Involved fathers decreases bullying

What makes a bully become a bully?

Perception of Time Spent With Fathers Can Lead to Bullying via Science Daily

Mothers' work hours showed modest to no effect on bullying behavior. Christie-Mizell believes this is because children perceive mothers as being more accessible because they still handle most of the responsibilities at home as caregivers and family managers.

"The findings about fathers and mothers are important because it turns what most of us think is conventional wisdom -- that mothers have the most influence on children -- on its ear. What this research shows is that while it's equally important for kids to spend time with both parents, fathers need to make an extra effort," he said.

The article can be found at Youth and Society

Now Olson Asks California Supreme Court Not to Interfere

When we last left the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, a federal court had asked the California Supreme Court to decide whether or not Prop 8 proponents have standing to defend the state constitutional amendment. Maura Dolan of the Los Angeles Times has the latest.

An attorney for same-sex couples hoping to overturn Proposition 8 in federal court urged the California Supreme Court on Tuesday to reject a request that it rule on whether initiative sponsors have authority to defend ballot measures.

Interesting that now they don't want the California Supreme Court involved. Do they suspect the court would recognize the standing of the Proposition 8 supporters?

In his letter to the state court, Theodore B. Olson, an attorney for two same-sex couples, said that the question of standing in federal court is a federal constitutional issue, not a state one, and that the California Supreme Court would merely prolong the case by agreeing to answer the 9th Circuit's question.

They want it both ways. Marriage licensing is a state issue, and yet it is in federal court.

Olson also argued that well-established law in California denies initiative sponsors the right to represent the state in litigation.

"It is clear that California law vests the attorney general - not private litigants - with the authority to represent the state's interest in litigation," Olson wrote.

California law also vests the legislature with passing laws. But the people have the initiative process, too. The time to deny standing of the Prop 8 proponents was before the state Supreme Court.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law professor and dean of UC Irvine's law school, said he was not surprised by Olson's argument. Lawyers generally want an issue to be decided by a forum in which they expect to win, Chemerinsky said.

Uh, yeah. Chemerinsky is on Olson's side by the way. Looks like they know the state court would rule in favor of marriage defenders.

If the 9th Circuit determines that backers of Proposition 8 lack standing to appeal, the court would not reach the constitutional questions and the lower court ruling against the marriage ban would be limited to California, legal experts have said.

It's not a marriage ban. Interesting that they've dopped the "gay". So does Olson not want SCOTUS to get involved? But I thought there was this dire, immediate need to have nationwide marriage neutering?

"mightymoose" stuck up for the state constitution repeatedly in the comments.

Loving v Virgina was decided on race alone and assumed the male/female relationship. The circumstances of that case do not apply here.

Oz Conservative: The delayed marriage debate

Is marriage more sustainable if you start it later in life? Oz Conservative crunches some numbers and chews on some deep thoughts:

One of the looming battles in the culture war is the issue of when to marry and have children. Feminists have urged women to stay independent of men; this hasn't, in general, led women to reject the idea of marriage and motherhood outright. It has, though, encouraged the trend for women to defer family formation until some time in their 30s.

Well both of you can't be the father

I can say I'm frustrated. Do we have to get Maury Povich involve for a paternity test? We admire and value Elton John for his amazing talents, we even respect the fact he's gay. Being gay is a reality, having no mother isn't

From Yahoo Entertainment regarding Elton John

"The couple's son, Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John, was born in California through a surrogate mother. John said he was disappointed that members of the Church of England questioned his parenthood in the days following his son's birth. He insisted that he's not against religion and that "Jesus was a wonderful, compassionate man, who forgave on the cross."

"Men have upper hand in sexual economy"

"Men have upper hand in sexual economy" via CNN

Researchers found that since women in the 18- to 23-year-old group feel they don't need men for financial dependence, many of them feel they can play around with multiple partners without consequence, and that the early 20s isn't the time to have a serious relationship. But eventually, they do come to want a real, lasting relationship. The problem is that there will still be women who will have sex readily without commitment, and since men know this, fewer of them are willing to go steady.

"Women have plenty of freedom, but freedom does not translate easily into getting what you want," Regnerus said.

All the safe-sex education in the world won't solve this problem.

That being said I'm not a fan of abstinence programs either. Dating/relationships lead to sex. So either work in a time frame for education/work that supports marriage for young adults, rather then fighting against it.

For Sale by Divorce

For Sale By Divorce: A Real Estate Niche by SARA LERNER via NPR

"I was confused as to what was happening to me after 10 years of marriage," she says. "You know, you think it's for better or for worse, and he's not there to help me, and I was in basically a confusion state of mind."

Still, she had to put her house on the market — a market in which her neighbors' homes weren't selling. And the house had to sparkle while she packed it up to move from Washington state to Texas.

"At the time when you're going through the most difficult time of your life — ... they call divorce worse than death — to have someone that's there for you and assists you and makes you feel like they're here to help you in every step of the way with selling your house, it's really, it's god-sent," Mansoori says.

I hate how the person who leaves the marriage, makes the other person (in this case with three small children) to do all the leg work. Does anyone know of state laws that go punitive on those who 'abandon' their spouses? If you want a divorce then, get a divorce. Don't be a jerk and make the other person do it. I dislike divorce, but actually I can see why Real Estate agents find this to be a niche for those in need.

Don't like your marriage laws, vote in new people.

From Christian Science Monitor

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up a case seeking to force the Washington, D.C., government to hold a referendum on the city’s gay marriage law. The high court declined to hear an appeal filed on behalf of opponents of a March 2010 law that made the District of Columbia the sixth jurisdiction in the United States authorizing gay and lesbian couples to marry

The same thing happen in Massachusetts several years ago, it was procedural that the definition of marriage wouldn't become a ballot question. That was a decision done by the state legislature.

Being it is a one party state, and the state Republican (in name only) party holds a platform in favor of marriage redefined here in Massachusetts, it will have to take a significant change in who is elected. I don't think it will happen, but I'm still in shock and awe that Scott Brown was elected. Respectfully, the local Democrats did an amazing job to get out the vote with their base in 2010, it also helped we had some really crappy Republican candidates.

No Safety Net

Comment from a post titled, the Safety Net from Darwin Catholic, citing a Salon article about a stay at home mom who regets her decision when later on she ends up divorced.

It's not no-fault divorce that's created this problem for non-working wives--no-fault divorce was a necessary and good thing (legally speaking) that lifted the burden of collusive divorces, where both husband and wife lied in order to "qualify" for a divorce, from the courts. The blame lies on unilateral no-fault divorces, whereby one partner could simply legally abandon the other, plus the disappearance of alimony. These left marriage as one of the few areas in law where two parties are legally unable to enter into an enforceable contract, and created a strong disincentive for a division of labor within the marriage, no matter how beneficial that would be, as it would leave one partner uniquely vulnerable. (my emphasis) The legislatures and courts have succeeded in making American marriage far more power-imbalanced than marriage critics like Shaw could have imagined. The leftie in me can't help drawing parallels to the disappearance of union contracts for working men in the U.S. and the now-univerality of firing employees for "good, bad, or no reason."

Martin Luther King Jr and the call to community

Today, I want to remember this quote from a talk by MLK Jr, from a speech with a title that would seem at home with the words written today to defend marriage, "Where do we go from here? Chaos or Community?"

Being a Negro in America means trying to smile when you want to cry. It means trying to hold on to physical life amid psychological death. It means the pain of watching your children grow up with clouds of inferiority in their mental skies. It means having your legs cut off, and then being condemned for being a cripple. It means seeing your mother and father spiritually murdered by the slings and arrows of daily exploitation, and then being hated for being an orphan.

NOM National Marriage News: Defining the "Culture of Hate"

Some timely commentary from Brian Brown at NOM...

They [marriage neuterists] do not see themselves as behaving aggressively when they insist that all good people now support the redefinition of marriage, so the public and political resistance of others to their new views on marriage strikes them as incredibly aggressive.
[...]
I've come to believe that this is not merely tactical on their part; they really experience the world in this way, which makes me sad.
If you say, “The ideal for a child is a mom and a dad,” they hear something very different, something which sounds more like, 'You hate me and my family—you want to attack me.'
I'm not sure what it is possible to do about reactions like that. Many parents are not married, and all responsible parents deserve respect. But an America where our ideal is seen as a vicious and hateful attack?

All of this is framed in a remark by Paul Krugman about the toxic effects of "eliminationist rhetoric" on public discourse. I want to explore a question with the readership a bit more deeply also, Do we really think there is an enemy which needs to be eliminated in this debate, or do we see on the other side of the fence people who need to be taken care of? When our intentions are always viewed inside of a mindset of sinister suspicion, there may indeed be little room for dialog.

What About the Attack on Prop 8 Donors?

From Tuscon to NOM:

Reason's Cathy Young is one of the few commenters on 'civility' to notice the attack on gay marriage opponents in Prop 8:
'Never mind the once-trendy Bush assassination fantasies, such as the Air America radio skit in which an angry retiree responded to Bush's Social Security reform proposals with gunshots, or the misogynistic anti-Palin rants in leftist publications. Or the smears against opponents of racial preferences in the public sector -- accused of racism if they are white, self-loathing if black. Or the posting of a map with the home addresses of donors to the campaign for California's same-sex marriage ban, surely more intimidating than crosshairs on congressional districts.'
Thank-you Cathy for 'ninding'

Vandalism, lost jobs, all for standing up for children's needs in a world of adult centered 'needs'.

The Global Scandal of “The Global Baby”

The Wall Street Journal blows the cover off the international trade in babies and reproductive technologies this week, as reporters Tamara Audi and Arlene Chang tell of the emergence of a market that assembles the “global baby.” Keep Reading

I've long since warned that the tenets of neutering marriage of responsible procreation, is the loss of our ability to promote and stabalize responsibility in how we create children. Responsible procreation is not understood from the perspective of adult needs, but by primarily considering all of a child's needs and trying to meet every single one. As much as our imperfect human condition can provide, at least.

Daffyd: The Conspiracy to Murder Marriage - Phase II

The title is provacative and the article follows through, so without further ado, I'll just leave a link.

Is this homophobic? Really?

While being firmly in the camp of removing any directed animosity (either through government or private interaction) towards people who practice a homosexual lifestyle, I have been guilty in the eyes of homosexual advocates of two things,

1. Not completely buying into over-reaching points of their dogma that define what a homosexual must be, and not unrelated is,
2. Not completely buying into priveledged and special treatment that they believe their lifestyle should afford. 

In short, I don't believe that homosexuals are incapable of loving, honoring, and cherishing someone of the other gender in any meaningful marital way, and I don't believe that homosexuals are more important than any two commited people sharing a common domestic setting. Why the former is such a strong requirement, I have no idea from a purely logical standpoint. I have no idea why people should consider themselves limited from being able to love others.
The latter comes from a view of many struggling domestic situations which has come from my (albeit limited) social work. So many families are headed by mutual trust more than romantic affair. They are sisters who share in common abusive or neglectful men who no longer have a place in raising children they had with them. They share in common two men who also had their wives taken by death and other tragic circumstance. They are an elderly couple and a mother or father who's spouse is now medically incapable of taking care of children.
However fair and circumspect I find that opinion to be, it always amazes me that when I express such an opinion, otherwise erudite people and institutions censor it as violating one or both of the over-reaching points of homosexualist dogma mentioned above. The most recent case is the Economist, and the debate they are having between Evan Wolfson and Maggie Gallagher. The recent comment was deleted for being homophobic. I invite anyone to tell me how this comment is homophobic in any way other than violating the two points of homosexualist dogma mentioned above...

So-Called News Bans Accurate Reporting on Prop 8

I wrote a little about the latest Proposition 8 news yesterday, but now there’s much more coverage. Dan Levine has the Reuters coverage, which is full of erroneous language such as referring to the amendment as a "gay marriage ban". But then so is most major media coverage. It is too bad that more people in the news media aren't as sharp and able to put aside their own biases as Jill Stewart.

California voters banned same sex weddings in 2008 by approving so-called Proposition 8.

"So-called"? Huh? Really, that is what it was on the ballot. Then it became an amendment to the state constitution. And if you read it, it does not ban any ceremony at all. Go ahead, Mr. Levine. Go have a "wedding" with some other guy today. Or two. Nobody will arrest you.

In an order released on Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asked the Supreme Court of California whether initiative supporters have the authority to defend a ballot measure when public officials refuse to do so.

The 9th Circuit said it was not clear whether the governor may "effectively veto" Prop 8 by refusing to defend it, since he does not have the power to strike down Prop 8 directly.

If initiative supporters aren't allowed to defend a voter-approved measure, isn't the basic system compromised? How can voters be allowed to place something on the ballot and vote to adopt it - amending their constitution - and not be allowed to defend that amendment from challenge in court?

Ted Olson, an attorney for two couples challenging Prop 8, said they would renew their arguments that ProtectMarriage.com does not have the legal right to pursue an appeal.

"We see no good side whatsoever for requiring citizens in California essentially to drink out of different drinking fountains," Olson said.

Did Olson really fail to address the actual issue at hand, or did the reporter just choose the wrong quote? It is as though Olson is saying, “We don't need due process, just my opinions." And yes, people should have to drink out of different fountains if they are requesting the facility provide a different drink. Assuming homosexual behavior is a necessary expression of an immutable personal characteristic, what the marriage neutering advocates are doing is akin to lactose intolerant people demanding that a milk-dispensing nozzle dispense water instead of milk, when a vast majority of people present drink milk, and most have insisted the nozzle continue to dispense milk. They are even more batty than someone who would go into a government building's cafeteria that allows customers to refill their own soft-drinks and then complain at the counter that having different nozzles for Coke and unsweetened iced tea is hateful and an unconstitutional imposition of "separate but (un)equal".

The AFP coverage is mostly more of the same.

The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sent the question back to California's Supreme Court, asking it to rule on whether anti gay marriage campaigners have the right to challenge a decision last year legalizing gay unions.

"Gay unions" have long been legalized in California. In addition, for many years now, two people of the same-sex have been able to get a state domestic partnership, which treats them as though they are spouses. Can the news media please do the slightest bit of research and use accurate phraseology? This isn't about "legalizing gay unions". It is about whether or not the people of California are allowed to call bride+groom pairings "marriage" and only license those pairing as marriage, of if a court can force the people of California to extend that terminology and licensing to certain other kinds of pairings.

Supporters of so-called Prop 8 -- a 2008 referendum measure which banned gay marriage in California -- took their fight to the US federal court last month, in the latest stage of a legal saga that could have national implications.

Again with the "so-called" and "banned gay marriage". Is there one bitter person in a basement pulling the strings at the various news associations, or what?

Currently only the states of Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, as well as the US capital Washington, recognize gay marriage.

Wrong. They recognize same-sex unions as marriage. There is no proof required that any of the participants are gay.

Carol J. Williams notes on the LATimes.com blog that Imperial County was denied standing.

Imperial County's Board of Supervisors and deputy clerk had filed a motion to intervene on behalf of the Proposition 8 proponents as well, arguing that county officials had a vested interest in the issue of whether the law passed by a 52% majority of voters in 2008 should be enforced. The appeals court said marriage laws are a state, not a county, matter.

Yeah, well they are also a state and not federal matter, but the federal courts have gotten involved anyway, now haven't they?

And yes, the title of this entry is deliberately a mirror of what the news media is doing.

Prop 8 Goes Back to California Supreme Court

As readers of this blog know, California Governor and former Attorney General Jerry Brown, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and new Attorney General Kamala Harris have all abandoned their duty to defend the state constitution. So defending the amendment voted in by the people of California as Proposition 8 has been left to others. David Lauter reports at LATimes.com on the latest development in the case, which is not a surprise.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has asked the California Supreme Court to rule on whether the groups that put California's ban on gay marriages onto the ballot have the legal right to defend the ban in court.

It's... not...a...ban.

That question will now go to the California Supreme Court, which will advise the federal judges about whether, under California law, the official supporters of a ballot initiative have the right to defend it in court if the governor and attorney general decline to do so.

Considering the California Supreme Court recently allowed the amendment supporters to defend the amendment in its own court, and they subsequently upheld the amendment, I don't see how they could now decide that the defendants wouldn't have standing. Or will the retirement and replacement of Chief Justice Ronald George change everything?

Like in other advanced countries...

Like in other advanced countries (Japan), young people are waiting to get married and choosing to have fewer children because of careers and lifestyle issues.

Saturday's report showed 706,000 marriages registered last year — the fewest since 1954 and a sign that birth rates are unlikely to jump dramatically anytime soon.

From Yahoo News on Japan's Demographic Decline

Why is it assumed that marriage rates have something to do with the birth rates in women?

Japan has been a peaceful country for the past 60 years with no natural disasters, yet has fallen into this spiral.