Who Owes Faithfulness?/Maggie Gallagher

Lynne's post reminded me of another key part of marriage norms that we are in danger of losing: not only do married people owe each other a duty of sexual fidelity, but other people also owe "fidelity" to the couple.

In a marriage culture, people understand: You have an obligation not only to be faithful to your own wife, but also (whether married or single) not to have sex with anyone else's wife. (ditto: husband).

In privatized, contractual schemes of marriage, this element gets lost or downgraded. (If adultery is wrong only because it violates a private understanding of two people, then that's their business, not any one else's.)

A judge in New YOrk, in the middle of quite properly punishing a man for killing a friend who had become involved with his wife, was apparently operating on this deep understanding: "Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Carol Berkman noted that Elio Cruz 'made this selfish, emotional decision to punish Mr. [German] [Dionisio Cabrera], when, in fact, it was his wife doing bad things.'"


JUDGE CAGES KILLER - RIPS CHEATER WIFE
DAREH GREGORIAN. New York Post. New York, N.Y.: Dec 14, 2005. pg. 017

A man who gunned down his cheating wife's lover in a Chelsea subway station was sentenced to 18 years to life in prison yesterday - as the judge suggested the hubby retaliated against the wrong person. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Carol Berkman noted that Elio Cruz "made this selfish, emotional decision to punish Mr. [German] Cabrera, when, in fact, it was his wife doing bad things."

"She is the one who was unfaithful," Berkman said.

Cruz, 34, a room-service waiter, was convicted last month of killing the brash rival for wife Belkys Pena's affections in February 2004.

The judge noted that even before the shooting, Cruz would vent his anger over the affair at Cabrera instead of his wife - and Cabrera would just goad him on.

Prosecutor Peter Casolaro had asked the judge to sentence Cruz to the maximum of 25 years to life, but Berkman refused, noting he had no criminal record and "was on some level provoked."

Still, Berkman said, the goading aside, she didn't understand why Cruz made Cabrera the target of his anger.

"I suppose one might add salt to the wounds of the victim's family by saying, 'Gee, he wasn't perfect.' He was a young man, and he acted like young people sometimes do," Berkman said, wondering why Cruz "addressed the victim rather than his wife."

Cabrera's cousin, Dionisio, and dad Roberto were in the courtroom for the sentencing. The cousin said the grieving father had wanted Cruz to get 25 years.

"He was the only child he has," Dionisio Cabrera said.

But Cruz's lawyer, Carlos Perez-Olivo, pointed a finger at the victim, saying the word "taunting does not even come close to the manner of speech and behavior he dealt out to Mr. Cruz."

Pena was not in court for the sentencing of the father of her three children and could not be reached.

She was with Cabrera when Cruz shot him in the chest at the 1- train subway station at West 18th Street.

But she stood by her husband during the trial, testifying that the shooter wasn't Cruz, but someone "taller" and "bigger" than him. She initially said the shooter was "African."

Cruz insisted yesterday that he was on the sidewalk above station at the time of the shooting.

"I still maintain my innocence," he said.
posted by maggie at 1:17 PM | link 5 comments

And Now for Something Complete Frivolous

Why you should date me: evolutionary selection at work. Merry Christmas! Maggie

http://www.culturehole.com/dateweb/chart10.htm
posted by maggie at 1:02 PM | link 0 comments

MONOGAMY AND NORMS: Lynn Gazis-Sax

...But what I want to talk about right now is not the Netherlands, or the law either there or here, or the slippery slope. What I want to talk about is the matter of norms, and how marriage is a matter of cultural expectations, as much as a matter of law, and what the difference is between a world of monogamy-friendly cultural expectations, and a world of polyamory-friendly cultural expectations.

Here's what our world looks like now: Back when I was in college, I once helped a guy out with a problem he was having at the computer center, and he invited me out for coffee. At the coffee house, he proceeded to tell me about his marriage--a marriage which, he said, was purely for immigration purposes. I could see where this was leading, and inwardly marvelled that he expected me to go for this line, but I was young, and polite, and did nothing more overt than politely excusing myself after a little while. Later I told a friend, and he--as well he should have done--was at pains to urge me not to have anything to do with the guy with the marriage which supposedly didn't give him any reason not to play the field. Most of us look with suspicion on men who claim to have marriages that allow for a bit on the side. Most of us urge our friends to look with suspicion on such men.

Here's another possible set of norms: Some time ago, a guy wrote to kinky sex advice columnist Dan Savage (that's "kinky sex advice columnist" as in "mostly advises people about kinky sex"--I have no idea how kinky Savage himself is in his preferences). This guy was from some Middle Eastern country, and was revelling in the greater sexual opportunities of his new home in Canada. Only problem was, the woman he'd been flirting with online turned out to be married. She was inviting him to meet her in person; should he go? And Savage basically said, well, her marriage might well be an open one; it was a matter between her and her husband. Now, I love reading Dan Savage, and find him usually entertaining, and sometimes even dead right, but there's no way on earth that I want our cultural marriage norms to work like this.

Occasionally, I've run into someone from a poly friendly subculture, extolling the virtues of open relationships. And the argument will be put forth that, after all, you can always tell people that you're monogamous, if that's your thing. Um, no. I don't want to be expected to go around telling people that I'm monogamous; I want my ring and marriage license to already tell them that such was my likely intention. And even more likely my husband's expectation. Part of the value of being married is that I'm asking people to help bind me to a promise when the going gets tough, to help me make it work. Not chain me so firmly to that promise that I'd be told I’d made my bed and needed to lie in it if Joel were actually abusive. But surely bind me enough that it's not left to be purely my own personal business if I lie to him and cheat on him.

more

and more/related here:

...That said, the kinds of explanations of the difference between straight and gay couples that resonate most with me aren't the ones that talk about all the complementarity that same-sex couples are missing. They're the ones that see straight couples as, in some sense, the weaker party, and the one more in need of being shored up. *Christopher has written about this on occasion, how some ways of handling relationships that work among gay men just don't work so well in heterosexual couples.

None of this means I'm willing to join Maggie Gallagher in opposing same-sex marriage; I still think that Jonathan Rauch's case for same-sex marriage wins handily over the case against. But it does say to me that the norms of marriage should be those that work for those couples who could face pregnancy at any time, and who may not sync up so naturally and easily in their approach to sex, pregnancy, investment in parenting, etc. And all the rest of us--couples who've proved to be infertile, couples where the woman is past menopause, same-sex couples--should generally fit ourselves to those norms.

more
posted by Eve at 9:32 PM | link 0 comments

AGAINST UK CIVIL PARTNERSHIP ACT: Tom Utley

... I cannot think of any other Act passed by this Government that has given so much pleasure, at so little cost, to so many people. ...But the Civil Partnership Act (CPA) has caused very little distress to anybody apart from a few religious fanatics--and even they get a warm, righteous glow from their distress. ...

Now I am going to spoil it all, and risk being frozen out again by Desmond, by repeating my belief that the CPA is an utter nonsense, in the most literal sense of the word, and that gay marriage can only ever be a ludicrous parody of the real thing.

Sexual intercourse has three functions: to make babies, to give physical pleasure and to give us a means of expressing our affection for each other. Only that first purpose should concern the state. The other two are no more the Government's business than Sir Elton's bedroom practices are any business of mine.

Every time I think of the Civil Partnership Act, I think of my two sisters--one of them a single mother--who have shared a house for most of their lives and bring up my niece together. They are expressly forbidden by the CPA from forming a civil partnership, for two reasons: (i) they are siblings; and (ii) they have not the slightest sexual interest in each other.

If Sir Elton dies before his partner, Mr Furnish may now inherit all his property, free of inheritance tax--and all because they fancy the pants off each other. When one of my sisters dies, the other will almost certainly have to sell their house to pay the tax bill. Where is the justice in that--and how does it serve the interests of the state?

The state has an obvious interest in keeping parents together. The evidence is now overwhelming that stable marriages offer the best conditions for bringing up the children that this kingdom so desperately needs. But I cannot see what possible difference it will make to the well-being of society whether Sir Elton and his partner stay together or not.

The sentimentalist in me rejoices at Sir Elton's happiness. The dyed-in-the-wool bigot says that I will never approve wholly of civil partnerships until inheritance tax is abolished for everyone--including my sisters.

more

[MD.com readers are discussing similar issues here. --Eve]
posted by Eve at 9:21 PM | link 3 comments

Kurtz v. The New Republic/Maggie Weighs In

As you may know I've never been a big fan of the "SSM will lead to polygamy" argument for two reasons: first from my point of view (which I realize is probably not where most people are at) polygamy is a common marriage variant anthropologically and in that sense far less of conceptual "shock" to the basic structure of marriage than unisex or genderless marriage. (It is also, in my view, a very, very bad marriage system, but that's another story).

Secondly, as I read the play of forces, we don't end up moving to polygamy because that would cost taxpayers money. And once we've established that marriage is just a word for a government Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on romance, I can't figure out what taxpayers are going to be willing to fund it.

What the calls for polygamy will do is contribute to an already powerful push to "separate marriage and state." Because well, we've already established there is no very good reason for the government to be involved in people's love relations called marriages anyway. Add to that the fact that, if courts order SSM, many faith communities will join the chorus of people pushing to separate marriage and state, and I see that as the most likely end result of institutionalizing SSM.

Nonetheless, when I read Rob Allen's response to Stanley's piece in the Weekly Standard, I found it shocking: Shockingly incapable of grasping Stanley's argument, which is (my interpretation) that if people have a personal right to marry anyone they love, then the claims of polygamists will be hard to resist, once that principle is firmly established. Kurtz points to bisexuality as one potential "interest group" whose personal needs and desires would justify a move to polygamy under the logic of SSM. I'd simply point out we have both a native tradition of polygamy (heretical Mormons) and an imported one (Islam). I don't think its going to take that long for them to begin organizing and pressing claims in courts. So the argument: "Nobody is for this, there are no PACs on this" is a pretty weak response. Especially to people who have witnessed SSM move from a weirdo idea on the fringe to the law of the state of Massachussetts in the blink of an eye.

You'd never know from the New Republic's contentless account, about the string of appellate court victories for marriage, the repeated growing electoral victories in statewide referendum, and the sustained opposition to SSM in public opinion polls. I'd post a link to the TNR essay, and let you judge for yourself, but TNR doesn't let nonsubscribers see their stuff. Here's a money quote below from TNR piece:

"And as tolerance for homosexuality has increased--or, in other words, as the "ick" factor has become less prominent--the prospects for same-sex marriage have brightened considerably. Among 18 to 29 year olds, 71 percent believe same-sex marriage is inevitable. After reading poll numbers like that one, conservatives have found themselves in a bit of a conundrum; and with the "ick" factor heading towards irrelevancy, the slippery-slope argument against gay marriage is all they have left."

Tolerance for homosexuality has increased even while opposition to gay marriage is strong and steady. (BTW: And more than 60 percent of 13 to 17 year olds oppose SSM in the latest polls.)

Of course we may stll lose. Young adults are more pro-SSM, currently, than older folks. If we do not come out of this debate with a deeper, richer understanding of marriage as a social institution, and transmit this vision to the next generation, then we will have lost marriage.

But right now, we are in the middle of surge of powerful new intellectual argument supporting marriage as the union of husband and wife. And many people who support SSM cannot even recognize that an argument has been made.

Hmmm. Good!
posted by maggie at 4:29 PM | link 70 comments

SSM and Monogramy/The Washington Blade

[Another interesting and honest piece by the executive editor of The Washington Blade, well worth reading. I almost feel I should apologize for excerpting the bit of honesty below, which is not central to his argument, but caught my eye during the sudden Polamorous Moment we appear to be in. Maggie]

Don't be Britney at the altar
By Chris Crain Washington Blade, Dec. 23, 2005

I still remember a gay couple who were interviewed after becoming among the first to legally tie the knot, in Provincetown, Mass., in May 2004. They seemed surprised when they were asked if getting married meant that they would be monogamous for life.

That's never been critical to making our relationship work, one of the men told the reporter, so why should it be now?

Ask that same question at your next heterosexual wedding, even if it's at the Little White Wedding Chapel in Vegas, and see how many times you get the same answer.
posted by maggie at 4:19 PM | link 1 comments

Kurtz v. The New Republic

Stanley's able defense here.

December 23, 2005, 2:38 p.m.
Triple-Dutch Wrong
An off-reply.

Over at The New Republic's website, Rob Anderson takes a whack at my recent Weekly Standard piece, "Here Come the Brides."

Anderson claims my use of the slippery-slope argument shows desperation. In effect, says Anderson, resort to the slippery slope proves that my main argument against gay marriage, "the 'ick' factor," is losing ground with the American people. Trouble is, I do not oppose same-sex marriage based on "the 'ick' factor." I've always called for tolerance of homosexuality, going back to "The Ashcroft-Logger Alliance" in 2001, where I expressed opposition to sodomy laws.

I've used the slippery-slope argument from the beginning, as have other opponents of same-sex marriage. The only difference is that the slippery-slope argument is becoming more obviously true with every passing year. If anyone is prejudiced here, it's Anderson, who relies on mistaken assumptions about opponents of same-sex marriage.

Anderson betrays a surprising ignorance of arguments against same-sex marriage, leaving out altogether what is arguably the central claim of same-sex-marriage opponents: that gay marriage separates marriage from parenthood, with deleterious consequences for marriage as an institution. Even in "Here Come the Brides," I make reference to this key point. Yet Anderson acts as though the "ick factor" and the slippery slope are the only extant arguments against same-sex marriage. . . .
posted by maggie at 4:05 PM | link 0 comments

Fooling Some of the People

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/516990/?sc=dwhr

"When pouring liquor, even professional bartenders unintentionally pour 20 to 30 percent more into short, squat glasses than into tall, thin ones, according to a new Cornell University study.

"Yet, people who pour into short, wide glasses consistently believe that they pour less than those who pour into tall, narrow glasses," said Brian Wansink, the John S. Dyson Professor of Marketing, Applied Economics and of Nutritional Science at Cornell. "And education, practice, concentration and experience don't correct the overpouring."
posted by maggie at 10:08 AM | link 2 comments

Text of Massachussetts Marriage Amendment

Why is this always missing from the news stories? Anyway, thanks to Dan Avila of the Massachussetts Catholic Conference:

"When recognizing marriages entered into after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage only as the union between one man and one woman"
posted by maggie at 9:18 AM | link 0 comments

Mass Marriage Intiative Breaks Records for Signatories/Boston.Com

Petition vs. gay marriage advances
Number of signers breaks state record
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff, December 22, 2005

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/12/22/petition_vs_gay_marriage_advances/

Backers of a constitutional ban on gay marriage in Massachusetts have shattered a 20-year-old record for the most certified signatures ever gathered in support of a proposed ballot question.

Secretary of State William F. Galvin this week certified the signatures of 123,356 registered voters, nearly twice as many as the number required to get on the ballot.
Supporters of the ban said their effort shows that gay marriage is still a burning issue among thousands of voters, and legislators should pay heed. . .

Opponents of the ballot question say . . .it shows that paid signature-gatherers were particularly effective at tricking unsuspecting voters into signing a petition they didn't support.

. . .Marc Solomon, political director of MassEquality, a coalition of local and national gay rights groups, said he has no question that the amendment will survive challenges, given the sheer number of names gathered.

. . . Prior to the gay marriage question, the most signatures ever gathered were in support of a 1985 question calling for the end of a surtax on the state personal income tax. That question got 110,645 certified signatures, Galvin's office said.
Late yesterday, the pro-gay marriage website, Knowthyneighbor.org, posted all 123,356 names of those who signed the petition, as well as their home addresses. The database is searchable by first name, last name, home town, and ZIP code, and offers visitors a ''fraud affidavit" to use ''if your name is listed and you believe you were a victim of petition fraud."

. . .Tom Lang, a spokesman for Knowthyneighbor.org, said his organization also plans to post the signers' political party affiliation by weeks' end, and later, other data such as home sale prices.

Mineau, of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said the Internet tool will mostly be used to harass those who backed the ballot question. . .
posted by maggie at 12:07 PM | link 1 comments

Post-Goodridge Court Victories Piling Up against SSM/Maggie Gallagher

In a press release about filing an amicus brief in the New Jersey SSM litigation, the Alliance Defense Fund lawyer makes this point:

ADF Senior Legal Counsel Chris Stovall "explained that there exists a misperception that protecting marriage as a union between one man and one woman is winning only in the legislature and not in the courts. He pointed to the majority of cases in the appellate courts in the past few years where judges ruled in favor of protecting marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

"Except for the Goodridge opinion in Massachusetts, every American appellate court that has evaluated laws protecting marriage as one man and one woman in the last 10 years has found those laws to be legitimate, appropriate, and constitutional," said Stovall.

"When others say that many courts have ruled otherwise, they are referring to the trial courts, where some activist judges have embedded their own personal views into their decisions," Stovall added. "This is not the case at the appellate level, such as the excellent appellate decision we are asking the New Jersey Supreme Court to affirm in this case, Lewis v. Harris."

Examples of appellate courts ruling in favor of marriage as one man and one woman in the past few years are Standhardt v. Superior Court in Arizona (2003), Morrison v. Sadler in Indiana (2005), the New Jersey appellate ruling in Lewis v. Harris (2005), and the Hernandez v. Robles decision in New York (2005). . . "
posted by maggie at 12:02 PM | link 0 comments

New York Archdiocese Launches Expanded Marriage Prep/Maggie Gallagher
From what I gather the effort is to integrate the practical (relationship skills) with the theological (the Catholic vision of marriage). As a graduate of the New York Archdioscese pre-Cana program (circa 1993), udos for the expanded ambition!

Maggie

http://cny.org/archive/ld/ld120105.htm
'God's Plan'
Archdiocese to introduce new marriage preparation program

By MARY ANN POUST, Catholic New York, December 2005.

What do you do after you say "I do?"

That's a question all newlywed couples have to address sooner or laterÑand a redesigned archdiocesan marriage preparation program aims to help them find the answer.

"There's a lot of misunderstanding about the nature of marriage that people get from the popular culture," said Sister Mary Elizabeth, S.V., director of the Family Life/Respect Life Office, which runs the new program.

"So one of our main goals is to present the beauty of God's plan for marriage," she said, "and to do it in a way that makes sense to people today, in a way that makes sense to couples today."

The redesigned program for engaged couples, to begin in January, expands the marriage preparation program from one full day to two; or from two evening sessions to four. . .
posted by maggie at 11:58 AM | link 0 comments

Polygamy Bursting Out All Over/Maggie Gallagher

The trusty Margaret Nell (who edits iMAPP Marriage News weekly), points out "Bunch of blogs on polygamy at the Gruntled Center:
http://gruntledcenter.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-exactly-is-polygamy-illegal.html

Hat tip to family scholars.org and of course Stanely Kurtz.

The latest? "The New Monomgamy" which turns out to be the old open marriage. (see below)

As someone who remembers the Seventies' these stories have a distinctly retro feel.

Maggie


The New Monogamy
Until death do us part—except every other Friday.
NY Magazine
http://newyorkmetro.com/lifestyle/sex/annual/2005/15063/

By Em & Lo

Claire is a pretty, 31-year-old Park Sloper who studies furniture design. Her husband, Alex, is a 32-year-old Web-design consultant with a fondness for floral shirts. He’s the center of attention at a party; she’s the one off to the side, seemingly aloof but really just shy. That’s why she was shocked when, more than a year into their relationship, she was the one who found herself attracted to someone else.

"I was totally confused, because I'd assumed that once I found 'the one,' I would be done with all that," says Claire. "Going through all this was hard for us as a couple." But when her husband subsequently got a crush of his own, she was more prepared. "Now that it was his turn, I was in a position to understand," explains Claire. "So I told him, if he wanted to kiss her, that was okay-but I wanted to know about it, and I wanted that to be as far as things went without him talking to me first."

For much of human history, monogamy (or, at least, presumed monogamy) has been the default setting for long-term love. Hack the system, goes the theory, refuse to forsake all others, open the door even a crack—and the whole relationship will crash. Any dissenters have been pathologized as delusional idealists or worse. But now a new generation of couples is employing a kind of homeopathic hypothesis: that a tiny injection of adventure will ward off the urge to stray further—as long as it's all on the table and up for discussion. (And just as with homeopathy, a healthy percentage of the population considers this premise bunk.). . ."
posted by maggie at 11:49 AM | link 0 comments

A Constitutional Right to Group Sex in the Privacy of Your Own Night Club

Canada breaks new ground!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10561253/

MSNBC.com

Canadian court lifts ban on 'swingers' clubs
Group sex among consenting adults not a threat to society, it says
Reuters
Updated: 2:33 p.m. ET Dec. 21, 2005


OTTAWA - Group sex among consenting adults is neither prostitution
nor a threat to society, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on
Wednesday as it lifted a ban on so-called "swingers" clubs.

In a ruling that radically changes the way courts determine what
poses a threat to the population, the top court threw out the
conviction of a Montreal man who ran a club where members could have
group sex in a private room behind locked doors.

"Consensual conduct behind code-locked doors can hardly be supposed
to jeopardize a society as vigorous and tolerant as Canadian
society," said the opinion of the seven-to-two majority, written by
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.
posted by maggie at 10:17 AM | link 0 comments

More Christmas Interlude/Daniellebean.com

[Did I mention I love her blog? Maggie]

Baths the baby needed before noon: 2

Baths the baby got before noon: 1

Doses of Exedrin taken: 2

Times I put the baby down for a nap: 3

Naps the baby took: 0

Times I swept the floor: 6

Times the floor needed sweeping: 7

Candy canes found in the washing machine: 1

Candy canes found stuck to the dog’s rear end: 1 ½

Candy canes found by stepping on them: 6

Times I answered the question “How many days till Christmas?”: 27

Christmas tree skirts stolen and used as Superman capes: 1

Christmas tree balls shattered: 2

Times I seriously considered adding a shot of Kahlua to my cup of coffee: 1... okay 2... 3 tops

Times I remembered to thank God for the precious gift of my children: 0
posted by maggie at 2:27 PM | link 0 comments

Court rules San Jose Cannot Recognize SSM Performed Elswhere/San Jose Mercury News

Married gays lose benefits from city
CONSERVATIVES CLAIM RULING AS VICTORY
By Mary Anne Ostrom
Mercury News
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/13447956.htm

A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge has ruled that the city of San Jose cannot offer benefits to the same-sex partners of its employees based only on a marriage certificate that was legally issued elsewhere.

Conservative legal groups filed the suit last year after the San Jose City Council voted to expand city worker benefits already given to heterosexual married couples to same-sex couples who had married legally.

Although a symbolic victory for opponents of same-sex marriage, the decision made public Monday has very little practical effect in San Jose. In the United States, only Massachusetts allows same-sex marriages.

And an expanded domestic partnership state law that went into effect Jan. 1 allows city workers who register as domestic partners to be eligible for the same benefits as heterosexual married couples.

``It's basically moot,'' said San Jose City Attorney Rick Doyle.
posted by maggie at 10:31 AM | link 1 comments

Mass Marriage Amendment Certified/Boston.com

Secretary of state certifies seven initiative petitions
December 20, 2005

BOSTON --Seven ballot questions proposed for the 2006 and 2008 statewide elections have met the required number of signatures and will now be forwarded to the Legislature for its review, Secretary of State William Galvin announced Tuesday.
Six of the questions may appear on next year's ballot. They are related to wine sales in grocery stores, access to health care, ballot choices, a council to oversee home health care, family child care and banning greyhound racing.

The House and Senate have until May to take the action suggested in the questions, or else the questions' supporters will have to gather 10,000 more signatures to ensure they are placed on the fall ballot.

The seventh question would halt gay marriage that has been allowed in Massachusetts since May 2003. The House and Senate will have to approve that question in two successive legislatures for it to go on the 2008 ballot.

Galvin had to count that petitioners gathered 65,825 signatures, with no more than 16,456 from any one county. Local election clerks had previously checked to ensure the names were those of registered voters
posted by maggie at 10:29 AM | link 1 comments

A Story of Mere Biology/ Maggie Gallagher

Around the Nation
December 20, 2005
The Washington Times

ARKANSAS
Mother reunites with son after 13 years
BELLA VISTA -- A mother and son who were separated while the boy was an infant have been reunited more than a decade after the child disappeared with his father.
Tosha Blevins had not heard anything about her son, Stephen Kao, in 13 years until she received a call earlier this month from relatives of the boy's father.
"My wife is Stephen's dad's sister," the caller, David Henson of Douglasville, Ga., said. "Your son came to live with us after his dad died four years ago."
Stephen's relatives in Georgia were able to locate his mother using records they found in his baby book.
The day after the call, the mother went to Georgia and spent more than a week with her son, now 14, who returned to live with her in Arkansas.
posted by maggie at 10:23 AM | link 0 comments

Three of Hearts!!/On Bravo

http://threeofheartsfilm.com/
posted by maggie at 7:36 PM | link 0 comments

My Three Wives!!/New HBO Series

Television: The Spouses of 'Big Love'
HBO takes on a polygamist's marriage in its latest series. Meet the family.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10511139/site/newsweek/
By Marc Peyser
Newsweek
Dec. 26, 2005 -Jan 2, 2006 issue- Bill Henrickson (Bill Paxton) pops a lot of Viagra. A lot, as in one every day, which he pulls from a bottle he keeps in his pants pocket. That seems like a heap of thrill pills for a happy, healthy, fortysomething married man. The problem isn't his libido—this isn't a supply problem. It's a demand problem. Bill is a polygamist with three wives: Barbara (Jeanne Tripplehorn), Nicki (Chloe Sevigny) and Margene (Ginnifer Goodwin). They live in adjacent houses with a common backyard, so Bill's on a regular rotation—one night Barb, the next night Nicki, the next Margene. He's like the only batter on a baseball team, and he's expected to hit a home run every night. . .
posted by maggie at 7:23 PM | link 0 comments

POLYAMORY NOTES: Stanley Kurtz

here
posted by Eve at 6:04 PM | link 0 comments

More Legal Debate over NY Appellate Decision/Ann Althouse

here.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/12/marriage-promotes-sharing-of-resources.html
posted by maggie at 3:03 PM | link 0 comments

Straight Civil Unions Mess Up Marriage/The Washington Blade

"Messing up marriage", Chris Crain (Executive Editor)
http://www.washblade.com/blog/index.cfm?type=blog&start=12/11/05&end
=12/18/05

"Oh, I respect gay relationships. I would compare them to straight couples
who've moved in together but aren't ready for marriage, or maybe to a
grandmother and a mother who live together to help each other out."

What would you think of a person who said that about your relationship? I
would think that someone who views us that way, while more benevolent than
our president and his fellow travelers, just doesn't "get it."

But that's exactly what the domestic partner legislation pending in the
District of Columbia would say. Marriage is for straight couples, under the new law, while domestic partnership is for gay couples, straight couples who don't feel like marrying, and for blood relatives who live together and support each other.

It didn't have to be that way. There's no Living-in-Sin Alliance pushing for
D.P. legislation that would give straight couples another option short of
marriage to recognize their relationship. There's no Grandma-Mama Alliance
pushing for marriage-like rights for their domestic arrangements.

No, it's the Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance pushing for all these things,
and in so doing they are (however unintentionally) disrespecting our own
relationships, weakening traditional marriage before we even have a chance
to partake of it, and wrecking the odds we'll have the opportunity to do so
anytime soon. . .

And offering "marriage-lite" to straight couples is proven (in Europe and
elsewhere) to threaten marriage itself, because it allows couples an easier
option than a lifetime commitment. It also makes gay relationships the
equivalent of straight couples who don't want to marry, and it redresses a
wrong that doesn't need redressing; straight couples can marry if they want
these rights. . .

Posted by Chris Crain, Executive Editor | Dec. 16 at 1:10 PM |
ccrain@window-media.com
posted by maggie at 2:15 PM | link 4 comments

FATHER AND CHILD: Time magazine package on St Joseph,

here.
posted by Eve at 11:28 AM | link 0 comments

Taking on the Fearsome Syllogism/Crank

A rather logical discussion by "Crank" on the NY appelate court decision, and in particular why he finds the syllogism "some nonprocreative couples marry therefore not permitting SS couples to marry is discrimination" unpersuasive:

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/12/12/102255/49

"There's a couple of critical points here. Proponents of same-sex marriage often treat the connection between marriage and children as an argument that can be disposed of by syllogism: that since heterosexual couples are able to marry even if they have no intention or ability to have children, it must be the case that bearing and begetting children has no rational relationship to marriage and can't be a proper basis for distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex mariage. There are, however, four major reasons for finding this argument unpersuasive.

The first, not discussed above, is one I'll touch on just briefly here: privacy. The state can determine just by looking at a same-sex couple that they're not likely to bear children, and can't do so through traditional means. With the exception of the aged and a few other classifications, that's not true of opposite-sex couples: the government would need to conduct an intrusive investigation to ascertain that an opposite-sex couple was infertile, not having sex, using birth control or otherwise unable or unwilling to bear children.

The next two reasons are related. As the court notes, the rational basis test doesn't require a perfect "fit" between the preferred solution adopted by democratic policymakers and the ends they seek to promote. There are scores of examples of government programs, tax credits and the like that provide benefits to a group of people or institutions not because they will all advance the interests the government is trying to promote, but because it can be rationally determined that they are more likely than another group to provide the desired social benefits. If we required a perfect fit, precious few government programs could survive rational basis scrutiny.

The third, related reason is that society as a whole has an interest in promoting childbearing, an interest the Hernandez court dryly notes is "critical, but presently undervalued." A look at the demographic crisis in Europe, Russia and Japan is all that needs to be said for the importance of this interest: without a decent level of childbearing, society becomes top-heavy with old people and enters a spiral of declining population, which is problematic on many levels. . ."
posted by maggie at 11:04 AM | link 14 comments

Interlude/DanielleBean.com

Things I Have Learned (Now that I am 9 months old)
12/18/05 8:21 PM
By Raphael Bean

• Life is meant to be tasted. Grab hold of it with both hands and enjoy every last bit of it.

• “No” means “Hurry up and eat that magnificent morsel you just picked up from the floor because Mama is about to take it away.”

• If your big brother touches your belly, LAUGH.
If the doctor touches your belly, CRY.

• A warm bath tub filled with bubbles is a little bit of heaven here on earth. In order to ensure that you enjoy the experience as fully as possible, gulp great big mouthfuls of the water.

• If your mother tries to put you down for a nap, she is probably up to something. She might even be accomplishing something. In order to find out what it is, fight off that nagging urge to sleep for as long as possible. Let loose with a soul-wrenching cry and wail steadily until she returns for you.

• Dog food? Delicious.
posted by maggie at 10:33 AM | link 0 comments

Government and Gay Marriage/New 50-State Poll

http://www.surveyusa.com/SupremeCourtJuly05.htm

Who should have
the final say on gay marriage?
Your state government?
The Federal Government?
Or should the government
have no say?

55 percent in the state of New York say "neither."
posted by maggie at 1:33 PM | link 1 comments

Drop in Black Marriages Hurts Families/Atlanta Constitution-JOurnal

Drop in Black Marriages Hurts Families
By BENIN DAKAR
Atlanta Constitution-Journal 12/12/05

Marriage is the most enduring present that Otis and Elaine Dickerson
of Duluth have given themselves and their four children.
On Dec. 18, 1953, on the first birthday of their baby boy Eric, the
young and determined African-American couple were married in the modest
home of Otis' mother in a working-class Baltimore neighborhood. Their
commitment to rear their children-son Eric (now known as Sitawi Jahi),
of Baltimore; and daughters Marcia Dickerson, 50, of Duluth; Sheila
Conway, 44, of Columbia, Md.; and Leslie Pickett, 43, of Alpharetta — as
a faithful husband and wife provided the emotional support and economic
wherewithal for the couple and their offspring to find their way into
the middle class. Although the Dickersons' marriage had some of the
usual rough spots that even good marriages are certain to experience,
Otis and Elaine remain steadfast in making it work, not just for
themselves but as an example to their children, grandchildren and
great-grandchildren. Otis, a 73-year-old naval veteran and a retired
civilian courier for Naval Services in Washington, and Elaine, a
71-year-old retired cryptanalyst from The National Security Agency in
Fort Meade, Md., say their partnership enabled them to succeed in the
workplace, to become homeowners and to rear stable and productive
children.

What makes the story of Otis and Elaine Dickerson exceptional
is that fewer and fewer young black couples who find themselves in a
"family way" are following their lead to the altar. The decline of
marriage, especially in many low-income black communities, is cracking
the foundation of the black nuclear family and worsening poverty and
child welfare. According to The Brookings Institution, 70 percent of
African-American children are born out of wedlock and up to 85 percent
of African-American children will spend some or all of their childhood
in a single-parent home. This is important because the emotional and
economic security of children is greatly reduced in single-parent homes.
Of course, there are noteworthy exceptions to the rule, but by and
large, children from two-parent homes simply fare better.

The reasons for declining black marriage rates are varied and complex, said Lorraine
Blackman, associate professor of social work at Indiana University and
director of the African-American Family Life Education Institute. The
women's movement of the 1970s enhanced opportunities for many black
women and changed their expectations of marriage, Blackman said.
Simultaneously, because of a changing economy, job opportunities for
non-college-educated black men have decreased. Furthermore, Blackman
said, the government has inadvertently discouraged marriage among
lower-income black women by denying them such safety net supports as
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and food stamps if there is
evidence of a man in the household. Surprisingly, many black clergy who
stood at the forefront of opposing same-sex marriage are eerily quiet
when it comes to addressing the crisis of declining African-American
marriage rates. The irony is that while same-sex marriage has little, if
any, impact on the well-being of the black community, decreasing
marriage rates between a black man and a black woman threaten to erode
black social and economic progress. Despite the intricacy of
understanding and addressing the issue of declining marriage in the
black community and the fact that there are no quick fixes, we still can
hope that other young black couples will choose to emulate Otis and
Elaine. In a very real and unsentimental way, the future of an
empowered, effectual and enduring black America is wedded to our efforts
to increase black marriage rates.
posted by maggie at 11:58 AM | link 0 comments

The Decline of Black Marriage/Atlanta-Constitution Journal
Blog commentary

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/opiniontalk/entries/2005/12/11/the_decline_of.html

Some Highlights:

"None of us is perfect. 2.If we didn’t have premarital sex, we could cut AIDs in half, trim down the wellfare bucks, and slow the population growth. 3.Too bad my Dad isn’t still around and able to sternly control all teens everywhere just by intimidation. That’s about the only solution I can come up with, a two-parent family with a heavy hand. How do we get there God? "

"The idea of marriage for blacks just carries too many negative connotations. I can recall numerous occasions where elder black men would beg and plead for me not to get married young or get a girl pregnant fearing as if they would watch another young brother give away his life, almost like murder."

"Please move this topic to a more visible place in the AJC. This topic is very dear to me, because I am a single mother. Marriage was something I dreamed about as a very young teenager. However, I quickly found out at 23 and pregnant, that relationships were very difficult to maintain - especially, when you are the only person with the dream of being married.

Although, it’s been more than 10 years since the birth of my daughter, I find that most of the men that I encounter are not interested in permanent relationships. Those that say they are ready, are not truly financially responsible.

It’s especially hard for me, because I have obtained a certain living standard for my daughter and myself. I graduated college, developed my career, purchased a home and earn above the middle class standard of living. But, most of the young african american men my age are way behind."
posted by maggie at 11:55 AM | link 0 comments