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

Would Joel Osteen officiate a gay marriage? The Washington Post, Interview Conducted by Sally Qinn, October 26, 2011
The Washington Post's Sally Quinn sat down with megapastor Joel Osteen to talk about his new book, "Everyday a Friday: How to Be Happier 7 Days a Week," and his views on homosexuality and whether he would ever attend or officiate a gay marriage. (The Washington Post)

RELATED ARTICLE: First Lady: Kagan, Sotomayor Will Protect Right to ‘Love Whomever We Choose’ CNS News, By Fred Lucas, October 26, 2011
First Lady Michelle Obama told two audiences at Democratic fundraising events on Tuesday that the justices her husband appointed to the Supreme Court will protect the right to “love whomever we choose.” She also said these justices would protect “privacy”—presumably a reference to the “right to privacy” the court invoked in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in the United States. . . . RELATED COMMENTS: Dixiesuzan:
Empress Michelle has made her pronouncement. Women in America may “love whomever we choose.” And if they don't love their own infants in the womb they can have them dismembered. Infact they can mentally make there be no baby in the womb if they don't want there to be a baby in the womb. The they abort a zygote and no murder statutes are violated in anyway. Now if woman want there to be a baby in the womb then there is a baby in the womb. Anybody kill the baby in the womb and its homicide. Thats the power of love, placing folks inside or outside the murder statutes just by wishing. Wait unti married couples get that kinda love. Given modern times, invest every dime you've got in American Casket Company. It can't loose [sic]. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Responding to Pro-Gay Theology NARTH.com, By Joe Dallas
This three-part series will address the pro-gay theology by dividing its arguments--or tenets--into three categories: social justice arguments, general religious arguments, and scriptural arguments. A brief description of these arguments will be provided, followed by a response/rebuttal to each. . . . When God is reputed to sanction what He has already clearly forbidden, then a religious travesty is being played out, and boldly. Confronting it is necessary because it (the pro-gay theology) asks us to confirm professing Christians in their sin, when we are Biblically commanded to do just the opposite. . .

Editor's Note: The author of this article, Joe Dallas, is a former gay rights activist and staff member of the largely gay Metropolitan Community Church. He is the Founder of Genesis Counseling and has worked with hundreds of men and women struggling with homosexuality and related problems. He has authored several books on homosexuality, among them: * A Strong Delusion: Confronting the "Gay Christian" Movement * Desires in Conflict * Unforgiven Sins * The Game Plan: The Men's 30-Day Strategy for Attaining Sexual Integrity * When Homosexuality Hits Home: What to Do When a Loved One Says They're Gay

RELATED ARTICLE: Dale Martin's "arsenokoites and malakos" tried and found wanting
In the multifaceted debate regarding homosexuality and the church, an issue that has surfaced is the proper interpretation of 1 Cor 6:9-10, where Paul writes that neither "homosexuals nor sodomites" (NKJV) shall inherit the kingdom of God. At first glance, the meaning of "homosexuals and sodomites" seems rather clear. But "Not so!" say those who advocate the normalization of homosexuality. Thus, this passage has become a hot issue with scholars aligning themselves along two basic lines of thought. Some say that the original words in Greek have been translated in an unnecessarily harsh way that condemns all homosexual behavior when in fact, they contend, Paul was merely condemning homosexual rape and other forms of sexual exploitation. Others reject this revisionist interpretation and hold that the traditional translation of the text (for example, as rendered above in the NKJV) is fair and accurate. This would be a traditionalist approach. So, who's right?. .

RELATED ARTICLE: Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality Catholic Education Resource Center, By Dennis Prager
When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world. The Torah's prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity. . . . .The revolutionary nature of Judaism's prohibiting all forms of non-marital sex was nowhere more radical, more challenging to the prevailing assumptions of mankind, than with regard to homosexuality. Indeed, Judaism may be said to have invented the notion of homosexuality, for in the ancient world sexuality was not divided between heterosexuality and homosexuality. That division was the Bible's doing. Before the Bible, the world divided sexuality between penetrator (active partner) and penetrated (passive partner). . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Religion and Morality in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate The Heritage Foundation, By Thomas Messner, July 20, 2010
Abstract: Some same-sex marriage activists might wish to exclude certain moral and religious viewpoints from the same-sex marriage debate. Evidence shows, however, that religion and moral argumentation are often harnessed in support of same-sex marriage. People of all faiths or no faith at all should be free to participate in the marriage debate and bring moral viewpoints to bear on the issues.

TALKING POINTS

   1. Support for marriage as the union of husband and wife does not require belief in the religious teachings of any particular faith.
   2. Many arguments for marriage focus on it as a natural, pre-political social institution intrinsically connected to the vital public interest in the begetting and raising of children.
   3. Many activists enthusiastically mix religion with law and politics in support of same-sex marriage.
   4. The question of how marriage should be defined in law raises inescapable moral considerations that should be faced straight on.
   5. As President Obama has said, “Our law is by definition a codification of morality” and “secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.”
   6. It’s not fair for activists who use morality and religion to support their positions to object when people with opposing viewpoints do the same thing.
   7. The marriage debate should include a diversity of viewpoints.

This report discusses:

    * Definition Of Marriage
    * Family And Marriage: The Evidence
    * Marriage
    * Religion and Civil Society
    * Religious Practice: Evidence Outcome. . .

‘Dancing With the Stars’ 2011: Chaz Bono Voted Off in Week 6 of Season 13 ABC News - Celebrities, By Susan Clarke, October 25, 2011
Transgender activist Chaz Bono was voted off ABC’s “Dancing With the Stars” tonight. The audience and judges gave him a standing ovation when the results were read. “This was an amazing journey … ,” Bono said, standing next to his partner, Lacey Schwimmer. “I came on this show because I wanted to show America a different kind of man. If there was somebody like me on TV when I was growing up, my whole life would have been different.” He and soccer World Cup star Hope Solo had both been in jeopardy, but Bono received the lowest in combined audience and judges’ votes. Bono has struggled since the beginning of the competition six weeks ago. His low scores have consistently landed him in or near the bottom of the leaderboard, and he’s also been in jeopardy of elimination but managed to avoid being cut. Last night he again was the low scorer of the pack with 19 points out of a possible 30 for his tango to a song from the musical “The Phantom of the Opera.” In a backstage interview that aired during tonight’s show, Bono took aim at judge Bruno Tonioli, who in a critique of Bono’s tango likened him to “a cute little penguin trying to be a big, menacing bird of prey.” Tonight Bono reacted, saying judges often praised overweight women who came on the show and lost weight, but didn’t give overweight men the same latitude. He said Tonioli had often made disparaging comments about him, “like I’m some fat troll dancing with this beautiful woman every week, and I’m sick of it.” Other blunt reviews from judges last night caused emotions to run high, and Maksim Chmerkovskiy, Solo’s pro partner, vented his frustration by engaging in a war of words with the judges. After a particularly frank critique of Solo’s performance from head judge Led Goodman, Chmerkovskiy protested, saying the audience would react well to the dance pair’s journey. Goodman started to reply, saying that he’d been in the business for 50 years, when Chmerkovskiy cut him off with a terse: “Maybe it’s time to get out.”. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Chaz Bono Speaks Out Against Bruno After DWTS Elimination; Cher Slams Judges! Reality Tea, October 28, 2011
As I’m sure you all know by now, Chaz Bono was voted off Dancing With the Stars this week. His elimination has sparked a lot of emotion (from both fans and haters), as well as many questions about the show. Is it a dance competition or a popularity contest? Are the judges comments actually constructive or just entertaining for shock value? And of course, the biggest question of all, is this Maksim Chmerkovskiy’s show? Chaz expressed disdain for Bruno Tonioli after the judge called him an Ewok a few weeks ago and a penguin on Monday. Taking the high road (with a bit of a dig), he tells Life and Style, “I don’t have to wake up and be Bruno tomorrow, I get to wake up and be me.” That seems to be putting a positive spin on the situation. . . . .While Chaz seems to be bowing out gracefully, his superstar mother Cher isn’t following suit. She had some very choice tweets for Bruno and Len Goodman. Taking to twitter, Cher vented, “Going Home is Fine but why insult him b4 he Goes! Maybe Rudeness & Flapping Arms take the place of TALENT….As for the Older Gentleman ….every Show Needs A Grumpy Old Man !” Hmmm….to whom could she be referring? Carrie Ann Inaba was spared from Cher’s tirade. Chaz’s celebrity mother gave a shout out to the third judge, tweeting, “Thank u Carrie Ann 4 your Gentility u r beautiful inside & out.” Cher later continued, “The Chick is beautiful & Polite ! The Men suck.” You can’t really fault a mother for coming to the defense of her child, can you?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Pregnant Man Thomas Beatie Introduces Kids People magazine, By Sara Hammel, October 28, 2011
The formerly pregnant man is now a dad to three kids, and he's brought his entire brood together for a TV interview. Thomas Beatie, who shot to fame after becoming the first known legal man to become pregnant and give birth, will appear with his three children and his wife, Nancy, on Monday's The Doctors to talk about life in a non-traditional family. Beatie began life as a woman and legally switched to a male identity, while preserving his female reproductive organs. He made headlines in 2007 after pictures of his bearded face and pregnant belly became public. Beatie will talk about how people have reacted to the transgendered dad and his family – which includes daughter Susan and sons Austin and Jensen – and also discusses the medical complications that come from years of hormone treatments and bearing three children. Another problem? Beatie says he's struggled with body-after-baby, and seeks help from the doctors on how to snap back into shape after three kids. He also may never be a pregnant man again: Beatie reveals he's thinking about getting a hysterectomy. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Surgical Sex First Things.com, By Paul McHugh, November 2004
Mental health professionals like Paul McHugh at Johns Hopkins University believe that all the social, medical and psychiatric resources employed in turning men into women are “a misdirection of psychiatry.” and partly at the his urging, Johns Hopkins no longer performs sex reassignment surgery. He became convinced that to provide a surgical alteration to the body of these unfortunate people was to collaborate with a mental disorder rather than to treat it.

RELATED ARTICLE: Controversial Therapy for Pre-Teen Transgender Patient Raises Questions FOX News, By Perry Chiaramonte, October 17, 2011
A lesbian couple in California who say their 11-year-old son Tommy who wants to be a girl named Tammy are giving their child hormone blockers that delay the onset of puberty -- so that he can have more time that he can have more time to decide if he wants to change his gender. The couple’s supporters say the Hormone Blocking Therapy has only minor side effects and is appropriate for a child who is unsure of his gender. "This is definitely a changing landscape for transgender youth," said Joel Baum, director of education and training for Gender Spectrum, a California-based non-profit group. "This is about giving kids and their families the opportunity to make the right decision." But critics of the treatment say 11-year-olds are not old enough to make life-altering decisions about changing their gender, and parents should not be encouraging them. They say it’s too soon to tell what the side effects of the treatments may be, and they say Tommy’s parents, Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel, are irresponsible for seeking them and allowing them to be administered. "This is child abuse. It's like performing liposuction on an anorexic child," said Dr. Paul McHugh, professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University. "It is a disorder of the mind. Not a disorder of the body. Dealing with it in this way is not dealing with the problem that truly exists . . . . .Walt Heyer, whose book "Paper Genders" details his own experience transitioning from a man to a woman and back again, agreed. "The blockers should NOT be introduced to a child," Heyer said. "If they are going to make a transition, they should wait to do so when they reach 18 to 20 years old. When you start the therapy at that age you are not dealing with the fact that the mind is not fully developed." Heyer also cited a Dutch study that said 61 percent of individuals who desire a gender change are found to have secondary psychiatric disorders, such as depression or dissociative disorder, which he suffered from. Other critics asked whether Tommy’s same-sex parents may be unknowingly influencing his questions about his gender. . . . . "Obviously, when two females adopt a male child, then assert that the child is not actually male, but is, instead, actually a female -- like both of them. Everyone in the family should be psychologically evaluated in a comprehensive way before a step like gender reassignment is considered,” said Ablow. . .

RELATED QUOTE: "... [M]y other justification for corralling their enthusiasms is the sense that the intermingling of psychiatry with contemporary culture is excessive and injures both parties. During the thirty years of my professional experience, I have witnessed the power of cultural fashion to lead psychiatric thought and practice off in false, eve disastrous, directions. I have become familiar with how these fashions and their consequences caused psychiatry to lose its moorings. Roughly every ten years, from the mid-1960s on, psychiatric practice has condoned some bizarre misdirection, proving how all too often the discipline has been the captive of the culture. Each misdirection was the consequence of one of three common medical mistakes--oversimplification, misplaced emphasis, or pure invention..." Paul R. McHugh, Henry Phipps Professor and Director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

RELATED QUOTE: "...[W]e're all victims of reality in one way or another. She wishes she were male. I wish I had a Harley. Howard Dean wishes he had decaf. Ted Kennedy wishes he had swerved. It doesn't make us "tolerant" or "compassionate" to pretend that people have something they don't or that they are something they're not. It makes us liars. It's enabling a delusion, and it's very, very silly..." Matt Barber, December 21, 2007

RELATED ARTICLE: Psychiatric Misadventures By Paul R. McHugh— Henry Phipps Professor and Director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

RELATED ARTICLE: Paul McHugh on transsexualism Transsexual Road Map

RELATED ARTICLE: A “Gay Man” Trapped in a Woman’s Body and Other Nonsense Townhall.com, By Matt Barber, December 26, 2007

Stalking Your "Ex" on Facebook FOTF.com, By Jim Daly, October 24, 2011
Have you ever looked up your “ex” on Facebook? By “ex” I mean either your former spouse or someone you once dated. If you have, you wouldn’t be alone. According to some recent research, 48% of Facebook users admit to looking at their ex’s profile too often. Of course, “too often” is a subjective term. But if nearly half of those polled are acknowledging perusing a person’s profile excessively, you can be sure the number of those looking once or even twice is higher still. If your former spouse or boyfriend or girlfriend is among this number – or if your actions are contributing to the statistic - is there reason for concern? Curiosity is a natural emotion. If you’ve spent years with another person, even non-sexually, ties are often very difficult to break. This is the way God made us, and for good reason. In any meaningful relationship we wind up sharing a piece of ourselves – and when the end comes, especially on bad terms, such parting hurts. So, when you split, you might wonder what came of them and whether or not they’re married or dating again. I think that’s normal. And beyond mere wondering, there might be some justifiable reasons to keep tabs on an ex if, for example, you’re currently engaged in a joint custody negotiation or previously discussed arrangement concerning a son or daughter. But laying aside the exceptions, it would seem to me that why we’re keeping tabs on this person is even more important than if we’re checking on them at all. Would you agree? Perhaps it’s time to evaluate your motivations. Are you holding out hope for reconciliation, even years after the break-up? Is there some undisclosed trauma that you’ve yet to resolve with this person? If they broke it off with you, are you hoping to discover that their life is miserable without you, thus giving your ego some feel-good strokes? If you’re the one who initiated the divorce or break-up, are you hoping to relieve some guilt and justify your actions when you discover that they now appear happy and content in their new life?Because people and relationships are unique and complex, a broad brush analysis doesn’t always work. However, in the vast majority of cases, our counselors have a fairly simple recommendation: Assuming you have either remarried or experienced some degree of closure in a relationship, the healthiest thing you could do is turn away from the past, embrace the present and look to the future. Don’t keep checking out an ex’s status updates. Stop stalking them via their posted photos. In other words, don’t look back. Get on with your life! Social media has made it possible to continuously revisit portions of our lives (in real time, no less!) – but what’s possible often differs from what is wise. Just because you can “friend” an ex on Facebook doesn’t mean you should. And just because you can follow their new life away from yours doesn’t mean it’s healthy to do so. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Facebook cited in 20% of U.S. divorces CBC News, March 04, 2011
Facebook use has been cited in 1 of 5 U.S. divorce cases, according to a recent survey among American marriage lawyers. Moreover, more than 80 per cent of divorce lawyers reported a rising number of people using social media for extramarital affairs, according to the survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. "We're coming across it more and more," psychologist Steven Kimmons of Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood, Ill., said in a news release on the university's website. "One spouse connects online with someone they knew from high school. The person is emotionally available and they start communicating through Facebook. Within a short amount of time, the sharing of personal stories can lead to a deepened sense of intimacy, which in turn can point the couple in the direction of physical contact." Typically, people enter into online relationships with the most innocent of intentions, said Kimmons, whose practice includes couples therapy and marriage counselling. "I don't think these people typically set out to have affairs. A lot of it is curiosity. They see an old friend or someone they dated and decide to say 'hello' and catch up on where that person is and how they're doing." The key is the amount of contact two people in any type of relationship, including online, have with each other, Kimmons said. The more the contact, the greater the likelihood they will begin developing feelings for each other. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Why you should snoop on your spouse online: Sex therapist Ian Kerner says it might be painful, but it’s better to know
MSNBC.com- Today, By Ian Kerner, Ph.D., September 17, 2009
After writing a column last month on the subject of Facebook and why you should unfriend your spouse, I received no shortage of e-mails — many of which were from people who vehemently disagreed with me — and so I thought it would be worthwhile to address the subject of Internet infidelity in greater depth. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Our Top Dozen Do’s and Don’ts for Facebooking Couples: What Every Facebooking Couple Should DO to Protect Their Marriage! Facebook and Your Marriage, By K. Jason and Kelli Krafsky
(DO) Create boundaries to protect yourself, your spouse and your marriage. Spend some time talking about what’s in bounds and out of bounds and as a couple, agree on what boundaries you’ll set as a couple. A little bit of agreement on what is and is not acceptable can save a lot of pain and disagreement later.

(DO) Set your relationship status to Married and keep it that way. Facebook’s version of the wedding band, your Relationship Status makes all the difference in how people interact with you. If you do happen to go through some marital troubles, don’t change to “it’s complicated” because you’ll only make things even more complicated…in a bad way.

(DO) Update each other on your FB Friends and Friend Requests. Friends range from past childhood pals and classmates to current connections from work, church and elsewhere. Many of your FB Friends have a story attached to them. Don’t assume your spouse knows how you know them; spend time sharing their story with your mate. . .

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

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

Steve Jobs: A Tech Giant, Yes, But No Saint

Steve Jobs: A Tech Giant, Yes, But No Saint The Real Proposal magazine, By Donna Kassin — Editorial Director, October 10, 2011
Death has a way of ascribing sainthood to people who have either been “good” souls or accomplished great feats in life. Steve Jobs passing will be no exception. Without doubt, the world has lost an iconic innovator and visionary, one whom President Obama was moved to say exemplified “the spirit of American ingenuity.” He made geeky technology cool, inspired creativity and cult-like admiration, and will likely be remembered in the category of genius reserved for the Einsteins and Edisons of the world. When all is said and done, however, the death of Steve Jobs should serve to remind us yet again of a very profound truth: Powerful men remain just that — men. Indeed, in these oft-perilous times, perhaps no one was better able than Jobs to serve up a more poignant and timely reminder that powerful men are still no less vulnerable to the ravages of common human maladies like cancer, which, for now, remains an equal opportunity oppressor without regard for one’s social status, intellect or financial net worth. And yes, ultimately, all men die. Ultimately, all of us will be called into account for the lives we have led. And, ultimately, all of us, the imperfect creatures that we are, will leave a mixed legacy. . . . Indeed, Apple has become a formidable and staunch supporter of LGBT rights and causes in all its manifestations. Who can forget their $100,000 donation to fight against Proposition 8 and the stated will of the majority California voters to preserve the definition of marriage as between one man, one woman? More recently, Apple maintained similar form, appeasing LGBT activists, by blocking from their App Store a previously approved Christian app, the Manhattan Declaration, which aimed to educate and inform people on Christian doctrine and the importance of preserving traditional values on marriage and sexuality. In fact, until LGBT activists raised staunch objections to it, Apple had previously given the app a 4 plus rating for “no objectionable content.” In the end, all appeals, even to Jobs personally, to allow reason – and free speech - to prevail fell on deaf ears. Big Brother censorship at Apple seemingly guarantees that freedom of religion also means freedom from any religion with which they are not in agreement. Six weeks before his passing, Jobs also personally appointed his gay Chief Operating Officer, Timothy Cook, as the new Apple CEO. As such, Cook will steer the stock market’s #1 company further into the 21st century as the most powerful gay person in the world! Undoubtedly, he’s qualified. But it would be entirely disingenuous to even suggest that Cook’s personal philosophy and lifestyle will not also affect decision-making and policy driving such companies as ABC, Disney and Pixar animations, in which Apple is a major stakeholder. A little more “Dancing with the Freaky,” anyone? So much also for the orchestrated lie, which attempts to portray homosexuals as social outcasts or victims of the kind of discrimination, which requires extraordinary court-mandated civil protections to remedy. . . .

RELATED VIDEO: Steve Jobs' 2005 Stanford Commencement Address Uploaded by Stanford University on March 07, 2008

RELATED ARTICLE: Steve Jobs knew his time was short, focused on family first Apple Insider, By Mickey Campbell, October 07, 2011
After years of battling complications arising from his initial bout with cancer, Steve Jobs learned in February that his time was finally running out. In his final months, he surrounded himself with those most important to him: his wife and his children. For the past few months, Jobs had been the recipient of numerous calls and attempted visits to his Palo Alto, Calif., home, as whispers spread of his worsening condition, The New York Times reported in an intimate piece on the Apple co-founder. Jobs had quietly shared with a few of his closest friends that he thought his time was becoming short. In the final days leading up to his death this past Wednesday, there was an incessant stream of phone calls from well-wishers. Jobs' wife, Laurene, fielded most of the calls, and in the final weeks had confided in one caller that the former Apple chief was too weak to climb the stairs of his own house. She apologized to friends, saying that Jobs only had so much energy for farewells. "He was aware that his time on earth was limited," close friend Dr. Dean Ornish said. "He wanted control of what he did with the choices that were left." Most of that time was spent with his family, the report noted. When Jobs was able to make it to Apple, he would finish his work for the day and immediately return home for dinner with his wife and children. Because of his extreme secrecy, there is little known as to how Jobs' wealth will be distributed. Many wealthy business leaders leave their estates to foundations or charity, but there has been no news on how Jobs planned to mete out his roughly $7 billion fortune. . . . In a Time magazine interview, Jobs' biographer Walter Isaacson asked him why he had consented to a biography, given how private he was. Jobs replied, "I wanted my kids to know me," adding that he hadn't always been there for them and he wanted them to "know why and to understand" what he did. . . . . Little is known of Steve Jobs' personal life, and he wanted it that way. His obsession with secrecy continued until the day he died, but perhaps, in death, he will be better understood. His biography will be released in two weeks, and Time has released a special issue to commemorate the Apple co-founder. Jobs' acquaintance, speaking to the Times in anonymity, may have put it best: "Once you're gone, you belong to the world.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: A Celebration of 'LIFE'- Steve Jobs Manhattan Declaration, October 06, 2011
A pro-life blogger wrote: “Much is being written about Jobs today. But for all his accomplishments let's remember some heroes in the background. Joanne Schiebel who did not think of her pre born child as just 'products of conception.' She chose life and made an adoption plan with his best interest in mind.” While most of us will never leave a mark in history the magnitude of Steve Jobs, the point here should be obvious- all lives are of value and should be given the chance to live them. There is no way Steve Jobs' birth mother could have known what his life would come to entail when she learned she was pregnant. How could she? She simply chose life to give him that chance. This story of a life that was saved could be told in numerous ways, about numerous people. To shed light on another, the famous singer Andrea Bocelli's mother was told to abort and she also chose not to. It is a sobering reality to think about the millions of babies who have not been given the chance to live their life. How many future doctors, creatives, teachers, or even future mothers and fathers were murdered before they were even given the chance to become any of those things? . . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Steve Jobs remembered for his stance against porn on iPhone Lifesite news, By Christine Dhanagom, October 06, 2011
As the world mourns the loss of a successful entrepreneur and technological visionary, pro-family advocates have two other, and seemingly contradictory, reasons to remember Apple CEO Steve Jobs: his uncompromising stance against pornography, and his company’s stance in favor of gay “marriage.” Jobs has elicited praise and criticism from both ends of the ideological spectrum for his involvement in controversial social issues. Supporters of traditional marriage were dismayed by his company’s public opposition to Proposition 8, an amendment to the California state constitution that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Apple famously donated $100,000 to the anti-Proposition 8 campaign. The company has also repeatedly rejected the pro-life, pro-family Manhattan Declaration iPhone app, bowing to pressure from homosexual activists. Those same activists, however, were in for a surprise if they thought Jobs would allow Apple products to be infiltrated with the worst that the homosexual sub-culture has to offer. Last year, his company rejected “Gay New York: 101 Can’t-Miss Places,” an app created by freelance travel writer Anthony Grant. Grant, who writes for Forbes and The New York Times, called the decision “homophobic and discriminatory to the point of hostile.” Apples’ rejection of the app, which was based on its inclusion of graphic sexual pictures, is part of a principled stance against pornography, for which Jobs has become famous. The former CEO set himself apart from competitors by keeping his company’s products porn-free by rejecting any and all pornographic apps. In an email exchange with a customer posted on techcrunch.com last April, Jobs said that he believed he had a “moral responsibility” to reject pornographic content. “Folks who want porn can buy [an] Android phone,” he wrote. Jobs also defended his stance against Gawker.com writer Ryan Tate, who objected to an Apple commercial calling the iPad a “revolution.” “Revolutions are about freedom,” Tate wrote. Jobs responded that Apple products offer users “freedom from porn,” and told Tate that he “might care more about porn” when he had children. The entrepreneur, who was adopted, leaves behind four of his own children. He was a devoted father, by the account of family and friends. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Conservative Christians blast Apple decision to discontinue app CNN, By Dan Gilgoff, December 01, 2010
A coalition of conservative Christian leaders blasted Apple on Wednesday for discontinuing an app the group had created because the technology giant said the app was offensive. The Christian leaders had created the app to promote a document that urges opposition to abortion and gay marriage and support for religious liberty, among other positions. An Apple spokeswoman confirmed the company had removed the app, which was called the Manhattan Declaration after the document it was meant to promote, from Apple's online iTunes and iPhone stores. "It violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people," said Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris, who said the app was removed last week. The Manhattan Declaration app allowed users to sign and share the the declaration and included a four-question quiz that featured questions like "Do you support same-sex relationships?" and "Do you support the right of choice regarding abortion?" The app computes a score for the quiz depending on how many "correct" answers a user gave. Kerris said that Apple had heard from "large groups of people" about the app but declined to answer questions about who complained about the app and about which part or parts were deemed offensive, saying "I'd rather not got into further detail." Prominent gay bloggers had criticized the app, focusing on the quiz. Chuck Colson, a former aide to President Richard Nixon turned evangelical leader, said Wednesday that he was disappointed in the decision and because Apple had declined to respond to his requests for an explanation. "If you have a public communications company, you have a responsibility to see that certain views are not suppressed," he said. "This is a dangerous thing to do in a free society." Colson helped draft the Manhattan Declaration last year, which promoters say has garnered more than 478,000 signatures. A spokeswoman for the declaration said Wednesday that Apple had approved and posted its app in October and that it had received a 4 plus rating for "no objectionable content." "...Numerous attempts to have a dialogue via phone have been ignored," the spokeswoman, Michelle Farmer, said of the leaders' attempts to reach out to Apple. "Now leaders with the Manhattan Declaration are asking its supporters to get involved and pressure Jobs and Apple to reinstate the Christian app." Colson and two other declaration drafters sent a letter to Apple CEO Steve Jobs on Monday asking that the app be reinstated. . .

October observed as Domestic Violence Awareness month Constitution-Tribune, October 07, 2011
Livingston County C2000 is hosting an event next Friday, Oct. 14, in an effort to help put an end to domestic violence. The event, “End the Silence… Speak Out Against Domestic Violence” will be from 6:30 until 8 p.m. at Silver Moon Plaza. There will be other awareness activities going on throughout the month of October and C2000 is inviting members of the public to join them in “Painting It Purple” in an effort to raise awareness and a call to end the silence through community support. “Our first “Paint It Purple” activity was to add lights to the tree at the Livingston County Courthouse and we hope to see others lighting it up as well,” said Tawnya Jones, Livingston County C2000 representative. “Show your Support and display your purple ribbon in a prominent place: your vehicle, your front door, around a tree, or on your lapel. When friends or strangers ask, tell them why you display a purple ribbon. Let your community know that you demand an end to continued passive support of violence.” Jones says that the public must be proactive. “Violence breeds violence,” she said. “Violence is protected by silence. End the silence… speak out against domestic violence.” This project made possible through funding provided by the Department of Mental Health, Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse. People often think of domestic violence only in terms of the black eyes and bruises that can be seen. Domestic violence, also known as domestic abuse, spousal abuse, battering, family violence, and intimate partner violence, has been broadly defined as a pattern of abusive behaviors by one or both partners in an intimate relationship such as marriage, dating, family, friends or cohabitation. The definition of domestic violence shows that it is abuse between intimate partners; statistically; however, women are most often the victims of abuse and it is for the purpose of education that we will refer to victims of domestic violence as women. Men are victimized as well and the statistics may or may not be directly related to the societal belief that men cannot be victims of domestic abuse, this is beginning to change, according to Jones. As adaptive and resilient as they are women who have been battered nevertheless face a daunting number of barriers to escaping the violence, Jones said. In addition to the very real threat of harm or death to themselves or their children, victims must contend with the accompanying financial and emotional hardship. They also often weigh cultural and religious values that emphasize keeping families intact and respond to the violence in spite of justice and social service systems that don’t always provide adequate safety and support. People who have never experienced abuse often find it difficult to imagine why women don’t leave and how the abuse can continue for years. Relationships almost never start out abusive. It is important to remember that love and intimacy precede the abuse, which can make it difficult to break away. Abusive relationships are not violent all the time. There are periods when a woman is reminded why she fell in love with her partner. Abusers effectively weave together intimacy and abuse to control their partners. Women who have been battered sometimes express confusion about the recurring nature of the violence they experience in their relationship. It seems to them to be unpredictable and impulsive. Domestic violence, however, is neither random nor haphazard. It is a complex pattern of increasingly frequent and harmful physical, sexual, psychological and other abusive behaviors used to control the victim. . . .

RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEO: Behind Closed Doors, Abuse Caught on Tape ABC News - Primetime, By Kristin Pisarick, July 31, 2001 (This story originally aired on October 26th, 2006)
In a tree-lined neighborhood in upstate New York, Susan, 47, a mother of three, never imagined her life would spin out of control. But she found herself in a marriage that escalated from controlling to violent -- as she says she became a victim of domestic violence. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 5.3 million incidents of intimate partner violence occur each year in the United States. But Susan's case is unique because her abuse was documented in a disturbing 51-minute home videotape. Four years ago, Susan's husband ordered their 13-year-old son to videotape his mother being verbally and physically assaulted. The chilling tape took a look behind closed doors into the brutal reality of domestic violence. Susan told her story for the first time to ABC News' Diane Sawyer. Beginning of the Abuse: . . .

RELATED ARTICLE & RESOURCE: Domestic Violence: Warning Signs of an Abuser Women's Crisis Service
Before an abuser starts physically assaulting his victim, he typically demonstrates his abusive tactics through certain behaviors. The following are five major warning signs and some common examples:
Charm. . . Isolation. . . Jealousy. . . Emotional Abuse. . . Control. . .

RELATED RESOURCE: Domestic Violence Statistics: Let's put a stop to Domestic Violence and Abuse

The 0.2% Solution: Crunching the Same-Sex Numbers

The 0.2% Solution
Crunching the Same-Sex Numbers Breakpoint, By Chuck Colson, October 4, 2011
While gay rights activists insist on the need for same-sex “marriage,” the 2010 Census tells a shockingly different story. he pressure to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples keeps increasing. The impression is given that thousands upon thousands of gays and lesbians are unable to do the one thing they want to do more than anything else: That is, have a wedding. As if to prove the point, the US Census Bureau announced that it would be counting same-sex households in the 2010 Census. In August the Bureau announced that there are nearly a million. I was surprised by the small number. But this past week, they reduced their estimate of same sex couple households by nearly thirty percent. In fact, it turns out that there are fewer than 650,000. That’s about six tenths of one percent of total US households. But an even greater shocker for me was the number of same-sex married households. Gay marriage is legal in six jurisdictions. In Massachusetts, it’s been the law since 2004. Same-sex couples can get married, for example, in Massachusetts and Washington, DC, and live anywhere because nobody’s enforcing DOMA anymore in view of litigation. And yet there are only 131,729 households headed by married same-sex couples. That’s two-tenths of one percent of married households. Talk about the tail wagging the dog! This census data exposes the two biggest myths created about gay marriage. The first is that there’s a huge demand for it. No way! In fact, there’s hardly any demand at all. Gay couples are not lined up at city halls hoping for a marriage license. The second myth is the so-called “marriage equity” argument: That this is just another the civil rights movement. Are you going to tell me that it was possible to fuel the civil rights movement with 646,000 couples, when only 131,000 had a real stake in it? It’s laughable. I have never believed that gays wanted to marry. Their behavior by its very nature is too promiscuous. Gay relationships are for the most part sexually open rather than exclusive. For us to redefine marriage thereby altering thousands of years of human history, ignoring all of the benefits marriage offers to individuals, cultures, civilizations and — above all — children, for the sake of 646,000 same-sex households only 131,000 of which are married, it’s madness. Gays and lesbians don’t want marriage; they want their sexual choices affirmed as normal and moral. And that’s what’s behind the blacklisting, boycotting, and suing anybody who even questions homosexuality. They don’t want anyone telling them that how they live is morally problematic. Gays are actively trying to destroy marriage and will take away our freedom of speech and religion in order to do it. Does this take the church off the hook? No. For years we have helped deconstruct marriage, winking at cohabitation and allowing easy divorce. We’ve allowed politicians to pass bad divorce laws and to loosen the moral standards surrounding marriage. Now it’s all coming back to haunt us. But our job is to rebuild marriage as a sacred institution and to stand our ground and defend it, come what may, from what appears to be a small, tiny, minority.

RELATED ARTICLE: Census Bureau: Flaws in Same-Sex Couple Data Pew Research Center, By D’Vera Cohn, September 27, 2011
The Census Bureau announced today that more than one-in-four same-sex couples counted in the 2010 Census was likely an opposite-sex couple, and identified a confusing questionnaire as a likely culprit. The bureau released a new set of “preferred” same-sex counts, including its first tally ever of same-sex spouses counted in the census. The official count of same-sex couple households from the 2010 Census: 901,997. The new preferred count: 646,464, meaning that 28.3% of the same-sex couples counted was likely an opposite-sex couple. Of the households in the official count, 552,620 were unmarried couples and 349,377 described themselves as spouses. The new preferred count: 514,735 unmarried couples and 131,729 married couples. . . . As a result, the Census Bureau told users, the published data for same-sex unmarried partners “is a reasonable portrayal of the size and relative geographic distribution of this population.” But data for same-sex spouses “should be used only with great caution” because “they do not accurately represent” the number of same-sex married couples. The new preferred numbers are close to estimates from the 2010 American Community Survey, which had a total of 593,324 same-sex households. One of the red flags alerting Census Bureau officials that their Census 2010 same-sex numbers were suspect was that they were so different from those in the ACS, which uses more highly trained interviewers and sophisticated follow-up techniques. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Finally, "Straight Talk" From the Homosexual Agenda Townhall.com, By Austin Nimocks, October 20, 2008
We all love and appreciate honesty, and it’s finally coming from the most unlikely of sources—the homosexual agenda. No matter what side of the issues of homosexual behavior you may find yourself supporting, a standing ovation is appropriate. John Corvino, I salute you. You see, back in August, my jaw hit the floor when I read a column Corvino wrote that was breathtakingly honest. You see, for many years, the homosexual agenda’s intentions, goals, and beliefs have been shrouded in smokescreens of “equality,” “benefits,” and “fairness.” Yet Corvino provided a breath of fresh air, telling us what those who engage in homosexual behavior really want: moral approval. Of course, many of us have known this all along, but it’s nice to finally hear about it from the other side. This groundbreaking concession now provides an opportunity for an honest public discourse on what homosexual advocates are really after. They want your heart and soul. It’s not enough to just be tolerant. Now, I realize that you probably believe that your fair-mindedness is sufficient for any number of circumstances in life, but on this issue, you have been duped. You see, moral approval goes well beyond fairness or tolerance. It requires you to look upon the homosexual behavior of another and say to yourself and others, "That’s a good thing". . . . . Well, there’s no need to accept something just because I say it. Instead, look at the strategy employed by those who promote this agenda—in the courts. That alone tells you something. Courts are not sought by people who simply want you to tolerate an idea. Courts order people to do things. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Beyond Tolerance PrideSource.com, By John Corvino, August 15, 2008
"Why do you need other people’s approval?” The question came from an old (straight but gay-supportive) friend, as we sat over breakfast discussing progress in the gay-rights movement. He meant it sincerely. “After all,” he continued, “if you like rap music, and I hate rap music, you don’t need my approval to pursue your tastes. Indeed, even if I think listening to rap music is a mind-numbing waste of time, so what? Live and let live.” That’s true. But when it comes to gay rights, “live and let live” may no longer be enough. The difference between what he describes and what I seek is sometimes described as that between tolerance and acceptance. Roughly, “tolerance” involves leaving people alone to live as they choose, even when you don’t approve, whereas acceptance involves somehow affirming their choices. . .

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

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

Does a disastrous first marriage make your second more likely to succeed? The Daily Mail- UK, By Mandy Appleyard, October 04, 2011
Beth Purvis was absolutely clear about what she wanted from her second marriage. Having blundered into marrying the first time as an idealistic young woman blinded by her romantic ideals, she was much more pragmatic second time around. ‘I knew what I wanted from a man — he had to be mature and financially responsible,’ Beth says. ‘This time I was determined I was going to choose the right man, and that it was going to be for life. ‘When you’ve had a disastrous first marriage, you know the mistakes to avoid, and you are much more rational in your choice. You don’t let your heart rule your head.’ Beth made a point of sitting down with her fiancé, Richard, before their wedding so she could explain to him her desires for the future. These included having children, and she categorically didn’t want a husband who would expect dinner on the table the moment he walked through the door at night. Four years on, the marital flame still burns brightly for Beth and Richard, who took the time and trouble to learn from mistakes made in their first marriages, bringing a wisdom and maturity to bear in a much happier second marriage. . . . . The failure of a marriage counts as one of life’s most traumatic experiences, so anyone willing to embark on it a second time doesn’t do so lightly. For many years, the received wisdom was that second marriages were a particularly delicate institution, doomed to fail by virtue of resentful step-children, bitter ex-spouses, arduous financial commitments to first families, and a host of other emotional and practical baggage. Today, however, many believe that marriage is better second time around: that learning from one’s previous mistakes, before embarking on a new relationship with wisdom and maturity, increases the chance of its success. . . . . Clinical psychologist Dr Michael Mantell believes second marriages can be more successful than first, since couples have typically matured, learned from any mistakes they made and taken stock of exactly what they are looking for second time around. ‘They understand their mistakes, typically they have spent longer getting to know their future second spouse, they are more open and willing to develop new routines and they are not blinded by love,’ he says. ‘Often they are older and wiser, and understand that falling in love doesn’t last — that choosing to love every day is what makes a relationship last.’ Of course, there are practical considerations which help, too. Early married life is often scarred by financial worries which lessen as people become established in their careers. Romantic notions are replaced by a more realistic and mature understanding of what keeps a relationship afloat, and finding love later in life avoids the pressures brought to bear by raising a young family. . .

Does a disastrous first marriage make your second more likely to succeed?

RELATED ARTICLE: The Art of Relationships WebMD, By Leslie Becker-Phelps, PhD, September 29, 2011
Intimate relationships can go from effortlessly simple (especially in the very beginning) to incredibly complicated in what seems like the blink of an eye. But, if people are honest with themselves, that blink of an eye is often more like an extended period of time when they hold their eyes shut, or avert their eyes, as problems develop. . .

Beware the Marriage Guru The Real Proposal magazine, By Donna Kassin — Editorial Director, October 2011 Issue
We have seen and heard some strange things in our time on the subject of marriage. But this piece stopped us dead in our tracks. So much so, in fact, that we can only hope whoever made the decision to share it with the world did so for the mere shock value. Indeed, rarely have we seen such unbridled degeneracy on display, masquerading as intellectual discourse — the kind that proves, yet again, that one can be educated beyond one's intelligence yet still fundamentally lacking in WISDOM. The two are not equivalent, which should make us very careful from whom we seek advice and "enlightenment"... and in whose hands we place a microphone. To be sure, this is not the first viewpoint — nor do we imagine it will be the last — to suggest that marriage belongs on the junk heap of human folly as an equal-opportunity oppressor, trapping men and women in a life of drudgery, emotional anesthesia, and a tug-of-war struggle to balance widely disparate needs. In fact, some precursors have even suggested that marriage is an insidious social construct, harnessed by capitalism to get us to have kids and work harder to support them. Seriously. But in 1969, when Governor Ronald Reagan of California signed "no fault” divorce into law — a decision he later admitted was one of the biggest mistakes of his political life — did anyone truly foresee the dire social consequences that would become manifest in the decades that followed, when virtually every state in the Union followed California's lead and enacted a no-fault divorce law of its own?. . . . . The Good Book tells us, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." In its truest manifestation, when authentic love is furthered by integrity, mutual respect, and genuine commitment, there is no reason why marriage should not yield a more satisfying life than is sometimes possible as a single adult. Moreover, we have great difficulty understanding how reasonable, rational, decent people tend to grasp this concept and demonstrate clear capacity to show real love once they have children and make conscious choices regarding the sacrifices that enable them to become exceptional parents — and grandparents — yet seemingly baulk at the prospect of making the same conscious decisions in marriage to sacrificially give of themselves to someone for whom they have proclaimed eternal love. Somehow, today’s professed social norm of seeking and finding a “soul mate” has ostensibly shifted the expectation and definition of "love" into ethereal feelings and nebulous notions that are all about “you,” your own gratification and needs, what drives you, your own accomplishments and desires. However, because unbridled selfishness and self-interest are becoming the predominant driving forces in most relationships today does not mean that we should lose sight of the truth or propagate the kind of depravity that sullies the marriage ideal. To be sure, the best solution is never to throw the baby out with the bath water. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Evolution of Divorce National Affairs, By W. Bradford Wilcox
In 1969, Governor Ronald Reagan of California made what he later admitted was one of the biggest mistakes of his political life. . . . [T]he psychological revolution of the late '60s and '70s, which was itself fueled by a post-war prosperity that allowed people to give greater attention to non-material concerns, played a key role in reconfiguring men and women's views of marriage and family life. Prior to the late 1960s, Americans were more likely to look at marriage and family through the prisms of duty, obligation, and sacrifice. A successful, happy home was one in which intimacy was an important good, but by no means the only one in view. A decent job, a well-maintained home, mutual spousal aid, child-rearing, and shared religious faith were seen almost universally as the goods that marriage and family life were intended to advance. But the psychological revolution's focus on individual fulfillment and personal growth changed all that. Increasingly, marriage was seen as a vehicle for a self-oriented ethic of romance, intimacy, and fulfillment. In this new psychological approach to married life, one's primary obligation was not to one's family but to one's self. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: What's wrong with sex before marriage? Why Choose Chastity? Catholic News Agency, By Davd MacDonald
If I go into a grocery store and want to choose a good apple I can pick it up and I can look at it. I would be pretty upset if the person in front of me starting taking bites out of apples and putting them back in order to see if they taste good. Having sex before marriage is taking a bite out of the apple before committing to it (buying it). Often it means leaving it for the next person. When I have sex with someone before marriage, it is quite likely I am having sex with someone else's future wife. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Oprah’s Marriage Guru Divorcing for the Third Time Deceiver.com, By Holly Won't, May 04, 2011
Sharyn Wolf, a marriage counselor and Oprah-anointed author of bargain-basement titles like This Old Spouse: A Do-It-Yourself Guide to Restoring, Renovating, and Rebuilding Your Relationship and How to Stay Lovers for Life: Discover a Marriage Counselor’s Tricks of the Trade, has announced that she’s divorcing her third husband. . . . . Er, maybe fourth time’s a charm? Look, everybody makes mistakes. But three divorces and a sexless marriage, and you consider yourself a relationship expert? I guess it’s really true that those who can’t do, teach. Between this chick and the frauds that are David Bach, Dr. Oz, and Dr. Phil, Oprah should maybe give up the guru ghost, no? None of these idiots know the answers — they’ve got too many problems. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Marriage Myth: Why do so many couples divorce? Maybe they just don't know how to be married. Washington Post magazine, By Ellen McCarthy, June 27, 2010
Courses such as the one taken by the Nolls mark a sea change in the way some marriage experts view an institution that remains the fundamental unit of our society but is so shaky that it crumbles about half the time. The marriage education movement has already spawned a cottage industry of trademarked seminars and self-help manuals. It has popped up, in varying forms, at community centers and churches across the nation. And it has successfully persuaded leaders of the federal government and the U.S. military to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars a year attempting to disseminate its teachings to the masses. At its core, it's a movement that would ask of every divorcee: What if the truth was that you didn't marry the wrong person? What if you just didn't know how to be married?. . .

What Married Couples Aren't Telling You About Marriage Huffington Post, By Lindsay Pyfer, October 03, 2011
Even as a little girl, I would have rolled my eyes at "reality" shows like Say Yes to the Dress and Four Weddings, which idealize marriage and create wildly unrealistic expectations. I never dreamed of my wedding day, never sketched my fantasy wedding gown or played with the bride doll my grandmother gave me. When my stepsister roped me into playing "future house," I couldn't draw (or even visualize) the floor plan of my dream home. Virtually everyone in my family had been divorced: grandparents, aunts and uncles. And, most memorably, my parents, when I was four and my sister was two. I'd seen divorce up close and had no illusions that getting married meant "happily ever after." Besides, there was no way I could get married. Whenever I mentioned my mom, my dad pressed his lips together and changed the subject. He never allowed my mom and stepmother to be in the same place at the same time. Still, I was looking for a man with long-term potential. When I got together with Greg my senior year of college, I was pretty sure I'd found him. Centered, friendly -- and utterly sure of himself -- he'd lived an exciting life as a pro freestyle skier, traveling from contest to contest. Greg was smart, cute and nice -- and never wanted to get married or have kids. Perfect. Fast forward nearly ten years, during which time I'd buoyed him through the deaths of his beloved mother and cousin. He'd taken splendid care of me after I was hit by a car. We'd shared an apartment where the pipes froze in the winter, and still managed to be happy. It was clear we were in it for the long haul. Still, everything wedding-related made me anxious. Marriage represented a major loss of control. So when Greg slipped the lovely solitaire, created with his grandmother's diamond, on my finger and asked me to marry him, I replied "I don't know" in a wavering voice. In spite of my ambivalence, I stepped sideways into marriage. . . . . .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.

What Married Couples Aren't Telling You About Marriage

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:. . .

'Til 2013 do us part? Mexico City mulls 2-year marriage

‘Til 2013 do us part? Mexico City mulls 2-year marriage Reuters, October 02, 2011
Mexico City lawmakers want to help newlyweds avoid the hassle of divorce by giving them an easy exit strategy: temporary marriage licenses. Leftists in the city’s assembly — who have already riled conservatives by legalizing gay marriage — proposed a reform to the civil code this week that would allow couples to decide on the length of their commitment, opting out of a lifetime. The minimum marriage contract would be for two years and could be renewed if the couple stays happy. The contracts would include provisions on how children and property would be handled if the couple splits. “The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends,” said Leonel Luna, the Mexico City assemblyman who co-authored the bill. “You wouldn’t have to go through the tortuous process of divorce,” said Luna, from the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution, which has the most seats in the 66-member chamber. Luna says the proposed law is gaining support and he expects a vote by the end of this year. Around half of Mexico City marriages end in divorce, usually in the first two years. The bustling capital, one of the world’s largest cities, is much more liberal than the rest of the country, where the divorce rate is significantly lower although on the rise. Abortion is legal in Mexico City, while the Supreme Court ruled this week to uphold state laws in Baja California that say life begins at conception. Leftist Mayor Marcelo Ebrard, who angered the Catholic Church when he made Mexico City the first Latin American city to legalize gay marriage in late 2009, announced this month he would soon step down to run for president. The church criticized the proposed change. “This reform is absurd. It contradicts the nature of marriage,” said Hugo Valdemar, spokesman for the Mexico City archdiocese. “It’s another one of these electoral theatrics the assembly tends to do that are irresponsible and immoral.” The Church holds considerable sway in the country with the world’s second largest Catholic population after Brazil. . .