Boosting the involvement of expectant fathers in pregnancy outcomes...

Maternal health is ultimately determined by healthy paternal relationships with the child. Joint Center Commission Report Says More Research, Policy Changes Needed to Boost Involvement of Expectant Fathers in Pregnancy"

While we need to address the lack of research, we do know enough to say that men are vitally important to healthy pregnancies and healthy births," said Ralph B. Everett, President and CEO of the Joint Center. "To that end, the Commission has done a great job putting together these recommendations for policy changes to improve paternal involvement in pregnancy outcomes, while pointing the direction toward improving our knowledge of doing so can lead to healthier families."

"If we are going to improve maternal and child health in America, we are going to have to strengthen families and fatherhood," said Michael Lu, M.D., M.P.H., an Associate Professor of obstetrics and gynecology and public health at UCLA's Schools of Medicine and Public Health in Los Angeles who co-chaired the Commission.

You can download it here...

E Pluribus Unum

According to this Associated Press story by Hope Yen, the rate of "interracial" marriage is rising in the USA, but not as fast as it has risen in the past.

As I've written before, I put interracial in quotes because I believe we are all of one race - human.

The growth of interracial marriages is slowing among U.S.-born Hispanics and Asians. Still, blacks are substantially more likely than before to marry whites.

Here's an example of why the racial categories can be a little ridiculous: how are they counting brides or grooms who are themselves the products of "interracial" coupling?

The number of interracial marriages in the U.S. has risen 20 percent since 2000 to about 4.5 million, according to the latest census figures. While still growing, that number is a marked drop-off from the 65 percent increase between 1990 and 2000.

Well of course there has to be a slowdown at some point in something like this. You can say that the obesity rates have stopped rising as fast once everyone is obese already, for example.

About 8 percent of U.S. marriages are mixed-race, up from 7 percent in 2000.

The sustained rates are much higher than brideless or groomless "marriages".

[Much more after the jump.]

The latest trend belies notions of the U.S. as a post-racial, assimilated society. Demographers cite a steady flow of recent immigration that has given Hispanics and Asians more ethnically similar partners to choose from while creating some social distance from whites due to cultural and language differences.

White wariness toward a rapidly growing U.S. minority population also may be contributing to racial divisions, experts said.

Give me a break. Yes, people coming in from the "old country" (Persians, Armenians, Koreans, you name it) are often pressured by their families to marry within their ethnic community. But what do the stats say when at least one of the spouses is US-born? I know the acceptance of such a reality would put a lot of activists out of work, but I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of US "whites" who are of childbearing age don't give a rip about someone's skin color or their country of origin, as long as they are Americans or want to stay here.

"Racial boundaries are not going to disappear anytime soon," said Daniel Lichter, a professor of sociology and public policy at Cornell University.

No, blond-haired, blue eyed people aren't going to disappear, and neither will people with red hair, or people very dark skin (I happen to find very dark skin usually looks beautiful). However, I do think it is a good thing the more integrated we become, because the more integrated we become, the less silly antagonism and pointless division there will be. People who think one "race" is generally genetically superior to another are wrong, and we likely will actually benefit genetically from blending ethnic lines, for the same reason inbreeding increases risks. If nothing else, I enjoy the beauty of so many of the children of these "mixed" marriages.

He noted the increase in anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S. after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks as well as current tensions in Arizona over its new immigration law.

"With a white backlash toward immigrant groups, some immigrants are more likely to turn inward to each other for support," Lichter said.

Only the ones heeding the fear mongering of activists who make no distinction between legal immigration and illegal entry/residency, and lie about the motivation for concerns about illegal immigration. But does anyone really think that an individual immigrant who is attracted to US-born citizens will avoid going out with that person because of a law in Arizona authorizing local law enforcement to refer a lawfully stopped suspect with no valid papers to ICE?

Broken down by race, about 40 percent of U.S.-born Asians now marry whites - a figure unchanged since 1980. Their likelihood of marrying foreign-born Asians, meanwhile, multiplied 3 times for men and 5 times for women, to roughly 20 percent.

Among U.S.-born Hispanics, marriages with whites increased modestly from roughly 30 percent to 38 percent over the past three decades. But when it came to marriages with foreign-born Hispanics, the share doubled — to 12.5 percent for men, and 17.1 percent for women.

In contrast, blacks are now three times as likely to marry whites than in 1980. About 14.4 percent of black men and 6.5 percent of black women are currently in such mixed marriages, due to higher educational attainment, a more racially integrated military and a rising black middle class that provides more interaction with other races.

These are assumptions.

The numbers reflect in part an internal struggle that Asians and Hispanics say they feel navigating two cultural worlds - the U.S. and their parents' homeland.

If your parents chose to bring you here and raise you here, then they have voted for American culture – despite what they say. I know that a lot of people want their grandchildren to "look like them" and of course there is the hope that with shared national origin there will be shared values and customs, but if your Korean parents were so set on you marrying another Korean, then the chances would have been better if they stayed in Korea. If you're an American, the other person you're marrying, if they were born here or naturalized, is an American - like you - regardless of skin color. And American culture drew your parents from wherever they came from.

There is absolutely no reason why you can't continue to keep the positive traditions from the old country, even if you marry someone whose ancestry isn't from there.

It matters much more that you share a worldview and priorities, have compatible goals, values, and personalities, are committed to each other, and are attracted to each other in body, spirit, and soul. That will more likely mean a lasting and happy marriage. That someone's parents came from the same corner of the old country that your parents came from does not guarantee a good or lasting marriage.

The minister who performed my wedding is a white woman married to a black man. One of my groomsmen and dearest friends is a black man married to a white woman (they have the most adorable little boy you’ve ever seen). Another one of my groomsmen is a white man who married a Latina and they made a beautiful girl. I don't see what the big deal is. Articles like this treat all Latinos the same, but marriage between Latinos from different countries can be as different as the marriages the article cites… or the marriage of an Irish person to a Russian, a Swede to an Italian, a US-born African American to someone born and raised in Africa or Haiti.

"Mixed" marriages have a long history around the world, including among the powerful and famous. It is nothing new.

Previously:

The Race Card and Prop 8

Interracial Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage: Why the Analogy Fails

An off-ramp from divorce...

In Minnesota the state is offering those who wish reconciliation in their marriages, instead of divorce.

Minnesota will pick up tab to counsel divorcing couples- Washington Times May 25

William J. Doherty, a family studies professor at the University of Minnesota, surveyed about 2,500 couples who had attended a mandatory divorce education class in Hennepin County during 2008 and 2009.

In about 30 percent of cases, one spouse said they wanted the divorce while the other did not, and in about 10 percent, "both partners were open to trying again" to save their marriage, Mr. Dille said.

That 10 percent is a substantial number — about 1,500 couples a year statewide, Mr. Dille said. Divorce may certainly be the best choice for some couples, he added, but for others — if they knew more about divorce and its aftermath, "they might want to find an alternate path."

The Minnesota Couples on the Brink project will be offered through the University of Minnesota, and will be funded from an existing $5 fee assessed on marriage licenses.

Interracial Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage: Why the analogy fails.

Interracial Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage by Francis J. Beckwith May 21, 2010 Why the analogy fails.

I learned that “at common law there was no ban on interracial marriage.”[1] What does that mean? It means that anti-miscegenation laws were not part of the jurisprudence that American law inherited from the English courts. Anti-miscegenation laws were statutory in America (though never in England[2]), first appearing in Maryland in 1661 after the institution of the enslavement of Africans on American soil. This means that interracial marriage was a common-law liberty that can only be overturned by legislation...

Anti-miscegenation laws, therefore, were attempts to eradicate the legal status of real marriages by injecting a condition—sameness of race—that had no precedent in common law. For in the common law, a necessary condition for a legitimate marriage was male-female complementarity, a condition on which race has no bearing.

In other words, the fact that a man and a woman from different races were biologically and metaphysically capable of marrying each other, building families, and living among the general population is precisely why the race purists wanted to forbid such unions by the force of law. And because this view of marriage and its gender-complementary nature was firmly in place and the only understanding found in common law, the Supreme Court in Loving knew that racial identity was not relevant to what marriage requires of its two opposite-gender members.

Milking It on the Streets

Corresponding to Harvey Milk Day, marriage neutering advocates went door to door in California to try to get people who understand that marriage unites the sexes to vote their way instead. Since a lot of people vote based on emotions, this tactic may indeed have an effect. The advocates and news media are trying to present this as "the people who are voting in a bigoted way based on what their church told them will change their vote once they meet a nice same-sex couple." I can't speak for everyone, but I didn't vote for Proposition 8 (the California Marriage Amendment, now in effect) based on anything my church communicated. I didn't vote for it based on hatred of anyone (I don't hate people for their sexual orientation), or because I don't know nice same-sex couples (I know many), or because I am grossed out by homosexual behavior (hand holding, hugging, and kissing, doesn't gross me out). I voted for Prop 8 because I believe the state has an interest in marriage that it doesn't have with other relationships, and because I think it is not the place of a court to interfere.

Ellyn Pak has the Orange County Register version of the story.

A few dozen gay-rights activists hoped to put a personal face on the issue of same-sex marriage Sunday, taking their cause to the streets throughout the county.

One can be for "gay rights" and against be neutering of marriage. They should not be presented as synonymous. I can be correct in referring to them as anti-constitutional activists, but does that really tell the whole story?

The men and women canvassed neighborhoods in Santa Ana, Fullerton and Mission Viejo as part of Harvey Milk Day, a tribute to San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in the state. He served 11 months in office before he and Mayor George Moscone were assassinated in 1978 by a former supervisor.

The murder of Milk had more to do with workplace violence than anything else.

The activists – along with others who spent the weekend rallying and canvassing neighborhoods from San Francisco to Los Angeles – focused on cities where in 2008 a majority of residents voted in favor of Proposition 8, which defined marriage as being between a man and woman.

So marriage was never defined that way before Proposition 8? How about, "which amended the state constitution to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage in California law."

"The reason I do this is to create a society of inclusion, not of hate and segregation," said Elizabeth Aversa, a field manager with Equality California, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy organization that sponsored the event along with other groups.

But creating "marriages" that exclude one of the sexes is segregation and noninclusive.

[Much more after the jump.]

Aversa, a Yorba Linda native and lesbian who began volunteering in summer 2008, said such events give volunteers a chance to talk to people face-to-face about their struggles and feelings about the marriage ban.

There is no marriage ban. And feelings don't matter when it comes to law. That I feel negatively towards a law in no way obligates someone else to vote against it.

Yumi Hirata, 25, of Tustin, a coach and volunteer at Equality California, and Cate Gary, 29, of Dana Point, went door-to-door on Grant Street in Santa Ana to talk to residents.

Reaction varied somewhat in the Santa Ana neighborhood, but no one's mind was changed, the activists said. In some cases, residents said religious beliefs and the position that marriage should be between a man and a woman prohibited them from supporting same-sex marriage.

And one need not even believe in God, the supernatural, or anything tied to "religion", nor disapprove of homosexual behavior, to see that the state has an interest in licensing the uniting of a bride and groom in marriage that it doesn't have with any other kind of voluntary personal association.

In response to Hirata disclosing she is a lesbian, the woman responded, "Oh, I'm sorry," recalled Hirata.

What's wrong with that? Haven’t we been told - by LGBTQQUA??? activists - that gay people and lesbian people have tough lives full of oppression, ostracization, and abuse? Of course people are going to feel sorry for them. But also, this woman may have greatly enjoyed her heterosexuality, and wishes others could have that enjoyment, too. For example, she's probably talked with straight people who have never married and also told them she was sorry.

Nhim also questioned how a gay couple could produce a child together.

No answer is given in the article.

Here's the Los Angeles Times story from Ruben Vives. You know the language in this story is going to be slanted.

Targeting districts that voted heavily in favor banning same-sex marriage, gay-rights activists took to the streets throughout Los Angeles County on Saturday and made personal appeals for legalization.

As we've said many times before, it wasn't a ban.

Raymond Moya, 38, and Byron Moya, 32, an Inland Empire couple who married before the ban, went door-to-door talking to registered voters. They brought along their twin 3-year-old daughters.

Where is the mother or mothers of those girls? We know these two men did not make those girls themselves, nor did any other pairing of two men.

The canvassing event, which occurred throughout the state, was sponsored by Equality California and dozens of state and local advocacy groups and elected officials.

Gee, those marriage neutering advocates sure sound powerless.

In Los Angeles County, the effort began Saturday with dozens of volunteers and advocates gathering at the East Los Angeles Service Center, where they heard supportive speeches from Los Angeles City Councilman Jose Huizar, state Assemblyman Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate), and Dustin Lance Black, an activist and screenwriter who won an Academy Award for the movie " Milk."

It's nice to know where they stand.

Last year Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law the Harvey Milk Day bill, written by state Sen. Mark Leno (D- San Francisco), who is gay.

The bill designates May 22 as a day of significance in honor of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California. He would have been 80 years old Saturday.

Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely he would have lived anywhere near that long had he not been murdered.

There were some comments after the story worth noting.

"ceoco1" wrote at 11:22 PM May 22, 2010:

I'm sorry, I just don't Get this! A man is made different than a women! Its like trying to put a square peg in a round hole! But i`m just a 800 pound Gorilla in the room!

"tod503" responded at 7:13 PM May 23, 2010:

You're trying to make everyone the same and we're not.

Right – men and women are different and not all kinds relationships are equal. And yet your side, tod503, is calling for three different kinds of relationships to be called and treated the same under the law under the call of "equality".

"RamonYabut" wrote at 9:23 AM May 23, 2010:

Typical lie from the gay community. I and many others have said we would support you having every single legal right of a married couple as long as you make up your own term for your union.

Which is exactly what California's Domestic Partnerships are. And again, I make a distinction between "the gay community" and marriage neutering activists.

Again, the bottom line is that from a societal view, heterosexual behavior is objectively and obviously different than homosexual behavior – regardless of morality. The pairing of two men or two women is different from the pairing of a bride and a groom. Why shouldn't our laws be allowed to reflect this reality? Marriage neutering advocates don't want us to have a word that describes the only kind of relationship that forms an inclusive microcosm of society, can naturally produce children and provide those children with both a mother and father who are legally and socially obligated to each other and the children.

"Wedding, Pakastani Style: Restraint & Joy

From NPR's Along the Grand Trunk Road

In this sex-segregated celebration, women assemble on the rooftop and men gather across the street on another -- where they eat first. I find the groom cloistered in a sitting room of a neighbor's house, surrounded by male relatives. His aspirations on his wedding day are for children yet unborn.

I want to spend a lot of time with my children, give them a good education and maybe a little better life then my own," Shahzad says.

Pragmatism is also at work on these occasions, although it's out of public view. A formal contract awards Gul roughly $3,000 in gold, and 500 square yards of land, in case the marriage doesn't work.

But as giddy children swarm, and guests dine on simple Pakistani feast under color-splashed canopies, it is the promise of a joyful future, and the unbroken cycle of life that abides.

Father involvement.... lowers risk of divorce

I just wrote regarding a father's involvement in regards to teenagers babies..... this one includes the concern of divorce.

How much do dads need to help at home? (via Mercator)

Dr Sigle-Rushton focused on 3,500 couples who had stayed together for five years after the birth of their first child (around 20 per cent divorced by the time the child was 16) and looked at the fathers’ participation in housework, shopping and childcare during one week, as reported by their wives in 1975.

The research found, relative to families where women are homemakers and men do little housework and childcare, the risk of divorce is 97% higher when the mother works outside the home and her husband makes a minimal contribution to housework and childcare. However there is no increased risk of divorce when the mother works and her husband’s contribution to housework and childcare is at the highest level. The lowest-risk situation is one where the mother does not work and the father gets involved in the highest level of housework and childcare, the study showed.

In the end when a husband does housework, beyond anything it shows appreciation. It's called being nice. As a man you're an adult and if you were single, once in while you would have to cook dinner and clean up after yourself. Your wife isn't a replacement for your mother. It should be noted, obviously that this involvement of participating in household chores can not be done if the father lives in a separate residence.

From Facebook "It's not "babysitting" if your wife left you at home with your OWN kids!", and that sums it up in the differences in an appreciative marriage and a non-appreciative marriage. In about two months, it has over 400,000 people that liked it.

"Clearly, something has shifted in how Americans think about marriage." –peter hoh

Why is it the less we value marriage, the more we invest in the wedding?

One thing that has changed is the cost and length of engagements. The average cost running upwards of over $30,000 taking upwards of two years to plan here in Massachusetts.

Marriage is now anti-climatic and weddings are ridiculous.

On average my peers marry in their late 20s or early 30s here in Massachusetts, have achieved education, career, good credit, health insurance, many are living together, and joint home ownership all WITHOUT the rights of marriage in Massachusetts. When they get engaged it’s not about the marriage, it’s about the wedding.

For the next 18 months to 2 years the center of their universe is the wedding. Just this weekend, I was informed that a couple I knew pushed back their wedding a full year because the reception hall they wanted was booked for the weekend they desired. *face palm* So marriage is something more then legal rights, because women are willing to put off walking down the aisle for the perfect day.

Still the idea the children should be born within wed-lock, paternity and fatherhood are assumed in this scenario and someone has to put together all the baby furniture together, because all these newlyweds start trying to have a baby soon after. I wish though, the old potluck at the hall would just be as socially acceptable. I’m sure we could all cite backyard receptions for couples with long lasting healthy marriages, and expensive weddings that ended in divorce a year later.

Note: The term Bridezilla was first cited in the Boston Globe in 1995.

And what would that social institution be?

Over at Science Daily... there was a small article regarding the nature of mating between the two differing genders. It Was Brawn Over Beauty in Human Mating Competition, Anthropologist Says

Many researchers have considered mate choice the main operator in human sexual selection. They thought that people's mating success was mainly determined by attractiveness; but for men, it appears that physical competition among males was more important....

"On average men are not all that much bigger than women, only about 15 percent larger," said Puts. "But, the average guy is stronger than 99.9 percent of women."

Men are far more aggressive than women, and approximately 30 percent of men in small-scale foraging communities die violently

These ideas may seem to paint a rather bleak picture of human nature with men duking it out among themselves for most of human evolution. "Things are different for us now in many ways," said Puts. "It's heartening to think that human behavior is flexible enough that the right social institutions can increase equality and peace."(my emphansis)

Just Say No to Kagan Truthers

As XRLQ says:

It’s a trap, folks. Speculating on Elena Kagan’s sexuality is a no-win.

Be sure to read the whole piece at his site. He's absolutely right. Being gay doesn't mean you will make bad decisions, and bad decisions are easily detected on their own.

Debate Room from Business Week

Back from last year, regarding the pros and cons for low income women to marry.

Quick snip from the Pro

"Research shows that around 80% of couples who have babies outside marriage say they are in love and most of them believe that there’s a good chance they will get married some day, according to a 2005 report published in Mathematica Policy Research. So if both the children and adults are better off and if the couples say they hope to be married one day, why not help them?"

What is stopping them from marriage? Do they lose initial state benefits (food stamps/children's health care?) Why not treat low-income married people to transition out of poverty, no different then unmarried mothers considering potentially a good number may have healthy non-abusive relationships with the father at birth?

Quick snip from the Con

"If the concern is the number of children living in poverty, the public should know that many will end up living with only one parent no matter what government might do to encourage marriage. Public policies must accept this reality, and focus on proven approaches to improve single-parent families’ economic security by making work pay a reasonable return, encouraging nonresident fathers to do their part, and helping single mothers manage the challenges of being both primary parents and workers."

What no co-parenting? A woman's burden is primary as parent and as a worker! And a man can be secondary in both?

Who decides what ‘marriage’ means?

Who decides what ‘marriage’ means? by Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe

Being an involved dad, leads to more positive relationships.

Paternal Mice Bond With Offspring Through Touch: Males Generate New Brain Cells and Form Memories Leading to Positive Relationships

ScienceDaily (May 9, 2010) — New research from neuroscientist Samuel Weiss, PhD, director of the Hotchkiss Brain Institute at the Faculty of Medicine, shows that paternal mice that physically interact with their babies grow new brain cells and form lasting memories of their babies. The study is published online in the journal Nature Neuroscience...

Previous research has shown that adult humans also have the capacity to generate new brain cells in the olfactory bulb and the hippocampus and that human fathers exhibit more affection and attachment and fewer ignoring behaviors toward children whose smell they can identify.

"What we have found has implications for long-term mental health," says Weiss. "Our work shows that social interactions foster healthy brains and healthy brains foster positive social interactions, demonstrating a positive feedback loop. Our findings support the idea that physical interactions between fathers and their offspring may be a critical component for developing healthy relationships and a healthy society."

Parents' relationships affect teenagers

From Science Daily Caucasian Teenagers More Damaged by Family Change Than African-American Peers

A new study from the Journal of Marriage and Family reveals that teenagers who have experienced several family changes are more likely to engage in delinquent behaviour, become sexually active early, or become parents outside of marriage, than kids who have always lived in the same family arrangement (whether with married parents or a single parent).

The researchers followed the lives of approximately 8,000 American teenagers from their adolescence in the mid-90s to young adulthood (over the course of seven years). The teenagers answered questions about their school activities, illegal behaviour, and romantic lives. Their parents provided information about their own relationship histories.

I actually think it is good news that finding out that even for single parents, as long as they don't create instability in the home life, teenagers tend to stay out of trouble. I'm not endorsing divorce or single parenting, but single parents need to be aware their future relationships affect their children. More discussion about holding off dating/live-in partners until their children are older, and prioritize stability in their home needs to be the social norm.

Update on Geographic Discrimination Case

We have an update on a criminal case being pursued because a marriage didn’t look like someone else’s idea of marriage. Mexican-bornd Actress Maria Fernanda Romero Martinez, who uses the stage name Fernanda Romero, and her American husband, Kent Ross, plead not guilty yesterday to federal marriage fraud charges. The Los Angeles Daily News has more details.

Authorities allege the suspects entered into a sham marriage so the actress could obtain legal residency status in the United States.

According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, Romero paid Ross to marry her on June 12, 2005, but they never lived together as a couple.

About one month after the marriage, Romero began dating fashion photographer Markus Klinko, and they lived together for several months, according to court papers. After they broke up, Klinko presented ICE with evidence that Romero was in a sham marriage, the prosecution alleges.

Who is to say their marriage is a sham? Families come in many different forms, after all.

The Great Disruption

Men Behaving Badly, excerpt from Francis Fukuyama's The Great Disruption Atlantic Monthly May 1999.

MEN BEHAVING BADLY

ALTHOUGH the role of mother can safely be said to be grounded in biology, the role of father is to a great degree socially constructed. In the words of the anthropologist Margaret Mead, "Somewhere at the dawn of human history, some social invention was made under which males started nurturing females and their young." The male role was founded on the provision of resources; "among human beings everywhere [the male] helps provide food for women and children." Being a learned behavior, the male role in nurturing the family is subject to disruption.....

When we put kinship and family in this context, it is easier to understand why nuclear families have started to break apart at such a rapid rate over the past two generations. The family bond was relatively fragile, based on an exchange of the woman's fertility for the man's resources. Prior to the Great Disruption, all Western societies had in place a complex series of formal and informal laws, rules, norms, and obligations to protect mothers and children by limiting the freedom of fathers to simply ditch one family and start another. Today many people have come to think of marriage as a kind of public celebration of a sexual and emotional union between two adults, which is why gay marriage has become a possibility in the United States and other developed countries. But it is clear that historically the institution of marriage existed to give legal protection to the mother-child unit, and to ensure that adequate economic resources were passed from the father to allow the children to grow up to be viable adults.(my emphasis)

"You know it's gotta be pretty bad."

Raquel Welch writing an opinion piece for CNN. I don't want to quote the whole thing. It's sex o'clock in America By Raquel Welch, Special to CNN

These days, nobody seems able to "keep it in their pants" or honor a commitment! Raising the question: Is marriage still a viable option? I'm ashamed to admit that I myself have been married four times, and yet I still feel that it is the cornerstone of civilization, an essential institution that stabilizes society, provides a sanctuary for children and saves us from anarchy.

In stark contrast, a lack of sexual inhibitions, or as some call it, "sexual freedom," has taken the caution and discernment out of choosing a sexual partner, which used to be the equivalent of choosing a life partner. Without a commitment, the trust and loyalty between couples of childbearing age is missing, and obviously leads to incidents of infidelity. No one seems immune....

Seriously, folks, if an aging sex symbol like me starts waving the red flag of caution over how low moral standards have plummeted, you know it's gotta be pretty bad. In fact, it's precisely because of the sexy image I've had that it's important for me to speak up and say: Come on girls! Time to pull up our socks! We're capable of so much better.

"How do you rate a country?" (Demography)

In recent news we see what it is happening in Greece, but why does a financial melt down for a country have to do with marriage/raising families? Well, look at Greece's demographics, its fertility rate is 1.51 per a woman.

You can't have a growing economy or support pensions/retirement with an rapidly aging population, or pay off your debt without a workforce. Workforces are relatively easy to create, all you need to do is have sex. Of course there is more to that- a lot more. Workforces start off very dependent and needy and take up a lot of resources in their developmental stages prior to adulthood. There's sacrifice of physical, emotional, and financial resources for anyone who engages in copulating activity to help create a future workforce ready and able.

Women take on this sacrifice disproportionately to men, so what's the answer? It can't be not having children, because apparently things tend to fall apart easily. In terms of ideals and public policy how can we make men just as obligated to their offspring to as women and create a balance.

In NPR today, there was a note lowering Greece's bond rating to junk, and other countries like Spain (fertility rate 1.46) and Portugal(fertility rate 1.37) in financial problems. But how does S&P rate a country?

It's not an idle question — just ask Greece, Spain or Portugal, all of which have been downgraded by big ratings agencies recently as Europe's debt crisis intensified. So: To start with, S&P sends two analysts to the country that's being rated. It seems like a small number for a whole country. But Joydeep Mukherji, who is one of the people who rates countries for S&P, says it's enough. "What we're looking at is fairly narrow," he says. "Can you pay your debt fully and on time? What's your ability and willingness to do so?" ... Still, some critics say the very act of downgrading a country to junk status is harmful. Mukherji disagrees."It's not the rating which caused the problem," he says. "The problem was there."

Motherhood: Older, Educated, Unmarried

The statistics in a new study say new mothers in the USA are increasingly older, more educated, and unmarried. Associated Press Writer Leanne Italie reports on what the Pew Research Center released.

But that doesn't mean women are waiting for the right moment: The study also found that half of mothers surveyed said parenthood "just happened."

If they think it "just happened", then apparently they aren't all that educated. "Just happened" is a silly thing teenagers say to their parents, or a woman who was supposedly on contraception or "unable to get pregnant" tells her male partner when she knows he has already told her he doesn't want to be a father, despite engaging in naturally reproductive behavior.

While most women giving birth are doing it within the context of marriage, researchers said a record 41 percent of births were to unmarried women in 2008. That's up from 28 percent in 1990, according to the study, "The New Demography of American Motherhood." The trend crossed major racial and ethnic groups.

If only we had legalized contraception and abortion, this kind of thing wouldn't be happening.

[Much more after the jump.]

It is possible that in the past, one of the reasons this was lower was because the parties to the conception would marry before the child was born, in part because of the existing pregnancy. However, by and large society no longer shames women for giving birth out of wedlock or a man for not marrying the mother of his child. Furthermore, many sources tell women they don't "need" a husband to be a good mother and the government will take care of them, fatherhood is denigrated and downplayed, and more men see marriage as detrimental or at least highly risky to them and not offering them anything they aren't already getting. Also, we have been told by the "enlightened" bunch advocating for the neutering of marriage that marriage isn't about children. So why bother to marry to have them?

Nearly 14 percent of mothers of newborns were 35 or older two years ago - and only about 10 percent were in their teens. The age trend was reversed in 1990, when teens had a 13 percent share of births.

If there has been a decline in teen births, that contributes to the average birth age rising.

Today, one in seven babies is born to a mother at least 35 years old. In 1990, one in 11 had a mother in that age group.

I believe it is best if sex (and therefore birthing) is reserved for marriage, and I'm generally in favor of people marrying after completing their education and establishing themselves is independent adults – including supporting themselves financially. I do not think a man should propose marriage unless he's capable of supporting a family. I think it is taking longer for people to establish themselves in this way, and as such, being older when becoming a parents isn't necessarily a bad thing. (I'm well aware that most people are not going to wait until their mid to late twenties before engaging in intercourse – I'm dealing with ideals.)

On the plus side for having children later is having more life experience. Possible downsides include having less energy for parenting, being more set in habits as a childless person, and not being alive as long to interact with children, grandchildren, etc. There is also the fertility issue.

Most mothers of newborns (54 percent) had at least some college education in 2008, an increase from 41 percent in 1990. Among mothers 35 or older, 71 percent had at least some college education.

Education is good, though I think far too much of academia is instilling the wrong attitudes and false notions in the minds of too many people, often in a way that ill prepares them to be good spouses and parents. Also, accumulating debt related to getting that education is detrimental to a healthy marriage.

When American parents are asked why they decided to have a child, most cite "The joy of having children," the study said.

If they had to explain that in specific terms, I think most of them couldn't - especially if asked before they became parents. Most people can't give a coherent, specific, logical reason why they want to have children aside from family or religious pressures. It is based more on feelings and desires. Objectively, children require a great deal of time, money, and energy and restrict a parent's options. And yet, although I was not unhappy on unfulfilled before becoming a father, I wanted children and there's nothing else quite like watching your child emerge from your wife, hugging your child, sharing giggles with them, watching them learn and grow, and knowing you have continued a chain that extends back through human history. It has taught me much about myself, life, and God.

Stephanie Coontz, director of research and public education for the nonprofit Council on Contemporary Families and a writer who teaches history and family studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., said the rise of single motherhood is significant.

"It's yet another nail in the coffin in the hope that we can solve the challenges facing us today by shoehorning everyone back into marriages," she said.

We can encourage people not to raise kids out of wedlock by reserving intercourse for marriage, or marrying when pregnant or adopting the child out to a married couple.

"One of the big problems with that at this point is very often kids do worse if their mother rushes into a marriage that may be unstable."

Wouldn’t it be better if someone didn't allow someone who is abusive or dysfunctional or simply incompatible with them (or being a husband/being a father) into their body? That he bought you a drink is not very good screening. Children are best off being raised by married parents who are loving towards each other and them. If they parents aren't so good towards each other, it is still better that they are married than both trying to coparent while unmarried to each other, especially if they bring in stepparents or shack-ups or one-night stands who are much more likely to abuse the children. But sure, if a man is a child-molesting murderer, it is better for the mother to take the kids away from him.

Multiple births associated with the trend toward older motherhood were up sharply, including a 70 percent increase in the twin birth rate from 1980 to 2004.

"Not only are women in their 30s more likely than younger women to conceive multiples on their own, they also are more likely to undergo fertility treatments, which are linked to births of multiples," the researchers said.

So the bottom line is that women may indeed be waiting until they are older to have children, but some of the reason statistics say more births are to older, more educated women is that teen pregnancy is down and IVF/fertility treatments mean more multiples, in addition to the natural tendency of older women to have more multiples. Older people, by definition, have had more education, and women outnumber men in higher education now. The increase in unmarried births may also be due to an increase in women choosing not to abort their children.

Privacy and Petitions

After the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against keeping petition signers in the State of Washington private, the Supreme Court of the United States is considering the case, in which backers of a ballot initiative to repeal a domestic partnership law want to keep signers of petitions private, citing harassment. The Los Angeles Times editorial board wrote about certain aspects of the oral arguments.

We don't often agree with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, but he had it exactly right when he chastised supporters of an anti-gay rights ballot initiative for trying to keep their identities secret.

Notice how they characterize it as "anti-gay rights", even though people may be supporting the repeal of the domestic partnership law for the sake of defending marriage from incremental counterfeiting. Also notice that people like the editorial writers call domestic partnerships "gay rights" when they think it is the "best" a state will do and yet "unacceptable bigotry" when they think the state could possibly have neutered marriage instead.

Which is it?

"The 1st Amendment does not protect you from criticism or even nasty phone calls when you exercise your political rights to legislate or to take part in the legislative process," Scalia told a lawyer for a group that unsuccessfully sought to overturn the state of Washington's domestic partnership law.

Isn't voting on an initiative taking part in the legislative process? Should ballots on initiatives no longer be private?

Scalia's colorful comments during oral arguments last week focused on a key distinction between signing a petition to put an issue to the voters and casting a secret ballot.

And what is that distinction? What makes the difference? Where is the line drawn, and why? I do tend to favor more transparency, but I do not think equal protection under the law is happening when it comes to harassment.

[More after the jump.]

Unlike California's public records law, Washington's version doesn't make an exception for ballot signatures.

So, it is okay to keep the signers private in California? Somehow, I think this editorial board would say no.

We hope that the eventual opinion reflects one of Scalia's other observations at oral arguments: "You know, you can't run a democracy this way, with everybody being afraid of having his political positions known."

Yes, but you see, in a lot of places in this country, despite the freedoms of religion and speech, people are legally harassed and fired for a political position in favor of protecting marriage or judicial restraint, while someone advocating to neuter marriage is legally protected because they claim it is tied to them being attracted to someone of the same sex. Law enforcement is ordered and funded to aggressively pursue charges against those who commit assault and vandalism apparently because of the victim's sexual orientation, but not if the victim is targeted because their religious or political convictions lead them to defend marriage.

I suppose one could make the argument that their sex or sexual orientation compels them to defend marriage, but will law enforcement and the courts take that seriously and aggressively prosecute harassment? Why is asking a coworker on a date or offering a compliment actionable harassment, but not harassment based on their support of marriage?

If the folks in the State of Washington lose this one, I suggest recruiting abortionists as petition gatherers. This will absolutely guarantee privacy, and anyone hostile who gets near one will face a federal case.

Seriously, marriage defenders could respond in kind, "reaching out" to those who back marriage neutering legislation, the way they have reached our or are seeking to reach out to marriage defenders. (After all, isn't that why they want names?) The problem is that defenders of marriage are more likely to be law-abiding, civil, tolerant, and have families to tend to, while those seeking to neuter marriage are more likely to have the time and inclination to try to intimidate people. In California, nobody feared publicly stating their opposition to the California Marriage Amendment, while supportes of the amendment were afraid or had reason to be afraid - and yes, it was fear, not shame - fear of unstable, intolerant, and powerful people, not fear of having their covictions known.

John Nienstedt: Let's protect the meaning of marriage

from the Star Tribune in Minnesota

Why should Minnesotans care about passing a marriage amendment? Marriage matters to every Minnesotan, whether or not we choose to marry personally, because it is the natural way we bring together men and women to conceive and raise the next generation. The intended reality of marriage as a lifelong, committed, life-giving union between one man and one woman, a reality long accepted as established fact, is severely challenged today. High rates of fatherlessness and family fragmentation impoverish children and leave women with the unfair burden of solo parenting. Children suffer, but so does the whole society, when marriage fails in its irreplaceable task of bringing together mothers and fathers with their children....