"MARRIAGE" In The News
(May 2010)

"'Marriage' In The News is NOT a representation of The Real Proposal™ magazine...

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.

• House Votes to Repeal Military Gay Ban  FOX News, By Chad Pergram, May 27, 2010
  The House of Representatives voted Thursday night to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. armed forces. The vote repeals a 17-year-old law called "don't ask, don't tell." The policy permitted gays and lesbians to serve in the military, so long as they did not declare their sexual orientation. In exchange, the military brass would not inquire service members about their sexual preference. "This is devastating to the war fighters and the combat infantrymen," said Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill. But many Democrats, like Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., likened the policy to race discrimination. "It didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now," said Lewis, a civil rights figure. "It is an affront to human dignity." The military has discharged some 13,000 service members since the "don't ask, don't tell" policy went into effect. . . . The amendment was part of a broader bill to authorize Pentagon programs. The House is expected to finish that measure Friday. Many House Republicans warned they'd vote against the entire bill if lawmakers repealed the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly. . .
  
  
  
• Congress advances repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’  USA Today, May 27, 2010
  The House of Representatives voted today to repeal the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy that permits gays to serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation a secret. On a 234-194 vote, the House voted to advance the repeal as an amendment to a Defense Department funding bill moving through Congress. Earlier in the day, the Senate Armed Services Committee separately voted 16-12 to approve the same measure. . . . . But most Republicans pointed to requests from top military officials asking lawmakers to delay action on the legislation until after the Pentagon completes a study this year on the possible impact of repealing the 1993 policy. If the repeal is ultimately approved by Congress, it would not take effect until after the study is finished. Twenty-six Democrats broke with their party to vote against the measure in the House and five Republicans voted for it. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  ADF to Congress: Imposing homosexual agenda on military will create legal, religious liberty chaos: Proposed law, opposed by military brass, undermines religious freedom of chaplains, troops   Alliance Defense Fund, May 27, 2010
Alliance Defense Fund attorneys, working with the Family Research Council, sent letters to all 535 members of the U.S. Congress Wednesday, advising them regarding the legal and religious freedom implications associated with the proposed repeal of the military’s standing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The information provided to Congress included legal analysis by ADF of the religious freedom threat posed to both chaplains and service members. ADF also provided Congress a letter to President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, signed by 41 retired military chaplains, advising key officials that a repeal will, among other things, “endanger religious liberty for chaplains and service members.” . . .


RELATED REPORT:  Homosexual Assault in the Military  Family Research Council
Executive Summary:
A Family Research Council analysis of publicly available documents-the Pentagon's own report on sexual assault in the military for Fiscal Year 2009, and published decisions from military courts of appeals over the last decade and a half-have shown that there is already a significant problem of homosexual misconduct in the military. This problem can only become worse if the current law is repealed and homosexuals are openly welcomed (and even granted special protections) within the military, as homosexual activists are demanding. . .

• With This Ring, I Thee What?  New York Times, By Andrew Adam Newman, May 26, 2010
  A CELEBRITY’S left hand can often break big news. “Sandra Bullock Not Wearing Wedding Ring,” one recent tabloid headline said. Another: “Tiger Woods’ Wife Spotted Ringless!” But these days the symbolism of a gold band — or its absence — may not be so clear-cut. When her divorce was nearly final three years ago, Wanda Dibben, 41, who lives outside Kansas City, Mo., asked a jeweler, George Rousis, to transform her wedding ring into a divorce ring. Ms. Dibben, who had been married 13 years, said she had been “very attached” to her wedding ring and hoped that reconfiguring it could “be kind of a buffer into my independence again and help facilitate healing.” Her jeweler severed the gold band and refashioned it into a ring with a gap, across which strands of silver are stitched. For Ms. Dibben, those strands represent her son, Trevor, now 14, “because although the bonds have been broken, the stitches still keep that unity together,” she said. While divorce rings are not exactly all the rage, they are showing up here and there, as are other rings that are worn on the ring finger but signify something else. Single and looking? Perhaps you need a silver band with a symbol of Mars or Venus on it, like the ones designed for gay or straight people at MySingleRing.com. The site says that those who wear its rings project to the outside world: “I am an intelligent, empowered individual and available to meet the same.” And they aren’t the only ones thinking outside the jewelry box. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  Single ladies put a ring on it -- without getting hitched: Unwed women and divorcees are targeted with "uncommitted" jewelry. Also: Ring coffins for failed marriages! Salon.com, By Tracy Clark-Flory, May 27, 2010
It's really never occurred to me to wear a ring on my ring finger in order to broadcast my availability to potential mates. In fact, I've always found that a well-placed sparkly band can be an effective way to deter unwanted advances. But there is apparently something of a market for single ladies who want to put a ring on it without, um, putting a ring on it. Catch my drift? This newsflash comes by way of the New York Times, which has a lengthy feature on the trend of non-commitment rings. . .

• Harvey Milk Goes to Uganda  Huffington Post, By Mariana van Zellar (Peabody Award-winning correspondent for Current TV's "Vanguard."), May 24, 2010
  Just as it was during the life and times of Harvey Milk, the movement against homosexuality in Uganda is being led by a group of conservative Christian evangelicals. And the arguments they're using are an echo of Anita Bryant and the Save Our Children campaign. "I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children," Bryant said in 1977. "Therefore, they must recruit our children." More than 30 years later, our cameras were rolling as Ugandan pastor Martin Ssempa brought a young woman to a press conference to testify about how she had been allegedly recruited to be a lesbian. "American money...is being used to seduce our children into homosexuality," Ssempa said. "This bill is in response and desire to protect our children.". . .
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  'Missionaries of Hate' Puts Uganda Anti-Gay Bill on Center Stage  Huffington Post, By Alvin McEwen, May 24, 2010
  This Wednesday night, Current TV's Vanguard  series will be talking about Uganda's anti-homosexuality bill in a documentary entitled Missionaries of Hate. And if this documentary is as powerful as its trailer, then it needs to be seen, sent to members of Congress and all of the media -- LGBT included -- and remembered for posterity. . .
  
  
  
  RELATED QUOTE:  ". . . Very controversial bill being considered in Uganda against homosexuality. When pushed too far, people are going to push back.... and it's going to get very ugly. . ."  The Real Proposal magazine, May 27, 2010
  
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  How America Went Gay    Leadership U, By Charles W. Socarides, M.D.
  Gays said they could "reinvent human nature, reinvent themselves." To do this, these reinventors had to clear away one major obstacle. No, they didn't go after the nation's clergy. They targeted the members of a worldly priesthood, the psychiatric community, and neutralized them with a radical redefinition of homosexuality itself. In 1972 and 1973 they co-opted the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association and, through a series of political maneuvers, lies and outright flim-flams, they "cured" homosexuality overnight-by fiat. They got the A.P.A. to say that same-sex sex was "not a disorder." It was merely "a condition"-as neutral as lefthandedness. . .
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Selling Homosexuality to America    Regent University Law Review, By Paul E. Rondeau
  This article explores how gay rights activists use rhetoric, psychology, social psychology, and the media--all the elements of modern marketing--to position homosexuality in order to frame what is discussed in the public arena and how it is discussed. . . . The economics and education of homosexuals makes them prime players in a capitalistic society. Money means power, and education means the knowledge to use that power to gain more. Homosexuals have demonstrated they have access to the leadership in media, government, education, business and other centers of influence as well as access to capital. These are hardly traits of an oppressed minority. . .
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy  Leadership U, By Charles W. Socarides, M.D., (Source: Collected Papers from the NARTH Annual Conference, Saturday, 29 July 1995.)
  Those who wished to retain homosexuality as a valid diagnosis had been essentially silenced at meetings, lectures, and publications--a silencing that originates both from within our organizations and from other sources. Political parties and religious leaders have been utilized to reinforce this silence. The press was thoroughly influenced; the electronic media, television, and movies began to promote homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle and censored all information that might show homosexuality as a disorder. Movies have been routinely censored by a gay Hollywood review board for the last 7 to 8 years; other films critical of homosexuality have been boycotted at the box-office; books which portray homosexuality in any unfavorable way have not been published, and many books have been removed from library shelves in universities and public libraries. . .
  
  
  
  
  
  

• Ex-U.K. royal 'sorry' amid cash-for-access sting
  'Lord knows what the queen thinks waking up this morning,' lawmaker says  MSNBC.com- Today, May 24, 2010
  Acknowledging financial difficulties, Duchess of York Sarah Ferguson on Sunday apologized after she was secretly recorded offering to sell access to her ex-husband Prince Andrew in return for 500,000 pounds ($720,000). "I very deeply regret the situation and the embarrassment caused," she said in a statement issued by her spokeswoman, Kate Waddington. "It is true that my financial situation is under stress however, that is no excuse for a serious lapse in judgement and I am very sorry that this has happened. I can confirm that The Duke of York was not aware or involved in any of the discussions that occurred. I am sincerely sorry for my actions." Earlier Sunday, the News of the World reported it had filmed "greedy Sarah Ferguson" taking a 40,000-pound ($57,000) down payment from its undercover reporter posing as a businessman. The paper posted more than 4 minutes of video in which Ferguson, widely known as Fergie, is seen remarking: "Look after me and he'll look after you." She said the full sum would result in "open doors." The duchess, 50, said Andrew, who is also a British trade envoy, would know nothing of the deal and that he would never take money himself as he is "whiter than white." However, she is seen telling the reporter that the money would open "all the channels, whatever you need, whatever you want ... and then you meet Andrew and that's fine." 'We all hated her' On Monday, The Daily Telegraph newspaper reported that Lynne Featherstone, a U.K. Home Office minister, as saying: "It’s really depressing. Lord knows what the queen thinks waking up this morning.". . . 
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE: 'Phew, I've had a heavy day': Fergie tries to put on a brave face over £500,000 cash-for-access scandal at star-studded charity dinner  The Daily Mail- UK, By Rebecca English, Andrew Pierce, Richard Kay  and Julie Moult, May 24, 2010
  Sarah Ferguson attempted to put on a brave face over the £500,000 cash-for-access scandal last night, telling a charity awards dinner: 'Phew... I've had a heavy day.' The 'penniless' duchess was at a black tie reception in Los Angeles having flown in from the South of France where she had been a guest at Naomi Campbell's 40th birthday party. She was at the top table alongside Simon Cowell, who was receiving an award for his humanitarian work, and his fiancée Mezhgan Hussainy. . . . .The duchess received the Catherine Variety Sheridan Award, which is given each year by the charity to someone for their philanthropic work with underprivileged and disabled children. And the master of ceremonies for the event paid tribute to her for attending given the crisis unfolding around her. He announced to the audience that she had told him earlier: 'Whatever else, I will not let down the children.' But several people involved with Variety said she should use the event to apologise publicly. Andrew Buskard, director of events for a youth section of the charity in Vancouver, Canada, said: 'Yes, I think that would be fitting. The timing, it's unfortunate. But we are just glad she's here. I hope all the attention brought to this event isn't negative. She's here for a good cause. . . . . . SEALED WITH A HANDSHAKE, FERGIE'S TREACHERY - By NEIL SEARS. . .
  
  
  RELATED VIDEO:  Dutchess caught in cash for access sting  MSNBC.com- Today, May 24, 2010
  
  
  RELATED VIDEO:  Duchess of York caught trying to cash in on ex?  MSNBC.com- Today, May 24, 2010
  
  
  
  

• Jesse James on Sandra Bullock: 'I Still Really Love Her'
  In Exclusive 'Nightline' Interview, James Says He Never Meant to Hurt Sandra Bullock, but Wanted to Get Caught  ABC News- Nightline, By Lauren Sher, May 24, 2010
  After months of keeping a low profile, Jesse James   broke his silence, saying he still loves Sandra Bullock  and never meant to hurt his Oscar-winning wife or his family. "I've spent my whole life with the kids and with her trying to ... protect her from everything, but the most hurt she's ever been caused is by the person that wanted to protect her," James told Vicki Mabrey of ABC News' "Nightline." "It's terrible, and she's going to be hurt for a long time." James revealed his side of the story and opened up on his past, his time in rehab and what made him cheat, in his first television appearance since news of his affairs came out in March and his marriage to Bullock dissolved.  When Mabrey asked why he would hurt a woman who stood onstage at the Golden Globe Awards and the SAG Awards and told the world how much she loved him, James said: "It's hard for me to talk about, a little bit, because I still really love her and care about her." . . . . . James admits he shattered a seemingly perfect relationship. I "took a pretty amazing life and amazing success and marriage ... and threw it away by my own hands," he said. But in the midst of his affair, James told Mabrey, he wanted to get caught. "When I was doing it, you know, one, I knew it was horrible, it made me feel horrible. And two, I knew I would get caught eventually, and I think I wanted to get caught," he said. "I know for a fact now what it was, you know. I mean, it was me trying to self-sabotage my life.". . . .James responded to the many other questions people have been wondering about: Did Bullock know any of it was going on? What did he really go to rehab for? And what role will he play in the life of Louis, the baby boy Bullock recently. . .

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

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

• Q & A:  Be Careful Who You Ask For. You Just Might Get Him  BlackVoices on Love, By Mason Jamal on May 19, 2010
  Q:  Mason, since you present yourself to know so much about men and their behavior, please explain to me why my husband of the last ten years has changed so drastically. When we first started dating, even through our first three or four years of marriage, he was his own man. He was loyal but he had an independent spirit. He was a nice but he knew when and how to be naughty. That's what I liked about him. I hate to admit it but what attracted me to him in the first place was his "bad boy" demeanor that I thought he had. Now, he seems like a complete pushover. Until recently, I was happy with that. I got my way. Things were good. In the last couple of years however I've grown more and more disinterested in the marriage. I'm bored. Is it me?  - Stephanie (Bay Area)
  
  A:  This isn't uncommon. But since I'm not dialed into the full details of your situation, allow me to make a few assumptions in my response. So it appears what we have here is a man who has lost his way. Your henpecked husband has been 'wifestyled'. This is some serious wackness that occurs when a man shreds every morsel of his pre-marital lifestyle (and self-respect in the process), so that he can lose himself in his wife's utopian view of a perfect marriage, effectively reducing what was once great chemistry to a bad experiment. And therein lies the problem, Stephanie. . . . .Now, if you don't' mind, hand the laptop over to your husband, as I need to do some truth telling. My man, do you see the problem here? You've been woman-handled. Yes, you gave her the change that she thought she wanted. But dammit man, she comes from the same line of women who think changing their hairstyle, length and/or color every three months is acceptable. Need I say more?. . .
  
  
  

• John Travolta and Kelly Preston Are Expecting!  People magazine, May 18, 2010
  John Travolta and Kelly Preston, who have lived through the tragedy of losing a son, can now announce the best news they've had in years. Preston, 47, is pregnant, the family tells PEOPLE. "It’s impossible to keep a secret ... especially one as wonderful as this," they say in a statement. "We want to be the first to share this great news with everyone that we are expecting a new addition to our family. Love, John, Kelly and Ella" Travolta, 56, and Preston are also parents to Ella Bleu, 10. Their 16-year-old son Jett, died  of a seizure in January 2009. The family also shared the news Tuesday on Travolta’s Web site and Preston's site. . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  John Travolta's Dogs Tragically Killed at Maine Airport  People magazine,  May 18, 2010
  More than a year after his son tragically died while on vacation in the Bahamas, John Travolta's family is facing heartbreak again. A source confirms to PEOPLE that two dogs who belonged to the actor were struck and killed at Bangor International Airport in Maine on Thursday, shortly after he and members of his family landed there. The source tells PEOPLE that the dogs were both on leashes while being walked, and were making their way to some grass when they were hit by an airport service truck. . .
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  John Travolta: I'll Spend Rest of My Life Healing Over Son's Death  People magazine, By Catherine Donaldson-Evans, March 08, 2010
  John Travolta put on a brave face when he appeared at the Academy Awards on Sunday – but the star says he's still in mourning over the death of his son Jett last year. "We are working hard on healing, still," Travolta, 56, told PEOPLE at the Governor's Ball after the Oscars Sunday night. "It's going to be a lifelong project. Everybody has been so enormously supportive and I really appreciate it." Jett was 16 when he died of a seizure at the family's home in the Bahamas in January of 2009. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  Why babies can't wait    News.co.au, By Jeremy Laurance, February 9, 2008
Celebrities give the impression that getting pregnant in your 40s is child's play, but for the rest of us it's not always so easy. How many resort to IVF?. . . .Are these women exceptional? How easy is it to get pregnant in your 40s? How many resort to IVF with donor eggs? Doctors have warned that women who delay motherhood are "defying nature" and increasing the risks for themselves and their babies, provoking a backlash in some quarters from women who smell a conspiracy against older mothers. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  The risks - and rewards - when motherhood begins at 40  The Sydney Morning Herald- Life & Style, By Kate Benson Medical Reporter, January 9, 2008
Only a century ago the average life expectancy for women was about 50, so a 35-year-old would have been an ageing matriarch with grandchildren in tow. . . . .Maturity can bring a satisfying career, a healthy bank balance and a well-rounded sense of self, but women who become pregnant later in life also have a much greater risk of miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies and stillbirths. Older women are also more likely to have induced labour, epidural anaesthesia, forceps or vacuum deliveries, and caesarean sections. They have a one in 100 chance of having a child with chromosomal abnormalities such as Down syndrome. A fertility specialist with IVF Australia, Michael Chapman, said yesterday that women aged 40 to 45 had a one in four chance of miscarrying. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  What Every Pregnant Woman Needs to Know About Pregnancy Loss and Neonatal Death  WebMD
Get The Scoop On: Miscarriage . Ectopic pregnancy . Molar pregnancy . Stillbirth . Intrapartum death . Important decisions you will have to make. Grieving . Trying again. . .

• Anglican rift deepens over Episcopalian ordination of lesbian bishop  Timees Online- UK, By Giles Whittell in Washington, and Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent, May 17, 2010
  The Anglican rift over homosexual clergy has grown deeper than ever after the ordination in California of the Church’s first lesbian bishop. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, had previously called the move regrettable and warned that it called into question the place of the US Episcopalian Church in the global Anglican Communion. Mary Glasspool, 56, was ordained on yesterday in front of 3,000 supporters — and two protesters — in the Long Beach Arena, south of Los Angeles. Calling herself a “reconciling person”, she offered to “reach out and engage with people who believe or think differently than I do”, but her appointment has already tested the Episcopal Church’s ties to the Church of England almost to breaking point. Hoping to retain the allegiance of conservatives still furious over the ordination of Gene Robinson, the first gay Anglican bishop, in 2003, Dr Williams has said that Canon Glasspool’s ordination “raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopalian Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole”. He declined to comment on the ordination. A spokesman for the Church of Ireland called the appointment “both wrong and disappointing”. Such sentiments were voiced but quickly overwhelmed at the four-hour ceremony, at which Canon Glasspool and another woman, Diane Bruce, were ordained sufragan, or assistant bishops by Archbishop Jon Bruno of the Episcopal Church’s Los Angeles diocese — considered one of the most progressive in the country. Two men, thought to be father and son, held up placards and denounced homosexuality as an “abomination” before being led from the venue by security guards. There was silence when Archbishop Bruno asked later if anyone in the congregation had any objection to the ordinations. He said in his sermon after: “I don’t think there was anybody in this place who was more nervous than me.” Episcopalians welcomed the consecration, which will be greeted by liberal Anglicans in the West as further evidence that centuries of prejudice against homosexuals in Christian doctrine and practice are finally being eroded. But in the Global South churches of Africa and Asia, where many Christian communities are persecuted by other groups who believe homosexual practice to be a sign of Western decadence, the ceremony will be greeted with dismay. . . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  Archbishop of Sudan calls for New Hampshire bishop Gene Robinson to resign  The Guardian- UK, February 5, 2009
There were renewed calls yesterday for the resignation of the Right Reverend Gene Robinson, the openly gay bishop of New Hampshire, and of the clergy those (sic) who consecrated him. The demand came from the Archbishop of Sudan, the Most Reverend Daniel Deng, who last summer shocked Anglicans by issuing a statement condemning the 2003 decision to consecrate Robinson, a non-celibate gay man, and the US bishops responsible for his appointment. The position was supported by the Episcopal Church of Sudan, which with has four million followers, 300 primary schools and 24 dioceses. It had previously remained neutral on the issue of homosexuality. The unexpected statement was of special concern for the US Episcopal Church, which enjoys close ties to the African country. On the penultimate day of a meeting between the world's archbishops and senior bishops to address regional and international concerns, Deng was asked whether he had changed his stance on Robinson and the US Episcopal Church. He replied: "We are asking that within the primates meeting and the situation on the statement remains the same. We have not deviated. What is needed is for churches in the Anglican world to wrestle with these issues so it comes to an end." . . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Anglican Church offshoot founded by traditionalists in Jerusalem   The Telegraph- UK, By Martin Beckford, June 29, 2008
A new church representing almost half of the world's 80 million Anglicans has been officially formed, posing a serious challenge to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The organisation created by traditionalists - called the Gafcon movement after the Global Anglican Future Conference which led to its creation - will retain ties with Dr Rowan Williams and will technically remain within the global Anglican Communion. But it is also likely to lead to orthodox Anglicans severing all links with the main churches in America and Canada, whose liberal leaders are blamed for sparking the current crisis by breaking with the Bible's teaching and by consecrating openly gay clergy and blessing gay "marriages". The movement's leaders will include at least two Church of England bishops as well as the heads of leading African, South American and Australian churches, and it is said to represent 35 million worshippers worldwide and so spell an end to the "colonial" domination of Canterbury. Organisers of the Gafcon summit in Jerusalem who produced a statement declaring the formation of the "church within a church" were keen to state that it does not represent a complete split or schism in Anglicanism, and that they only want to preserve the faith's original intentions. Their final statement stated: "We cherish our Anglican heritage and the Anglican Communion and have no intention of departing from it." But they said that some parts of the Communion were using "false Gospel" to rewrite the Bible along liberal lines, forcing some dioceses to break with their leaders in America and Canada and join churches in Africa and South America. And they claimed that the "colonial structure" of Anglicanism had failed to discipline those churches which had broken the rules by consecrating gay clergy and blessing same-sex unions. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Anglican church in meltdown over gays and women  Times Online—UK, By Ruth Gledhill, June 16, 2008
The Church of England has been plunged into fresh turmoil by the “marriage” of two gay clergymen and threats of an exodus of priests opposed to the consecration of women bishops. The Times has learnt that up to 500 Anglo-Catholic piests are ready to resign after failing to secure the concessions that they had sought over women bishops. . . . A further blow will be dealt to the unity of the Anglican Communion this week when 200 traditionalist bishops attend a meeting as an alternative to the ten-yearly Lambeth Conference, which they plan to boycott. They will gather for the Global Anglican Future Conference, in Jordan, organised by evangelicals, in protest at what they see as the liberal direction of the communion. Yesterday the Church of England was investigating the “wedding” of the two gay priests in defiance of church rules on such ceremonies. . .

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  Orthodoxy Today, 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). . .

• Sex will not be used to have babies in just 10 years, as couples turn to IVF  The Daily Mail- UK, By Daniel Martin, May 17, 2010
  Couples will stop having sex to conceive babies within a decade and use IVF instead, scientists said yesterday. They say 30-somethings will increasingly rely on artificial methods of fertilisation because natural human reproduction is 'fairly inefficient'. It means that in future, sex will be nothing more than a leisure activity  -  the latest blow to the Christian idea that the role of sex is to produce children. If the experts are right, it means the sci-fi world of books such as Brave New World, in which all children are born in 'hatcheries', could soon be closer to reality. And it raises ethical questions over whether greater use of IVF will lead to eugenics, with couples screening out characteristics they regard as undesirable. The startling vision of the future comes from John Yovich, a veterinary doctor from Murdoch University in Perth, Australia. He believes IVF can ease the pressure on couples who have delayed having children to pursue a career, because going for the test-tube option will be more effective than trying for a baby naturally. Even young adults have no more than a one-in-four chance every month of reproducing through sex. Among the over-35s, this falls to one in ten. This compares to the near 100 per cent success rate that Dr Yovich believes will be possible with IVF within ten years. Dr Yovich, co-author of a new report in the journal Reproductive BioMedicine, said: 'Natural human reproduction is at best a fairly inefficient process. 'Within the next five to ten years, couples approaching 40 will assess the IVF industry first when they want to have a baby.' He based his hunch on the fact that in cattle, IVF works almost every time. He said there was no reason that success rate could not be replicated in humans. His co-author, fellow Australian vet Gabor Vajta, said test-tube embryo production in cattle was 100 times more efficient than natural means. He said there was no reason why IVF in humans should not become 100 times more efficient than sex. . . . . . .COMMENTS:. . . .These "scientists are fantasists. There is nothing as pleasurable as a couple producing children by the natural act of love making. IVF will always be here but as a medical procedure for those who have difficulty conceiving. - nonpc, toytown,UK, 17/5/2010 05:18. . . . .  What a load of rubbish. As someone who has experienced several cycles of IVF, I can promise you - NO ONE would go through this unless they had exhausted all other options. When they find these 'experts' to write about IVF, they should make sure they have first hand experience of it. Otherwise, it's all drivel. - Sara, Sydney, Australia, 17/5/2010 04:30. . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  'Embryo Bank' Stirs Ethics Fears: Firm Lets Clients Pick Among Fertilized Eggs  The Washington Post, By Rob Stein, January 6, 2007
  A Texas company has started producing batches of ready-made embryos that single women and infertile couples can order after reviewing detailed information about the race, education, appearance, personality and other characteristics of the egg and sperm donors. The Abraham Center of Life LLC of San Antonio, the first commercial dealer making embryos in advance for unspecified recipients, was created to help make it easier and more affordable for clients to have babies that match their preferences, according to its founder. . . . .But the embryo brokerage, which calls itself "the world's first human embryo bank," raises alarm among some fertility experts and bioethicists, who say the service marks another disturbing step toward commercialization of human reproduction and "designer babies." . . .
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Grappling with the Moral Dimensions of Advances in Assisted Reproduction  University of British Columbia, By Prof. Judith Daniluk (Dept. of Education and Counselling Psychology and Special Education, Faculty of Education), January 4, 2007
  The field of assisted reproductive technology (ART) is arguably one of the most exciting, progressive, and challenging areas of clinical practice. In the 28 years since the first successful birth of a child, Louise Brown, through the use of embryos created outside the womb -- we have witnessed tremendous advances in the treatment of fertility-related problems. The treatment of male factor infertility has been revolutionized through a procedure known as intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), which allows a woman’s eggs to be fertilized in a laboratory using sperm produced by, or extracted from, the testicles of her infertile partner. Couples who are concerned about passing on to their children serious genetically inherited diseases or chromosomal abnormalities can have their embryos screened prior to being returned to the woman’s womb, using a procedure known as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. And more recently, thanks to recent scientific advancements, women facing cancer treatments, or desiring to preserve their fertility until a time in the future when they are ready to have children, can have their eggs or ovarian tissue cryopreserved. As a consequence of these advancements, thousands of individuals and couples have had their dreams of becoming parents and having healthy children realized. And overall, the research suggests that other than the complications inherent in multiple births -- which occur more frequently when using ARTs -- the children born through these technologies are not at a significantly greater risk of having health problems or developmental difficulties than those conceived without intervention. However, these advancements bring with them a number of challenging moral, ethical and social issues with which individuals and couples using these treatments must contend. . . 
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  The Parent Hood: How technology and social progress are turning procreation into self-actualization.  The Daily Standard, By Claudia Anderson, December 4, 2006
  NEWSWEEK some weeks back had an arresting picture on its cover. The famous photographer Annie Leibovitz--tall, blonde, and 57, dressed in black trousers and a black V-neck top--stands with her three young daughters: a radiant, curly haired 5-year-old and adorable blonde toddler twins. Leibovitz is holding one of the chubby twins on her hip. All four are gently smiling. Inside the magazine, in the middle of the cover story, there appear, without further explanation, these two sentences about Leibovitz's family: "She gave birth as a single mother to her daughter Sarah just after 9/11. Then, a few months after [her friend Susan] Sontag and Leibovitz's father died, her twin girls were born, via a surrogate mother." The same week that Newsweek ran this subtly edgy photograph, a report was unveiled in New York on "The Revolution in Parenthood," the growing phenomenon of the deliberate creation of children without a mother and a father. The juxtaposition was a nice instance of what film and TV editors call "random sync." But random sync with a difference. For while Leibovitz is apparently in the vanguard of this revolution, and Newsweek is eagerly mainstreaming it, the report is skeptical. Its subtitle warns of "The Emerging Global Clash Between Adult Rights and Children's Needs" (see the full text at americanvalues.org). "Around the world, the two-person, mother-father model of parenthood is being fundamentally challenged," begins the report. Produced by the Commission on Parenthood's Future, an independent, nonpartisan group of scholars and leaders, and written by Elizabeth Marquardt, the document is an appeal for "reflection, debate, and research about the policies and practices that will serve the best interests of children" at a time when a redefinition of parenthood is taking place "at breakneck speed around the world." . . .
  
  
  RELATED STUDY: The Revolution in Parenthood: The Emerging Global Clash Between Adult Rights and Children's Needs -- An International Appeal from the Commission on Parenthood's Future.  AmericanValues.org, By Elizabeth Marquardt, Principal Investigator. 
  
  
  
  

• Mother of Three Becomes Quadruple Amputee After Rare Flesh-Eating Bacteria Strike
  The Strain of Strep Katy Hayes Contracted is Extremely Rare, Doctors Say  ABC News- GMA, By Emily Friedman, May 14, 2010
  Katy Hayes' home delivery of her baby girl was uneventful, but the three months since then have been anything but. Hayes, 41 and a mother of three, is now fighting for her life against flesh-eating bacteria  that have so far forced the amputation of her arms and legs. "Everything was fine," said Katy's husband, Al Hayes, of the days following the Feb. 10 birth of baby Arielle. "She was sore but it was to be expected." Never did Hayes expect that just a few weeks later, he'd be signing papers to allow doctors to remove his wife's extremities while she slipped in and out of a coma, unaware of what was going on around her. "It was the worst day of my life," said Al Hayes, 34. "But Katy knows why I had to do it – I had to do it to save her life." "Before this Katy was completely healthy – she had run a half-marathon and did yoga four days before she gave birth," said Hayes. "She'd work out five times a week." Al took his wife to the hospital on Feb. 14, when the pain in her abdomen became more acute and persistent. Doctors determined that she had been infected with invasive group A streptococcal disease. In most cases, strep infections result in a skin infection or a sore throat, commonly known as "strep throat," and patients recover with a dose of antibiotics. But Katy would soon learn that her strain of strep was a very different kind. "Basically every vein and artery in her body was a giant hole, and she went into complete lung, kidney and liver failure," said Al Hayes. "Her skin started to blister and peel off on all of her extremities; everything from infectious fluids to blood would just weep through her skin." "Her doctors told me that she had less than a five percent chance of surviving, and that 'nobody comes out of this' because once the snowball effect happens of organs shutting down, there is nothing medical science can do to reverse it," he said. But the doctors' grim warnings only motivated Hayes to advocate for his wife's medical care even more, determined not to let Katy die without her doctors trying everything possible to save her. . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: To Save Wife's Life, Man Opts to Sacrifice Her Limbs  KIAH-TV- Channel 39 Houston, By Leticia Juarez, February 22, 2010
  
  
  
  RELATED FACEBOOK INFO: Pray for Katy Hayes

RELATED VIDEO:  Woman From Dallas Gives Birth And Then Wakes Up With No Arms Or Legs! Katy and Al Haye  CNN Video- YouTube, May 15, 2010


RELATED LINK:  Al Hayes' (Katy's husband) blog, the latest updates on Katy


RELATED SITE:  Events Benefiting Katy Hayes' Family

RELATED QUOTE:  "...Sacrifice means giving up something you love for something you love more..."  The Real Proposal magazine, May 16, 2010

• Who decides what ‘marriage’ means?  Boston Globe, By Jeff Jacoby, - Globe Columnist, May 12, 2010
  When Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, same-sex marriage did not exist in the United States. Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s 4-3 decision finding a right to same-sex marriage in the state constitution, was still seven years in the future. But the crusade to fundamentally redefine marriage was already in progress, and Washington understood that once gay marriage was legalized anywhere, supporters would go to court to demand that it be recognized everywhere. So Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act to make two things clear: First, that no state could be forced to deem a same-sex couple “married’’ merely because another state did so. And second, that as far as the federal government and federal law were concerned, “marriage’’ would continue to mean what it had always meant: the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. . . . The 1996 law does not “single out’’ same-sex marriages for invidious purposes, as GLAD argues in its brief. DOMA simply does what countless federal laws do: It defines basic legislative terms. Considering how frequently the terms “marriage’’ and “spouse’’ are used in federal statutes, rulings, and regulations, it is nonsensical to claim that Congress has no right to clarify their meaning — as nonsensical as claiming that Congress is barred from defining “wetland’’  or “endangered species’’ or “disability.’’ To be sure, an individual state is free to adopt an irregular definition of marriage — or anything else — for purposes of state law. But it doesn’t have a constitutional right to impose that definition on the rest of the nation. Massachusetts could decide to recognize martial-arts studios as institutions of higher education, and to make them eligible for state-subsidized education loans. Plainly, that anomalous definition of “higher education’’ would not be binding on the federal student loan program. By the same token, Massachusetts can decide (or be required by its supreme court) to treat same-sex partners as married spouses. But it can hardly insist that its definition of “married spouses’’ trumps that of the federal government and 45 other states. . . . The Defense of Marriage Act understandably sticks in the craw of those who want marriage to mean something the vast majority of Americans have never accepted. But is the longstanding national definition unconstitutional merely because some people reject it? The federal courts have never said so before; there is no reason for them to say so now. . .
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Case is made vs. US marriage law: Court hears gay group’s challenge  Boston Globe, By Jonathan Saltzman, May 07, 2010
  A lawyer for 17 gays and lesbians who wed in Massachusetts urged a federal judge yesterday to strike down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman, calling it an unconstitutional intrusion on a matter previously left to states. The case is widely considered the first serious legal challenge in the nation to the Defense of Marriage Act, and puts the Obama administration in the awkward position of defending a law that it says it opposes but believes is constitutional. . .
  
  
  
  

• Same Sex, Different Marriage
  Many of those who want marriage equality do not want fidelity  Christianity Today, By Mollie Ziegler Hemingway, May 10, 2010
  Same-sex marriage advocates frequently ask, "How would gay marriage affect your marriage?" The question is posed rhetorically, as if marriage is a private institution with no social consequences.  But The New York Times, of all papers, argues that gay unions could significantly alter marriage norms. A new study of gay couples in San Francisco shows that half are "open," meaning that partners consent to each other having sex with other people. The Times says that the prevalence of such relationships could "rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony" by showing straight couples that monogamy need not be a "central feature" of marriage and that sexually open relationships might "point the way for the survival of the institution."In the gay community, open relationships are neither news nor controversial. Many of my partnered, gay male friends are in open relationships, some of which have lasted for decades. But the Times reporter, Scott James, who is himself gay, notes that nobody in an open relationship agreed to give their full name for the story, worrying that "discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.". . . . . To be sure, some advocates of same-sex marriage hope that heterosexual marital norms of monogamy and fidelity would be transferred to same-sex unions. But since these norms are based on the ideal that marriage is the union of a man and woman making a permanent and exclusive commitment for the purpose of bearing and rearing children, it would be irrational to expect same-sex partners—whose sexual relations bear no risk of procreation—to share the same norms. Whether or not marriage law should change, the fact is that changing it to include same-sex partnerships would teach people that marriage is fundamentally about the emotional union of adults and not primarily about the bodily union of man and wife (let alone the children who result from such a union). The norms of permanence, monogamy, and fidelity would make less sense under such a change. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret  New York Times, By Scott James, January 28, 2010
When Rio and Ray married in 2008, the Bay Area women omitted two words from their wedding vows: fidelity and monogamy. . . .As the trial phase of the constitutional battle to overturn the Proposition 8  ban on same-sex marriage concludes in federal court, gay nuptials are portrayed by opponents as an effort to rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony. Quietly, outside of the news media and courtroom spotlight, many gay couples are doing just that, according to groundbreaking new research. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  The New Face of Gay Marriage  The Christian Post, By R. Albert Mohler, Jr., April 28, 2008
Denizet-Lewis's article raises at least one final thought. If the legalization of same-sex marriage is changing homosexual culture, is it also changing heterosexual marriage? We can only wonder how long it will take for some heterosexual couples to decide that "emotional fidelity" and "sexual fidelity" can be separated. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Young, gay, married   GetReligion.org, Posted by Mollie, April 28, 2008
When I saw the cover of the New York Times Sunday Magazine this week, I groaned. Beaming out from the pages in ridiculously campy, 1950s-style photos reminiscent of June and Ward Cleaver were two perfectly domestic gay men. The Newlywed Gays! the text read and I just knew that we were going to get yet another installment about how perfectly normal gay marriage is. I’ve complained before about the “We’re perfectly normal and boring” meme that all reporters use when describing, say, polygamous families or gay parents and their genetic material donors forming multi-parent families. I don’t want sensational coverage, but it always smacks of advocacy. It also subtly denigrates others’ views as opposing, say, polygamy only because it’s not “normal.” Well, Benoit Denizet-Lewis’ story might be advocacy, but it completely surprised me. It’s long, but really interesting and it feels no need to present readers with 5,000 words claiming that young gay marrieds aren’t just normal, they’re better than normal. Not that I would expect him to, having read his rather provocative pieces on men on the down low and the teen hook-up culture. Instead, Denizet-Lewis used the piece to satisfy a curiosity. He’d heard about a bunch of young gay men getting married in Boston and he was curious how they might choose to construct and maintain their unions, particularly with no model for how to build a gay marriage. Much of the article deals with whether young gay men expect monogamy, as is a normal expectation (even if not always the reality) with straight couples who marry. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  Young Gay Rites   New York Times, By Benoit Denizet-Lewis, April 27, 2008


RELATED ARTICLE:  Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples  Family Research Council, By Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D.  (Posted March 2008)
The “I’m boring.” down-home portrayals of homosexual couples are meant to provoke the question: Since gay couples really differ only in that both partners are of the same sex, what rational basis exists for denying them full marriage rights? Are homosexual households, as the article suggests, simply another variant of human relationships that should be considered, along with marriage, as “part of mainstream American society”? On the contrary, the evidence indicates that “committed” homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples in several key respects:

· relationship duration
· monogamy vs. promiscuity
· relationship commitment
· number of children being raised
· health risks
· rates of intimate partner violence . . .

• Obama Picks Kagan, Scholar but Not Judge, for Court Seat  NY Times, By Peter Baker and Jeff Zeleny, May 10, 2010
  President Obama introduced Solicitor General Elena Kagan  on Monday as his choice to become the nation’s 112th justice of the Supreme Court, hailing her as a “one of the nation’s foremost legal minds,” as he girded for a battle over whether it takes a judge to serve on the court. At a ceremony with her at his side in the East Room of the White House, Mr. Obama called Ms. Kagan, the first woman to serve as solicitor general and as dean of the Harvard  Law School, a “trailblazing leader” and “consensus builder” known for “her openness to a wide range of viewpoints.” “She believes, as I do, that exposure to a broad array of perspectives is the foundation not just for a sound legal education but of a successful life in the law,” said the president, who was also joined by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. He emphasized that Ms. Kagan grasps the law’s tangible impact: “That understanding of law, not as an intellectual exercise or words on a page, but as it affects the lives of ordinary people, has animated every step of Elena’s career,” he said. With a beaming smile, Ms. Kagan said she was proud to be chosen to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens, the leader of the liberal justices on the court, who is retiring after 35 years. She said that the court serves the country “by upholding the rule of law and by enabling all Americans, regardless of their background or their beliefs, to get a fair hearing and an equal chance at justice.” Her selection immediately touched off a debate about whether her résumé as an academic, a government official and, for one year, the federal government’s chief advocate before the Supreme Court qualifies her to join it. . . . .“In her disdain for the military, Elena Kagan considers her own views and opinions as more important than obeying the law and equipping the country with the best fighting force in the world,” said Penny Nance, chief executive of Concerned Women for America, a conservative activist group. “We need justices who put national security over the feelings or demands of special interest groups.” Other critics said Mr. Obama chose her to be a reliable vote to defend his legislative program if elements of it are challenged before the high court. “Obama wants to pack the court with reliable liberal votes to rubber-stamp an agenda that he knows the American people would not accept,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, another conservative group. “What better way than to appoint a loyalist from his own Department of Justice with a thin public record to advance his leftist legacy through the court.”. . .
  

RELATED QUOTE:  "Let's not kid ourselves. Now more than ever, the sexual orientation of a potential nominee to the SCOTUS is relevant and critical to the judicial philosophy and makeup of the Court. SCOTUS will likely soon rule on landmark cases like Perry v. Schwarzenegger and determine the law of the land regarding same-sex marriage."  The Real Proposal magazine, May 12, 2010



RELATED ARTICLE:  A Vote for Kagan Is a Vote for Gay Marriage  National Review Online, By Maggie Gallagher, May 10, 2010
A vote for Elena Kagan is a vote for “marriage equality,” which features in two key cases that will shortly be before the Supreme Court: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which arises out of California’s Prop 8 but will apply to all 50 states, since it seeks to establish a federal constitutional right to gay marriage; and Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, which seeks “only” to overturn the federal laws defining marriage as one man and one woman. There has been an effort to obfuscate Kagan’s position on gay marriage using statements she made when nominated to be solicitor general, but these efforts are all either sad or laughable. Take, for instance, this Cornell law professor: He pretends to believe that, when Kagan stated that she has never taken a public position on whether the Constitution ought to be read as protecting gay marriage, she somehow meant that she believes the question should be left up to the political process. This is shameful to the author; he must know better. Part of this is a deliberate attempt to mislead the American people. Reasonable disagreement is one thing; outright deception is another. . .


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


RELATED ARTICLE:  Pro-Lifers Weigh In On Obama Supreme Court Nominee, Elena Kagan  St. Michael Society, May 10, 2010
Pro-life groups are speaking out today against President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan. There isn’t much of a paper trail on Kagan but from what pro-lifers have been able to glean, and the fact that NARAL has thrown their support behind her, confirming Kagan would be a serious setback for the unborn. President Obama said just recently that while he doesn’t have a litmus test for a nominee, he does want ”somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights, and that includes women’s rights.” We have to presume Kagan fits that description. A big concern that is Kagan has indicated she may be sympathetic to using international laws to make and interpret laws in the US, including an unlimited abortion right. . .

• Parenting Issues:  Babies know the difference between good and evil at six months, study reveals  The Daily Mail- UK, By David Derbyshire, May 10, 2010
  At the age of six months babies can barely sit up - let along take their first tottering steps, crawl or talk. But, according to psychologists, they have already developed a sense of moral code - and can tell the difference between good and evil. An astonishing series of experiments is challenging the views of many psychologists and social scientists that human beings are born as 'blank slates' - and that our morality is shaped by our parents and experiences. Instead, they suggest that the difference between good and bad may be hardwired into the brain at birth. In one experiment involving puppets, babies aged six months old showed a strong preference to 'good' helpful characters - and rejected unhelpful, 'naughty' ones. In another, they even acted as judge and jury. When asked to take away treats from a 'naughty' puppet, some babies went further - and dished out their own punishment with a smack on its head. Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: 'A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. 'With the help of well designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. 'Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bones.'. . . . ..Although the studies appear to show that morality is hard-wired into babies brains, some psychologists urged caution. . . . . .COMMENTS:. . .If you don't believe that there is an Intelligent Designer behind everything then you have to believe that from a tiny blob grew a moral conscience. This is more strong evidence that we have a Creator to whom we are accountable. It backs up the Bible and its concept of 'sin' in every way. We are all responsible for our choices in life - We all fail to keep our own inbuilt code and therefore we need a rescuer from it and his name is Jesus. The name that the Media will avoid mentioning at all costs unless it is used as an swear word. Strikes me as strange that in a society where we read on buses that there is probably no God the most common expression is 'OMG'. - Ken, Birkenhead UK, 11/5/2010 11:18 . . .
  
  
  
  
  

• It's sex o'clock in America  CNN.com, By Raquel Welch, Special to CNN, May 9, 2010
  -- Margaret Sanger opened the first American family-planning clinic in 1916, and nothing would be the same again. Since then the growing proliferation of birth control methods has had an awesome effect on both sexes and led to a sea change in moral values. And as I've grown older over the past five decades -- from 1960 to 2010 -- and lived through this revolutionary period in female sexuality, I've seen how it has altered American society -- for better or worse. . . . . . .One significant, and enduring, effect of The Pill on female sexual attitudes during the 60's, was: "Now we can have sex anytime we want, without the consequences. Hallelujah, let's party!" It remains this way. These days, nobody seems able to "keep it in their pants" or honor a commitment! Raising the question: Is marriage still a viable option? I'm ashamed to admit that I myself have been married four times, and yet I still feel that it is the cornerstone of civilization, an essential institution that stabilizes society, provides a sanctuary for children and saves us from anarchy. In stark contrast, a lack of sexual inhibitions, or as some call it, "sexual freedom," has taken the caution and discernment out of choosing a sexual partner, which used to be the equivalent of choosing a life partner. Without a commitment, the trust and loyalty between couples of childbearing age is missing, and obviously leads to incidents of infidelity. No one seems immune. As a result of the example set by their elders, by the 1990s teenage sexual promiscuity -- or hooking up -- with multiple partners had become a common occurrence. Many of my friends who were parents of teenagers sat in stunned silence several years ago when it came to light that oral sex had become a popular practice among adolescent girls in middle schools across the country. . . . . .Seriously, folks, if an aging sex symbol like me starts waving the red flag of caution over how low moral standards have plummeted, you know it's gotta be pretty bad. In fact, it's precisely because of the sexy image I've had that it's important for me to speak up and say: Come on girls! Time to pull up our socks! We're capable of so much better.
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  Raquel Welch, Reluctant Sex Symbol,Talks About Making Amends With Her Kids  ParentDish, By Susan Avery, May 12, 2010
  She left her husband as a young mother in 1963 and took her two kids with her to Hollywood to become a star. What she became -- a worldwide sex symbol -- was not what she intended. And neglecting her young kids in order to pursue fame, was also not part of the plan. She stayed silent on the topic for years, preferring to maintain her image as an untouched bombshell. In private, she says, she suffered. This year, the woman who left men of the 1960s panting, is turning 70. And, after years of keeping her breasts out front and her personal life under wraps, she's written a tell-all, Beyond the Cleavage, about her beginnings, which includes a father who played emotional hide-and-seek with his daughter, her current man-crush and how sex is overrated. An edited version of an interview with the actress follows. . .
  

RELATED VIDEO:  Nancy Gibbs on the Pill's Importance  TIME magazine, Aoril 22, 2010
On the 50th Anniversary of the Pill, TIME Executive Editor Nancy Gibbs talks about why we're still fighting about it half a century late. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  The Pill at 50: Sex, Freedom and Paradox  TIME magazine, By Nancy Gibbs, April 22, 2010
There's no such thing as the Car or the Shoe or the Laundry Soap. But everyone knows the Pill, whose FDA approval 50 years ago rearranged the furniture of human relations in ways that we've argued about ever since. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  The Pill Turns 50 — TIME Considers the Contraceptive Revolution  AlbertMohler.com, April 26, 2010
TIME magazine’s current cover story puts the issue of the Pill and birth control front and center in our cultural conversation. It should be an important part of our Christian conversation as well. . . . The Pill made sex outside of marriage far easier to conceal, lowering the social cost of extramarital and premarital sex. In 1966 U S. News & World Report would worry openly that the Pill might lead to sexual anarchy. Nancy Gibbs puts a particular emphasis on the role of the Pill in enabling modern feminism. She cites National Organization for Women president Terry O’Neill: “There is a straight line between the Pill and the changes in family structure we now see.”  Women could now enter the workplace without fear of a career interrupted by pregnancy. Employers “lost a primary excuse for closing their ranks to women.” Within a decade of the Pill’s emergence, the Roman Catholic church would declare its use forbidden for Catholics. Among evangelicals, there was much less moral concern for many years. Nancy Gibbs interviewed me for her essay, and she included some of my comments under a section marked “Backlash.”. . .

• Five Common Facebooking Issues Creating Marital Strife  Marriage Junkie.com, By K. Jason & Kellie Krafsky, May 07, 2010
  Kids. Sex. Money. According to therapists, these are the most common topics married couples argue about. After recently talking with a number of counselors and clergy about common marriage problems they’re dealing with, Facebook should be added to that list.  In fact, Facebook is one of the most popular relationship conflicts for today’s married couples. Why would that be? With over 400-million users, Facebook has become the preferred communication vehicle for connecting with friends and family, and has quickly integrated into the daily routines of adults of all ages. And in its wake, many spouses are grappling to keep up with their feelings towards their mates’ rate of reconnected relationships, degrees of convenience connecting to the online social network, and their level of devotion to the website. In fact, based off the research for our book, Facebook and Your Marriage (which included personal interviews with Facebookers, conversations with therapists, surveying many blogs and websites, and reading the dozens and dozens of comments from our various blog articles on Facebook) we’ve discovered that when a spouse says “Facebook is an issue in my marriage,” it is a general cry for help without an understanding of what the real problem is. They mistakenly blame the website when it is most likely one of these five common Facebooking issues. . . .#1) TIME ON FACEBOOK. . . .#2) FACEBOOK FRIENDS. . . . .#3) FACEBOOK ETIQUETTE. . . . .Our new book, Facebook and Your Marriage, combines our Facebook experiences, marriage education training, and fifteen years of marriage, helps couples handle all five of these Facebook-related arguments.  Here’s how Facebook and Your Marriage can help: #1) Time-saving tips, time-balancing input, and a framework on how to talk about TIME ON FACEBOOK and set boundaries without turning it into a lengthy, never ending argument.  #2) Insightful input on sending and accepting Friend Requests and how to set up boundaries surrounding FACEBOOK FRIENDS and protect their marriage from potential problems including high-maintenance people or the chances for an emotional affair! #3) Basic rules for (online) civility and practical ideas for couples to create their own FACEBOOK ETIQUETTE so that both husband and wife can decide what is and is not acceptable to post on Facebook!. . .

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



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


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


 

• Abortion documentary stirs controversy
  "BloodMoney" had been slated for Spectrum, will now screen at Madison  Albany Times Union, By Tom Keyser, May 07, 2010
  The world premiere of "BloodMoney," a documentary critical of what it calls the "abortion industry," has been rescheduled at the Madison Theatre after its opening this week was canceled at the Spectrum 8 Theatres. Roman Jaquez, a Troy filmmaker and producer of "BloodMoney," said that Keith Pickard, an owner of the Spectrum, called him last week to say that he had canceled the screening after receiving phone calls from people threatening to picket outside the theater if the film was shown. Jaquez had rented the theater for four screenings Wednesday and Thursday and sold tickets himself. Pickard confirmed that he had canceled the opening but denied it was because of potential protestors. He declined to give a reason.
  "It was just a private rental that didn't work out, and it's not for me to make public a private agreement," he said. "It was amicable on both sides." Jaquez agreed. He said he respects Pickard, has worked with him to organize a film festival and understands that "this was a difficult decision for him, which I absolutely respect." However, David K. Kyle, director of the film who lives in Maryland, issued this statement: "I find it hypocritical that pro-abortion activists claim to be pro-choice but don't want the public to have a choice in what films they can watch." Pickard said he didn't cancel the screening because he disagreed with its point of view or because it might be controversial. "They can say anything they want to create controversy," he said. "We've shown controversial films. That's just what we do. We've shown films on both sides of issues -- issues of abortion, of all kinds of things." Jacquez stood outside the Spectrum at 290 Delaware Ave. for several hours Wednesday and Thursday evening to intercept people expecting to see the film. He reimbursed them or exchanged tickets for the rescheduled opening May 14-20 at the Madison at 1036 Madison Ave. Jacquez rented the Madison for those date. "People were disappointed, but they were also glad that there's going to be another way to see the film," he said. "They just gathered across the street, and they prayed and sang a couple of songs and went home. There was no confrontation or conflict." The film's website at http://www.bloodmoneyfilm.com/ describes it as a documentary "that exposes the truth behind the abortion industry from the pro-life perspective." It examines "the history of abortion in America, from the inception of Planned Parenthood and the profitability of abortion clinics, to Roe vs. Wade, to the denial of when life begins, to the fight to save the lives of innocent babies, and the devastating effects it has had on the women that have had them." Jacques said "BloodMoney" is not graphic but likely will be controversial. . .

RELATED SITE: Blood Money - The Business of Abortion

RELATED ARTICLE:  Threats Cancel NYC Premiere of Anti-Abortion Movie "Blood Money"  Opposing Views, By Jill Stanek, May 07, 2010

Here we have another example demonstrating that "choice" and free speech only go one direction in the minds of pro-aborts. What are they so afraid of? The film BloodMoney, an exposé exposing the underbelly of the abortion industry (which I've previously discussed), was scheduled to premiere in New York City at Spectrum Theatres May 5. But Spectrum management abruptly canceled the screening last week, apparently due to pro-abort threats, according to TimesUnion.com:. . . . .Blood Money director David Kyl said in a statement, according to TimesUnion.com, "I find it hypocritical that pro-abortion activists claim to be pro-choice but don't want the public to have a choice in what films they can watch.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  New Documentary "Blood Money" Seeks to Expose the Abortion Business  LifeSiteNews.com, August 25, 2009
- A group of filmmakers have recently filmed a documentary that aims to expose the terrible reality of abortion, focusing on the financial aspect of the multimillion dollar abortion industry. The film, entitled "Blood Money," includes numerous interviews with leaders of the pro-life movement, in which they lay out the facts about the abortion industry and the effects that abortions have on women. The film covers a variety of issues, including "Roe V. Wade, Planned Parenthood, the scientific fact that life begins at conception, and how abortion affects women who have had one" the director of the film, David K. Kyle, told LSN in an interview today. The original title of the film had been "The American Holocaust." However, as filming progressed, the filmmakers found that the business aspect of abortion kept coming to the forefront. . .


RELATED ARTICLE: The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger's EUGENIC Plan for Black Americans  Life Education And Resource Network (L.E.A.R.N), By Tanya L. Green
Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and "purity"," particularly of the "Aryan" race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the "fit" to reproduce and the "unfit" to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the "inferior" races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.


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


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


RELATED SITE:  Abort73.com: The Case Against Abortion

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

• Chely Wright: Life in the Closet Nearly Drove Me to Suicide  People magazine, By Tim Nudd, May 05, 2010
  When she hit rock bottom, Chely Wright came close to ending the life that had kept a big secret for so long. The country-music singer, 39, who came out this week, says at one point she picked up a gun and was close to pulling the trigger – trapped as a closeted lesbian and afraid of losing everything in a conservative industry that might not accept who she really was. "I had a 9-millimeter gun in my mouth," Wright said on Wednesday's Today show. "I was living a secret life, and I was very much a country-music celebrity … I gave up hope, and I was ready to take my own life." The pressure had been building, she said, ever since John Rich of country-music duo Big & Rich asked her if she was gay – the first time she'd ever been asked directly after years of avoiding the issue. She recalls: "John finally asked me point blank: 'You're not gay. If you are, people won't have it. It's sick, it's deviant, it's unacceptable to country-music fans.' And he said, 'You're not, are you?' And I lied. And I knew that I had gone from not talking about it to being a liar." The weight of that new burden nearly drove her to suicide – but she managed to face her fears instead. "I stopped praying for what I had always prayed for, which was 'Help me figure out a way to still have my career and everything,' " she says. "My prayer was: 'God, give me a moment's peace.' " She adds: "I didn't hear God's voice. I didn't see a guy in a robe. But I heard God say what He'd been whispering in my ear all along: 'I expect one thing of you, and that's to tell the truth.' " . . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  John Rich Responds to Chely Wright: 'I would never pass judgment on any friend of mine'  Entertainment Weekly, By Whitney Pastorek, May 05, 2010
  In her recently-released memoir, Like Me, country singer Chely Wright comes out — and takes a harsh stand against old colleague John Rich (of Big & Rich). The two performed together in a long-ago Opryland show, and, according to Wright, it was a comment from Rich about sexuality that pushed her over the edge. As she told Access Hollywood, “[John] said, ‘You’re not gay are you?!’ I said, ‘No, John, I’m not.’ He said, ‘Good, thank God.’ And that began a spiral for me. I had a meltdown shortly after that.” Now, Access Hollywood has posted the following statement from Rich on their website: “I would never pass judgment on any friend of mine. I feel awful that, at this time in Chely’s life, my decade old comment — ‘Good, thank God’ — was taken the wrong way. . .

RELATED VIDEO:  Chely Wright nearly took own life over sexuality  MSNBC.com, May 05, 2010

RELATED QUOTE:  Country star John Rich is cowardly back pedaling from comments he made to Chely Wright about her possible homosexuality. However, shouldn’t we rather be politically incorrect, but truthful, than enable a friend on a path to self destruction?  The Real Proposal magazine, May 05, 2010



RELATED ARTICLE:  Chely Wright on her decision to come out: I won't be a whisper, I'm too proud of who I am'  Entertainment Weekly, By Whitney Pastorek, May 05, 2010
On Monday, country star Chely Wright (“Single White Female”) revealed on People.com that she’s gay. As she explains in her new autobiography, Like Me, she’s known about her sexuality for a long time, but she guarded the secret so intensely it brought her to the brink of suicide after a breakdown in 2005. Now, with her memoir and a new album, Lifted Off the Ground, on shelves, she’s talking for the first time about what she calls her “truth.” . . .



RELATED QUOTE:  Country star Chely Wright (“Single White Female”) has come out that she’s gay and is talking for the first time about what she calls her “truth.” The ultimate question, really, is: Whose truth should we live by? Your truth? My truth? Or the absolute truth of God?  The Real Proposal magazine, May 05, 2010



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


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


RELATED RESOURCE: ChangeisPossible.com
International Healing Foundation: Changing the World One Life at a Time!

• D.C. 'gay marriage' foes hopeful  Baptist Press, By Tom Strode, May 05, 2010
  -Supporters of an effort to give citizens of the District of Columbia the right to vote on the definition of marriage expressed hope after the D.C. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the controversial case May 4. Legalized "same-sex marriage" went into effect in March in D.C., and the arguments before the full appeals court gave opponents another opportunity to plead their case for a voter initiative after being rejected by the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics, as well as the D.C. Superior Court. "I think the thing that was the most encouraging was that the court of appeals was clearly focusing on the fundamental question here, and that's the right to vote," lawyer Austin Nimocks told Baptist Press after arguing before the court on behalf of supporters of the initiative. "And that's what this case has been about from the very beginning." The D.C. Charter gives citizens the "clear right to vote on anything except budget matters," said Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). "And if people want the right to vote on marriage, they have the unquestionable right to do so." In December, D.C. became the sixth jurisdiction in the country to legalize "gay marriage" when the D.C. Council approved a bill and Mayor Adrian Fenty signed it into law. D.C.-area pastor Harry Jackson, former D.C. delegate Walter Fauntroy and others had attempted to place an initiative on the ballot to define marriage as only "between a man and a woman," but the D.C. election board rejected the bid in November. The board said the initiative would "authorize discrimination" against homosexuals that is barred under the district's Human Rights Act, and Superior Court Judge Judith Macaluso agreed with the action. ADF appealed Macaluso's decision. The lengths to which the government has gone in this case to suppress the people's right to vote is unprecedented," Nimocks said at a news conference after the May 4 arguments. "This case is about the right to vote and not just our right to vote, but the right of every single person in the District of Columbia. Whether you want marriage or you want to redefine it, your right is at issue today, because in America -- above all else, above any body's political agenda, above anybody on the council, above anybody on the court -- we respect the right to vote.". . .

RELATED RESOURCE:  Jackson v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics resource page  Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), May 03, 2010
ADF and Stand4MarriageDC attorneys represent Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr.; Del. Walter E. Fauntroy; and other registered voters who argue that voters in the district have the right to vote on the definition of marriage. A Jan. 28 Washington Post poll  showed that 59 percent of adult D.C. residents believe voters should be allowed to vote “yes” or “no” on the definition of marriage in the district. . .

RELATED BLOG:  NOM Marriage News: May 7, 2010  National Organization for Marriage, By Brian S. Brown, May 07, 2010
Do politicians have a right to strip you of your constitutional right to vote? Now there's a real burning civil rights question, and it was front and center this week in D.C., both inside and outside the federal courthouse doors. Outside the courtroom of the D.C. Court of Appeals, we pro-marriage forces rallied under the leadership of Bishop Harry Jackson. "This is the new civil rights movement!" I told a crowd of 250 enthusiastically cheering marriage champions! Inside the courtroom, Alliance Defense Fund attorney Austin Nimocks was awesome! The D.C. charter, Austin told the full nine-judge panel assembled before the packed courtroom, clearly states, "electors of D.C. may propose laws (except laws appropriating funds)." "The council cannot undermine a right that's expressly granted in the charter," Nimocks said outside. "The people's right to vote is granted in the charter." Yet local D.C. courts had rejected the people's right to vote for marriage, so now here we were in federal court, asserting core constitutional rights on behalf of the people of D.C. Finally the press, which has been trumpeting the usual message of despair and inevitability, has begun to notice: There's something very, very peculiar about the political establishment claiming they can, by their vote, amend their charter and take away the people’s right to vote. . .


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



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

• [Another] Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin
  A Christian street preacher was arrested and locked in a cell for telling a passer-by that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God.  The Telegraph- UK, By Heidi Blake, May 02, 2010
  Dale McAlpine was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships. The 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Workington, Cumbria for years, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God. Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act. Mr McAlpine, who was taken to the police station in the back of a marked van and locked in a cell for seven hours on April 20, said the incident was among the worst experiences of his life. “I felt deeply shocked and humiliated that I had been arrested in my own town and treated like a common criminal in front of people I know," he said. “My freedom was taken away on the hearsay of someone who disliked what I said, and I was charged under a law that doesn't apply.” Christian campaigners have expressed alarm that the Public Order Act, introduced in 1986 to tackle violent rioters and football hooligans, is being used to curb religious free speech. Sam Webster, a solicitor-advocate for the Christian Institute, which is supporting Mr McAlpine, said it is not a crime to express the belief that homosexual conduct is a sin. “The police have a duty to maintain public order but they also have a duty to defend the lawful free speech of citizens,” he said. “Case law has ruled that the orthodox Christian belief that homosexual conduct is sinful is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society.". . .
  
  
  
  RELATED ARTICLE:  U.S. Preacher Fined for Calling Homosexuality a Sin  Christian Post, By Charles Boyd, April 01, 2010
  The Christian Institute has voiced concern after a street preacher was handed a fine of more than $1,500 for saying homosexuality was a sin. U.S. evangelist Shawn Holes, 47, was preaching in Glasgow, Scotland, on March 18 when he was arrested and detained overnight in a police cell. Police later charged him with breaching the peace and told him to pay the fine on the grounds that his remarks were “homophobic” and had been “aggravated by religious prejudice.” Holes was touring the U.K. as part of a group of evangelists from the U.S. He was taking questions from the public when a gay couple in the crowd asked him about his views on homosexuality. He allegedly told them that homosexuals “deserve the wrath of God” and would go to hell. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  Obama signs 'hate crimes' bill - Christian broadcasters concerned  OneNewsNow, By Charlie Butss, October 28, 2009
The "hate crimes" bill approved recently by Congress could be a problem for broadcasters -- most importantly, Christian broadcasters -- now that it has been signed into law. President Barack Obama has signed into law a measure that adds to the list of federal hate crimes attacks on people based on their sexual orientation. Congress approved the legislation last week as part of the $680-billion FY 2010 Defense Authorization bill. Appended to the hate crimes amendment was a statement ensuring that a religious leader or any other person cannot be prosecuted on the bases if his or her speech, beliefs, or association. But Craig Parshall, chief counsel for National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), discounts that statement, pointing out that such laws in other countries have been used to silence people of faith. He believes the law approved by Congress is potentially dangerous as it relates to comments made about homosexuality or another religion. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Why We’re Losing Our Right to Speak Out  Townhall.com, By Chuck Colson, May 1, 2008
David Woodward is a political science professor at Clemson University—one who has first-hand experience on how dangerous it can be to speak out in favor of traditional values: He almost lost his job over it. In 1993, Woodward was asked to testify about the political power of homosexual groups in American life. . . . . .To publicly oppose the campaign for same-sex “marriage” and gay rights was, he writes, “the equivalent to being sent to the university Gulag.” He was denied an administrative position on the grounds that he was “ideologically incompatible” with the values of the university. He often found the word homophobe scribbled on his office door. The press viciously attacked him for his views. But in private, Woodward was hearing a different message. People would call to whisper encouragement. So did parents and university staffers. Some students came into his office, carefully closed the door, and whispered their support. “The one thing they all had in common is that they were all scared, and they all spoke in whispers,” Woodward writes. Homosexuality is not the only issue Americans can no longer speak freely about. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  The Meaning of Religious Liberty  The Heritage Foundation, By Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., December 5, 2007
It is often thought that religious liberty means a strict separation of church and state, but that view is out of tune with the proper understanding of the role religion and morality play in the civic and public life of a self-governing people. A more compelling model is that of America's Founders, who advanced religious liberty in a way that would uphold religion and morality as indispensable supports of good habits, the firmest props of the duties of citizens, and the great pillars of human happiness. . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Same-Sex “Marriage,” “Hate Crimes,” and the New Totalitarianism  LifeSite Special Report, By Michael D. O’Brien, February 28, 2005
Is it so far-fetched to consider the possibility that we are in a downward slide toward totalitarianism? Few people would go so far as to maintain that we are living in the early phase of an Orwellian 1984 or alternatively a softer form of totalitarian government such as Huxley’s Brave New World, yet the elements of State-enforced social reconstruction are now in operation. We should also consider the fact that in just over one generation we have been shifted from a society in which homosexual acts were a crime under the then existing law, to a society in which homosexual acts have become a government-protected and fostered activity, while voicing criticism of it “publicly” has become the crime. Call it by any name you like, but this is Thought Crime. As Orwell predicted, we have arrived at a situation in which “some of us are more equal than others.” . . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  The dark, intolerant, and abusive nature of the gay agenda  RenewAmerica.org, By Fred Hutchinson, April 28, 2004
Over twenty years ago, I had an intermittent conversation about homosexuality with an (sic) gay man at work. Although he persistently brought up the subject, he would periodically fly into a rage and call me a bigot when I disagreed with him. That man went on to become a key homosexual organizer in my city. . . . . Are gays inherently hysterical, hateful, and intolerant of disagreement, I wondered, or are they reading off the same script? Are they systematically organized to strike out at opponents, and to silence them through intimidation? The answer is that no, homosexuals are not necessarily hysterical, hateful, or intolerant by nature — but yes, this is something they have learned. It is a technique called "jamming" which is part of an elaborate program to further the gay agenda. . .


RELATED CALL TO ACTION:  Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience
On Nov. 20, 2009 a group of prominent Christian clergy, ministry leaders and scholars released the Manhattan Declaration, which addresses the sanctity of life, traditional marriage and religious liberty. . .



RELATED INFO:  Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media  MassResistance.org
Read below: The powerful, sophisticated psychological techniques that the homosexual movement has used to manipulate the public in the media. . .

• The depression epidemic: We've got more freedom, wealth and opportunity... so why are so many women unhappy?  The Daily Mail- UK, By Lorna martin, May 03, 2010
  A few years ago, just before she was due to return to work after the Christmas break, 40-year-old Kirsty Barr made an emergency appointment with her GP. 'I cried solidly for 45 minutes,' she says. 'everything that was inside me came out - how useless I felt as a mother, how the smallest task I used to do with ease overwhelmed me.' Barr, who worked for the Discovery Channel, had a two-year-old toddler, Jake, and was pregnant with her daughter. She was signed off work and, for the three months before Maisie was born, she sat in her kitchen, staring at the TV, avoiding friends and unable even to answer the phone. 'People would say to me: "What on earth do you have to be depressed about? You've got a great job, a fantastic husband, lovely children," ' she says. 'My mum found it very hard. She said I should snap out of it, that I should be caring for my husband and son, but I was physically incapable.' After her daughter was born, Kirsty, who now works as a PR consultant, was fine for three or four months, but then, with a baby and toddler to care for and her husband, rob, out at work all day, she went into meltdown. 'My depression came back twice as intensely. Every day was like climbing a mountain. I couldn't sleep at night and I'd lie in bed thinking black thoughts about how useless I was, then I'd be exhausted all day. 'There I was, sitting in my lovely four-bedroom detached house, thinking my life was worthless.' Kirsty, who lives in Amersham, Bucks, is one of an increasing number of middle-aged women who, though on the face of it have never had it better, are struggling with depression. Last week, two of this newspaper's most high-profile female columnists wrote movingly about their struggles. . . . . . .So why is a generation who enjoys more freedom, opportunity and independence than their mothers or grandmothers seemingly far more unhappy? Is it really all about a chemical imbalance in the brain? Or have we become too quick to diagnose as a psychiatric medical condition what the 14th-century monk Thomas a Kempis called 'the proper sorrows of the soul'? As Allison Pearson asked: 'Is it women who are mad, or is it the society we live in?'. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  Why Are So Many Women Depressed? [Part 2]   Townhall.com, By Dennis Prager, June 24, 2008
It is widely reported that women suffer depression at twice the rate of men. Apparently, more women are clinically depressed than ever before. On the assumption that these assessments are true, the question anyone interested in the subject -- which means anyone who cares about any woman -- asks is, why? In a recent column I offered one explanation -- the impossibly high expectations for happiness that feminism created for many women. There are other possible explanations. One is the way in which many girls have been raised. As every wise person and wise culture in history has known, it is impossible to attain any happiness without conquering one's nature. This is, of course, equally true for boys and girls, men and women. However, along with feminism arose a belief in the superiority of female nature. One result of this has been the suppressing of many male instincts -- both negative and positive -- along with little or no suppression of negative female instincts. . . . . The 1960s ushered in The Age of Hubris, a time of almost unprecedented levels of conceit that one knew better than all previous generations how to order life, that almost everything inherited from the past was just plain wrong and outdated. For this hubris we have paid, and will continue to pay, a steep price. And many women, untrained in subduing darker aspects of their natures, deprived of the female joy of femininity and increasingly deprived of men (as opposed to boys), are feeling the brunt of these losses. They call it depression. . . .


RELATED ARTICLE:  Why Are So Many Women Depressed? Part I  Townhall.com, By Dennis Prager, March 11, 2008
As one who regularly talks to women, and about men and women, on my radio show and who has informally counseled women of all ages, I would like to offer some explanations that may run counter to currently acceptable ones, but which should shed light on the subject. Assuming that any new phenomenon -- in this case, much higher rates of depression among women -- suggests a new cause, the major new cause can only be the consequences of feminism. This does not mean that feminism has achieved nothing good. . . . But how much good feminism has achieved is unrelated to the question of whether it is a, or even the, primary contributor to the rise in depression among so many women. . . 

• Source: Halle Berry 'Kicked Gabriel Out' Months Ago  People magazine, By Charlotte Triggs and Julie Jordan, May 02, 2010
  Make no bones about it. Halle Berry didn't get dumped by Gabriel Aubry. Their split  happened several months ago – and it was the actress who initiated it, according to a source. "She kicked him out months ago because he wasn't able to pull his weight in the relationship and she wanted to move on," a source close to Berry and Aubry tells PEOPLE. "They’re very amicable in healthy ways because of their child," adds the source referring to the couple's 2-year-old daughter Nahla. "Her main concern is for the health and happiness of her daughter.". .
  
  
  
• Gabriel Aubry Sad About Split from Halle Berry  People magazine, By Marla Lehner, May 01, 2010
  Although Gabriel Aubry and Halle Berry have split up, the model says he has nothing but love and respect for the actress, with whom he has a 2-year-old daughter. “While I will not comment on all of the wild inaccuracies being speculated about in the media, I am sad to say that Halle and I have decided together to separate at this time," Aubry, a model, confirmed Friday in a statement to Access Hollywood released through his agency, Wilhelmina Models. Reports of the couple's break up first began circulating widely on Friday. Berry’s rep couldn’t be reached for comment. Aubry says of his Oscar winning ex, "She is, and will forever be, one of the most special and beautiful people that I have ever known, and I am certain that we will continue to have only love and respect for one another.". . .
  
  
  

RELATED VIDEO:  Halle Berry & Gabriel Aubry Call It Quits  Access Hollywood, May 02, 2010
Just hours after news broke that Halle and her boyfriend of five years, Gabriel Aubry, had split, Access’s Shaun Robinson caught up with her at the DKMS Gala. So, was there any sign of heartbreak on Halle’s face? Plus, which of them actually ended the relationship?

RELATED VIDEO:  Halle Berry and Jamie Foxx Kiss  YouTube, June 17, 2009

RELATED QUOTE:   This was June 2009...what relationship could Halle Berry possibly have been having at home?  The Real Proposal magazine, May 03, 2010



RELATED ARTICLE:  The (futile) pursuit of happiness  The Daily Mail- UK, By HELEN KIRWAN-TAYLOR, March 30, 2007
Throughout my whole life, I have striven to be happy. Indeed, on the surface, I have everything required to reach such a state of contentment: a loving husband, beautiful children, a nice house, the absence of debt or physical impediments. However, despite all this, despite my best attempts to remain positive, most of my waking life is spent in a state that is far, far short of euphoric. Not that I would ever dare admit to anyone that I am anything less than blissfully happy. For in the 21st century, being openly negative, miserable or even a little unhappy in today's glossy, airbrushed, size zero, Hello! magazine world, has become a taboo of unspeakable proportions. . .

"Marriage" News: April 2010

Get 2 Free Preview Issues!

Home  I  Subscribe  I  About Us  I  Editorial  I  'MARRIAGE' In The News  I  Enter Our Blog Spot  I  'Something New' 


2011:  December 2011  |  November 2011  |  October 2011  |  September 2011  |  August 2011  |  July 2011  | June 2011  |   May 2011  |  April 2011  |  March 2011  |  February 2011  | January 2011 

2010:   December 2010  |  November 2010  |  October 2010  |  September 2010  |  August 2010  |  July 2010  |  June 2010  |  May 2010  |  April 2010  |  March 2010  |  February 2010  |  January 2010 

2009:  December 2009  |  November 2009  |  October 2009  |  September 2009  |  August 2009  |  July 2009  |  June 2009  |  May 2009  |  April 2009  |  March 2009  | February 2009  |  January 2009

2008:  December 2008  |  November 2008  |  October 2008  |  September 2008  |  August 2008  |  July 2008  |  June 2008  |  May 2008  |  April 2008  |  March 2008  |  February 2008  I  January 2008

2007:  December 2007  I  November 2007  I  October 2007  I  September 2007  I  August 2007  I  July 2007  I  June 2007  I  May 2007  I  April 2007  I  March 2007  I  February 2007  I  January 2007

2006:   December 2006  I  November 2006  I  October 2006  I  September 2006  I  August 2006  I  July 2006  I  June 2006  I  May 2006  I  April 2006  I  March 2006  I  February 2006  I  January 2006

2005:  December 2005  I  November 2005  I  October 2005  I  September 2005  I  August 2005  I  July 2005  I  June 2005  I  May 2005