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

Prop. 8 forces allowed to challenge federal ruling

Prop. 8 forces allowed to challenge federal ruling San Francisco Chronicle, By Bob Egelko, November 17, 2011
Sponsors of California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage have the right to challenge a federal judge's ruling that declared the law unconstitutional, the state Supreme Court declared Thursday, clearing the way for a federal appeals court test of an issue that could make its way to the nation's high court. The decision addressed a procedural but potentially crucial issue: Can private backers of an initiative represent the state's interests when the governor and attorney general, who normally decide whether and how to defend laws in court, bow out of the case? The court's unanimous ruling will almost certainly allow Protect Marriage, the religious coalition that campaigned for Proposition 8 in 2008, to proceed with its appeal in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. That court heard arguments from Protect Marriage and gay rights advocates on the constitutionality of the ban on same-sex marriage in December but put the case on hold to ask the state court, the highest authority on the meaning of California law, whether sponsors of initiatives in California have legal standing to defend them in court. The question arose when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown declined to appeal an August 2010 ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker that Prop. 8 discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and gender. Walker had allowed Protect Marriage to defend the measure in his court but questioned its right to appeal, citing a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision in an Arizona case that expressed "grave doubts" that sponsors of an initiative could stand in for state officials in court. The high court noted in that case that proponents of a ballot measure are not elected by anyone and represent no constituents. If the California court had concluded Thursday that only state officials could appeal Walker's ruling, the federal court probably would have dismissed Protect Marriage's appeal and allowed same-sex couples to marry, at least until a county clerk or someone else affected by the change filed a new suit. But the state court said that ballot initiatives, established in California a century ago to counteract special-interest influence on legislation, have an exalted place in state law, and their supporters are entitled to a legal defense even when state officials are unwilling to provide one. The initiative power "gives the people the right to adopt into law measures that their elected officials have not adopted and may often oppose," Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said in her first significant opinion since taking office in January. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Proposition 8 Ruling: California S.Ct. gets it Right. Marriage, Rule of Law Prevail. What this ruling does is keep this important case alive for what will most likely be a final disposition at the United States Supreme Court Catholic Online, By Deacon Keith Fournier, November 17, 2011
"When the public officials who ordinarily defend a challenged state law or appeal a judgment invalidating the law decline to do so...the official proponents of a voter-approved initiative measure are authorized to assert the state's interest in the initiative's validity, enabling the proponents to defend the constitutionality of the initiative and to appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Traditional marriage is not bigotry: It's outlandish to call same-sex marriage a 'civil right.' Star-Tribune, By Jeff Davis, May 09, 2011
[T]here's nothing bigoted about preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Marriage is a unique institution that brings men and women together. Only the sexual union of men and women can produce children. Whatever one thinks about homosexual relationships, none of them can produce children. It is in the state's interest to channel the unique sexual energy of men and women into marriage so that any children produced by those sexual relationships have the best opportunity to be raised by a married mother and father. African-Americans might have some ideas about bigotry. Seventy percent of African-Americans supported traditional marriage in California, according to exit surveys. So did 56 percent of Latinos. Prominent civil-rights leaders like Walter Fauntroy and Alveda King do as well. In fact, Bishop Bob Battle, a veteran of the civil-rights movement, recently testified at a hearing on the Minnesota marriage amendment bill that "gay marriage advocates have attempted to hijack the civil-rights movement and make same-sex marriage into a civil right. I know what civil rights are, and this is not one of them." The editorial blithely claims that homosexual marriage will have no impact on anyone in Minnesota outside of the same-sex couples involved. Yet legal experts on both sides of the divide agree that the issue has profound impacts on society. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: A Vote Against Gay Marriage is a Vote FOR Tolerance Townhall.com, By Frank Turek, October 26, 2008Twenty 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.”. . .

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: Born or Bred? Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic. Homosexual activists love to insist that. Concerned Women For America By Robert H. Knight, December 21, 2005
The debate over homosexual "marriage" often becomes focused on whether homosexuality is a learned behavior or a genetic trait. Many homosexual activists insist that "science" has shown that homosexuality is inborn, cannot be changed, and that therefore they should have the "right to marry" each other. Beginning in the early 1990s, activists began arguing that scientific research has proven that homosexuality has a genetic or hormonal cause. A handful of studies, none of them replicated and all exposed as methodologically unsound or misrepresented, have linked sexual orientation to everything from differences in portions of the brain, to genes, finger length, inner ear differences, eye-blinking, and "neuro-hormonal differentiation.". .

More Women Are Saying 'I Do' When They Mean 'I Don't,' Say Authors

More Women Are Saying 'I Do' When They Mean 'I Don't,' Say Authors ABC News, By Andrea Canning, November 17, 2011
What happens when "to love and to cherish" becomes more like an uneasy "for better or for worse?" A new self-help book describes a disturbing new trend: Women who are rushing into marriage for all the wrong reasons -- and deep down, they know it. Co-authors Anne Milford, who canceled her own wedding five months before the big day and Jennifer Gauvain, a clinical social worker whose work focuses on couples and families, interviewed hundreds of divorced women for their book, "How Not to Marry the Wrong Guy." Through their research, they said they found that a shocking 30 percent of divorcees said they knew they were marrying the wrong man on their wedding day. "They are walking down that aisle, they are going, 'Oh my gosh, what am I doing?'" Gauvain said. When talking about this subject, it's hard not to think of Kim Kardashian and her monster "fairy tale" wedding last summer. The E! Entertainment special drew 10 million viewers, cost a reported $10 million and Kardashian, 31, and her now ex-husband Kris Humpries, 26, made an estimated $17 million off their nuptials. But the math all added up to two unhappy people and a fizzled fairy tale that lasted only 72 days. Kardashian filed for divorce on Oct. 31, citing irreconcilable differences. While rumors flew that the whole wedding had been a huge media stunt, Kardashian told fans on her blog that she "married for love." "I want a family and babies and a real life so badly that maybe I rushed into something too soon. I believed in love and the dream of what I wanted so badly," she said. In Milford's opinion, Kardashian was feeling the internal pressure of a timeline and got caught up in a fairy tale fantasy. "She was more in love with the idea of getting married rather than who the groom was," she said. "She ignored her gut feelings." Gauvain added, "She got very caught up in the party." Just because Kardashian is a famous face, doesn't mean she was the only one who married Mr. Wrong. Short-lived marriages are nothing new in Hollywood -- Demi Moore just confirmed that she is ending her six-year marriage to Ashton Kutcher -- but with the national U.S. divorce rate at 51 percent, marriage regret has become a mainstream problem. ."What a lot of women will say is 'if it doesn't work out I can always get a divorce,'" Milford said. "They underestimate how painful an experience divorce is, even if you're the one who serves the divorce papers.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘How Not to Marry the Wrong Guy’: Authors of Self-Help Book Offer Women Advice ABC News, By Lauren Effron, November 17, 2011
Have you ever said “I do” when deep down you really meant “I don’t”? Did you say “yes”even though you knew the guy popping the question was Mr. Wrong? Even if you haven’t, chances are you know someone who has. “Nightline” sat down for an interview with Anne Milford and Jennifer Gauvain, the authors of “How Not to Marry the Wrong Guy,” to talk about women in serious relationships who struggle with the decision to take the plunge into an unhappy marriage or become a runaway bride. . . . .Tips for How to Break-Up With Mr. Wrong, Even If He’s Your Fiancé: . . . .Common Red Flags The Authors Say Other Brides Ignored:. . . . Why Do Some Women Go Through With a Bad Marriage Anyway?. . . .

Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher Are Divorcing ABC News, By Sheila Marikar, November 17, 2011
Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher are done. “It is with great sadness and a heavy heart that I have decided to end my six-year marriage to Ashton,” Moore said in statement from her publicist to ABCNews.com today. “As a woman, a mother and a wife there are certain values and vows that I hold sacred, and it is in this spirit that I have chosen to move forward with my life. This is a trying time for me and my family, and so I would ask for the same compassion and privacy that you would give to anyone going through a similar situation.” Kutcher posted his response on Twitter minutes after Moore’s announcement, writing, “I will forever cherish the time I spent with Demi. Marriage is one of the most difficult things in the world and unfortunately sometimes they fail. Love and Light, AK.” Kutcher also unfollowed Moore on Twitter. Her handle is currently @mrskutcher. The couple has dodged reports about Kutcher’s alleged infidelities for months. Following 22-year-old Sara Leal’s claim that she and the “Two and a Half Men” star slept together in September, Moore and Kutcher were seen attending multiple Kabbalah sessions, seemingly trying to mend their marriage. But Moore’s cryptic tweets pointed to serious problems. In early September, she tweeted a photo of her naked back with the message, “remember…..you’ve got your own back.” The day before their sixth wedding anniversary, amid reports about Kutcher’s transgressions with Leal, Moore quoted the philosopher Epictetus: “When we are offended at any man’s fault, turn to yourself and study your own failings. Then you will forget your anger.” Moore, 49, and Kutcher, 33, have been married since 2005. She was previously married to Bruce Willis for 13 years. . .

Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher Are Divorcing

RELATED ARTICLE: The Good Divorce New York Times, By Susan Gregory Thomas, October 28, 2011
I never wanted to get divorced. My parents’ split had been like an antipersonnel bomb, ripping everyone to pieces. So for 16 years, I stayed married. But the relationship curdled over time, and, ultimately, it rotted into nothing. The contrast of these two endings always reminds me of that pithy old Robert Frost poem “Fire and Ice,” in which passion leads to detonation and dispassion to gelidity. In both cases, it’s over and terrible. Frankly, hearing the word-sandwich of “good” and “divorce” — which I do with some frequency — makes me queasy. Bluntly, there is precious little upside to divorce. It is a horror, its effects on everyone are real and enduring, and in a parenting culture that sees skinned knees as spiritual gifts, it can seem as if we’re giving our children the big door prize of relentless psycho-economic distress. It is hard to feel as if one is a good, divorced parent. But one can try. Weirdly, and mercifully, ending our marriage was not utterly devastating. My former husband and I were, and are, never going to have one of those California divorces, where the exes all sit around the Hockney-style pool drinking Chablis. Not our style. But we have concentrated not on our rancor but on our children. Like most divorced people our age we know. “It could be that, because this group is marrying later in life, if at all — and mostly staying together — if they do get divorced, they do it very differently,” said Betsey Stevenson, an assistant professor at the Wharton School of Business who tracks marriage and divorce trends. “Differently” may not sound like a radical move, but in the annals of American divorce, it actually is. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Do men cheat for the thrill? Or the sex? If your partner has an affair, that doesn’t mean the end of your relationship MSNBC.com, Dr. Gail Saltz, May 15, 2007
When men have affairs, they tend to be motivated by sex — new sex, more sex, different sex. Women cheat for many reasons: companionship, romance, more security, and, of course, sex. But are men’s motivations really that simple? No. Even for men, cheating is far more complex. Studies show most men who cheat want to experiment sexually and experience the rush associated with “new sex.” This is their way of prolonging indefinitely the early and intoxicating phase of infatuation in a relationship. But men also have affairs to either avoid intimacy, recover their lost youth, or escape an unhappy marriage. . . Adultery need not be the end of a marriage, though it certainly is one heck of a wake up call. If you are contemplating an affair, then there is no question you will be SORRY! Affairs hurt everyone, including you. You cannot keep both women, so you will be distressed at some point. Don’t leave yourself in susceptible situations, such as when alcohol is involved. How to save your marriage: . . . . For the cheater: . . . For the betrayed: . . . . Women can be cheaters too. Men have not cornered the market when it comes to philandering. Women tend to be motivated to cheat by more emotional factors than men. . .

Humor and Determination Key to Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Recovery

Humor and Determination Key to Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Recovery ABC News, By Colleen Curry, November 14, 2011
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has always been a fighter. For years, she fought for her causes in Congress, she fought her way through 10-mile-hikes and runs with her friends in Tucson, Ariz., and with her husband, astronaut Mark Kelly, she fought -- through in vitro fertilization and fertility drugs -- to have a child. But on Jan. 8, all of that changed. Following the shooting of 19 people at a meet-and-greet in Tucson, Giffords fought to survive a near-deadly gun shot to the brain, and after that, she had to fight once again, for the life she wanted back. "Difficult," Giffords says in her first interview since the shooting, with ABC News' Diane Sawyer. Giffords still struggles for the right words to form sentences, a condition called aphasia that is common in brain injury patients. She has undergone months of intensive speech and physical therapy to try and rebuild the connections in her brain that were severed when a bullet entered just over her left eye, traveling through the left side of her brain. "It's clear that any lower, it would've killed her, any further midline, it would've killed her," Kelly tells Sawyer. "If it crossed hemispheres, it would've killed her. Any further outboard, she'd never be able to speak again. Any higher, she'd never be able to walk." Giffords' remarkable journey to recovery and the love story that brought her and Kelly together is the subject of a new book they worked on together, "Gabby: A Story of Courage and Hope." In the beginning of the book, Kelly writes that he and his wife hoped that 2011 would be "the best year of our lives." Kelly would command the last flight of the orbiter Endeavor, Giffords would begin her third term in Congress, and the two would hopefully conceive a child together. Instead, 2011 was punctuated, first with terror and grief -- and then with a daily routine of hard work, occasional setbacks and personal triumphs. Together Giffords and Kelly, a couple bonded by a deep and lasting love, learned what survival really meant with a severe brain injury. "She was sitting in her wheelchair, tears running down her face. She was hyperventilating, absolutely panicked," Kelly told Sawyer. "I saw how scared she was. I got scared too. "I just held her, and said, you know, we'll get through this," he said. It is that determination, along with Giffords' own personal strength that shine through in exclusive home videos taken by Kelly and their family that will be seen for the first time as part of the Diane Sawyer special. In one video, taken a mere two and half weeks after the shooting, a once-talkative and enthusiastic Giffords is seen working with her speech therapist and Kelly to relearn how to speak and move. "All right, how about that thumbs up?" Kelly asks in one clip. Giffords, struggling, finally raises her index finger. "That's one finger, but how about this one?" he asks. She responds, raising her thumb slightly, fighting her way through the pain at the sound of Kelly's voice. "Yeah!" He cheers. "That's it! That's a thumb!" Kelly and Giffords' family decided to document every milestone of her recovery, realizing some day Giffords would want to know what had happened to her. Every moment of progress, no matter how small, is seen as a huge step in the tapes. . . . .In the last page of the book, the only chapter written in her own voice, Giffords says she wants to return to Congress and to work for the American people if she can. "I will get stronger," she writes. "I will return." Kelly, always the supporter, says he thinks she can recover enough to serve once again. "She doesn't give up," Kelly says. "If that's what she wants, that's what I want for her. You know, I think she has the right to a chance to recover. She was elected by a lot of people who voted for her in Arizona. When she knows she's ready, she'll make the decision." Kelly's faith in his wife's recovery is a sentiment shared by many of the doctors who have worked with Giffords. . .

One in three single girls has used a male 'friend with benefits' for sex

One in three single girls has used a male 'friend with benefits' for sex The Daily Mail - UK, November 08, 2011
One in three single girls has used a man for 'friend with benefits' sex, a poll has found. Half of the women who have a no-strings relationship with a male friend do so because they don't want a serious relationship, the study found. Experts believe the rise in popularity of having a 'friend with benefits' has come about as women are more laid-back about relationships. Nineteen per cent of those who have friends with benefits get into bed with a male friend 'to have fun', while just eight per cent do so hoping the fling might develop into something more serious. The 2,168 women polled by MyCelebrityFashion.co.uk were asked to specify the kind of relationships they have with their male friends. Nearly two thirds (62 per cent) said men were 'just friends', while over a third (34 per cent) admitted they had 'friends with benefits'. Ex-boyfriends accounted for 29 per cent, while 23 per cent had male friends who were colleagues. Around one in five women said their best friend was a man. Andy Barr of MyCelebrityFashion.co.uk, which held the poll, said: 'The idea of 'friends with benefits' is growing in popularity. 'Perhaps people shouldn't automatically think all women want to settle down right away and have a serious relationship.'. .

RELATED ARTICLE: Do “Friends with Benefits” Actually Work? The Zeros Before, By Claudia Maittlen-Harris, July 18, 2011
We all know what “friends with benefits” means even without the never-ending promotional train for the Justin Timberlake/Mila Kunis movie Friends with Benefits. I’m not sure when this term actually started, and I’m fairly convinced it was invented by a man. Not that women aren’t willing and involved participants. Pretty much the general idea is having sex with your guy friend with no commitment or complications. Friends by day, lovers by night, but my question is, is it ever this simple? And I can’t say it’s beneficial. When I think back to my own personal friends with benefits situation, we weren’t friends and whatever benefits I perceived I was getting were quickly diminished by awkwardness and regret. Recently I talked to a friend currently in this world of beneficial friends, and I think it’s fair to say that while both of you maintain that you’re “just friends” – someone is secretly harboring more feelings. But then again, why wouldn’t you be? You’re both friends which means you enjoy each other’s company and hang out together. You’re now having sex with each other which means you’re sexually attracted to this person as opposed to wanting to someone wanting to be more than friends while the other doesn’t. So let me get this straight – the concept is be sexually attracted to a person and friends with that person, but not date that person? Since these are the main two ingredients of dating or a relationship, surely we see that this is a recipe for disaster. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Casual sex left me feeling worthless: How a one-night stand left one woman emotionally destroyed: New research says women bitterly regret one-night stands. But the emotional damage can go deeper than you think... The Daily Mail- Uk, By Helen Weathers, July 3, 2008
When seen in the cold light of the morning after the night before, what had seemed like a rather thrilling idea at the time suddenly felt anything but for 28-year-old PR executive Aisling. At the party where they'd met, the prospect of a no-strings, one-night stand with a handsome young man had felt sexy, slightly dangerous, liberating and a salve to the ego following the end of a four-year relationship. After all, in this day and age, if men can do it, why can't women? Only when Aisling woke up, she didn't feel liberated. As her conquest departed with barely a backward glance, she felt used and cheated, even though she'd been under no illusion that it might lead to anything more. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Dying to Date TownHall.com, By Kathleen Parker, November 16, 2007
-- If you're younger than 30 or maybe even 35, you may not recognize the word "date" as a verb. But once upon a time, dating was something men and women did as a prelude to marriage, which -- hold on to your britches -- was a prelude to sex. By now everyone's heard of the hook-up culture prevalent on college campuses and, increasingly, in high schools and even middle schools. Kids don't date; they just do it (or something close to "it," an activity that a recent president asserted was not actual sex), and then figure out what comes next. If anything. As one young woman explained "hooking up" to Washington Post writer Laura Sessions Stepp (author of the book "Unhooked"): "First you give a guy oral sex and then you decide if you like him." This conversation took place in the family room of the girl's home. Immediately after that definition was served, the mother offered Stepp a homemade cookie. And we thought cluelessness was for teenagers. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Book Review: Unprotected Townhall.com, By Mona Charen, January 5, 2007
Meet the liberated college woman. You may pity her. "Unprotected" is a hard slap at the sexual free-for-all that prevails on American campuses and throughout American life. The author, revealed since publication as Dr. Miriam Grossman, a psychiatrist at the student health service at UCLA, was hesitant to put her name on this book. The orthodoxy within the academic world is a strict one, and those who transgress often pay with their jobs. Let's hope for her sake, but particularly for her patients' well being, that she is not punished for her heterodox views. What does Dr. Grossman believe that is so dangerous to admit? Well, start with ordinary sex. . . . . And that may be the least of it. Health service physicians and nurses at UCLA and other colleges actually cheerlead for promiscuity. . .

Jim Bob & Michelle Duggar Defend Decision to Have Baby No. 20 People magazine, By Alicia Dennis, November 08, 2011
Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar have something to say to their critics. "Every child deserves to be excited they are a part of life," Michelle tells PEOPLE after just revealing that she is pregnant with her 20th child. "Even when we were having our 5th and 6th [kid] … we would celebrate each pregnancy." The reality stars have faced mounting criticism over the size of their family and the risks of Michelle's new pregnancy following the premature birth of their daughter, Josie, in Dec. 2009. But the couple insists that Josie's frightening premature birth and Michelle's life-threatening preeclampsia were not enough to convince them that 19 kids were enough. "If we felt that way, we would have stopped back with our second birth," insists Michelle, 45, who experienced preeclampsia during her second pregnancy with twins John David and Jana, now 21. "There are many women who have experienced preeclampsia and have gone on to have more children." "That whole mind set that you stop after a problem pregnancy isn't realistic," she continues. "You may encounter struggles along the way. You may not have a perfect pregnancy, but each child is a precious gift." The Duggars, who star on TLC's 19 Kids and Counting, live debt free in a house they built themselves in Tontitown, Ark. They have also come under fire from those suggesting that their older kids have too much responsibility caring for the younger ones and that they don't pay enough individual attention to their kids. "We homeschool, so we are around our children day in and day out," says Jim Bob, 46. "Because I am in real estate, I am home and can be with the children a lot. When we go to the store or run errands, we take the kids one on one and we get to spend more time individually than a lot of parents do." Michelle, who is under the care of a high-risk pregnancy doctor, agrees: "The beauty of being in a large family," she says, "is that everyone works together as a team and it is about teaching our children responsibility." And, she says, the family doesn't take their critics to heart. "There are a lot of good things we can learn from our critics," she says. "We really believe we are following our faith and there are sometimes going to be people who don't agree and we aren't going to worry about the negative things stated." "We are thankful for those out there who are happy," says Michelle, "and we are grateful for each and every gift of a child.". . .

RELATED SITE: 19 Kids and Counting : TLC
The official site of the Duggar family and the TLC show 19 Kids and Counting. Watch Duggar videos and see photos of Jim Bob, Michelle, and their 18 kids. . .

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: How do the Duggar kids really feel about their mom's pregnancy? TODAY, By Rebecca Dube, November 08, 2011
When Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar announced on TODAY that they are expecting their 20th child, Michelle said, "We have the motto in our house, there's always room for one more." How does that fly with their 19 children, ages 23 months through 23 years? One of their sons actually wants them to have even more! We met up with the whole family in the TODAY green room, and asked the kids what they really think about having a new little brother or sister. And if you're wondering what it's like having all 19 kids together (plus two grandbabies), the answer is: surprisingly peaceful. The Duggar children are amazingly well behaved, on- and off-camera. They may be the only TODAY guests who actually leave the green room CLEANER than they found it! Jessa, age 18, says one of the common misconceptions about her family is that the older children resent taking care of their younger siblings: "We love it, it's like having live baby dolls or something!" "A lot of times, people think we don't have enough time alone with our parents," adds Jinger, 17. "But our parents take time to spend with each one of us, individually.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Criminal Act of Having Too Many Kids Huffington Post, By Rabbi Shmuley, February 20, 2009
It's open season on large families in America. Ever since Nadya Suleman became infamous as the unemployed, welfare mom of octuplets, the focus has been not only on her irresponsible behavior in becoming artificially impregnated with eight embryos after she already had six children with no visible means of support, but on the primitive choice of having lots of kids in the first place. One female pundit on CNN said that women who choose to have lots of children are usually uneducated, extremely religious, and bereft of any career. . . . .To be sure, having nine kids is not easy. When we go on a trip it takes a large amount of work to prepare. Tuition at religious schools is expensive. Food is equally so. But it's worth every penny. Watching our children laugh, learn, and interact with each other has no parallel to any joy in the universe. Often women ask me whether a particular man is husband-material. I tell them to look first and foremost at whether he likes children. If he does, it means he loves playfulness, imagination, and little cute critters who bring out his own innocence. If he sees children as a burden then he might be just a little too much into himself. We can debate all we want as to whether Nadya Suleman should 14 kids or not. But once these children are born, the debate is over. The kids are alive. They need our support and love, not our criticism and condemnation. Children are of infinite value. And the debate as to whether they should be or not be, once they in fact are, does not reflect our truer, inner goodness. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Deconstructing the Quiver: A review of Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement. Christianity Today, Review by Elrena Evans, February 20, 2009
Outsider interest in how many children a woman has is nothing new, yet among considerations of failing Social Security and environmental concerns, this interest seems to be intensifying toward apprehension, even alarm. Women of childbearing age are used to fielding questions from family, friends, and complete strangers about their fertility: How many children do you have? How many children do you want? But these questions pale in light of the larger, more philosophical question at their base: How many children should you have? That simple question implicates wide-ranging issues, including contraception, fertility treatments, human sexuality, gender roles, the purpose of marriage and procreation — issues that, in short, touch at the very core of our identities. Perhaps that's one of the reasons we are so fascinated by larger families: we're not just interested in what life is like for them, we're also questioning the implications for our own lives. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: And Baby Makes How Many? In an Era of Shrinking Broods, Larger Families Can Feel Attacked   New York Times, By Kate Zernike, February 6, 2009
THE comment from the photographer at Sears was typical. “Are these all yours?” she asked, surveying Kim Gunnip’s 12 children. “No,” Mrs. Gunnip replied, “I picked some up at the food court.” But it was harder to find a retort for the man in line at the supermarket, who said within earshot of her youngest children, “You must have a great sex life.” Now her family, like other larger families, as they call themselves, is facing endless news coverage of the octuplets born in California and a new round of scorn, slack jaws and stupid jokes. Back when the average woman had more than three children, big families were the Kennedys of Hickory Hill and Hyannis Port, “Cheaper by the Dozen,” the Cosbys or “Eight is Enough” — lovable tumbles of offspring as all-American in their scrapes as in their smiles. But as families have shrunk, and parents helicopter over broods tinier yet more precious, a vanload of children has taken on more of a freak show factor. . .

RELATED ARTICLE:  The Fertility Gap: More Christians on the Way TownHall.com, By Chuck Colson, September 12, 2007
Every time you turn around, a presidential candidate whips out his Bible—or a position paper—to let us know how faithful he or she is. Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) says God "would be happy with the fact that" he's focused on people without health care. Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) says we should "discuss religion . . . in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another." Republicans, also, are quick to point out how faith informs their policies. Clearly, the candidates are appealing to America's religious voters—and they are smart to do so. As one social scientist recently noted, they are going to need religious voters for the long term—because Christians are having far more children than their secular neighbors. . . . This is significant, because kids tend to grow up to worship the way their parents do. In a generation or two, we are going to have a bumper crop of conservative citizens. Candidates who appeal to Christians will win more elections simply because of demographics. This is not the first time in history we have seen the demographic power of the Church. Take, for example, ancient Rome. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Married With Children: Could anything be crazier?   Salvo magazine, By Kate Bluett
Are You a "Breeder”? You may not be aware of it, but if you have children—or are just heterosexual, for that matter—then there are probably people calling you "breeder” behind your back. Apparently, a person who marries someone of the opposite sex with the intention of raising a family is so-o-o last millennium, and the term "breeder” is intended to hammer this point home. There are a couple of ways that you can achieve "breeder” status. Used primarily by homosexuals, the word can simply mean "heterosexual,” referring to the fact that heterosexual sex can result in conception. But you are even more of a "breeder” if you actually have children, and it is in this sense that hip young singles—gay or not—apply the name to parents who abandoned their previous friends and lifestyles upon starting a family. (Incidentally, a female "breeder” is commonly called a "moo” and a male a "duh.”) Regardless of how it's used, however, the designation is uniformly derogatory, which is probably why no one has said it to your face yet. . .

Four Reasons A 50/50 Relationship Isn¿t Possible

Four Reasons A 50/50 Relationship Isn’t Possible Black and Married with Kids, By Franchesca Lane-Warren, November 08, 2011
When I got married five years ago, I was under the impression that because I was now a married women that me and my husband would do everything equally. You know, if I cooked dinner one night he would cook the next night. If I happened to clean up the closet one week, the next week he would do the same. To make matters worse, my mother-in-law’s favorite song, “When Someone Loves You,” constantly played in her house. I was being brainwashed about what to expect in a marriage. I got married in a glorious wedding ceremony and we had the perfect honeymoon, but as the days, weeks, and months started to pass by I started to get pissed off. Where was all of this 50/50 love I had heard so much about? There were some days were everything was 50/50, but there were some days were it was 60/40 or 70/30! (GASP!) Were we doing something wrong? Did this mean we would not “make it”? Nope, I was about to get “schooled” on why a 50/50 relationship is a thing of the past. Tired of feeling like I was doing everything, I decided to approach this topic as diplomatic as possible. One night (fed up) I screamed during an argument, “I do everything around this house!” In his ever-calm way he replied, “Everything in our marriage can’t be equal. Sometimes I will do more than you and sometimes you will do more than me.” Still salty about cleaning the house more than him, I gave him the side eye to make sure he understood that I was serious and we cleaned up together but this comment made me think. Could a marriage survive if everything wasn’t 50/50? I was about to find out how this 50/50 model was not in our cards because I decided to go to graduate school. In the two years I was in this program, I became the slacker around the house. I couldn’t clean like I wanted to and he picked up my slack. I couldn’t cook like I wanted to and he cooked for the whole family. There were times I had to miss school events for our son because I was preparing my thesis and he went. Were tables turning? Was I going to have eat those words I had screamed a couple of years prior? Of course I had to and with that I developed four reasons why I do not buy into a totally 50/50 love.

1. A 50/50 relationship implies that you are keeping score of every deed you do. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: 10 Real-World Tips To Spice Up Your Marriage Black and Married with Kids, By Eric Payne, October 28, 2011
The battle of the sexes rages on even in and maybe because of marriage. There are two truths constantly in play and not always playing nicely together. Maybe that’s because we refer to it as a battle? Too many times spouses get caught up in pointless and perpetual battles for superiority and “rightness” inside the home and out. The idea of working together is an often overlooked concept. Instead it’s about knowing you were right all along. Many times the journey together is overlooked for the sake of pointing out all the mistakes along the way. What plant grows when watered with vinegar? No team would ever function, let alone win a single game, if it operated the way many marriages do. A marriage is supposed to be a team of two unifed to be one. This is one of the strongest couplings humanity has at its disposal, not to be confused with giving up your life and getting lost in your spouse’s. But in 2011 this is hardly the case, especially when emotions are involved, our media dominated society suffers from a short attention span and very few people have the patience or the strength to see things through together. Most have their “eyes on the prize” ready to trade up at a moments notice, convinced that they “can do bad all by themselves.” Truth is, this is the exactly the case, you’ve been doing bad all by yourself and it’s played out in every aspect of your life, including your marriage. This goes for men and women alike. If none of this applies to you then rest easy. If some or all of it does then take a look at what you’re doing and begin reinvesting into your marriage. Below is a list of 10 Ways To Spice Up Your Marriage. The first six were generated from a discussion on my Facebook Page, the rest come from yours truly. Please feel free to add to this list the comments below. I’d love to see a long list of good ideas and advice evolve from this post. I hope that it will serve as a resource for all looking to add some spice to their relationships. Try a few out for a couple. Try them all, if you like. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Does A Bad Start Have To Mean A Bad Finish To Your Relationship? Black and Married with Kids, By Edward C. Lee, April 20, 2011
Any good love story begins with, “Once upon a time” and ends with “…and they lived happily ever after.” But what about when our real life relationships neither start nor end like a fairytale? I pose the question, because I recently had dinner with a friend of mine that is going through a divorce, after more than 15 years of marriage. Pretty sad turn of events. But the most interesting thing is that for 15 years the issue (at least in their opinion) has been something that happened when they were engaged – more than 15 years ago. After hearing his side of the story for several hours over dinner, I began wondering why they could never leave what happened years ago. I mean, this is not a case of infidelity or abuse, just a “difference of approach” where things could have been handled a little differently. In most relationships it would have amounted to no more than a one time conversation, and it would have been settled. Just like it was for my friend’s marriage, I think many marriages get off to a less than storybook start. Life just does not always provide us the clean tidy story line that we envision. Some relationships start out with a child out of wedlock or as the result of an affair (check out the biblical marriage of David and Bathsheba). Or perhaps shortly after the wedding a huge lie or misrepresentation is revealed. There are any number of things that can occur right at the start of a relationship that if not squashed can linger deep into the relationship but the question remains, how do you get it right when things start off all wrong?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: How To Keep Love Going Strong: 7 principles on the road to happily ever after. Yes! magazine, by John M. and Julie Gottman, January 03, 2011
Why is marriage so tough at times? Why do some lifelong relationships click, while others just tick away like a time bomb? And how can you prevent a marriage from going bad—or rescue one that already has? After years of research, we can answer these questions. In fact, we are now able to predict whether a couple will stay happily together after listening for as little as three hours to a conflict conversation and other interactions in our Love Lab. Our accuracy rate averages 91 percent. Gay and lesbian relationships operate on essentially the same principles as heterosexual relationships, according to our research. But the most rewarding findings are the seven principles that prevent a marriage from breaking up, even for those couples we tested in the lab who seemed headed for divorce. . .

Kim Kardashian and the institution of marriage Washington Times, By Myra Fleischer, October 31, 2011
The rumors about reality show star Kim Kardashian’s marriage to Kris Humphries turned out to be true. In a move knocking Herman Cain’s gospel karaoke out of the headlines, Ryan Seacrest confirmed on his nationally broadcast radio show and on his Twitter account that Kardashian filed for divorce from her husband of 72 days in Los Angeles Superior Court. Kardashian later issued an "official" statement to E! News, which should change its name to K! News and be done with it. Various sources including TMZ.com report that family CEO and mother-in-law Kris Jenner was not happy about Humphries’ lack of participation in the family business. Is it just me, or does this sound like being married to the mob? It was also reported the couple disagreed about where to live. Humphries wanted to live in Minnesota, but the Karadashian clan is all in Los Angeles. Within hours of the filing, TMZ.com published a copy of the paperwork online. Is there nothing this woman doesn’t orchestrate for the media, even her divorce? Never let a good crisis go to waste. Like many people, I believe this marriage was all about the Kardashian celebrity business machine. The Kardashian family is strategic about finding ways to remain in the public eye. It’s hard to top staging a $10 million wedding with People Magazine exclusives and reality TV licensing rights, the boulder-sized ring and the Vera Wang wedding gown. While the existence of a prenuptial agreement isn’t necessarily evidence of a pre-planned exit strategy, in this case it lends more weight to this theory. No doubt many people will simply shrug and pass this off as one more bit of celebrity gossip, sensational for a short time and then immediately forgotten. But what is happening here is not without lasting consequences for society. Many people are concerned about threats to the institution of marriage. What does real and lasting damage to the institution of marriage are crazy celebrity marriages built on nothing more than headline-making weddings intended to generate a profit that inevitably fall apart in a very public way. No matter what you personally think of Kim Kardashian, she is idolized and admired by millions of people, particularly young women who aspire to her glamorous life. Their beloved role model can do no wrong. They will not blame Kim or her husband for their problems. They will blame marriage itself. If the Kardashian fairy tale wedding doesn’t have a happy ending, how can any ordinary marriage have chance of success?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Kim and Kris' Worst Newlywed Mistakes Huffington Post, By Vicki Larson, November 03, 2011
Maybe you think Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphies' marriage was a sham. Maybe you think they married for love. Maybe you couldn't care less. But there are some people who probably should be paying attention: Anyone who hopes to marry and not divorce. No one really knows what's really behind Kim's decision to file for divorce just 72 days after marrying the 26-year-old pro basketball player, despite rumors that they couldn't agree where to settle down -- Minnesota, where Kris is from, or L.A., where Kim's family lives -- and that their marriage couldn't withstand the constant work and media pressures. Since most of those pressures were self-created (they're reality TV stars, after all) it's hard to be too sympathetic. Still, Kim's claim of "irreconcilable differences" is all anyone really needs to know -- it means that the two most likely didn't have the essential long, hard discussions before they said "I do" in a splashy multimillion-dollar wedding. Even Kim admits she "got caught up with the hoopla and the filming of the TV show that when I probably should have ended my relationship, I didn't know how to and didn't want to disappoint a lot of people." She sounds sincere, if somewhat misguided. In fact, she sounds a lot like the hundreds of women who admitted that they knew there were problems in their relationship but "by the time they made it to the ceremony, they felt it was too late to turn back." So, where did Kim and Kris fail?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Kim Kardashian, Kris Humphries Divorce: Raoul Felder Weighs In On Legal Aspects Of Split Huffington Post, November 02, 2011
The media has reported on every facet of Kim Kardashian's split -- everything from what went wrong to Kris Humphries' reported reaction to E!'s plans for the wedding footage to what Kardashian plans to do with her gifts, and more. But not much has been said about what really matters most when all the hype dies down -- the legal ramifications of her divorce. For that, we asked "Duke of Divorce" Raoul Felder to weigh in. Felder has represented dozens of celebrities throughout his decades-long career including Martin Scorsese, David Gest, Rudy Giuliani, Robin Givens, and Larry Fortensky and others. Note that Felder is not working with Kim Kardashian or Kris Humphries and has not advised on this case. . . .

Kim Kardashian and the institution of marriage

RELATED PHOTO ESSAY: Shortest celebrity marriages USA Today, October 31, 2011
Kim Kardashian filed for divorce from NBA player Kris Humphries after 72 days of marriage. Kardashian cited irreconcilable differences in court documents filed on Monday. Click to see other big names who gave up on matrimony after a brief time. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: That's what you call timing! Nick Lachey and Kelly Ripa dress up as Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries on wedding day The Daily Mail- UK, By Eleanor Gower, October 31, 2011
With Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries today announcing their split, the timing was impeccable for Kelly Ripa and Nick Lachey's choice of Halloween costume. Lachey, 37, who guest hosted on Live! With Regis and Kelly this morning, put on stilts underneath black trousers and sported a white tuxedo in a hilarious spoof of Kris's appearance at August's reality wedding. And 41-year-old Kelly channelled her inner reality TV star in a dark Kim style wig, meringue dress and diamond headband and veil. They were clearly having a great time as they waved and posed for pictures on a special Halloween edition of the show. But at the time of planning their Kim and Kris outfits, they would have been unaware of the divorce announcement made by the couple today. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: What Married Couples Aren't Telling You About Marriage Huffington Post, By Lindsay Pyfer, October 03, 2011
Occasionally, after a long day, I find myself sucked into the parallel universe of Say Yes to the Dress. I enjoy the gowns -- artful confections that flatter different sizes and shapes. But I'm appalled by the program's shameless evangelism of extravagant weddings (I haven't seen a dress under $2,500) and the dated idea that a girl's wedding day is the most important of her life. I call it "girl porn." Sometimes, I'm tempted to yell "Get real!" at a bride through the television. I wish I could warn her that there's no relationship between how fancy a woman's wedding is and the success of her marriage. That it's not about the size of the diamond, the cut of the dress, or how much a hard-working relative shells out for the reception. I'd say, "When you say I do, you're getting on the ride of your life. There'll be times when it's thrilling, times when you're scared to death, and times you wish you'd never gotten on this ride." I'd share what I've learned: that she's taking her husband as-is, his strengths and his weaknesses, his charms and his bad habits, not just the fun and romantic part. That the real love comes after the wedding, not before. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: What Marriage WAS Designed For… Black and Married With Kids, By Denise Anderson, September 15, 2011
After I wrote the piece, “Marriage Was Not Designed to Make You Happy,” I had a few people ask me, “Well, if my marriage isn’t supposed to make me happy, what is it supposed to do?” Admittedly, I sure did give a lot of suggestions for what you shouldn’t expect from your marriage, so it’s only fair that I outline some things that you can expect. You can expect your marriage to: Grow You Up – Yeah, I thought I was so mature before I got married. I thought I had this whole adulthood thing figured out. It took my marriage to teach me just how childish I could still be. Children are naturally self-centered. They’re supposed to be. It’s nature’s way of instilling in them survival skills. If their own needs are paramount, then they can find ways verbalize their needs or otherwise elicit a response that meets their needs from their caretakers. A baby knows to cry when he’s hungry. A toddler knows to throw a tantrum when she’s frustrated. A child knows to ask for toys when he wants to play. This ensures that they have what they need when they need it since they’re yet unable to provide for themselves. Adults, however, are (or should be) self-sustaining. Ideally, a person should have progressed beyond the practice of incessantly magnifying his or her own needs by the time they become an adult. At some point, a grown-up should seek to be of service to someone – a community, a spouse, a child, etc. This is a mark of true maturity. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Marriage Was Not Designed To Make You Happy Black and Married With Kids, By Tara Pringle Jefferson, February 18, 2011
Some of my friends asked me to expound, so I guess I’ll take a stab at it here. First let me preface this post by saying that I in no way claim to be an expert on marriage. My husband and I have been married a little under four years and we’re still learning a lot of things about being married. If you want expert advice, talk to someone who’s been at this for decades (and let me listen in). I can only share what I’ve learned so far. Further, I assure you that, despite the tone of this post, I really love being married. However, I don’t want people to be delusional about what marriage is or is not. So let me share with you what marriage cannot do: Marriage cannot make you happy. I think it’s safe to say that many people who want to be married think that marriage will make them happy, but I maintain that’s just not true. We’ve all grown up with the fairy tales where the princess finds a prince, gets married, and lives “happily ever after.” Simply put, nothing can “make” you happy. Absolutely nothing. Happiness is a personal choice and is not contingent upon one’s circumstances. There are plenty of happy poor folks and miserable millionaires. If you aren’t happy before marriage, chances are you won’t be happy in it. And unfortunately, a lot of people get dejected when they enter a marriage and realize they’re not as happy as they thought they’d be. Learn to be happy independent of outside influences. . . . . Marriage does not equal satisfaction:. . .

Bernie Madoff's Son, Wife Open Up to '60 Minutes' (Video) The Hollywood Reporter, By Lindsay Powers, October 31, 2011
Ruth admits she "blames herself" for her son Mark's suicide and says she “doesn’t know” if she would have turned him in if she knew of his $60 billion ponzi scheme. . . . The estranged wife and son of convicted ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff made their much-anticipated appearance on CBS' 60 Minutes Sunday night. ahead of the release of the book Truth and Consequences. Ruth and Andrew Madoff spoke of their feelings about Bernie's 150-year prison sentence for creating the $60 million scheme, the suicide of Bernie's son Mark, Bernie and Ruth's hasty suicide attempt, and more. Admitted Ruth, who was married to Madoff for decades, "Of course I feel the shame. I can barely walk down the street without worrying about people recognizing me." Andrew says, "From the very beginning of this whole episode-- I've had absolutely nothing to hide. And I've been eager, I would say almost desperate to speak out publicly and tell people that I'm absolutely not involved. Ruth continues to claim she had no idea Bernie's financial services were all a scam. "I can't explain it. I mean I trusted him. Why would it ever occur to me that it wasn't legal? The business was--his reputation was almost legendary. Why would I ever think that there was something sinister going on?" she says. "I never did. I never did. It didn't seem that way. There was nothing that would make me suspect anything. Sometimes I look back and I think as the years went on, he started to get more and more short tempered and maybe he just was having trouble, obviously, he had to have been," she adds. Andrew was put off by the lack of a succession plan, but had no idea what his father was up to. "His plan was that he had no plan. And he would say that when he dies, his end of the business dies. And again, it was always the-- the same response, 'That's the way it is and it's not gonna change,'" recalls Andrew. When asked if Andrew thought he was being used by his father, he said "absolutely," and added that his father would walk potential clients through the division that Andrew ran, which was legit. "It was one of the hardest things to come to grips with, in trying to get my head around this, was that feeling that I had been used-- almost as-- as a human shield by him. He-- it's-- it's unforgivable. No-- no father should do that to their sons," he says. After Bernie revealed to his family that he was running an giant ponzi sceme, "she looked shocked," Andrew says of his mother. "She asked 'What's a Ponzi scheme?' was her first question. She didn't even understand that. I think it was me who answered and said that, "It means that it's all fake. That Dad's-- you know, his-- he's not been doing what he says he's been doing." And he followed that up and said, "Yes. I've been lying to all of you-- all of these years. I've been lying to everybody. I've been lying to myself.'" Ruth admits that even if she had known of Bernie's scheme, she's not sure if she would have turned him in. . .

RELATED VIDEO: Ruth and Andrew Madoff, pt. 1 CBS- 60 Minutes, October 30, 2011
In their first interview about the crimes of Bernard Madoff, the son and the wife of the man who scammed billions of dollars provide the first inside account from the immediate family. Ruth Madoff and son Andrew tell Morley Safer how Madoff confessed his crimes to them, their reaction and the subsequent family strife of the past three years.

RELATED VIDEO: Ruth and Andrew Madoff, pt. 2 CBS- 60 Minutes, October 30, 2011

Bernie Madoff's Son, Wife Open Up to '60 Minutes'

RELATED COVERAGE: Complete Coverage: Wall Street of Shame ABC News

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: Bernie Madoff's Daughter-in-Law Speaks Out The Hollywood Reporter, By Lauren Schulte, October 20, 2011
In a new interview, airing Friday, Stephanie Madoff Mack, the widow of the businessman's son, says if she saw her father-in-law she'd "spit in his face.". . . . Bernie Madoff was convicted in June 2009 for running the largest Ponzi scheme in American history. Now, over two years later, the widow of Madoff's son, Mark, who committed suicide on Dec. 11, 2010, Stephanie Madoff Mack sat down for an exclusive interview to discuss her father-in-law. In a promo for the interview, Mack tells ABC News' Chris Cuomo that if she saw him today, she'd "spit in his face" and tell him that she hold him responsible for Mark's death. In another video of the interview, which airs on 20/20 Friday at 10 P.M. ET, the widow says she wrote a letter to Madoff, who is currently serving his 150-year sentence in a North Carolina prison, hoping to make him feel guilty about the life he was missing. "He wrote, "As you can imagine, I am quite the celebrity, and am treated like a Mafia don. They call me either Uncle Bernie or Mr. Madoff. I can't walk anywhere without someone shouting their greetings and encouragement, to keep my spirit up. It's really quite sweet, how concerned everyone is about my well being, including the staff...It's much safer here than walking the streets of New York," says Mack. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Ruth Madoff’s Duty New York Times By Randy Cohen, April 28, 2009
These are dark days for Bernard and Ruth Madoff. His Mets tickets were sold on eBay; she was banned from the Pierre Michel Salon. Through it all, this question persists: did she know about his $65 billion Ponzi scheme? Regardless of the answer, should she have? Did she have an ethical obligation to understand the source of the fortune she long enjoyed? Here’s a guideline: around the time you acquire your third house (the one in Palm Beach), you must enquire, How are we paying for this? When selecting your second yacht (Little Bull, recently seized by the courts), you must pose the question: Where is the money coming from? Having benefited from a husband’s activities — for decades, not days — a spouse may not remain willfully ignorant. Adults must have some grasp of their impact upon other people, including financially. The greater your wealth, the greater your impact on others, the greater your responsibility not to be conveniently oblivious. Marriage is a partnership. If you reap its rewards, you bear some responsibility for the way they accrue. This does not make you equally culpable for your partner’s misdeeds or immune to deception, but it is does deny you the joys of spending actual loot and the comforts of ignoring that you’re doing so. The Madoffs’ marriage might reflect the conventions of their generation. Half a century ago, when they wed, many wives knew little about their husband’s business activities (as some discovered to their lament during divorce proceedings). But it is also true that Ruth Madoff worked at her husband’s company for a while and after that continued to steer customers (suckers? prey?) his way. She seems bright; she seems capable; she seems to have transferred millions of dollars just before his arrest. She was not entirely detached from his affairs. There were things she might have noticed without being a forensic accountant:. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The conman who duped the world: The rise and fall of Wall Street legend Bernie Madoff The Daily Mail- UK, By Philip Delves Broughton, December 16, 2008
He was a multi-millionaire Wall Street titan regarded by investors as a pillar of the financial community and the ultimate safe pair of hands. His clients were some of the richest individuals and institutions on the planet and they trusted him with billions. He entertained them on America’s best golf courses and in its finest restaurants, and promised he could gain them steady and attractive returns on any investments they made with him. Their wealth was safe with him, he would assure them. He was a man who understood money, a man they could trust. . .