'MARRIAGE' In The NEWS- March 2011: The REAL Proposal For Marriage magazine

Rihanna talks Chris Brown, S&M tendencies in Rolling Stone CBS News, By Joyce Lee, March 31, 2011
Turns out Rihanna really meant what she was singing in her recent hit single "S&M." While speaking candidly to Rolling Stone magazine, the 23-year-old pop star has revealed some intimate details of her bedroom behavior. "I like to take charge, but I love to be submissive," she says. "Being submissive in the bedroom is really fun. You get to be a little lady, to have somebody be macho and in charge. That's sexy to me." She adds, "I work a lot, and I have to make a lot of executive decisions, so when it comes to being intimate, I like to feel like I'm somebody's girl." "I like to keep it spontaneous. Sometimes whips and chains can be overly planned - you gotta stop, get the whip from the drawer downstairs. I'd rather have him use his hands." In addition to revealing her bedroom secrets, Rihanna confesses she might be "a bit of a masochist." "It's not something I'm proud of, and it's not something I noticed until recently," she says. "I think it's common for people who witness abuse in their household. They can never smell how beautiful a rose is unless they get pricked by a thorn." Rihanna also opened up on why she agreed to lift the restraining order against her ex-boyfriend Chris Brown, who recently made headlines for losing his cool and breaking a window backstage on "Good Morning America.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Excerptsfrom Rihanna's Rolling Stone Cover Story: The pop singer on her first kiss, her family and more Rolling Stone magazine

Rihanna talks Chris Brown, S&M tendencies in Rolling Stone magazine

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: Chris Brown blows up after "Good Morning America" interview CBS News, By Joyce Lee, March 22, 2011
Chris Brown reportedly launched into a violent rage after his interview on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. The 21-year-old R&B singer allegedly smashed a window in his dressing room and stormed out of the studio shirtless after ABC's Robin Roberts questioned him on-air about legal issues surrounding his 2009 Grammy eve assault on ex-girlfriend, Rihanna, WABC in New York reports. "I think I'm passed that at this point in my life," he said, trying to redirect the interview to his new album. "Today is the album day, that's what I'm focusing on.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: The Most Dangerous Game: Choking for a High FOX News, Dr. Manny's Notes, January 07, 2010
This morning I saw an alarming video of what appears to be a trend resurfacing among young teens. Not only was it shocking, but I can tell you as a parent, it was very worrisome. We have all heard about sex acts where couples use choking techniques to enhance sexual pleasures. During these sex games, one of the partners cuts off the blood supply to the other partner's brain and quickly releases once the other person has lost consciousness. We all remember the terrible tragedy of Jennifer Levin and the story that the "Preppie Killer," Robert Chambers told about the last few moments of her life. Well it seems now that teenagers are doing this - but not in a sexual scenario. They are playing a "choking game" just to get the feeling of euphoria once they regain consciousness, and worst of all - they're posting the horrifying visuals on the Internet. Take a look at this video: "Choking Game Craze is Back"

RELATED ARTICLE: 'I'm a human pet': The Goth teenager whose fiance walks her around on a dog lead The Daily Mail- UK, By Chris Brooke, January 23, 2008
Given that she describes herself as a human pet – and is happy to walk around on a lead – Tasha Maltby is used to odd looks and even odder remarks. But nothing had prepared her for the reaction of the bus driver who allegedly told the self-styled Goth and her boyfriend: "We don't let freaks and dogs like you on." Miss Maltby and her fiance Dani Graves were so angered they have complained to the bus company of being "victimised". "It is definitely discrimination, almost like a hate crime," 19-year-old Miss Maltby said yesterday. The music technology student had this defence of her lifestyle. "I am a pet, I generally act animal like and I lead a really easy life," she said. "I don't cook or clean and I don't go anywhere without Dani. It might seem strange but it makes us both happy. It's my culture and my choice. It isn't hurting anyone." The bus driver, however, has obviously not been listening. . . . Paul Adcock, of bus company Arriva Yorkshire, said: "We take any allegations of discrimination seriously. "Mr Graves has already contacted us directly and as soon as our investigation has concluded we will inform him of the outcome.". .

RELATED ARTICLE: When sex games go wrong The Times Online- UK, By Sean Thomas, November 30, 2007
In time, the wildness of our sex life started to corrode our emotional relationship. And so the inevitable happened. Alicia and I found ourselves strangers in all ways and places but in bed. We split up. But we kept returning to our strange affair and our carnal games. We were hooked on dangerous sex with its drug-like rush. Scientists have shown that in obsessively sexual relationships the endorphin high of the emotions is especially intense, akin in its effect to heroin. Like all addicts, we ended up in trouble. . .

Elizabeth Taylor's death: the end of a glittering Hollywood era

Elizabeth Taylor's death: the end of a glittering Hollywood era
A glittering Hollywood era - which spanned seven decades, five Oscar nominations and eight marriages - ended yesterday with the death of Dame Elizabeth Taylor at the age of 79. The Telegraph- UK, By Neil Midgley and Alex Spillius, March 24, 2011
Catapulted to fame at the age of just 12 when she starred in the film National Velvet, Taylor went on to make as many headlines for her personal life as for her acting. Her tempestuous on-and-off relationship with the actor Richard Burton saw the couple married twice, and Taylor also battled alcoholism, scoliosis and a brain tumour. Stars including Michael Caine, Joan Collins and Angela Lansbury paid tribute yesterday to her career, which saw her win the Best Actress Oscar twice, and to her charity work. Taylor’s friend Sir Elton John, with whom she raised millions for Aids research, said: “We have just lost a Hollywood giant. More importantly, we have lost an incredible human being.” She died at Cedars-Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles, surrounded by her four children, after being hospitalised six weeks ago with congestive heart failure, according to a statement from her publicist. Her son Michael Wilding said: “My mother was an extraordinary woman who lived life to the fullest, with great passion, humor, and love. Though her loss is devastating to those of us who held her so close and so dear, we will always be inspired by her enduring contribution to our world.” Taylor had been plagued by health problems for many years, and had for some time arrived at her public appearances in a wheelchair. Her frailty in later years stood in stark contrast to her earlier beauty, which sparked a personal life that set a Hollywood standard for glamour and tumult. After the death of her third husband, film producer Mike Todd, in 1958, she found herself in a well-chronicled love triangle with singer Eddie Fisher and his wife actress Debbie Reynolds, before marrying Fisher. At the time she famously said: “I’m not taking anything away from Debbie, because she never really had it.” While filming the lavishly produced Cleopatra in 1961, she started a torrid, tabloid-chronicled affair with Richard Burton, who played Mark Antony and who was also married at the time. He wrote of the first time he saw her: “She was so extraordinarily beautiful that I nearly laughed out loud. She... [was] famine, fire, destruction and plague... the only true begetter. Her breasts were apocalyptic, they would topple empires before they withered... her body was a miracle of construction... She was unquestionably gorgeous. She was lavish. She was a dark, unyielding largesse. She was, in short, too bloody much...”. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Elizabeth Taylor's 8 marriages Free Press, By Julie Hinds, March 23, 2011
Love means never having to say “I do” only once, or at least it did for Elizabeth Taylor, whose eight marriages to seven husbands were almost as noteworthy as her many other achievements. . .

RELATED COVERAGE: Elizabeth Taylor 1932-2011
People magazine
Remembering Hollywood's Queen, Elizabeth Taylor: The beautiful and tumultuous life of a grand dame who became movie-made royalty.

RELATED ARTICLE: Elizabeth Taylor Suffered 'a Lot of Pain' in Final Days, says Debbie Reynolds People magazine, By Sarah Durham Wilson and Stephen M. Silverman, March 23, 2011
Though they were friends at the time of Taylor's death, during the late '50s, Reynolds and Taylor were caught in the biggest sex scandal of the decade. Reynolds, the star of Singin' in the Rain and other MGM musicals, was America's Sweetheart and the mother of two children with her husband, boy-next-door crooner Eddie Fisher – who in 1957 was stolen away from his wife and children by the recently widowed Taylor. . .

RELATED PHOTO ESSAY: The Many Men of Elizabeth Taylor MSNBC.com, March 23, 2011
In addition to her silver-screen success, film legend Elizabeth Taylor was well-known for her flashy style and her many marriages—eight, to seven different men, including one politician: former Sen. John Warner. Click through for a look at Taylor's many men. . .

RELATED PHOTO ESSAY: Who's Been Married More Than Elizabeth Taylor? MSNBC.com, March 23, 2011
As the world mourns the death of film legend Elizabeth Taylor, a lot of attention has been paid to her many failed marriages (eight weddings and seven husbands to be exact). We think everyone should cut Liz a break... after all, there are plenty of Hollywood types who have been married more than Taylor. Click through to see who walked down the aisle at least as many times as Elizabeth Taylor. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: On gay marriage, stop playing the hate card   Washington Post, By Matthew J. Franck, December 19, 2010
In the debates over gay marriage, "hate" is the ultimate conversation-stopper. . . . .What's going on here? Clearly a determined effort is afoot, in cultural bastions controlled by the left, to anathematize traditional views of sexual morality, particularly opposition to same-sex marriage, as the expression of "hate" that cannot be tolerated in a decent civil society. The argument over same-sex marriage must be brought to an end, and the debate considered settled. Defenders of traditional marriage must be likened to racists, as purveyors of irrational fear and loathing. Opposition to same-sex marriage must be treated just like support for now long-gone anti-miscegenation laws. This strategy is the counsel of desperation. In 30 states, the people have protected traditional marriage by constitutional amendment: In no state where the question has been put directly to voters has same-sex marriage been adopted by democratic majorities. But the advocates of a revolution in the law of marriage see an opportunity in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. In his district court ruling in the case in August, Judge Vaughn Walker held that California's Proposition 8 enacted, "without reason, a private moral view" about the nature of marriage that cannot properly be embodied in public policy. Prop 8's opponents are hoping for similar reasoning from the appeals court and, ultimately, from the Supreme Court. The SPLC's report on "hate groups" gives the game away. It notes that no group is listed merely for "viewing homosexuality as unbiblical." But when describing standard expressions of Christian teaching, that we must love the sinner while hating the sin, the SPLC treats them as "kinder, gentler language" that only covers up unreasoning hatred for gay people. Christians are free to hold their "biblical" views, you see, but we know that opposition to gay marriage cannot have any basis in reason. Although protected by the Constitution, these religious views must be sequestered from the public square, where reason, as distinguished from faith, must prevail. Marginalize, privatize, anathematize: These are the successive goals of gay-marriage advocates when it comes to their opponents. . .

RELATED REPORT: What is Marriage   Social Science Research Network, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 245-287, Winter 2010   By Robert George (Princeton University - Department of Politics), Sherif Girgis, (Princeton University Department of Philosophy), Ryan T. Anderson (University of Notre Dame Department of Political Science)
Abstract:
In the article, we argue that as a moral reality, marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together, and renewed by acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction. We further argue that there are decisive principled as well as prudential reasons for the state to enshrine this understanding of marriage in its positive law, and to resist the call to recognize as marriages the sexual unions of same-sex partners. Besides making this positive argument for our position and raising several objections to the view that same-sex unions should be recognized, we address what we consider the strongest philosophical objections to our view of the nature of marriage, as well as more pragmatic concerns about the point or consequences of implementing it as a policy. . .

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

Gay marriage? Female priests? What does "America's Pope" think? CBS NEWS-60 Minutes Overtime, March 20, 2011
Archbishop of New York Timothy Dolan is likable, fun-loving, and quick to tell a joke - but he can also deliver a mean theological argument on some of the Catholic church's most conservative beliefs. Dolan is known as "the American Pope" and he's often considered the most important Catholic in America today. He's also a scholar and a passionate defender of the church's traditional views on what he calls "settled questions." If you've ever wondered why exactly the Catholic church opposes gay marriage and ordination of women as priests, listen to Dolan articulate the church's beliefs. It's far from a simple matter of saying "no." For example, here's the archbishop on gay marriage: "I have a strong desire to play shortstop for the Yankees. I don't have a right to because I don't have what it takes. And that would be what the church would say about marriage." And here's Dolan arguing against the ordination of women as priests: "Jesus gave women positions of responsibility. The only ones at the foot of the cross except for St. John? Women. The people that discovered his resurrection? Women. The people that were with him on his journeys? Women. People say, 'This guy was kind of a pioneer in women's rights.' So, if he were going to intend them for the priesthood, he woulda done it. And he didn't."

RELATED VIDEO: N.Y.'s Archbishop Timothy Dolan March 20, 2011
In a wide-ranging interview with Morley Safer, New York's Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan discusses the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, his current mission and the state of the church in America.

RELATED ARTICLE: Responding to Pro-Gay Theology NARTH.com, 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 a former gay rights activist and staff member of the largely gay Metropolitan Community Church. He is the Founder of Genesis Counseling and has worked with hundreds of men and women struggling with homosexuality and related problems. 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

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality Catholic Education Resource Center, 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. . . . .The revolutionary nature of Judaism's prohibiting all forms of non-marital sex was nowhere more radical, more challenging to the prevailing assumptions of mankind, than with regard to homosexuality. Indeed, Judaism may be said to have invented the notion of homosexuality, for in the ancient world sexuality was not divided between heterosexuality and homosexuality. That division was the Bible's doing. Before the Bible, the world divided sexuality between penetrator (active partner) and penetrated (passive partner). . .

Would You Be Fine With Your Husband Having Sex With Someone Else?

Would You Be Fine With Your Husband Having Sex With Someone Else? Intimacy in Marriage, By Julie Sibert, March 19, 2011
So I’m talking one day to a woman who obviously was very indifferent to nurturing sexual intimacy with her husband. I try to convince her that maybe such intimacy does deserve some of her effort. Trust me. I always overestimate my degree of influence in situations like these. I am such a renegade. So, in a last ditch effort, I say, “Well, what if he wanted to have sex with someone else? Would that be okay?” You can imagine her reaction to that. There was no way it was okay for him to have sex with someone else. In that moment, from where she was standing, I was certifiably out of my mind. What would you say to such a question? Would you be fine if your husband wanted to have sex with someone else? It’s one thing if he wants to have an occasional beer with his buddies or go on a fishing weekend with his brother, right? No problem. But sex with the neighbor woman down the road or the hot fitness instructor at the gym or the colleague he’s worked with for years, well… you draw the line, right? That I’m even posing the question is a bit ludicrous, isn’t it? Some circles want to sing the glories of “progressive” lifestyles like ”open marriage” and “swinging,” but the truth is that the prevailing standard most people expect within their marriage is fidelity. Common sense is really all we need to confirm this. Ask the average everyday wife, and more often than not, we’re all going to say we are not okay with our husbands having sex with someone else. So, why is it then, that so many wives are just fine with not having sex within their own marriages… with the men they married? The two trains of thought just don’t mesh. Him desiring sex with you: No big deal. No reason to pay attention. Him desiring sex with someone else: Very big deal. Very big reason to pay attention. . . . . What I am suggesting is that in marriages where sex has just fallen by the wayside or is a source of contention between one spouse who wants it and one who couldn’t care less about it, there is room for growth. The simple fact that adultery is so incredibly painful and destructive should reveal to us that the flip side is true as well — nurtured and savored sexual intimacy within a marriage is unbelievably bonding and powerful. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: How To Turn On Your Husband Intimacy In Marriage, By Julie Siebert, June 25, 2010
Some sex books proclaim that guys are really simple creatures and if you just feed them and feign that you are merely available for sex, then all their wildest fantasies are fulfilled. I’m not really in the camp of relegating guys as “simple creatures” that get all wide-eyed at even the slightest sexual proposition. Honestly, stereotyping of this sort can get dangerously close to being more of a put-down than a mere observation. And I don’t want to put down your husband or my husband or any husband for that matter. “So,” you may be wondering, “What camp are you in, Julie?” I am 100% in the camp of husbands and wives figuring out how to turn each other on. This means we have to discard the sexually-saturated presumptions doled out by media. We have to become students (if your mind is flashing back to that hot college professor you had a crush on, snap out of it. Stay with me here. Focus.) How do you become a student of your husband?. . .

Please let the Blairs' coitus be interruptus
The Blairs bragging about their nocturnal athletics is one of life's certainties, says Matthew Norman. The Daily Telegraph-UK, By Matthew Norman, March 18, 2011
Whether it was a waking nightmare, a feeling in the bones or – Lord have mercy, no – a self-fulfilling prophecy, a deathbed vision came to me yesterday. In it, as I lie in the psycho-geriatric ward with the heart monitor close to emitting that continuous flatlining beep, my wife beside me avidly texting the life insurer to confirm there will be enough for the Maserati she's always fancied, a nurse steps forward with the diamorphine. And as she does so, she turns her head towards the doctor, and says: "Did you see that Cherie Blair interview in the Telegraph today? Still at it like rabbits, her and Tony – and her nearly 97 years old!" Beeeeeeeeeeep. To the seemingly rhetorical question "Will the pair of them never cease?", the literal answer appears to be "No, they will not". Time passes, governments come and go, the world turns on its axis and moves on. But through it all, added to death and taxes on the honours board of immutable human experience, is the absolute certainty that Cherie and Tony Blair will continue boasting about the rampancy of their relations. With ritual apologies to those of you reading this over the breakfast egg, there is no way of proceeding without the makeshift emetic that is a chronicle of this couple's coital braggadocio. We will keep this as brief and bowdlerised as decency dictates. First up, a brace of public transport revelations. They first made out on the top deck of a double-decker bus ("by the time we got off we knew each other better than when we'd got on," she wrote, "and even better the next morning"). Later, at an unspecified time on an unspecified carrier, they applied for and were duly granted membership of the Mile High Club. Why no member of cabin crew blackballed them, by breaking down the door and unleashing the galley's stockpile of ice cubes, is unknown. It pays tribute to the range and classlessness of the former Bennite parliamentary candidate's appetites that Cherie subsequently conceived her youngest, Leo, at Balmoral. She confided to her memoir that she did so because she was "too embarrassed" – but of course, that fabled coyness of hers about letting daylight in on the marital magic – to take her contraceptives lest a member of the royal household's staff should see them while unpacking her suitcase. If there is an irony in her referring to the prophylactics as "unmentionables", it escapes me for now. What she and Tony regarded as perfectly mentionable, to an interviewer from the Sun on the eve of the 2005 election, was his capacity to serenade her with the sweet symphony of love at least five times nightly. . .

Please let the Blairs' coitus be interruptus: The Blairs bragging about their nocturnal athletics is one of life's certainties, says Matthew Norman

RELATED ARTICLE: The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially Psych Page, By by Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, Review by Richard Niolon PhD, October 23, 2010
This is an excellent source of information for the married couple on the benefits of marriage, and why it is not the same as “living together.” they provide a wealth of statistics, sound reasoning to explain them, and detailed readings into 100s of published studies to make sense of the impact of marriage. However, while the authors avoid taking a stand in this book on the impact of marriage for gay and lesbian couples, and only acknowledge that it is a point for controversy, Maggie Gallagher has been quite outspoken against it. Prejudice aside, the work is still quite good and a basic reference in this area. They argue that the promise of permanency is what makes marriage more of a beneficial relationship than simply living together. This allows each to direct their resources to different areas, to specialize in some areas while the other specializes in other areas. Instead of having to be proficient in all areas, they can divide up their responsibilities and accomplish more by working together. What’s So Great About Marriage? Waite and Gallagher offer several answers: . . . . . Better Sex: About 40% of married people have sex twice a week, compared to 20-25% of single and cohabitating men and women. Over 40% of married women said their sex life was emotionally and physically satisfying, compared to about 30% of single women. For men, it’s 50% of married men are physically and emotionally contents versus 38% of cohabitating men. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: FACT: Single guys have better sex lives than married guys.? YahooAnswers,
Conventional wisdom says married men get nothing but slumber in their bedrooms, while single studs are "closing the deal." But it is actually those with the vows that are getting it on. A 2006 study by the National Opinion Research Center found that husbands get lucky between 28 percent to more than 400 percent more often than bachelors, depending on their age. And it is not a ho-hum roll in the matrimonial bed; not only are married women more likely to be orgasmic, married men also give and get more oral sex. Kind of gives a new twist to the phrase, "I do.". . .

'Bachelor' Asks For A Modern Marriage But Chases An Old-Fashioned One

'Bachelor' Asks For A Modern Marriage But Chases An Old-Fashioned One NPR, by Sarah Ventre, March 14, 2011
Fact: The Bachelor is a guilty pleasure for plenty of intelligent, forward-thinking people. And as hard as it is for those people to look away from the obvious and inherent issues of sexism and old-fashioned gender roles that dominate the show, it's even harder this time around. As the season wraps up tonight with Brad Womack making his final choice between single mom Emily and jittery Chantal, it's become clear that Brad's love of independent women doesn't keep him from sending them out the door. Brad came into this season a self-proclaimed "changed man." He's been on the show once before, but he ultimately decided not to propose to either of the final two women. He was publicly pilloried for this, naturally, by people who cannot understand how one could be presented with 25 women chosen by television producers and not choose to marry any of them. Since he's had plenty of time to ruminate on his decision (which he now obediently chalks up to commitment-phobia rather than an attack of good sense), he now feels confident that he knows what he wants out of life. (SPOILER ALERT — It still involves choosing a wife on television.) Brad has constantly said that he is looking for a strong, independent woman who complements him well, and who would make a good wife and mother. He claims to want someone who gives priority to family, and has repeatedly stated his admiration for women who are career-oriented with strong personalities. And yet, his last few choices for elimination have made it painfully clear that this is not, in fact, what he's looking for at all. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Brad Womack & Emily Maynard: We're Going to Make It People magazine, By Monica Rizzo, March 16, 2011
Millions tuned in to see The Bachelor's Brad Womack get down on one knee and propose to single mom Emily Maynard in a South African vineyard. But are the couple still engaged? "I'm so happily engaged. I've never been happier, I promise you that," Womack, 38, tells PEOPLE in this week's cover story. The pair confess that the months following their storied TV courtship have been difficult. When The Bachelor began airing in January, Maynard, 25, saw that her fiancé was being, well, a bachelor on the show by wooing other women on their respective dates. Despite Womack's assurances that she was the woman of his dreams, Maynard struggled as she watched the season play out. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Brad Womack: It's Been 'A Bumpy Couple of Months' People magazine, By Monica Rizzo and Marla Lehner, March 15, 2011
Love isn't easy – especially on reality TV. Brad Womack proposed to single mom Emily Maynard on Monday's season finale of The Bachelor, but the couple admit it's been a rough road. . . .Rumors have circulated that the pair have already broken up, but they remain engaged. . . . The Bachelor host, Chris Harrison, who has been in touch with the couple recently echoed the sentiment during an interview on Ryan Seacrest's radio show Tuesday. "It's been extremely hard," he said. "They've had some knock down, drag out fights.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Allure of Men Who Don't Want to Be Caught New York Times, BY Pamela Paul, March 10, 2011
THE GIST He loves me, maybe? Women are most attracted to men when they’re unsure just how much the men like them.
THE SOURCE “ ‘He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not...’: Uncertainty Can Increase Romantic Attraction” by Erin R. Whitchurch, Timothy D. Wilson and Daniel T. Gilbert.
FOR those single women suffering angst over “Will he call or won’t he?” it seems counterintuitive to think that such uncertainty could possibly hold any appeal. And to think that not knowing actually makes women like men more: Are we really such masochists? Pretty much, says a new study by Erin R. Whitchurch and Timothy D. Wilson of the University of Virginia and Daniel T. Gilbert of Harvard. According to their paper, published in Psychological Science and based on an experiment conducted with undergraduates, women find men who may like them more appealing than men who definitely do. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: All Your “Bachelor” Spoilers for Brad’s Season – 12/8/10 RealitySteve.com, December 08, 2011
Here are all your spoilers for Brad Womack’s second go-round as the “Bachelor”. I’m glad my sources were able to come through for me again, so, anyone thinking because I got Ali and Roberto’s ending wrong that I was somehow losing my sources, uhhhhh, not quite. Last season, I spoiled everything two weeks before the premiere. This season, it’s four weeks before. Guess my sources are getting better. Look, at the end of Ali’s season, I honestly was thinking by the time this season rolled around, once I had the final 4-3-2-1, I was just gonna spoil the ending and leave it at that. But the minute the powers-that-be in the “Bachelor” franchise had me removed from that “E!” special back in July, and still to this day I’ve never been given an explanation from anyone as to why, it was on like donkey kong. So, along with writing my weekly column when the show starts, I’ll just continue to piss on their franchise by giving away spoilers. You’re welcome. Without further adieu, here it is:. . .

Are Christians Obsessed With Gays and Abortion? The numbers don't lie. American Christians pour their resources into helping 'the least of these.'

Are Christians Obsessed With Gays and Abortion?
The numbers don't lie. American Christians pour their resources into helping "the least of these." Pateos.com, By David French, March 14, 2011
I'm a card-carrying member of the professional religious right. No, that's an understatement. To simply call me a "member" would profoundly understate my antagonistic role in the culture wars. Fans of comic book movies (and all of you should be) may remember a scene in X2, the sequel to X-Men, when Pyro tells a frightened police officer: "You know all those dangerous mutants you hear about in the news? Well I'm the worst one!" and then proceeds to wreak fiery havoc on an entire neighborhood. I am that havoc-wreaking mutant (in a peaceful sense). I sue governments and individuals who deprive Christians of their constitutional rights. I'm the guy you will see on the "O'Reilly Factor" or hear on conservative talk radio decrying the abortion lobby, opposing jihadist Islam, or fighting to end the leftist ideological monoculture on campus. To the secular and religious left, I am the equivalent of a Sith Lord (or at least a particularly nasty Padawan). In other words, I make my living fighting the culture war. I travel the country speaking to thousands of Christians about our cultural and political battles, I raise a significant amount of money to fight those battles, and I'm constantly interacting with the media—both religious and secular. In other words, I have my finger on the pulse of that part of Christian America that is particularly concerned with threats to life, to marriage, and to religious liberty. And that's why I chuckle when I hear the common critique of the religious and secular left: "Evangelicals are obsessed with gays and abortion." The criticism is so common that it's often internalized and adopted by the church itself. Similar to our reaction to another leftist refrain ("Christians care about children until they're born"), we act as if the critique is legitimate—as if it's the result of some kind of empirical, good-faith analysis of Christian action in America. But it's not. It is, pure and simple, a talking point. And it's false. Demonstrably false. . . . . .So given these realities, what is our real "obsession"? Historically, monetarily, and with our time and lives today, it is serving our fellow man. We fight the culture war, but largely as a defensive struggle—fighting against changes instigated by the Left, like legalized abortion, the redefinition of marriage, and attacks on the basic free speech rights of Christian parents and students. Do critics expect no opposition to such cultural change? Do they believe any such opposition is inherently illegitimate? Imagine a world in which mainstream coverage of Christian America reflected our actual expenditures and actual efforts. You'd barely hear from people like me, and perhaps you wouldn't even have to. We'd have the entirely justified reputation as America's most generous community. Yet instead we're labeled as "homophobic" or "anti-choice," and that label dogs us in all aspects of our public life. But that's because of other people's obsessions. Not ours. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay Marriage Bill Dies in Deep Blue Maryland: Reality check. The Weekly Standard, By John McCormack, March 14, 2011
This line is as bizarre as it is priceless: "A loose coalition of Democratic legislators failed to cobble together enough votes to overcome opposition from Republicans and religious groups." It makes it seem as though the fight was a partisan battle that simply pitted Democrats who favored gay marriage against Republicans who opposed it. In reality, the only reason the bill died is because at least one-third of the Democratic caucus in a deep blue state opposed it. That's right: there are 43 Republicans in the Maryland House of Delegates and 98 Democrats. (That's an interesting little fact not included in the AP's report.) The events in Maryland underscore how, despite the committment from the left to gay marriage, the issue still deeply divides the Democratic party. Maryland follows in the footsteps of New York, New Jersey, Maine, and California to become the latest blue state to oppose gay marriage. Polling shows younger voters favor gay marriage more and more, yet same-sex marriage has only been implemented through the legislative process in just two states: Vermont and New Hampshire (and at least a majority of the latter's new legislature now opposes gay marriage). If social issues don't really matter like they used to, shouldn't some more strongly Democratic legislatures be able to legalize same-sex marriage?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Maryland House turns back bill that would legalize same-sex marriage Washington Post, By John Wagner, March 11, 2011
The Maryland House of Delegates effectively killed a measure Friday that would legalize same-sex marriage in the state — halting momentum in a year in which proponents thought they would prevail. Just two weeks ago, it appeared the bill could sail to the governor’s desk. Supporters were optimistic after the legislation cleared the Senate, generally considered the state’s more conservative chamber. Objections to the speed at which the measure was being considered and opposition from the constituents of some wavering members led the House on Friday to return the bill to committee, a tacit acknowledgment that it lacked enough votes to pass during this year’s session. . .

Facebook cited in 20% of U.S. divorces CBC News, March 04, 2011
Facebook use has been cited in 1 of 5 U.S. divorce cases, according to a recent survey among American marriage lawyers. Moreover, more than 80 per cent of divorce lawyers reported a rising number of people using social media for extramarital affairs, according to the survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. "We're coming across it more and more," psychologist Steven Kimmons of Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood, Ill., said in a news release on the university's website. "One spouse connects online with someone they knew from high school. The person is emotionally available and they start communicating through Facebook. Within a short amount of time, the sharing of personal stories can lead to a deepened sense of intimacy, which in turn can point the couple in the direction of physical contact." Typically, people enter into online relationships with the most innocent of intentions, said Kimmons, whose practice includes couples therapy and marriage counselling. "I don't think these people typically set out to have affairs. A lot of it is curiosity. They see an old friend or someone they dated and decide to say 'hello' and catch up on where that person is and how they're doing." The key is the amount of contact two people in any type of relationship, including online, have with each other, Kimmons said. The more the contact, the greater the likelihood they will begin developing feelings for each other. "If I'm talking to one person five times a week versus another person one time a week, you don't need a fancy psychological study to conclude that I'm more likely to fall in love with the person I talk to five times a week because I have more contact with that person," Kimmons said. There are safeguards to prevent online contacts from ruining their relationships, he said. One is not to engage in intimate conversation with someone who is not your spouse. Another is for couples to share passwords with each other and place the computer in a common area in the house or apartment. "It's not that people are going to read what you're writing, but they'll see what you're doing," he said. "Then it's not a secret.". .

RELATED ARTICLE: Why you should snoop on your spouse online: Sex therapist Ian Kerner says it might be painful, but it’s better to know
MSNBC.com- Today, By Ian Kerner, Ph.D., September 17, 2009
After writing a column last month on the subject of Facebook and why you should unfriend your spouse, I received no shortage of e-mails — many of which were from people who vehemently disagreed with me — and so I thought it would be worthwhile to address the subject of Internet infidelity in greater depth. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Our Top Dozen Do’s and Don’ts for Facebooking Couples: What Every Facebooking Couple Should DO to Protect Their Marriage! Facebook and Your Marriage, By K. Jason and Kelli Krafsky
(DO) Create boundaries to protect yourself, your spouse and your marriage. Spend some time talking about what’s in bounds and out of bounds and as a couple, agree on what boundaries you’ll set as a couple. A little bit of agreement on what is and is not acceptable can save a lot of pain and disagreement later.

(DO) Set your relationship status to Married and keep it that way. Facebook’s version of the wedding band, your Relationship Status makes all the difference in how people interact with you. If you do happen to go through some marital troubles, don’t change to “it’s complicated” because you’ll only make things even more complicated…in a bad way.

(DO) Update each other on your FB Friends and Friend Requests. Friends range from past childhood pals and classmates to current connections from work, church and elsewhere. Many of your FB Friends have a story attached to them. Don’t assume your spouse knows how you know them; spend time sharing their story with your mate. . .

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?. . .

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. . .

RELATED RESOURCE: MarriageJunkie
Ramblings of a Marriage Junkie is the regular fix for those committed to reviving marriage & reducing divorce!

RELATED RESOURCE: Full Marriage experience

Virginity's Making a Comeback, Report Says

Virginity's Making a Comeback, Report Says MSNBC, By Diane Mapes, March 03, 2011
Curious what people are up to when it comes to sex? For some of us, not much, according to a new report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics which painstakingly details the country's sexual habits. Based on in-person interviews with approximately 13,500 men and women between the ages of 15 to 44, the report describes who's having sex with whom, what kind of sex they're having, and who has yet to become sexually involved. Yes, virginity is apparently making a comeback. Researchers found that between 2006 and 2008, the percentage of 15- to 24-year-old men who had never had any form of sexual contact with another person was 27 percent (up from 22 percent in 2002) while the percentage of 15- to 24-year-old females who had never had any sex whatsoever was 29 percent (up 7 percent points from 22 percent in 2002). Anjani Chandra, a health scientist at the NCHS and lead author of the study, says 15- to 19-year-olds made up the lion's share of this category, a finding that seems to counter other reports regarding teen sex trends. "I think a lot of people misconstrue this as meaning they've never had vaginal sex," she says. "But this is no sexual contact of any kind. They didn't have oral sex or anal sex. They didn't have anything." Chandra says she couldn't speculate as to why there appears to be more virgins in our midst, but said it could be due to sex education, messages about abstinence or that it might hinge on the truthfulness of the respondents. "It's what they're telling us and we have to take it on faith," she says. Women more likely to have same-sex experiences: Further data collected from the survey, which asked men and women about their sexual behavior, sexual attraction and sexual identity, found that among adults aged 25 to 44, about 98 percent of females and 97 percent of males have had vaginal intercourse; 89 percent of females and 90 percent of men have had oral sex with an opposite-sex partner; and 36 percent of females and 44 percent of males have had anal sex with an opposite-sex partner. The survey also found that women aged 15 to 44 were more than twice as likely to have had a same-sex experience as men of the same age (in 2006-2008, approximately 12.5 percent of women reported a same-sex experience compared with 5.2 percent of men). Other data showed that women with four or more sexual partners in their lifetime were more likely to have had a female sexual partner, compared with women who had had no male partners or women who've had only one male partner. While the percentage of men and women who reported they were either straight or homosexual was similar, the percentage of women who reported they were bisexual was more than three times as high as men. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Monogamy Matters NY Times, By Ross Douthat, March 06, 2011
Social conservatives can seem like the perennial pessimists of American politics — more comfortable with resignation than with hope, perpetually touting evidence of family breakdown, social disintegration and civilizational decline. But even doomsayers get the occasional dose of good news. And so it was last week, when a study from the Centers for Disease Control revealed that American teens and 20-somethings are waiting longer to have sex. In 2002, the study reported, 22 percent of Americans aged 15 to 24 were still virgins. By 2008, that number was up to 28 percent. Other research suggests that this trend may date back decades, and that young Americans have been growing more sexually conservative since the late 1980s. Why is this good news? Not, it should be emphasized, because it suggests the dawn of some sort of traditionalist utopia, where the only sex is married sex. No such society has ever existed, or ever could: not in 1950s America (where, as the feminist writer Dana Goldstein noted last week, the vast majority of men and women had sex before they married), and not even in Mormon Utah (where Brigham Young University recently suspended a star basketball player for sleeping with his girlfriend). But there are different kinds of premarital sex. There’s sex that’s actually pre-marital, in the sense that it involves monogamous couples on a path that might lead to matrimony one day. Then there’s sex that’s casual and promiscuous, or just premature and ill considered. This distinction is crucial to understanding what’s changed in American life since the sexual revolution. Yes, in 1950 as in 2011, most people didn’t go virgins to their marriage beds. But earlier generations of Americans waited longer to have sex, took fewer sexual partners across their lifetimes, and were more likely to see sleeping together as a way station on the road to wedlock. And they may have been happier for it. That’s the conclusion suggested by two sociologists, Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker, in their recent book, “Premarital Sex in America.” Their research, which looks at sexual behavior among contemporary young adults, finds a significant correlation between sexual restraint and emotional well-being, between monogamy and happiness — and between promiscuity and depression. This correlation is much stronger for women than for men. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Premarital Sex in America: Dispelling the sexual myths of America’s emerging adults The Public Discourse, By Matthew Schmitz, March 4, 2011
Media reports on the sex lives of America’s young people often tend more to exaggeration than explanation. Depending on the perspective of the writer, college campuses are portrayed as either sexual Somalias or oases of free love. In their new book Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying, sociologists Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker assemble a vast body of research to argue that while today’s sexual culture may be more permissive, it is anything but lawless. Rather, today’s “emerging adults” embrace sex and delay marriage in response to a set of powerful social scripts as comprehensive, and often constraining, as the ideals of courtship that guided their grandparents. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Meet Market: Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying The New Republic, By Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker, March 01, 2011
In a college campus study in 1989, physically attractive people approached opposite-sex students and asked, “Would you go to bed with me tonight?” Not a single woman said yes, but seventy-five percent of men accepted the invitation. This gender disparity forms the basis of the theory of “sexual economics,” which starts from the familiar premise that most guys want sex to be as easy as possible. Women generally want something else to be provided first, often along the lines of commitment, affection, security, love (perhaps you have heard this list before). These things constitute the “price” of sex for men. The going rate is governed by the norms in a given milieu, in much the same way that housing costs are determined by a local market. Since everyone is keen to (inconspicuously) compare notes, a web of interconnection takes shape so that each transaction has some effect on the marketplace as a whole. Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker, sociologists both, rely heavily on this theory to explain the sex lives of young adults today. The rise of “the hookup culture” at colleges, they argue, can be attributed in part to the increasing scarcity of men on campus—an oversupply of sellers works to a buyer’s advantage. Sexual economics also suggests that many women look unkindly on promiscuous members of the same sex out of the same impulse that makes retailers angry when Wal-Mart comes to town: they are being undersold, and now they have to give discounts or lose customers. . . . . Reds who look back on sex they are sorry they had, the authors observe, often describe it as an aberration that does not alter their fundamental outlook; the broken rule remains in effect. But if you are a blue who does not believe in “moral rules” about sex, then a cringe-inducing sexual encounter leaves you to wonder why you are cringing. If God is dead and premarital abstinence is an antiquated idea, the source of such regret is mysterious and therefore tough to address. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Sex Is Cheap: Why young men have the upper hand in bed, even when they're failing in life Slate, By Mark Regnerus, February 25, 2011
We keep hearing that young men are failing to adapt to contemporary life. Their financial prospects are impaired—earnings for 25- to 34-year-old men have fallen by 20 percent since 1971. Their college enrollment numbers trail women's: Only 43 percent of American undergraduates today are men. Last year, women made up the majority of the work force for the first time. And yet there is one area in which men are very much in charge: premarital heterosexual relationships. When attractive women will still bed you, life for young men, even those who are floundering, just isn't so bad. This isn't to say that all men direct the course of their relationships. Plenty don't. But what many young men wish for—access to sex without too many complications or commitments—carries the day. If women were more fully in charge of how their relationships transpired, we'd be seeing, on average, more impressive wooing efforts, longer relationships, fewer premarital sexual partners, shorter cohabitations, and more marrying going on. . .

Obama is pandering to gay rights crowd USA TODAY, March 02, 2011
President Obama has once again proved that he is just a typical politician, with his pandering to the gay rights crowd. His administration announced last week that it will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and woman. It is the duty of the president and the Department of Justice to defend federal laws whether or not they support them ("Anti-gay marriage law dealt a setback," News, Thursday). If Obama does not like, or agree with, the law, then he should try to have it amended or repealed. Instead, he takes it upon himself to declare that he can't support it any longer. Our presidents are not kings who decree which laws they will follow. This is nothing but blatant pandering to a segment of his base, just as he prepares for his re-election bid. Obama needs to ask himself, what will he do if a Republican wins in 2012 and decides he or she will not support or defend "ObamaCare"? This sets a bad precedent for future presidents. Dennis Vest; Ripley, Tenn.

Conservatives will speak out: Commentary writer Tom Krattenmaker says, "We've reached a point on gay rights that is similar to that moment in a football game ... when you know it's over even though it's not over," meaning conservatives have lost, and that Christians should accept same-sex "marriage" and stop saying homosexual conduct is sinful ("On gay rights, keep fighting or adapt?," On Religion, The Forum, Feb. 14). Really? The biggest trophy that gay activists now seek is the redefinition of marriage. Currently, only five states allow same-sex marriages. How can a team leading 45-5 be losing? Where the people have decided, 31 out of 31 states have upheld marriage as a male-female union. A 31-game winning streak rarely signals a losing season. Krattenmaker urges adherence to "a foundational Christian principle: Treat others as you wish to be treated." I agree. If family members saw that I engaged in behavior that put my physical health at risk, I would expect them to warn me. If my closest friends believed I was in a harmful relationship, I would want them to help me escape it. If I were falling into sin, I would want other Christians to call me to repentance. We will continue to speak the truth (even hard truths) with love (sometimes tough love). But we will not be silent. Tony Perkins, president - Family Research Council. . .

RELATED ACTION: URGENT ACTION NEEDED!!! Obama refuses to defend DOMA – Time for Congress to step up!
It’s not too late. Attorney General Holder admitted that Congress now has the ability to step in and defend DOMA.

RELATED ARTICLE: It's Time To Fight - Alliance Defense Fund speaks out on USDOJ refusal to protect law. The Chuck Colson Center,
By Alan Sears, President ADF, February 24, 2011
It’s time to fight… We wanted to update you on the litigation involving the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA – which essentially is the law that defines marriage to include one man and one woman for federal government purposes, and allows each state to define marriage without imposing any re-definition on another), and especially the impact of Eric Holder’s unprecedented announcement yesterday that the Department of Justice will no longer defend the law (and in fact actively oppose it). As you know, the Attorney General’s announcement only confirms what has been a reality since the Administration began “defending” DOMA in the seven jurisdictions in which it is currently being challenged. It’s no exaggeration to say that the President’s team has been throwing the cases. The Administration has expressly waived advancing winning legal arguments and intentionally failed to cite binding legal precedent in each case. In fact, the Administration has “expressly disavowed” the winning legal arguments that the Bush Administration had made in previous cases. In short, it is clear that the President and his lawyers have been actively sabotaging DOMA in court. That is why we have put so many resources into DOMA’s defense. . . . .. It’s an outrage that the President and his Attorney General would not only fail to defend the law, but actively side with those who seek to redefine marriage and label the majority of Americans as the equivalent of bigots motivated by “animus” for believing marriage is the union of one man and one woman. (After all, not only have 30 state marriage amendments been passed by usually overwhelming margins across the country, DOMA was passed in the House of Representatives by a bi-partisan vote of 342-67, and in the Senate 85-14 and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton). But this Administration has made no secret about what it thinks when religious liberty collides with those who seek to redefine marriage. As the President’s pick as head of the EEOC said, “…we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people,” “it’s a zero-sum game.”. . .

RELATED EDITORIAL: Yes, we did. But we're not ready to throw confetti. Editorial: The Real Proposal magazine, Originally Published November 08, 2008
The people of America have spoken. And who among us could not feel pride at this transcendental moment in American history when we, the people, elected the first African-American president of the United States of America? To not acknowledge and savor this historic moment in a nation that once considered blacks property would be churlish. Indeed, Mr. Obama is to be sincerely congratulated. It is a historic accomplishment for him to become the first African-American to be elected to the highest office in the land, and we can understand the nation's pride and jubilance in this achievement. Many of us desired to vote for Mr. Obama not just because of its historical significance but because, to be sure, on several other levels he is qualified for the office of the presidency. But we couldn’t. And, instead, many of us find ourselves in a grieving process of sorts, not because of Mr. Obama's victory but because his advent represents a potential threat to what many in this country revere as core foundational principles that have been the cornerstones upon which our great nation has been built, and upon which we have thrived to become, certainly, one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations on this planet. To be sure, the institution of marriage as it has been defined for millennia as the union of one man and one woman is no longer secure with Mr. Obama at the helm. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Same-Sex Marriage — Challenges & Responses Townhall.com, By Gregory Koukl, February 11, 2007
A few years ago, the L.A. Times quoted a homosexual mayor in New York State dismissing the cultural significance of same-sex marriage. “I’ve never heard of anyone’s life being destroyed because someone got married,” he sniffed. Reading this assertion charitably (he couldn’t have meant no one’s life was ever destroyed by marriage), I take it this government official was mystified by the idea that anything bad could come of men marrying men or women marrying women. I immediately knew I was listening to a man who didn’t understand a simple truth: Ideas have consequences. In the case of same-sex marriage, the consequences will be massive. . . . . Unfortunately, addressing this issue requires refined distinctions and careful thinking that are easily overwhelmed by sound-byte rhetoric and broad, indiscriminate appeals to “rights.” What follows is a point-by-point reply to those who are demanding this revision of civilization. . .

Charlie Sheen's bizarre family portrait: Actor cuddles up with twin sons and BOTH his girlfriends

Charlie Sheen's bizarre family portrait: Actor cuddles up with twin sons and BOTH his girlfriends The Daily Mail- UK, By Lizzie Smith, March 01, 2011

    * Sheen plans to sue CBS for cancelling this series of Two And A Half Men
    * Publicist quits as Sheen tells him: 'You can't quit, you're fired'
    * Sheen undergoes urine and blood tests in bid to prove he is drug free

It's hard to imagine a more bizarre domestic set-up. Charlie Sheen posed for a family portrait with his twin sons and his two 'girlfriends' at his Beverly Hills home in California yesterday. Cuddled up with 'nanny' Natalie Kenly and porn star Bree lson and his children on the sofa, the actor looked perfectly happy, despite the furore surrounding the cancellation of this series of his hit show Two And A Half Men. Sheen, 45, had invited the media into his home to capture the happy moment, before making a show of giving blood and urine samples to a doctor for drug tests. Sheen also gave rambling interviews, in which he talked about his philosophy as a father-of-five. 'Lead by example and teach your kids right and wrong,' he told TMZ. 'If my right and wrong is a little bit different than anybody else, then my kids will be different too.' Questioned about how he would react if, in the future, his children asked about news reports of his troubles, Sheen responded: 'I hope they do.' And he suggested they might say: 'Dad, fill in the blanks. This stuff's gnarly.' Sheen also referred to his unusual domestic set-up, calling Olson and Kenly 'goddesses'. 'Everybody here is parenting the kids,' he said, noting that the twins' mother Brooke Mueller was not present. Sheen said he planned to purchase houses in his upmarket gated community for all his ex-wives and his children. 'I want all of my children to live behind these gates in this beautiful community and grow up together,' he said. Speaking on Piers Morgan's CNN show last night he also claimed he had never had drugs in the house while his children were present. 'No, that's just common courtesy,' he said. 'Those things just don't go together.'. .

RELATED ARTICLE: Charlie Sheen Surrenders His Children to Police People magazine, By Ken Lee, March 02, 2011
Charlie Sheen got a reality check Tuesday evening when police officers visited his Beverly Hills mansion to take his twin boys out of his custody, a source confirms to PEOPLE. The move comes after his ex Brooke Mueller won a restraining order in Los Angeles Superior Court earlier in the day based on recent allegations that Sheen was physically and verbally abusive to Mueller, according to her legal declaration. . . . ."I am very concerned that [Sheen] is currently insane," Mueller stated in the document. "I am in great fear that he will find me and attack me and I am in great fear for the children's safety while in his care." . . .A hearing is set for March 22 to determine whether to extend the restraining order. Both Sheen and Mueller are required to attend. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Charlie Sheen Bipolar? Mental Health Experts Say 'His Head Is as Large as the Moon' PopEater, By Catherine Donaldson-Evans, March 02, 2011
It's the week that Charlie Sheen came unhinged. Since production on his uber-popular sitcom 'Two and a Half Men' was derailed over fallout from his latest bender, the star has been on a frenzied media blitz -- apparently to promote the drug he says he's on, "Charlie Sheen." The feverish interviews have teetered between neurotic and delusional. His self-described "grandiose" behavior has led some to speculate that the 45-year-old actor may have bipolar disorder. "He looks bipolar -- he's in a particularly manic phase," celebrity psychology expert Stuart Fischoff tells PopEater. "His reality testing has been severely impaired, marked by delusions of grandeur. His head now is as large as the moon." Bipolar disorder is characterized by dramatic, often violent mood swings between extreme euphoria and deep depression, though there are milder versions of the condition. In the manic state, a person can become abnormally energized; suffer from chronic insomnia; embark on wild spending, sex or drug sprees; and experience delusions of grandeur or paranoia. Even Sheen himself admits that his mind works differently than other people's -- though he sounds like he thinks he's superhuman. . .

RELATED ARTICLES & VIDEO: Sheen demands 50 percent raise for ‘Two and a Half Men’: Star says he should get $3M per episode: ‘Look what they put me through’ MSNBC.com-TODAY, By Seamus McGraw, February 28, 2011
In an interview with NBC’s Jeff Rossen that aired on TODAY Monday morning, Charlie Sheen, the combative star of long-running hit “Two and a Half Men,” demanded a raise from approximately $2 million to $3 million per episode to come back to the set of the show. CBS and Warner Bros. Television have currently halted production for the show’s ninth season in the wake of Sheen’s very public rants against “Men” creator Chuck Lorre and Alcoholics Anonymous. . .