The separation of cultures…

Just today I had a much saner discussion on Facebook, with people I really know, about how child-free couples are judged. In fact at first the discussion from this past week, I thought for a moment it may be someone I knew from my own community. It had me thinking all day… not about the benefit of marriage, but how communities are formed.

At one point in time, the married and unmarried and those with children or without could live next to each other. All adults wore the same style of clothing, there were not ‘mommy outfits’ or ‘dad gear’. Now where we decide to live are niche markets, and we’re categorized fitting a marketed profile from what we wear, eat, and how we spend our recreational time.

I don’t live out in the outer suburbs away from the pitfalls of cities have, we didn’t flight out as my parents did in the 70s utilizing their two-income to get into a suburb ‘with a good school system’. Instead I moved backed to Lowell, in 100-year-old home on a mere .1 acre. As we’ve all seen a gap between the middle class and those fighting poverty, we saw a change in what it meant to live in a community.

Decades ago if people drove different type of vehicles, it was because of function. Now cars make a statement, and that is how they’re marketed. People can’t sit down and watch the same television show either. I disagree with every person in the household have a TV in their bedroom, but there is no way I can sit through Nickelodeon. (We don’t have cable) Seriously I would snap. No wonder why parents just succumb to evils of tween marketing and give in. Remember when MTV played music videos, instead of being a ‘lifestyle’ channel heavily marketed to 12-25 year olds.

Children are divided from their parents, single people divided from the married, and childless divided from those with children in almost every aspect of our culture. Even married with children are divided from the unmarried with children, just look at how communities are divided.

Renee Aste

Lowell, Massachusetts

Why marriage matters.... it prevents rape.

From Dadsworld.com

80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes. 14 times the national average. SOURCE: Justice and Behavior

and gangs

Gang Violence: America’s Silent War“

So who are these young men who call themselves ‘gangs,’ who rape, pillage and devour our communities? They are young men existing on the fringes of society from broken homes. Their fathers are gone. Many are institutionalized in prison, stuck in the muck and mire, unable to provide training, guidance, and nurturing assistance that gives their sons a chance at a healthy life.”

The rampant spread of gangs in our country is the direct result of fatherlessness. Demographically speaking, the most reliable predictor for gang activity and youth violence is neither social class, nor race, nor education, but fatherlessness. No longer do we have to travel abroad to find war; America is making war on itself.

Why marriage matters to children Reason # 5690848

Financial Burden Greater for College Students With Divorced or Remarried Parents

The researchers discovered that married parents contributed about 8 percent of their income to their child's college costs and met 77 percent of their children's financial needs; divorced parents contributed about 6 percent of their income and met only 42 percent of their children's financial needs; remarried parents contributed only 5 percent of their income and met 53 percent of their children's needs.

Protect Marriage Maryland

Protect Marriage Maryland

Protect Maryland Marriage is a Political Action Committee (PAC) formed to preserve the current Maryland Family Law §2-201 which states that "Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State." The following sections go on to state that "A man may not marry his: grandmother; mother; daughter; sister; or granddaughter," and that "A woman may not marry her: grandfather; father; son; brother; or grandson," nor may they marry their in-laws, nieces, nephews, or similar family relations by marriage. We believe there is value in preserving the traditional definition of marriage, and that efforts of gay activists to change this definition to satisfy the agenda of their own special-interest group does violence to the family structure and the reality that children do best when raised in a stable family, raised with the love, attention, and physical presence of their biological mother and father. We believe that the current marriage law enshrines this reality, and although some families may not always be able to provide these opportunities to every child, keeping the current law is the best way to give respect to the natural family and provide these opportunities by establishing the model of an ideal family for children to be raised in.

My answer about DOMA, bring on the FMA!

Playful has made some very considerate questions about DOMA recently. If I may it seems that his open question entails two different points...

1. DOMA is meant to protect states who don't want to recognize neutered marriage licenses from having to do so.
2. DOMA further makes clear that the federal government doesn't and won't recognized neutered marriage licenses.

The first question gets into a haystack of federalism, which for my purposes can be defined as a way of preserving local sovereignty in the presence of a unifying authority. The second point is strategically just tipping the hand of the federal government to let people know it favors marriage as an institution explicitly rooted in a relationship which is reproductive. Legislatively, it fully protects the unifying authority, yet for the states it does little more than show that card.

Because dads should be as equally engaging...

These posters are hung up in the local Department of Children and Families. The photo needs to be enlarged, but it talks about fathers to be equally important even if they do not live in the same home as the mother. For years we've focused on the needs of mother to ensure her children have food, shelter, and education, which is important. But we lacked focus on including men in the social need of their children in these families of need.

Yes, I live in Massachusetts where marriage has been redefined. Also as a matter of public policy, we know we lost something even though it can not be spoken. It's like a concept without a name. You would think something that important would be called something.

Why I don't see marriage as a contract or a piece of paper.

When I look at family public policy, I never see it as a 'contract'. Parents don't need a contract to raise their own child, so the idea that we like to have parents raise them together shouldn't need a contract either. Moms and dads are by nature and by right are suppose to raise their children. The event in which they are married, is status to the community that is their intention to be one in that endeavor.

Maybe Things Should Have Been Left Alone in the First Place?

Douglas NeJaime, an associate professor of law at Loyola Law School, has a commentary in today's Los Angeles Times about the complications between federal and state law when it comes to marriage licenses, domestic partnerships, etc.

He notes that New York, this weekend, will start handing out what used to be marriage licenses to brideless and groomless couples.

Why does this complicate things? Consider what happens when legally married couples from New York move to, say, California. They'll see their marriages evaporate, based only on their sexual orientation.

So much for letting the states decide. You know, I can get various licenses in one place that aren't honored in other places. Oh, and the confusing tax differences from state to state! How can I be taxed ten cents per dollar spent on a purchase in one state, but nothing in another?

Take the case of a same-sex couple that moves to California after getting married in New York. Here, the marriage will not be fully recognized, pursuant to Proposition 8, which in November 2008 amended the California Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. On the other hand, a same-sex couple that married in Massachusetts before November 2008 will be recognized as legally married under California law.

Yes, the California Supreme Court did screw things up, didn't they? They should have never tried to neuter state marriage licensing in the first place.

And here's another complication. Even if a same-sex couple is considered legally married under state law, the marriage won't be recognized under federal law. Thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex couples get none of the federal benefits of marriage, such as spousal Social Security benefits after a death or the ability to bring a noncitizen spouse into the country.

This could be changed by replacing DOMA with something that recognized domestic partnerships.

Things are even worse in some states. Imagine a married couple that moves to a state without even a domestic partnership law: The couple suddenly goes from being legally married to being legal strangers.

Gosh, if only people weren't forced at gunpoint to move from one state to another, and if they could just choose from 49 other states (plus territories). If only...

Imagine the confusion when a man with several wives moves to the USA! Something should be done about that.

If this all seems absurdly confusing, it is.

We could have avoided all of this confusion by not neutering marriage licenses anywhere and not having civil unions or domestic partnerships at all. Say, who was it that was insisting on the necessity of civil unions and domestic partnerships all these years, anyway?

In the modern age, it's not reasonable to expect that couples will stay in the states in which they marry.

Okay then, can we please save everyone a lot of money then and simply abolish the state governments, since pretending we're a union of fifty states, you know, like the Constitution describes, is making life so difficult for that gigantic percentage of the population that wants to call their brideless or groomless relationships a marriage and force everyone else to call it marriage, too?

Though marriage has always been regulated by individual states and is likely to remain a matter of state law, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized a federal constitutional right to marry.

Yes, there's a right to vote, too. But if you call something that is not voting "voting", it doesn't mean the federal government has to consider that other thing a right. If one state abandons the core meaning of voting, should all of the other states and the federal government be force to follow?

"GregMaragos" at 7:22 PM July 21, 2011:

NeJaime should focus some of [his] angst at the Democratic Party and the California Supreme Court, both of whom have made a real hash of things.

The official Democratic Party position on gay marriage is, "Leave the federal government out of it. Let the states decide how to define a marriage."

The current bouillabaisse of laws and restrictions is a natural outgrowth of using the courts to make law, rather than the ballot box.

"KennyS562" at 8:41 AM July 22, 2011:

Is that how you feel about desegregaton as well? That was a court action.

Funny that should be brought up. The bride+groom requirement is very much about integration. Neutering marriage supports segregation.

"Brianb2970" at 9:01 AM July 22, 2011:

Yes, but "marriage" was never envisioned as being between two people of the same sex, so that statement is pretty much irrelevant. What we're taling about here is a complete redefinition of the institution.

That being said, there's no real consistency on marriage legalities anyway. The "age of consent" to enter into marriage varies from state to state. So do laws that restrict based on familial relationship.

Funny how the commentary didn't mention that many states allow first cousins to marry, but other states don't. Incrementalism is a clever tactic, isn't it?

DOMA Hearing

Christine Mai-Duc has the main coverage of the DOMA hearing for the Los Angeles Times.

By the time Ron Wallen and Tom Carrollo married in 2008, they had already lived most of their "good times and bad" as a same-sex couple.

They did not marry. They got a state-issued license that is given to couples who marry and to same-sex couples who ask for one and have a ceremony, provided nobody is currently subject to such a license, everyone is of age, and the two are not too closely related. The state or federal government can call it a "marriage license" but it isn't marriage without both a bride and a groom.

When Carrollo died in March, Wallen received another devastating blow: Unable to collect survivor's benefits from his partner's Social Security, Wallen's monthly income dropped from $3,050 to $900, he said — not enough to cover the mortgage on the couple's home.

Social Security was largely based on the idea that you had a division of labor between the sexes and that children were one likely result of marriage. If the breadwinning spouse died, or a minor was orphaned, there would be some money to help out. Frankly, I think of Social Security as a giant ponzi scheme and much prefer private assistance, but I'm digressing from the focus of this blog.

The repeal bill, introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), would allow the estimated 50,000 to 80,000 same-sex couples who have [obtained “marriage” licenses] in the District of Columbia or any of the six states where such [licenses are issued] to enjoy benefits under family leave laws, Social Security and federal tax codes.

Repeal proponents say individual states should decide whether to [neuter] marriage.

That is one of the only times you'll ever hear a lot of these people talking about the role of states. I believe in the sincerity of the ones who are consistent federalists. So many of the others, the moment you talk about states doing something independently of the federal government or different from each other, accuse you of wanting to bring back slavery. But again I am digressing.

But in Wednesday's hearing, they focused on the issue as a matter of civil rights.

What other civil rights will be newly invented in the coming decades? How did Dr./Rev. MLK Jr. miss this one?

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who was invited to testify, compared it to his childhood during segregation in the South.

Actually, neutering marriage promotes segregation.

"All across this nation, same-sex couples are denied the very rights that you and I enjoy."

Our Construction does not talk about rights for any couples. It talks about the rights of individuals and the states. All individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, have the same access to state-licensed marriage, even if they don't want to exercise that access.

Has DOMA Finished Serving Its Most Important Purpose?

Marriage licensing in the USA is a state function. The federal government recognizes state-issued marriage licenses for purposes of immigration, benefits as an employer, and in distributing things like Social Security survivor benefits.

When the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, it reinforced the established, historical, natural definition of marriage as something uniting a bride and groom. There was no state in the union that recognized a brideless or groomless union as marriage, let alone issued neutered marriage licenses to such couples. Nor was there a single country in the world that had neutered their marriage laws. However, the writing was on the wall as marriage neutering advocates were doing what they could to change that.

An important function of DOMA, then, was to prevent an extremist activist judiciary in a single state from effectively neutering marriage for the whole nation through a systematic, organized effort of sending same-sex couples to the errant judiciary’s jurisdiction and then having those couples petition the governments of other states to recognize their brideless or groomless “marriages”. Which is exactly what would have happened. DOMA protected other states in the event that one state went off the deep end. It bought time.

It wasn't until 2001 that the first country fell to the marriage neutering activists – the Netherlands. Then, in 2004, per the imperial judiciary of Massachusetts, that state started handing out neutered marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples. Contrary to a wave of unstoppable momentum marriage neutering advocates claim to have, most states have recently reaffirmed the bride+groom requirement in their constitutions. Others have recently reaffirmed the requirement in lesser law. Only a handful of states have neutered marriage licensing (mostly by judicial imposition) and only a handful of others have no recent laws adopted on the matter.

Most states have picked sides on this debate. That's why I ask if DOMA, fifteen years later, has finished serving its most important purpose. Marriage neutering advocates in Congress have proposed a legislative repeal of DOMA, which, last I checked, appeared to me to be written to as to allow one single solitary state to impose polygamy on the rest of the states as well as the federal government. Whether DOMA is repealed or not, or whether it is enforced (as far as federal recognition of neutered marriage licenses) or not, that issue will be eventually heading to SCOTUS and may get there before the dispute over the California Marriage Amendment does. SCOTUS could invent a "right" to a neutered state marriage license nationwide or allow states to handle the issue themselves. Or, maybe it will do something else.

I'd like to see a Constitutional Amendment that would make it clear that there is no Constitutional right to a neutered marriage license, but would, for federal purposes, give some recognition to neutered "marriage" licenses, domestic partnerships, and civil unions. Yes, those things should be treated differently from marriage because the kinds of associations to which they apply are different. I know there are many marriage defenders who would find the latter provision unacceptable and that marriage neutering advocates would find the earlier provision unacceptable. There are probably marriage defenders who don't think the earlier provision would be going far enough.

What do you think?

Ninth Circuit Often Shot Down by Unanimous SCOTUS

The Los Angeles Times is noting that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is far enough to the Left that it is overturned a lot by the Supreme Court of the United States The article never touches on the elephant in the room. Or, perhaps, the 800-pound gorilla – that experts expect the 9th Circuit to side with Walker's decision to neuter marriage by overturning the amendment to the California constitution. Read more about the article and the situation over at my namesake blog.

Polygamists Sue Utah

What will the Browns do to U(tah)? I have previously noted that one should never equate same-sex "marriage" to polygamy or incestuous marriage; the latter two have a global history as having been recognized as valid marriages and perpetuating society. They were organicly emerging constructs of marriage. The former is a recent notion invoked mostly to signify public approval of homosexual behavior and used as a political tool by the likes of people whose ideological predecessors were insisting marriage was dead and pointless. Now, "reality" television, the gift that keeps giving, has brought us Kody Brown and his plurality of wives, featured in "Sister Wives". More importantly, the Browns have just filed a lawsuit to overturn a law in the name of regaining their Constitutional rights to freedom of association

Both marriage defenders and marriage neuterists have linked this to the ongoing battle over neutering marriage or replacing marriage in law with pseudomarriage. Marriage defenders are saying "I told ya so." Some marriage neuterists are disavowing the legal or social connection to their push, even denouncing the Browns as strange (oh, the irony). Others are at least consistent enough to side with the Browns.

No, polygamy and incest are not the same thing as same-sex relationships. The first deals with number, the second with consanguity, the last with something that is, at the core, different than marriage. (When marriage defenders who believe sex is for marriage and marriage unites the sexes make the SSM-polygamy-incest-beastiality-Eiffel Tower argument, it sounds to some like a vegan who says that wearing wool will lead to eating cows will lead to torturing and killing endangered species for the mere fun of it.) What the real point is, is that SCOTUS allowed the banning of polygamous marriage and some states don't grant marriage licenses to first cousins; both are situations that have been historically and are currently (in many places in the world) recognized and sanctioned and widely practiced as marriage. And if there is such a fundamental right to a state marriage license that even a brideless or groomless couple can't be denied such a license, even though such relationships have only been considered marriage in a few places relatively recently, then how can the monogamy and nonconsanguinity requirements continue to be considered Constitutional?

Marriage is about integration. It integrates the lives of two individuals. It integrates their families. It integrates the sexes. That some states banned "interracial" marriage violated the principle of integration by trying to force segregation. When those laws were in place, cohabitation could banned. Thus, it was an actual ban on marriage, unlike say, Proposition 8 – the duly adopted California Marriage Amendment – which hasn't prevented anyone from having a ceremony and living together, calling each other "husband" or calling each other "wife", or enjoying the same treatment by the state as married couples via the state's domestic partnerships. A relationship without a bride or without a groom is segregationist, not integrationist. Thus, it violates the core and spirit of marriage if one tries to stuff it into that category and demand a state license. The principle of integration is one of the main reasons the state has an interest in distinguishing, sanctioning, and promoting marriage. It is also a reason why the state has an interest in denying marital status to one man and multiple women at the same time, or to incestuous couples. Society benefits when men and women from different clans pair off, form social-legal-financial bonds, and especially when they are sexually exclusive with each other and raise children together (as most marriages do), usually with the children as a biological combination of both families. The parents and grandparents grew up with the same genes, the same traits. Society benefits much less, if at all, if two men are engaging in sex-like behavior with each other rather than simply being buddies, roommates, or business partners.

The Associated Press has an article by Jennifer Dobner on the lawsuit by the Browns.

OK to Leave the Closet, But Not the Reservation?

Are we to believe that there has never, ever been a person with homosexual feelings, perhaps who has engaged in homosexual behavior and/or identified as a homosexual person, who has, for whatever reasons and through whatever means, gone on to lead a functional happy life while also refraining from ever engaging in homosexual behavior (again), perhaps even falling in love with someone of the opposite sex, marrying, and having an enjoyable heterosexual love life?

It is awfully difficult to prove a universal negative, yet the way some journalists and bloggers and activists talk, it is obvious that they assume their universal negative – that there is no such thing as an "ex-gay" and no therapy ever works - is true, and they expect the rest of us to believe their assertion.

According to these people, each and every person claiming to be a changed or former homosexual is a deliberate liar, or perhaps self-deluded (and how would anyone else know?), or deluded by someone else. All are treated by some homosexuality advocates as though they are deliberate liars, savaged in their media. Such is identifty politics – stand up for the rights of homosexual people, but only if they are on the reservation. If they step off the reservation, brutalize them.

If someone asks for help and wants help in changing their actions or feelings, they can find help for just about any behavior or feelings – but for what I can only think are reasons tied to identity politics and groupthink, someone asking for help in dealing with same-sex attraction in any other way than engaging in homosexual behavior is attacked and anyone who tries to help is attacked.

One could argue it is a waste of time and effort, but we allow millions of people to waste their time and effort trying to help others stop various patterns of behavior without getting outraged about it. How many people have been going to see a therapist for years, talking about the same problems over and over again? Nobody is attacking those therapists. This seems to be the one area (for now, anyway) where there is outrage.

I do not think that the ability for one person to change mandates that all others change. I fully support the rights that allow a person to share his life with someone of the same sex. But I also support the right of someone who wants to modify his behavior to employ another person to aid that effort. The homofascist will say that therapies in this area are harmful, and has gotten various professional associations to agree. But again, a universal negative is difficult to prove. Are we to believe that any and all techniques someone might try to curb certain sexual behaviors are harmful? We have universities, supported with tax money no less, teaching and training harmful things. If they were privately funded, my solution to my objection would be to not support them. If you don't want stop engaging in homosexual behavior, you're free to continue. But you should not be able to prevent someone else from seeking help in their desire to abstain.

75% Of Women Wouldn't Marry An Unemployed Guy

75% Of Women Wouldn't Marry An Unemployed Guy

Very gender specific.

Which relates with why many poorer women don't marry, usually because the father can't hold down a job. She can take care of herself and the baby, but she can't takes care of herself, the baby, and him.

Dear Margo Apologizes For a Homofascist

It isn't like Dear Margo is supposed to be hard-hitting journalism, but too many people do take too much of what the column says seriously. So I had to take a look at this one headlined (and I have no idea if Margo herself chose this headline): "When You're Homophobic – Quietly".

Homophobic. So the letter writer must be irrationally afraid of homosexual people or homosexuality. Let's see...

"CN" wrote:

I am a 19-year-old college student. Though not politically correct, I disapprove of homosexuality.

The rest of the letter, as you'll see, implies that this disapproval is a disapproval of behavior, not feelings, and certainly not people. Disapproval is not fear. It is certainly not irrational fear.

Most people don't know I feel this way. I have no problem with gay people. I have a few close friends and many more acquaintances who are gay, and I support gay adoption, gays in the military, hate crime legislation, etc.

That doesn't sound homophobic at all. This person is gong along with all of the homosexuality advocacy agenda... except marriage wasn't mentioned.

But in all honesty I do think it is wrong.

Surely, freedom and tolerance and equality and all that mean this person is entitled to think that. Right? Or has all of the talk about freedom and rights been a smokescreen?

I am religious, and I disapprove, but I keep my beliefs quiet because I don’t want to make anyone uncomfortable.

One need not be religious to disapprove of homosexual behavior. But I do wonder which religion teaches disapproval of homosexual behavior and "don't make anyone uncomfortable".

I know my views are irrational, but pretty much all religious faith is irrational.

Ah. Well, I disagree there, if you drop the wiggle words "pretty much". The Bible repeatedly calls on people to believe because of evidence and reason, not despite it. I am called to a reasonable faith and to test all things. I'm called to love God with all of my mind. A religious disapproval of sex or sex-like behavior outside of marriage can be entirely rational.

Recently, another student and I met, and while we didn’t instantly become best friends, we ended up on a friendly footing. She is taking a French class that she’s not doing great in, so I, being fluent in French, offered help. The assignment was to take on a political issue facing America today; she chose homosexuality. More specifically, she wrote that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, and those who believe otherwise are small-minded bigots.

How big minded of her to know that there can't possibly be any people who aren't small minded bigots who could disapprove of homosexual behavior. Doesn’t sound like she is phobic at all, does it?

I was naturally a bit uncomfortable, but didn't say anything. She, however, wanted to engage me in a discussion about how my religion influenced my views on homosexuality. I tried to be brief, but she kept digging. Finally, I told her basically what I told you. She blew up and started ranting about how “people like you” are ruining America and Christianity is just an excuse to be hateful, etc. She also told our mutual friends that I am a bigot who hates gays.

So let's review. The writer does much to avoid making others uncomfortable, and the tutored student not only didn't mind making someone uncomfortable, but went on to slander the letter writer. So who is the disturbed person again?

Dear Margo's response:

Because you knew where she was coming from, you could have fudged, but instead you were intellectually honest and, given the situation, courageous.

I'll give Margo credit on that one.

I think your defense with your friends is to point out that your instinctive friendships have trumped your religious views, and to remind them that you have never chosen to discuss this.

I think fascism has trumped the writer's religious conviction. Perhaps the homophobia at work is fear of homofascists?

I find the young woman immature and confrontational, and I also get the idea that, in time, you will lose the views you have now because you know there is something wrong with them.

What's wrong with them?

"Mr. Wow" July 7, 2011 at 8:03 am is not a homofascist:

Because adoption doesn’t cure fatherlessness.

Volunteering at The Department of Children of Families, I get to sit in on foster care reviews. I witness wonderful people helping families, including foster parents of differing households. Single adults, couples with adult children, yes even older gay couples. To be a foster parent or adopt, marriage is not a prerequisite, even unmarried partners are eligible to apply.

85% of children receive services, while living with their own families. The children in foster care usually return to their parents within 3 months. Of course due to safety, some children can not be returned to their parents, and are placed under guardianship or adopted to a family member. If that is not possible, we keep siblings together. Sometimes siblings must be placed in separate homes due to certain circumstances, but DCF finds ways to keep connectivity.

These children have parents; they may be addicted to drugs, mentally ill, incarcerated, or deceased. Yes in some cases there is physical and sexual abuse, but not all cases. (Don’t worry, these are treated differently!) For other children, they can have supervised visits with parents, and foster/adoptive parents must respectful of the fact this child lost his/her family. As adults, children are free to have relationships with their parents on their own terms.

These children need safe places to live and adults they can trust. These children are not for up for adoption to cure your infertility, or to legitimize your personal relationship with another person, and adoption isn’t for you to hoard and pride yourself what a saint you are.

Expanding the type of households, that can apply to adopt, doesn’t address the issue of fatherlessness in our communities. The only thing that can solve fatherlessness is a healthy relationship between a mother and father. Once upon a time, we use to refer to this as marriage.

Renee Aste, Lowell Massachusetts

ACF announces $150 million in available funding for Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Marriage Grants

ACF announces $150 million in available funding for Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Marriage Grants June 29, 2011

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance today announced the availability of funding for four discretionary grant awards totaling $150 million for Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grants. These grants will go to help fathers meet their parenting and financial responsibilities to their children and assist married couples or those considering marriage in building strong relationships with each other and their children.

“To invest in the success of fathers is to invest in the future of our children, our economy, and our communities,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “This funding provides organizations in underserved communities with the tools they need to promote responsible parenting, to encourage healthy marriage and relationships, and to remove barriers to financial security and self-sufficiency.”

The Responsible Fatherhood program has $75 million in new funding intended to promote or sustain responsible parenting, marriage and economic stability. The Healthy Marriage program has $75 million in new funding intended for pre-marital education; marriage enhancement programs; divorce reduction programs; marriage mentoring programs; and skills programs that may include parenting skills, financial management, conflict resolution and job and career advancement.

Yes, this is why DOMA and state laws valuing marriage matter.

Stand to Reason on Neutering Marriage

In addition to the video by Greg Koukl, checkout this blog entry, "Borrowed Capital", and "Same-Sex Marriage Challenges and Responses" by Greg Koukl.

(Crossposted to The Playful Walrus)

How does the migration of young adults lead to gay marriage?

It's an interesting observation, that New York and Massachusetts both had significant population losses of young adults in the past twenty years. With the lost of adults in their mid-20s, these states also lost their children (their employment and their taxes). We mostly connect adults under 35 with support of gay marriage, but the migration of these same young adults from New York and Massachusetts are the precursors to the change of public policy.

New York's Aging Population a Concern for Public Resources

Compounding the problem is the exodus of young people who have been leaving the state for economic opportunities elsewhere, draining New York of educated entry-level workers.

The report also noted an "out-migration" trend of early retirees and "young-elderly" residents who are 55 to 74. They typically are healthy and financially stable couples who move primarily to southern and western states. Their departure represents a loss of disposable income, skilled and experienced community volunteers, and caregivers.

Empire State Exodus The Mass Migration of New Yorkers to Other States

1 million taxpayers and their dependents moved from New York to other states between 2000 and 2007. Florida was the most common destination, favored by over 30 percent of New York migrants, followed by New Jersey, Pennsylvania and North Carolina in that order.

So what does that mean? Is it even relevant? My amateur theory? Gay marriage didn't cause the out migration, it's only a result. How did New York and Massachusetts obtain this result?

My belief is that as families left, it created a vacuum for special interests. More on the special interest later. Those left who wanted to defend marriage, simply didn't have a chance in lobbying our elected officials as did the constituents did in Maryland.

What affect will this policy change on New York? It will probably maintain the status quo without the ability to address the out migration of young educated and skilled adults and their children.

Massachusetts and New York accepted gay marriage, not because of their strengths, but because of their weaknesses.