Parents of children with Down syndrome are beginning to wonder whether the services and accommodations they've fought hard for could fade away if kids like theirs are slowly weeded out of the population. "You want a perfect baby, and the easiest thing to do is to eliminate a child that won't fit into that mold," says Theresa Howard, a N.J. ad copywriter who found out after her daughter, Lydia, was born in 2006 that she had Down syndrome.

We've had some discussion on this site in the comment section about promoting favorable parenting to children who have a different sexual orientation than expected. But when we review this problem we see there are many ways that children can turn out different than expected, some with the prospect of early death.

The question isn't whether or not you are lucky enough to have the children you have. The question is are the children you have lucky to have you as a parent? Yes, if you care about them and are the best parent you can be they are very lucky to have you as a parent. So much about your children may not be fixable, but they can be helped greatly by your love and support. And then the things that are fixable will respond to that support and work out for the better.

Marriage, rooted in the commitment to an uncertain future, is readily understandable to people who understand it as a mooring for responsible procreation. Procreation, more than any relationship you can choose is, uncertain. And the child who is a product of your relationship deserves your best support and guidance. And marriage, rooted in that understanding, will benefit everyone and even go along way to solve homelessness for all children.

Adolescent boys more prone to delinquency without a father

Adolescent boys more prone to delinquency without a father from Physorg.com

The study, undertaken by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the Faculty of Business and Economics, found that the presence of a father figure during adolescence was most likely to have a preventive effect on whether male youths engage in risk-taking and deviant behaviour...

Using American data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, three factors were studied in the role of fathers influencing youth delinquency: parental involvement and interaction, contribution to household income and engagement with a father figure by simply being present at home.

I found this key to low-income families.

Additionally, higher family incomes were found to have little effects on solving the problems associated with youth delinquency.

The working paper from the Melbourne Institute here.

Mum, Dad, we are still hurting from your divorce

Mum, Dad, we are still hurting from your divorce

By divorcing, you made our lives harder. Imagine this, how would you want to go to a different home every few days because it suits someone else’s schedule? How would you like to remember at which house you left your wallet, your laptop, your workout bag, your briefcase? How about sleeping in a different bed and using a different toothbrush every other day, how would that make you feel?

Dad, might it have been the mid-life crisis or boredom or drifting apart? We do advocate for abusive marriages, but we have racked our brains and cannot remember any emotional or physical abuse in your marriage. To us, you appeared to be functioning well even just a few months prior to the divorce. The divorce was therefore unexpected, inexplicable and unwelcome to us, and an act of selfishness on your part.

Challenge to Chris and other SSMers: what does "same-sex couple" mean?

Chris commented in the FSB comment section:

"I didn’t even mention sexual orientation in my argument for why SSM should be legal."

The comment section closed so I'll respond here instead.

* * *

Chris made his remark, the one I quoted above, when he reacted to the following comment of mine:

"The best that you [Phil], Chris, and other SSMers have offered is an emphasis on gay identity politics."

Chris would like to limit the scope of his objection to just his comments made in that particular brief comment section. But, even at that, he did not make an actual argument there, although he did do other stuff there.

Since he referred to his having made an argument, we can be charitable and broadened the scope of his objection to encompass other discussions -- at FSB and perhaps elsewhere.

For now we can put aside a search for his actual argument and instead consider Chris' complaint that what he has called his argument would have no emphasis on sexual orientation. Taken at face value, his complaint is a promise that he would not make a pro-SSM argument that relied upon sexual orientation and/or gay identity politics.

That would be something refreshing in these debates and we might hold him to that.

Within that particular discussion at FSB, Chris used the phrase, same-sex couple, and gave it significance. See here and twice here.

What does that denote?

Far and wide, SSMers mean it to denote the homosexual couple. This is made most obvious when an SSMer compares the same-sex couple to the heterosexual couple.

However, in his comments in that particular discussion, Chris sought to compare the same-sex couple and the opposite-sex couple and, as he said, he did not explicitly mention sexual orientation. But he offered a description of the SSM idea that strongly suggests an emphasis on sexual orientation.

I had made the point that there is nothing to the SSM idea that can justify treating the same-sex twosome as eligible to SSM and the same-sex moresome as ineligible to SSM.

Chris brought up polygamy:

Basically, our argument is that marriage, as a legal institution, is set up to allow two unrelated adults to become each other’s closest legal kin. It is not set up in such a way that it can only accomodate opposite-sex couples; same-sex couples fit this legal arrangement just as well. Polygamous groups do not.

That is not an argument. But even taken for what it is, it does not do what Chris might have imagined.

Note that Chris speaks of "our argument" and so does not standalone; he countsd himself among the SSMers who have blogged or commented at FSB and who have emphasized homosexual orientation in their argumentation. He has not set himself apart from that.

As for what he has called an argument: right off the top, some related adults can and do SSM where SSM has been imposed or enacted. Being unrelated is not an essential of the SSM idea. Where the line of eligiblity is drawn varies; the basis for drawing that line relies on an emphasis on homosexuality.

If the proposed ban on related same-sex couples is due to a desire to ban the incestuous same-sex relationship, then, he'd run afoul of SSM argumentation on several fronts.

For one example, the ban is far too inclusive. A concern about incestuous sexual behavior does not fit the ban on the nonsexual same-sex relationship of related heterosexual adults. Nor does it fit the ban on the nonsexual relationship of related homosexual adults. These are same-sex twosomes who are banned for being related and nothing more. Most are born related; others are related due to no choice of their own. Sound familiar?

Further, adults are free to consent to sexual relationships. What is the government's business in banning some same-sex sexual relationships from SSM but not others?

As SSMers are happy to declare when it comes to their attack on the core meaning of marriage, if an essential is not a legal requirement that makes it mandatory for each and every SSM, then, it must not remain on the list of proposed essential(s). There is no legal requirement that would make same-sex sexual behavior mandatory for those who'd SSM. There can be no sexual basis for banning some people from SSM.

Chris cannot say that being unreleated is an essential when related people can and do SSM. He cannot say that same-sex sexual behavior is an essential when that is not compulsory. He cannot say that a ban on incestuous sexual relationships is essential to SSM while banning related people in nonsexual relationships. He cannot say that prioritization of kinship is essential to the SSM idea when he'd deny that to some same-sex twosomes -- and to the same-sex moresome. He cannot rely on the phrase, same-sex couple for that includes a wide swath of those he would ban. He cannot deny an emphasis on sexual orientation if his proposal depends on sexualization of the type of relationshiph he has in mind.

Well, sure, he can keep on saying things that are false -- even according to his own argumentation -- but that does not make an argument in favor of SSM.

Meanwhile, sure, the proposed SSM relationship would deal with special level of kinship. But that's the very thing he'd deny some people while he'd demand it for others. If his argument for SSM depends on favoring some people over other people, then, the basis for that favoritism is very important needs to be stated explicitly.

Polygamous-like SSM would be a series of SSMs, not a single group SSM. But since Chris brought polygamy into the moresome we can proceed on that basis.

According to Chris' proposal, prioritizion of kinship is an essential of the SSM idea. A series of SSMs could establish closest kin, next closest kin, and so forth. Why must the prioritization stop at just one same-sex couple? Chris needs to fine tune his proposal and offer strong justification for banning some same-sex couples from SSM.

And to repeat, he appears to have invest in the phrase, same-sex couple, more than just a count of two persons. He needs to bring that to the surface and justify it.

* * *

The marriage idea, the core meaning of the social institution, provides justification for for society drawing lines of eligibility. Societal regard for sex integration and responsible procreation is far more significant than societal regard for whatever an all-male or an all-female arrangement might do sexually. SSMers claim they want the law to be indifferent and yet their emmphasis on homosexuality and gay identity politics is hard to miss in their own argumentation.

Challenge to Phil and other SSMers: State the Essential(s) of SSM.

In a brief discussion at Family Scholars Blog, I made the point that

“SSM argumentation has cited no essential of the SSM idea that must be accorded same-sex twosomes but must be denied ‘same-sex’ moresomes.”

Phil frequents the comment section of that blog; he is known to the readership here as well. He reacted to my comment:

"Now, it sounds like that claim, in plain English, means that SSM advocates have never, ever, cited an essential feature of same-sex marriage that applies to couples but cannot be applied to groups of three or more."

The bit Phil quoted from me actually said it better than Phil did.

Here it is restated: SSM argumentation cites no essential of the SSM idea that must be granted to two but denied to more than two.

Note that Phil has failed to cite such an essential. Not in that discussion and not anywhere else he has offered his pro-SSM opinions.

Sure, he has claimed he can do so. He has claimed that it has been done by others. He has thus put his own credibility on the line. He might surprise and come up with something new. I'd welcome that.

The challenge to Phil (and other SSMers who might throw him a lifeline) is to state the essential feature(s) of SSM idea such that it fits the twosome but not the moresome.

It is insufficient to merely assert the limit of two. SSMers have insisted that mere assertion cannot suffice when it comes to the man-woman criterion of marriage law. Likewise they have insisted that just because it may be the status quo, or just because it has always been so, cannot suffice. They demand more of marriage defenders.

But they expect less of themselves.

When their own SSM idea is tested with their own rules of argumentation, they must do better than make a bald-faced assertion and then pretend they've made an argument by repeating the assertion.

The man-woman criterion exists in the law. They have demanded justification. And so the limit of two cannot stand without justification that arises from the SSM idea alone (and not from the core meaning of marriage which SSMers have rejected as an unjust basis for limiting eligibility). They can offer nothing about integration of the sexes; nothing about responsible procreation; nothing about the social institution for they have placed all their emphasis on the governmental shadow of that social institution of civil society.

Their justification for the two-participant criterion cannot be borrowed from the two-sexed sexual basis of marriage law, for SSMers have rejected that sexual basis as an illegitimate foundation for limiting eligibility to marry. They have claimed that the same-sex scenario is just like the two-sexed scenario; so much so that the two scenarios must be treated as one and the same. In that case, they can start by restricting their justification to the same-sex scenario, alone, and we can look forward to seeing how they'd apply it justly to the man-woman combination.

Eligibility to SSM cannot be limited based on stuff that is not mandatory, according to SSM argumentation.

For instance, SSMers have insisted that procreation is not mandatory and therefore is an illegitimate basis for limiting eligilbity to marry. Same-sex sexual behavior is not mandatory for those who'd SSM so that can't be the basis for restricting eligilbity to SSM. There is no sexual basis for presuming a man to have impregnated another man so they can't borrow from the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity. That sexual basis is the same for sexual consummation, annulment provisions, and adultery/divorce. All of that is put aside until a new basis can be found. So SSMers must come up with something else that fits the same-sex twosome but not the same-sex moresome.

They have insisted on 100% certainty, when it comes to ability to procreate, as a condition for even entertaining the possiblity that procreation is central to eligibility to marry. So any justification they'd offer for limiting eligibility to SSM must come with the same 100% certainty and thus enforced with no exceptions, apparent or actual; otherwise the offered justification cannot stand as an essential of the SSM idea.

Further, SSMers have insisted that justification for a limitation be written into the law; the limitation cannot stand alone. If the moresome is to be denied all that the SSMers demand for the twosome, then, SSMers have to do a lot better than repeat the two-participant criterion.

SSMers made these rules when it suited them to hack away at the marriage idea. Now, they must play by those rules when their SSM idea is tested.

Their own pro-SSM argumentation cannot allow them to escape the challenge they have given themselves and of which they are now reminded.

Their crediblity is on the line. They are invited to do better.

United Methodist bishops say they'll uphold ban on same-sex unions

United Methodist bishops say they'll uphold ban on same-sex unions from The Boston Pilot

The United Methodist Church's Council of Bishops said in a Nov. 10 letter they would continue to uphold the denomination's ban on blessing same-sex unions.

"As the Council of Bishops we will uphold the Book of Discipline as established by General Conference," the denominational assembly that meets every four years and is the church's highest policymaking body, said the letter, which was addressed to all Methodists...

While acknowledging "the deep disagreements and divisions within the church" on an issue that has caused "deep pain" throughout the church, "at times like these we call upon each other to remember and renew our covenant with God and with one another as United Methodist Christians," the Council of Bishops said. "As bishops chosen, consecrated and assigned by the church, we declare once again our commitment to be faithful to this covenant we have made."

Ignorance is bliss when it comes to challenging social issues

ScienceDaily (2011-11-21) -- The less people know about important complex issues such as the economy, energy consumption and the environment, the more they want to avoid becoming well-informed, according to new research.

What you don't know won't hurt you? "Ignorance is bliss" is a great title for a category of arguments that I've seen used both in the marriage debate, as well as drug legalization debate.

But focusing on each other's ignorance really just breads ignorance. Its not that one can't learn from the mistakes of ignorance, it is just that there is an all to easy rut to get into where you compare yourself to the ignorance you see in others. It doesn't promote you to learn any better, it just makes you content enough to be smarter (in your mind) than someone else that you quit learning. Why upset the apple-cart of your self-declared intellect?

How we see family resemblance in faces

ScienceDaily (2011-11-21) -- Whether comparing a man and a woman or a parent and a baby, we can still see when two people of different age or sex are genetically related. How do we know that people are part of a family? Findings from a new study increases our understanding of the brain's ability to see through these underlying variations in facial structure.

If you pay me, I can get you a brand new baby.

Massachusetts Fertility Specialist to Present Webinar for Gay Male Couples

In addition to treating heterosexual couples challenged by infertility, Dr. Pang has specialized in helping lesbian and gay couples have children through assisted reproductive technologies (ART) since 1989.

Notice it doesn't say he treats gay couples, there is nothing to medically diagnose. By Massachusetts state law, gay couples do not fall under the definition of infertility. Heterosexual couples must 'try' for one year, before their health insurance covers infertility.

For gay men, ART involves in vitro fertilization (IVF) using donor eggs and a gestational carrier. Assisted reproduction for gay men also requires medical management of this process, preferably from a Reproductive Endocrinologist who is without bias and culturally sensitive to the needs of gay couples.

Dr. Pang isn't a doctor, he is a broker. He brokers in babies. He can pay a woman for her eggs, and another for her body up to nine months, and medically manage her until birth. He's not medically caring for her, he is using her body to pump out a child, like pimping sex to paying third parties.
He has no problem with the cultural exploitation of woman's bodies or denying a child a birth right to their own parents and kin. Babies and mothers aren't human beings in his view of infertility and prenatal medicine. They're a product to be managed, custom built to order for paying customers.

What gay marriage can't solve...

NPR recently covered the issue of gay teens and homelessness in New York City, and the failure of social services in a state that has recently passed gay marriage.

Young, Gay And Homeless: Fighting For Resources
by MARGOT ADLER

There are only 250 beds for 3,800 homeless kids in New York City; waiting lists are huge. Facing a $10 billion deficit, Gov. Andrew Cuomo made compromises with the New York state Legislature. Budget cuts would have taken 100 of those beds away. The city council restored monies cut from both the city and state budgets, so no beds have been cut. A spokesperson said Cuomo asked all local governments to take more responsibility for their budgets by eliminating waste and prioritizing vital programs.

When you view the gay lobby, like any other lobby, they begin to look like a fat-cat special interest. They influence politicians by filling up the campaign coffers and not on progressive ideals.

In Massachusetts, there has been an initial study on homeless gay teens. There are striking differences between, straight homeless teens who are more likely to be accompanies by at least one parent, and teens who identify themselves as gay who are homeless on their own.

The initial sample of 6,653 students was narrowed to 6,317 who gave full information on their sexual orientation and homelessness status. Less than 5 percent of students overall identified themselves as GLB, yet they accounted for 19 percent of those who identified themselves as homeless.

Pretty striking isn't it.

Everyone talks about gay couples adopting, but getting anyone gay or straight to foster cute babies and children under ten is easy. Teenagers in need of services is a big problem. I hope the study can go further and see what types of homes these teens grew up in before becoming homeless. Are they originally from out of state, like in the NPR piece, and came to Massachusetts? Did they leave homes that had both their biological parents, single parent led homes, or homes with a step-parent or boyfriend residing?

Massachusetts: Casinos and euthanasia doesn't solve our declining population..

Massachusetts, we're in one ugly demographic hole.

As someone who has given birth to four children here, each time I answered a survey for the Department of Public Health. A real long survey, because they wanted to know absolutely everything me, because I'm a mom. Massachusetts cares about the maternal outcome for myself and for my children. They use this personal information as data for better public policy.

My age, education, ethnicity, planned or unplanned pregnancy, when did I start prenatal care, was my pregnancy covered by private insurance or MassHealth, and if there was a husband and not just a father was asked of me. Each time as I was suppose to resting and bonding with my newborn, I spent a good 30 minutes filling out this paper work so each child could be registered for a birth certificate issued by the state.

What is fascinating is the choice of image Massachusetts uses for their yearly report on births. A masculine figure cradling an image of a pregnant woman. The same types of images people who defend marriage with, and not with signs of hatred.

Recently due to the recession, there has been a drop in birth rates nationwide. Women are unsure of their stability for the future makes them uneasy to have a child. This is a typical pattern in depressions and recessions. Why hasn't any state lawmaker blinked an eye at the fact that since 1990, Massachusetts number of births has dropped 19%? There were 74,966 birth in Massachusetts 2009, in 1990 there was well over 90,000. Massachusetts isn't growing, it is only stabilized by a consistent wave immigration to replenish it. With the number of births declining, how can we have a future? Massachusetts has decided to solve the problem with casinos and legalizing euthanasia.

I live in this dual reality, one can speak in terms of public health or social services all about the family, in what is coined as traditional and natural terms marriage. In some affluent suburbs, 95% of all children are born to married parents, while in isolated city ghettos only 30% have married parents.

Public policy wants maternal support, paternal participation, and stable home for healthy and safe outcomes of our children. But we can't give public policy a legal term, like marriage, defined as one man and one woman without the gay lobby placing the pressure to falsely stigmatize fellow citizens as bigots. We have some great government services (liberal concept), but we don't have either the economic revenue or work-force demographic (conservative concept) to support it.

Meanwhile the demographic reports have a twist, "Study: (Massachusetts) Migration Out Of Mass. Plummets Post-Recession" from the local Boston NPR station, reports that people are stuck here due to the recession. The problem is "“This has been a sobering experience, especially for young adults who have had their lives delayed. They haven’t married as much. They haven’t had children…" NPR said it, not me.

Renee Aste

Lowell Massachusetts

Insanity and More Coverage of Court Opinion on Proposition Backers

The LATimes.com coverage of the California Marriage Amendment is being updated constantly, thanks mostly to Maura Dolan. Let’s look at some of it, shall we?

From this update, which goes into the details of the court’s opinions:

State officials do not have the right to veto a voter-approved initiative, the California Supreme Court said in its ruling Thursday that recognized the right of Proposition 8 backers to defend the state's [duly amended constitution] in court.

“Neither the governor, the attorney general, nor any other executive or legislative official has the authority to veto or invalidate an initiative measure that has been approved by the voters,” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakueye wrote for the court.

She said that doing so “would exalt form over substance” and permit public officials who opposed an initiative to invalidate a measure simply by refusing to defend it.

This update has reaction from marriage neutering advocates:

"While a disappointing ruling, this case is now back in federal court, where we expect a quick victory," Lambda Legal's Jon Davidson. "The ruling addresses only a procedural legal question. The key question underlying this case is whether the U.S. Constitution permits a state electorate to treat one group of people unequally to everyone else by depriving them of what the state's high court has held to be a fundamental right.”

It is Constitutional, moral, practical and often necessary to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently. Everyone has the same access to state marriage licenses, whether they want to use that access or not.

And more reaction from the marriage neutering advocates:

“We disagree profoundly with the California Supreme Court’s holding that a handful of unelected initiative sponsors have the power to represent the interests of the entire public and to override the decisions of the state’s elected executive officers,” said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

More…

Another gay rights group, Love Honor Cherish, said it had also hoped that the court would decline to give the backers of Proposition 8 standing.

“This ruling means that it may be years before loving gay and lesbian couples will again be able to marry in California," said Love Honor Cherish Board Chair Tom Watson.

Following the positions and actions of the marriage neutering advocates over the years, it is apparent that they decide whether something is good or bad based primarily and almost entirely on whether or not it immediately facilitates or celebrates their quest to orgasm with someone of the same sex. Legal procedures, religions, economic philosophies... whatever they are... if they esteem homosexual behavior then they are good, and if they provide a hindrance to instant gratification or whatever the marriage neutering advocates wants, then they are bad.

They would applaud the death of the California initiative system, even if they liked so many of the past initiatives, if it meant that one of their own could be successful in overturning a duly adopted state constitutional amendment. They don't care right now that it would prevent them from implementing voter initiatives in the future. What matters to them is now, now, now. They're like what you'd have if toddlers went through puberty. Everything must be sacrificed on the altar of their orgasms, even though nobody is stopping them from having them right now. It isn't enough to have freedom unless they can take away the freedom of others to not celebrate their orgasms.

Accepting Gay Marriage, but not Transgender Rights

I had an interesting conversation over on Ann Althouse's blog. There is new legislation here in Massachusetts to protect transgendered individuals. Something, I personally agree with.

Here's the link to Ann Althouse's post on transgender rights, in the discussion I ask about those who support gay marriage, but not protections for transgender individuals. Interesting thoughts, considering people may accept gay marriage but not polygamy. So why only two person configurations, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual have special rights, but other configurations are denied such rights?

California Supreme Court: Prop 8 Backers Do Have Standing

In a victory for California's direct democracy check on government power, the California Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the backers of the constitutional amendment voted in as Proposition 8, do have standing to defend the amdendment in court. This is consistent with the court's earlier actions. The federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asked California's court for an opinion on the matter, but they can ignore that opinion if they choose. The state constitutional amendment is being considered by the federal court because marriage neutering advocates claim that it violates the federal Constitution as it reserves marriage licenses for bride+groom couples. (Never mind that the people who wrote, adopted, and amended said Constitution would laugh hysterically the claim of the marriage neutering advocates, before asking a doctor to check their sanity.)

Maura Dolan reports at LATimes.com, using the usual biased language.

The California Supreme Court decided Thursday that the sponsors of Proposition 8 and other ballot measures are entitled to defend them in court when the state refuses to do so, a ruling likely to spur federal courts to decide the constitutionality of [defining marriage as marriage].

So we can look forward to half-heart "defenses" in the future to get around this ruling?

California Supreme Court to Issue Proposition 8 Opinion

To recap, the court neutered state marriage licensing in 2008 by overturning a 2000 law that reinforced existing laws and a universal tradition of marriage uniting the sexes. They did that despite knowing that the people were going to be voting on a state constitutional amendment on the matter. The amendment was added to the state constitution when the California voters approved Proposition 8. The court heard arguments, including from the backers of Proposition 8, and agreed that the new amendment was a duly adopted constitutional amendment. Then the matter went on to the federal courts. One of those courts has asked the state's high court to decide whether or not the backers of Prop 8, the people that very court allowed to argue before it, should be allowed to argue before the federal court. This could be a stalling tactic designed to keep the matter from the Supreme Court of the United States until President Obama gets a chance to get more of his nominees on that bench, Anyway, our friend Maura Dolan reports at LATimes.com that the California high court will issue its opinion on the matter tomorrow.

The California Supreme Court has announced it will issue a written opinion Thursday on whether conservatives who sponsored Proposition 8 are entitled to defend the measure that overturned the 2008 same-sex marriage ban.

The duly adopted state constitutional amendment is not a “same-sex marriage ban”.

The court's ruling, which will be made public at 10 a.m., 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.

If not, then the initiative process is essentially pointless, since it was instituted as a check by the people on the state government.

The League of Women Voters has urged the California court to deny standing to initiative sponsors, as has Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris.

Is any of your money going to the League?

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to clarify whether state law gives initiative backers special status to defend measures in court, but the appeals court won't be bound by what the California court determines.

Interesting.

It is constitutional, moral, practical, and often necessary to treat different kinds of associations differently.

Elizabeth Marquardt's Get Ready for Group Marriage

Elizabeth Marquardt's Get Ready for Group Marriage on The Huffington Post

While the column is short and sweet, there is great conversation in the comments. Many people foresaw the confusion if our laws promoted and recognized group marriage, and saw the logistics of it all not to work. I thought one of interesting responses came from a single person who didn't think it is fair that married people had tax breaks.

“I dont care what people do but they really need to ditch the tax break for married people. If anything single people who have no children should get a tax break. We pay for things we don't even use (schools etc). If people want to have an orgy marriage fine but don't come to me for financial support.

In Response

Without other people doing the best they possibly can to raise well-socia­lized children that contribute to their communitie­s, our country would fall apart. And because you didn't have children of your own, it's likely that you'll expect assistance from the government (i.e. those grown-up, tax-paying former children-o­f-other people), because you won't have a family of your own to take care of you.

Also, did you go to public school? Are you not thankful for all those years of education that other childless people helped pay for to make you so damn smart?"

I agree with the argument, but not the conclusion

The last two posts of mine have been filled with frustration. For that I apologize. The frustration is real though.

I understand the need of recognition for non-marital relationships. The problem lies with language. Since there are few options and limited expression for these relationships, the closest possible words may seem to call it marriage. The solution is something else though.

If our society wants to progress and accept homosexual relationships, it can only be done by means of developing its own word and special meaning.

We still live in a society, where it is common to attack a person's orientation. It's the first way to hurt and try to dominate over a person in a social setting. Terms I will refrain from posting, that are used as homosexual slurs need to be erased from our vocabulary.

Many people, if not gay, have gay friends and family, who they deeply care for. For them supporting gay marriage is simply a nice gesture with the best of intentions. I sympathize and respect that point of view. Marriage is not the venue to express that need. Instead we must create a new venue, that stands on its own merit. I believe that could be done, if there wasn't push for the redefining of marriage and marginalizing the defense of marriage with ad hominem attacks.

Renee Aste

Lowell Massachusetts

Googling "How does a woman get pregnant?"

As mentioned on Sunday I’m not mocked by individuals I disagree with in face to face interaction , as I can be online. If I was the idiot or ignorant bigot that is mostly stated by dissenters on other blogs, I truly would be publicly shamed on the streets of Lowell. It's just that we disagree without dehumanizing one another.

Instead after any possible knee-jerk reaction and a pause, everything I’m really talking about are anti-poverty and pro-woman issues in respect to motherhood. The ability to be a mother is a part of being female. It can’t be ignored and shouldn’t be lowered in status in the name of feminist liberation.

Men, as a father and as a husband, play an important role in the empowerment of women. The support and flexibility these roles have for women are vital. The same can be said of a mother’s and a wife’s role can play in a man’s life. Family is not the enemy; rather it’s the answer to the resources a pregnant woman needs to survive and succeed. Even for the non-religious, the biology and reason is there. One can not simply dismiss it, because it’s in the Bible so it must be wrong. Disagreeing, solely because a Christian supports it is rather irrational and lacks independent objectivity or logic.

Two weeks ago, The Harvard Crimson published in op-ed, Reclaiming Marriage in defense of the institution. I was happy to see that there was a conversation still happening on Ivy League campuses. Despite a well stated column, the comment section was littered with mocking hecklers. Very few of the dissenters wanted to touch the subject of marital breakdowns and the affects on children, mothers, and fathers. One post in all capital letters of course, screamed “CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION”.

So I googled "How does a woman get pregnant?" looking for a cause. Wiki Answers sponsored by Planned Parenthood agrees with me and Opine. A woman gets pregnant from sex with a man! Science has verified a clear answer on the matter. As the young-ins would say, "No sh!t, Sherlock.*"

It also states a woman should be in a stable relationship with the father of the unborn child! What should we call that relationship? Something specific, it sounds real important? Could we give it a name in our vernacular language for later reference?

But is there another way a woman could get pregnant without a man, if sex with a man isn’t the causation of a woman getting pregnant? Well unless you have faith that a virgin can be impregnanted by the Holy Spirit, then we’re talking about a whole different subject.

As always trying to put my name on it,

Renee Aste

Lowell, Massachusetts

* I apologize for the reference with profanity, but since we've lost sense of what is obvious it felt warranted.

Suburban Progressives Throwing Stones from their Cul-de-sacs (Personal Story)

Suburban Progressives Throwing Stones from their Cul-de-sacs (Personal Story)

The good majority of people I know in life are in favor of gay marriage, they tolerate me. We disagree, but they don’t treat me like a bigot or an idiot. Due to local politics we tend to be Democrats, and just simply follow party lines. Maybe I will get ribbed at most. Still these people let me in their homes and they don’t taunt me or isolate me. I always keep that in my heart and on my mind, whenever I’m provoked online.

In many ways I still see myself as a democrat in regards to the poor and environmental issues, even though I’ve refrain from voting for that party. I also agree with many of their sentiments and concerns regarding protection of sexual orientation, but not at the risk of losing the laws that promote individuals to have stability in their childhood; meaning to have a relationship with their mother and father. You know… that thing we called marriage.

Something gets me, emotionally. I live in a city with the typical problems that affect cities both socially and with infrastructure. People are mobile and it’s easy to move off from the suburbs to avoid all of the problems that do exist here. I can’t fault people for wanting to live in ‘a good neighborhood’. Still I love living in this city, I can’t imagine moving anywhere else. I get defensive, this is home. I want my city to be ‘a good neighborhood’, just without major gentrification.

Read More…. It gets good.

Well an acquaintance that lives in the suburbs outside of my city, posted something about gay marriage on Facebook. It inferred that those who aren’t in favor, we’re idiots. I didn’t want to start a debate on her wall, so instead I sent a private message. I told her that I wasn’t sending her a message to change her mind, but rather it hurt me to think she thought I was an idiot to defend marriage. I wanted to put a knowing face to the other side of the argument.

Yes, I made reference to some of the arguments. Specifically the fatherhood crisis right here in the city and the increase chances of poverty for mother and children who do not have the father in the home equally being there. Essentially all of the reasons why people move out of the city, which is family breakdown, reduces the well-being of the our neighborhoods.

No response.

Thirty-six hours later completely defriended and blocked, despite earlier this week prior she made some friendly comments on my own Facebook wall.

When you only desire to live in a solely traditional affluent family setting, while claiming to be liberal on marriage, please don’t publicly post cartoons that people who think differently are idiots. The hetero-normative lifestyle of marriage is requirement for where you raise your children, but we can’t desire the same because we didn’t choose to live in ‘a good neighborhood’ and turn a blind eye from the social consequences of broken homes.

It doesn't matter how liberal you may think or vote only for Democrats; ultimately you’re a closeted right-winger and behave in the direct opposite that claim to believe. If you choose to move to a town that’s 96% white, and that has above average SAT scores where only 2% of students qualify for free lunch, what conclusions should I draw? You live in a town, where there is no public housing or homeless shelter. The only access to ‘public transportation’ is a private commuter bus to Boston off the highway exit, again what conclusions? You’re the same individual that pays thousands of dollars more in property taxes to keep ‘the local public schools good’, when the real intent is to keep poor (dysfunctional) families out, and only thing your willing to publicly fund for the poor is more birth-control and abortion. As you say, ‘I moved here for a reason.’

Please spare the categorizing of me and others as uncaring bigots, as you pretend to be tolerant and diverse in your chosen homogeneous life. If you want to pride yourself as progressive liberal and spout off those ideals to the people you know, then live in the city with all of the problems you rather not deal with on a daily basis. You can’t choose to live in the suburbs and claim to be a progressive, simply by calling people dirty names from the safety of your protective cul-de-sacs.

Renee Aste

Lowell, Massachusetts

Second Chances: Reducing Divorce

An article focusing on the work at the Institute of American Values, done by Professor William Doherty and retire Georgia Supreme Court Justice Leah Ward Sears.

Second Chances: Reducing Divorce from The Christian Post

First, they recommend a one-year waiting period before a divorce is granted. The decision to divorce is often made when emotions are hot. Once the papers are filed, couples find themselves on what Justice Sears calls “the divorce superhighway.”

As a result, couples find they don’t have the time, the tools, or the space to reconsider. A slower road, especially for couples with children, will allow couples to consider the consequences of divorce against other options.

Second, they recommend a mandatory early warning letter from the spouse intent on filing for divorce. It’s a way of putting the other spouse on notice that, “we have a problem” before the legal wheels begin turning. And it would trigger mandatory pre-filing education for parents of minor children.

Yes, we care not just about the definition of marriage, but also making sure marriage is working.

Words and meaning

It's interesting how the meaning of words change. Words can become something else by legal decree, or be used incorrectly enough in regular conversation.

I read a blog entry today using the term 'gay nuptials'. True, nuptial is a synonym to marriage, but the word nuptial is also a common term for biologists. Nuptial describes the mating habits of animal breeding in nature.

Someday, probably not in our lifetime, a new word will be created. In that future civilization, they will have language to describe a relationship described as one man and one woman in a committed healthy relationship with the intention of raising their children together mutually.

CLASP on the importance of biological parents staying together

CLASP stands for Center for Lawn and Social Policy, and they've been around since the '60s. I don't know their stand on neutered marriage, but reading through this publication, there is a lot I agree with them.

The following is a series of quotes from that article, and the sources they site for those thoughts, just to whet the whistle with. But you should really read the whole thing. Among the items of note are statements that support the notion that parental irresponsibility (divorce, abandonment, etc...) has more of a negative impact on a child than the death of a parent. And after making the case that divorce is damaging, it shows that researchers believe a same-sex couple is most comparable to a divorced step-family situation. And above all, the best environment for raising a child is when the two bio-parents understand and fully commit to a marriage ideal of responsibility and preparation in raising their children.

Why I don't support one-size-fits-all plans for adult relationships

 I'll be honest. I don't care what it's name is, or if it is a religious ceremony or not. Why should I? What does that do for me?

However, the government didn't create kids for me, my wife and I did that. We don't need the government to have kids, but we do need to govern our household as a part of raising our children. What I do need is for the government to recognize and support that.

Generation – Père / fils et mère / fille photographiés par Frauke Theilking

My french is really elementary, so I'll leave it to others to give a real translation. But this is a photography project to show just how striking the similarities are between children and their parents, and the foil of time. Very striking... (just the first four pictures)

Now, live on Google+

We've had our Facebook page for a while, but you'll notice by the new badge to the right of the page we also get to be one of the first Google+ pages. Read on for a bit of a long story about where Opine is headed, why, and what you can do about it.

Marriage on the Ballot in 2012

On a state and federal level it's an off election year, as I vote tomorrow in my local city elections. Here's the link to the Ballot Initiatives for Marriage that may come up in the future.

Marriage and family on the ballot from BallotPedia

Having Courage to Stand Guard

Having courage
The Rev. René Monette (Opinion from Houma Today (Louisiana)) November 4, 2011

On Sept. 18, 2003, Hurricane Isabel slammed into the East Coast, lashing North Carolina and Virginia. It left 16 dead and cut power to 6 million people. When the hurricane hit, the guards at the Tomb of the Unknown were given permission to seek shelter since the winds and rain were more than 95 miles an hour. The guards there at the time refused and continued to stand guard.

Regardless of the storm, they refused to be the only guards in history to depart their post at the Tomb of the Unknown. Someone once said of these guards at Arlington National Cemetery, “If these men can stand guard over the dead, how much more important is it that I stand guard over the living: my wife and my children?”

Rev. Monette is great in this short opinion piece detailing the several storms of confusion that we are confronted with.

The Question of Walker

Maura Dolan reported at LATimes.com about the latest with the court maneuvering over the duly adopted California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8. This has to do with whether or not federal judge Walker should have handled things differently. I have edited the quotes to remove some of prejudicial language biased in favor of neutering marriage through federal judicial activism.

A federal judge’s failure to disclose whether he intended to [get a state license with] his long-term, same-sex partner before presiding over the Proposition 8 case amounts to misconduct that requires the removal of his ruling against the 2008 ballot measure, lawyers opposed to [neutering] marriage [and having a federal judge overturn a duly adopted state constitutional amendment] told a federal appeals court.

Yup.

Walker should have disclosed any interest he may have had in marrying his partner of 10 years or stepped aside when he was randomly chosen to preside over the case, the [defenders of the duly adopted state constitutional amendment] said.

“Although a judge may choose to avoid disclosure by recusing himself without explanation, he cannot both remain silent and sit in judgment of a case in which a reasonable observer, with knowledge of all of the relevant facts (disclosed or not) would conclude the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” ProtectMarriage argued.

Yes, we've been through this.

[Lawyers supporting a judge overturning a duly adopted state constitutional amendment] countered that judges must disqualify, or recuse, themselves from hearing cases only when they have a “substantial and individualized interest in the case, particularly a financial interest, that gives rise to actual bias,” the lawyers for Proposition 8’s challengers said.

So according to the very same people...

1. State marriage licensing needs to be neutered because it will be of significant benefit, including financial benefit, to gay individuals in same-sex relationships.


2. Walker was such a person by his actions - regardless of his birth, but he didn't stand to benefit enough for it to matter.

It matters so much that a federal court is compelled to overturn a voter-approved state constitutional amendment, but not enough for Walker to either recuse himself or at least talk about it before the trial.


Huh?!?

This kind of twisting of logic reminds me of when the same bunch of activists argue that there is no difference between men and women, while also insisting that someone can be born apparently male (male parts, male DNA), but is really a female per how they feel, as though there is a difference between male and female.

You can't pay us to have babies

We link babies to the definition marriage, because it takes a man and a woman to create and raise a child. While in polite conversation this is seen as culturally backwards, more often then not this concept finds itself needed in public policy. Babies are important, but given the choice what would make any woman in her right mind have children, especially if she could be financially independent and men are unreliable. Heck No!

Fair question and answer.

Some governments, as reported by NPR, have given baby bonuses with little luck to boosting their fertility rate.

When Governments Pay People To Have Babies

In some countries, male-female relations may be a bigger impediment than money. Boling says women may be deciding, "Look, if it's all me and I'm doing all of the child rearing and maybe working outside the home as well, and you're having a drink with your buddies every night, forget it. ... I don't want to have any kids."

There are nights and days I get frustrated, why am I not considered the feminist? Studies over and over again show women are better off when the father of her children is also a good husband to her. How can something so good for women and her children, be deemed as something so intolerable that it can't be acknowledge?

If the Church just changed its teachings...

"If the Church just changed its teachings, people would come to Mass. People are turned away from the Church, because of its social teachings." -random persons I engage with about the Catholic Church

Well how is it working for congregations that did move its social teachings to appease the masses?

Episcopal Church reports lowest membership in 70 years

The denomination has lost an average of 25,798 Sunday worshipers each year since 2006, bringing the total of U.S. Episcopal worshipers on a given Sunday to 657,831 in 2010. Overall, the Sunday attendance rate in Episcopal communities has declined by 23 percent since 2000.

A wedding, A marriage

A pebble when held close to your eye looks like a boulder. Its a very simple concept, little things if they are really close to you can seem very, very large.

In the marriage debate, there are many items which look huge because they are close to how we understand the social climate of today. But they are really pebbles in the much larger perspective of what marriage is and has done through millenia for cultures.

Weddings, for all of their wonderful celebration of marriage, are a good example of one of these pebbles. A wedding day is large as life to the married couple as they plan to get married. The day comes, and goes. It casts a large shadow on the first few years of their marriage. But as time goes on the defining moments of the marriage become those times that the two people reconcile their differences and renew their marriage promises. Those times where hardships work to drive the spouses apart, yet they cling to each other and learn to work as one. Those times where children's needs exacted great sacrifices from both spouses.

More Kardashian....

Here is commentary from a local pundit from Boston on their divorce. WBZ-TV

If you have wasted precious hours of your time watching Kim parade her vapid personality and grotesque materialism over the past few years, you know that she is the poster girl for narcissism, or self-love, without any apparent justification for that adoration.

And from two months ago this piece Kim Kardashian's wedding: promises, profits and product placement -Oregon Live

Much has been made of the Kardashian-Humphries wedding invitations, which were decorated with black crystals and arrived in silver boxes. Guests were asked to wear black and white and to keep ceremony details confidential. Even more has been made of the couple's wedding registry at Geary's of Beverly Hills, which totals $172,000 and includes such items as a $1,650 coffee pot and two $1,250 sterling silver vegetable spoons.