|
|
"MARRIAGE" In The News
(May
2011) |
 |
 |
 |
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.
|
|
|
- BOOK REVIEW: 'Marriage Confidential' exposes scandalous reality USA TODAY, By Deirdre Donahue, May 31, 2011
Thanks to Arnold & Maria, everybody has marriage on the mind. Pamela Haag's Marriage Confidential is the perfect book club choice because it lets women vent on cheating husbands, betrayed wives and why people marry in the first place. This personal meditation on the modern marital state asks questions instead of providing answers. It is also free of the inflammatory political and cultural baggage that usually accompanies the topic. Hers is the rare book a divorced parent can read without feeling he or she has personally undermined Western civilization. (Alas, it has no inside dish on famous couples.) Haag writes about her own marriage, and examines other unions. If you have a low threshold for privileged young mommies whining about the dullness of domesticity, brace yourself. A mother of one child, Haag has degrees from Swarthmore, a history Ph.D from Yale and an MFA in creative non-fiction from Goucher. Her triathlete husband — a devoted father — does financial engineering for a commodities trading firm. Fortunately, Haag's awkward depiction of her boringly stable relationship is just part of the story. Things perk up when she writes about other people's far weirder unions. Her chapter on "workhorse wives" will inflame any mixed book club gathering because of questions it raises about feminism. Haag depicts what she calls "Tom Sawyer marriages" where exhausted angry wives tote the financial burden while relaxed liberated husbands pursue their creative bliss sans paycheck. The chapter about "royal children" is pretty intriguing as well. Modern parents fixate on their kids' well-being in a manner once reserved solely for the hemophiliac heir to the Russian throne. Haag leaves the most riveting stuff — sex — for the end. With divorce so costly, some couples are exploring what might be described a more European approach to adultery, with a big assist from the Web. Marriage Confidential won't make you stray if you're faithful nor sad if you're single. But it does make you reflect on modern mating habits. It's fun. . .
|
 |
|
|
RELATED ARTICLE: Can (This) Marriage Be Saved? A new book argues that if the institution of marriage is to endure, it must evolve with the times. The New Republic, By Ruth Franklin, June 1, 2011
There was something hollow about the hubbub last month over the revelation of Maria Shriver and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s split. As one of the weirder new clichés lately to invade the language puts it, we were shocked but not surprised. Nothing is less earthshaking these days than infidelity: According to current statistics, up to 50 percent of men and 40 percent to 45 percent of women cheat. No, the real scandal was not that Schwarzenegger had been unfaithful; his misbehavior had long been public knowledge. It was that, in fathering a child with his mistress, he had been spectacularly, stupidly unfaithful in a way that even a wife apparently accustomed to overlooking infidelity—a wife who had perhaps decided that a 25-year marriage, with four children, could withstand a few dalliances—could not ignore. With infidelity now seeming less like a deadly plague and more like a relatively mild form of cancer—we all know someone who has suffered from it, even if we haven’t experienced it ourselves—does it still make sense for monogamy to constitute the basis for marriage? Or should couples figure out creative ways to expand the boundaries of their relationships, acknowledging that they might want to continue to be life partners even if one or both needs the occasional night off? This is the argument of Pamela Haag’s new book, Marriage Confidential: The Post-Romantic Age of Workhorse Wives, Royal Children, Undersexed Spouses, and Rebel Couples Who Are Rewriting the Rules, in which “affair-tolerant” couples aren’t a regressive throwback—they’re the benchmark of a new kind of modernity. . .
RELATED REVIEW: “Marriage Confidential”: Is parenting killing our marriages? Washington Post, By Janice D’Arcy, May 31, 2011
I did not particularly like the movie Jerry Maguire, but I will paraphrase one of its famous lines. This book had me at its title: “Marriage Confidential: The Post-Romantic Age of Workhorse Wives, Royal Children, Undersexed Spouses & Rebel Couples Who Are Rewriting The Rules,” (Harper Collins, May 2011). Published today and written by Baltimore author Pamela Haag, the book is grabbing attention for its message that we have created a nation of semi-happy marriages, with couples living in an ambivalent limbo. Haag introduces some provocative new terms like “Divorced Cohabitators,” “Affair Tolerators,” “New Monogamists,” and my new self-designated nickname, “Workhorse Wife.”. . . .While “Marriage Confidential” is ostensibly a book about marriage, I called Haag to find out how modern parenting is affecting marriages. Her answer: “Parenthood is swallowing marriage.” “It’s not clear to me that the way we parent now, with all the extracurricular activities, is helpful. It may be hurting our marriage more than it’s helping our children,” she said. “Children are at the center of a family now. From a historical perspective it’s a departure. Go back to the 50s and husbands and wives had many different roles — as hostess, decorator, breadwinner, volunteer. They weren’t just parents. Today, parenting is the sole priority. ... It crowds out other functions.”. . .
|
 |
- MARRIAGE: A Church Conundrum Christian Post Bolg: Today's Christian Marriage, By Edward Ridenour, May 30, 2011
There was a recent report by The Christian Post saying,
"In an interview with World Magazine, Focus on the Family Chief Executive and President Jim Daly said that people in their 20s and 30s were especially likely to support same-sex marriage. Daly was asked by the magazine how evangelicals were doing in their efforts to support traditional marriage, in comparison to the success they have had advocating against abortion.
He answered: 'We're losing on that one, especially among the 20- and 30-somethings: 65 to 70 percent of them favor same-sex marriage. I don't know if that's going to change with a little more age – demographers would say probably not. We've probably lost that. I don't want to be an extremist here, but I think we need to start calculating where we are in the culture.'"
Mr. Daly is right about losing the argument against homosexual marriage. Also, to me, what is even worse is the age group supporting so-called homosexual marriage. If homosexuality has progressed as far as it has with the more conservative older generation, what will the status be when this new generation become old. If ever right teaching on marriage is needed, it is needed now. However, what is even more disheartening and unfortunate is that he and other conservative Christian leaders and counselors lost heterosexual marriage long before losing same-sex marriage and continue to lose it. Before attempting to halt the acceptance and belief by many toward so-called homosexual marriages, getting Biblical standards correct for heterosexual marriages must first be obtained. When one adopts and accepts standards that are not Biblical in defining Biblical marriage, as the church has and does, the Godly marriages that may exist, especially in the church, will diminish. This happens because they are not founded upon the principles that govern marriage as the Bible prescribes. They are founded on secular ideas or imaginary notions instead. Biblical principles are what define a true marriage, making it holy and sacred - nothing else. God's marital standards proclaimed in His Word are not counterfeit, symbolic, or contradicting as are the established standards that the church uses to teach on and support marriage today. Knowledge of true Biblical marital standards will also cause understanding of the ramifications associated with its violation. Right now, the church pretty much is ignorant to and accepting of those violations among heterosexual couples on a regular basis. Church leaders are ignorant to those Biblical principles and do not promote or enforce them within the body of Christ, which is what they are commissioned to do for the health of the church. In fact, contrary to Scripture, when they feel that someone is in violation, they advocate that those who commit such violations are to be welcomed, embraced, and coddled. One failed argument by church leaders when opposing homosexual marriage is stating that the "tradition" of heterosexual marriage should be preserved. However, Biblically, marriage is not a tradition. It either is or it isn't. . . . .Not all men and woman who the church deems to be married are truly married. A union that is a fornicated union is not a marriage, regardless of how many documents they acquire, witnesses they procure, officials that confirm it, love proclaimed, vows or commitments rehearsed, covenants initiated , etc., etc. . . .
|
|
|
RELATED ARTICLE: Refocused: As marriage crumbles, says Focus on the Family’s Jim Daly, Christians can try to uphold the biblical family as a model to the world World magazine, By Marvin Olasky, June 2011 Issue
Here are edited excerpts of my interview with Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus on the Family, and the author of Stronger (David C. Cook, 2010). Daly became the organization's president in 2005 after 16 years with the ministry, succeeding founder James Dobson.
The reputation of Focus on the Family seems to be changing. For a while journalists made it seem to be an essentially political organization. Our budget has always been roughly 90 percent toward the bread and butter, marriage and parenting issues, and 10 percent toward policy. That really hasn't changed. What has changed is how we address the issues in terms of tone. . . . Everything I'm trying to do at Focus on the Family is to win the culture. I'm most concerned about our expression of the gospel preventing somebody from coming to the conclusion that Christ is who He said He was. I'm not saying that was the case before, but I am saying that as a Christian I want to make sure that my words, my rhetoric, my fervor for truth are balanced with God's grace. . . Editor's Note: Listen to Marvin Olasky’s complete interview with Jim Daly
RELATED ARTICLE: The Most Pioneering Divorce Reform Effort In 40 Years Huffington Post, By Beverly Willett, May 18, 2011
America has the highest rate of divorce in the Western world, and the consequences to our nation's families have been devastating. Each year tens of billions of taxpayer dollars are spent on the divorce-associated fallout, not including the millions spent by individuals hiring lawyers and obtaining a divorce. Social science research confirms the devastation -- the heavy emotional toll on children, women and men, the reduced longevity, the diminished physical health. Recidivist rates are alarming -- children of divorce are 89% more likely to divorce than their peers from intact families, and divorce rates for second and third marriages have soared to about 67% and 74%, respectively. And one million children a year continue to be split between their own mothers and fathers. While divorce may be necessary in certain circumstances, such as domestic abuse, research indicates the vast majority of divorces involve low-conflict marriages, many of which can be repaired. (The "Evolution of Divorce" by W. Bradfox Wilcox, provides a good summary of these alarming findings and the research behind them.) Behind all the pie charts, there are countless anguishing personal stories of betrayal, abandonment, and financial hardship. As Andrew Cherlin so eloquently put it in his recent book, we are on a marriage and divorce merry-go-round. And it is high time to get off. Introducing the Coalition for Divorce Reform ("CDR"). . .
RELATED ARTICLE: The Evolution of Divorce National Affairs, By W. Bradford Wilcox, Fall 2009
In 1969, Governor Ronald Reagan of California made what he later admitted was one of the biggest mistakes of his political life. Seeking to eliminate the strife and deception often associated with the legal regime of fault-based divorce, Reagan signed the nation's first no-fault divorce bill. The new law eliminated the need for couples to fabricate spousal wrongdoing in pursuit of a divorce; indeed, one likely reason for Reagan's decision to sign the bill was that his first wife, Jane Wyman, had unfairly accused him of "mental cruelty" to obtain a divorce in 1948. But no-fault divorce also gutted marriage of its legal power to bind husband and wife, allowing one spouse to dissolve a marriage for any reason — or for no reason at all. In the decade and a half that followed, virtually every state in the Union followed California's lead and enacted a no-fault divorce law of its own. This legal transformation was only one of the more visible signs of the divorce revolution then sweeping the United States: From 1960 to 1980, the divorce rate more than doubled — from 9.2 divorces per 1,000 married women to 22.6 divorces per 1,000 married women. This meant that while less than 20% of couples who married in 1950 ended up divorced, about 50% of couples who married in 1970 did. And approximately half of the children born to married parents in the 1970s saw their parents part, compared to only about 11% of those born in the 1950s. In the years since 1980, however, these trends have not continued on straight upward paths, and the story of divorce has grown increasingly complicated. In the case of divorce, as in so many others, the worst consequences of the social revolution of the 1960s and '70s are now felt disproportionately by the poor and less educated, while the wealthy elites who set off these transformations in the first place have managed to reclaim somewhat healthier and more stable habits of married life. This imbalance leaves our cultural and political elites less well attuned to the magnitude of social dysfunction in much of American society, and leaves the most vulnerable Americans — especially children living in poor and working-class communities — even worse off than they would otherwise be. . .
|
- Are Brad and Angelina finally going to tie the knot? Actor hints they may be ready to get married The Daily Mail- UK, May 30, 2011
They've been together for six years and have as many children, but have been vocal in the past about not making their union official. However, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie may be changing their views on marriage and may be ready to take a trip up the aisle. In a recent interview the 47-year-old actor says his brood may be the driving force behind him getting married a second time as they have shown interest in their mother and father tying the knot. 'The kids ask about marriage,' he told USA Weekend. 'It's meaning more and more to them. So it's something we've got to look at.' Back in 2009 Brad said that he would maybe marry again 'when it's legal for everyone else' in a stance to support gay marriage. In the meantime however, Brangelina have their hands full raising their six children - Maddox, nine, Pax, seven, Zahara, six, Shiloh, who turned five yesterday and two-year-old twins Knox and Vivienne. Their lives are busy ones where they are constantly criss-crossing around the globe and Angelina has called her children citizens of the world. But Brad says they are trying to raise the brood in as normal a way as possible despite the lap of luxury they live in. 'Angie and I do everything we can to carve out some semblance of normalcy for them, to recreate the kinds of moments that were special for us. 'It's not unusual for the kids to be covered in paint. We have mud fights. It's chaos from morning until the lights go out, and sometimes after that,' Brad said giving an insight into their home life. 'We're hunted. Our kids have to live behind a gate. Outside, there are people with cameras. But I'll take the trade-off. I never knew I was capable of experiencing so much love,' Brad gushed about his family. But although he is a dedicated father, he says he still makes time to keep the spark in his relationship with the woman he calls his 'soul mate'. 'There are no secrets at our house. We tell the kids, "Mom and Dad are going off to kiss." They go, "Eww, gross!" But we demand it,' he said. Angelina, who turns 36 next Friday, has been married twice before. She married Johnny Lee Miller in 1996 but they divorced three years later. She then had a controversial union with actor Billy Bob Thornton and after a three year marriage divorced in 2003. Brad had a well-publicised marriage to America's Sweetheart Jennifer Aniston. They divorced in 2005 after five years of marriage and seven years together. . .
|
 |
|
|
RELATED ARTICLE: Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie to Marry? Christian Marriage Therapists Weigh In The Christian Post, By Michelle A. Vu, May 31, 2011
Brad Pitt and his partner Angelina Jolie for years have withstood external pressure to get married. But now that the pressure is coming from their own kids, the Hollywood A-listers are seriously reconsidering their promise to not tie the knot until gay marriage is legalized. To Pastor Ted Cunningham, author of Young and In Love: Challenging the Unnecessary Delay of Marriage, what the Jolie-Pitt kids are really asking for is stability. . . . Cunningham noted that even though a couple may live together for a decade, without marriage “it is still a very loose agreement.” “To me, cohabitation is an arrangement by two people who may be in love but they don’t have the integrity to say, ‘You know, I’m willing to make this a lifelong commitment,’” said the Missouri pastor who is also a licensed marriage therapist. “To me, cohabitators that dismiss marriage as unnecessary are constantly leaving the back door open just a little bit.”. . . Christian marriage coaches Mike and Trisha Fox of Marriage for Today offered another perspective on news that Pitt and Jolie are considering marrying for the sake of their kids. They recalled a 2008 study that found children somehow innately know what is right and wrong, and pointed out that it is the couple’s “Hollywood-indoctrinated children,” not a preacher or evangelist, who are urging them to marry. “Is it any wonder that what God has placed in His own creation, before it’s twisted and warped by an ungodly society, would shine brightly, even for a deep-rooted, Hollywood couple that stands for same-sex marriage,” the Christian marriage coaches ask. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: “There just wasn’t any rush” Family Scholars.org, By David Lapp May 27, 2011
A headline in yesterday’s New York Times read, “Married Couples Are No Longer a Majority, Census Finds.” The story noted a Brookings analysis of census data that married couples represented 48 percent of American households in 2010, and quotes Red Families vs. Blue Families author June Carbone, who suggests that “Employment instability depresses marriage rates.” Explaining the reasoning, Carbone says that “I can support myself and the kid, but not myself, the kid, and him.” Employment instability surely is one factor that contributes to declining marriage rates, particularly among the non-college-educated. But it would be a mistake to suggest that it’s the only, or even primary, factor. For one thing, there’s the riddle that non-college-educated women are willing to take on the costs of raising children before marriage, but not willing to get married? If employment instability is really the primary concern on people’s minds, then why are non-college-educated women bearing children? What do individuals cite as the reasons for not getting married? Florida asked this very question in their 2003 survey about individuals’ attitudes towards marriage. Theyincluded the following question to individuals who were in a relationship but not married (so this is presumably anyone who is in a relationship, not necessarily just cohabiting): ”Is this a major reason why you and your partner might not be planning to get married?” Table 41 at this link lists the responses. Here are the top ten reasons that individuals cited:
“You both are happy the way things are”: 56 percent.
“You worry that the marriage would end in divorce”: 31 percent.
“The two of you are living apart”: 26 percent.
“Hasn’t come up or haven’t talked about it”: 25 percent.
“Not enough money in savings”: 18 percent.
“You don’t believe in marriage”: 16 percent.
“Too much arguing or conflict”: 16 percent.
“Questions about whether your partner is trustworthy”: 15 percent.
“You cannot afford a place to live together”: 11 percent.
“You don’t make enough money”: 10 percent.
It struck me that “You both are happy the way things are” was the top response. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Why do people get married after having children? BBC News magazine, By Denise Winterman, May 26, 2011
For many people having a child is the ultimate commitment to a partner. A life you have created together and are responsible for raising. It's a commitment many people make without getting married. But some then go on to tie the knot, like Ed Miliband and his partner of six years, Justine Thornton. Why? There are the obvious financial and legal advantages to getting married. For older people issues surrounding pensions and inheritance are often the reason they decide to get hitched after years together. But Miliband and Thornton are still young. And while the pressures on the leader of the Labour party will be slightly different to those of the average person, there is no mistaking that attitudes to marriage and family have changed. Getting married used to be about sex, living together and having children, but research shows this is no longer the case. According to the latest British Social Attitudes (BSA) Survey, which was conducted in 2008, almost two-thirds of people now see little difference between marriage and living together. Fewer than a fifth of people took issue with it. Just under half thought cohabitation showed just as much commitment as getting married. When it comes to children, where opinion can often be a bit more traditional, only 28% said they believe married couples make better parents. So why do it? Psychologist Donna Dawson, who has specialised in sex and relationships, says it is often about making a public statement. "Having the children take part is like a ceremonial creation of a family and a public statement that they are all in it together. It's very much a 21st Century ritual, which more and more people will be doing." She says even when couples say there isn't a specific reason, there is "always something going on underneath". "Sometimes it is about marking a different stage in a relationship, or they might have taken a long time because of the bad example they were set by their own parents. There is usually a reason, even if they are not fully aware of it.". . .
|
 |
- How much love do YOU need? Knowing your ‘attachment type’ could be the key to making relationships last The Daily Mail- UK, By Dr Amir Levine and Rachel Heller, May 30, 2011
Ever wondered why you become clingy as soon as you have a partner? Or why you’re unable to stick in a relationship for long? New research has found that the way we act in relationships is pre-determined by which ‘attachment type’ we are.
By identifying whether you are an ‘avoider’, ‘anxious’ or ‘secure’, you can find your perfect match and transform your relationships. Everyone - whether they have just started dating or have been married for 40 years - falls into one of these categories. By understanding which one you are, you can view your own behaviour and the actions of people around you in a new light. If you’re single and looking for love, this knowledge can help you find the right match; or, if you’re already in a relationship, it can help you understand why you think and act as you do. In either case, you’ll start to experience change - for the better.’ The science of attachment is based on the fact that we are all biologically programmed to find love. Although we live in a culture that tells us independence is good, nothing could be further than the truth. People in good relationships have been found to live longer, healthier lives. The need to be near someone special is so important that the brain has a biological mechanism, called the ‘attachment system’, that consists of emotions and behaviours that ensure we stay close to our loved ones. This system explains why a child parted from his or her mother becomes frantic, searches wildly or cries uncontrollably until he or she re-establishes contact with her. It also explains the way we behave in our adult relationships. But while we all have this need for attachment, the way we show it differs. In the Sixties, tests found that babies were either ‘secure’, ‘anxious’ or ‘avoidant’. If a secure baby’s mother left the room he would start crying, but as soon as she returned he calmed down and started to play again. The anxious baby was distressed, but when the mother came back, he pushed her away and burst into tears. Finally, the avoidant baby acted as if nothing had happened when the mother left and returned to the room. But tests showed that his heart rate and levels of the stress-hormone, cortisol, rose. Research has now shown that adults behave in a startlingly similar way to babies when it comes to romantic relationships. What type we are (which depends on our upbringing and adult experiences) determines how you react in romantic situations. Basically, secure people feel comfortable with intimacy and are usually warm and loving. Anxious people crave intimacy, are often preoccupied with their relationships and tend to worry about their partner’s ability to love them back. Avoidant people equate intimacy with a loss of independence and keep their distance. By using attachment theory both your own behaviour and that of others no longer seems baffling and complex, but rather predictable... So, which attachment style are you?. . .
|
 |
- Ryan Reynolds: 'I Don't Think I Want to Get Married Again' PopEater, By Kiki Von Glinow, May 26th 201
Although he worked his entire career to stay out of those magazines with the splashy headlines and rumor mill rumblings, Ryan Reynolds found himself on the cover of every one of them when he split from wife of two years, Scarlett Johansson, in December 2010. Now, he's opening up to Details magazine about the physics of failed relationships. "Relationships ending move you from who you were to who you are at a much more accelerated rate than almost anything else on earth," he explained. Since his split with arguably the sexiest woman in Hollywood, while she has been able to move on -- and has publicly done so with Sean Penn -- Reynolds has no plans to get serious with anyone until he finds his way back to normal. "Anyone who gets divorced goes through a lot of pain," he told Details. "But you come out of it. I'm not out of it yet. At all." And the media's prying eye didn't help Reynolds to get over his marquee size love any faster. Although he understands that the salacious and salivating media comes with the territory, it doesn't mean he has to like it. "I'll say this: The media wasn't invited to my marriage, and they're definitely not invited into the divorce." But invited or not, they assumed a front row seat -- however legitimate their information was. "What was happening privately was the exact opposite of what was being reported," he said. "There was no story and no scandal, so the narrative was just created for me. That was the most disturbing part. I wasn't angry. I absolutely predicted every beat of it ... There was a time, though, when looking at the Internet was a miracle cure for feeling good about myself." But that time must have come and gone quickly as just months after the couple filed their divorce papers, Johansson was seen about town with her new beau, Penn. And although Johansson looks to be enjoying her new love interest, or rebound, Reynolds is content flying solo for a while, and possibly forever. "I have not interest in dating right now," he said. "It just seems so kind of alien to me at this point ... I don't think I want to get married again." But, still, like many of his jovial on-screen characters, Reynolds is able to see the silver lining in his darkness. "Any kind of crisis can be good. It wakes you up. I gotta say, I'm a different person that I was six months ago.". . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Ryan Reynolds Is Just Like You (Except for the Whole Sexiest-Man-Alive Thing) Details magazine, By Adam Sachs, June 2011 Issue
The Canadian-born star is suiting up to play America's next great big-screen superhero in Green Lantern, but he's still a self-deprecating, dick-joke-making regular guy. . .
|
|
|
RELATED ARTICLE: The Marriage Myth: Why do so many couples divorce? Maybe they just don't know how to be married. Washington Post magazine, By Ellen McCarthy, June 27, 2010
As a punishing rain lashed across the narrow peninsula of Ocean City, Heidi and Kirk Noll stood facing each other in a windowless conference room of the aging Carousel Resort Hotel Amid stackable chairs and retractable walls, they and a half-dozen other bleary-eyed couples clasped hands and pledged their lives to each other. Heidi's hair was still damp for the 9 a.m. ceremony, which took only 15 minutes, despite multiple interruptions from hotel staffers opening heavy doors that led to an atrium where the hum of a Zamboni on an indoor ice rink mingled with the smell of maple syrup from breakfast. Vows successfully exchanged, and blessed by an Army chaplain, the couples clambered back onto the chartered bus that had brought them here, and made the wearing slog home to Washington. It was an experience, the Nolls insist, that saved their marriage. What's more: Had they gone through something similar years before, both say they might still be married to their first spouses. The Nolls were on a marriage education retreat -- in this case, a
free, two-day event that was part of an Army-wide initiative called
Strong Bonds. What it meant for Kirk and Heidi was 36 hours away from
their daily routine, time they spent thinking critically about their
relationship. Together with their group -- all military families -- the
Nolls watched videos of spouses fighting, did a bit of arguing
themselves and listened as the round-faced chaplain told stories about
his home life. They filled out questionnaires to determine their
personality types, discussed gender differences in communication styles
and took notes on the factors that can increase a couple's chances for
divorce. Courses such as the one taken by the Nolls mark a sea change in
the way some marriage experts view an institution that remains the
fundamental unit of our society but is so shaky that it crumbles about
half the time. The marriage education movement has already spawned a
cottage industry of trademarked seminars and self-help manuals. It has
popped up, in varying forms, at community centers and churches across
the nation. And it has successfully persuaded leaders of the federal
government and the U.S. military to spend hundreds of millions of
taxpayer dollars a year attempting to disseminate its teachings to the
masses. At its core, it's a movement that would ask of every divorcee:
What if the truth was that you didn't marry the wrong person? What if
you just didn't know how to be married?. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Post Magazine: What every couple should know about marriage Washington Post Magazine, By Ellen McCarthy and Diane Sollee, June 28, 2010
Why
do so many couples divorce? What if the truth was that you didn't marry
the wrong person -- you just didn't know how to be married?. . .
|
 |
- Why the Same-Sex Marriage Experiment Will Not Work FoxNews.com, By Jim Daly, May 24, 2011
Throughout its grand history, America has regularly been willing to reevaluate cultural norms, especially when the change that challenges the status quo promises to right a wrong or advance and improve the social welfare. Many of these watershed movements have delivered precisely and as powerfully as promised (woman’s suffrage and civil rights) while others have failed (prohibition and no-fault divorce). Historically, American voters have been blunt in evaluating the wisdom of social change. When a bad idea, which was originally considered to be good, slips through and into law, the American people haven’t been shy about fighting for its repeal and holding corresponding leaders to account. With the benefit of the new media and widespread access to endless streams of data, voters are now able to even more quickly discern fact from fiction and evidence from mere promise. It’s in part from this context that I’ve been following the ongoing marriage debate in the New York state legislature. Governor Andrew Cuomo has declared the legalization of same-sex marriage his number one priority. Supporters are waging a clever, celebrity-driven and well-funded campaign, suggesting that all they want is “marriage equality.” In fact, what they want to do is redefine this multi-millennial institution. I am, naturally, personally opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage for the simple but profound reason that it violates and contradicts the sacred text of the Bible, which I believe to be true and inspired. But on what basis should I expect people who don’t believe as I do to likewise oppose same-sex marriage? On the basis of logic, reason, common sense and the fact that preservation of traditional marriage is in the best interest of the common good, as evidenced by any number of factors, including reams of social science data and thousands of years of history. Any discussion on the definition of marriage incites strong emotional reaction. And those of us within the orthodox Christian community understand that many in the culture see this issue very differently, and hold to very passionate views on the subject. We understand that on this matter, in some circles, that “never the twain shall meet.” Nevertheless, this difference of opinion does not preclude us the privilege of championing a principle we hold dear, especially since it’s our Christian faith that motivates us to support and defend what we believe to be God’s blueprint for human relationship. In the last half-century, progressives have exercised their own rights of cultural engagement, aggressively championing sweeping cultural changes on numerous levels. Although we may disagree with them, we certainly don’t begrudge them the right to engage the process. But in this pursuit to redefine marriage, wouldn’t it make sense to consider the outcomes of prior social reengineering efforts?. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Bloomberg States Case, Emphatically and Personally, for Same-Sex Marriage New York TImes, By Michael Barbaro, May 26, 2011
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, declaring that “near-equality is no equality” for gay couples, delivered an uncharacteristically forceful and sweeping speech on Thursday in which he called on New York to “lead the American journey forward” by legalizing same-sex marriage this year. . . . Mr. Bloomberg has no direct control over state legislation, but he wields influence as a generous campaign donor, especially to Republicans, and his decision to repeatedly weigh in on the marriage debate this year suggests that the issue has become a priority for him. Even as same-sex marriage has become a popular cause for elected officials and celebrities in New York, Mr. Bloomberg has emerged as a particularly important advocate given his visibility, wealth and longtime support for conservative politicians. . . . . Opponents of same-sex marriage say that the mayor is disconnected from most New York voters, who they say are uneager to see marriage redefined. “It isn’t connected with reality, what the mayor is trying to sell,” said Brian S. Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex unions. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Gay marriage is not inevitable Baptist Press, By Maggie Gallagher, May 24, 2011
When it comes to the battle for marriage, the question on many people's mind is: Can we win? The future is unknown. But let me tell you the present: This spring, we fought and won the battle against gay marriage in two of the deepest-blue states in the nation, Rhode Island and Maryland. I believe we are about to win, again, in New York. In each case we were told it was a done deal; gay marriage would be impossible to stop. It wasn't. We are told repeatedly that these victories will be impossible to win. We keep winning them anyway. Intellectuals and writers who want to predict that this struggle is unwinnable ought to ask themselves: Why am I writing this? Do you really want us to stop winning victories because you believe that in the future they will become impossible? What's the point of that prediction except to sap the will to stand? Gay marriage advocates have stopped trying to persuade their fellow citizens that gay marriage is good and have started trying to persuade them to give up. Why is the "argument from despair" so prominent? Because victory in any war happens not when one side is annihilated but when one side gives up the will to fight. The same holds true of culture wars. My question is: Why do we even ask ourselves this question? There are deeper battles than the legal battle, and not everyone is called to do everything. But surrendering on the legal definition of "civil marriage" is not a prelude to winning any of those other deeper battles. It is a prelude to an ever deeper surrender to the main idea now being propagated: if you believe in the message of Genesis, as repeated by Jesus -- that marriage from the beginning has been the union of male and female, husbands and wives called to give themselves to each other and to their children -- then you are a bad person. You are like a racist. You should be ashamed and shamed in public. You should, ideally, lose your job. Once we decide to give up on the public fight on marriage, what's next?. . .
RELATED NEWSLETTER: NY Marriage Battle Intensifies - NOM Marriage New, May 19, 2011
Dear Marriage Supporter, On Sunday, I locked arms with Sen. Rev. Rubén Díaz and marched through the streets of the Bronx. It was like nothing I've ever done or seen before: thousands of people, of every race, creed and color, but heavily Latino, with balloons, salsa music, and Bibles, determined that their voice will be heard in New York! The festive atmosphere and the warm response of the people in the Bronx made it seem like, well, a ticker-tape parade, if the Bronx had ticker-tape parades. As we marched, people waved to us from the their apartments buildings, signaling, with thumbs up and high fives, their agreement with the message of the march for dignity—we march in love to protect marriage as the union of husband and wife. On the steps of the courthouse our thousands met a tiny counter-protest—a few dozen at most—but one of them was Rev. Díaz's granddaughter, who wishes to marry a woman. I urged the crowd not to be silenced, but to stand for marriage. One of the most touching moments came when Rev. Díaz called his granddaughter up to our side of the podium and kissed her. She told reporters that she respected her grandfather even though she disagrees with him. The only TV news station to cover what the Daily News called a "massive" rally on our side was New York 1—but they captured the touching exchange. Respect, and love, in the midst of serious and important moral disagreement. That's the way this good fight should be fought! The powers that be are unleashing an all-out push for gay marriage in New York which is like nothing we've ever seen before. . .
|
- Schwarzenegger fathered a child with longtime member of household staff
His wife, Maria Shriver, moved out of their Brentwood mansion earlier
this year after the former governor acknowledged the child was his. The
staff member worked for the family for 20 years, retiring in January. Los Angeles Times, By Mark Z. Barabak and Victoria Kim, May 17, 2011 (Update!)
Former
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his wife, Maria Shriver,
separated after she learned he had fathered a child more than a decade
ago — before his first run for office — with a longtime member of their
household staff. Shriver moved out of the family's Brentwood mansion
earlier this year, after Schwarzenegger acknowledged the paternity. The
staff member worked for the family for 20 years, retiring in January.
"After leaving the governor's office I told my wife about this event,
which occurred over a decade ago," Schwarzenegger said Monday night in a
statement issued to The Times in response to questions. "I understand
and deserve the feelings of anger and disappointment among my friends
and family. There are no excuses and I take full responsibility for the
hurt I have caused. I have apologized to Maria, my children and my
family. I am truly sorry. "I ask that the media respect my wife and
children through this extremely difficult time," the statement
concluded. "While I deserve your attention and criticism, my family does
not. " A spokesman for the former first lady said she had no comment.
Since leaving office, Schwarzenegger has maintained a high public
profile, meeting with world dignitaries, attending a White House summit
on immigration and working to revive his movie career. To protect their
privacy, The Times is not publishing the former staffer's name nor that
of her child. In an interview Monday before Schwarzenegger issued his
statement, the former staffer said another man — her then-husband — was
the child's father. She said she voluntarily left her position with the
couple earlier this year after reaching a longstanding goal of working
for them for two decades. "I wanted to achieve my 20 years, then I asked
to retire," she said, adding she received a severance payment and "left
on good terms with them." Later Monday, The Times informed the woman of
the governor's statement and she declined to comment further. . .
|
 |
|
|
RELATED ARTICLE: Sex and the married American The Washington Post- Guest Voices, By W. Bradford Wilcox, May 22, 2011
Two Sundays ago, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver both attended Mass at St. Monica’s Church in Santa Monica, California. But this time, they came alone, not together, as has been their usual pattern. Before Shriver learned of Schwarzenegger’s infidelity earlier this year, the couple and their four children were known to be frequent churchgoers at St. Monica’s. The marital misbehavior of Schwarzenegger, a Roman Catholic, not to mention evangelical Protestants such as John Ensign and Mark Sanford, however, should not be mistaken for the norm among married men in America today, and especially for married men who are regular churchgoers. Although the institution of marriage in the United States has fallen on hard times in recent years—for instance, the marriage rate has dropped in half since 1970, even as the percentage of babies being born outside of wedlock more than tripled over the same time period—one surprising bright spot when it comes to married life in America is that sexual fidelity seems to be on the upswing. According to research by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, Americans have become less tolerant of marital infidelity over the last forty years, and somewhat less likely to stray over the last 20 years. For instance, in the 1970s, 63 percent of men and 73 percent of women said marital infidelity is “always wrong.” In the 2000s, 78 percent of men and 84 percent of women said that marital infidelity is “always wrong.” Likewise, in the 1990s, 17 percent of married men and 11 percent of married women reported that they had been unfaithful to their spouses. In the 2000s, infidelity reports fell to 16 percent and 10 percent, respectively, among men and women. Infidelity is even less common among men and women who attend religious services regularly. Married men and women who attend church weekly are about half as likely to report sexual infidelity, compared to their peers who never attend church, according to research by sociologist Amy Burdette at Florida State University and her colleagues. Why is infidelity less common among Americans of faith? There are at least three reasons that religious Americans are less likely to stray. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Maria Shriver announce separation Los Angeles Times, By Mark Z. Barabak, May 09, 2011
The
former first lady has moved out after 25 years of marriage. Maria
Shriver helped bolster Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign against charges
that he groped women during his movie career. . . . .Former Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger and his wife, Maria Shriver, have separated, with Shriver
moving out of their Brentwood mansion while the two determine the next
step in their 25-year marriage. Shriver has been residing apart from the
actor-turned-politician for the last few weeks. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Schwarzenegger-Shriver: Protecting the brand Los Angeles Times, By Joe Mathews, May 4, 2008
The California governor, like other politicians whose spouses are in the public eye, works a complicated calculus in balancing his political interests with those of his wife. . . . We've seen more than a few examples lately of how that can happen. The Clintons, the Obamas, the Bushes, the Spitzers: They've all been navigating --some better than others--the tricky new reality in which political couples are expected to make their positions separate but not combative, their public identities close but not too close. The need for this distinct branding evolved for reasons directly related to the massive expansion of one American institution--celebrity culture--and the shrinking of another: marriage. Today's political spouses are turned into celebrities on a scale that would have overwhelmed Bess Truman or Mamie Eisenhower. And they exist in a new social paradigm. Because married couples represent a minority in the U.S.--and many who are married don't define themselves by their unions--we expect political spouses to be more than mere extensions of the politician. Thus, the modern political spouse: a wife or husband with a separate persona that's larger and broadcast farther than ever before. . . .Take the recent "brand clash" that arose in the case of New York's former prosecutor-governor, Eliot Spitzer, and the tableau he created at a news conference called to apologize for his "private failings" after reports that he'd patronized expensive prostitutes. Spitzer's wife, Silda, was next to her husband at a podium while he spoke, following the stand-by-your-man precedent of political couples with infidelity trouble that dates back to Gary and Lee Hart. The traditional idea is that the wife should be up there with him, to show the public that the family is still together and that someone can still stand the jerk. But this time, the performance was panned. The public just didn't see the couple as one entity. . .
|
 |
- Parenting Issues: The Problem with Parenting Today Huffington Post, By Mark Redmond, May 10, 2011
I
work with teenagers who are having difficulties, I have done so for
almost 30 years, and I have written previously about the propensity of
some parents to fail to set limits on their children. I know this is not
only my opinion, I have heard it voiced many times by peers in my
field. Or as a sixth grade teacher friend once told me, "Just go to any
mall, sit down on a bench in an open area, and observe. I guarantee
you'll see example after example of poor parenting, with the kids
running the show and the parents checked out." While I haven't tried the
mall experiment yet, I did happen upon an example of this recently
while at the gym. I was on the treadmill, it was 7 a.m., and of the 10
televisions playing in front of me, the only show that looked half-way
interesting was one on MTV called "Parental Control." I have to admit I
am not a fan of MTV, in fact with shows like "Jersey Shore," "Skins" and
"The Real World" on its roster, I consider MTV to have pumped more
toxicity into the environment than BP and Exxon combined. I plugged in
my headphones anyway and listened in, and apparently what happens on
this reality show is that there is a teenager who is dating someone who
his/her parents do not like. MTV producers then haul in a handful of
prospective alternate mates, the parents pick the two they like the
best, their child goes on a date (televised of course) with each, and
then the big question at the end is if the child will ditch his/her
current partner for one of the new ones. In this particular episode,
there was a girl who I believe was age 16, and her parents couldn't
stand her current boyfriend. I couldn't blame them; when he was
introduced, it was clear he was a complete self-centered fool. At the
start of the show, the girl's father was asked, "Why don't you like your
daughter's boyfriend?" He answered, "Well, for one thing, he constantly
breaks my rule about not sleeping over in our house." The girl's mother
then interjected, "Yes, it is so embarrassing to be here in the kitchen
in the morning, in my pajamas and bathrobe, my hair all a mess, and he
sees me like that." And of course the footage that followed was of the
daughter and her boyfriend lying in her bed, with the latter stating
on-camera, "Hey, what guy doesn't want to sleep with his girlfriend in
her bed, it's the greatest!" When I saw all this, I practically jumped
off of the treadmill and screamed. . .
|
|
|
RELATED ARTICLE: What Your Child's Facebook Addiction Says About Your Parenting Style Huffington Post, By Lisa Haisha, May 10, 2011
Drugs, unprotected sex, drinking, bullying, smoking -- the list of parental worries often seems endless. And just when you think you have all the potential problem areas covered, your child or teen suddenly seems "addicted" to Facebook and other online social media sites. Is that even possible? According to psychologist Kimberly S. Young, Ph.D. of the Center for Online Addiction, teen Internet addiction is becoming a growing problem. While there aren't any hard numbers to indicate just how many teenagers are becoming addicted to the Internet, Young estimates that five to 10 percent of Internet surfers suffer from some degree of Internet addiction. Additionally, a recent Canadian study involving more than 5,000 children and teenagers revealed that 70 percent of parents know little or nothing about their kids' online activities. The study, which was conducted by the Ottawa, Ontario-based Media Awareness Network, also found that 70 percent of 13- and 14-year-olds admit to visiting private and adults-only chatrooms. What's more, most of these teenagers freely admitted that they were breaking family rules by visiting these chatrooms. Another study from York University in Canada claims that Facebook users are "insecure, narcissistic, and have low self-esteem." So, does your child's Facebook habit mean you're a bad parent? No. But it does mean you have to establish some new rules and household routines. Here are a few things to consider:. . .
|
- Better to Stay in a Bad Marriage?
Traditional-marriage advocates say scientists won’t report how divorce, single parenting and step-parenting hurt children. National Catholic Register, By Steve Wetherbe, May 09, 2011
Social scientists are concealing the harm that divorce, single parenting and stepfamilies do to children. Not only that, they are also hiding the benefits which even unhappy marriages bestow, not just on children, but on the couples involved. So claim the heads of several organizations devoted to defending traditional marriages. “It’s a very sad occurrence when people, for reasons of political embarrassment, won’t say what they believe,” said David Blankenhorn, head of the Institute for American Values. Blankenhorn worries that government agencies and other institutions will frame policies based on misreported scientific findings that disfavor the traditional family. Elizabeth Marquardt, head of the Manhattan-based Center for Marriage and Families, sparked the debate when she challenged a report from Child Trends, a research organization based in Washington, D.C., that showed the happier the parents’ relationship is, the happier, better socialized and more successful the children are. The report, “Parental Relationship Quality and Child Outcomes Across Subgroups”, found couples’ satisfaction correlated positively with child behaviors regardless of the family structure, class and ethnicity. All well and good, said Marquardt in an early April blog on the FamilyScholars.org website she edits. But why didn’t Child Trends even mention that its data also showed that the positive outcomes across all “subgroups” trended significantly upwards the more traditional the parents’ relationship? Children living with biological or adoptive parents did better than those with their unmarried biological or adoptive parents; the outcomes were significantly worse for children in a married stepfamily and worst with one biological parent and an unmarried partner. . . . Political Correctness: It is about more than protecting people’s feelings, says Blankenhorn: Political correctness is involved too in the suppression of findings. Blankenhorn tells of being lambasted by the head of one family research organization back in the mid-2000s for using one of that organization’s studies to support an article he wrote for the Los Angeles Times against same-sex “marriage.” “She didn’t claim I’d used the data wrongly. She just didn’t want her research associated in any way with being anti-same sex ‘marriage.’ She actually tried to forbid me from ever doing it again.” Blankenhorn says he used “blunt language” to stand up for his right to use the data as he chose. . .
|
 |
|
|
RELATED ARTICLE: Survey finds 10 characteristics in a happy, healthy marriage Detroit News, By Gregory Ramey Ph.D., May 10, 2011
Children between the ages of 6 and 17 who were living with two
happily married parents were more likely to get along better with other
kids and adults, have fewer behavior problems, be more engaged in school
and communicate better with their parents than children living in a
family with a troubled marriage. Children raised by their biological
parents had the best outcomes, but the good marriage/happy children
relationship also held true for children living with stepparents or
cohabitating parents. Here's what the experts reported are the 10 key
characteristics of a healthy marriage:
RELATED ARTICLE: Traditional marriage is not bigotry: It's outlandish to call same-sex marriage a 'civil right.' Star-Tribune, By Jeff Davis, May 09, 2011
Given the Star Tribune's longstanding editorial position supporting same-sex marriage, it's not surprising that the paper also opposes allowing the people of Minnesota to vote on the marriage amendment. However, its editorial was disappointing ("Don't put bigotry up for a vote," May 6), largely a regurgitation of tired talking points from activists who favor homosexual marriage. The issue before the Minnesota Legislature is not whether same-sex marriage should be allowed in Minnesota. It is whether the people of Minnesota should have the right to vote on the issue, just as voters in 31 other states have already done. The paper is out on a ledge with its "no vote of the people" position. Seventy-four percent of Minnesotans believe voters, not the courts or the Legislature, should decide this issue. Even some homosexual-marriage activists apparently believe that voters should be able to decide, since same-sex marriage groups in both California and Oregon are both actively exploring taking their position to the voters. The editorial rails against enshrining "bigotry" in the state Constitution. Interestingly, the paper appears to concede that the amendment will pass, as this is the only way it could be "enshrined" in the Constitution. On that point we can agree. But there's nothing bigoted about preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Marriage is a unique institution that brings men and women together. Only the sexual union of men and women can produce children. Whatever one thinks about homosexual relationships, none of them can produce children. It is in the state's interest to channel the unique sexual energy of men and women into marriage so that any children produced by those sexual relationships have the best opportunity to be raised by a married mother and father. African-Americans might have some ideas about bigotry. Seventy percent of African-Americans supported traditional marriage in California, according to exit surveys. So did 56 percent of Latinos. Prominent civil-rights leaders like Walter Fauntroy and Alveda King do as well. In fact, Bishop Bob Battle, a veteran of the civil-rights movement, recently testified at a hearing on the Minnesota marriage amendment bill that "gay marriage advocates have attempted to hijack the civil-rights movement and make same-sex marriage into a civil right. I know what civil rights are, and this is not one of them." The editorial blithely claims that homosexual marriage will have no impact on anyone in Minnesota outside of the same-sex couples involved. Yet legal experts on both sides of the divide agree that the issue has profound impacts on society. . .
|
- Shania Twain Opens Up About Her Difficult Childhood, Heart-Wrenching Divorce and Finding Love Again ABC News.com, By Melinda Arons and Lauren Effron, May 05, 2011
Although
her songs exude passionate love, country-pop singer Shania Twain knows
what it means to be heartbroken. In an interview with "Nightline" anchor
Cynthia McFadden, the famously private performer opened up about
growing up hungry and poor in an abusive household, her husband's
reputed affair that ended their marriage and her finding love again.
Twain, 45, who has never exposed her personal life in such a public way
before, said she now wanted to "testify" to her experiences to help
others. Her new memoir, "From This Moment On," is in stores now. "I
think I've remained very detached from my life to this point, almost as
though it was a different person, every phrase I went through," Twain
said. "So I've reconnected and said, no, this is actually who I am. I'm
neither embarrassed of who I am, where I come from, what I've
experienced, I'm not ashamed of it." Growing up in the small town of
Timmins, Ontario, Canada, Twain told McFadden about the years of
physical abuse she said her mother Sharon endured from her stepfather
Jerry Twain, the man she always called "Dad." "[It was] overwhelming for
any child to never know what to expect from one day to the next," Twain
said. "It could happen anytime. But also you don't know if they're
going to survive it.". . . . .Burdened as her parents were with five
kids, Twain said their arguments stemmed from their financial struggles.
There often wasn't enough money to pay the rent or buy groceries, Twain
said, so she repeatedly went to school hungry. . . . Twain's breakout
album, "Come On Over," released in 1997, was a joint project with music
producer Robert "Mutt" Lange, 62. The couple produced many songs
together in the years to come and eventually fell in love and married.
For Twain, it was practically love at first sight. "When I met Mutt for
the first time, I knew that I loved this person." Twain said. "I felt
like I had already loved him." But with her punishing tour and studio
schedules, Twain said she eventually began to sense that something was
wrong with her marriage around the time of her 2004 "Up" tour. "When I started to get lonely, then I knew that something wasn't right," she said. "I'm married to someone I love, and I'm so lonely...I didn't want to live that way." Twain said she began confiding heavily in her close friend, Marie-Anne Thiebaud. They were friends for years until Twain confronted Thiebaud and Lange about having an affair, which she said would ultimately end Twain and Lange's 14-year marriage. She divorced Lange in 2009. Both Lange and Thiebaud have publicly denied the affair ever happened. "Whether she was part of the cause ... of the breakup or whether it was just me leaning on her because it was already breaking up, I really don't know which came first," Twain said. "What I do know is she took advantage of, you know, the weakness in the relationship between Mutt and I.". . .
|
 |
|
|
RELATED ARTICLE: Did You Know, Deep Down, That You'd Get Divorced One Day? Huffington Post, By Emily V. Gordon, April 04, 2011
While at a recent fun dinner, some acquaintances and I were surprised to discover that three out of seven of us had been divorced. Some of us were remarried, some were freshly uncoupled, some were dating, and as the night got more and more dishy, one of the non-divorcees asked if any of us ever had a gut feeling from the start that the marriage was not going to work out. The three divorcees, bonded by our marital histories, looked at each other with dumb recognition. Yes, yes we'd all had reservations about getting married, tucked away in some tiny, shushed pit of our stomachs. We'd all been quietly scared of what we were about to do, and one by one we confessed our reasons for not listening to ourselves -- I thought it was too late to cancel, I thought that everyone felt scared and wrong on their wedding day, I thought marriage would be the thing to fix our relationship. Hindsight is always 20/20, but I imagine a lot of married and divorced people have insights to share about how they felt during their engagement. Without further adieu, I address this post to the engaged people out there who are wondering if they're making the right decision. So you're getting married?! That's exciting! Maybe you're planning a huge beautiful event, or maybe you're just having a small ceremony and going to dinner with your parents -- but no matter the size of the wedding, at some point it might start to feel like it's picking up a life of its own, steaming ahead no matter what. If you're wondering if you should be getting married, it's time for a gut check. How do you know if what you're feeling is just pre-wedding jitters, which are totally natural, and not something more serious?. . .
|
 |
- The Disappearing Duchess: I’m going to be a housewife for now, says Kate The Daily Mail- UK, By Rebecca English, May 03, 2011
The new Duchess of Cambridge will not become a full-time working royal for up to two years – because she wants
to concentrate on being a housewife. Despite a surge of public interest
in the Royal Family following Friday’s wedding, Kate is refusing to
conduct any public engagements without her husband for the foreseeable
future. There are only two or three joint events pencilled in over the
next couple of months and aides admit the new bride intends to spend
most of her time with her husband on Anglesey. Well-placed sources have
told the Mail that Kate wants to model herself on the Duchess of
Cornwall, who insisted on only a ‘supporting role’ following her 2005
marriage to Prince Charles. The new duchess has told friends she wants
to enjoy life for as long as she can as an ‘ordinary RAF wife’ in the
rented farmhouse the couple share in North Wales. Her approach has the
support of her husband who is keen not to throw Kate into the
‘bear-pit’ of public life and has cautioned aides to keep her
commitments to a minimum. The only definite dates in her diary following
her return from honeymoon are watching Prince William play in a couple
of polo matches and key-note events next month including Trooping The
Colour and the Duke of Edinburgh’s 90th birthday. There are no plans for
her to attend Royal Ascot with the Queen or join the rest of the royals
at this summer’s palace garden parties. Aides insist she ‘will not be
idle’ and say that when William, who works as a search and rescue pilot
at RAF Valley on Anglesey, is on duty she will be ‘pursuing other
interests’. They also stressed that she has a two-week inaugural tour of
Canada coming up at the beginning of July. But her approach is likely
to disappoint those who were hoping to use the couple’s post-wedding
popularity to boost the Royal Family’s profile. It also provides
ammunition for critics who have already accused her of being ‘work-shy’.
. . . . . Kate is said to have the support of the Queen who, as a
newly-wed, lived in Malta for two years when Prince Philip was based
there with the Navy. The monarch considers it one of her happiest
periods. . .
|
|
|
RELATED ARTICLE: Prince William to whisk Kate away on £4,000-a-night tropical honeymoon in the Indian Ocean The Daily Mail- UK, By Rebecca English, May 03, 2011
They may have delayed the honeymoon but it will be worth the wait for the Royal newlyweds - it has been revealed that Prince William will be whisking his new bride to a secret hideaway in the Indian Ocean for a ten-day holiday later this month. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will stay in an exclusive villa that costs £4,000-a-night and is located on one of the most beautiful and romantic islands in the world. The Mail can reveal that the Duke and Duchess are due to fly out by private jet in mid-May before being taken by helicopter from the mainland to the tropical retreat. . .
|
- Law firm hit from both sides over gay marriage law Reuters, May 02, 2011
King & Spalding first took heat from liberals for its work on the gay marriage issue. Now the law firm is losing some of its conservative clients. The National Rifle Association on Monday said it will no longer use King & Spalding as its outside counsel after the firm pulled out from defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That followed an attack last week by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, a Republican, who called King & Spalding's decision an "obsequious act of weakness." Just a few weeks ago, King & Spalding, one of the top law firms in the country, came under pressure from liberal groups such as the Human Rights Campaign for agreeing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act on behalf of Republican leaders. On April 25, King & Spalding said it no longer would defend the law, which prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Paul Clement, a partner at King & Spalding and a former U.S. Solictor General, then left the firm to keep working on the case. In a letter to King & Spalding on Monday, the National Rifle Association said its decision to drop the firm was not related to any position on the Defense of Marriage Act but rather to the law firm's decision to drop a client. "We believe King & Spalding's decision is indefensible and raises serious concerns about its ability to be a reliable and effective advocate for any client facing potentially controversial litigation," the letter said. . .
RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: Homosexual Activist Bullies Lose: Attorney Paul Clement Will Defend Marriage Catholic Onlibne, By Deacon Keith Fournier, April 28, 2011
The effort to force Paul Clement to withdraw from legal representation in defense of Marriage is one more manifestation of the growth of bullying in our culture. Only this variety does not receive much attention in the main stream media. It is the bullying of the Homosexual Equivalency Activists. . .
|
 |
|
|
RELATED QUOTE: "I resign out of the firmly-held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client's legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. Defending unpopular clients is what lawyers do ... I recognized from the outset that this statute implicates very sensitive issues that prompt strong views on both sides. But having undertaken the representation, I believe there is no honorable course for me but to complete it." Paul Clement, Resignation letter to King & Spaulding law firm, April 25, 2011
RELATED QUOTE: “Much has been said about being on the right side of history. But being on the right or wrong side of history on the merits is a question for the clients. When it comes to the lawyers, the surest way to be on the wrong side of history is to abandon a client in the face of hostile criticism.” Paul Clement, Resignation letter to King & Spaulding law firm, April 25, 2011
RELATED ARTICLE: Kagan defends former Bush official who is representing House in same-sex marriage case Washington Post, By Robert Barnes, April 29, 2011
Justice Elena Kagan praised and defended a former Bush administration official’s decision to leave his law firm rather than abandon what has become a controversial agreement to defend the federal ban on recognition of same-sex marriages. At a crowded reception at Georgetown University Law Center on Thursday for lawyers who practice before the Supreme Court, Kagan recognized former solicitor general Paul D. Clement for his “integrity, professionalism and honor.” Kagan said it was not a surprise that Clement would resign from his law firm “rather than abandoning a client.” Those who criticize Clement “misunderstand the traditions and ethics of the legal profession,” she said. . . . . The event at which Kagan spoke — Georgetown’s Supreme Court Institute reception honoring Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal — was closed to news coverage. But through a court spokeswoman, Kagan confirmed recollections of her remarks and agreed they could be used in a news story. . .
|
RELATED ARTICLE: White House Backs DOMA Defense By Paul Clement And House GOP Huffington Post, By Amanda Terkel, April 27, 2011
The White House is rejecting criticisms of a prominent conservative attorney's decision to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on behalf of House Republicans, and standing behind recent comments by Attorney General Eric Holder. In Wednesday morning's briefing with reporters -- which was dominated by questions about President Obama's birth certificate -- Press Secretary Jay Carney said the White House had no problem with House Republicans' decision to hire former solicitor general Paul Clement to defend DOMA, which defines federal marriage as between one man and one woman. The House took up the case after Holder announced in February that the administration would no longer argue in support of the law after concluding that it is unconstitutional. "We think -- as we said from the beginning when we talked ... about the decision no longer from the administration to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, that we would support efforts by Congress if they so chose to defend it," said Carney. "And so I have nothing to add to the attorney general’s comments." Carney was referring to Holder's comments made a day earlier, in which he defended Clement taking up the DOMA case. On Monday, Clement left the prestigious law firm King & Spalding, where he was a partner, after it said it was filing a motion to withdraw its representation on the case. His resignation came after significant pressure from LGBT rights groups. "Paul Clement is a great lawyer and has done a lot of really great things for this nation. In taking on the representation -- representing Congress in connection with DOMA, I think he is doing that which lawyers do when we're at our best," Holder said to reporters at the Justice Department, according to Politico. "That criticism, I think, was very misplaced.". . .
RELATED ADVOCACY: DEFEND DOMA - King & Spalding
Same-sex marriage advocates have launched yet another campaign of cultural intimidation – pressuring the nation’s top law firms in an attempt to silence and marginalize those who would stand for marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act. In response to protests from the Human Rights Campaign and others, the King & Spalding law firm has backed out of its contract to represent the U.S. House of Representatives in litigation over marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It’s appalling that a major law firm would back down in the face of such obvious intimidation tactics. Even unpopular causes deserve representation (as John Adams explained in defending the British soldiers involved in the Boston massacre), much less the shared beliefs of a majority of the American people on marriage! Please use the form below to send a message to the managing partners at King & Spalding today. Then tell your friends and ask them to join you in making their voices heard!
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
