Senator Roy Ashburn at 2:00 a.m. Wednesday after an officer noticed a black Chevy Tahoe swerving at 13th and L Streets. The Sacramento County district attorney says Ashburn's blood-alcohol level was .14 percent when he was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving near the Capitol. Ashburn, a father of four, is a Republican Senator representing parts of Kern, Tulare and San Bernardino Counties, with a history of opposing gay rights. When the officer stopped the state-issued vehicle, Ashburn identified himself as a senator. He was arrested without incident and charged with two misdemeanors: driving under the influence, and driving with a blood alcohol level higher than .08% or higher. A male passenger, who was not identified as a lawmaker, was also in the car. He was not detained. Ashburn was booked into the Sacramento County Jail and released on $1,400 bond. Ashburn issued a statement on the arrest Wednesday afternoon:. . . . . Ashburn served six years as a state Assemblyman before being elected to the State Senate. According to Project Vote Smart, Ashburn's voting record shows he has voted against every gay rights measure in the State Senate since taking office including Recognizing Out-Of-State Same-Sex Marriages", Harvey Milk Day and Expanding Anti-Discrimination Laws. . .

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

Anti-Gay Lawmaker, Roy Ashburn, Allegedly At Gay Club Before DUI Arrest

RELATED ARTICLE: Are Sen. Roy Ashburn's excuses persuasive? Los Angeles Times Blog-Opinion L.A., March 09, 2010
By now, you've probably come across the excuses offered by Republican state Sen. Roy Ashburn, outed following his DUI arrest after reportedly leaving a gay bar in Sacramento last week, for his history of voting against gay-rights legislation. The gist is that his voting record merely reflects the wishes of his constituents, and that he thought he could separate his personal life from his political career. . .

RELATED RESOURCE: National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) NARTH.com
Narth upholds the rights of individuals with UNWANTED homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care and the right of professionals to offer that care.

RELATED QUOTE:
"Following the twisted logic of the gay lobby, if we personally engage in theft, prostitution, adultery, and practices that abuse the elderly, then we should be expected to support laws that promote same.... utter rubbish! Well, God bless us, finally, that one of our State Representatives gets that he was voted in to represent - and vote in alignment with - the will of his constituents, not his personal proclivities!" The Real Proposal magazine, March 05, 2010

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

         It is not about equality or equal rights.
         It is not about discrimination against a class of people.
         It is not about denying homosexuals the ability to commit to one another.
         It is not about love or private relationships.
        It is not about bigotry or homophobia.
         It is not about sexual orientation or being born a certain way.
         It is not about race or the civil rights struggle.
         It is not about interracial marriage.
       It is not about heterosexuals and divorce.
         It is not about the separation of church and state.
         It is not even about religion.

“But that’s all I hear about,” you say. Of course, that’s because the propaganda campaign continues to be successful. Those topics are all smokescreens designed to divert you. . . . Greg Koukl puts this very well: “Same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It is about validation and social respect. It is a radical attempt at civil engineering using government muscle to strong-arm the people into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally repugnant.”. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Hope for Homosexuals Good News magazine, Interview with Dr. Joseph Nicolosi conducted by Melvin Rhodes
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi is a clinical psychologist. He is the president of NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a 1,000-member organization. Dr. Nicolosi has successfully treated thousands of patients to help men transition from homosexuality to heterosexuality. He is author of several books, including A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality and Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach. He has spoken at hundreds of conferences worldwide and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs around the world as the preeminent authority on reparative therapy. He also heads the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic in Encino, California. . . . .

GN: In the last few years, AIDS has become primarily a heterosexual problem internationally. In the United States it still affects gays disproportionately. Why is that?

JN: AIDS affects gays disproportionately because of the behavior that they engage in, behaviors that will spread AIDS. Anal intercourse is the way of spreading AIDS. And there is a great deal of sexual promiscuity and a lot of reckless self-deceiving, self-destructive impulses in gay men and they are killing each other. Paradoxically, all this talk about homophobia and hatred toward gays—when you think about it, who is really killing gays? Other gays! A very sad irony is that they are killing each other through a behavior that should be associated with love. Paradoxical, isn't it?. . .

Permanence Before Experience - The Wisdom of Marriage

Permanence Before Experience - The Wisdom of Marriage Christian Post, By Albert Mohler, March 04, 2010
Rightly understood, marriage is all about permanence. In a world of transitory experiences, events, and commitments, marriage is intransigent. It simply is what it is - a permanent commitment made by a man and a woman who commit themselves to live faithfully unto one another until the parting of death. That is what makes marriage what it is. The logic of marriage is easy to understand and difficult to subvert, which is one reason the institution has survived over so many millennia. Marriage lasts because of its fundamental status. It is literally what a healthy and functioning society cannot survive without. And yet, modernity can be seen as one long attempt to subvert the permanent - including marriage. The modern age has brought the rise of individual autonomy, the collection of populations in cities, the weakening of family commitments, the waning of faith, the routinization of divorce, and a host of other developments that subvert marriage and the commitment it requires. Added to this list is the phenomenon of cohabitation. The twentieth century saw the phenomenon of cohabitation become the expectation among many, if not most, young adults. But the end of the century, the progression of intimacy (including sexual intimacy) was likely to follow a line from "hooking up" to cohabiting. A new study conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics suggests two very important findings: First, that cohabiting is now the norm for younger adults. Second, cohabiting makes divorce more likely after eventual marriage. . . . . . . The experience of cohabiting just makes sense to many young adults. Their logic is that marriage is what happens after a relationship becomes sexually intimate and is found to be adequately fulfilling - not before. They do not know that what they are actually doing is undoing marriage. They miss the central logic of marriage as an institution of permanence. They miss the essential wisdom of marriage - that the commitment must come before the intimacy, that the vows must come before the shared living, that the wisdom of marriage is its permanence before its experience. Cohabitation weakens marriage - even a cohabiting couple's eventual marriage - because a temporary and transitory commitment always weakens a permanent commitment. Having lived together with the open possibility of parting, that possibility always remains, and never leaves. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Study Finds Cohabiting Doesn’t Make a Union Last New York Times, By Sam Roberts, March 2, 2010
Couples who live together before they get married are less likely to stay married, a new study has found. But their chances improve if they were already engaged when they began living together. The likelihood that a marriage would last for a decade or more decreased by six percentage points if the couple had cohabited first, the study found. . .

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

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Why falling marriage rates are bad for the culture Scripps News, By Betsy Hart, October 30, 2006
So the question is, are we at a tipping point yet when it comes to whether or not we as a culture value and sustain marriage? That's a crucial question even for those living outside of marriage. For instance, I may be raising my kids on my own but they still derive huge benefits, including safety, community stability, male and family role modeling and more from living in the neighborhood we do in which marriage rates are extremely high. If more and more kids aren't getting that either in their own homes or in their neighborhoods or larger communities, the negative cascading effect is and will be profound. So what' going on? Here's one part of the puzzle _ another report titled "Why Men Won't Commit," part of the "State of Our Unions" series from the National Marriage Project. (While recently reported at MSN.com, the study is from 2002.) Anyway, I saw the headline and it was so easy to guess the first several reasons before even glancing at them. Sure enough the study of younger men, age 25-33, showed that:
— Men can get sex without marriage more easily than in times past.
Duh.
— Men can enjoy the benefits of having a wife by cohabiting rather than marrying.
Double duh. (Oh, yeah, thanks feminist foremothers.). . .

Mo'Nique on Sex Outside Marriage: 'That's Not a Deal-Breaker' (Click for Related Video)

Mo'Nique on Sex Outside Marriage: 'That's Not a Deal-Breaker'
'Precious' Star Describes 'Open Marriage' to Husband Sidney Hicks ABC News.com, By Lauren Sher, March 04, 2010
For Oscar nominee Mo'Nique, sex outside of marriage is "not a deal-breaker. In the 29th and final "Barbara Walters Oscars Special," Mo'Nique opened up to Walters about her almost-four-year marriage to childhood friend Sidney Hicks. Mo'Nique said it is an open marriage, which she defined for Walters as "no secrets." "Open means, you know what, let me tell you my every secret, my fantasies, my thoughts, so that way, there are no surprises," Mo'Nique said. When asked by Walters if the couple had sex outside of the marriage, Mo'Nique said: "Let me say this: I have not had sex outside of my marriage with Sidney. Could I have sex outside of my marriage with Sidney? Yes. Could Sid have sex outside of his marriage with me? Yes. That's not a deal-breaker." Walters pressed: What if it happened more than once? "What if it's 20 times?" said Mo'Nique, who has twin boys with Hicks and a son from an earlier marriage. "That's not something that ... would make us say, 'Pack your things and let's end the marriage,' because we've been best friends for ... is it over 25 years? And we truly know who we are. Truly. Oftentimes," she added, "people get into marriages and they don't know who they're laying next to. I'm very comfortable and secure with my husband." . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Mo’Nique: Open Marriage Not a 'Deal Breaker' Newsbusters.org, By Sarah Knoploh, March 08, 2010
March 7 marked Barbara Walter’s final Oscar Special, where Oscar nominees are typically interviewed about their particular roles. But last night’s special took an unusual turn when actress Mo’Nique endorsed and spoke about her open marriage, leaving many wishing for Less’Nique. . . . Maybe the reason Mo’Nique has endorsed open marriage is because she’s been paying attention to the mainstream media. In December Newsweek alleged that open marriages were a way to stop all the ‘cheating scandals.” A Nightline episode in September featured Jenny Block, an author (and participant) who has pushed for open marriages. Even as early as 2007 Oprah featured a couple that participated in an open marriage, while having experts who advocated for having friends with benefits. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Mo'Nique talks about her open marriage and hairy legs USA Today, March 03, 2010

RELATED VIDEO: Mo'Nique Discusses Open Marriage Eyeblast.tv, March 08, 2010
Oscar winner Mo'Nique discusses her open marriage with Sidney Hicks on the Barbara Walters Special.

Gay Marriage Is Legal in U.S. Capital New York Times, March 03, 2010
It was cold and drizzling outside the City Courthouse just after 6 a.m. on Wednesday, but no one seemed to mind among the same-sex couples waiting for the chance to apply for a marriage license. . . . .Gay rights advocates hailed the day as a milestone for equal rights and a symbolic victory as same-sex marriage became legal in the nation’s capital. Washington is now the sixth place in the nation where same-sex marriages can take place. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont also issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Despite failing in court, opponents of the law vowed to fight another day. The law survived Congressional attempts to block it, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday rejected a request from opponents of same-sex marriage to have the United States Supreme Court delay it. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty signed the measure into law in December, but because the District of Columbia is not a state, the law had to undergo Congressional review, which ended Tuesday. Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington on Tuesday limited employee health care benefits to avoid coverage of same -sex couples. It was the second time Catholic Charities changed its rules to protest same-sex marriage, having earlier ended its foster care program. The new law was already having regional implications. Maryland’s attorney general, Douglas F. Gansler, issued a legal opinion last week concluding that Maryland should immediately recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. . . . . . Court officials explained that the Marriage Bureau had changed its license applications: They ask for the name of each spouse rather than the bride and groom. Officials who perform the weddings read, “I now pronounce you legally married.” On a typical day the office processes 10 licenses, court officials said. By late Wednesday afternoon, more than 140 couples had filed to be married, the mayor’s office said. Because of a mandatory waiting period, couples will not be able to marry in the city until Tuesday. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: After Roberts Steps Aside, Same-Sex Marriage Becomes Law in D.C. Wall Street Journal, March 03, 2010
Same-sex marriage may ultimately get its day at the U.S. Supreme Court. But Chief Justice Roberts on Tuesday made clear that that day wasn’t going to come this week or next. The chief declined on Tuesday to stop Washington, D.C.’s new law legalizing same-sex marriage from taking effect. D.C. mayor Adrian Fenty signed the bill in December, but it didn’t become law until Congress had a chance to review the law. That process wrapped up earlier this week. Immediately, gay-marriage opponents asked the Chief Justice, acting as Circuit Justice for the D.C. area, to halt the law. But in this three-page order, the chief said no. . . . .In his opinion, the chief noted that the justices traditionally defer to the District’s courts on issues of local law. He added that deference should be given to Congress, as Congress had chosen not to put a kibosh on the act before it became law. Roberts pointed out, however, that gay marriage opponents are pursuing a ballot initiative, which would give D.C. residents the opportunity to vote down the law after it goes into effect. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Let the People Vote Townhall.com, By Harry R. Jackson, Jr., January 13, 2010
The following is an excerpt of a letter that was presented to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mike Pence, Mitch McConnell, Barbara Lee and the Congressional Black Caucus this week by national pastors and leaders who want to be counted among those who see marriage as an important issue in America today. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Tyranny of the Minority: How the Forced Recognition of Same-Sex "Marriage" Undermines a Free Society Salvo magazine, By S. T. Karnick, Autumn 2008- Salvo 6 Issue
From the beginning, the debate over "same-sex marriage" has been one of those topsy-turvy issues in which the side that is truly tolerant and fair has been characterized as narrow-minded and oppressive, while the side that is intolerant and blatantly coercive has been depicted as open-minded and sympathetic. Favoring government-enforced recognition of same-sex "marriage" is not, as the media invariably characterize it, a kindly, liberal-minded position, but instead a fierce, coercive, intolerant one. Despite their agonized complaints about the refusal of the majority of Americans to give in on the subject, those who advocate government recognition of same-sex "marriage" want to use coercion to deny other people their fundamental rights. . . . . .[I]t is not correct to argue that government recognition of two-sex marriages is unfair or oppressive. If proponents of same-sex "marriage" ask why the government should be allowed to require people to acknowledge traditional two-sex marriages, the answer is simple: It does not. The institutions of society acknowledge heterosexual marriages on the basis of historical and cultural preferences dating back millennia. The government didn't decide this; society did. Government recognition of traditional marriage was not a change forced upon society, but rather a legal codification of what society had already established. Moreover, even homosexuals agree that marriage is a valid institution. They confirm this powerfully by trying to alter the institution through force of law so that same-sex couples can be included in it. The key difference between traditional marriage and same-sex "marriage," however, is that the government, in acknowledging heterosexual marriage, does not force anything on society; it merely effects the enforcement of a contract that all—or nearly all—people accept as valid and sensible. Same-sex "marriage," by contrast, is not seen as such by most people; forcing individuals to recognize it is not the legal codification of an existing social reality, but instead a radical social change forced by a few on the many. . .