Single mothers by another's choice, via abandonment

Dealing with Abandonment Trauma via Bella Online

Rejection is a common emotion for those who have been abandoned by a parent. Children do not understand how an individual who is “supposed” to love them based upon a parental relationship doesn’t love them enough to 1) stay with them, and/or 2) keep in touch with them. I immediately think of Bernice in the film, Hope Floats. She follows her father to the car after a visit, suitcase in hand, crying uncontrollably that her father needs her and must take her with him. He refuses, even locking her out of the car, and drives away, refusing to even look at her, as she stands at the edge of the street, screaming after him. Her mother is left to deal with her child’s unbearable pain. Guilt and blame are common. Children will go over everything they have done in their short lives trying to find the one thing that was unforgivable. They will construct entire scenarios of how their actions did irreparable damage to the love of their parent. They will convince themselves that they are unlovable and that they deserve to be abandoned by a parent – can you imagine?

Single mothers by choice via sperm donation

On the Today show, of course no criticism of children being fatherless. Two experts praising a woman's ability to be fulfill by being a mother and no one should stigmatize them for their choice.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Me? Yea, I'm calling it out. Selfishness. Children aren't 'dreams', they're people. They have rights and they have needs.

Women judge differently when they abandon the family

Article here on Today 4/26 noting the gender differences, that relate to men leaving vs women leaving. Recent case a mother leaving her husband without taking her child.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

World Congress of Families

Not sure if Opine made a post on this. It is the Declaration from the World Congress of Families, which was held in Amsterdam back in August 09'.

In solidarity with earlier WCF Declarations, we define the natural family to rest on the lifelong marriage of a man to a woman, for the purposes of welcoming and nurturing new human life, providing love, companionship, and mutual support, building a home rich in functions, and strengthening the bonds of the generations.

We define ourselves as pro-child. We affirm those social, cultural and legal structures that encourage optimal outcomes for children, in terms of health, learning and later civic engagement. We favour work arrangements that enable parents to spend more time with their children. We understand the biological and social sciences to teach that children predictably do best when raised by their natural parents in a married-couple home.

We affirm that the future of nations rests on families that are spiritually grounded. Religious organizations should be free to uphold their own moral teachings about marriage and family in the public square.

We affirm that the natural family exists prior to the state. Public policies must respect this family autonomy. We call for sound laws and policies that will:• support the natural institution of marriage;• discourage divorce, especially when children would be involved;• encourage couples that commit themselves to the rearing of children;• protect the primary right of parents to guide their children's moral and practical education;• protect the physical, mental, social and spiritual development of children;• and guard vulnerable human life, especially at the beginning and end of the life cycle

Marriage can curb terrorism

In the 1970s, the Palestine Liberation Organization encouraged its members to marry, trying to tone down the more extreme Black September organization.

"When the men married, and especially when they had sons, their militancy waned dramatically," the article explains.

"We see this (research) really as only one arrow in a quiver, really, of ways to combat the problem of terrorism," Thayer said.

Recommendations from the article include promoting women's rights in Muslim countries, which lessens the divide between men and women and reduces emotions like dishonor and emasculation, which can lead men to become suicide terrorists.

Just something to consider.

"Marriage is so unnatural"

Thought this was of interesting note...In Texas several homosexual couples are seeking divorce, from marriages created in Massachusetts. Sometimes I think the comments are more interesting then the article itself.

"Marriage is unnatural, whether it's between straight-identified or gay-identified couples. I don't know why gays are so eager to emulate the errors of their straight counterparts."

and

This just proves that gays and lesbians can screw up a marriage as bad as straight people. The last generation that marriage vows meant anything was my grandparents, the WW2, generation. Marriage has gotten to be little more than "going together". Thankfully, I'm very happy single.

According to the article Texas is willing to annul/void the marriage, as in situations like bigamy/spouses that are related to each other uncle/niece or brother/sister in which annulments usually occur. Can't grant a divorce, if according to Texas law no marriage ever occurred, so an annulment would be the proper course if the parties in the case truly wanted to get on with their lives. Massachusetts still has annulment laws.

No hooking up, no sex for some coeds

Why is this news? I'm not really sure except of the man bites dog angle. Ultimately it is the how common the problems are that is really the news, except that it is so common. In a culture so casual, so lacking in the technology and logistics of preparation for parenthood, it is no wonder that there is so much confusion about marriage.

The group says it does not judge those who hook up, but it does promote abstinence.

"A majority of college campuses, when it comes to discussing marriage and sexual relationships, tend to be very one-sided," said Cassandra Hough, founding director of the Love and Fidelity Network. "We feel that it does add to pressures for young men and women to participate in a certain type of culture."

More about the mother's gap

More from Feckless on how the wage gap for women translates into a mother gap, in other words that women tend to do the lion share of unpaid child rearing. His post is heavy on references, little on his own analysis. The studies he quotes are fascinating, and I can only give his brief analysis.

What is going on is crystal clear and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand this. As long as women are the ones doing most childcare, this won't change. I assume empowering fathers will do more to the wage gap as every other legislation passed is trying to do. I wonder when then legislators will understand, but it seems to me this isn't going to be anytime soon.

The Next One Hundred Million: America in 2050

So I tried reading this book. I stopped. I never liked paleo-future based writing for public policy, rather addressing problem of the day. Joel Kotkin may be right, Europe and Asia are dying but what well being of the children who are born in America? What type environment will they grow up in? How will they do in school?Review from the Wall Street Journal

Here is one area where Mr. Kotkin might have said more. The collapse of the family in America's underclass persists—with more families than not headed by single mothers. Mr. Kotkin is delighted to report that the family in America is taking ever new shapes, adapting and "resurging" in different forms. This claim may well be true for the broad middle class. But in that stubbornly impoverished sector, the family isn't resurging at all. America's relatively high birthrate—a source of national strength generally, as Mr. Kotkin says—contains a large percentage of out-of-wedlock births. In some urban neighborhoods, the rate stands close to 70%. The most "successful nation in human history" still has some work to do.

Does poverty cause family breakdown or does family breakdown cause poverty?

Old-school BYU wins with honor code and without sex

A star athlete at a major religious private university is bringing more about integrity and fidelity to the spotlight. The fact that an NFL ready star athlete has chosen to fix an issue that many wouldn't even call an issue, at the potential expense of his senior year at college (which sports agents would call a major issue), is news. From CBS:

In other words, people really, truly want to go to BYU. Tens of thousands of them. And they know ahead of time what awaits them -- or rather, what doesn't await them. No sex. No beer, even for students of legal age. No cigarettes. No cursing, either.

But Unga chose BYU in 2005, when he could have gone to Utah. He had offers from schools in the Pac-10 as well, but he chose BYU and its honor code. After three seasons he has run for 3,455 yards, putting himself on the NFL's radar, but after the 2009 season he chose BYU again by letting the deadline for entering the NFL draft come and go.

Teenagers, smoking, fathers, and race

Just saw this article regarding fathers ability to prevent smoking in teenagers. 'Communicative Fathers' Help Reduce Teenage Smoking from Science Daily While many fathers are present at birth, who may not be married to the mother we have to ask where is that father 15 years down the road? Is he a just a child support check? Is he seen every other weekend? How does someone have consistent communication with his child, when the father does not live under the same roof. Does facebook count for personal communication? Can one parent online to a teenager? Another study to note is the disparity in blacks and whites regarding lung cancer. Blacks suffer from lung cancer at a much higher rate then whites. Now with 70% of all children, who are black being born out of wedlock what are their chances that there will be a communicative father down the road in their own lives?

Geographic Discrimination

Actress Maria Fernanda Romero Martinez, who has appeared in Spanish-language productions, and someone named Kent Ross were arrested in Los Angeles. Why? Well, authorities are discriminating against their marriage based on geography. Apparently, the couple didn't live together. Sam Quinones reported about the matter in this LATimes.com blog entry.

They were charged with marriage fraud for allegedly trying to gain legal residency and a work permit for her by marrying each other.

Ross and Romero were married in 2005, but federal authorities claim the couple never lived together as a couple. A month after the marriage, Romero began dating, then living with fashion photographer Markus Klinko.

As the story goes, Klinko turned them in.

When Klinko’s and Romero’s relationship ended, Klinko went to federal immigration authorities with evidence that Romero was in a sham marriage, according to the document.

Isn't it narrow-minded bigotry to deny marriage to people simply because they don't live together? Who is to say that this isn't marriage? Don't want a different-households marriage? Don't have one! You know, they used to deny interracial couples marriage, too. Also, Romero taking up with Klinko is a private matter – families came in all shapes and sizes, after all.

"How I Met Your Father: A Mom's Memories"

From National Public Radio.... How I Met Your Father: A Mom's Memories And how many individuals today will not hear a positive story of their own parents meeting, because they don't love each other and too painful to remember? Why did it matter to the author to capture this memory?

Was Gay Marriage not on principle in Massachusetts?

In the final days in Massachusetts to bring the issue of marriage to the ballot, despite having the signatures and the Supreme Judicial Courts decision that the ballot may go to voters, somehow the Gov. Patrick and Frm. House Speaker State Rep Dimasi (later indited on corruption charges on a separate issue) were able to change the votes in the State House to stop the ballot. It was a procedural vote, in which I honestly assume at the State House sweet deals were made for those who stopped the ballot measure, because the year before the legislature was OK to place it on the ballot.

Now that gay marriage advocates in California want to put the issue back on the ballot in 2012, as voters feel marriage fatigued unable to gather enough signatures for 2010, I respect the ballot initiative process being a part of 'been there, done that' in which my legislators stopped a marriage vote from happening. No one should stop any ballot initiative, because 'they already won'.

Back to the Massachusetts legislature today, two years ago the legislatures voted against casinos. Here in Massachusetts, both progressives and social conservatives agree how casinos affect the poor, drive income away from family, and steers away revenue from the cultural economy (local arts/music/businesses). Guess what happen in a year's time with the new house speaker? When push came to shove, the legislature voted to have casino gambling.

From a local blog... and the reference to how gay marriage went down in Massachusetts

Sheep in the State House

The old leadership told the representatives a couple of years ago to vote against legalizing gambling, and they did it. The new leadership told the representatives this week to vote for legalizing gambling, and they did it. A large number of the members of the state house of representatives appear to have no principles behind their voting records; they are just following their speaker like a flock of sheep..... Since these legislators appear to operate under no principle other than following their leader, then what does this mean about their votes a few years back to kill efforts to ban gay marriage? Were those votes not based on principle? Will they gladly reverse their votes when a new speaker takes over who wants to get rid of gay marriage? Gay marriage advocates watch out

Lessons from the Pond: Clues from Green Algae on the Origin of Males and Females

To trace the origin of the added genes, the team looked to see if they could also find them in Chlamydomonas. "We found that although some of the mating locus genes in Volvox are completely new, many of them have counterparts in Chlamydomonas that are near the mating locus," explains co-first author Bradley Olson, Ph.D. "So Volvox has taken these genes that initially had nothing to do with sex, incorporated them into its mating locus, and started using some of them in its sexual reproductive cycle."

The team is now studying these new mating locus genes to understand their individual roles in sex determination and sexual development.

Very interesting, indeed.

Some Are More Equal Than Others

Recently, Mike Huckabee was in the news for, among other things, wondering where changing state marriage licensing would end – would it lead to polygamous, group, and incestuous marriages being part of the law? It is a question that has been raised over and over again as part of the debate, but I don't think, in most instances, it has been answered logically or convincingly.

It is valid to ask why the bride+groom requirement should be dropped from marriage licensing – an unprecedented change to the historical understanding of marriage – but not the requirements that there be only two unmarried participants entering into it who are not closely related. Such restrictions have not always existed worldwide, as many cultures have recognized and continue to sanction polygamy, and some cultures have considered incestuous marriages valid. Heck, royalty did it in Egypt. Just about all of the arguments for neutering marriage licensing can also be applied to removing those other restrictions. "I want one, but not the others" is not enough to keep those arguments from being applied in the other cases.

The "Full Marriage Equality" blog picks up on this in considering the reactions to Huckabee that deride his invoking of the "p" and "i" words.

Unfortunately, rather than standing up and completely repudiating [Huckabee's] bigotry, as happens all too often, too many people refuse to support the right to love for all, letting their polyamorous and consanguineous neighbors be thrown under the bus. Even worse is when they turn on their neighbors and join in the bashing of those neighbors.

As the writer (who, yes, actually supports licensing polygamy and incestuous marriage along with dropping the bride+groom reqirement) says:

Everyone should have the right to marry the person or persons of their choosing.

This position, though wrong, is more consistent than that expressed by most marriage neutering advocates, who call for "marriage equality" and insist that there is a "right" to marriage that necessitates issuing licenses to two men or two women, but somehow that right does not extend to forms of marriage that have been legally recognized in the past and, in some places, are still licensed or legally recognized. First cousins can get marriage licenses in some states, but not others, for example.

I believe in marriage equality – giving individuals equal access to state issued marriage licenses. When most marriage neutering advocates use the phrase marriage equality, they are referring to treating same-sex couples the same as both-sexes couples, but they don’t publicly call for extending that same "equality" to incestuous couples, or treating groups like couples.

I can explain why marriage licenses should only be issued to bride+groom, nonincestuous couples. Can marriage neutering advocates that claim to be for marriage equality and a right to marriage make a coherent, non-contradictory case for why that "right to marry" does not extend to, say, three people or to siblings? Claiming outrage at the "comparison" is not an argument.

[More after the jump.]

My explanation is that there is no right to a state issued marriage license, and as such, states are allowed to restrict marriage licenses to a couple consisting of an unmarried man and an unmarried woman who aren't close relatives and are able to consent. Such a combination is of the most benefit to society and children (which are the state's interest in being involved in the first place), ideally uniting both biologically and kinship-diverse parents of a child in mutual, cooperative obligation to that child, providing that child with both a male and a female role model and bonding relationships; and so I believe there is an obligation for states to have restrictions that promote this combination as distinct and ideal. As such, even though polygamy and incestuous marriages have been recognized in the past, they should not be now. If they don't have a right to be recognized with a state license, then certainly brideless or groomless pairings, which haven’t historically been recognized as marriage and are a kind of pairing that never naturally produces children, certainly don’t have the right to be licensed by the state.

Every unmarried person is, and should be, free to get a marriage license with a consenting, eligible person of the opposite sex.

Now, my guess is that most marriage neutering advocates simply don't care one way or the other about polygamy or siblings getting married. They probably just care about forcing everyone to "approve" of homosexual behavior and pretend that there is no difference between a married couple and a brideless or groomless couple. "Marriage equality" is just a mantra that plays on our value of equal treatment under the law. Perhaps some do believe in legally recognizing polygamous/polyandrous marriages and even siblings getting married, but figure that is more of a political loser right now than neutering marriage, and so they think that if they scream loudly enough every time someone like Huckabee asks where marriage equality ends, we'll stop asking. Or, maybe they have the "ick/eew" reaction to thought of a brother and sister engaging in incest the same way that others have and "ick/eew" reaction about the thought of homosexual behavior.

But I'd like to know where they stand, and why. Should some personal relationships be "more equal" under the law than others, or not?

Hooking Up or Dating: Who Benefits?

Men and women are different when it comes to sex. Not only do women get pregnant and men don't, this affects what women want from sex. That would be attachment, because we want both parents to be responsible.. Hooking Up or Dating: Who Benefits? from Science Daily

Overall, both genders showed a preference for traditional dating over hooking up. However, of those students who strongly preferred traditional dating, there were significantly more women than men (41 percent versus 20 percent). Of those who showed a strong preference for hooking up, there were far fewer women than men (2 percent versus 17 percent). However, context mattered: when considering the possibility of a long-term relationship, both women and men preferred dating over hooking up; however, when the possibility of a relationship was not mentioned, men preferred hooking up and women preferred dating. On the whole, men and women agreed on the benefits and risks of dating and hooking up. However, there were some notable differences: * Women more than men seem to want a relationship. They fear, both in dating and hooking up, that they will become emotionally attached to a partner who is not interested in them. * Men more than women seem to value independence. They fear that even in hooking up relationships, which are supposed to be free of commitments, a woman might seek to establish a relationship.

Study done by Carolyn Bradshaw from James Madison University One of the things that throws a wrench into things, is the particular long time it takes to finish school. Never mind finding a job, paying off student loans, and attempting to be financially independent. Now we have pushed child bearing well into our late 20s, so naturally if you meet someone in college one's mind is not a potential husband. So hook ups will persist, simply because well meaning individuals tell men and woman focus on your education and career. Would it be possible have a strong healthy marriage let's say at 20 or 21, and still finish school, even utilize that education with small children? Personally I would love to see typical dorm life cease to exist.

We Average 3 Divorces Between Us Already

CNN talk show host Larry King and his seventh wife are seeking to divorce each other. According to the always reliable Wikipedia, this would be King's seventh divorce. That doesn't include an annulment (he married one wife twice). Elizabeth Taylor has denied recent rumors that she was set to wed a ninth time - all her marriages have ended in divorce save for one in which her husband died. Zsa Zsa Gabor is in her ninth marriage – all the prior marriages ended in divorce save for one, which was annulled after one day.

This behavior is degrading to marriage. Marriage neutering advocates rightly point that out. They erroneously go on to say that this fact somehow justifies neutering state marriage licensing.

Associated Press entertainment writer Anthony McCartney covered the King story.

The 76-year-old host of CNN's "Larry King Live" filed hours before Shawn King filed her own petition.

He is an old 76. She is a young 50. I don't have a problem with that, except...

They have two sons, ages 11 and 9.

Waiting until 40 was risky on her part. On his part, I consider it immoral to bring a child into such a situation. A man should not be fathering kids at age 64 or 65, especially not a man with heart problems.

[More after the jump.]

Larry King is also asking a judge not to award his wife any spousal support and to invalidate an agreement in which he transferred property to her, court records show.

I don't understand that. They filed in California, a community property state. Absent a valid legal agreement otherwise, the person who earned more during the marriage generally will owe alimony, under current law. Also under current law, being married for over ten years could obligate him to pay alimony to her until he dies or she remarries. As far as the property, if he agreed to something he should have to stick stick to it. I would definitely say the same thing if the sexes were reversed.

"His major concern is the welfare of his children," said Howard Rubenstein, a spokesman for Larry King, adding that the talk-show host would not comment further on the divorce.

That's a fine thing for a guy to say after he got married with such high odds of getting a divorce, then dragged kids into that situation - in which their father would be old and frail.

I am open to the idea of a state putting further limits on marriage licensing and divorce, such as denying further marriage licenses for someone who has initiated divorce X number of times, or at least mandating a certain number of years before the person would be eligible again. Perhaps a civil union could be offered instead – or not.

Families are more then just a mom, a dad, and children.

We also have aunts, uncles, and cousins. Marriage and commitment let's us keep these connections, and gives us support. Back about two-three years ago when I started to post on Opine, I talked about 'Perfect Strangers'. Many of use have situations we were lose relatives, even though they maybe only live a few miles away or even in the same neighborhood. We lose contact, simply because families break up too often. I cam across this article from Singapore, where no family system exists for many who are isolated. Hong Kong Parent-Child Suicide Rate Up, Support Limited

Cheung is particularly concerned about maternal perpetrators of filicide-suicide in Hong Kong, many of whom have been immigrants from mainland China married to local men. "These immigrant wives aren't eligible for welfare systems or public housing until they fulfill a seven-year residency requirement," says Cheung. "If their Hong Kong husband leaves them, they become stranded." Choi Sai-mui, who plunged with her son from the Tsing Yi Bridge, was one of these women. So was the woman who in 2007 tied the hands and feet of her 12-year-old daughter and 9-year-old son before jumping with them from the window of their flat. Feelings of isolation unite these cases. Researchers agree that in instances of filicide-suicide, parents feel there is no friend or relative able or trustworthy enough to care for the children. "In Hong Kong, it's common not to know neighbors who have been beside you for 10 years," says researcher Yip. While social and mental-health workers have been asked to pay close attention to depressed parents of small children, professional help remains thin on the ground in Hong Kong and is no substitute for a strong personal-support network. (my emphasis) "It is packed here," says Yip of a city whose population density, at its highest, exceeds 50,000 per sq km. "Physically we are very close, but emotionally we could not be more distant."

LA Times Mourns Failed Ballot Attempt

The Los Angeles Times editorial board, in case we forgot, repeats that it supports the neutering of marriage. Here is their latest editorial on the failure of an attempt to get a repeal of the California Marriage Amendment on the November ballot. As always, they are taking comments and I suggest you add your own.

Every day that gay and lesbian couples cannot marry is another day of discrimination against homosexuals, denying them the basic right to form families with equal stature to that of any other family.

A marriage license will not make a brideless or groomless home the same or equal as a one with a natural marriage. Such a home will still lack either a husband/father or a wife/mother. Nothing is stopping any two people from setting up house the way they choose. In California, if one of them is a geezer or if they are a same-sex pair, they can even get a domestic partnership, which the state treats like marriage.

It's too soon after the original, divisive election, and we worried about the potential for a costly, well-intentioned but ultimately unsuccessful effort.

It was a divisive election – you know, as opposed to "elections" like in the old Iraq, where leaders were elected with 100% support, right?

[Much more after the jump.]

For this reason, we're not all that disappointed that a petition drive failed to get enough signatures to put a repeal of the measure on the November ballot.

Maybe marriage neutering advocates really are a small minority.

The campaign for Proposition 8 relied in large part on misleading scare tactics, but it also was more effectively devised and targeted than the opposition campaign, which ran a series of uninspiring ads and had a disorganized central office.

This is hilarious. The Yes on 8 ads were not misleading – it is just that people like the editorial board do not like the consequences of marriage neutering being portrayed as bad. The marriage neutering advocates were highly organized and ran ridiculous ads showing bride+groom marriage scenarios, never brideless or groomless ceremonies; implying that Prop 8 would lead to segregation and internment camps; and one group ran ads depicting missionaries breaking into homes to commit vandalism/theft. Plus, the marriage neutering advocates had the Los Angeles Times and so many other prominent influencers carrying their water.

Time is against Proposition 8.

Fauxmentum talk. Nature, social mores, votes, and the religions that the majority of voters claim as theirs all back marriage as uniting the sexes.

More than two-thirds of young voters supported [neutering] marriage; reaching out to them over the next two years is key to overturning the ban.

I suspect a majority of them would support their parents being forced to financially support them until they are 30. It doesn't mean they will always think that way.

As far as polling voters in general, I'd like to see the results of anonymous polling that asks:

1. "Do you think it should become official state policy that there is no difference between a couple consisting of a man and a woman and a couple consisting of two women or two men?"

2. "Do your think it should become official state policy that there is no difference between heterosexual coitus and homosexual sodomy?"

3. "Do you think it should be illegal for adoption agencies to give preference to placing children in homes headed by a man and a woman over homes headed by two men or two women?"

Those are the issues we are dealing with - those things would be the direct result of neutering state marriage licensing.

But we do have to keep fighting for marriage. Let's keep respecting marriage and reaching out to encourage respect for marriage. Don't let those who can't even bring themselves to admit there are real, valuable differences between men and women, and thus mothers and fathers, bully our youth into catering to the activists' misperception of reality.

Lonely Deaths and Demogrpahics in Japan

From April 6 Japan: 'Lonely Deaths' Rise Among Unemployed, Elderly

"In Japan, kodokushi, a phenomenon first described in the 1980s, has become hauntingly common. In 2008 in Tokyo, more than 2,200 people over 65 died lonely deaths, according to statistics from the city's Bureau of Social Welfare and Public Health. The deaths most often involve men in their 50s and the nation's rapidly increasingly elderly population. Today, 1 in 5 Japanese is over 65; by 2030 it will be 1 in 3. With senior citizens increasingly living away from family and a nationwide shortage of nursing homes, many are now living alone. "There is a kind of myth that older people in Japan are living in three-generational families, but that's not so anymore," says Takako Sodei, a gerontologist with Ochanomizu University in Tokyo. (See pictures of Japan in the 1980s and today.)"

Japan's low birth rate poses demographic dilemma

Tokyo doesn't have an official one-child policy like the one the Chinese government has tried to implement, but you'd never guess that by looking at the average family size here in the capital. This lost generation, he said, is now reaching the 35-44 peak age range for consumption. "Although child allowance appears on the surface to be about children, upon closer examination it seems more like assistance for this generation," Kitano said. And the good news about rising average life spans here is bad news for demographic planning, as few workers support more and more older folks. But the ratio of the dependent population -- the sum of the elderly and young population, divided by the working-age population -- was 55.2% in 2008, according to the Statistics Bureau. The proportion of elderly in the total population has remained above that of the younger age group since 1997."

Men and women are more then just their procreative abilities, yet when families become null and void as a virtue initially we don't see the problem but in time it becomes evident.

Repeal of CMA Fails to Make November Ballot

An effort to put a repeal of the California Marriage Amendment - voted in as Proposition 8 in 2008 - on this November’s ballot has failed. Maura Dolan has the Los Angeles Times coverage.

John Henning, who heads a group that sponsored the repeal effort, declined to say how many signatures had been gathered since the all-volunteer campaign got underway in late November. He said 694,000 valid signatures were required by Monday.

But they're going to try again.

He said his group, Love Honor Cherish, will work with other activists to put a repeal measure on the November 2012 ballot.

And that's exactly what other marriage neutering advocates have been advising all along, estimating that 2010 was too soon and the voter turnout in a midterm election would be less favorable to their cause. Of course, Prop 8 passed on the same ballot that voted for President Obama, so there is no assurance that 2012 would bring favorable results for the marriage neutering advocates. However, the federal court case is ongoing.

I do wonder if perhaps there just aren't that many passionate marriage neutering advocates around, and thus the signature gathering failed... or if it failed because a lot of people who have claimed to be desperate for the "right" to a state marriage license without a bride or without a groom were willing to put that "fundamental right" on hold at the direction of dominant advocacy group leaders? If it is the latter, then they can hardly point fingers at certain churchgoers for following their leadership.

Check out my namesake blog to see a detailed response to one of the comments left on the website. I put it over there because it doesn’t really fit in on The Opine Editorials.

Some Feminists Hate the Word 'Choice'

The title is as given by Patschef at Masculinisme. The article is from the NYT in 2006. Once again we read the struggle of dependence, independence and equality in how we live out our identities as part of a human race with two genders. A snippet for you.

In the continuing Web discussion about Ms. Hirshman's article, many women angry with her conclusions still agreed with her complaints about the unequal burden between men and women for home and family.

A Web site called the Half Changed World, for example, written by a self-described mom and policy wonk, said: "I honestly don't know what's going to break through the domestic glass ceiling. I used to think that it just was going to take time, that of course the younger generation would adopt a more equitable distribution of labor. I don't see that happening."

Choice feminism doesn't provide any formula or model for happily balancing family, work, love, chores, play, sleep and more. Nothing does anymore.

Marrage inequality in age

Several recent news blurbs from Asia points out the secondary effects of breakdown of the family, I'll post them on differing days.

From March 18 10 Unbelieveable Wedding & Marriage Records

"Greatest age difference in marriage: The Straits Times reported in November 2006 that Sudar Marto of Malaysia, 105, married Ely Maryulianti Rahmat, a 22-year-old maid, in September. That's an 83-year age difference! At the time, Sudar was still married to his 69-year-old bedridden wife, who welcomed Ely into their union because she appreciated the young girl's caregiving." So the man isn't taking the woman as his wife, but rather strictly as a home health aide. Anyone else noticed there is a good 35 year gap between the bedridden wife and the husband. And you have to wonder if there was a wife before that, in which the 69 year old wife was once the 'young girl'? Where are the children, nieces, and nephews to ensure the well being of the elders?

Of course spouses take care of each other in 'their' old age, as in plural. But we know that one spouse will eventually become window or widower, and immolating yourself at your husband's death seems doesn't seem to be ideal or appealing. I'm sure many elderly and not so elderly can attest to life after the death of the spouse, isn't the end of the world but rather something expect and a natural part of life.

I've never been a fan of May/December relationships here in the United States. Yes, young men are more immature then ever, but dating older men only perpetuates the problem. I worry about financial disparity, one of the nice things marrying someone your age is significant financial equality and a sense of fairness as resources merge at marriage. Of course it may change through out the marriage, still an understanding that their isn't mine/yours, but financially responsibly ours.

Should the Federal Government Recognize Same-Sex Pairings?

That is a larger issue that encompasses the issue in this story by Ruben Vives of the Los Angeles Times on a rally demanding Social Security benefits that recognize same-sex pairings as couples. The rally, according to the article, is a kick off to a national “grass-roots” campaign.

At the rally, Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D-Lakewood), who is a member of the House Subcommittee on Social Security, announced that she would sponsor legislation to provide equal Social Security benefits for same-sex couples.

How would that work, exactly? Would any same sex-couples be recognized, or would they have to have state marriage licenses? Would registered domestic partnerships or civil unions be counted?

"I don't think it's right that Americans should be treated differently by the country they love because of who they love," she said, triggering thunderous applause and cheers from the crowd.

She doesn’t really mean that. People get treated differently all of the time based on "who they love", I’m sure with her blessing. If Tiger Woods is divorced from his wife, she's going to be treated plenty differently based on who she loved as compared to a woman who was married to a low wage earner. People who love more than one person can't be married in the eyes of the law to all of them.

Pairing up with someone is a choice, and it is okay to treat people differently based on different behaviors. All law does that.

[More after the jump.]

"Right now, same-sex marriage couples pay equally into a system that they don't receive equal benefits from in return," Sanchez told the crowd.

The same could be said about their taxes paying for education, since they are less likely to be raising children. Social Security is a ponzi scheme. If it was up to me, the federal government would not be involved in charity or "saving" your money on your behalf. But I realize that isn't the main focus of this blog, and like it or not, Social Security does exist and people pay into it regardless of sexual orientation.

As of now, people in same-sex relationships are denied Social Security survivor benefits from their deceased partners because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships as valid relationships.

Should it? If so, why should it, and on what basis should it?

How is a "couple" legally distinguished from friends? What if someone is physically averse to ceremonies or paperwork?

Wasn't the original idea based on a division of labor?

Sanchez's bill calls for the Social Security Administration to recognize those civil unions or domestic partnerships as valid relationships for the purpose of disbursing survivor benefits that heterosexual couples with a marriage certificate now receive.

Why not any people living at the same residence?

There were some comments on the website.

"Gary S" at 8:55 PM April 11, 2010:

the system is bankrupt, where do they think the money will come from?

Good question. Why don't we just print money for anyone who says they want more?

"cranston36" at 4:58 AM April 12, 2010:

The problem is not ensuring that people who have sex with people of their own sex are able to get their hands on the social security benefits of the person they had sex with after that person dies - the issue is more rightly - why are women who raise children not provided coverage throughout their lives as individuals rather than the slave property of their male masters?

1968 is calling. They want their radical feminist mindset back. I'll remind my wife that I am a "male master" the next time she gives me a honey-do list. Should she ever divorce me, I will remind the judge that I am my wife's "male master" and I'll see how far that gets me when it comes to stopping the divorce or when it comes to alimony and community property.

Ignoring the fact that Social Security is a misguided mess to begin with, I see these as the big issues here:

What should the criteria be for "survivor" benefits, and by what justification?

Doesn't the federal government have an interest in promoting, supporting, and regulating the kind of relationship that is naturally procreative that it doesn't have with other kinds of relationships? Even cultures that have promoted homosexual behavior have set marriage apart.

One question I like to ask is, "Why should the government be involved in a voluntary personal relationship?" There's a reason why our governments have long been involved in marriage.

Dr Jennifer Morse- What happenened to the Culture of Marriage in the West.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse has done it again, here is an excellent lecture on how same-sex "marriage" affects everyone & indeed: all society

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse is a tireless advocate for the insitution of marriage and runs the Ruth Institute for the study of marriage and culture.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse is also the Senior Research Fellow in Economics at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. She is the author of Smart Sex: Finding Life-long Love in a Hook-up World, (2005) and Love and Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn’t Work (2001), recently reissued in paperback, as Love and Economics: It Takes a Family to Raise a Village. Dr. Morse served as a Research Fellow for Stanford University’s Hoover Institution from 1997-2005. She received her Ph.D. in economics from the University of Rochester in 1980 and spent a postdoctoral year at the University of Chicago during 1979-80. She taught economics at Yale University and George Mason University for 15 years. She was John M. Olin visiting scholar at the Cornell Law School in fall 1993.

What you may not know is the Ruth Institute also has a project called Ruth Youth an orginization dedicated to educating a new generation of youth on the importance of marriage and related issues.

I hope we here at Opine Editorials will go to Ruth Youth and start facebook and Twiiter and other social networking sites so that we can help spread the word as Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse has and continues to do. The battle for the minds of the youth is one important front in this just and honorable cause.

[UPDATE] ADF attorney Austin R. Nimocks appeared on the Michael Medved Show to discuss the ongoing NJ marriage battle.

The MP3 runs approximately 34 minutes.

It is a excellent discussion about the constant ursurpation of democracy by judicial elites acting on behest of a marriage neutering minority. As an extra bonus a lesbian caller expresses her views about the silent majority of gays & lesbians who dont want or need to redifine marriage (how refreshing!!) She describes her gay & lesbian as petty and little with motives other than seeking the same rights

California Marriage Amendment at the AG Race

California's current Attorney General, Jerry Brown, is running for Governor (and office he held back in the early 1980s). You may recall that Brown worked against Proposition 8 (which is now the California Marriage Amendment) and wouldn't defend it in court.

Who will be the next Attorney General for California? One candidate is John Eastman, who wrote a defense of the California Marriage Amendment. Over on the Townhall.com blog, Carol Platt Liebau notes that at least one newspaper editor is already freaking out.

Unfortunately, these days, it seems that conservatives are the only ones who believe in abiding by the will of the voters. So -- to Morain's sniffing disapproval -- John Eastman would actually advocate on behalf of California voters when it comes to Prop. 8. (That's in stark contrast with Jerry Brown, who simply refuses to do his job -- defending the laws made by the taxpayers who elected him and pay his salary -- when he personally disagrees with the will of the people.)

In short, the difference between John Eastman and his competition (in both the primary and general elections) is that he's a person who: (1) Is a principled conservative; (2) Is a constitutional expert who understands that the words of the Constitution actually have a fixed meaning, and can't be "reinterpreted" at will to advance the left-wing "cause du jour"; (3) Comes from the private sector -- and understands what it means to earn a living outside of government.

I don't know if it will matter what a state Attorney General thinks about the California Marriage Amendment, given that the matter is now in the federal courts. Perhaps if Eastman is AG, he can argue for the CMA in subsequent trials? But if the Supreme Court of the United States of America takes the matter out of the hands of the states, it won't matter who is AG of any state. If, however, it is left to the states, then an AG's position will be an issue in almost all states.

Calling all Super Uncles and Aunts

Super Uncles! Super Aunts! Please come! Please Come! Homosexuals are really apart of family values, who shouldn't be shunned. Yes, this Opiner says so. I've been asked many times, what if my child was gay. Well this is my answer. Potential Evolutionary Role for Same-Sex Attraction

"One possible explanation is what evolutionary psychologists call the "kin selection hypothesis." What that means is that homosexuality may convey an indirect benefit by enhancing the survival prospects of close relatives. Specifically, the theory holds that homosexual men might enhance their own genetic prospects by being "helpers in the nest." By acting altruistically toward nieces and nephews, homosexual men would perpetuate the family genes, including some of their own...." "They recruited a large sample of fa'afafine, and comparable samples of women and heterosexual men. They gave them all a series of questionnaires, measuring their willingness to help their nieces and nephews in various ways -- caretaking, gifts, teaching -- and also their willingness to do these things for other, unrelated kids. The findings, reported on-line this week in the journal Psychological Science, lend strong support to the kin selection idea. Compared to Samoan women and heterosexual men, the fa'afafine showed a much weaker link between their avuncular -- or uncle like -- behavior and their altruism toward kids generally. This cognitive dissociation, the scientists argue, allows the fa'afafine to allocate their resources more efficiently and precisely to their kin -- and thus enhance their own evolutionary prospects..." "Do these findings have any meaning outside of Samoa? Yes and no. Samoan culture is very different from most Western cultures. Samoan culture is very localized, and centered on tight-knit extended families, whereas Western societies tend to be highly individualistic and homophobic. Families are also much more geographically dispersed in Western cultures, diminishing the role that bachelor uncles can play in the extended family, even if they choose to. But in this sense, the researchers say, Samoa's communitarian culture may be more -- not less -- representative of the environment in which male same-sex sexuality evolved eons ago. In that sense, it's not the bachelor uncle who is poorly adapted to the world, but rather the modern Western world that has evolved into an unwelcoming place."

Renee Aste Lowell Massachsuetts

Dancing With Primetime Politicking

Dancing with the Stars, the hit ABC Network television show, got political last night, and we’re only into week three. If you’ve been living in a cave and are not familiar with the show, it pairs “stars” (and sometimes that term is used loosely) with professional dancers (think ballroom dancing) to compete against other pairs week after week. Professional judges score the performances, and those scores and mixed in with caller votes for total scores, and the couple with the lowest score gets eliminated.

This week, each couple tried to tell a story through their dancing.

One of the pairs is Niecy Nash and Louis Van Amstel. Amstel is the professional dancer. Nash is a comedienne and actress who is mostly known for her work on cable television shows.

Each show has a very limited amount of time to show tape of the couples rehearsing earlier in the week, before they dance live on television.

I'll let the CBS website describe how those who put the show together decided to use the sparse airtime time for showing rehearsals:

The dance that had everyone talking - and speculating - Tuesday morning was Nash's Viennese waltz with professional dancer Louis Van Amstel. Challenged by the judges to tell a story through dance this week, the two chose a story about an interracial romance in the 1960s.

In rehearsal, Nash spoke about how much she loved her boyfriend and said she coundn't imagine not being able to be with the person she loves because it was illegal. Van Amstel said it was a way to show "how far we have come" and then added that he still was fighting his own battle, in an apparent reference to the illegality of gay marriage in California.

On the dance floor, Nash ended her waltz with tears. In an interview afterward with co-host Brooke Burke, Van Amstel said he wanted to celebrate the strides of the last four decades, adding "everyone should be able to get married."

He is the one who used the word “everyone”, not me. So is he also in favor of licensing group marriages? Polygamous marriages? Incestuous marriages? If not, why not? Aren't they "everyone", too? Currently, everyone is California has the exact same access to marriage licenses - the restrictions apply to all. That is true whether or not marriage is neutered. His statement implies that there shouldn't be restrictions. And as we've pointed out many times before, in the past, "interracial" marriage bans were something that prevented a long and universally established practice and prevented freedom of association. Comparing that ban to two women or two men not being able to get a state marriage license together, but still being able to live together, form a domestic partnership, have public ceremonies, etc. is absurd.

[More after the jump.]

It is also strange that someone who would feel so strongly about a need to neuter marriage would continue to work on a show that only pairs men with women in competition. Surely dancing isn't as important as marriage. Why can't the rules of the dancing be changed?

ABC, which decided to make this manipulative appeal to emotion (instead of a reasonable argument) is part of the Walt Disney Company.

Oh, and before any of our critics who favor neutering marriage make snide comments on their blogs, my wife was the one watching the show on DVR and pointed that segment out to me. But it would be interesting to see snide comments about my viewing habits made by people who would feign indignation if I implied that watching the show (or being a professional dancer on the show) could be a signifier of a man's homosexuality.

Personally, the only interest I have in the show is whether or not the latest "Bachelor" falls for the professional dancer with whom he’s paired. That other ABC show is a mockery, and I'll be shocked if that guy actually sticks with his pick from his show, marries her, and stays married.

Still More California Poll Dancing

The latest poll from the Los Angeles Times and USC shows, surprise, surprise, that neutering marriage got “majority support” in California. David Lauter reports on an LATimes.com blog.

Registered voters surveyed in the latest poll said 52% to 40% that “same-sex couples should be allowed to become legally married in the state of California.”

Typical. So is this:

The poll also showed a huge variation by age, with registered voters younger than 30 supporting same-sex marriage by roughly 3 to 1, while a majority of those 64 and older were opposed.

This is not all that surprising as more of the younger voters haven’t been spouses themselves, and fewer of them have been parents. Also, especially if they have gone through the public school system in California, they have been fed a steady diet of gender confusion, all while other changes to family law and to culture have contributed to broken homes, depriving children of a healthy marriage model.

That age division, also seen in every other poll on the issue, suggests that over time, the state’s electorate probably will become even more supportive of same-sex marriage -- unless today’s voters in their 20s become more socially conservative as they age.

Finally, they include that in their coverage. We should not take maturing for granted. We must continue to make our case to each generation about the value of both masculinity and femininity; of wives, husbands, and marriage; and of mothers and fathers. This used to be reinforced in academia and our general culture, but in many cases, the few noisy activists have frightened the rest into silence or assistance while they've been pushing their agenda instead.

Two studies regarding the important roles of mothers and fathers

From Science Daily Mother-Son Relationship Key to Emotional Development

"Dr Fearon said: "The central question we posed was whether attachment insecurity was associated with behaviour problems across all the studies conducted to date. The results showed quite clearly that the answer to this question is a firm yes. "More specifically, our analysis showed that children with insecure attachments to their mothers, particularly boys, had significantly more behavioural problems, even when the behavioural problems were measured years later." The study also recommends the need for treatment studies focusing on attachment and for more research on the significance of attachment between children and their fathers.

Exploration in Toddlers Activated by Fathers

The parent's behavior was measured by the distance they kept from their child as he or she climbed the stairs. "For a child to become self-confident, the parent mustn't be too far or too close," says Paquette. "The ideal distance seems to be an arm's length. This distance was statistically significant with fathers yet not with mothers." According to Paquette, classical attachment theory doesn't highlight these differences between boys and girls. This is why he feels his theory is better adapted to evaluate the role of the father while factoring in the temperament of the child and the level of protective parenting, both of which trigger the activation relationship. Paquette is convinced that mothers and fathers intervene differently in the education of a child and these complementarities benefit a child. "Even if both parents change diapers and give the bottle, they don't do it the same way," says Paquette (my emphasis). "By stimulating exploration, controlled risk-taking and competition, fathers provide something different to the child who will benefit greatly from this singular contribution."

I think we're on to something here on Opine. Renee Aste Lowell Massachsuetts

Unhappy Women

Some feminists have the nerve to claim that feminism was for the benefit for men too. Nonsense. It wasn't even for the benefit of women. Jenny represents many young women these days; thirty, single, unable to find a husband, hates her job and with little chance of any change in these circumstances. She's utterly miserable. So are most other women. Before feminism they would have been happy at home, raising kids and getting dinner ready for when their husband comes home from a hard day at work. They would have been busy, sure, but they would have been happy. Like their husbands.

[...]

According to government statistics, one-in-five women who are currently reaching the end of their childbearing years are childless. In twenty-years time this figure be one-in-three. A third of women now under the age of 30 will never ever marry. Do women want this? According to feminists, they did, and should be dancing in the streets.

[...]

"I didn't choose feminism" young women may collectively claim. Maybe so. But neither did any of us men and we've suffered far far more under feminism than women. Plus women like the benefits of feminism; the right to abort babies, education orientated towards them, positive discrimination, the ability to strip men of their assets in divorce courts, etc. They were all so happy to grab these benefits.

From Duncan Idaho, via Masculinisme

Why do men (and women) cheat?

So.. why? Among other reasons...

"And sometimes when there’s the general stress of life and work and all of that, men can get kind of withdrawn or marginalized with a family where they’re not full participants. And of course that has impacts on the rest of the family. But for men, they also don’t like that [being marginalized] makes them feel less important, that they don’t matter, that they’re not influencing anything. And sometimes an affair can really be quite enticing because it makes them feel that they can influence someone else’s life or that that someone’s interested in their perspective."