|
|
"MARRIAGE" In The News
(May 2008) |
 |
The news articles and features presented below are simply an indication of how topical, controversial, and all-encompassing the issues surrounding marriage are throughout our society—and the world—today. Some of the views and opinions expressed, and their respective web sites, do NOT reflect the views or opinions of The Real Proposal™ magazine. Many are highlighted largely to reiterate that the alarming statistical trends on the chaotic state of "Marriage" and "Family"—outlined in "A Mere Glimpse"—will continue unabated without a fundamental grasp and purposeful dissemination of TRUTH on the issues.
|
|
|
 |
- Obama's Irreconcilable Marriage Vows Townhall.com, By Janet M. LaRue, May 30 2008
“Marriage, it doesn’t mean anything.” That’s what Barack Obama told wife Michelle while they were dating, according to her recent interview in The New Yorker. But he’s telling voters that marriage is “something sanctified between a man and a woman,” and that he opposes same-sex “marriage.” Sanctified or meaningless, which is it? On the one hand, Obama says marriage should be between a man and a woman. . . . On the other hand, Obama wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which protects one man-one woman marriage. . . In his Presidential campaign Obama has reaffirmed his vow to abandon DOMA, and is making it an election issue against Hillary Clinton. According to World Net Daily, “Obama has issued an open letter to the ‘LGBT community’ assuring them he believes in ‘full equality’ for homosexuals and stating that, unlike Sen. Hillary Clinton, he advocates the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.” . . . . . Obama wants to repeal both sections of DOMA. He doesn’t want federal law to limit marriage to a man and a woman, and he doesn’t want federal law to protect the right of the states to decide for themselves. Is this the position of a man who believes marriage is “sanctified?” Lest there be yet another “out of context” accusation from Obamaland, here’s Michelle’s full statement to The New Yorker about their marriage “debate”: Barack had a more bohemian attitude toward romance. “We would have this running debate throughout our relationship about whether marriage was necessary,” Obama told me. “It was sort of a bone of contention, because I was, like, ‘Look, buddy, I’m not one of these who’ll just hang out forever.’ . . .
|
|
|
RELATED ARTICLE: Married to Redefining Marriage: Obama is a soft-toned cultural warrior, wrapped in the blandishments of change and bipartisanship National Review, May 23, 2008
In a carefully hedged statement, Obama said he “respects the decision of the California Supreme Court.” He respects a decision that disregarded the will of the people in California, as expressed by a 2000 referendum that defined marriage as between a man and a woman; he respects a decision that excoriated his own position of support for civil unions and (theoretical) opposition to same-sex marriage; he respects a decision that rejects the sort of political compromise he extols. It’s like a professed abolitionist in 1857 saying he “respects” the Dred Scott ruling. . . .
RELATED ARTICLE: The Other Obama: Michelle Obama and the politics of candor The New Yorker, By Lauren Collins, March 10, 2008
RELATED ARTICLE: Obama lobbies 'gays' for edge over Hillary. Letter to 'LGBT community' affirms he'd dump Defense of Marriage Act World Net Daily, March 7, 2008
It's not easy to find on his campaign website, but Sen. Barack Obama has issued an open letter to the "LGBT community" assuring them he believes in "full equality" for homosexuals and stating that, unlike Sen. Hillary Clinton, he advocates the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. In the letter, published on a campaign blog, Obama says he's "running for president to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters.". . .
RELATED BLOG: OBAMA '08 Community Blogs: Equality is a Moral Imperative Posted By Alex Okrent, February 28, 2008
|
 |
- California Sets June Date for Same-Sex Marriage Licenses New York Times, By Carolyn Marshall, May 29, 2008
— Barring unexpected legal action, same-sex couples throughout California will be able to obtain marriage licenses from county clerks beginning June 17, state officials said Wednesday. In an e-mail message to the 58 county clerks, the Office of Vital Records offered guidance on amending existing marriage forms. Licenses will be changed to identify couples as Party A and Party B rather than bride and groom, a spokeswoman for the Public Health Department said. The spokeswoman, Suanne Buggy, said the change would set in motion procedures to comply with the 4-to-3 decision by the State Supreme Court on May 15 to overturn a ban on same-sex marriages. The ruling takes effect June 14. . . . After the Supreme Court’s decision, opponents promised to pursue a ballot measure seeking a constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage. . . .
RELATED ARTICLE: New York to recognize gay marriages CNN.com, From Cheryl Robinson, May 29, 2008
RELATED ARTICLE: A Poll Finds Californians Still Oppose Gay Marriage New York Times, By Jesse McKinley, May 24, 2008
RELATED ARTICLE: Americans Still Reject Same-Sex Marriage Angus Reid Global Monitor, October 31, 2007
|
- John McCain’s Disappointing Defense of Marriage Townhall.com, By Paul Edwards, May 28, 2008
Just how low do presidential candidates have to go to win votes? . . . . Rather than defend marriage on moral principle as the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation, the establishment of the home as the basis of a civil society, and as a union entered “before God” in accordance with His laws, McCain offered a compromise, emphasizing that, “people should be able to enter into legal agreements” for the purpose of sharing insurance and decision-making. . . . . Ellen denies these fundamental principles of marriage, arguing for same-sex marriage on the basis of erotic love, grounding her argument in the mistaken idea that marriage is a civil right denied to gays and lesbians in the same way this country denied the freedom of slaves and the suffrage of blacks and women. . . .
RELATED ARTICLE: DeGeneres needles McCain on gay marriage AP- Google, May 22, 2008
RELATED ARTICLE: McCain's Marital Woes Townhall.com, By Kevin McCullough May 18, 2008
He like so many soft-spined Republicans grew weak-kneed and fearful that if they were to do the right thing, they might become the next Rick Santorum, target number one, and possibly lose their precious tenure in the United States Senate. On the Constitutional Amendment to Protect Marriage however his cowardice was particularly hurtful given the state of where the issue was at that time and how it was working it's way through court systems. . .
|
 |
|
|
 RELATED ARTICLE: School’s in (especially for John McCain): A 'conservative' defense of Marriage The Real Proposal magazine, May 28, 2008
RELATED ARTICLE: Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad Townhall.com, By Frank Turek, Monday, May 26, 2008
Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt? Children and the rest of society. That’s the conclusion of David Blankenhorn, who is anything but an anti-gay “bigot.” He is a life-long, pro-gay, liberal democrat who disagrees with the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior. Despite this, Blankenhorn makes a powerful case against Same-Sex marriage in his book, The Future of Marriage. . . . The law is a great teacher, and if same-sex marriage advocates have their way, children will be expelled from the lesson on marriage. This leads Blankenhorn to assert, “One can believe in same-sex marriage. One can believe that every child deserves a mother and a father. One cannot believe both.” . . .
RELATED ARTICLE: California Court's Judicial Activism Threatens the Institution of Marriage Heritage Foundation, By Jennifer A. Marshall, Daniel P Moloney, Ph.D. and Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., May 20, 2008
What is happening now is no minor adjustment, nor a slight change in degree that just extends benefits or rights to a larger class, but a substantive change in the essence of the institution. The court's decision does not expand marriage; it alters its core meaning. To redefine marriage so that it is not intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers, and children formally severs the institution from its nature and purpose, remaking the institution into a mere contract between any two individuals. . .
RELATED RESOURCE: FamilyFacts.org:
The Heritage Foundation's familyfacts.org catalogs social science findings on the family, society and religion gleaned from peer-reviewed journals, books and government surveys. Serving policymakers, journalists, scholars and the general public, familyfacts.org makes social science research easily accessible to the non-specialist.
|
 |
- So why HAS Jodie Foster left her lesbian lover of 15 years? The Daily Mail- UK, By Alison Boshoff, May 27, 2008
As the news spread, the words "mid-life crisis" were heard being whispered over expensively whipped hot drinks and wholemeal muffins in fashionable coffee shops across Hollywood; it certainly left the entire lesbian community of Los Angeles thoroughly agog. For it was revealed that Jodie Foster, the charismatic and discreet movie star, had dramatically ditched Cydney Bernard - her lesbian lover of more than 15 years - for a flavour-of-the-month writer who could not be more different from her former girlfriend. Cynthia Mort, 33, who also goes by the name Cindy, is a highly intelligent, high-profile writer, who has made a name for herself by presenting America with the most explicit sex scenes ever screened as part of a sitcom. Bright, beautiful and with an infectious laugh, Cindy is a rising star of the pink mafia. She made her way in the business as a writer on the TV show Roseanne, where she worked for four years in the late 1990s, and later returned as the supervising producer. In the meantime she wrote Tell Me You Love Me, a show for HBO about couples in therapy, which garnered an enormous amount of publicity for its frank depiction of sex. She also served as the executive producer of the extremely successful show Will And Grace. . . . . . It must be said, also, that Jodie Foster is a thoroughly unusual woman. . . . She was raised in a household led by her ambitious mother, who was in a lesbian relationship with "Auntie" Jo. Her brother Buddy said that mum Brandy was a controlling woman . . . |
- Michael Lohan: Lindsay, Sam's Romance "Evident to Anyone With Half a Brain" US magazine, May 27, 2008
Michael Lohan isn't playing dumb when it comes to his daughter Lindsay's close relationship with deejay Samantha Ronson. Days after photos of them nuzzling necks in Cannes, France, surfaced, he tells Usmagazine.com in an e-mail their relationship "is evident to anyone with half a brain.". . . . His daughter, 21, "is a big girl, and she can make her own life choices. Then it is between her and God.". . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Herogram: Why Lindsay Lohan is a Gay Hero Gawker.com, June 12, 2008
Those photos of actress and pop singer Lindsay Lohan nuzzling her "close friend," DJ Samantha Ronson, have attracted surprisingly little attention. . .
|
 |
RELATED ARTICLE: Lindsay and Samantha's Friendship: 'It's a Trust Thing' People magazine, By Eunice Oh, June 05, 2008
RELATED ARTICLE: Lindsay & Samantha Get Cozy on Diddy's Yacht in Cannes People magazine, By Brian Orloff and David Caplan, May 23, 2008
RELATED ARTICLE: Lindsay Lohan: Perhaps, Momma doesn't always know best! The Real Proposal magazine Blog Spot, February 26, 2008
RELATED ARTICLE: Lindsay Lohan gets up close and personal on her hotel balcony with her THIRD man in 24 hours The Daily Mail- UK, January 1, 2008
RELATED ARTICLE: Easy Out: Ok, maybe not easy: But today's gay high schoolers are discovering that declaring their homosexuality- and doing it at younger and younger ages - brings little of the stigma and complications that earlier generations faced The Boston Globe, By Alison Lobron, November 11, 2007
RELATED ARTICLE: Lohan’s father takes blame for her troubles: Born-again ex-con wants family to get right with God MSNBC.com, October 25, 2007
RELATED ARTICLE: Friends With Benefits, and Stress Too New York Times, By Benedict Carey, October 2, 2007
RELATED ARTICLE: Toll of Divorce on Children, Lindsay Lohan The Christian Post, By Nathan Black, October 26 2007
RELATED ARTICLE: The Divorce Dilemma: Sociologist finds that even amicable divorces are likely to have negative effects on children University of Texas at Austin- By Michele Bryant, Mar 30, 2006
RELATED ARTICLE: Myths and Facts: Is homosexuality just another way to love, or is there danger ahead? Family.org
RELATED ARTICLE: Myths and Facts About Homosexuality, Part 2 Family.org
RELATED ARTICLE: Myths and Facts About Homosexuality, Part 3 Family.org
|
 |
- A Few Tremors in Oprahland New York Times, by Edward Wyatt, May 26, 2008
Oprah Winfrey is still the queen of all media, but her crown is beginning to look a bit tarnished. The average audience for “The Oprah Winfrey Show” has fallen nearly 7 percent this year, according to Nielsen Media Research — its third straight year of decline. “Oprah’s Big Give,” an ABC philanthropic reality show, beat every program on television except “American Idol” in its premiere week this winter, but steadily lost nearly one-third of its audience during the rest of its eight-week run, according to Nielsen. The circulation of O, The Oprah Magazine, has fallen by more than 10 percent in the last three years, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, and the magazine is now seeking a new editor in chief after the announced retirement of its longtime steward, Amy Gross. And while Ms. Winfrey still displays a Midas touch when it comes to the endorsement of books and products, some of her latest picks have attracted criticism from longtime fans as she has strayed into new-age spiritualism and, perhaps more dangerously, politics. . . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Is America losing interest in Oprah Winfrey? The Telegraph—UK, By Tom Leonard, June 2, 2008
RELATED ARTICLE: The 'Church' of Oprah The Good News in South Florida—BP News, By James A. Smith Sr., May 1, 2008
. . . ACIM [A Course in Miracles] is full of heresy, often wrapped in confusing, contradictory, nonsensical rhetoric. Sometimes, however, ACIM is blatantly clear in its false doctrine. And, since Jesus was supposedly the voice heard by Schucman, these assertions are especially outrageous. . . . Contrary to the Bible’s clear teaching that our guilt is the result of the fact that we truly are sinners, separated from God by our sin and rightfully under God’s judgment for our sin, ACIM teaches that we must realize “all guilt is solely an invention of your mind” and in this realization is salvation. . . .
RELATED ARTICLE: More than a 'gay gene' controlling the media: It's New Age heresy The Real Proposal magazine, April 12, 2008
RELATED ARTICLE: Women turn on ‘traitor’ Oprah Winfrey for backing Barack Obama: Oprah fans leave a barrage of negative messages on her official website in response to the talk show host's support of Obama The Sunday Times, By Tony Allen-Mills, January 20, 2008
|
 |
- How will the pregnant man's daughter thank him for this breathtakingly cynical - and profitable - foray into gay rights? The Daily Mail- UK, By Natalie Clarke, May 24, 2008
With an eight-month bump and a beard, he claims to be the world's first pregnant man. This week, the Mail paid Thomas Beatie a visit and discovered a tale of greed, gay rights zealotry and breathtaking cynicism. . . . . So Beatie is really a man/woman hybrid. Call him a freak, if you like. According to Thomas and Nancy, however, this is a story of two people in love who want to have a baby together. What could be more natural? When I called upon the happy couple this week, Nancy peered around the door and whispered: 'This is all about a beautiful, healthy baby girl.' But is that really so? In fact, this sinister experiment in male pregnancy looks very much like something else entirely - a devastatingly cynical act to promote gay rights. And making lots of money to boot. Beatie's little foray with his grass trimmer this week was a rare outing, on account of not wishing to jeopardise his lucrative contract with a picture agency by being photographed by paparazzi (which conveniently happened when he was trimming the lawn - but served to stoke up public interest in his story). The blinds are drawn across every window of the house to stop anyone getting any sneaky dirtier pictures. Nancy and Thomas declined to be interviewed because, Nancy told me: 'We've got a book coming out in September and we want to have stuff left to say so people buy the book.'. . . . Further evidence of this couple's obsession with their sexuality is the name of their screen-printing business - Define Normal. Well, in this case, a child will be born of a bearded man and his lesbian wife from donor sperm taken from goodness knows who, conceived in a DIY operation at home using a syringe that vets use on animals. Just how do you define that?. . . . |
RELATED ARTICLE: More than a 'gay gene' controlling the media: It's New Age heresy The Real Proposal magazine, April 12, 2008
RELATED ARTICLE: The "Gay Gene" Controlling The Media The Real Proposal magazine, April 1, 2008
RELATED ARTICLE: A “Gay Man” Trapped in a Woman’s Body and Other Nonsense Townhall.com, By Matt Barber, December 26, 2007
RELATED ARTICLE: Surgical Sex First Things.com, By Paul McHugh, November 2004
Mental health professionals like Paul McHugh at Johns Hopkins University believe that all the social, medical and psychiatric resources employed in turning men into women are “a misdirection of psychiatry.” and partly at the his urging, Johns Hopkins no longer performs sex reassignment surgery. He became convinced that to provide a surgical alteration to the body of these unfortunate people was to collaborate with a mental disorder rather than to treat it.
RELATED ARTICLE: Psychiatric Misadventures By Paul R. McHugh— Henry Phipps Professor and Director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
RELATED ARTICLE: Paul McHugh on transsexualism Transsexual Road Map
RELATED ARTICLE: Liberals Reveal 'Hidden Politics': The hidden politics of mental health associations are revealed in what some call "the most important book of the decade." Family.org, By Aaron Atwood
In 1973, another major mental health group, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of clinical disorders. Robert L. Spitzer of Columbia University, then a member of the Nomenclature Committee, argued for homosexuality's removal from the "Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)." In "Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The well-intentioned path to harm," William T. O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles explain that there is more to this removal than meets the eye. . . .
|
- What would the world be like without men? The Daily Mail- UK, By A.N. Wilson, May 24, 2008
Human hybrids by the million. Clones bred in the lab. And men exterminated. In the week MPs voted to change what it means to be human, A.N. WILSON imagines a truly terrifying future. . . . Fifty years in the future, will there still be a human race, or simply a laboratory-bred race of disease-free hybrids? Will there even be different sexes, since fathers have become redundant? Will there be sex, as evidently it is perfectly possible to continue the species (or mixed species) in the much more hygienic conditions of the test-tube and the laboratory? These are strange questions, but the faster science advances, and the more arrogant scientists become, the more necessary it is to examine this so-called progress. In light of the debates this week in Parliament and elsewhere about embryology, about the very nature of life itself, it seems all too possible that by the time today's children are middle-aged they will be living in a Brave New World more horrible than Aldous Huxley imagined in 1932. Picture a world without disease. That is presumably the beautiful thought motivating some research scientists as they peer through their microscopes at human-animal hybrids. . . . . That is the dream. And those of us who interfere with this, who question these scientists, are seen by them as a block to progress. Ask whether this or that highly dubious meddling with Nature is in the best interests of society, and you are told you are obstructing clear, potential benefits to human health. You are labelled a die-hard who wants children to die of cancer or the elderly to become demented. If you question the necessity of vivisection or stem cell research, you are made to feel as though you are responsible for the horrible conditions of the human lot. Of course, there is no doubting the amazing ingenuity of scientists and the extraordinary contribution they have made to our welfare, particularly in medicine, over the years. But their achievements - and their wholly understandable determination to push forward the boundaries of research - must be set in the context of history. . . . |
 |
RELATED ARTICLE: Do families need fathers? The Guardian- UK, By Aida Edemariam, May 20, 2008
The first civil partnerships in 2005 were met with such enthusiasm that it seemed Britain had become a new, more tolerant place, accepting of non-traditional families. But today that tolerance will be tested as MPs decide whether the embryo bill should be amended to make it almost impossible for lesbians and single women to have children through IVF. . . . Single women and lesbians hoping to be able to conceive can be excused if they felt slightly betrayed by a report in the Times yesterday that in the protracted flushing-out of principles that is the human fertilisation and embryos bill Gordon Brown might consider ceding the ground that matters most to them: being eligible for IVF without necessarily having to produce a father figure. The bill currently being debated in parliament retains the requirement in the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act that fertility clinics take account of the "welfare of the [potential] child", but replaces the requirement that they also consider a child's "need for a father" with the phrase "supportive parenting". . . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Homo erectus extinctus The Times Online, By Lois Rogers, December 16, 2007
RELATED ARTICLE: The prospect of all-female conception The Independent- UK, By Steve Connor, April 13, 2007
|
 |
- Who's Kids Are They Anyway? Townhall.com, By Mike Gallagher, May 23, 2008
I'm not sure that I have ever been so relieved to see a headline. "Court Rules Removal of Children From FLDS Compound was Illegal." Halleluiah. A court finally got one right. The mass abduction of hundreds of children who lived at the "Yearning for Zion" ranch in Eldorado, Texas was just the beginning of predictably disgraceful behavior by the state's Child Protective Services agency. CPS is an agency that frequently runs amok in many states, an out-of-control organization that regularly tramples on the rights of adults accused of abusing children. The horror stories of parents humiliated by the storm trooper tactics of this bunch of state bureaucrats are lengthy. I certainly understand that CPS has an unenviable task. . . . . . There is obviously a peculiarity about the FLDS group. They have largely isolated themselves from the world, believing in bizarre concepts like men having numerous spiritual wives and following the teachings of the jailed "prophet" Warren Jeffs. But when the day comes that the government comes breaking down the doors and tries to make children permanent foster or adoptive children because of the peculiar religious beliefs of a particular group, our nation is in big, big trouble. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Court: Texas Had No Right to Keep Polygamist Kids: Appeals Court Overrules Decision Placing Sect Kids in State Custody ABC News, By Scott Michels, May 22, 2008
RELATED ARTICLE: Elissa Wall Speaks Out About Her 'Stolen Innocence': Forced Into Marriage at 14, She Testified Against Polygamous Prophet Warren Jeffs ABC News- 20/20, By Joseph Diaz, May 16, 2008
One of the darkest secrets of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints unfolds at a seedy roadside motel in the remote Nevada desert, where underage girls — some as young as 14 — are allegedly forced through hasty and secret wedding ceremonies. Elissa Wall says she was one such 14-year-old who was taken to the motel and plunged into wedlock with no choice but to accept and obey the command of Jeffs. . . .
RELATED BOOK EXCERPT: 'Stolen Innocence' Excerpt: Elissa Wall's Testimony Helped Convict Sect Leader Warren Jeffs ABC News, May 16, 2008
RELATED ARTICLE: Polygamist objects to ex-child bride's book CNN.com, May 15, 2008
|
 |
- How my mother's fanatical views tore us apart The Daily Mail- UK, By Rebecca Walker, May 23, 2008
She's revered as a trail-blazing feminist and author Alice Walker touched the lives of a generation of women. A champion of women's rights, she has always argued that motherhood is a form of servitude. But one woman didn't buy in to Alice's beliefs - her daughter, Rebecca, 38. Here the writer describes what it was like to grow up as the daughter of a cultural icon, and why she feels so blessed to be the sort of woman 64-year-old Alice despises - a mother. . . . My mother would always do what she wanted - for example taking off to Greece for two months in the summer, leaving me with relatives when I was a teenager. Is that independent, or just plain selfish? I was 16 when I found a now-famous poem she wrote comparing me to various calamities that struck and impeded the lives of other women writers. Virginia Woolf was mentally ill and the Brontes died prematurely. My mother had me - a 'delightful distraction', but a calamity nevertheless. I found that a huge shock and very upsetting. . . . Ironically, my mother regards herself as a hugely maternal woman. Believing that women are suppressed, she has campaigned for their rights around the world and set up organisations to aid women abandoned in Africa - offering herself up as a mother figure. But, while she has taken care of daughters all over the world and is hugely revered for her public work and service, my childhood tells a very different story. I came very low down in her priorities - after work, political integrity, self-fulfilment, friendships, spiritual life, fame and travel. |
- Daughter of Christian Music Star Killed AOL News, By Joe Edwards- AP, May 22, 2008
The 5-year-old daughter of Grammy-winning Christian music star Steven Curtis Chapman was struck and killed Wednesday by a sport utility vehicle driven by her brother, authorities said.The girl, Maria Sue, was hit in the driveway of the family's home Wednesday afternoon by a Toyota Land Cruiser driven by her teenage brother, said Laura McPherson, a spokeswoman for the Tennessee Highway Patrol. The brother, whose name and exact age weren't available, apparently did not see the girl, McPherson said. No charges are expected. "It looks like a tragic accident," she said. Several family members witnessed the accident, which happened in Williamson County just south of Nashville. The girl died later at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, hospital spokeswoman Laurie Holloway said. In a statement, Velvet Kelm, a publicist for Chapman, said Maria was the Chapmans' youngest daughter. Chapman, who is originally from Paducah, Ky., and his wife have promoted international adoption and have three daughters from China, including Maria. They also have three biological children. . . . .The 45-year-old singer also has released a book about being a father titled "Cinderella: The Love of Daddy and his Princess." He has won five Grammy awards and 54 Dove awards from the Gospel Music Association, according to Kelm. . . . |
 |
|
|
RELATED ARTICLE: Steven Curtis Chapman's Daughter Killed in Accident: 5-year-old daughter Maria Sue struck and killed Wednesday by a sport utility vehicle at home Christianity Today, By Andree Farias, May 22, 2008
RELATED SITE: Shaohannah's Hope: Mobilizing the body of Christ to care for orphans
RELATED ARTICLE: The Journey Through Sorrow: When a Child Dies-- Surviving the death of dreams. BeliefNet, By Carol Staudacher
How do you survive the death of your child? As a parent, you're supposed to be the provider, the nurturer, the protector, the mentor, the guide. You invest love and hope and certain beliefs in your son or daughter. But most of all, you do not outlive your child. When tragedy strikes and you do bury a child, you're faced with reconstructing a life that has been suddenly robbed of its parental responsibilities and joys.
RELATED ARTICLE: Surviving Loss: Living After the Death of a Child Adrr.com, By Stephen R. Marsh
Stephen R. Marsh and Winifred L. Marsh (Steve & Win Marsh to their friends) were married on January 26, 1985 in the Oakland Temple. They are the parents of five girls, Jessica, Heather, Courtney, Robin, and Rachel, 3 of whom have died in early childhood.
RELATED ARTICLE: Surviving the Death of a Child Menninger Clinic, By Donna Lamb, LSCSW
Numerous secondary losses accompany the death of a child, including loss of the family as it existed prior to the death. Surviving children lose the emotional, and perhaps physical, availability of their parents, grandparents “lose” their children to parental grief and spouses lose the support of each other–each whose emotional plate is so full that they cannot be there for the other. The impact of a child’s death on a marital relationship cannot be underestimated. Neither parent will be the same person as they were before the death.
|
 |
- Male libido pill is the last thing we ladies want!
Why the latest wonder drug for men might not be such good news for the ladies The Daily Mail- UK, By Amanda Platell, May 22, 2008
Four words guaranteed to warm a loving woman’s heart: ‘Hello, darling, I’m home.’ Add to that ‘And I’ve just taken my sex pill — time to party, baby’ and it’s enough to make a grown woman weep into her cocoa. Perhaps if you’re 25, this could be a welcome message, but then if you’re 25, your bloke probably wouldn’t need to take a sex pill. But for women in middle age, the prospect of a scientific invention - reported in the Daily Mail this week - which would spark not only the physical capability (as Viagra does) but also the emotional desire in a man to make love is little short of terrifying. Just when the children have grown up and are having lives of their own, when you thought you could have some loving time together, do the things you never had time for when the family was young - sleep in, go to the theatre, Sunday lunch at your local, curl up on the sofa with a Catherine Cookson novel, watch The Apprentice together - he wants you in a nurse’s uniform. You’re feeling like matron and he wants Zoe from Holby City. So, just when women of a certain age - and let’s be honest, with children, that’s anything over 40 - thought they were emerging relatively unscathed from the post-Viagra era, those dastardly scientists have gone and developed a new super sex drug.You’d think they’d have better things to do than spend their time trying to invent a way of enhancing the libido. . . . |
- Why DO clever women fall for second-rate men?
We all know the type: she's successful, bright and, oh yes, too often has a man who humiliates her. What on earth is the attraction? The Daily Mail-UK, By Helen Kirwan-Taylor, May 21, 2008
Logic would, or should, dictate that a high-flying woman who has everything going for her (looks, talent, drive) should, by definition, attract a man who is her equal, if not her superior, in terms of looks, intellect and wealth. Yet in my experience, this is simply not the case. The more accomplished the woman, the less accomplished the man is likely to be. In fact, smart women seem to have a knack for attracting the sort of men that most of us were raised to stay well clear of. . . . So it was with great interest that I read the findings of Dr Steve Stewart-Williams, one of the psychologists behind the study Why Do Men Insult Their Intimate Partners? Published in a recent issue of the Journal Of Personality And Individual Differences, Dr Stewart-Williams concluded that when it coms to women with high IQs, a form of meanness is actually programmed into male behaviour. 'Meanness is a form of "mate retention" in many men,' he says. 'Typically, men want lower status women because they feel they can control them. It can be threatening for a man if their partner has a higher IQ because they will often feel that makes the woman more desirable than they are themselves. 'That's when a man is likely to be unfaithful or aggressive as a means of asserting control over the woman. 'If a man demeans a woman, it makes her feel low, neglected and disrespected. And if a woman feels humiliated, they will eventually come to believe they can't do any better and stick around with that man.' It's a classic cycle of abuse, however subtle. The real surprise is that it appears to be happening to such brilliant women, and so many of them. . . .
|
 |
RELATED ARTICLE: PEOPLE Exclusive: 15 Questions with Bill Clinton People magazine, By Sharon Cotliar, May 22, 2008
"I not only love her. I honor the things she has done," former President Bill Clinton says of the person he hopes will be the next occupant of the White House: his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. . . .
RELATED ARTICLE: The Romantic Life of Brainiacs The Boston Globe, By Stephanie Coontz, February 18, 2007
College-educated, highly successful women have long had a reputation for marrying less (and having lousier sex). But in a historic reversal of past trends, these women now triumph in matrimony. A marriage historian explains. . . . |
 |
- California's Epic Battle for Marriage and Religious LIberty Townhall.com, By Maggie Gallagher , May 21, 2008
They say we are tired of culture wars. Tell that to the California Supreme Court, which didn't sound tired at all when it lobbed a big, fat hand grenade into the marriage debate. Ideas have consequences. And the California court endorsed two big, brand-new, very bad ideas. The first idea is that the internationally recognized human right to marry includes same-sex marriage. In U.S. constitutional law, fundamental human rights are those deeply rooted in our traditions. Not even in Massachussetts or in New Jersey could the courts quite stomach the idea that same-sex marriage is deeply rooted in those traditions. Not even the European Court of Human Rights or the United Nations Human Rights Committee has so ruled. . . . So the second big idea endorsed by the California court is even less promising: Sexual orientation should be treated just like race under the California equal protection amendment, subject to "strict scrutiny." This is another historic first for a U.S. court. This is a ruling which, if left undisturbed, means that Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Muslims who see marriage as the union of husband and wife, and view sexual activity as best confined to marriage so defined, are in the exact position as racists under California law. . . .There are religious liberty defenses under the U.S. Constitution for youth ministers, but not for Christian schools, physicians, social workers, teachers, attorneys, psychiatrists, counselors or tax-exempt charities. The First Amendment will not protect us if our own governments (through the courts) decide that, for example, my Catholic faith is in itself a form of bigotry. If gay rights advocates don't really mean this to happen, why don't they stop asking courts to rule in this way?. . . . . |
RELATED ARTICLE: California gay marriage decision: The battle is on for our freedoms! The Real Proposal magazine, May 22, 2008
RELATED ARTICLE: Gay Marriage Recycles Bad Idea Townhall.com, By Michael Medved, May 21, 2008
Advocates for same-sex marriage should feel embarrassed by current efforts to recycle the three most discredited ideas of the “Free Love” Revolution of the 1960’s. Most Americans look back at the radical notions of that rebellious and drug-soaked era with skepticism and discomfort, if not outright regret. The sweeping changes in intimate relationships may have provoked excitement some forty years ago, but those alterations produced so many painful costs in terms of shattered families, degraded culture and proliferation of sexually transmitted diseases that even the most enthusiastic revolutionaries have come to reconsider the advisability of encouraging copulation without consequences or standards. . . .1. Separating Sex, Marriage and Procreation. . . . 2. Following – and Honoring – Your Deepest Urges. . . .3. Treating Male and Female as Interchangeable. . . .
RELATED ARTICLE: California Decision Will Radically Change Society Townhall.com, By Dennis Prager, May 20, 2008
Americans seem mesmerized by the word "change." And, by golly, they sure got it last week from the California Supreme Court. It is difficult to imagine a single social change greater than redefining marriage from opposite sex to include members of the same sex. . . .This lack of acknowledgment -- or even awareness -- of how society-changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made. To the four compassionate ones -- and their millions of compassionate supporters -- allowing same-sex marriage is nothing more than what courts did to end legal bans on interracial marriage. The justices and their supporters know not what they did. They think that all they did was extend a "right" that had been unfairly denied to gays. Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system -- East or West -- since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex. That is one reason the argument that this decision is the same as courts undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. . .
|
 |
- Guess Who's Coming to Dinner Townhall.com, By Harry R. Jackson, Jr. May 19, 2008
. . . I first learned that my church was scheduled for a visit by SoulForce last December. The PR campaign about the event was announced long before this group asked for an opportunity to have a discussion on this topic of gay inclusion in the Church. This tactic seems to be a continuation of a four-year strategy. They have continued with the following clear agenda:
1.) Label anti-gay ballot measures as divisive
2.) Equate pro-family values arguments with racism
3.) Enlist celebrity backing and endorsements
4.) Question traditional biblical prohibitions against homosexuality
5.) Seek to introduce primary school children to the gay life style
The other churches targeted for a visit are Pastor Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church (May 11), T.D. Jakes’ Potter’s House (May 18), Bishop Eddie Long’s New Birth Missionary Baptist Church (June1), Bill Hybels’ Willow Creek Community Church (June 9), Rick Warren’s Saddleback Community Church (Father’s Day June 16), and my church, Hope Christian Church (May 25).
The mission statement of this organization was surprising to me. It reads as follows: “The mission of Soulforce is to cut off homophobia at its source --- religious bigotry. . . . . Since when is preaching gospel morality for all people a form of oppression? It seems to me that all six churches are being vilified and demonized in order to advance an overtly political gay agenda. . . . |
RELATED VIDEO: Religious Liberty Under Fire YouTube.com- Air Maria
A special AIRMARIA report on the status of religious liberty in America, relative to the ongoing push on the part of the homosexual lobby for full same-sex marriage. . . |
RELATED ARTICLE: The Meaning of Religious Liberty The Heritage Foundation, By Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., December 5, 2008
RELATED ARTICLE: The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse The Heritage Foundation, By Daniel L. Dreisbach, June 23, 2006
No metaphor in American letters has had a more profound influence on law and policy than Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state." Today, this figure of speech is accepted by many Americans as a pithy description of the constitutionally prescribed church-state arrangement, and it has become the sacred icon of a strict separationist dogma that champions a secular polity in which religious influences are systematically and coercively stripped from public life. In our own time, the judiciary has embraced this figurative phrase as a virtual rule of constitutional law and as the organizing theme of church?state jurisprudence, even though the metaphor is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. . . .
|
- Gay Rights vs. Democracy Townhall.com, By Dinesh D'Souza, May 19, 2008
It is the essence of democracy that people should be able to decide the moral rules that govern the nature of a community. If people don't have that power, then they are living under an autocracy. True, this majority rule is not unlimited. It is limited by what the government has the power to do. Consequently the majority cannot, in general, vote to seize the homes and accumulated savings of rich people. Leaving aside exceptional cases, government cannot mandate how parents how should raise their children. These kinds of power lie outside the scope of government in a free society. Majority rule is also circumscribed by individual rights. But these are the rights clearly specified in the Constitution. A majority of citizens cannot prevent an individual from voting because voting is a basic right, as is the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and so on. The state is constitutionally prohibited from undermining these enumerated rights. Now the high court of California has made gay marriage into a right that is immune from restriction by the majority of citizens in the state. We already know what California citizens think about gay marriage: they oppose it. A referendum outlawing gay marriage was passed with the support of the state's voters. More than 60 percent of voters cast their ballots against gay marriage. How, then, can a court invalidate the referendum and over-rule the will of the people? Basically through a kind of legal fraud. . . . . |
 |
RELATED ARTICLE: California ruling hijacks middle ground on marriage Star Tribune, By Katherine Kersten, May 20, 2008
California citizens have tried hard to find a middle ground on same-sex marriage. In 2000, they approved a state initiative defining marriage as a one-man/one-woman institution with 61.4 percent of the popular vote. But voters also wanted to extend government benefits to gay couples. In 1999, the California Legislature had done just that by adopting the Domestic Partner Act. . . . . But when it tossed out California's one-man/one-woman voter initiative -- which the state's Legislature cannot overturn on its own -- the California majority showed how far arrogant, activist courts will go in disregarding the will of the people. Fallout from the California decision may create two perverse reactions that will haunt same-sex marriage supporters. . . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Wedded to Activism National Review— Editorial, By The Editors, May 16, 2008
As associate justice Marvin R. Baxter aptly stated in dissent, “Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means.”. . . . . Both John McCain and Barack Obama say they are opposed to same-sex marriage, but both oppose a constitutional amendment to codify that view. Such an amendment is the surest way to prevent judicial meddling. But there is nonetheless an important difference between these candidates. McCain, judging from his record and his recent speech against judicial activism, will try to appoint judges who will refrain from engaging in such meddling. About Obama we know no such thing, and have reason to suspect otherwise. . . .
|
- As our universities go, so go our courts Townhall.com, By Star Parker, May 19, 2008
California's Supreme Court has made its contribution to the ongoing debasement of our law, our language, and our culture by legalizing same-sex marriage. California now has law in the tradition of Groucho Marx who said "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes." When the court says there is no difference between couples consisting of a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, and that it's irrelevant that only one combination can produce children, who are you going to believe? The court or your own eyes? This decision shouldn't come as any surprise. The notion that words have meaning, that there is truth, and that we can approach that truth through investigation and integrity of thought is becoming passe in the United States of Fantasyland. . . . Crystal Dixon, a black woman, and now former associate vice president of Human Resources at the University of Toledo, wrote a counter-point opinion column in the Toledo Free Press addressing an earlier column about gay rights. In her piece, Dixon challenged equating gays to blacks ("I cannot wake up tomorrow morning and not be a Black woman"), produced income statistics for gay individuals and couples showing them in much better condition than black men, and questioned some allegations made about benefit plans at the University of Toledo. But perhaps most troubling to those bothered by her column, Dixon said there is a God, that there is an order, and that man has free choice and responsibility for what he chooses. Heresy in the United States of Fantasyland. . . . . As result of the column, she was suspended, then fired, from her position at the University. . . . . .The blatant hypocrisy of claiming diversity as a goal when clearly there are individuals and points of view that are not welcome goes without saying. . . .
RELATED ARTICLE: UT offered Dixon alternate position prior to termination Toledo Free Press, By Justin R. Kalmes, May 13, 2008
A former UT administrator who was fired for opinions she expressed on Toledo Free Press' Web site said the university offered her a demotion and pay cut prior to terminating her employment. Crystal Dixon, former associate vice president of human resources, said UT officials, at a May 5 pre-disciplinary hearing, offered to allow her to continue to be employed at the university if she agreed to accept a demotion and salary reduction. Dixon was paid an annual salary of $134,383. After declining the offer, Dixon was notified of her termination May 9 through her attorney, Tom Sobecki, she said, noting UT's offer was “unacceptable because I didn't do anything wrong.” Dixon was placed on paid administrative leave after a column she wrote that appeared on the newspaper's Web site April 18 created controversy because of her views on homosexuality. . . . .
|
 |
- More Than Just a Piece of Paper
California's Gay Couples Celebrate Right to Marry but Ballot Initiative Looms ABC News, By Marcus Baram, May 16, 2008
For all practical purposes, the only real change that yesterday's court decision means for California's gay couples is an official piece of paper and a legal ceremony. After all, under the state's domestic partnership laws, same-sex couples already enjoy all the legal rights and protections enjoyed by opposite-sex couples. But for hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples in the state, today's state Supreme Court decision to strike down the ban on gay marriage was a historic and transformative moment. . . . . Among those planning on wedding bells are talk show host Ellen DeGeneres and her companions Portia deRossi, of "Ally McBeal" and "Nip/Tuck" fame. DeGeneres announced their plans during the taping of her show Thursday after the court ruling was made public. The show is expected to air today. When she was visiting the state capital last week, Torrie Osborn had a good feeling about the impending decision after she ran into Chief Justice Ron George. "He said to me, "Oh, you wrote that beautiful piece in The New York Times," about her marriage to her former partner in San Francisco in 2004. It was compelling and thoughtful,'" said Osborn, the former director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Based on that, I was cautiously optimistic," she said. . . . . |
|
|
- Governor backs same-sex marriage ruling San Francisco Chronicle, By Matthew Yi, May 16, 2008
A day after the state Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples should have the right to marry in California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Friday that he supports the court's decision even though his personal view is that "marriage is between a man and a woman.". . . . "When the people vote, people are not legal experts, constitutional experts or any of that," he said. "I think that's why we have the courts. People may vote with good intentions, but then the court says, 'This is not constitutional.' "It's not that the court interferes with the will of the people," he added. "But the court says, 'You voted for something, but it's not constitutionally right, so let's rework this.' That's really the idea.". . . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Overturning California's Gay 'Marriage' Ban Townhall.com, By Chuck Colson, May 16, 2008
The only way the California Supreme Court could override the people is by saying that gay “marriage” is a natural right. But nowhere do we see this in the federal or state Constitutions. . . . I guess I am not surprised by what happened in California. I have seen judges out of control for years. What I cannot fathom is how they would do it under the guise of natural rights. If the democratic process means anything, it means the consent of the governed. We cannot let the courts do this, or we do not have a democracy. . . .
RELATED ARTICLE: California Supremes Order Homosexual ‘Marriage’ — Will Citizens Submit? Townhall.com, By Janet M. LaRue, May 16, 2008
I was a Californian for 40 years, so I have to ask my former fellow citizens: Are you going to sit by and do nothing while four black-robed despots take away your right to govern yourselves?. . . . California is now the second state after Massachusetts where homosexuals will be allowed to “marry.” But unlike Massachusetts, California has no law that prohibits homosexual couples living in states that don’t recognize same-sex “marriage” from marrying in the Golden State. The California Supreme Court has opened the door to a legal battle royal across the nation. . . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Gay marriage in California: Happy gays are here again. California legalises gay marriage, how will the rest of America respond? The Economist.com, May 16, 2008
RELATED ARTICLE: News Analysis: Ruling May Revive Gay Marriage as Issue New York Times, By Adam Nagourney, May 16, 2008
RELATED ARTICLE: A Different Time: Why gay marriage won't pack such a punch in Campaign 2008 Newsweek, By Karen Breslau, May 16, 2008
RELATED ARTICLE: Schwarzenegger—Shriver: Protecting the brand Los Angeles Times, By Joe Mathews, May 4, 2008 The California governor, like other politicians whose spouses are in the public eye, works a complicated calculus in balancing his political interests with those of his wife. . .
|
- California ban on same-sex marriage struck down CNN.com, By Bill Mears, May 15, 2008
In a much-anticipated ruling issued Thursday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. Several gay and lesbian couples, along with the city of San Francisco and gay rights groups, sued to overturn state laws allowing only marriages between a man and a woman. "There can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state's general legislative policy and preference," said the 120-page ruling. It said that the state law's language "limiting the designation of marriage to a 'union between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples." With the ruling, California becomes the second state to allow same-sex couples to legally wed. Massachusetts adopted the practice in 2004, and couples don't need to be state residents to wed there. Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Connecticut permit civil unions, while California has a domestic-partner registration law. More than a dozen other states give gay couples some legal rights. Seven other jurisdictions around the world have legalized same-sex marriage: Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, South Africa and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec. . . .
READ COURT'S DECISION (PDF): Read the 4-3 decision Findlaw.com, May 15, 2008 |
 |
|
| | | | |
