The State vs the State of Nature ... promoting prejudice

The saga of Tammy is not about sexual preference, lesbianism or homosexuality. It is about our Gaia-given right to get anything we want, any damned thing at all. It is about establishing that everyone has a right to an Ipod, affordable housing, a world without nuclear weapons, solar panels which cost three times as much as their competitors yet which should somehow be competitive. It is about our right to live in a world where the BATF can give away guns to Mexican drug dealers, the better to prove that the Second Amendment is evil because it is part of a Constitution that is at least a hundred years old and which no one understands any more; to a universe where things are so because we want them that way without any reference to economics, physics, chemistry, history or bothering to ask anyone.

The untold story is also one of sex-segregation. A boy at an early age sees two mothers, and says he is one of them -- as a girl. The two women who's own preference is for women naturally go along with their son being a woman. This isn't about homosexuality the activity in the bedroom, but it is about about oppression of the other gender. He'll be happier that way, no bias here.

Census Info on Same-Sex Couples Corrected

Ari Bloomekatz reports at LATimes.com reports that the US Census overstated the number of same-sex couples calling themselves married on the forms.

The 2010 census overestimated the number of households with same-sex married couples by more than 160%, the U.S. Census Bureau announced Tuesday.

Officials said the numbers released this summer were incorrect because of an “inconsistency in responses … that artificially inflated the number of same-sex couples,” according to a news release.

How loudly will the homosexual advocacy organizations be publicizing this?

The inconsistency apparently occurred because residents may have checked the wrong box when responding to questions about their relationship to the householder and the sex of each person living there.

“When data were captured for these two questions on the 2010 census door-to-door form, the wrong box may have been checked for the sex of a small percentage of opposite-sex spouses and unmarried partners,” according to the agency. “Because the population of opposite-sex married couples is large and the population of same-sex married couples in particular is small, an error of this type artificially inflates the number of same-sex married partners.”

I’d say that there are brideless or groomless couples with state-issued marriage licenses. They may be legally "married", but it is like passing a law that calls a dog's tail a leg. It doesn’t make it true (thanks President Lincoln).

Even the 9th Circuit Put a Hold on Release of Prop 8 Tapes

Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle reports on the latest in regards to the matter last discussed here.

The videos of last year's same-sex marriage trial in San Francisco will remain sealed, at least for now, while a federal appeals court considers arguments by sponsors of Proposition 8 that making the recordings public would endanger witnesses and damage the "credibility and integrity of the federal judiciary."

Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware ruled Sept. 19 that the videos would be released this Friday unless a higher court intervened. On Monday, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued a temporary stay, which is likely to be renewed while the appeals court and the U.S. Supreme Court review the dispute.

Reading through the whole article, I'm reminded of just how contrived Walker's actions have been

A Different Marriage Pledge

We've heard of pledges politicians have been asked to sign that affirm, among other things, the bride+groom core of marriage.

We know marriage neutering advocates would never sign a pledge like that. However, they should be asked to sign a different marriage pledge. This one should be a pledge to:

1) Oppose with statements, votes, and vetoes any attempt to a) provide legal recognition to polygamous or incestuous marriages; b) lower the age consent; or c) grant person status to machines or nonhuman animals.

2) Support with statements, votes, and votoes the rights of a) clergy, religious venues, and religious organizations not to perform or host wedding ceremonies in violations of their principles; and b) the rights of parents to teach their children that a marriage only exists when bride and a groom are involved.

Since so many marriage neutering advocates publicly scoff (to the point of being bullies) at the idea that neutering marriage can be in any way associated with polygamy, incest, pedophilia, or bestiality, and since they have said "churches won't be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies", they should have no problems signing such a pledge, right?

Of course, if they are willing to sign a pledge with the first point, they will be admitting that marriage should be defined one way and not another, and that there isn't a fundamental right to marry or define it any way someone wants, since they would be opposing marriages (polygamous, incestuous) that have been historically recognized and are currently practiced and recognized in various parts of the world. They would be admitting that it is okay to place restrictions on marriage licensing for the sake of good public policy over personal desires.

Poverty is growing, so what happened?

I've been known with family and local friends of my defense of the single mother, who lives off government programs. My argument isn't right, but rather in their shoes it makes financial sense never to consider cohabitation/marriage. Even when these women re-enter the work force in which many really much want to do, it's impossible unless governmental support systems are there consistently through after-school/summer programs. There is no other parent or ever grandparent to share with the responsibility of a child sick or during a snow day.

Poverty is growing, so what happened? Editorial from the Baltimore Sun

When I learned that single motherhood was the lowest rung of the prosperity ladder 40 years ago, I asked myself, "Why would I choose that?"

Is that still the problem today? Where are the fathers? Where are the husbands? Must fathers live apart from mothers and children so that the government at all levels can give them money? Is it working? Are Baltimore, Maryland, and the federal government proving themselves good parents? Can we reverse this? Are kids so accustomed to having government buy food and shelter that they only have to pay for iPhones?

Marriage lost in Massachusetts

The dating pool isn't that hot, but the fertility industry here is booming. Men who wouldn't marry you or be active in your children's lives, are more then willing to sire children for a cheap price with no strings attached at a sperm bank. High housing prices and massive student debt also thwart the possibility of marriage in Massachusetts highly educated population.

From the Massachusetts Census via Boston Globe

The Commonwealth also had one of the highest percentages of never-married women in the country. Massachusetts was one of seven states where the percentage of women age 15 or older who have never married is over 30 percent. The other states are New York, California, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, and Rhode Island.

What marriage isn't for.

“My Husband Keeps Having Babies With Another Woman!” from advice column Dear Wendy

My husband and I have been together four years. When we got together, he was still with his babymama — their baby was two-weeks-old at the time, but that was fine because I wasn’t looking for a commitment then...

Ever thought maybe the infant and mother needed commitment? It looks like one woman was a baby mama, and she was the sugar mama.

Jay Leno and Michele Bachmann

David Reid of Hollywood kept the stereotype about Hollywood alive by writing this letter to the Los Angeles Times in response to their coverage of Michele Bachmann's appearance on Jay Leno's show.

Would-be world leader Michele Bachmann [resists neutering marriage] because marriage between a man and a woman is "what the law has been for years and years." Does Bachmann pine for a time, pre-1967, when it was illegal in many states for interracial couples to wed?

That's not a very good comparison.

This is actually a very different matter than bans on interracial marriage. See here and here.

If there is a "fundamental right" to marriage in law, it is to the union of one bride and one groom with certain restrictions, as made obvious by laws against polygamy, which is a form of marriage that has been practiced and recognized throughout history and is still practiced, and restrictions some states have preventing first cousins from marrying, though such marriages have also been practiced throughout history and are currently common in some cultures.

There is a right to a limited freedom of association, but not to a state-issued license. There hasn't been a single decision or action by SCOTUS recognizing a brideless or groomless union as marriage, or letting a ruling stand that did.

Not one of the Founding Fathers who wrote and adopted our Constitution, not a single great historical religious leader, not one of the great historical moral or civil rights leaders ever indicated that there was a right to have a brideless or groomless pairing recognized by law as marriage – not Frederick Douglass, not Susan B. Anthony, not Gandhi, not Martin Luther King, Jr. – none. Not a single President of the United States up until this writing has ever said  a marriage exists without a bride or without a groom. Those who understand that marriage unites the sexes are in good company.

It is constitutional, moral, common, and necessary to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently; there is no obligation to treat a brideless or groomless couple, which is inherently different from a bride+groom union, the same as a bride+groom union. Skin color has nothing to do with marriage. Sex has everything to do with marriage.

For more, see…

The Race Card and Prop 8.

Is it Possible to Truly Achieve "Marriage Equality"?

The Opine Editorials on Identity Politics

Does she think same-sex couples threaten the existence of humans?

Perhaps she can see the obvious - they don't form marriages.

The argument that humans aren't reproducing enough is laughable.

Strawman much?

On the contrary, an argument that same-sex couples are better parents than heterosexual couples has some objective support.

Not when compared to a bride+groom adoptive couple with the same finances.

As more people realize that their lives are intertwined with gay people, they conclude that we are all the same.

But men and women are different.

In my years (and I've been here a couple more than Bachmann), if there is one thing I have learned, it is that love is better than hate.

Where did she show hate?

Marriage Neutering Advocates Get Special Treatment Again

It is no surprise to anyone paying attention that Judge Ware has decided to treat the trial over the California Marriage Amendment differently than so many other trials, and is releasing the video of trial. This, of course, will be manipulated and used endlessly by marriage neutering advocates in ways that would make Joseph Goebbels blush. There will likely be some bullying as well, but what should we expect when a major personality behind an "anti-bullying" efforts is a bully himself? Karin Klein reports at LATimes.com:

Because on the same day, U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Ware ruled that the videotapes of the federal trial must be made public. His order will take effect Sept. 30, if a higher court doesn't overrule him.

So there's hope?

It only makes sense for the public to get to see the actual testimony and arguments in the case.

...because Klein wants it that way. Wonder why she hasn't made a big deal about so many other federal trials? She again uses the erroneous "ban" language, too.

The initiative's proponents, leaders of ProtectMarriage, had argued against allowing the videotapes to be made public; it's unclear to me exactly why they're against public viewing.

I wonder if Klein favors or opposed public displays of abortion pictures and videos?

They were unable to articulate any way in which same-sex marriage would harm traditional marriages.

I seem to recall that Proposition 8 became a duly adopted constitutional amendment when it was voted in. The burden of proof that a change was needed should have fallen on the complaining side.

What she considers harm and what other people would consider harm are likely different things. But since she brought it up...

The end of innocence: The cost of sexualizing kids

This article is great, a definitive work on the subject.

Sexualization, experts say, devalues accomplishment, intelligence and character. Pope John Paul II once said "the problem with pornography is not that it shows too much of a person, but that it shows far too little." The same can be said when people are valued only for sex appeal, says Jason Evert, a San Diego-based author and motivational speaker, who addresses thousands of teens each year.

Sexuality is not the same as sexualization. Sexuality evolves in children as they develop a healthy curiosity and growing understanding of their bodies. Sexualization occurs when someone's sense of their own value is based solely on sex appeal or that individual is held to narrow standards of attractiveness, says the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls, which issued reports in 2007 and 2010. It happens when a person is "sexually objectified" — made into a "thing" for others' sexual use. Ads, movies and TV shows do that sometimes by showing women as body parts, not whole people. It also refers to someone who has had sexuality imposed on them, like little girls depicted as older and more worldly.

"Unmarried Parenting Guide"

If marriage has nothing to do with a child living with its own mother and father, then why does the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have a guide specifically for unmarried parents? Why is there a difference between married and unmarried parents? Unmarried Parenting Guide

Every Child Has Two Parents For their child's sake, unmarried parents need to figure out how to bring up their child together - while being apart. For fathers, that means being responsible and cooperating with their child's mother. For mothers, that means supporting the relationship their child has with his father. This brochure describes steps you can take to make this happen.*

Would it be reasonable to assume that marriage, as a matter of public policy, solves the issue of children, having both their mother and father in their lives?

I just get really depressed with the claim that this is bigotry.

Renee Aste, Lowell Massachusetts

NH panel recommends return to civil unions

NH panel recommends return to civil unions

CONCORD, N.H. -- A House Judiciary subcommittee is recommending the repeal of New Hampshire's gay marriage law and replacing it with civil unions. The amended bill still faces a vote by the full committee and House in January. The committee voted to recommend killing a second gay marriage repeal bill. The two proposed repeal bills would not affect gay marriages before repeal, but would stop new same-sex marriages.

Interesting to know where this debate is going.

NPR covers how dads help moms...

One Price Of Fatherhood: Low Testosterone

...fathers who reported spending at least three hours a day with their kids had even lower testosterone levels than other dads, the researchers reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"Humans give birth to incredibly dependent infants," Northwestern University anthropologist Lee Gettler, a co-author of the study, told the New York Times. "Historically, the idea that men were out clubbing large animals and women were staying behind with babies has been largely discredited. The only way mothers could have highly needy offspring every couple of years is if they were getting help."

Breaking News: NC Senate Votes to Let the People Vote on Marriage in 2012!

Breaking News: NC Senate Votes to Let the People Vote on Marriage in 2012!:

Ultimately the people make the best decisions, and learn from their own decisions better then when others make the decisions for them.

Make Love (Children), not War

In Study, Fatherhood Leads to Drop in Testosterone from the New York Times

“The real take-home message,” said Peter Ellison, a professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard who was not involved in the study, is that “male parental care is important. It’s important enough that it’s actually shaped the physiology of men.”

The study, experts say, suggests that men’s bodies evolved hormonal systems that helped them commit to their families once children were born. It also suggests that men’s behavior can affect hormonal signals their bodies send, not just that hormones influence behavior. And, experts say, it underscores that mothers were meant to have child care help.

“This is part of the guy being invested in the marriage,” said Carol Worthman, an anthropologist at Emory University who also was not involved in the study. Lower testosterone, she said, is the father’s way of saying, “ ‘I’m here, I’m not looking around, I’m really toning things down so I can have good relationships.’ What’s great about this study is it lays it on the table that more is not always better. Faster, bigger, stronger — no, not always.”

Marriage Neutering Issues in California, North Carolina

The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times writes that the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, should be defended, but not by the sponsors. Perhaps that position is about wanting the initiative process to maintain power, perhaps it is the editorial board wanting the 9th Circuit court to get it back so they can overturn the amendment.

Make no mistake, Proposition 8 should die in the courts. But it should fail on its merits - its discriminatory withholding of the right to marry - rather than because the officials who could have defended it wouldn't and no one else was allowed to step in.

Any law discriminates. If I were a wagerin' man, I’d wager most, if not all, of the editorial board also wants "discriminatory withholding of the right to marry". Just go ahead and mention polygamy or incest, and no, again, those aren't the same things as a same-sex relationship (at least, not when they involve both sexes); polygamous and incestuous marriages have historically been recognized in various cultures as actual marriages, unlike same-sex relationships.

In the federal trial, the court allowed ProtectMarriage, an organization that supports Proposition 8, to defend the 2008 initiative. The ban on same-sex marriage was found unconstitutional.

The duly adopted state constitutional amendment isn't a ban.

If state officials are unwilling to stand up for Proposition 8 - or believe that their ability to do so is compromised because they openly opposed the initiative, as Jerry Brown has as governor and previously as state attorney general - the state should be required to hire an attorney to provide the best possible defense.

Who is better, though, then the initiative sponsors? The editorial complains that the sponsors may include out-of-state parties. But aren't some of the marriage neutering lawyers from out of state?

In other marriage neutering news at LATimes.com, Richard Fausset checks in on North Carolina and what the situation means for President Obama.

North Carolina Republicans, who recently won control of the state legislature for the first time since Reconstruction, will begin debate Monday on whether to let voters decide next year on a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in their state, the Associated Press reports.

ould it really ban "gay marriage"? I mean, I already covered the erroneous "ban" label and my marriage is rather gay.

The state already has a law banning [neutering] marriage. The referendum would determine whether the prohibition would be enshrined in the state constitution.

So as to prevent some judge in the state from neutering marriage statewide. This is what was done in California. We first passed Prop 22, a law, as a reminder to the legislature and the courts that marriage unites a bride and a groom, then we passed Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment, which was added to the ballot because we realized some judges just might be crazy enough to think there could be a marriage withouta bride, or without a groom. Californians would have adopted it anyway, but then some judges DID show they were that crazy after it was alrady headed to the ballot, so we went ahead and voted "YES" to counter the error of the court.

The piece goes on to talk about how getting out the marriage-defense vote could hurt Obama's chances of carrying the state.

Greg Koukl Effectively Defends Marriage

For a while now, I've been meaning to call attention to the podcast of the July 3, 2011 "Stand to Reason" program, hosted by Greg Koukl. The podcast is nearly three hours long. Towards the end of the first hour, the issue of neutering marriage comes up, and much of the rest of the program deals with that, per the callers.

Koukl's commentaries are:
Are Christianity and Patriotic Expressions Compatible?
Is America a Christian Nation?
Atheists: Freedom from Religion

The caller topics are:

What is the difference between objective and situational ethics?
How can we move the public debate on same-sex marriage to the merits of the argument instead of slogans?
Same-sex marriage is fair.
Does the Bible teach relativism?
In favor of same-sex marriage
The definition of marriage has changed and should continue to change.
Why do Christians not observe the Sabbath on Saturday?
Americans shouldn't be forced to accept same-sex marriage.
Will same-sex marriage lead to polygamy?
How can we know what the Holy Spirit is teaching us?

Here's the MP3.

Here is a larger file version, the Enhanced Podcast (AAC format - chapters and higher-res audio).

Here is the M3U format.

Koukl is fond of using sound reasoning and logic, and does so effectively in the defense of marriage.

The Double-Edged Sword of a Democratic Vote

The Los Angeles Times published a couple of letters in response to their coverage of the California Supreme Court's consideration of the defense of the California Marriage Amendment, duly adopted via Proposition 8.

Gregg Ferry of Encinitas wrote:

This issue is not about gay rights.

You got that right. By the way, I am in favor of more rights for homosexual people than most groups that claim to fight for their rights. That is because I support the rights of all individuals, including the freedom of association, rather than expanding and centralizing government powers.

It's about who represents me in the courts. I do not want anyone to say that they represent me without my permission.

Whether I agree or not with the actions of the governor or the state attorney general, who have declined to defend Proposition 8, I have given them my permission. I have not given permission to the backers of Proposition 8; they do not represent me.

Well, you see, Proposition 8 was passed by a majority of vote. I can say Governor Brown doesn't represent me, but he was elected the same way. If we're going to have an initiative process, who else should be allowed to defend an adopted-and-now-challenged ballot measure than the sponsors? Opponents of ballot initiatives usually point out the sponsors, and who the sponsors are is information easily accessed by voters.

I should note that I didn't vote to seat any of the judges that have tried to neuter my state's marriage licenses - which are issued on my behalf - against my will.

ProtectMarriage.com shouldn't have to defend the duly adopted constitutional amendment, but here we are. Nobody should have to defend it, but here we are. We shouldn't have needed to adopt such an amendment in the first place, but here we are. We're not going to just roll over and die because a tiny-but-noisy group willing to use any and every tactic wants to foist a radical change on all of society.

You may also be interested in my analysis of the paper's editorial on tax-funded school computers having filtering software that blocks, among other things, homosexuality advocacy websites. It is over at my namesake blog.

"One of the greatest gifts in life is a good friend"

Not everyone gets married and or has children, but two things are true everyone has a mom and dad, and everyone should have friends.

Bert and Ernie Buddies in a Sexualized Culture By: Chuck Colson

“There is nothing on this earth more to be prized than true friendship,” wrote the great thirteenth-century theologian Thomas Aquinas.

As Christian brothers and sisters we are called to deep friendships with one another. And while we may be more comfortable with the word “fellowship” than “friendship,” Christian relationships marked by love, honesty, selflessness, intensity, and a chaste brotherly or sisterly passion for one another are a powerful witness to the love of God in our largely friendless world.

Bert and Ernie, in spite of differences in personality and temperament — and without any sexual overtones — are the very best of friends. And our kids need that kind of example. They need it from television, parents, and especially the Church in order to see through the hyper-sexualized fog that’s all around them.

Not only are we neutering marriage, but also we are distorting what it means to have friendship sadly. Nothing is off limits in this strange quest to turn everything upside down, not even puppets.

California Court Appears to Recognize Citizen Power

Maura Dolan's mid-day report for LATimes.com was headlined "Prop. 8 Backers Seem Likely to Win Right to Appeal its Rejection". If so, you know what that means: they are confident that the 9th Circuit will be able to kick it around long enough that SCOTUS will get be ready to impose neutered marriage licensing on all states. It has to be tempting for marriage neutering advocates who want instant gratification to get the Prop 8 backers removed from the case so that neutered marriage licenses will be issued against in California sooner rather than later. However, if they think they can get SCOTUS to rule in their favor in a way that will change laws nationally, they'll be willing to wait.

Accepting the Proposition 8 opponents' position would be “nullifying the great power that the people have reserved for themselves” to propose and pass initiatives, Justice Joyce L Kennard said.

The initiative process is a check on the elected officials. If the elected officials were in favor of something, they would implement it themselves. We, the people, pass initiatives often to do something we want to do. If our elected officials don't want to do that thing, they can simply refuse to implement the law, or get someone to sue, then, not defend the law against the lawsuit. No, if our elected officials won't defend a duly adopted constitutional amendment, someone else should be allowed. It makes sense that the sponsors of the ballot initiative have that option.

The picture shown on the LATimes.com blog has a demonstrator with a sign that reads "We all deserve the freedom to marry." We all do have the freedom to marry. The fight over neutering marriage is not about whether anyone else will get the freedom to marry, because we all have that freedom already. It is whether or not someone will be able to get a marriage license without a bride, or without groom. If so, people will be able to do that regardless of their sexual orientation.

Proposition 8 Is Not a Ban on "Gay Marriage"

Just a friendly reminder that despite what the Associated Press, Reuters, and various news outlets will be saying today, the duly adopted and California Supreme Court-affirmed California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, is NOT a ban on "gay marriage".

Please also see this post reviewing the basics about defending marriage from those who want to neuter it.

Will the California Supreme Court Be Consistent?

The California Supreme Court is taking up the issue of whether not the sponsors of the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, should be allowed to defend the duly adopted amendment in federal court. Considering the California Supreme Court previously allowed them to defend the amendment, I don't see how they can deny them this time. But marriage neutering advocates will sacrifice just about anything, including their own judicial precedents, in their fanatical pursuit of replacing marriage in our laws with a counterfeit. They will accuse those standing in their way of hate for using the very same arguments they just used. Here's Maura Dolan's report in the Los Angeles Times.

The California Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday on whether conservatives who sponsored Proposition 8 are entitled to appeal last year's federal ruling that overturned the 2008 same-sex marriage ban.

It... isn't... a... ban.

The court's ruling, due 90 days after argument, will determine whether all initiative sponsors in California are legally entitled to defend their measures in state court when the governor and the attorney general refuse.

Considering the whole point of the initiative process is to be a check on the powers of the state government, then if the sponsors can't defend the initiatives, the process will be dead. Since the Left is in power now in California, that will be just fine by them, even though the process was put into place to promote democracy and the power of the people.

Strict legal rules about who has standing — the right to pursue a case — have ended many high-profile constitutional disputes in federal courts. Federal judges in recent years have embraced the narrow use of standing to limit the kinds of cases that can be brought. Under federal law, a person must have suffered an actual injury, among other requirements, to have standing in court. California courts have been more flexible in granting standing.

The federal courts should never have gotten involved in the matter in the first place. If they are going to take up something that should be an internal matter to California, they need to consider California's constitution, which includes the initiative process. What actual injury have the same-sex couples suffered? California law treats domestic partnerships like marriage. So if there is an injury, that injury comes from federal law, not the California Marriage Amendment. So an argument can be made that those who challenged the amendment should have instead sued over federal law.

If the 9th Circuit determines that ProtectMarriage has standing, a three-judge 9th Circuit panel is likely to overturn Proposition 8 on constitutional grounds, and the case will probably then go to the U.S. Supreme Court. But the U.S. Supreme Court could reject the appeal on grounds of standing, limiting the case's effect to California.

Marriage neutering advocates continue to spend resources on this matter that could be going to address actual problems homosexual people are enduring:

Tuesday's hearing will be the fourth time the California Supreme Court has heard a [neutering] marriage case.

It is Constitutional, moral, practical, and often necessary to treat different kinds of associations differently. The state has an interest in the uniting of a bride and a groom that it does not have with other kinds of voluntary associations. Like it or not, the California Marriage Amendment did not violate equal access or equal protection requirements. The argument to neuter marriage rests on a contradiction - that men are women are not different and that a homosexual person can't get a marriage license with someone of the opposite sex (even though they can and have). Their argument is bankrupt. Like the state they control.

Marriage brings the genetics together.

I came across this page from the National Institute of Health, it's about the genetics and not social policy. I did find it interesting, what they have used as their logo/graphic.

Why would the show one man and one woman with a picture of a family tree in the background?

Also interesting research on what they are finding about which genes affect reproductive processes. Any to think so many of us go blindly of our own origins, to pretend that sexuality merely exists for self-serving pleasure?

Dads matter (again)

While this study cites that even if a father doesn't not live under the same roof as the child, if active in the child's life a father will benefit the child. Yes, the study also cautions, just because there is no father present in your life doesn't mean you're doomed either.

I think what is important for children, who do not have their father active in their lives is to acknowledge it. Fathers matter, it's unfortunate and wrong when a father leaves or if a mother is forced to leave due to abuse. We just can't say fathers really don't equally matter, because they do.

Fathers' Presence Linked to Well-being via Science Daily

"Fathers make important contributions in the development of their children's behaviour and intelligence," says Erin Pougnet, a PhD candidate in the Concordia University Department of Psychology and a member of the Centre for Research in Human Development (CRDH). "Compared with other children with absentee dads, kids whose fathers were active parents in early and middle childhood had fewer behaviour problems and higher intellectual abilities as they grew older -- even among socio-economically at-risk families."

The study was performed in Canada, so it can't relate marriage to its public policy.