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

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. Then, by the time they finally do look, it can be difficult to figure out what happened and what to do to fix things. Instead, couples would do well to look directly at their problems. Then they could assess, and find a way to overcome, those problems. The best way to approach this is together – because a two-person problem requires a two-person solution. And the more both people are invested in nurturing their relationship, the better chance that relationship has for a strong, intimate connection. The other part of keeping a relationship strong is thinking about what can make it happier – in addition to just fixing problems. Of course, this requires that couples know what a healthy relationship looks like. To that end, below are ten essential factors for a healthy relationship.
1. Genuinely liking and respecting each other
2. Doing things just to make each other happy
3. Enjoying and valuing time together; and actively working to make it happen
4. An ability to show – and accept – affection
5. A strong sense of commitment to the relationship; a willingness to stick with the relationship through momentary conflicts and periods of disinterest, or even dislike
6. Effective communication and problem-solving skills
7. A commitment to work through conflicts and disagreements in a respectful manner; along with an ability to forgive and accept forgiveness
8. Realistic and agreed upon expectations of each other; with a willingness to live up to those expectations
9. A shared philosophy of life—including values and priorities. This is very broad and very important. For instance, it includes shared attitudes about family and friends; and a shared philosophy on parenting (for those with children).
10. A satisfying sexual relationship

If your relationship is faltering – even just a little – or you would just like to improve it, think about each of these factors. Talk about them with your partner. Decide which areas could use improvement, and work on them. As you prepare to talk with your partner, consider these questions: To what degree does your relationship have each of the above factors? Where can you improve? And, what other factors do you think are important in your relationship?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Red Flags in a Relationship FOTF.com, By Glenn Lutjens
So, you're in a relationship. It's a pretty exciting time of life, huh? Perhaps you recently met someone who caught your interest, and you're hoping that with time you'll be able to discern if the relationship should move toward marriage. Or maybe you've been dating for quite some time now. You've identified the other person's strengths, but have also discovered some traits that leave you scratching your head. In either case, you have probably found that many forces push you forward in your relationship. Time can seem more like an enemy than an ally. You may fear that you're not getting any younger. Well-meaning friends and relatives might be inquiring about your love life, wondering when you plan on taking "the plunge." Your own sense of loneliness and that God-given desire for connection can nudge you further in a relationship until the steps toward the altar just seem to get easier and easier. Let's say you're already in love. Talk about an influence that changes behavior! Few factors have more horse power than romance. Even books on the subject of dating and marriage can convey a subtle expectation to keep moving forward: "Trust God," "differences are good," and "hey, nobody's perfect." All of that's true. The forces that compel you to move forward are not out to destroy you. But with so many of them urging you toward marriage, it's wise to pause and ask yourself some questions that might prevent heartache down the road. . .

Why So Many Of Us Marry The Wrong Person

Why So Many Of Us Marry The Wrong Person Huffington Post, By Jennifer Gauvin, September 21, 2011
Last month I wrote an article for HuffPost Divorce about my research that revealed 30% of divorced women knew they were marrying the wrong guy on their wedding day. This statistic triggered much consternation and denial. After wading through hundreds of comments bashing the institution of marriage, doubts about my methodology, and nasty remarks about women, men and relationships in general, it appears everyone missed the point. . . . We can rationalize anything. But when we talk ourselves into dating the wrong guy or girl -- that's where the potential for lifelong heartache begins. So after hearing one too many clients admit that had doubts about their relationship long before the wedding -- the therapist in me wondered what I could do to change that. (And yes, men do it too -- but I'll get to that later.)

I want to clarify that the doubts were not the garden-variety nerves that typically accompany any life-changing decision. They weren't just "cold feet" or "wedding day jitters." Rather, the women in my study talked about issues, concerns, doubts and other red flags that existed throughout the course of their relationship. Not just on their wedding day. The problem was that they had brushed their concerns aside. Instead of facing up to the red flags or exploring their gut feelings -- they squelched them and stayed in the relationship anyway.

My goal was to uncover the reasons why so many women make this mistake. If we understand why they stay in a relationship with the wrong guy, or go through with a doomed-from-the-start marriage, perhaps we can help them figure out what they are really searching for. Not to mention sidestep a miserable marriage and an eventual court date with the divorce attorney! Based on my research, here are the five most common reasons cited for marrying the wrong guy:

1. We've dated for so long I don't want to waste all the time we have invested in the relationship.
2. I don't want to be alone.
3. He'll change after we get married.
4. It is too late, too embarrassing and/or too expensive to call off the wedding
5. He is a really nice guy; I don't want to hurt his feelings. . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Shocking Truth for Thirty Percent of Divorced Women Huffington Post, By Jennifer Gauvain, August 06, 2011
My coauthor's story of her near-miss at the altar along with my clinical experience turned into a mission to find out why so many women walk down the aisle knowing they are making a mistake! We thought if we could help women recognize the excuses for dating--and ultimately marrying--the wrong guys, maybe we could help them find the courage to get out before it was too late. We developed a survey and sent it to divorced women, with one qualifier: "Did you know you were making a mistake as you were walking down the aisle?" We sent it to everyone we knew. Within days our inboxes were jammed. Eventually, close to 1000 women gave detailed accounts about why they knowingly dated and eventually married the wrong guys. Amid a chorus of critics who shout "hindsight bias" or "selective memory," I stand firm. If you take 10 divorced women and ask them whether they believed on their wedding day that they were marrying the right guy for the right reasons, seven of them would say yes and three will confess they had serious doubts long before walking down the aisle. That's the shocking truth for 30% of divorced women. These women have very clear, distinct memories of the doubts, issues and concerns that existed in the relationship all along. They can also tell you exactly what they were feeling before they walked down the aisle. . .

The Blessing Of Marital Sex, Part 2 Black and Married with Children, By Rev. Tacuma S. Johnson and Dr. Michelle T. Johnson, September 20, 2011
In many cultures, premarital sex is like a rite of passage into manhood. Boys are encouraged to develop their “game” so they can win over girls’ hearts and bodies. Men are supposed to have sex with women—several women. Safe sex should be practiced, but if you end up in a situation where you can’t practice safe sex, you can practice the timing method. At least that is what society tells us, and that is what I heard growing up. Similar to my wife, who stated in the previous article that she made some premarital mistakes, I too made mistakes. So, I’m writing from the perspective of having experienced the good and the bad. First, let’s talk about the good. For men, one of the blessings of sex inside of the covenant of marriage is the possibility of experiencing what I like to call “real release,” which is the expression of sexual energy, life purpose, and freedom within the will of God. Sexual desire for a lot of men feels like a physical attraction combined with the tension of a roaring river pressing against a levee that will not stop until the damn breaks. As boys grow into men and they begin to encounter this raging river within them, the culture says the proper outlet is premarital sex, which, as we know only offers a temporary and shallow physical release. In marriage, however, real release means that I can express sexual energy, life purpose, and freedom in ways that honor my wife, obey God, and satisfy me. I love the fact that, according to God, my wife’s body belongs to me, which means I can reach for her while she’s sleeping, peek at her while she’s undressing, and lovingly grope her while she’s cooking. I can even make requests, give suggestions, and change the game, knowing that what I am saying and doing is all right and alright with God, as long as we stay within our vows and respect each others’ feelings. . . . . .Engaging in premarital sex, and all of the games, wrong thinking, and manipulation that go along with it, twists up your mind and spirit. You associate sex with lies, mistrust, trickery, conquest, and selfishness. You cannot avoid it because that’s the way the game is played—by men and women. So when the time comes to experience real release in a real relationship with the woman God prepared for you, you can’t do it. That’s why even in the context of marriage, many couples experience a sex life based on manipulation, quid pro quo, and selfishness. We got that from doing it the wrong way first. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Let’s Talk About More Than Sin and Hell: Promoting the Blessing of Marital Sex Black and Married with Childrn, By Dr. Michelle T. Johnson, September 13, 2011
“Don’t do it.” That’s what I heard growing up. “Sex before marriage is a sin.” For some people, this type of admonishment is enough to make them wait until marriage. For others, it only pushes them into rebellion. For me, well, let’s just say I made some mistakes that I regretted after getting married. Once I became a wife, I realized how I sold myself short and settled for less than the best. Now that I am a pastor’s wife, I have the privilege of ministering to women of all ages, and one of the topics I cover is sex and proper relationships. But I take a slightly different approach from the lessons I received as a teenager. It’s not enough just to say “don’t do it” or “it’s a sin.” Negative motivation isn’t working. With the rise in STDs, teen pregnancies, high school drop outs, and sexual influences from the media, we must broaden our approaches to teaching about sex. I like to approach the topic from the perspective of blessing. We usually think about blessings in terms of God working things out in our finances, health, careers, or relationships. These are all wonderful blessings, for sure. However, there is another blessing that no one ever told me about in all of my years of church: the blessing of marital sex. Sex under covenant and in a loving, mutually-respectful, mutually-responsive marriage will blow your mind! One-night stands, boyfriend/girlfriend sex, and friends-with-benefits—none of those sexual encounters compare to the intimacy, pleasure, and freedom found in the marriage bed. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Desire, Lust, Chastity, and Love: A Deeper Understanding Culture of Life Foundation, By Willam E. May, Ph.D, Senior Research Fellow
Summary Conclusion
This remarkable essay is most helpful in deepening our understanding and appreciation of the role that chastity has to play in enabling human persons to come into possession of themselves as sexual beings with sexual desires and not to be possessed by them. . .

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. . . . . . Teach You More About Yourself Than Ever Before – It sounds antithetical to conventional logic. How in the world can you learn more about yourself by being with someone than you could by being alone? I’ll tell you how. When my husband would “do something” to make me mad, in my wiser moments I would go in prayer about it (we won’t talk about what I did in the more foolish moments). And in that prayer, God would never show me how to change my husband. He would instead show me where I needed to change. However uncomfortable that is, there is so much growth that comes from identifying where you fall short, because you then know exactly where you need to take action. Your spouse acts a lot like a mirror. . . . . Make You More Like God – Speaking of loving despite circumstances, who has more experience at that than the Almighty? As a person of faith, I believe every experience ordained by God is orchestrated to bring you closer to God, to become more like God in your living. Marriage, when approached correctly, does just this. Sometimes our spouses seem downright unlovable, but our charge is to love them anyway. Why? Because this is exactly what God does for us. When you get a chance, read the book of Hosea, a minor prophet who was instructed by God to marry a woman of ill-repute (in other words, she was a ho’, y’all). Her infidelity mirrored that of Israel. The LORD had been Israel’s only god up until then, but God still loved and would continue to love them. When my husband gets a little difficult to love, all I need to do is think about how often I make it hard for both him and God to love me, yet they still do it. Marriage is great at bringing you down from your high horse that way. After I wrote the previous piece, a couple of people referred me to the book Sacred Marriage by Gary Thomas. I had never heard of the book, but as soon as I read the tagline I was floored: “What if God designed marriage to make us holy instead of happy?” Without even cracking it open, I already knew I agreed with every word (and yes, I highly recommend getting the book). Your marriage is designed to teach you something so profound and perspective-altering, and surprisingly little of it has to do with what you feel. . .

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:. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: God's Design for Marriage: Find the key to making your marriage flourish — just as God designed Faith & Family Foundation, By Carol Heffernan
According to author Gary Thomas, we're not asking the right questions. What if your relationship isn't as much about you and your spouse as it is about you and God?. . . . . It's easy to think that only "other people" get divorced. That your own marriage is somehow immune to heartache, infidelity and fights over who gets the house, the car, the dog. After all, how many of us would walk down the aisle if we believed our relationships would end up in divorce court? Truth is, no relationship comes with a lifetime guarantee. Even men and women who grew up in stable homes, who attend church and consider themselves Christians, who promise "until death do us part," can have it all fall apart. As Christians, we know that applying biblical principles to marriage will give us a stronger foundation than those of our unbelieving friends and neighbors. We know this, but what are we doing about it? In other words, what makes a marriage "Christian"? According to author Gary Thomas, we're not asking the right questions. What if your relationship isn't as much about you and your spouse as it is about you and God? Instead of asking why we have struggles in the first place, the more important issue is how we deal with them. In Sacred Marriage, Thomas has not written your typical "how to have a happier relationship" book. Rather, he asks: How can we use the challenges, joys, struggles and celebrations of marriage to draw closer to God? What if God designed marriage to make us both happy and holy? . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Isn't Marriage the Way I Thought It Would Be? The fairytale wedding is over and the realities of married life are sinking in. Are you missing the "happily ever after"? FOTF
On their honeymoon, Ed and Renee spent hours gazing into each other's eyes — contemplating how they'd spend their next 50 years. They decided to write those plans down as a road map for the future. But before long, those plans hit several speed bumps. Ed lost his job. Renee was diagnosed with diabetes. Habits that seemed cute at first became annoying. When they had a son, Renee decided to stay home — which tightened the family purse strings. Ed worked more to compensate, further reducing their time together. When she voiced concern, it only seemed to irritate him. They still loved each other. But this wasn't how either of them had written the script on their honeymoon. You might find yourself wondering if your early dreams of marital bliss were more illusion than reality. Why isn't marriage turning out the way you planned? In premarital counseling, couples often explore their expectations of marriage. But what does that mean? Are expectations the way you think your marriage will look, or the way you want it to look? The two can be very different! People draw their marital expectations from two wells. One is courtship. If dating was wonderful and starry-eyed, why would you expect marriage to be otherwise? If spending 20 hours a week brings us such joy, you might think, more time together as husband and wife could only be better! But think back to your courtship. Wasn't it largely a mirage?. . . . . If your expectations about marriage have been unrealistic, it's time to challenge them. But if you do, and still have concerns, consider the possibility that the problem might not be your expectations. You might have a problem in your marriage. Harboring unrealistic expectations doesn't mean that everything else in a marriage is on track. Your qualms might be slightly off target, but they could be early warning signs about issues that will cause more trouble if you don't resolve them. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Isn't My Husband the Person I Thought He Was? FOTF.com - Relationships & Marriage, By Glenn Lutjens
When you were dating, he was attractive and neat. Now he doesn't even pick up after himself. What should you do? When she entered counseling with her husband, Erica had one purpose: getting Jim "fixed." Jim had fallen into patterns that might work for a single guy, but certainly wouldn't do for a married man. He sometimes worked four extra hours without calling to inform Erica, for instance. He'd changed so much, she thought. When they'd been dating, she'd figured Jim knew how to handle his finances; at least his car was never repossessed. Now they received monthly surprises from MasterCard, detailing Jim's "toy" purchases. Likewise, his apartment had always seemed neat when Erica visited during their courtship. But now his underwear rarely made it the two yards from the foot of their bed to the hamper. It's easy to understand why Erica hoped the counselor would take on the challenge of setting her husband straight. She wanted the "old" Jim back. You might be asking yourself these days, "What happened to the guy I used to know? Did he change, or was I just seeing him differently then?" The answer is probably, "Yes." That's because both reflect the truth. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Isn't My Wife the Person I Thought She Was? FOTF.com - Relationships & Marriage, By Phillip J. Swihart
Now that the wedding's over, your spouse seems different. Are you wondering what happened to the person you used to know? It's much more likely that you saw her through rose-colored glasses while you were dating, and now the glasses are off. And guess what? You're probably not the person she thought you were, either. Before the wedding, differences tend to seem intriguing, interesting, and attractive. A few months or years into the marriage, however, what seemed so inviting in the semi-fantasy world of dating now seems considerably less than idyllic. . .

Brad Pitt Is Finally 'Satisfied' Parade.com, September 15, 2011
Brad Pitt opens up about family and finding time for what's important in life in this Sunday’s PARADE with Dotson Rader. The 47-year-old star shares his thoughts on Angie, the kids, his private pain, and what he lives for now.

Be sure to check out this weekend's issue of PARADE magazine in your local newspaper for the full interview with Brad Pitt.

On being a "satisfied man"
“I put much more emphasis on being a satisfied man. I’m satisfied with making true choices and finding the woman I love, Angie, and building a family that I love so much. A family is a risky venture, because the greater the love, the greater the loss. … That’s the trade-off. But I’ll take it all.”

It wasn’t always that way
“I spent the ‘90s trying to hide out, trying to duck the full celebrity cacophony. I started to get sick of myself sitting on a couch, holding a joint, hiding out. It started feeling pathetic. It became very clear to me that I was intent on trying to find a movie about an interesting life, but I wasn’t living an interesting life myself. I think that my marriage [to actress Jennifer Aniston] had something to do with it. Trying to pretend the marriage was something that it wasn’t."

On Angelina

“One of the greatest, smartest things I ever did was give my kids Angie as their mom. She is such a great mom. Oh, man, I’m so happy to have her.”

On learning to be a parent
"I was surprised at how automatic it is, how much of it is instinctual. And now I have a great confidence and trust in those instincts. I mean, one sound at night and you’re awake and up because they may need you. Or when they start to have a tantrum, you know to divert them from spinning out by helping them focus on something. It just goes on and on. I tell them, “You can make a mess, but you’ve got to clean it up.”

On being subject to fabrications about his personal life
"I mean, how many stories have you read that aren’t true, stories about me and Angie being married or fighting or splitting up? And when we don’t split up, there’s a whole new round that we’ve made up and we’re back together again! We’ll get married when everyone can. We’re not splitting up. And we don’t have a seventh child yet.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Inside Brad Pitt's World Parade magazine, By Dotson Rader, September 18, 2011
Brad Pitt rushes in from his film set, apologizes for being late, and heads off to take a shower and change. It’s been another long day in a year crowded with them, what with the charitable work he’s done (often with his love of six years, Angelina Jolie), the parenting of their six children, and several movie projects, including May’s The Tree of Life and the film he’s shooting now, World War Z, a zombie thriller due next year. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Pitt wasn't leading 'interesting life' with Aniston TODAY, By Gael Fashingbauer Cooper, September 15, 2011
Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston were only married for five years, but their marriage still seems to find its way into headlines and tabloids. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Adultery LeadershipU, By Kerby Anderson
Even though most people consider adultery to be wrong and know that it can be devastating, our society still perpetuates a number of untruths about adultery through a popular mythology about extramarital affairs. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Unsinkable Jennifer Aniston Vanity Fair, By Leslie Bennetts, September 2005 Issue
The whole world watched as her “perfect” marriage fell apart. Only her closest friends knew what really happened. Now, in Jennifer Aniston’s first interview since she split from Brad Pitt, she spills her heart, and some tears, to Vanity Fair, sharing her shock and confusion over Pitt’s liaison with Angelina Jolie, her desire for a family, and her deep, conflicting emotions (anger, hurt, exasperation, tenderness) toward the man she still loves. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Aniston says Pitt missing ‘sensitivity chip’. Ex-‘Friends’ star hurt, embarrassed by husband's magazine shoot with Jolie TODAY- AP, August 02, 2005
In her first interview since splitting with Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston says she was “shocked” by the breakup and is trying to “pick up the pieces in the midst of this media circus.” Aniston broke down twice during the interview for the September issue of Vanity Fair, on newsstands nationally Aug. 9. Mostly, though, the actress comes across as resilient. “Am I lonely? Yes. Am I upset? Yes. Am I confused? Yes. Do I have my days when I’ve thrown a little pity party for myself? Absolutely. But I’m also doing really well.” Holed up in her Malibu, Calif., bungalow, the 36-year-old actress says the media coverage and tabloid rumors have been hard to deal with — especially reports that she didn’t want to start a family. “A man divorcing would never be accused of choosing career over children,” she says. “I’ve never in my life said I didn’t want children. I did and I do and I will!” Aniston filed for divorce in March, citing irreconcilable differences after 4 1/2 years of marriage. The couple separated in January. Aniston says she was aware of Pitt’s attraction to Angelina Jolie, his “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” co-star, but doesn’t blame their split on her. . .

Behind Turner’s Win: Jewish Voters Opposed to Gay Marriage Wall Street Journal Blog, By Alison Fox, Pervaiz Shallwani and Aaron Rutkoff, September 15, 2011
Many Jewish voters turned out to support Bob Turner in Tuesday’s election, bucking the historical pattern in their Democratic-leaning neighborhoods and helping seal an upset victory for the Republican congressional candidate. Voters interviewed Wednesday pointed to their opposition to same-sex marriage and Turner’s pro-Israel politics as factors that swayed them to pick a Republican. It was the first time in nearly a century that the GOP has won the Ninth Congressional District, which includes parts of Brooklyn and Queens. Chaim Klein, a 26-year-old bookkeeper in Brooklyn’s Midwood neighborhood, said the election came down to issues, not party politics. State Assemblyman David Weprin, the defeated Democratic candidate, voted in favor of gay marriage earlier this year, “so people went out against him,” said Klein, a self-described Democratic voter in the past. “Now because of this people voted Republican.” Tzirel Zlotnick, a teacher and self-described Orthodox Jew and Republican voter in Kew Gardens, Queens, said she didn’t think much of former Rep. Anthony Weiner, the Democratic lawmaker who resigned from the seat following a scandal over sexually charged online messages. But she would have voted for Weprin, who also identifies as an Orthodox Jew, if not for same-sex marriage. “How can he call himself an Orthodox Jew and vote for gay marriage?” Zlotnick said. “If not for that, I probably would have voted for him.” Bella, a principal at a Jewish school for girls in Midwood who declined to give her last name, echoed the decisive nature of Weprin’s same-sex marriage vote. “We felt as a community this is where we wanted to take a stand,” she said. Not all voters in the district switched party affiliations in Tuesday’s special election. Richard Bollmann, a resident of Brooklyn’s Marine Park section, said he remained loyal to his party and voted for Weprin. But he is not surprised by Turner’s victory. . . . . . Political observers have made much of the Republican victory as an indicator of President Barack Obama’s sagging popularity, particularly in a district that is normally a Democratic stronghold. Several voters interviewed Wednesday agreed that their vote was meant to deliver a message to the president and his party. . .

RELATED BLOG: VICTORY! Bob Turner - And Marriage - Win In New York! NOM Blog, September 14, 2011
Dear Marriage Supporter: I had the privilege of being at Bob Turner's victory party last night in Howard Beach, and speaking briefly with the Congressman-elect after his dramatic victory over pro-SSM David Weprin. For those following on Twitter, early in the evening I made what I thought at the time was a bold prediction that Turner would win by 5 points – only to see his margin grow as returns from Brooklyn came in, setting his eventual 8-point victory. What a tremendous day for marriage! New York's 9th Congressional District, which Obama won, Clinton won, and which has had a Democrat in Congress since 1923, showed Tuesday that marriage is important. David Weprin was not able to defend himself against his vote to support same-sex marriage in New York, and his constituents made that clear. 42 percent of them oppose same-sex marriage. 29 percent said marriage was a significant issue in this race. And Tuesday a strong majority showed Weprin that they have had enough. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay marriage is not inevitable Baptist Press, By Maggie Gallagher, May 24, 2011
When it comes to the battle for marriage, the question on many people's mind is: Can we win? The future is unknown. But let me tell you the present: This spring, we fought and won the battle against gay marriage in two of the deepest-blue states in the nation, Rhode Island and Maryland. I believe we are about to win, again, in New York. In each case we were told it was a done deal; gay marriage would be impossible to stop. It wasn't. We are told repeatedly that these victories will be impossible to win. We keep winning them anyway. Intellectuals and writers who want to predict that this struggle is unwinnable ought to ask themselves: Why am I writing this? Do you really want us to stop winning victories because you believe that in the future they will become impossible? What's the point of that prediction except to sap the will to stand? Gay marriage advocates have stopped trying to persuade their fellow citizens that gay marriage is good and have started trying to persuade them to give up. Why is the "argument from despair" so prominent? Because victory in any war happens not when one side is annihilated but when one side gives up the will to fight. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Traditional marriage is not bigotry: It's outlandish to call same-sex marriage a 'civil right.' Star-Tribune, By Jeff Davis, May 09, 2011
Given the Star Tribune's longstanding editorial position supporting same-sex marriage, it's not surprising that the paper also opposes allowing the people of Minnesota to vote on the marriage amendment. However, its editorial was disappointing ("Don't put bigotry up for a vote," May 6), largely a regurgitation of tired talking points from activists who favor homosexual marriage. The issue before the Minnesota Legislature is not whether same-sex marriage should be allowed in Minnesota. It is whether the people of Minnesota should have the right to vote on the issue, just as voters in 31 other states have already done. The paper is out on a ledge with its "no vote of the people" position. Seventy-four percent of Minnesotans believe voters, not the courts or the Legislature, should decide this issue. Even some homosexual-marriage activists apparently believe that voters should be able to decide, since same-sex marriage groups in both California and Oregon are both actively exploring taking their position to the voters. The editorial rails against enshrining "bigotry" in the state Constitution. Interestingly, the paper appears to concede that the amendment will pass, as this is the only way it could be "enshrined" in the Constitution. On that point we can agree. But there's nothing bigoted about preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Marriage is a unique institution that brings men and women together. Only the sexual union of men and women can produce children. Whatever one thinks about homosexual relationships, none of them can produce children. It is in the state's interest to channel the unique sexual energy of men and women into marriage so that any children produced by those sexual relationships have the best opportunity to be raised by a married mother and father. African-Americans might have some ideas about bigotry. Seventy percent of African-Americans supported traditional marriage in California, according to exit surveys. So did 56 percent of Latinos. Prominent civil-rights leaders like Walter Fauntroy and Alveda King do as well. In fact, Bishop Bob Battle, a veteran of the civil-rights movement, recently testified at a hearing on the Minnesota marriage amendment bill that "gay marriage advocates have attempted to hijack the civil-rights movement and make same-sex marriage into a civil right. I know what civil rights are, and this is not one of them." The editorial blithely claims that homosexual marriage will have no impact on anyone in Minnesota outside of the same-sex couples involved. Yet legal experts on both sides of the divide agree that the issue has profound impacts on society. . .

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

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

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

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. . .

Ask Joy: Wise Counsel Woes Love and Respect.com, September 13, 2011
Q: I’ve been in a relationship with my best friend for over three years. Having others speak into our relationship is really important to me—but there’s just one problem: My sources of wise counsel disagree with each other! Half say I could do better, and the other half say that the uneasiness and uncertainty I’m feeling are because I have unrealistic expectations for relationships and men (which, I admit, I do have). How do I know which source of wise counsel is really the wise one?

A: This is such a great question! I feel like 90% of my responses tell people to seek wise counsel, so what DO we do when our counsel disagrees? Make each member of your wise counsel hold an egg on a spoon. Whoever can run down to the mailbox and make it back to you first is the person whose advice you should listen to. Or… Ask yourself what you consider to be “wise counsel.”
1. Do they ask you sincere questions about your relationship? Even the hard ones?
2. Do they give advice based on knowing you (as opposed to “This is what I did, so…”)?
3. Are they invested in you and your relationship?
4. Are they wise by biblical standards (not perfect, but actively learning and growing in their faith; see Proverbs 1)?
5. Do they pray for you?
I had created a list of introspective questions I thought could be helpful, but my father added these questions, and I thought they were much better. So, some thoughts from my Pops…
1. Have you written out your “unrealistic expectations” and looked at them closely?
2. Can any man fulfill your “unrealistic expectations”?
3. If you found a man who did meet these expectations, ask yourself why he would be interested in someone like you.
In other words, if you are expecting so much of a man, is it to the degree that he would have to lower his expectations to end up with someone like you? Harsh I know, but it’s good to think through the statements and expectations we make. Having asked yourself these things, if your expectations are realistic and your guy is not investing in the relationship and his own personal growth like you are, then do not mislead yourself in concluding you have unrealistic expectations. . .

Got unrealistic expectations of a mate/potential spouse?

RELATED RESOURCE: The Crazy Cycle: Dr. Emerson Eggerichs describes the crazy cycle and how it affects marriages FOTF.com, By Rev. Emerson Eggerichs, Ph.D.
Craziness is when we keep doing the same thing — again and again — with the same ill effect. Marital craziness is when we do the same thing — over and over — with the same negative results. I call it the Crazy Cycle. When hurt and frustrated, we continue reacting in negative ways to motivate our spouse to be positive. Can you believe it? That's like flipping broken light switches for 30 minutes. All who are married go through this cycle. The topics change, and the intensity varies, but the crazy cycle continues. One day the argument may be about a diet book, the next day the argument may be about child-rearing methods. Next month, it's about a marriage book and then about the lack of money. This happens among good willed people. Sadly, some think they have a horrible marriage because of this craziness. Truth is, they are inches away from making an adjustment that can set them in a whole new and positive course. Stopping the Crazy Cycle: The key is to see underneath this "craziness," to the heart of a spouse. Based on Ephesians 5:33, I discovered why a husband and wife react the way they do. We read, "each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband" (NIV). . .

RELATED RESOURCE: Love and Respect.com
We believe love best motivates a woman and respect most powerfully motivates a man. Research reveals that during marital conflict a husband most often reacts when feeling disrespected and a wife reacts when feeling unloved. We asked 7,000 people this question: when you are in a conflict with your spouse or significant other, do you feel unloved or disrespected? 83% of the men said "disrespected." 72% of the women said, "unloved." Though we all need love and respect equally, the felt need differs during conflict, and this difference is as different as pink is from blue! Read More:...

Fathers, Loving Your Daughter Doesn¿t Make You a Pedophile

Loving Your Daughter Doesn’t Make You a Pedophile
Hugo Schwyzer wants fathers to stand up and show their daughters that they’re not afraid of our unhealthy culture of suspicion. Good Men Project, By Hugo Schwyzer, September 12, 2011
For Father’s Day, I wrote an essay called “Hug Your Daughters,” in which I implored dads to be courageous (and, of course, appropriate) in showing physical affection to their teen girls. So many fathers are bewildered and frightened by the physical and emotional changes their daughters go through in adolescence. Unsure how to engage, many dads simply withdraw. As psychotherapist Kerry Cohen points out in Dirty Little Secrets, her important new study of teen girls and promiscuity, there is no direct correlation between a father’s level of affection and his daughter’s sexual choices. The old warning to Dads that if they aren’t there for their daughters, another guy will be simply isn’t supported by the evidence. But plenty of studies do show that fathers—and close father figures, like stepdads, uncles, even teachers and coaches—play an essential role in young women’s healthy emotional development. When I wrote the original piece, I heard from many male readers complaining that they’d love to be more affectionate with their own daughters, but that the climate of suspicion in which we all live makes it impossible. A reader named “Lance” wrote in an email: “Hug my daughter? Are you kidding me? If my ex saw that, she’d have me arrested for molestation. Smart men don’t touch girls under 18, including their own daughters. Ever. It’s the only way to be safe.” Though Lance’s reaction was extreme, similar comments appeared below the original piece. It’s difficult to distinguish what’s legitimate fear of being labeled a “predator” and what’s just misogynistic hyperbole. Men’s Rights Activists like to paint a vivid picture of a feminist-influenced legal system run amok, one in which sweet and innocent fathers get clapped into handcuffs for hugging their own children. The data doesn’t support their colorful claims. But at the same time, there’s no question that we live in a culture in which fathers—and father figures, who are often so vitally important in the lives of young women who grow up without biological dads—are viewed with suspicion when it comes to their interest in teen girls. Some of that suspicion is justified by the sad reality that a great many men do molest young children, particularly girls. But because of the reality that so many men are indeed sexually predatory, the shadow of mistrust falls on all of us. Our daughters and daughter figures can’t be allowed to become collateral damage in the fight against the universal taint of suspicion that rests on virtually all adult men. We have to be more courageous than the culture just as we must be safer than the suspicious suspect we are capable of being. Young women and men—but perhaps particularly young women—need adult males in their lives who will love them both fearlessly and non-sexually. A climate of unreasonable suspicion will only end when men have the guts to live out stories that counter the dominant narrative that says we’re untrustworthy, dangerous, creepy. This doesn’t mean foisting unwanted attention or affection on young people. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Hug Your Daughters Good Men Project, By Hugo Schwyzer, June 14, 2011
As daughters age and develop, Hugo Schwyzer argues, it’s important for men to overcome their discomfort and continue to show affection. . . . . “I was always daddy’s little girl. We did everything together. He was my hero. My father was always there with a hug for me; when I was little, he let me climb all over him like he was a jungle gym. And then my body changed. I developed early; I had boobs by 11. And all of a sudden, my Dad stopped hugging me or touching me. He went overnight from being my best friend to being remote and critical.” I read that in a student’s journal earlier this semester (quoted with permission). I’ve read and heard similar things countless times over the course of nearly 20 years teaching gender studies and doing youth ministry. Ask any family therapist who works with teen girls, and they’ll report the same thing I’ve heard: story after story of fathers withdrawing physical affection as soon as their daughters hit puberty. Most fathers won’t explain what’s changed. Many of my students report their fathers simply said, “It’s not appropriate anymore” when they were asked why they’d stopped giving or accepting hugs. More commonly, the daughter doesn’t ask why her dad isn’t embracing her any longer, as she’s too embarrassed or confused. Often, she’s scared about what the real reason might be. Dads offer their own reasons. Scott, who has two daughters aged 15 and 12, tells me he has this overwhelming fear he might get an erection if he held one of his girls for too long. “I have no sexual desire for my daughters,” he says, “but I’m so scared it might be inadvertent, just a physical response. And if one of my girls noticed, wouldn’t that be more damaging than just not hugging in the first place?” Other fathers worry less about what their own reaction might be and more what others might think. “Maybe it’s paranoid,” remarks Todd, the father of a 14 year-old girl, “but I feel like every man who touches a girl is seen as a predator. Even dads. So I wonder what people might think if they see me being too affectionate with my daughter.”. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Fathers' Presence Linked to Enhanced Intellect, Well-Being Among Children Science Daily, August 31, 2011
Fathers who actively engage in raising their children can help make their offspring smarter and better behaved, according to new research from Concordia University. . . . Published in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, the long-term study examined how fathers can positively influence the development of their kids through hands-on parenting. "Fathers make important contributions in the development of their children's behaviour and intelligence," says Erin Pougnet, a PhD candidate in the Concordia University Department of Psychology and a member of the Centre for Research in Human Development (CRDH). "Compared with other children with absentee dads, kids whose fathers were active parents in early and middle childhood had fewer behaviour problems and higher intellectual abilities as they grew older -- even among socio-economically at-risk families." A patriarch's influence: "Regardless of whether fathers lived with their children, their ability to set appropriate limits and structure their children's behaviour positively influenced problem-solving and decreased emotional problems, such as sadness, social withdrawal and anxiety," continues Pougnet. A total of 138 children and their parents took part in the study and were assessed by researchers in three separate sessions. . .

Snuffing out children’s innocence
ACLU agenda aims to taint children The Washington Times, By Robert Knight, September 09, 2011
If you were the devil, what would be your most important mission, other than inventing false religions? It would be to corrupt innocent children. I’d start by kicking God out of the public schools and excising from textbooks the truth about America’s deeply Christian heritage. I’d get rid of glaringly obvious ties between Christianity and the Founders’ vision of unalienable rights and limited government. Children would be indoctrinated to think of themselves as cosmic accidents of random mutation and survival of the fittest, not precious beings with eternal souls created in the image of God. The result would be an effectively atheistic system of moral relativism. Next, I’d cloak sexual promiscuity in terms of self-fulfillment, mix it up with junk science and lobby the teachers unions to openly promote the Kinsey sex education model of children as “sexual beings” whose “orientation” has no moral relevance. Finally, I’d expose the kids to outright propaganda through clever websites designed to promote deviance and to brand anyone with any qualms, such as parents, as hate-filled bigots and bullies. If any school districts resisted, I’d slap them with legal threats. And that’s where the devil’s law firm comes in. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is running around the country, shaking its fists at school districts and demanding that kids be exposed to whatever the homosexual movement deems appropriate. In Prince William County, Va., after an ACLU threat, school officials removed the filter blocking homosexual websites. The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, has sent letters to eight school districts, including Prince William, advising them that they have every right to keep the filters. But Prince William has caved, at least for now. . . . .In a tight economy, the ACLU is counting on companies doing almost anything to avoid controversy. And it is hoping that strapped school districts will quickly surrender rather than spend money on lawyers’ fees. Its claim: “This viewpoint discrimination violates students’ First Amendment rights to free speech and the Equal Access Act. Simply put: It’s illegal.” No, it’s not. . . .

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.". .

RELATED ARTICLE (PDF): The Non-Factsheet NARTH.com, By Dale O'Leary, Dean Byrd, Ph.D., Richard Fitzgibbons, M.D.
The APA and the other 12 organizations that comprise the Just the Facts Coalition recently published a new edition of Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel. The Coalition has mailed copies of the factsheet to all 16,000 public school superintendents in the United States. It is important that parents understand the threat this document poses and are able to respond to the so-call “facts.” The factsheet claims to present accurate scientific information, which will help schools protect at-risk students, and prevent violations of the separation of Church and state. The factsheet fails to accomplish any of these objectives.
1) It is not a factsheet, but a political statement.
2) It puts youth at risk – particularly adolescent males experiencing SSA.
3) It violates separation of church and state.
What are the facts?. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Will Increase Prevalence of Homosexuality: Research Provides Significant Evidence By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.
An accumulation of research from around the world finds that societies which endorse homosexual behavior increase the prevalence of homosexuality in those societies. The legalization of same-sex marriage--which is being considered by voters in several U.S. states--is the ultimate in societal endorsement and will result in more individuals living a homosexual lifestyle. Extensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior. A closer look at the research:. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together NARTH.com, By Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.
. . . For all these reasons, when as an adult he looked back on his childhood, the now-homosexual man recalls, "From the beginning I was always different. I never got along well with the boys my age and felt more comfortable around girls." This accurate memory makes his later homosexuality feel convincingly to him as though it was "preprogrammed" from the start. . .

RELATED ARTICLE (PDF): Female Homosexual Development NARTH.com
It is often claimed that sexual orientation is an innate and normal variation of sexuality and therefore immutable or unchangeable aspect of a person's core self or identity. But there is no conclusive evidence that female homosexuality is innate or solely genetic or biologically based. Most respected scientists agree that homosexuality is due to a combination of social, psychological, and biological factors. . .

Why cohabitation is worse than divorce for kids The Washington Post - Conversations, With W. Bradford Wilcox, September 09, 2011
A new report says cohabitation has replaced divorce as the biggest source of instability for American families. Brad Wilcox, the report's author, chatted about why this is.

Q.: Brad, maybe you could start by telling us a little about the report. Has cohabitation always shown up as a major issue for American families?
A.: Brad Wilcox : No, cohabitation did not begin to play a central role in the American family experience until the 1970s, when it became an increasingly popular alternative or prelude to marriage. And since the early 1990s, it has become an increasingly popular venue for bearing and rearing children. In fact, today more than 2.5 million kids are living in cohabiting homes--up more than 12-fold from the 1970s. And more than 40% of kids will spend some time in a cohabiting household, either with their own biological parents or with one parent and an unrelated adult. In fact, because of the growing popularity of cohabitation, our new report finds that children are more likely to experience cohabitation than a parental divorce. . . . .I should also note that our recent report, Why Marriage Matters: 30 Conclusions from the Social Sciences, also has some good news. When it comes to divorce, divorce rates for married families with children have returned almost to their pre-divorce revolution levels. This means that children born now to married parents have better odds of growing up with both parents, compared to children born in the 1970s, at the height of the divorce revolution. So it's important for us to realize that there is some good news on the family front.

Q.: Can you talk a little about the reasons behind the shift toward cohabitation, rather than marriage?
A.: Brad Wilcox : There are at least four factors driving the shift to cohabitation and they run as follows:
1) In our increasingly individualistic society, people prize the freedom and flexibility that cohabitation affords them.
2) Cohabitation and childbearing are especially common among Americans without college degrees. One reason they are not getting married is that the job opportunities for less-educated Americans, especially working-class and poor men, aren't what they used to be. So it's harder for Americans without college degrees to get and stay married.
3) Over the last 40 years, religious attendance has come down. The growing secularization of American life means that people are less likely to feel stigmatized for cohabiting.
4) Finally, my own research indicates that the children of divorce are more likely to cohabit. They are often gun-shy about marriage and see cohabitation as an opportunity to learn about their partner, or avoid the heavy duty commitment they associate with marriage. . .

RELATED RESOURCE: Why Marriage Matters: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences (3rd Edition)
Co-sponsored by the Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for American Values and the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, this new report by a group of 18 family scholars summarizes new findings from the social sciences on divorce, cohabitation, and marriage in the U.S. According to W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project and the lead author of the report, "In a striking turn of events, the divorce rate for married couples with children has returned almost to the levels we saw before the divorce revolution kicked in during the 1970s. Nevertheless, family instability is on the rise for American children as a whole. This is mainly because more couples are having children in cohabiting unions, which are very unstable. This report also indicates that children in cohabiting households are more likely to suffer from a range of emotional and social problems—drug use, depression, and dropping out of high school—compared to children in intact, married families. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Living Together a Risky Proposition? Healthy Relationships California, September 19, 2011
Living together is a popular stepping stone for today’s couples. Just 50 years ago, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, only 439,000 unmarried couples were living together. In 2010, that number has skyrocketed to 7.5 million cohabiting couples. The reasons couples live together range from convenience (“we spend all our time together anyway”), to financial (“why waste money on two apartments”), to pragmatic (“we were both looking for a roommate”). But, does it help couples take a step in the direction toward a healthier, safer and more permanent relationship? And if kids are involved, what kind of impact does a cohabiting relationship have on them? Research shows cohabitating couples are twice as likely to split as married couples. And now, 18 scholars, including W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project and Dr. John Gottman of the Gottman Institute, are warning cohabiting couples of the negative impact kids face in these living arrangements. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Holy smoke: check out the disparity in abortion rate between cohabiting and married couples Lifesite News, By John Jalsevac, September 07, 2011
Pro-life activists have long pointed out that in order to end the great human rights tragedy of abortion, it isn’t enough simply to fight abortion in the courts or the legislatures: it’s necessary to build a “culture of life” where abortion is unthinkable, and where the social structures actively encourage protecting life. In many respects the central fight in this battle is the fight over the family and marriage. Studies have consistently shown that stable families built upon life-long, committed marriages between a man and a woman are by far the best for protecting life - and it isn’t hard to see why: a woman is more likely to go through with a pregnancy when she knows she’ll have a husband around to help her care for and raise the child, and a man is less likely to pressure the mother of his child to abort (even when the pregnancy is unintended) when he has committed to spending his life with her. In the case of less stable relationships, however, when an unintended pregnancy occurs, the man and the woman are more likely to want to “get rid of the problem,” “just in case” the relationship breaks down in the future. Now comes a recent study reaffirming this fact in a powerful way. . .

Supporters of traditional marriage may win right to defend Prop. 8 in court, as several California Supreme Court justices appear skeptical that only elected officials could defend measures passed by voters.

Gay marriage foes may win right to defend Prop. 8 in court
Several California Supreme Court justices appear skeptical that only elected officials could defend measures passed by voters. This could give opponents of same-sex marriage a chance to test the case before the U.S. Supreme Court Los Angeles Times, By Maura Dolan, September 07, 2011
The California Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to rule that the backers of Proposition 8 and other ballot measures have the right to defend them in court, a stance that would give opponents of same-sex marriage the chance to champion the initiative all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. During an hour of oral arguments, several justices appeared skeptical that only elected state officials may defend measures passed by voters, as gay-rights lawyers claimed. If that were the case, same-sex marriages would resume in California because Gov. Jerry Brown and Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris have refused to appeal last year's federal ruling against Proposition 8. Justice Ming W. Chin observed that the power of the people to enact laws would be curtailed if initiatives could be blocked in court every time officials refused to defend them. "So the attorney general and the governor get to pick the laws they want to enforce?" asked Chin, a conservative on the court. Justice Joyce L. Kennard, one of the court's more liberal members, appeared to agree. Denying initiative sponsors the right to appeal, she said, would be "nullifying the great power that the people have reserved for themselves" and "would not promote principles of fundamental fairness." "What we are going to hold is not limited to gay issues," Kennard said. "Our holding will apply to any other circumstance when proponents of initiatives are asserting standing" — the legal term for the right to bring a case in court. The seven-member court will decide within 90 days whether ProtectMarriage, the sponsors of Proposition 8, have the right to represent the state in litigation. That ruling will clear the way for the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether ProtectMarriage had standing to appeal U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker's ruling against the 2008 ballot measure. During a hearing in December, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit appeared inclined to rule Proposition 8 unconstitutional if standing could be resolved. The 9th Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to clarify state law on that point. During Tuesday's hearing, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye suggested that there would be no one to "safeguard the precious power" of citizen initiatives if their sponsors were not allowed to defend them. "Doesn't that make the initiative process illusory?" she asked. . .

VIDEO ON DEMAND: California Supreme Court: Proposition 8 Oral Arguments on Same Sex Marriage The California Channel, September 07, 2011

RELATED ARTICLE: Same-sex marriage: Can Prop. 8 sponsor appeal ruling ban is unconstitutional? In a hearing Tuesday, California Supreme Court justices grilled attorneys for both sides in the Prop. 8 case. Their ruling on legal 'standing' may affect more than the ban on same-sex marriage. Christian Science Monitor, By Daniel B. Wood, Staff writer / September 6, 2011
The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on whether or not the sponsors of Proposition 8 – a ban on same-sex marriage that was passed by voters in 2008 before being struck down as unconstitutional a year ago in federal court – have the legal “standing” to appeal the ruling. . . . Several legal analysts say the issue needs clarification because it comes up all the time. Courtney Joslin, acting professor of law at UC Davis, says the US Supreme Court has never directly decided whether the official proponents of an initiative necessarily have standing to defend a measure if no public official is willing to do so. Chris Dusseault, a law partner at the firm of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher who attended the hearing, says he was impressed with how well prepared the California justices were, including Goodwin Liu, who was appointed just last week by Gov. Jerry Brown. . . . . “The justices were clearly disturbed by the idea that the governor and/or attorney general can exercise a pocket veto over a constitutional amendment enacted by the people,” says Tom Watson, co-founder of Love, Honor, Cherish, one of 40 groups that supports repealing Prop. 8. But legal analysts warn of trying to predict anything tangible from oral arguments. “Oral argument can be very misleading if you are expecting the justices to tip their hands as to what they are thinking by the questions they ask,” says Vik Amar, professor of law at University of California, Davis. . .

RELATED BLOG: Thank You for Supporting Prop 8! NOM Blog, September 07, 2011
Dear Marriage Supporter, WOW, what a great day! That's the best way to summarize my reaction to yesterday's California Supreme Court hearing on Prop 8. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, president of the Ruth Institute—a project of the NOM Education Fund, was on site for the hearing and gave us this report:
I don't think the hearing could have gone better for supporters of Prop 8. None of the justices appeared to buy into Ted Olsen's argument that an initiative's proponents cannot intervene to defend said initiative, effectively arguing that it must go undefended if the governor or state's attorney general refuses to do so. If they did accept Olsen's thesis then the law would confer on the governor and attorney general a right to nullify an initiative, a right never contemplated by the California Constitution.
As Andy Pugno, General Counsel of the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund, said, the hearing "was nothing less than fantastic!". . .

Jada Pinkett Smith and Marc Anthony: What Really Happened US magazine, September 01, 2011
Much ado about...well, not nothing, exactly. Last week, Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith shot down a tabloid report that they were ending their 14-year marriage -- and that Pinkett Smith had an affair with Marc Anthony, her love interest on TV's HawthoRNe. But although Pinkett Smith 39, and Anthony, 42, never had a full-blown romantic affair, one source tells Us the twosome had an "inappropriately close" friendship. "They were a little touchy and like they were in their own little world," a set source explains, adding that the twosome often hung out alone in his trailer, and talked and texted frequently. And when Anthony's own seven-year marriage to Jennifer Lopez began to fall apart, he leaned on his work pal. "The more distant Marc and Jennifer became, the closer he got to Jada," a family insider says, adding that Pinkett Smith may have "overstepped her bounds" in lending Anthony marital advice. "Jennifer didn't like that.". . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Jada Pinkett Smith's Hawthorne Canceled—Was Marc Anthony to Blame? E! Online, September 02, 2011
Jada Pinkett-Smith just can't seem to catch a break. Amid rumors of marriage troubles with Will Smith and tales of the Hawthorne star hooking up behind-the-scenes with costar Marc Anthony, her show has been given the ax. "TNT has decided not to order a fourth season of Hawthorne," TNT confirmed to E! News in a statement. "TNT truly appreciates the tremendous dedication of everyone involved in Hawthorne. The series gave TNT the opportunity to work with many outstanding people, including Jada Pinkett Smith and the rest of the show's talented cast, crew, producers and writers. We wish everyone involved with Hawthorne nothing but the best." The hospital drama starred Pinkett Smith as a nurse at a Virgina hospital—hence the "RN" capitalization in the show's official title. . . . .News of Hawthorne's cancellation comes on the heels of speculation (we're looking at you, Life & Style) that Anthony's separation from Jennifer Lopez had something to do with an affair with Jada, and that that relationship was also stirring up trouble in Pinkett Smith's marriage. Anthony recently shut down that story when he appeared on Nightline, however, calling the rumors "laughable." "We were laughing, like ‘Wow'," Anthony said in the interview with ABC News' John Quinones. "We've been friends for years. Jada, Jennifer, me, him, for years…". . .

Jada Pinkett Smith and Marc Anthony: What Really Happened?

RELATED ARTICLE: InTouch Weekly on Jada Pinkett Smith-Will Smith-Marc Anthony love triangle Salt Lake Tribune, By David Burger, September 08, 2011
Gossip columnist Diana Falzone from Paltalk sat down with InTouch Weekly’s senior editor, Dorothy Cascerceri to discuss the latest celebrity gossip including the Jada Pinkett Smith-Will Smith-Marc Anthony love triangle. I am sucker for gossip about singers. OK, I am a sucker about gossip in general. Below are some highlights of the chat:
· On what exactly happened between Will and Jada: “There is a crazy love triangle happening in Hollywood…Will Smith & Jada Pinkett Smith have been having major issues in their marriage…Jada Pinkett Smith is co-starring with Marc Anthony on the TNT show Hawthorne…Will in early August decided he was going to head over to the couple’s Hidden Hills home and make a surprise visit to Jada. He made sure to tell the driver, ‘Do not tell Jada I’m coming’…when Will emerged from the home he was crying, he was visibly shaken, and he said, ‘Marc is in the house with Jada.’
· On the relationship between Jada Pinkett Smith and Marc Anthony: “ Will has been having these sneaking suspicions for some time that Jada and Mark have been lovey-dovey…their characters have the steamiest sex scenes, I mean steamy enough to melt the camera lens.”
· On the Public Relations for clean up for Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith’s relationship: “[Jada and Will] either are the best PR people out there or they have the best PR people working for them…the day after our story broke they were out together in Malibu, kissing, holding hands, walking in slow motion…a source says the entire outing was just a publicity stunt.”
· On PR cleanup for celebrity couples in general: “They want people to be confused and they want people to wonder…people when it comes to splitting up, whether it’s a five month relationship or whether it’s a fifteen year marriage and they’re getting a divorce, people really do not like admitting that perhaps the union failed. They don’t like admitting to friends to families…perhaps all those publicity stunts have to do with managing their own denial.”. . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Jennifer Lopez Gives Vanity Fair Her First Interview Since Announcing Her Divorce from Marc Anthony Vanity Fair, August 02, 2011 - September 2011 Issue
“That was my biggest dream, and I really worked hard at it. We both did,” Jennifer Lopez tells Vanity Fair in her first interview since announcing that she and Marc Anthony are divorcing. “Sometimes it doesn’t work—and that’s sad. But I remain an eternal optimist about love. I believe in love,” Lopez says. “It’s still my biggest dream. I am positive—determined to move forward with my life, bring up my babies, and do the best job I can as a mother, entertainer, and person. I now look forward to new challenges. I feel strong.” Lopez opens up to contributing editor Lisa Robinson about her life with Anthony and the example she hopes to set for her children; she talks about her relationship with P. Diddy and breaking off her engagement to Ben Affleck; she’s honest about the diva rumors that surround her, and shares her attitudes toward money, fame, and especially love. “I’m a hopeless romantic and passionate person when it comes to love,” Lopez explains, describing the passage that has brought her to her current state of mind. “It’s not that I didn’t love myself before. Sometimes we don’t realize that we are compromising ourselves. To understand that a person is not good for you, or that that person is not treating you in the right way, or that he is not doing the right thing for himself—if I stay, then I am not doing the right thing for me. I love myself enough to walk away from that now.” “I will always respect Marc as a singer and performer,” Lopez tells Vanity Fair. “We actually work great together, and he was always very supportive. Together we could make magic—and we did. He will always be in our lives. He will always hold a special place in my heart as the father of my children.”. . .

More Marriage News: August 2011