'MARRIAGE' In The NEWS- November 2009: The REAL Proposal For Marriage magazine

After major same sex marriage research, liberal CA org says: "We do not see a path to victory." San Francisco Chonicle- Politics Blog, By Joe Garofoli, November 30, 2009
The effort to get same sex marriage on the California ballot in 2010 took a hit Monday. Rick Jacbos, the leader of the 700,000-member Courage Campaign just told us that after spending more than $200,000 on "qualitative research" into the issue in California that "We do not see a path to victory." So, the Courage Campaign sent a note to its supporters Monday calling for "for more research and time to change hearts and minds before returning to the ballot." Lambda Legal, a LGBT legal organization, said largely the same thing Monday. Jacobs told us that the research -- led by Obama confidante Steve Hildebrand -- found that "The biggest hangup people have is that right wing has done a very good job of telling people that somehow children will be affected" should same sex marriage become legal. It worked in both Maine and California, even though top public officials in both places said it would not. "We also must come together as a community to create a broad coalition and governance structure, put in place a strong manager and secure the resources to win. Right now, the pieces are not all in place to do so confidently," Jacobs wrote to supporters. As of now, the movement doesn't have a political/governance structure nor a top manager. And major funders are backing off. The Couragers join Equality California and others who say 2010 ain't the time for another run. So what does this mean to the folks at Restore Equality 2010, who are gathering petition sigatures for a ballot run next year?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Support for Same-Sex Civil Unions, Not Marriage, Up The Christian Post, By Nathan Black, October 10 2009
A new Pew Research Center survey shows 57 percent of Americans favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into civil unions, or legal agreements that would give them many of the same rights as married couples. . . .The Pew survey, however, found little change in attitudes on same-sex marriage. More than half (53 percent) of Americans oppose marriage for gay and lesbian couples and 39 percent favor it. . .

After major same sex marriage research, liberal CA org says: 'We do not see a path to victory.'

RELATED SITE: ProtectMarriage.com- Yes on 8

Celebrity break-ups blamed for massive rise in quickie divorces

Celebrity break-ups blamed for massive rise in quickie divorces Wales Online, By Emily Woodrow, November 29, 2009
Thousands more couples are rushing into quickie divorces – and it’s all because so many celebrities are doing it. More and more famous names are heading to the courts for a quick split – often just a couple of years after getting hitched. But after Katie Price begged ex-hubby Peter Andre to take her back – just two months after being granted a so-called “quickie” divorce – experts have warned couples against copying the new trend. One Welsh company which specialises in the fast-track splits has been forced to triple its workforce after receiving 10,000 more inquiries this year. And experts say the days of couples sitting down and thrashing out their differences are now definitely numbered. . . . .Psychologist Cliff Arnall, who specialises in happiness, said the image of divorce portrayed by celebrities is misleading. “People get the impression that quickie divorces are done and dusted in 28 days – Hollywood-style – but it’s actually quite different to that in the UK”, he said. “The message we get from celebrities doing it is that there doesn’t seem to be much ‘working out’ of the relationship, like with Katie and Peter, but the truth is we don’t know what goes on behind closed doors. “However, despite this, there’s definitely been an increase of quickie divorces. Twenty years ago, couples in Wales would’ve probably sat down and talked about their problems, but now they just think, ‘Sod you, I’m getting a divorce, and quickly.” Mr Arnall, who’s based in Brecon, believes quickie divorces give the impression that marriage is a commodity – something that can be exchanged when it goes wrong. He added: “People begin to question whether it’s worth fully investing in a marriage, both emotionally and financially, if it’s possible to get divorced just a year later. “It’s important to end a marriage knowing you tried your best and did everything you could to make it work. This enables you to deal with the whole thing better psychologically. “However, if you opt for a quickie divorce and don’t allow time to reconcile your differences, it’s less likely you’ll be in a fit state about the break-up.” Leading divorces lawyer, Melanie Hamer, said the behaviour of Katie Price and Peter Andre during their break-up is typical of a lot of divorces. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Marriage and divorce rude awakening #3: Women who marry men for their potential often lose Examiner.com, By Susan Pease Gadoua, November 04, 2009
Women, far more than men, marry a partner "for their potential." It's almost as if women want a project. In this regard, I have to say, men are ahead of us ladies. They keep it simple: if someone doesn't meet their criteria here today, they move on. I'm not sure if it's a socialized behavior or genetic, but it certainly seems to be a common phenomenon these days. What's ironic is that men often feel equally duped when the women they married transform into someone they don't recognize. Mark Twain is quoted as saying, "Women marry men hoping they will change. Men marry women hoping they will not. So, invariably each is disappointed" The favorite quote among the women I work with is by Maya Angelou, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them.". .

RELATED ARTICLE: Marriage and divorce - rude awakening #2: "hit and run" is NOT the way to go Examiner.com, By Susan Pease Gadoua, October 25, 2009
If I had a dime for every story I've heard about one spouse announcing one day, out of the blue, "I'm not happy. I want a divorce," I would be quite wealthy! I call this a "hit and run" way to tell your spouse you want out of the marriage and, in my professional opinion, it is the most hurtful, hateful and heinous way to exit your nuptials. Those on the receiving end of this proclamation would surely agree with me. A hundred per cent of the people who come to see me after their spouse has dropped this two ton bomb on them have been nothing short of devastated, bleary eyed and incapacitated - often for a long time. What, when and how you tell your spouse you want a divorce will depend greatly on whether the two of you have had any previous conversations about divorce. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Marriage & divorce - rude awakening #1: finding out "worse" wasn't so bad after all Examiner.com, By Susan Pease Gadoua, October 19, 2009
Before you jump ship from your marriage, you may want to do some research to find out what normal is when it comes to marital discord. Simply having problems or issues with your spouse can certainly give many reason to question whether the marriage is workable or not, but is it reason enough to leave? . . .

Until Tiger Woods addresses questions surrounding car accident, speculation will continue   Golf.com, By Gary Van Sickle, Senior Writer, Sports Illustrated, November 28, 2009
There is one thing — and only one thing — that we know for certain: It was not a happy Thanksgiving for Tiger Woods. When Woods was involved in a late-night, one-car accident near the driveway of his home in the wealthy gated community of Isleworth in Windermere, Fla., it took 13 hours for news of it to become public. But when the news did break, it proved that there is no such thing as a "minor accident" (as Tiger's official website described it) when you are arguably the most famous sportsman on the planet. The incident promptly snowballed into a you-know-what-storm, fueled by the twenty-first century dynamic duo of the Internet and 24-hour cable news networks. Woods, 33, is famous for zealously guarding his privacy. Associates who break the code of silence are exiled from Camp Tiger, a list that includes former friends and his first caddie. He even named his big-honking yacht "Privacy" in honor of the one thing he values most. Some of his barriers are holding firm, for now. His wife's parents, reached in Sweden by the Associated Press, declined to comment on the incident. But not even Woods can hide from this news cycle, whether his accident turns out to be a mere fender-bending embarrassment or a larger image-denting, marriage-threatening scandal. One little traffic accident may cause his carefully constructed circle of privacy to crumble like the Berlin Wall. The timing couldn't be much worse. The fact that it happened on a holiday weekend is inconsequential. In a few days Woods is scheduled to host his own post-season tournament in southern California, the Chevron World Challenge, which raises money for his charitable foundation. Can he blow off his own event and avoid the inevitable media frenzy? Perhaps, but he can't dodge it indefinitely. Stonewalling is a bad option. . .

RELATED STATEMENT: Statement from Tiger Woods   TigerWoods.com, By Tiger Woods, November 29, 2009
As you all know, I had a single-car accident earlier this week, and sustained some injuries. I have some cuts, bruising and right now I'm pretty sore. This situation is my fault, and it's obviously embarrassing to my family and me. I'm human and I'm not perfect. I will certainly make sure this doesn't happen again. This is a private matter and I want to keep it that way. Although I understand there is curiosity, the many false, unfounded and malicious rumors that are currently circulating about my family and me are irresponsible. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Reputed 'Other Woman' Denies Affair with Tiger Woods   People magazine, By Michael Y. Park, November 30, 2009
The so-called "other woman" whose name has surfaced in the wake of Tiger Woods's accident has hired a high-profile celebrity lawyer and issued an adamant denial of any relationship with the golfing champ. . .

Until Tiger Woods addresses questions surrounding car accident, speculation will continue (Click for Related Video)

RELATED VIDEO: Tiger Woods Automobile Accident CNN.com

RELATED PHOTOS: Tiger Woods Baby Photos: Charlie Axel and Sam Alexis Golf.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Update: Tiger Woods Police Chat Canceled Again People magazine, By Kristin Boehm, November 29, 2009
Florida police, who have twice been turned away from Tiger Woods's home, have canceled Sunday's plans to speak to the golf great about his one-car accident outside the posh home Friday. Legally, Woods is only required to present his license, registration and insurance. But his silence, coupled with the facts already known about the incident, are fueling speculation about the possibility of a heated, even physical, argument between the golfer and his wife, Elin Nordegren, preceding the accident. . . . .The accident came two days after the National Enquirer published a story alleging that Woods had been seeing New York night club hostess Rachel Uchitel, and that they recently were together in Melbourne, where Woods competed in the Australian Masters. Uchitel denies any relationship with Woods.

RELATED ARTICLE: Tiger Woods Affair — Tiger Woods Cheating With Rachel Uchitel? Pop Crunch, November 25, 2009
It is just a rumor at this point, but word on the Interwebs this Thanksgiving Eve claims golf ace and father of two Tiger Woods has been having a clandestine affair unbeknownest to his young wife, Elin. According to this week’s edition of The National Enquirer — by way of The Huffington Post — Tiger has been secretly sleeping with a brunette identified as Rachel Uchitel. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Vows: Rachel Uchitel and Steven Ehrenkranz NY Times, By Gerit Quealy, December 12, 2004

Gay marriage momentum stalls in N.Y. and N.J.

Gay marriage momentum stalls in N.Y., N.J.
No votes are scheduled in either state Boston Globe.com, By Geoff Mulvihill, November 27, 2009
The state-to-state march to legalize gay marriage across the liberal Northeast has lost more momentum since a major setback three weeks ago at the ballot box in Maine. Since then, legislatures in New York and New Jersey have not scheduled long-expected votes on bills to recognize the unions in those states. “If they are unable to pass gay marriage in New York and New Jersey, combined with the loss in Maine, it will confirm that gay marriage is not the inevitable wave of the future,’’ said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which mobilizes social conservatives to fight same-sex marriage. Gay rights activists say that is not the case and that hope is still alive. “In any civil rights struggle there are going to be periods of creeping and periods of leaping,’’ said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry. This decade has had some of both across the country. The most significant was the leap the issue made from abstraction to reality in 2003 when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that gay couples had the right to get married. The fallout was widespread: Thirty states have amended their constitutions to specify that marriage can only be between a man and a woman; all but three of those amendments were adopted since the Massachusetts ruling. . . . . New York and New Jersey appeared to be the next logical battlegrounds. New York is seen as relatively gay-friendly. Court rulings, including one from the state’s highest court just last week, have found that gay couples married outside New York are entitled to some government benefits. New Jersey offers the legal rights afforded to married couples but calls them civil unions, not marriages. Recent public opinion polls have shown narrow support for allowing gay marriage in the state. However, a Quinnipiac University poll released yesterday finds voters oppose gay marriage, 49 to 46 percent, with a sampling error margin of 2 percentage points. Both states have Democratic governors eager to sign bills legalizing gay marriage. But now it is not clear whether bills will ever get to their desks. There could be national implications if they do not. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Poll: Gay-marriage support slips NewJersey.com, By Mary Fuchs, November 26, 2009
New Jersey voters now oppose gay-marriage legislation by a slim margin, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released yesterday. The poll, conducted between Nov. 17 and Nov. 22, found 49 percent of adult residents are opposed to giving gay couples the right to marry while 46 percent are in favor of it. Six percent were undecided. A poll conducted by Quinnipiac earlier this year had almost the opposite results -- 49 percent of voters supported gay marriage, while 43 percent did not. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: D.C. Gay Marriage Vote Set For Tuesday OnTopMagazine, By Carlos Santoscoy, November 29, 2009
Two states are expected to decide on whether to grant gay couples the right to marry before the end of the year, but gay marriage proponents are thoroughly sanguine about the District of Columbia, where passage of Council member David Catania's gay marriage bill is expected to win approval on December 1. Enthusiasm for gay marriage appears to be on the wane in New York and New Jersey after Mainers repealed a gay marriage law approved by lawmakers in the spring. Numerous New Jersey Democratic senators have expressed concern that now is not the time, while the New York Senate continues to delay action on a bill. But the political consensus driving gay marriage in the District endures despite numerous attacks. City leaders have remained united on the bill, which is expected to win approval along a 10 to 2 vote at Tuesday's meeting. Few roadblocks to passage remain. The District is under the control of Congress, which could overturn the law, but action appears unlikely. Congress remained silent after lawmakers approved a gay marriage-recognition law in the spring and promised to legalize gay marriage. Still, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the nation's most vociferous opponent of gay marriage, has said it would apply pressure on Capitol Hill to move against the bill. However, Brian Brown, executive director of NOM, conceded to the Washington Post, “It's a difficult thing for Congress to actually overturn a law in the District.” Passage of the first law, which recognizes the marriages of gay couples so long as they are willing to marry in one of the nearby states that recognize gay marriage, attracted a heated protest that has yet to abate. . .

Food stamp use skyrockets: How one family puts food on the table WalletPop.com, By Aaron Crowe, November 25, 2009
While most of us are preoccupied with gorging ourselves on turkey and stuffing, it can be easy to forget about the growing number of people who are struggling just to eat one meal a day. In fact, a recent government survey found that more than one in seven U.S. households are finding it difficult to afford putting food on the table. Those 14.5% of U.S. households, representing about 49 million people, make up the highest rate of "food-insecure" households since the U.S. Department of Agriculture began monitoring the issue in 1995. As the recession has deepened, so has the number of people using food stamps from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, with participation growing by 23% in the last year, according to Hans Billger of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The situation would be far worse if not for food pantries and federal food assistance programs, such as SNAP. For the nearly 35.9 million people who receive SNAP benefits, they're a lifeline to survival. In July, more people were using SNAP benefits than at any other time in the history of the program. The average SNAP benefit for one person is $101.53 per month with a maximum of $200. For a household of four, the average benefit is $226.59 per month (the maximum benefit is $668 per month). WalletPop recently spoke with a few families who rely on food stamps to find out just how hard it is to stretch their resources and put healthy meals on the table. Feeding a Family of Four on Food Stamps. . . . . .Interestingly enough, Brooke says her family eats better now than they did before. Prior to using food stamps Brooke used to try to buy food and toiletries on $80 a week. To help her along the way, Brooke uses online grocery coupons, which she says saves her at least 30% off her grocery bills each week. WalletPop asked Brooke to keep a diary of what her family ate over the course of one week, and the total came to $105.07. The list doesn't include much junk food other than some sodas and often doesn't include food for her husband, who fixes his own meals and is out of the house often. She added some of his grocery purchases at the end of the list. . .

Food stamp use skyrockets: How one family puts food on the table (Click for Related Resource)

RELATED RESOURCE: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
We help put healthy food on the table for over 35 million people each month. SNAP helps low-income people and families buy the food they need for good health. You apply for benefits by completing a State application form. Benefits are provided on an electronic card that is used like an ATM card and accepted at most grocery stores. Through nutrition education partners, SNAP helps clients learn to make healthy eating and active lifestyle choices. . .

RELATED SURVEY: Household Food Security in the United States, 2008 USDA Economic Research Service- Economic Research Report No. (ERR-83) 66 pp, By Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson, November 2009
Eighty-five percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year in 2008, meaning that they had access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households (14.6 percent) were food insecure at least some time during the year, including 5.7 percent with very low food security—meaning that the food intake of one or more household members was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because the household lacked money and other resources for food. Prevalence rates of food insecurity and very low food security were up from 11.1 percent and 4.1 percent, respectively, in 2007, and were the highest recorded since 1995, when the first national food security survey was conducted. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Recession causes more families to go without food, survey finds McClatchy Newspapers- Miami Herald, By Tony Pugh,
In a statement, President Barack Obama called the report unsettling and said it was particularly troubling that there were more than 500,000 families in which children experienced hunger multiple times last year. Obama said his administration was "committed to reversing the trend of rising hunger" and that restoring job growth would "help relieve the economic pressures that make it difficult for parents to put a square meal on the table each day." U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the situation would be far worse for many more Americans were it not for food pantries and federal food assistance programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps. Vilsack said the findings were consistent with the nation's dire economic climate and that next year's report probably would show a worsening situation due to continued job losses and rising unemployment. Vilsack said the findings from the annual USDA survey of 44,000 households were a "wake-up call for America.". . .Single-parent families, low-income households, African-Americans and Latinos were more likely to experience food insecurities, report co-author Mark Nord said. Married families, childless households with two or more adults and elderly households were less likely. Most of the 17 million "food-insecure" households avoid long-term eating disruptions, but they rely on cheaper, less nutritious foods and eat the same things several days in a row, Nord said. Families in the "very low food security" group experience severe and prolonged bouts of hunger. . .

Talking Turkey
Jell-O Frisbees. Lumpy gravy. Blackened turkey. No matter. What matters is that we gather together, with gratitude to God for His love and for the blessing of each other. FOTF.org, By Mary Pierce
The locusts — as my husband affectionately calls our extended family — were on their way to our house for Thanksgiving. We host Thanksgiving every year, gathering together for a time of love and bonding. Every year another culinary disaster looms, threatening to distract us from what really matters. That year, 22 locusts were headed our way, and the turkey refused to thaw. I spent the morning giving it cold-water baths. (OK, I cheated just a little and gave it a spritz or two of warm water.) Then, trying the nuclear thawing option, I realized it's impossible to wedge a 20-pound turkey into an 8-pound microwave. "Why don't we just eat later?" my rational mate proposed. I shuddered to think of 22 hungry locusts having to wait for dinner, so I hustled to prepare the side dishes: sweet potatoes with marshmallows, green bean casserole, mashed potatoes, scalloped corn — and Jell-O, of course. The ability to make Jell-O is a gift. I'm not good at Jell-O. I envy women who effortlessly concoct crystalline mounds of jiggling glory. After measuring, heating, stirring and chilling as directed, I held my breath as I turned the plastic mold upside down onto a plate. I gave it a gentle shake, straining to hear, just this once, the satisfying plop of a well-turned Jell-O. . . . .Shortly thereafter, the last of the locusts arrived as I was basting the buzzard. But a miscalculation shot hot grease all over the oven. The smoke alarm blasted, the teakettle screamed and the potatoes boiled over at the same time. I swished a dish towel under the smoke detector, trying to clear the air while hollering for my husband to find the stepstool and disconnect the battery until the smoke cleared. In that moment of noise and laughter — the wonderful chaos of family and life — I realized once again what was important. Thanksgiving is not about perfection; it's about people — people who share the ups and downs of life and still love you. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Real Hospitality: It's more than coordinating dishes and centerpieces. Kyria Blog, By Lindsey Learn

Christian Leaders Unite on Political Issues (Click for Related Video)

Christian Leaders Unite on Political Issues NY Times, By Laurie Goodstein, November 20, 2009
Citing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s call to civil disobedience, 145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed a declaration saying they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples. “We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence,” it says. The manifesto, to be released on Friday at the National Press Club in Washington, is an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the administration of President George W. Bush. The signers include nine Roman Catholic archbishops and the primate of the Orthodox Church in America. They want to signal to the Obama administration and to Congress that they are still a formidable force that will not compromise on abortion, stem-cell research or gay marriage. They hope to influence current debates over health care reform, the same-sex marriage bill in Washington, D.C., and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. . .

RELATED SITE: “Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience.”
The Manhattan Declaration is a 4,732-word statement signed by a movement of Orthodox, Catholic and evangelical Christian leaders who are collaborating around moral issues of great concern. Its 125+ signers affirm the sanctity of human life, marriage as defined by the union of one man and one woman, and religious liberty and freedom of conscience. The Manhattan Declaration endorses civil disobedience under certain circumstances. Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family. . . . . . Further, let it be known that we will not be intimidated into silence or acquiescence or the violation of our consciences by any power on earth, be it cultural or political, regardless of the consequences to ourselves. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s. . .

RELATED VIDEO: Huckabee - Chuck Colson - Manhattan Declaration FOX News

RELATED ARTICLE: No further! Christians draw battle line in culture war: Declaration warns of civil disobedience over life, marriage, religious liberty World Net Daily, By Drew Zahn, November 23, 2009
Over 150 Orthodox, Catholic and evangelical Christian leaders have signed the Manhattan Declaration, a pledge in defense of life, religious liberty and traditional marriage, a line in the sand of the culture war warning that Christians will resort to civil disobedience if necessary rather than retreat from these three moral principles. "The Manhattan Declaration is a wake-up call – a call to conscience – for the church," writes Chuck Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries and co-author of the declaration. "It is also crystal-clear message to civil authorities that we will not, under any circumstances, stand idly by as our religious freedom comes under assault." . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan, part one Examiner.com, By Pat Krukenkamp-Maskell, November 20, 2009
On November 17, 2009 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued their pastoral letter, Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan. The sixty-page document includes a complete discussion and instruction concerning the sacrament of Marriage. In the introduction to the document, the bishops explain, “… we are troubled by the fact that far too many people do not understand what it means to say that marriage—both as a natural institution and a Christian sacrament—is a blessing and gift from God. We observe, for example, that some people esteem marriage as an ideal but can be reluctant to make the actual commitment necessary to enter and sustain it.” The intention of the pastoral letter, as described by the bishops is a statement of “theological and doctrinal foundation … for all those who are called to the vocation of marriage.” The letter presents, “those beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church—informed by human reason and enlightened by Divine Revelation—that summarize and express God‘s plan for marriage.” The letter is, “an invitation to discover, or perhaps rediscover, the blessing given when God first established marriage as a natural institution and when Christ restored and elevated it as a sacramental sign of salvation.” The pastoral letter, Marriage: Love and Life in the divine Plan, is divided into two parts: PART ONE: MARRIAGE IN THE ORDER OF CREATION The Natural Institution of Marriage and PART TWO: MARRIAGE IN THE ORDER OF THE NEW CREATION The Sacrament of Matrimony. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Churches Gone Wild Townhall.com, By Robert Knight, November 19, 2009
The tension between church and state has been around since Jesus held up a coin and confounded the Pharisees with His admonition to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Caesar is entitled to a certain level of authority and taxation, Jesus acknowledged. But God, the Creator and Author of our souls, gets the rest. In this way, Jesus clearly limited Caesar’s reach. But government has a huge appetite for power and does not particularly like limits. That’s why churches have been a thorn in the side of those who would impose socialism on us in the name of “equality” or “tolerance” or “fairness.” It’s why the political Left, since the mid-19th Century, has been at war with the church, alternately trying to co-opt it or destroy it. . . . . .Why do some religious leaders think it’s fine for them to get an exemption from an immoral law while it’s imposed on others? If it’s immoral and violates conscience, then it’s wrong for everyone, not just the church. . .

RU safe and simple? OneNewsNow, By Charlie Butts, November 18, 2009
A new study provides fresh information on potential harm of the abortion drug, RU-486. The study comes from Finland and was published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Dr. Randall O'Bannon of National Right to Life tells OneNewsNow that what the public typically sees from the abortion industry is a claim that RU-486, also known as Mifeprex, is a safe and simple process for abortions. "But this latest study from Finland shows that at least 20 percent of the women that use RU-486, the abortion pill, they suffer from at least one significant complication, and in many cases, from two complications," O'Bannon reports. The three most significant problems are hemorrhaging, infection and incomplete abortions, which are the same troubles patients face in surgical abortions. Resulting from the chemical method, 15.6 percent of those undergoing this form of abortion hemorrhaged while 1.7 percent encountered infection and 6.7 percent experienced incomplete abortions. O'Bannon feels that one of the reasons America does not report the figures is because, "we have people that control the data. The abortion industry keeps all of this very close to the vest, and so the only time you can get data is if they are willing to share it," he says. "They report some of these things to the FDA, but whether they report all of them, we don't know." The lesson from the new study is that people need to make themselves aware of the hype about RU-486's safety and the pitch that it is somehow more safe or simple than other abortion methods. The public needs to consider the possibility that RU-486 is not being honest about its issues. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: One Woman's Experience With RU486

RELATED VIDEO: Abortion -This is a Suction Abortion Priests For Life

Is the 'abortion pill' RU-486 safe and simple?

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

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: "The Surprising Link", a convincing and moving investigation of the link between abortion and breast cancer. Lifestite News.com,
Charnette Messe, a 35-year-old mother of two, was living the American dream until she learned she had breast cancer, and then the very next day, found out she was pregnant. Fighting for her life and that of her baby, Charnette wanted answers, and, now, she wants to tell other women the truth she discovered about the abortion she kept a secret for 15 years and why it may have caused her cancer. Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a New Jersey breast surgeon and co-founder of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, provides a medical explanation of why abortion is the single, most avoidable risk factor for breast cancer. . .

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

The Secret Mind-blowing Actual Purpose of Marriage. And how it has your parents written all over it.

The Secret Mind-blowing Actual Purpose of Marriage
And how it has your parents written all over it Christianity Today, By Mark E. Smith
I was invited recently to a wedding. My handsome young nephew, the groom, had a smile that could have lit up the universe as his gorgeous blond bride made her way down the aisle to join him in the bonds of matrimony. He was marrying the woman of his dreams, and it was all good. The problem was, like all young kids on their glorious wedding days, my man didn't really know who he was marrying. If he did, he would have quietly slipped out the back of the church before he uttered those fateful words, "I do." I don't know his beautiful new bride and my comments are in no way a slight on her character. I'm sure she's a fine young woman who loves her new husband with a pure and sincere heart. But I know who she is: She represents the worst personal characteristics of my nephew's parents miraculously and cleverly disguised in an appealing and lovely package. I sat with the rest of the family and friends and watched as a lethal buzz saw headed down the aisle for a meeting with my handsome nephew, and he could not have been more cluelessly happy to embrace it. He had no fear or awareness of the danger he was in. My friends, this is what marriage is—for all of us. Marriage, by its very essence, is pain! Not a very romantic notion, I know. The truth is that we all have experienced some childhood wounding. This world of ours is an extremely flawed place and we all get our share of emotional bumps and bruises when we are tiny, unprotected, and vulnerable. Thankfully, complex, hurting, little human beings then have fortresses of powerful psychological defenses that rise up to provide integrity, protection, and safety. We learn to rationalize, cope, act out, devalue, intellectualize, idealize, deny, undo, disassociate, minimize, displace, project, repress, regress, and otherwise numb all the bad stuff out. The purpose of our psychological defenses? To get us out of childhood in one functioning piece with the misguided impression that we're all grown up now and we're free to live our lives without any significant impact from Dad, Mom, and the rest of that bunch. I wish that were true. The truth is that our particular family dysfunction conspires to form and twist us into who we uniquely are—both good and bad. It even determines who you're attracted to. Whatever wounding you repress from childhood develops and morphs into your love life type. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Americans Marry Too Much: Americans Have the Highest Divorce, Remarriage Rate Newsweek, By Pat Wingert, August 15, 2009
OK, we still have the highest divorce rate in the world. But that's the problem—"We divorce, repartner, and remarry faster than people in any other country," says Andrew Cherlin, a Johns Hopkins sociologist and author of the new book The Marriage-Go-Round. Because many of the people racking up multiple marriages are also parents, American kids are more likely than those in other developed countries to live in a household with a revolving cast of parents, step-parents, and live-in partners moving in and out of their lives—a pattern that is definitely not good for children. Cherlin says he was particularly stunned to discover that American kids born to married couples experienced 6 percent more household disruption by age 15 than Swedish kids born to unmarried parents. Experts predicted that the study would find exactly the opposite, since research has long shown that cohabiting relationships are more fragile than married ones. "Remember, we're talking about the 'avant-garde' Swedes compared to the 'conservative' Americans," Cherlin says. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Is There Hope for the American Marriage? Time magazine, By Caitlin Flanagan, July 02, 2009
Around the time of my parents' 50th wedding anniversary, I turned to my father at the dinner table one night and said, "It's amazing, Dad — 50 years, and you never once had an affair. How do you account for that?" He replied simply, "I can't drive." Watching the governor of South Carolina cry like a little girl because his sexy e-mails got forwarded to his local newspaper, the State, made me wonder whether the real secret to a lasting marriage lies in limiting your means of escape. Whether you're putting the Buick Regal in reverse or hitting Send on a love note, you're busting out of your marriage, however temporarily, and soon enough there will be hell to pay. . . . . When a married man begins a secret, solicitous correspondence with a beautiful and emotionally needy single woman, he has already begun to cheat on his wife. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Let's End Disposable Marriage CNN.com, By Leah Ward Sears, July 02, 2009
Story Highlights
* Leah Sears: My brother despaired at the effects of divorce
* She says America's disposable marriages are hurting parents and children
* She says it's become too easy for people to walk away from their marriages

Editor's note: Leah Ward Sears stepped down this week as Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. In 1992, she became the first woman -- and youngest person -- appointed to Georgia's highest court.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why I Married My Dad American Chronicle, By Susan Kuchinskas, August 8, 2007
There comes a moment in every marriage when your spouse does something that makes you realize, "He's just like my father (or mother)." For some people, this is a moment of pleasure. If you were close to your parent of the opposite sex, it's natural that you'd look for the same qualities in your mate. The sentimental old song, "I Want a Girl Just Like the Girl that Married Dear Old Dad," expresses it perfectly. Others of us, those who struggled with our same-sex parents, grew up determined to be nothing like them. And that included marrying someone like the other parent. And yet, while your spouse looks different, came from a different background, has a different job, in fact, seemed when you met as different as could be from your mom or dad, fundamentally, you realize, he or she is your dad or mom. How did this happen?. . . . We're definitely born with a predilection to be naughty or nice, fraught or chill. But our brains and nervous systems continue to develop after we're born -- in response to our environments. For a baby, that's Mommy (or whoever is acting as primary caregiver). After the first months, Daddy, Nanny and anyone else who provides significant care help shape the baby's development. This development includes creating the basic neurochemical cocktail recipe. Just like a martini, this chemical brew influences behavior. . .

Sex and Legos Young Married Life- Focus Marriage Community, By Juli Slattery, November 13, 2009
Remember those dating days when you couldn't wait to have sex with your spouse -- whenever you want, guilt free? Now that you're married, there's a good chance that sex doesn't seem like it is all it's cracked up to be. Ironically, perhaps, sex is one of the most common causes of conflict in marriage. Perhaps as a young married couple you're baffled by all of the obstacles that seem to get in the way -- fatigue, his needs vs. her needs, lack of pleasure or desire, hurt feelings, difficulty communicating about sex, arguments about birth control, baggage resurfacing from your past, sexual temptations that you thought would disappear after marriage ... the list seems endless! I want to encourage you to think about your sexual relationship in terms of legos. As the mom of three boys, I know a lot about legos. When you open up a box of legos, the contents look nothing like what is promised on the box. Instead, you find hundreds of seemingly random plastic pieces. But the joy and fun of legos is building them. On your honeymoon, you opened up a box of legos. Don't be disappointed that the project seems incomplete. Imagine if the best sex of your life was on your honeymoon. How depressing would that be -- all down hill from here, honey! . . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: What You're Really Doing in Bed WEbMD- Redbook Magazine
What's really going on in other couples' bedrooms? We were dying to know, and we knew you were, too. So we got the scoop from more than 2,500 women in our redbookmag.com sex survey. Read on for the no-holds-barred results (and a few sexy ideas you might want to try!). . .

RELATED PHOTO ESSAY: 12 Things You Didn't Know About Sex AOL Health
Think you know all you need to know about sex? Think again. If you still subscribe to the old wives' tale that you can tell what size a man is by looking at his hands, then you've got some more to learn. Click the gallery below to find out 15 facts you may not know about sex. (Excerpted from "101 Things You Didn't Know about Sex" by Eve Marx).

RELATED ARTICLE: Eight Great Date Nights: Need a kick-start to your relationship? Check out these ideas. Christianity Today, By Ginger Kolbaba,
Tired of the old dinner-and-a-movie routine, but not sure what else to do on your date nights? Try these eight ideas to get your creative juices flowing!

1. Take in a local show or concert. Your town is probably teeming with gifted and creative performers at the local high school or college. So check to see what's playing. It's less expensive than the "professional" versions and often just as fun. At the end of the evening, share your favorite moments of the performance. Then "go back in time" to your own high school or college days and reminiscence together about your favorite school event or memory and why it was so special. Or see if you can guess some of the clubs or activities your spouse was involved in.

2. Read a book of short stories out loud to each other. . .

Money can buy you love, economist Paul Frijters says

Money can buy you love, economist says Brisbane Times, By Peter Martin, November 16, 2009
WHAT'S a marriage worth? To an Aussie male, about $32,000. That's the lump sum Professor Paul Frijters says the man would need to receive out of the blue to make him as happy as his marriage will over his lifetime. An Aussie woman would need much less, about $16,000. But when it comes to divorce, the Aussie male will be so devastated it would be as if he had lost $110,000. An Aussie woman would be less traumatised, feeling as if she had lost only $9000. Recently named this year's Best Australian Economist under 40 by the Economic Society of Australia, the Queensland University of Technology professor knows this because he has been mining a unique set of data that has tracked the happiness and major life events of about 10,000 Australians once a year since 2001. ''These are real people to whom unexpected things happen. They weren't selected because these things would happen, and we can compare their happiness before and after,'' Professor Frijters told Fairfax after presenting his findings at the Australian National University. Asked to describe how satisfied they are with their lives on a scale of 0 to 10, the Australians surveyed most often use the number eight, but the answers change after (and sometimes in anticipation of) major life events and also after sudden changes in income. That has enabled the professor to put dollar values on the effects on happiness of major events such as marriage, divorce and birth, or as he puts it to calculate their ''psychic costs'' or ''psychic benefits''. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Spare us the tears - it's us who suffer! Brisbane Times, By John Birmingham, November 17, 2009
I knew those heartless trollops were having a lend. I just knew all that blubbering and sniffling was just a bunch of crocodile tears and now an economical scientician has proven it with the kind of proof my rational male mind loves most - statistics. Queensland University of Technology's professor Paul Frijters was on site here yesterday quoting from a fascinating bunch of facts and figures with which I can hardly wait to confront the ladies. The prof has been following thousands of punters since 2001 tracking their happiness, or otherwise, and matching it to major life events in the same period. Through some kind of magical, arcane thinky math guy magic he's managed to place a dollar value on the roller coaster ride of people's emotional life over the past decade. And they say economists are useless. . .

Twilight’s Hot Gleaming Vanity Fair.com, By Evgenia Peretz, December 2009 Issue
Not since Titanic unleashed Leo-mania has an actor sparked the overnight adulation that greeted Robert Pattinson’s 2008 debut as Edward Cullen in Twilight. As the vampire saga’s next installment arrives, the author explores the frenzy, isolation, and sheer embarrassment of Pattinson’s past year, his instant connection with co-star Kristen Stewart, and the life he wants when this $10 million gig is over. . . . .None of this would have happened to Pattinson had it not been for Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight saga, the young-adult blockbuster, the four books of which have sold 70 million copies and been translated into 45 languages. In case you’ve been living in a remote forest, the series tells the story of Bella Swan, a shy newcomer to the town of Forks, Washington, who falls in love with Edward Cullen, a vampire since 1918, when he was bitten, who will be 17 years old for eternity. Though they are hopelessly in love, if they were to really fool around, Edward would lose control and bite her, turning Bella into a vampire as well—all of which puts the two in a permanent state of unquenchable lust, not to mention abstinence. This doubtless plays well with parents and bluenoses, like the author’s fellow Mormons. In fact, the whole setup could be seen as a metaphor for hanging on to your virginity. Still, no other writer in recent memory has quite tapped into female adolescent yearning and girlhood fantasies about being desired. Edward is the perfect hero: charming, cultured, dangerous, and “the most beautiful creature who has ever been born.” Girls fall so hard for him that even at Meyer’s readings—well before any Twilight movie had been made—they shrieked upon hearing the author simply utter his name: “That was the first night I dreamed of Edward Cullen.”. . .

RELATED SITE: StephenieMeyer.com
The Story Behind Twilight.

Twilight's Hot Gleaming: Installment # 2, New Moon, coming to a theater near you (Click for Related Movie Trailer)

RELATED ARTICLE: The "Twilight" Phenomena Caryl Productions, By Caryl Matrisciana and Paul Villanueva, December 2008
. . . In only a few short years I’ve watched the occult addiction mushroom amongst teens and develop aggressively into a yearning that they’d even sell their eternal souls for. Think of it, the love of a vampire, a being the Bible describes as demon possessed, musters the longing to remain lost for eternity - the very state Jesus Christ died to save sinners from. How diabolical is Satan’s message to our young innocents luring them, through a lust-filled romance, to spend eternity with him and away from the presence of our God of love? Twilight takes occult darkness, introduced in Potter, to deeper, decadent fathoms: overt vampirism, acceptable blood-sucking (in this movie its only animal blood – later? Wait and see!) and sexual lust for the possessed soul (made appealing in its fictionalized form!). The books, akin to the Potter’s series, promote and familiarize their audience with magick, Wicca, supernatural powers and demon possession. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: What Girls Want: An Edward Cullen to Love Them Townhall.com, By Dr. Miriam Grossman, M.D., December 8, 2008
American girls have a new heartthrob: a tall, gorgeous vampire who is in the eleventh grade. He thirsts for the blood of Bella, his human girlfriend, but learns to “just say no.” What is it about Edward Cullen, the male protagonist of the blockbuster Twilight series, that sends girls from Atlanta to Anchorage swooning? I asked three teen girls I know.
Nava is 14. “He’s cute, and he’s really nice to Bella.”
Kayla is 16. “He’s caring, and genuine. He expresses his love, and risks his life to protect her. And he’s handsome.”
Tanya is 19. “Edward loves Bella and wants to be with her forever, so he controls himself. The self-discipline is very hard on him, but seeing her hurt would be even worse.”
Not bad, huh? Now if only the professionals running our country’s sex education could figure that out. Because that’s what the Twilight craze is about: a guy who adores his girl so much, he’ll do anything to protect her. A guy who won’t allow his girl to get hurt, even if it means saying “no” to himself. That’s what girls want. Contrast that with Planned Parenthood’s description of the “perfect partner”. . .

D.C. Committee Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill

D.C. Committee Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill Christian Post, By Ethan Cole, November 12, 2009
A D.C. Council Committee passed a bill Tuesday that would legalize same-sex marriage in the federal district while also providing an exemption for religious groups. In a 4-1 vote, the D.C. Council Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary passed the “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009,” which provides exemption to religious organizations – including churches, schools and nonprofits – to deny “services, accommodations, facilities, or goods for a purpose related to the solemnization or celebration of a same-sex marriage.” On Nov. 17, the bill, 18-482, will go to the Committee of the Whole, where it will be put on the agenda for the full council to debate in early December. Though the proposed amendment allows religious organizations to refuse to promote same-sex marriage through religious programs, counseling, courses or retreats, some churches in the District of Columbia are not satisfied with it. The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said that while the bill exempts religious organizations from performing and providing space for same-sex marriages, it requires them to adhere to city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and women. Among the changes the archdiocese fears will be possible under the bill is the forced extension of employee benefits to same-sex married couples. “It is our concern that the committee’s narrowing of the religious exemption language will cause the government to discontinue our long partnership with them and open up the agency to litigation and the use of resources to defend our religious beliefs rather than serve the poor,” explained Edward Orzechowski, president and CEO of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington. As a response, the Catholic archdiocese has threatened to stop the social service programs it runs for the district unless the proposed law is changed. The archdiocese warned that if it stopped its social services, tens of thousands of people it helps through programs dealing with adoption, homelessness and health care will be affected. Catholic Charities reportedly serves 68,000 people in the city each year. The city’s 40 Catholic parishes, meanwhile, operate another 93 social service programs to provide crucial services. Despite protests, the bill is expected to easily pass, giving same-sex couples both the option to marry or enter a domestic partnership – a first in the nation. The District of Columbia has recognized domestic partnerships since 1992. Earlier this year, the D.C. Council unanimously voted to recognize gay and lesbian marriages performed elsewhere.

RELATED ARTICLE: D.C. Council agrees to vote Dec. 1 on same-sex marriage The Washington Post- DC Wire, November 17, 2009
The D.C. Council officially agreed today to vote on the bill legalizing same-sex marriage on Dec. 1, clearing the way for the measure to head to Congress for its review around New Year's. Before the council put the bill on its December agenda, council members reiterated they are not likely to be swayed by arguments from the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington that passage of the bill as written would affect the church's charitable work in the District. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay-marriage opponents sue to force referendum: Congress members grill D.C. officials on decision to block ballot initiative Washington Examiner, By Tim Craig and Keith L. Alexander, November 19, 2009
The decision by the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics to block a ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage reverberated on Capitol Hill and in the courts Wednesday as the battle continued over whether voters should have a say in the debate. Bishop Harry Jackson, represented by lawyers from a conservative legal organization, filed suit in D.C. Superior Court to reverse the elections board's decision. The board ruled Tuesday that the proposed initiative on whether to define marriage as being between a man and a woman violates the city's Human Rights Act because it would be discriminatory toward gay men and lesbians. In the 15-page filing, Jackson and his seven co-petitioners argue that the city's ordinances gives residents the same lawmaking power as the council, except for appropriations. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: D.C.'s gay marriage dilemma Washington Examiner, By Barbara Hollingsworth, November 24, 2009
D.C. is urging Congress to eliminate congressional review. A relic from the old Control Board days, congressional review requires that the city's budget and any new laws first be approved on Capitol Hill before they go into effect, an undemocratic process that often takes months. But while District officials are rightly demanding more local autonomy for themselves, they are denying the same privilege to their own residents. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Sodom in the nation's capital Townhall.com, By Star Parker, November 23, 2009
At a time when our country is sick, it shouldn't surprise that one our sickest places is our nation's capital. The poverty rate of Washington, DC, almost 20 percent, is one of the highest in the nation. Its child poverty rate is the nation's highest.. DC's public school system, with a graduation rate of less than 50 percent, is one of the worst in the country. According to DC's HIV/AIDS office, three percent of the local population has HIV or AIDS. The Administrator of this office notes that this HIV/AIDS incidence is "...higher than West Africa...on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya." And the principal way that HIV is transmitted continues to be through male homosexual activity. Amidst this dismal picture, the DC City Council, perhaps on the theory that serving up another glass of wine is the way to help a drunk, is scheduled to vote on December 1 to legalize same sex marriage in America's capital city. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Can Jesus Be Blackmailed? Townhall.com, By Harry R. Jackson, Jr., November 16, 2009
Two weeks ago, just after the Maine’s successful reversal of the state legislature’s decision to sanction same-sex marriage, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer asked me a profound question: “Would Jesus have spent $550,000 to oppose same-sex marriage?” The question was exactly what many secular parties had been asking in Portland, Maine, where she was speaking to me by satellite. My answer was that Jesus would have given the money to oppose same-sex marriage. My reasoning was simple: Jesus would have upheld his own teaching; refusing to be a loving, permanent enabler of a misguided local government. I mentioned in the interview that Washington, DC was struggling with the same question. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Catholic Church Gives D.C. Ultimatum The Washington Post, By Tim Craig and Michelle Boorstein, November 12, 2009
The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Catholic Church -- Same-Sex Marriage: A threat to social service contracts in D.C.? 'Several D.C. Council members said the Catholic Church is trying to erode the city's long-standing laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination.' The Washington Post, By Patrick J. Deneen - Associate professor of government, Georgetown University, November 12, 2009
Patrick J. Deneen, associate professor of government at Georgetown University, was online Thursday, Nov. 12, at 1 p.m. ET to explain and discuss the church's position on social service contracts and same-sex marriage. Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city. . . . South Bend, Ind.: How does the First Amendment play into the debate? Is forcing the Catholic Church to act contrary to its beliefs a violation?. . . . .Denton, Md.: Hasn't the ACLU also voiced its opinion to the D.C. Council on this? They also asked for broader protections for religious groups, right? The Council should listen when the Church and the ACLU are agreeing on an issue. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Same-Sex Marriage — Challenges & Responses Townhall.com, By Gregory Koukl, February 11, 2007
Unfortunately, addressing this issue requires refined distinctions and careful thinking that are easily overwhelmed by sound-byte rhetoric and broad, indiscriminate appeals to “rights.” What follows is a point-by-point reply to those who are demanding this revision of civilization.
Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Rights:
1. “We’re being denied the same rights as heterosexuals. This is unconstitutional discrimination.”
There are two complaints here. First, homosexuals don’t have the same legal liberties heterosexuals have. Second, homosexual couples don’t have the same legal benefits as married couples. The first charge is simply false. Any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned matrimony. He just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions all citizens share equally. I realize that for homosexuals this is a profoundly unsatisfying response, but it is a legitimate one, nonetheless. Let me illustrate. . .

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

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

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

Thia woman, Penelope Trunk, told 20,000 people on Twitter she was having a miscarriage at work. Can't we keep ANYTHING to ourselves anymore?

This woman told 20,000 people on Twitter she was having a miscarriage at work. Can't we keep ANYTHING to ourselves anymore? The Daily Mail- UK, By Linda Kelsey, November 12, 2009
Last weekend, I was seated next to a guy, who I'll call Richard, at a wedding. My friend Carol, who'd been stressing over table plans in her role as mother- of-the-bride, thought that, as we were both newly single, we might get on. She might have been right had the said Richard, who was rather handsome, not told me everything about himself in the first five minutes. Quite unprompted, he chose to inform me that his ex-wife was a bitch; that she didn't deserve half the house, let alone maintenance, as she'd been unfaithful to him; that he didn't want to date lots of women even though he was lonely; and that women 20 years his junior were queuing up to go out with him but he wasn't especially interested. Richard was in therapy and anxious to form a new relationship, even though he didn't trust women any more. He then explained he'd sowed plenty of wild oats in his youth, and was looking more for companionship than sex. Oh yes, and that his cholesterol was down to 4.8 as the result of his new health regime. Following this fascinating piece of news, I found myself looking longingly towards the emergency exit of the hotel ballroom. Haven't you heard the expression 'too much information' I was tempted to yell at him. How about getting to know someone slowly? How about a nice general conversation about the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall or an interesting book or film you've just seen? I think I'd rather have discussed the weather than receive this confessional monologue, this instant, unabridged autobiography. Following my own line of thought, but clearly not his, I asked: 'Did you read about Penelope Trunk, that woman who announced her miscarriage on Twitter while attending a boardroom meeting?' 'Only in America,' he harrumphed. 'What is it with Americans? Is nothing private any more?' The unintentional irony of Richard's remarks, hot on the heels of the furore caused by Trunk's extraordinary revelations, confirmed for me a worrying new trend. We have entered the age of oversharing. . . .

RELATED VIDEO: Why Women Stay Single!!!
The story is this: a girl was out with friends having drinks on King St (in Toronto ). This guy approaches her and won't leave her alone -saying how cute she is. She finally gives in and hands the guy her business card to get rid of him. The attached is an MP3 file of not one, but TWO voicemails this guy left. This goes down in the history books - especially the second voice mail. After hearing them you can clearly see why she didn't call him back - instead she called in to the Z103.5 morning show & had them play this on the air.

Parenting Issues: Why Puppy Love Matters for Parents The Wall Street Journal, By Sue Shellenbarger, November 11, 2009
Among all my endeavors as a parent of teenagers, understanding their affairs of the heart has been the most baffling. Mostly, my approach has been, "Hands off." New research suggests I might do better by meddling a bit. Long dismissed by researchers as trivial and fleeting, teen romance is emerging as a powerful factor in kids' development—one in which parents have a major role to play, new studies show. The romantic ties kids form between middle school and college are important markers of progress toward adulthood; their choice of partners as early as middle school actually shapes their development to a surprising degree. And while parents' dating advice may seem about as welcomed by teens as the swine flu, the research suggests the opposite—that young people not only value parental input, but tend to have healthier relationships when they receive parental advice. The studies serve as bedrock for parents in an era of dizzying changes in youthful romance. Many adults see little that is familiar in today's teen dating relationships, which may seem to live and die entirely on Facebook, or through texting, sexting or—to parents' dismay—casual "hookups," or brief sexual liaisons. . . . . Young people whose parents make themselves available to talk with them or give advice about dating tend to have warmer, closer, more positive romantic relationships, with less fighting and tension, reveals a study by Dr. Madsen and others of 225 young adults ages 22 to 29. If parents don't offer help, however, and keep out of offsprings' love lives altogether, that is linked in their offspring to poorer-quality relationships, including less affection and support and more conflict. . .

Carrie Prejean: Sex Tape Was 'Biggest Mistake of My Life'
Former Miss California tells Fox News about humiliating tape FOX News, November 10, 2009
Carrie Prejean says a steamy tape she made for an ex-boyfriend a few years ago was “the biggest mistake” of her life. The former Miss California USA told Fox News’ Sean Hannity Monday that she shot the racy tape by herself for a boyfriend she loved when she was 17. Later, he “betrayed” her and sold it. “They can call it whatever they want to call it, but it was the biggest mistake of my life,” Prejean told Hannity. “I was all by myself and I was sending a boyfriend at the time who I loved and cared about a video of me … I was not having sex with anybody and you call it whatever you want.” Prejean, now 22, said she was young and exhibited bad judgment at the time. “I was a teenager at the time and never did I think it would ever come out. But it was bad judgment and it’s embarrassing and it’s humiliating to be talking about this now on national TV if you can imagine.” Prejean lost her title in June, which she attributes to her opposition to gay marriage. Pageant organizers said she was skipping official events. Earlier this month, Prejean and organizers reached a confidential settlement. Since then, she has released a memoir entitled “Still Standing: The Untold Story of My Fight Against Gossip, Hate and Political Attacks.” Prejean told Hannity that she feels she is the victim of a political attack aimed at conservative women, but that her faith helps her stay grounded amid the controversy. . .

RELATED VIDEO: 'Hannity' Exclusive: Former Miss California Carrie Prejean gives first look at new book FOX News, November 09, 2009

RELATED INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT: Carrie Prejean Responds to Alleged 'Sex Tape' FOX News, November 09, 2009

Former Miss California Carrie Prejean talks about humiliating tape

RELATED VIDEO: Prejean irked by King Questions CNN.com, November 13, 2009
Watch as Carrie Prejean takes her microphone off and chastises Larry for being "inappropriate" in his line of questioning.

RELATED INTERVIEW: Prejean on sex tape: 'Nothing is private anymore" The Today Show, November 10, 2009

RELATED SITE: Carrie PreJean TMZ.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Carrie Prejean, Sexting and a Lost Generation Townhall.com, By Rebecca Hagelin, November 17, 2009
I wrote about a nation of "Carries" in my book, "30 Ways in 30 Days to Save Your Family" long before this Carrie became a household name. Today's young women are so immersed in a sexual media culture that they don't see the tragic consequences that come when they confuse Hollywood's lies with real life. In fact, national surveys reveal that some 20 percent of teenagers have sent nude or semi-nude photos or videos over their cell phones. The personal pages of MySpace and Facebook are filled with images of young girls and guys in compromising situations. Young women, in particular, think that the sexier their sites, the better. Why on earth are they eager to post x-rated images? Three reasons: 1) They are simply copying the explicit media they see all around them, 2) They have no sense of personal modesty or decency, 3) They mistakenly view their sites and communications as personal diaries, of sorts. . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Nat'l Organization for Marriage: Miss California "Sex Tape" Scandal "Weird, Sad and Ugly" LifesiteNews.com, November 17, 2009
In response to a scandal brewing around the existence of at least one pornographic video depicting and self-authored by traditional marriage icon and former Miss California Carrie Prejean, The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) this week that Prejean "never worked for" the organization, but that they are "grateful" for Prejean's help in drawing attention to marriage, and called the buzz over the scandalous material "weird, sad and ugly." . . . . . She called the tape "the biggest mistake of my life" on FOX News last week, and said she had sent it to her now ex-boyfriend when she was 17. "I was a teenager at the time and never did I think it would ever come out. But it was bad judgment and it's embarrassing and it's humiliating to be talking about this now on national TV if you can imagine," said Prejean. Shortly after dropping the suit, the former Miss California's memoir was released, entitled "Still Standing: The Untold tory of My Fight Against Gossip, Hate and Political Attacks." Carrie's ex-boyfriend later claimed to gossip site TMZ that she was actually 20 when the video was taken, that numerous other racy videos and pictures exist and that Carrie had called him shortly after the first video was released asking him to lie and say she was 17 at the time they were shot. . .

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

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Sexting’ a part of culture? NW Herald, By Sarah Sutschek, June 08, 2009
Dr. Susan Lipkins, a New York-based psychologist, performed a study on sexting with 323 participants between the ages of 13 and 72. In the teenage group, 63.6 percent of females and 72.7 percent of males sexted. The seriousness of sexting is more debatable. The only law on the books that prosecutors can use against texting is child pornography, a felony that would require registration as a sex offender, Bianchi said. . . . . . . .Lipkins also looked at the reasons why people sext, which included a new type of “mating call” or another way to gossip. But there also is malicious sexting, where pictures are sent to seek revenge or hurt someone, she said. “With the intent of harming that person, that’s really sexual harassment, and I think it should be viewed like that,” Lipkins said. But overall, sexting has become a part of culture, she said. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Steamy Lopez vid sparks $10M suit vs. ex": Honeymoon video sparks $10M suit vs. ex NY Post, By David K. Li, November 10, 2009
This is one hot video Jennifer Lopez doesn't want to see shooting up the charts. Thanks to a first husband she cannot seem to shake, the "Jenny from the Block" singer has found herself embroiled in a Paris Hilton-like sex-tape scandal over steamy footage the former lovebirds shot on their 1997 honeymoon -- which ex Ojani Noa now wants to cash in on. The sultry singer/actress filed a $10 million lawsuit against Noa, claiming that he breached a confidentiality agreement and was also peddling the sexy home videos. And today, a Los Angeles judge extended an ordered Noa to put the wraps on the intimate footage -- at least for now. The hot footage, which reportedly also includes scenes of an embarrassing, ugly argument between J.Lo and her mom, is allegedly part of a movie titled "How I Married Jennifer Lopez: The J.Lo and Ojani Noa Story. . .

After Maine, the Battle Lines Over Gay Marriage Harden

After Maine, the Battle Lines Over Gay Marriage Harden TIME magazine, By Michael A. Lindenberger, November 10, 2009
When America's Catholic bishops gather next week in Baltimore for a four-day conference, they will hear an update on the Catholic Church's ongoing fight to convince the country that marriage as an institution should never include gay couples, and they'll get a sneak peek at how that fight will be waged in the coming year. Videos aimed at priests and deacons are being produced in English and Spanish to give the pastors better tools to reach their parishioners, especially young people, whom the church fears need reminding about its basic teachings on marriage, love and sex. Indeed, the Catholic hierarchy in the U.S. is increasingly unapologetic about engaging in the debate over the issue. . . . .The church's renewed determination to speak out for traditional marriage comes at the end of a year in which advocates for gay marriage saw some big wins, including Iowa's landmark decision to allow gay marriage, bookended by their two biggest defeats. When voters rejected gay marriage in California a year ago, some activists in other parts of the country warned that supporters had pushed too hard for marriage in liberal states, inflaming the opposition to a broad array of gay rights. But those concerns were mostly ignored, as many other activists insisted that time was on the side of gay marriage. They argued that steady work in showcasing how important marriage was to gays, and how nonthreatening it was to others, would prevail. Now that strategy is under renewed scrutiny among gay activists, some of whom are calling for a more pointed and even confrontational approach. . . . .Even as Catholic prelates are contemplating more extensive political engagement, grassroots gay activists are now debating how aggressive they should be in their pursuit of changing the laws regarding marriage. Hartman said more ordinary gay and lesbian people are going to spread their message themselves, rather than leaving it to national gay-rights-campaign officials and full-time activists. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 'Gay' Jihad Townhall.com, By Matt Barber, November 13, 2009
It never ceases to amaze me the degree to which liberals – the self-styled proponents of “tolerance” and “diversity”… the mind-numbingly sanctimonious arbiters of “hate” – consistently prove to be the most intolerant and hateful among us. But regrettably, since the recent passage of “Question 1” – the voter initiative that threw out counterfeit “gay marriage” in Maine – the level of hate-filled bile we’ve come to expect from the left has morphed from malicious to menacing. In the wake of the horrific act of Islamic domestic terrorism at Fort Hood Texas, it’s been learned that militant homosexual activists recently made similar online postings to those of Nidal Malik Hasan, threatening additional acts of terrorism against Christians. A number of pro-marriage advocates have also received death threats directly. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Wedded to vitriol, backers of gay marriage stumble Boston Globe, By Jeff Jacoby, November 11, 2009
On Election Day, voters in Maine repealed a six-month-old state law authorizing same-sex marriage. Maine was the 31st state in which the legal definition of marriage was put to a vote, and the 31st in which voters rejected gay marriage. And once again, the response from many on the losing side was bitter. “Bigotry trumps compassion,’’ wrote commentator Michael Stone, calling the vote “a shameful display of ignorance, bigotry, and hate.’’ In the Maine Campus, the newspaper of the University of Maine, columnist Samantha Hansen denounced the voters who “let hatred, confusion, misinformation, and ignorance emerge victorious over liberty.’’ When will it occur to supporters of same-sex marriage that they do their cause no good by characterizing those who disagree with them as haters, bigots, and ignorant homophobes? It may be emotionally satisfying to despise as moral cripples the majorities who oppose gay marriage. But after going 0 for 31 - after failing to make the case for same-sex marriage even in such liberal and largely gay-friendly states as California, Wisconsin, Oregon, and now Maine - isn’t it time to stop caricaturing their opponents as the equivalent of Jim Crow-era segregationists? Wouldn’t it make more sense to concede that thoughtful voters can have reasonable concerns about gay marriage, concerns that will not be allayed by describing those voters as contemptible troglodytes?. . . . . . In a recent paper for the Heritage Foundation, Thomas Messner surveys the “naked animus’’ that was directed against supporters of Proposition 8, the California marriage amendment that voters approved last year. His meticulously footnoted study makes chilling reading, with example after example of the blacklisting, vandalism, intimidation, loss of employment, anti-religious hostility, and even death threats to which backers of Prop. 8 were subjected. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Maine Vote For Marriage UExpress, By Maggie Gallagher, November 04, 2009
Gay-marriage advocates in Maine had the benefit of learning from California. They ran the kind of campaign critics claim would have won Proposition 8: No on One ads featured happy gay families, and rebuttal ads to Yes on One claims came quickly. There are not very many Mormons in Maine, or black people, either, so they cannot blame this loss on either minority group. Maine is a deep blue state, socially liberal and relatively secular, and close to Massachusetts, where people have presumably learned "the sky doesn't fall" after gay marriage becomes law. And yet people in Maine in a free and fair election decisively rejected gay marriage by an even bigger margin than in California. Here's the first thing this victory means: The $4 million spent to pass gay marriage in Maine was wasted. Even Americans in liberal states do not believe that two guys pledged to a gay union are a marriage. Politicians can pass a bill saying a chicken is a duck and that doesn't make it true. Truth matters. Americans have a great deal of goodwill toward gay people as friends, neighbors and fellow citizens. Most of us do not want to hurt them or hate them or interfere with anyone's legitimate rights to live as they choose. But we do not believe gay marriage is a civil right; we think it is a civil wrong. And we do not appreciate the increasingly intense efforts to punish people who disagree with gay marriage as if we were racists, bigots, discriminators or haters. . .

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

On 'Good Morning America,' Rihanna Says Going Back to Brown 'Not Right'
Rihanna on Brown: 'Embarrassing That That's the Type of Person I Fell in Love With' ABC News- GMA, By Lee Ferran and Lauren Sher, November 5, 2009
Pop sensation Rihanna is speaking out about the night her then-boyfriend Chris Brown beat her, saying it was "humiliating" and "traumatizing" to admit the assault took place and that it was "wrong" that she went back to Brown afterwards. "It was a wake-up call. It was a wake-up call for me. Big time," Rihanna told "Good Morning America" co-anchor Diane Sawyer in her first television interview discussing the assault. "I will say that to any young girl who is going through domestic violence, don't react off of love. F love. Come out of the situation and look at it in the third person and for what it really is." The pop star said it was "embarrassing" that Brown was the type of person she fell in love with. "So far in love. So unconditional that I went back. It's humiliating to say this happened. To accept that? It's a traumatizing experience," she said. Her decision to go back to Brown, she said, was a mistake. "I stayed. I even went back after he beat me, which was wrong," she said. "But again ... I'm a human being and people put me on a very unrealistic pedestal. And all these expectations, I'm not perfect." The 21-year-old star acknowledged that Brown held her in a headlock twice that night and bit her on the ear and fingers. She told Sawyer that she did not try to fight back. "I just wanted it to stop. I was not interested in hurting him back," she said. After months of silence since the February beating, Rihanna decided to speak publicly about the ordeal so she can be a voice to help others who may be in danger of returning to abuse. . .

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: Rihanna Exclusive: 'He Had No Soul in His Eyes'
Rihanna Speaks Out on Chris Brown: 'It Wasn't the Same Person That Says I Love You' ABC News- GMA, By Geoff Martz and Lauren Sher, November 06, 2009
Singer Rihanna is breaking her silence about the night then-boyfriend Chris Brown beat her, telling Diane Sawyer that he had "no soul in his eyes." "It wasn't the same person that says I love you. It was not those... eyes," she told Sawyer in an exclusive interview. "He had ... no soul in his eyes. Just blank. ...He was clearly blacked out. There was no person when I looked at him." . . .

Rihanna on Chris Brown: 'Embarrassing That That's the Type of Person I Fell in Love With'

RELATED VIDEO: Watch the full Interview - Part 1 Part 2 Part 3
Rihanna Speaks Out: Superstar breaks silence to Diana Swayer about boyfriend Chris Brown. After incident, pop star said love for Brown clouded her judgment. Rihanna Warns Girls in Danger of Abuse. "Don't react off of love... Love is so blind," she told Diane Sawyer. . .

RELATED VIDEO: Rihanna Breaks Her Silence ABC News.com, November 05, 2009

RELATED RESOURCE & PUBLICATIONS: National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence

RELATED ARTICLE: Teen Violence and Domestic Abuse: Resources Resources and Information to Spot Signs of Abuse and Help Prevent Domestic Violence ABC News- 20/20, November 06, 2009
After months of silence, pop star Rihanna speaks out about domestic violence and the February 2009 ordeal that led to the arrest of ex-boyfriend Chris Brown. Rihanna believes she can be a voice to help others who may be in danger of returning to an abusive partner, warning young girls not to repeat her mistakes. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Your Teenager in an Abusive Relationship? TBO Blogs—Thanks Mom, By Donna Koehn, February 12, 2009
If you found out your daughter’s boyfriend had physically assaulted her, a number of things might run through your mind, some of them, perhaps, outside the law. But there’s no doubt you would do everything in your power to keep him away from her. Your daughter or her friends might see it differently. After news came out that entertainer Chris Brown had allegedly attacked his girlfriend Rihanna (that’s them in a December photo), an online survey of more than 500 teens and ‘tweens revealed that 40 percent believed the two should not split up. Pangea Pulse, which runs a teen survey Web site, asked this question:
Do you think Rihanna should leave Chris Brown for assulting (sic) her?
• Yes, she should leave him, domestic violence is never okay. 60%
• No, people make mistakes, they should try to work it out. 24%
• No, this could be Rihanna’s fault. She must have done something wrong. 16%
Here are some of the comments received. . . . . . If you are worried about your son or daughter, or if you want some reading to get you stoked to have this talk, pick up a copy of “But I Love Him: Protecting Your Teen Daughter from Controlling, Abusive Dating Relationships,” by Jill Murray. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Teens Break Free From Dating Abuse: Women Ages 16 to 24 Face Fastest-Growing Rate of Abuse in Relationships ABC News- Good Morning America, January 24, 2005
At the beginning, Katie, Laura, Carrie and Shaina were just teenage girls in love. He would just always tell me how beautiful I was and how wonderful I was and how lucky he was to have me and I just was on cloud nine. I felt great," said Katie, now 19. But eventually all of these girls found their boyfriends turning controlling and abusive. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Christianity Today- Today's Christian Woman Cause of the Year
Around the globe, approximately one in four women has been physically abused by an intimate male partner. In the U.S., according to the U.S. Department of Justice, a woman is battered every 15 seconds, and approximately 1.3 million women are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually. Abuse can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, and psychological—and it happens to people regardless of race, age, gender. Or religion. Join us as we bring domestic violence out of the shadows and into the healing light of Christ's power and hope. —the Editors

RELATED ARTICLE: The abusive date. Why are we surprised? Townhall.com, By Cal Thomas, August 9, 2001
The latest signpost on our road to cultural (and possibly literal) hell comes from a survey which found that one in five high school girls has been physically or sexually abused by a dating partner. The survey, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, suggests a link between dating abuse and self-destructive behavior by girls. Some abused girls were found to engage in binge drinking, promiscuity and drugs, and use laxatives and vomiting to lose weight. Perhaps we truly are the Great Satan. This is not a problem that will soon be solved by legislation or more "prevention programs," as the lead author of the study suggests. Such programs and legislation treat only results, not causes. Something has clearly gone wrong in culture. . .

Gay leaders blame TV ads, Obama for loss in Maine (Click for Related Video)

Gay leaders blame TV ads, Obama for loss in Maine OneNewsNow- AP, By Lisa Leff and David Crary, November 04, 2009
Stunned and angry, national gay rights leaders Wednesday blamed scare-mongering ads _ and President Barack Obama's lack of engagement _ for a bitter election setback in Maine that could alter the dynamics for both sides in the gay-marriage debate. Conservatives, in contrast, celebrated Maine voters' rejection of a law that would have allowed gay couples to wed, depicting it as a warning shot that should deter politicians in other states from pushing for same-sex marriage. "Every time the citizens have voted on marriage, they have always sided with natural marriage," said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based Christian legal group. "Maine dramatically illustrates the will of the people, and politicians should wake up and listen." Gay activists were frustrated that Obama, who insists he staunchly supports their overall civil rights agenda, didn't speak out forcefully in defense of Maine's marriage law before Tuesday's referendum. The law was repealed in a vote of 53 percent to 47 percent. . . . . .California is sure to be a major battleground over the next several years. Last year, conservatives succeeded in winning public approval of Proposition 8, which overturned a state court ruling allowing gay marriage. Gay rights groups want to take the issue back to the voters but are divided on a timetable. In the aftermath of the Maine vote, some California activists appealed to their supporters for money to help them put a measure on the 2010 ballot. Other activist leaders want to wait until 2012. . . . Some California activists said the outcome in Maine strengthened their belief that it will fall to the U.S. Supreme Court _ not the voters _ to make gay marriage legal. A federal lawsuit challenging Prop. 8 is scheduled to go to trial in January, the first step in a legal journey that is expected to reach the high court in a few years. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay Marriage Activists Look Ahead After Defeat in Maine TIME magazine, By Michael A. Lindenberger, November 04, 2009
Mainers' 53-47 vote to reject gay marriage does more than simply slap down a law that just six months ago had made Maine the U.S.'s second state to permit same-sex couples to wed. With voters thronging to the polls, the closely watched — and ultimately not very close — vote extended the winning streak of gay-marriage opponents nationwide, who have now prevailed in more than 30 straight state elections over whether to allow gays to marry. Just like Californians one year ago, Maine voters insisted on having their say on an issue that simply will not go away. . . .But Maine's vote, much like all of the states before it, including California's vote on Prop 8 a year ago, will do little to slow the fight over gay marriage. Not in Maine, where Tuesday's vote was only the equivalent of a veto and can be easily reversed by lawmakers when they next meet, and not in the rest of country, where the issue continues to roil courthouses and statehouses alike. . .

RELATED VIDEO: Maine voters shot down gay marriage November 04, 2009

RELATED ARTICLE: Support for Same-Sex Civil Unions, Not Marriage, Up The Christian Post, By Nathan Black, October 10 2009
A new Pew Research Center survey shows 57 percent of Americans favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into civil unions, or legal agreements that would give them many of the same rights as married couples. . . .The Pew survey, however, found little change in attitudes on same-sex marriage. More than half (53 percent) of Americans oppose marriage for gay and lesbian couples and 39 percent favor it. . .

Frank Schubert, campaign director for Stand for Marriage Maine, claims victory for Yes on 1, Tuesday evening, Nov. 3, 2009, in Portland, Maine. Question 1 was the proposal to rescind the Legislature's approval of same-sex marriage

Opponents of same-sex marriage leading in Maine polls
Early reporting indicated voters were leaning toward upholding the state's law permitting gay and lesbian unions, but the tide shifted as returns trickled in. Los Angeles Times, By Bob Drogin, November 4, 2009
Opponents of Maine's law allowing same-sex marriage claimed victory Tuesday night in their repeal effort, following a heated campaign that polarized the state and drew national attention. With 79% of the state's 605 precincts reporting, according to unofficial tallies compiled by the Bangor Daily News, opponents of same-sex marriage led with 52.3% of the vote, while those seeking to uphold the state's law had won 47.6%. The epic battle was the latest in whether to let gay couples marry. A year ago, Californians voted to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. If the law is repealed, Maine will join more than 30 other states that have rejected gay and lesbian marriage at the ballot box. Same-sex unions are recognized in five states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont -- as a result of judicial rulings or legislative action. Voters in Washington on Tuesday approved a measure extending the same legal rights to registered domestic partners that married couples enjoy. Marc Mutty, chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine, which sought to overturn the state law, said the vote appeared to signal a "victory for traditional marriage." "This has never been about gay rights," he said. "It's about marriage, and this is reaffirmation by the people of Maine that marriage between men and women is special and unique.". . .

RELATED BLOG: Remember (the) Maine! National Review blog, By Thomas Peters, November 04, 2009
Guilty confession: My favorite part of last night’s election coverage was watching Rachel Maddow’s demeanor go from exuberant, to smug, to infuriated over the results of the marriage referendum in Maine. And then she seemed to lose interest. It now appears highly likely that, when all the votes are counted, Maine will join every other state in the union (which has had a popular vote on the issue) in rejecting gay marriage. This result comes despite Maine being a liberal state, despite a 2-1 funding disadvantage, despite aggressive legal action against traditional-marriage defenders, despite unusually high voter turn out, and despite Rachel Maddow and the elite press running interference. Proponents of same-sex marriage, unlike in California’s Prop 8, can’t blame Maine on Mormons, on African Americans who turned out for Barack Obama, or on confusing ballot wording. Their issue loses when the people decide. And it loses every time. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Election 2009 Results: Referendum 71 Passes National Ledger, By Jennifer Cox, November 04, 2009
Referendum 71 has passed by a slim margin in Washington State. Referred to at times as "the other gay-rights amendment" a Wiki article notes that polling showed a wider margin than the actual tally that is projected. The measure is said to pass to by about four points. The entry notes that an October 2009 poll by Survey USA, funded by KING-TV in Seattle showed that 50% of the 561 likely voters polled would vote for the measure while 43% would reject it, 7% unsure. . . .Non-partisan Washington Poll predicts that proponents of Referendum 71 will also extend their lead, suggesting a final count of 52% in favor with 48% against. . .

To marry or not to marry? Nation awaits Maine voters' answer to same-sex vows question Kennebeck Journal- The Morning Sentinel, By Matt WickenHeiser, November 03, 2009
Stand for Marriage Maine launched a new radio advertisement Monday, trying to get traction on an issue that arose late in the campaign. A complaint was filed against a Nokomis Regional High School guidance counselor, Don Mendell of Palmyra, because he appeared in a television ad against same-sex marriage. Another guidance counselor filed the complaint. "While Mr. Mendell is entitled to his own personal opinion," the complaint says, "he does not have the right as a licensed social worker to make public comments that can endanger or promote discrimination." The new ad refers to the complaint, and says again that if the same-sex marriage law is allowed to stand, homosexual marriage will be taught in Maine schools. Fish said the complaint against Mendell should be "chilling to anybody in Maine that has to go to the state for a license." "We've said all along that one of the consequences of this bill ... (is it) leaves individuals and small business with religious, conscientious obligations vulnerable to litigation," Fish said. Connolly reiterated Monday that the No on 1 campaign had nothing to do with the complaint against Mendell. "We totally don't think anyone should be fired for speaking out on any side of this issue," he said. Connolly noted a recent story in the Sun Journal newspaper of Lewiston that reported on a Catholic woman who had been dismissed by her pastor as a lector and Eucharistic minister because of a letter she wrote to the paper supporting same-sex marriage. . .
Maine to vote on gay marriage Washington Post, By Karl Vick, November 2, 2009
Maine residents will decide Tuesday whether to repeal a law allowing same-sex marriage, an effort that has succeeded in every state where it has been put before voters. Public opinion surveys in Maine show a dead heat on Question 1, which would cancel the marriage statute that passed the legislature in May and was signed by Gov. John E. Baldacci (D). In the five other states where gay men and lesbians are allowed to marry their partners, permission was granted by courts or legislatures. Baldacci expressed guarded optimism Sunday about the effort to defeat the Maine proposition. . . . . .The campaign against same-sex marriage in Maine draws heavily from the effort that a year ago overturned a California Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex marriage. TV commercials produced by Schubert Flint Public Affairs, a Sacramento consulting firm, feature parents lamenting that their young children are being taught in school that marriage between two women or two men is normal. Nearly identical ads were highly effective in California. "I refer to it as sustainable advertising, where you have the same themes," said Scott Fish, communications director for Stand for Marriage Maine. "It's the same issue, and many of the concerns were the same." Advocates of same-sex marriage responded to the ads with an opinion from state Attorney General Janet T. Mills stating that the law would have no effect on what is taught in schools. . . .Both sides said voter turnout will be key. Baldacci said the "No-on-1" campaign has 8,000 volunteers working Tuesday, "only 120 or so of whom are from out of state." "I've been encouraged by the canvassers and what they're getting for reaction," he said. Maine has relatively few of the socially conservative African American and Latino voters who helped tip the balance against the California law. But with the Archdiocese of Portland heavily involved in what the Maine constitution calls a "people's veto," Baldacci said the 20 percent of the population who are Catholic could swing the vote. . .

Maine to vote on gay marriage (Click for Related Site)

RELATED SITE: Stand For Marriage Maine
Marriage Matters! Vote to Preserve Marriage! A Yes vote on Question 1 prevents homosexual marriage from becoming law in Maine, preserves the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

RELATED ARTICLE: Yes! Yes! and Yes! on California, Arizona and Florida Propositions 8, 102, and 2! The Real Proposal magazine, October 22, 2008
(Editor's Note: Vote Yes in Maine too!)
Who knew that we would ever see the day when it became necessary to define what marriage is in America... or the world for that matter? That said, no one could follow, for any length of time, our continuing coverage on this very critical sociopolitical issue without realizing that, whether we like it or not, the on-going and increasingly aggressive battle to redefine marriage is the next civil rights frontier in America! Most people do not fully comprehend how we got to this place. Many have a distorted perspective on the issues based on what is being fed to us by the mainstream media, who are largely complicit with the homosexual agenda and follow their playbook and manifesto quite diligently in the effort to convert straight America into accepting homosexuality as anything but deviant behavior. Therefore, we urge you to spend some time going through our coverage on the issue. For, without a doubt, the blinders will fall away and it will become clear that there is a very careful, very deliberate, very well financed and orchestrated marketing strategy being executed by radical homosexual activists to normalize same-sex relationships in this country. And you will likely be outraged that somewhere along the way — while most of us who believe in traditional marriage were enjoying our precious freedoms, taking kids to soccer, ordering pizza, and watching our favorite shows — we were being manipulated and vilified as society’s new "haters," "bigots," and "homophobes.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts: It's far worse than most people realize MassResistance.org, By Brian Camenker, October 20, 2008
Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning. The public schools: The homosexual “marriage” onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision. . . . Public health: The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is “married” to another man. In 2007 he told a crowd of kids at a state-sponsored youth event that it’s “wonderful being gay” and he wants to make sure there’s enough HIV testing available for all of them. . . .Domestic violence: . . . . Business: . . . . . Legal profession: . . . .Adoption of children to homosexual “married” couples: . . . Government mandates:. . . . The public square: . . . The media: . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Same-Sex 'Marriage' Is Not a Civil Right Family Research Council, By Peter Sprigg, January 27, 2005
Individuals may choose to marry for all kinds of private reasons, but the reason marriage is a public institution is because it brings together men and women for the purpose of reproducing the human race and keeping a mother and father together to cooperate in raising to maturity the children they produce. The public interest in such behavior is great, because thousands of years of human experience and a vast body of contemporary social science research both demonstrate that married husbands and wives, and the children they conceive and raise, are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than people in any other living situation. In fact, I would suggest that the argument in favor of same-sex marriage can only be logically sustained if one argues that there is no difference between men and women--that is, if one argues not merely that men and women are equal in value and dignity, a proposition with which I'm sure we all agree, but that males and females are identical and thus able to serve as entirely interchangeable parts in the structure of marriage. The contention is absurd on its face. Thus, "same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms. . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Deceit of Gay "Marriage" Boundless.og, By David Orland
To justify giving privileges or exemptions or subsidies to some particular group in society, the benefit of doing so for society at large must first be shown. With heterosexual marriage, the case is clear enough. Heterosexual marriage is a matter of genuine social interest because the family is essential to society's reproduction. The crux of my argument, in other words, was that married couples receive the benefits they do, not because the state is interested in promoting romantic love, or because the Bible says so or because of the influence of special interest groups but rather because the next generation is something that is and should be of interest to all of us. And, by definition, this is not a case that can be made for homosexual unions. To that degree, the attempt to turn the question of domestic partnership into a debate about fairness falls flat. . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Deceit of Gay Marriage: Round Two Boundless.org, by David Orland
Where to start? In the first place, homosexuals are not denied the right to marry — they are denied a right to marry other homosexuals, which is something else altogether. Next, the argument trades on the idea — superficially appealing but practically empty — that discrimination is by definition a bad and evil thing. Denying legal status to gay marriage does indeed involve discrimination — but it is discrimination of a perfectly legitimate kind. Finally and most crucially, the argument assumes what it is meant to prove: the rights of gays are being violated only if you already agree that one of their rights is to get married to a person of the same sex as themselves. But that, of course, is precisely what is at issue. It's as if proponents of gay marriage believe that saying you have a right, loud enough and often enough, gives you one. While this tactic may succeed in silencing some of their opponents, it falls miserably short of making the sort of case that needs to be made if a specifically "gay right" to marriage is to be recognized. If gays hope to show that they have a right to marry one another, they will have to prove that they meet the same conditions that give heterosexual couples this right. There's no way around it: any discussion of gay marriage must begin with a discussion of marriage in general. So why is heterosexual marriage recognized as a right? . . .

Washington state voters get final say on gay partnerships with Referendum 71 (Click for Related Site)

Wash. voters get final say on gay partnerships The Seattle Times, By Rachel La Corte, November 01, 2009
Washington state's slow-but-steady approach to increasing rights and benefits to gay and lesbian couples hit its first snag just as the three-year process appeared to be complete. After lawmakers passed the state's first domestic partnership bill in 2007, and then expanded it a year later, they completed the package with the so-called "everything but marriage" bill that was signed into law by Gov. Chris Gregoire earlier this year. On Tuesday, voters get the final say on whether they think lawmakers overstepped their bounds. Referendum 71 asks voters to "approve" or "reject" the final expansion to the state's domestic partnership law, which grants registered domestic partners additional state-granted rights currently given only to married couples. Under state law, heterosexual seniors also can register as domestic partners. Opponents of the law say R-71 is a vote on same-sex marriage. "It enshrines into law something we don't think should be there," said Gary Randall of Protect Marriage Washington, which pushed to get the referendum on the ballot. "It is a bridge to gay marriage." Supporters of gay rights say that the marriage debate is for another day, but that in the meantime, same-sex couples need additional legal protections and rights. Those opposed to R-71 are "asking people to take away the basic safety net that families need when there's a crisis because these social conservatives think it might somehow lead to marriage," said Anne Levinson, chairwoman of Washington Families Standing Together, the group fighting to keep the law on the books. The expanded law adds benefits including the right to use sick leave to care for a domestic partner, and rights related to adoption, child custody and child support. The law was supposed to take effect July 26, but now will take effect only if approved by voters. Recent polling has indicated support for the new law. In September, independent pollster Stuart Elway found the measure holding a 46-41 lead for approval among registered voters, with 13 percent undecided. This week, the Washington Poll, released through the University of Washington, found even stronger support, with a 56-39 lead, with 5 percent undecided. . .

RELATED SITE: Protect Marriage Washington

RELATED ARTICLE: What Research Shows: NARTH's Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), June 09, 2009
The American Psychological Association (APA) and other mental health organizations have objected to providing psychological care to those who are distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions2 on a number of grounds. These objections include scientifically unsupportable claims that:

1. There is no conclusive or convincing evidence that sexual orientation may be changed through reorientation therapy.
2. Efforts to change sexual orientation are shown to be harmful and can lead to greater self-hatred, depression, and other self-destructive behaviors.
3. There is no greater pathology in the homosexual population than in the general population.

In What Research Shows, we offer a landscape review of more than one hundred years of experiential evidence, clinical studies, and research studies that demonstrate that it is possible for men and women to diminish their unwanted homosexual attractions and develop their heterosexual potential; that efforts to change unwanted homosexual attractions are not generally harmful; and that homosexual men and women do indeed have substantially greater experiences of and risk factors for medical, psychological and relational pathology than do the general population. Based on our review of 600 reports of clinicians, researchers, and former clients—primarily from professional and peer-reviewed scientific journals, we conclude that reorientation treatment has been helpful to many and should continue to be available to those who seek it. Further, mental health professionals competent to provide such care ethically may do so. . .

More "Marriage" News: October 2009

"Marriage in the News" is not a representation of The Real Proposal magazine...