Christmas Etiquette for Unmarried Interactions

From our friends at unmarried.org:

Ms. and Mr. Manners: Etiquette for Unmarried Interactions

Every family and network of friends includes unmarried people. So why are there so many stories about the holidays being a drag for singles? Maybe because their family and friends haven’t learned AtMP’s simple do’s and don’ts. Here are some tips for happy holiday conversations with all the wonderful singles, couples, and diverse families in your midst.

Please...

Do involve both singles and unmarried partners in family decisions and activities.

Do give everyone choices about travel and hosting if your family or group is getting together over the holidays. This is more respectful than assuming that the people with the biggest house should host, or that it’s easier for the single people to travel.

Do remember that single people are adults and value privacy. Have you invited solo singles to stay overnight? Try to accommodate them in a room with a door that shuts, rather than simply assuming that they will be fine on the living room couch.

When sending invitations, do be clear if everyone is welcome to bring a guest. Recognize that significant others are not just spouses or romantic partners.

Do address envelopes to “Ms. Jane Smith and Mr. John Doe.” If a couple wanted to be “Mr. and Mrs. John Doe” they would have gotten married!

Do find out how people wish to be introduced. Folks get awfully tired of hearing, “This is John and his, uh, er, ummm, friend”.

Do ascertain a relationship's importance through respectful, interested conversation; then act accordingly. Is it time to include your granddaughter's boyfriend in the annual family photo?

Do ask unmarried partners if they celebrate an anniversary, and mark it on your calendar. Celebrate successful relationships in all forms!

But please,

Don’t condescend or treat singles like children. Marital status does not denote maturity. Don’t make decisions for them. If you aren’t sure whether someone wants to be involved in a group activity – ask!

Don’t ask, “So, are you dating anyone?” unless you’re very close and have already discussed all the other details of each other’s lives. Asking early on, or asking someone you only see once a year, suggests you see an un-coupled person as incomplete. Let people decide whether or not to talk about their own dating life.

Don't say, “Oh, don't worry, there's someone out there for you,” and especially don't add, “if you just stop trying, you'll meet someone.” It assumes s/he is worried and trying, and reinforces that old falsehood (un-coupled = incomplete).

Don't ask an unmarried same-sex or different-sex couple, “When are you going to get married?” This assumes marriage is the only option – and it isn't.

If only one member of a couple is in attendance, don't say, “Are you guys still together?” or “How are you and Jamie getting along these days?” You wouldn’t say that to a married person, but we know an unmarried couple who has been together for decades and still hears this all the time. Try, “What is Chris doing for the holidays this year?” or “How is PJ?”

Don't casually predict a breakup, such as “Your girlfriend is really cute! Let me know if you break up so I can ask her out,” or “I think you and Tom would stay on really good terms if you ever broke up,” (both of these have actually happened). Imagine saying that to a married friend! (“Your husband is so hot! Let me know if you get divorced so I can date him,” or “I think you and Leah could have a really amicable divorce.”)

Don't be afraid to discuss the subject of marriage with an unmarried couple. You might try, “What are your thoughts about marriage?” But open-ended questions require you to keep an open mind about the answer. If you can't handle hearing, “We are planning to have three children and a picket fence but we're skipping the marriage part,” don't ask the question!

And for singles & partners whose friends / family fail to follow our advice...

Do point it out when someone talks to or about you as if you are just a stereotype. (Examples: singles are self-centered or lonely; unmarried couples are afraid of commitment or irresponsible.) You don’t have to sound angry or make it personal; strong points can be made with loving humor. For example, you might say “It’s funny you should say that, because I just read that people who stay single are generally as happy and healthy as people who stay married.”

Do help people recognize their gaffes, and believe in their ability to change. It could be as simple as saying “Can you imagine saying that to a married person?” Suggest what you’d like to hear instead.

Do claim equal time and attention for the things that are important to you. Make sure your loved ones hear about what’s exciting, rewarding and meaningful in your life. They want to show you all of their wedding pictures? No problem! Let them read your poetry, or see your vacation pictures, or hear funny stories about your co-workers.

Don’t get steered into feeling sorry for yourself!

The Alternatives to Marriage Project grants all users permission to print and share this page, but this paragraph must be included in all printed and electronic copies. We invite all readers to discover the resources at www.unmarried.org. AtMP is a nonprofit organization that relies on donations from interested individuals. To donate, visit www.unmarried.org/donate.html.

posted by maggie at 4:30 PM | Link | 2 comments

LOW ENROLLMENT IN GA. SAME-SEX PLANS KEEPS COSTS DOWN: From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

exactly what it sounds like
posted by Eve at 4:13 PM | Link | 0 comments

Catholic League Versus San Francisco

In a decision issued at the very end of November (I can’t find a link to the text online), a federal district court in California rejected a lawsuit by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights against the City and County of San Francisco. The League alleged San Francisco had violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause when its Board of Supervisors issued a resolution urging the Archdiocese of San Francisco to disregard a directive on adoptive placements with same-sex couples from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (in inflammatory terms). The court concluded that the resolution’s purpose and effect were secular (“denouncing discrimination against same-sex couples”) and any religious attacks were incidental to the main purpose.

The court relied on an earlier, also unsuccessful, action brought by the American Family Association and others after the Board of Supervisors had adopted a resolution that accused the groups of lying and validating the oppression and murder of homosexuals. As a side note, the dissent in the case (by Judge John T. Noonan) is very interesting.

All of which suggests that litigation may not be an effective way to teach discretion, good manners or tolerance.
posted by William Duncan at 12:47 PM | Link | 1 comments

NJ Civil Unions on Scrappleface

Here is the Scrappleface site's take on the New Jersey civil unions passage. Preview: "'It’s so much easier to make laws when the court tells us what to write in advance,' said one unnamed Democrat."
posted by William Duncan at 11:55 AM | Link | 0 comments

New Poll: French favor gay marriage, oppose gay adoption

"French Public Endorse Gay Marriage" Dec. 14, 356gay.com:

"A majority of French voters believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. The Ipsos survey shows that 62 percent support gay marriage, while only 37 percent were opposed. But on the issue of same-sex couples adopting children the survey found opposition with 55 percent saying gay and lesbian couples should not have parenting rights. Forty-four percent said they believed same-sex couples should be able to adopt. . ."

posted by maggie at 10:02 AM | Link | 0 comments

A New Dichotomy!

I'm smiling. Andrew Sullivan's fertile little mind has come up with what is for me a brand new dichotomy: Are you a secularized Christian (good!) or a politicized Christian? (very bad!).

These are apparently the available alternatives.

I do not know what a secularized Christian (or Muslim) might be, but then I continue not to know what a Christianist is, either. I might join those upset by Andrew's use of the term, if I knew exactly what it meant. Yes, I understand the connotations but what is the denotation? I wrote and asked Andrew once, and he told me to read his book, which I did. If there is a few sentence answer, I couldn't find it. Maybe I'm dense. He spent more time on the book on "fundamentalist" by which he seems to mean "person with a mental disorder fearing Andrew Sullivan's beliefs."

In today's post on why he uses Christianist as the counterpart of Islamist, he comes the closest I've seen (and admittedly Andrew writes so much that maybe he's done it sometime I wasn't looking) to defining the word. Since he invented the word, he gets to define it, at least in the first instance:

"You will notice no mention of terrorism or violence. My use of the term Christianist similarly and simply describes those who believe that the source of any political system should be Christian revelation, rather than the secular principles of the Enlightenment and the American constitution. . ."

(I don't think the principles of the American Constitution as its founders understood them are very closely related to Andrew Sullivan's idea of "secular versus politicized religious folk" but let's table that debate for the moment and focus like a laser on that definition of 'christianist.")

Andrew makes it clear that he thinks the use of religious revelation in any way as part of political philosophy makes "democratic politics. . .impossible." (Because people don't agree on what is revelation). This too is far from axiomatic but let's table that as well to get to his next point.

"When that freedom collides with religious truth, an Islamist or a Christianist has few qualms in squelching freedom. I differ. . . . If I'm right, the offense is mainly taken by Christians who simply refuse to see their faith as equally valid as Islam. They are offended that a Christian could even be equated with a Muslim. Which means, I believe, that they have not begun to understand the meaning of toleration at the core of Christianity, let alone the central insight of liberal constitutionalism. Hence our political and religious crisis."

All that is a very complicated explanation for the fact that Americans at war feel uncomfortable using language equating our enemies abroad with Americans here at home of religous faiths that have peacefully coexisted with democratic constitutionalism here in this country since its founding, but that is not my point.

If Andrew's constitutional principles are based in part on his belief that "the meaning of toleration at the core of Christianity" includes them. . .is he a Christianist?

If not why not?
posted by maggie at 9:55 PM | Link | 0 comments

Is Dr. Dobson "Lying"?

when he says scientific evidence shows children do best with a mom and dad? Jennifer Chrisler says so. (More evidence in my view that the equality narrative gay rights advocates seek to put into our constitution requires destroying the social norm that "children need a mother and a father."

The debate in Time Magazine:

Two Mommies Is One Too Many by James Dobson, PhD
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1568485,00.html

Two Mommies or Two Daddies Will Do Fine, Thank You by Jennifer Chrisler
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1569797,00.html
posted by maggie at 9:23 PM | Link | 32 comments

NJ Legislature Passes Civil Unions

The Star-Ledger is reporting that the New Jersey civil unions bill has been approved by the legislature and will now go to the Governor who is expected to sign it. The votes were 56-19 in the Assembly and 23-12 in the Senate.
posted by William Duncan at 6:07 PM | Link | 13 comments

SSM Updates: Mass, NJ, U.K

Same-sex marriage foes sue (Massachusetts') lawmakers:

"Lawyers from a group opposing gay marriage filed a $5 million federal lawsuit against 109 state lawmakers yesterday accusing them of violating the US Constitution when they refused to decide whether to put a ban on gay marriage on the 2008 ballot. . ."

New Jersey votes on civil unions today; NJ bar association doubts bill will pass court's muster (so do I); The invocation given by a NJ pastor at the legislature condemned SSM.

European human rights court rejects discrimination claim by sisters seeking same tax benefits as married couples/gay partners/cohabiting couples:

"Two sisters in their eighties who have lived together all their lives have lost a legal challenge against UK inheritance laws, which deny them the same rights as married couples or those in civil partnerships.

Under inheritance tax laws, when either Joyce (aged 88) or Sybil Burden (80) dies, the surviving sibling is likely to be faced with an inheritance tax bill which could force her to sell the family home.

Married couples are exempt from the tax, and since the 2004 Civil Partnership Act gay and lesbian couples now have the same rights. The sisters thought they should qualify for the same inheritance tax exemption and a legal battle commenced, which led them to take their case to the European court of human rights

.
posted by maggie at 3:21 PM | Link | 9 comments

Massachusetts Parenting Case

In 2002, the American Law Institute published its Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution. The Principles have been critiqued in a new book edited by Robin Fretwell Wilson and a symposium issue of the BYU Law Review as well as in The Future of Family Law report.

Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a decision (A.H. v. M.P.) that dealt with two of the legal theories advanced in the ALI Principles as justifications for giving legal parent status to non-parents.

The court rejected the idea of parenthood by estoppel. This ALI recommendation would allow a non-parent to gain parental status by showing that a child’s biological or adoptive parent treated this non-parent as if they were the parent. The parent would not be allowed to deny the parentage claim asserted by the non-parent. The court (rightly) found this principle to be a form of parenthood by contract, a concept disfavored in the law. The court also described the principle of estoppel as “an unwieldy and inappropriate tool by which a judge may probe into the intimate, private realm of family life.”

This would be encouraging except for the court’s endorsement of another ALI recommendation—de facto parent status. This theory allows a court to examine a non-parent’s relationship with a child to determine whether that person has acted “as a parent” to the child. In the Massachusetts case, the trial court’s decision (approved by the SJC) was that the same-sex partner seeking parent status was not a de facto parent because she had not adequately shared parenting responsibilities, at least partially because she spent so much time at work (she had been the sole wage earner in the couple after the baby’s birth). This kind of examination is hardly free of the probing into family life the court expressed concern about.

The difficulties with the ALI Principles and similar theories for expanding legal parenthood (see The Revolution in Parenthood) further illustrate why adoption and marriage are the best benchmarks for legally recognizing family since they provide clarity, recognize biological and social realities, and still allow a significant amount of autonomy and flexibility in how families structure their day-to-day lives.
posted by William Duncan at 3:09 PM | Link | 0 comments

Ireland Decision

Today the High Court or Ireland issued its decision in a case involving an Irish same-sex couple who had married in Canada and sought recognition in Ireland. The court’s decision is very long because it includes a very detailed description of evidence, witnesses and legal arguments in the case.

Of particular interest may be the court’s discussion about the evidence purporting to show no difference between children raised by same-sex couples and those raised by married couples. The judge accepted testimony about the methodological shortcomings of available evidence and said: “It also seems to me having regard to the criticism of the methodology used in the majority of the studies conducted to date that until such time as there are more longitudinal studies involving much larger samples that it will be difficult to reach firm conclusions on this topic.” (Page 117)

This matter was revisited in the court’s substantive holding. The court concluded that the Irish Constitution’s explicit reference to a constitutional right of opposite-sex couples to marry justified the legal distinction between same- and opposite-sex couples in the marriage law. The court further noted, however, that the marriage law was further justified by concerns with the “welfare of children” since in the absence of good research, “the State is entitled to adopt a cautious approach to changing the capacity to marry.” (Page 129-130)

The court rejected the couple’s claim of a “changing consensus” about the meaning of marriage internationally, saying “[t]he consensus around the world does not support a widespread move towards same-sex marriage.”

Finally, the court rejected the claim that refusal to recognize the marriage violated the European Convention on Human Rights.
posted by William Duncan at 2:08 PM | Link | 10 comments

Major U.K Report: "Fractured Families"

The just released Fractured Family report is here.Some samples of the media firestorm in Britain (thanks to the SmartMarriages.com newslist) below:

MARRIAGE 'KEY TO A BETTER SOCIETY' Cameron backs Tory report that blames family breakdown for poverty and Britain's social ills Yorkshire Post Today - Leeds,Yorkshire,UK
December 13, 2006

He said: "For some time I have been concerned about our reluctance as a nation to ask WHY the world's fourth largest economy continues to have ever greater demands placed upon its social support system, the welfare state, during a period of unprecedented prosperity."

Mr Duncan Smith said: "As this report shows, children from a broken home are twice as likely to have behavioural problems, perform worse at school, become sexually active at a younger age, suffer depression and turn to drugs, smoking and heavy drinking."

MARRIAGE should be put at the heart of efforts to tackle the complex web of family breakdown and poverty afflicting a "growing underclass" in Britain, according to a new report from the Conservatives.

The crippling impact of personal debt, drink and drug dependency, teenage pregnancies and educational underachievement on society's poorest are among the problems highlighted in a study published yesterday by a Tory policy commission, chaired by former party leader Iain Duncan Smith. . .

The commission called for a "radical appraisal" of marriage policy and for politicians "to grasp the nettle of family breakdown by being clear about the benefits of marriage and committed relationships, and the merits of supporting and encouraging them"

They added: "We have concluded on the basis of the extensive evidence that both family structure and family process matter. . .

The policy group is expected to propose specific policies next year. . .

Labour's Social Exclusion Minister Pat McFadden insisted last night that the Tories were hypocritical, having opposed measures to tackle poverty such as the minimum wage, maternity leave and flexible working. . .

Lib Dem social exclusion spokesman Matthew Taylor added: "Simply wishing for more families to stay together achieves nothing, whilst penalising the children of broken families would just make social exclusion and relative poverty even worse. "The Conservatives' document is high on moral tone but offers nothing to
help real families in Britain today." . . .

################################
- TORIES SAY MARRIAGE IS KEY TO ENDING SOCIAL PROBLEMS
The London Times, December 11, 2006

Couples will be encouraged to marry rather than live together under Conservative proposals derided by opponents as a return to John Major's 'back to basics' approach.

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, has endorsed a 300-page report published today by former leader Iain Duncan Smith which claims that family breakdowns cause social problems costing more than £20 billion a year. . .

And campaigners for lone parents said the Tories risked stigmatising people who did not live in a traditional family set-up while one think-tank warned that it was naive to think that supporting marriage was the key to easing society's ills. . ."

##########################
Other headlines, e.g.:

Lib Dems: VICTORIAN VALUES WILL NOT PREVENT POVERTY
Politics.co.uk, UK - Dec 11, 2006
"Reducing poverty in the UK requires new solutions not a return to the failed policies of the 19th century, said the Liberal Democrats today. ..."

TORIES HIT AT SINGLE MOTHERS
Mirror.co.uk, UK - Dec 11, 2006
"TORY right-wingers behind a new report on family life have launched a hardline attack on lone and working mums. ..."

CAMERON SET TO OFFER TAX BREAKS TO MARRIED COUPLES
This is London, UK - Dec 11, 2006
"David Cameron has signalled he is ready to slash the tax burden on married couples in the wake of a major party report warning family breakdown and debt are ..."

BREAKDOWN OF FAMILIES COSTS £20bn a YEAR, CLAIM TORIES
Yorkshire Post Today, UK - Dec 11, 2006
"Tory leader David Cameron yesterday hailed a "powerful and convincing" study "that suggests family breakdown causes £20bn of problems each year.

posted by maggie at 7:56 PM | Link | 3 comments

Did the Massachusetts Legislature Violate the Constitution?

By refusing to permit a vote on the proposed state marriage amendment? An AP story on the impending litigation here.
posted by maggie at 7:51 PM | Link | 1 comments

State Marriage Amendment Vote: an LGB Analysis

A polling/political analysis of state marriage amendment votes from the pro gay marriage side is here.

E.J. Graff's optimistic evaluation of the progress gay marriage advocates have made is here:

"...the world is steadily warming toward same-sex couples. Just two days ago, the U.K. celebrated the one-year anniversary of its civil partnership law, which legally recognizes same-sex couples. And in November, both Israel and South Africa (a very odd couple indeed) joined the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and Spain in recognizing marriages between two women or two men. That brings to total number of nations that have done so to six, in as many years, with the Scandinavian countries now jockeying to see which will be next..."

posted by maggie at 12:41 PM | Link | 1 comments

Oral Argument in Ohio Domestic Violence Case

The excellent How Appealing blog links to an oral argument held today by the Ohio Supreme Court. The argument was for a case involving a domestic violence charge the defendant wants dismissed because he argues the Ohio marriage amendment invalidates the law’s application to unmarried cohabitants. The theory is that by recognizing cohabitants for domestic violence protection, the law creates a legal status prohibited by the marriage amendment. The archived argument is here (the case is State of Ohio v. Michael Carswell).

The judges were very active in their questioning. My sense is that there was strong skepticism of the claim that the domestic violence law and marriage amendment conflict. One judge asked the defendant’s attorney whether the attorney wanted the court to rule that cohabiting couples are essentially married.

Justice Maureen O’Connor asked a question that seems to me to suggest the appropriate outcome of the case. She asked whether the amendment was merely a description of a special set of victims. I think the domestic violence law recognizes a factual matter (cohabitation) that is seen as legally relevant (because of the assumption of increased risk in an intimate relationship), but does not create any kind of special status (certainly not one similar to marriage).

The attorney for the state also faced some challenging questions and the court did not seem interested in her claim that the amendment was not intended to invalidate the domestic violence law. The claim is almost assuredly true as a factual matter, but it is not surprising that the judges would rather focus on the language of the amendment.
posted by William Duncan at 6:54 PM | Link | 0 comments

An Unlikely Sort of Semi-Ally?

Gay designer Stefano Gabbana thinks children need a mother and a father. And he wants to be the father. But the love of his life is a gay man. His quasi-traditional solution? Instead of the classic Italian, wife, plus lover on the side, he opts for life with lover, plus a mother on the side:

"Gay designer Gabbana is against same sex parents,"Daily Mail, 10th December 2006

Gay designer to the stars Stefano Gabbana revealed how he had approached a female friend and asked her to be a surrogate mother. Gabbana, who was the long term partner of his business associate Domenico Dolce until they split up last year, made the amazing revelation in an interview with an Italian newspaper.

• Lesbians and single mums to get IVF on the NHS


His comments came as Italy has been rocked by government proposals to give unmarried couples - including gays - the same rights as married couples.

Gabbana, 44, whose clients include David and Victoria Beckham and Kylie Minogue, said: "My dream is to have a baby, not to adopt one because I am not up to it and I don't feel strong enough.

"I want my own child, a biological child, the fruit of my sperm, conceived through artificial insemination because it wouldn't make sense for me to make love to a woman I don't love.

"The person I love today is my partner so I am looking for a civilised and refined woman. A week ago I asked a dear friend of mine, who is twelve years younger than me, if she would help.

"I asked her 'Would you like to be the mother of my child ?' She was left a bit shocked and the following day telephoned and said she was still shocked but thought it was a great idea."

Gabbana did not say if the surrogacy was to go ahead but added: "I am opposed to the idea of a child growing up with two gay parents. "A child needs a mother and a father. I could not imagine my childhood without my mother. I also believe that it is cruel to take a baby away from its mother."

Under Italian law IVF is not open to homosexuals or lesbians and so couples have to go abroad for treatment with Spain being a popular destination.

Gabbana said the worst moment of his life was splitting up with Dolce after more than twenty years together, however the two continue to live in the same Milan apartment block but on separate floors.

He said: "It was a real shock, a body blow. What surprises me is how we have overcome this traumatic breakup which is just the same for any couple if they are gay or hetero.

"We are still together because what we had was a great love story. I have a relationship with someone else know but Domenico will always be the most important person in my life.

"Intelligently we have managed to remain good friends and accomplices. Instead of the business splitting we have continued to work and will continue to work together. It's been difficult but we managed it."

Gabbana gave his interview as the Vatican launched a furious attack on the centre left government for its plans to give unmarried gay and heterosexual couples the same rights as married unions.

The official Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano ran a front page editorial under the headline: "Christmas 2006: Eradication of the family is the priority of Italian politics."

It described the proposals - earmarked for introduction next year - as "senseless" and added: "The government's announcement that it intends to come up with a law on civil unions reiterates the hypocrisy of these initiatives, which aims exclusively to give credit to an alternative form of family."

posted by maggie at 11:00 AM | Link | 1 comments

Mass High Court to Nonbiological Gay 'parents': Adopt or Marry

356gay.com. December 11, 2006:

"(Boston, Massachusetts) The Supreme Judicial Court, the highest court in Massachusetts, has told gay and lesbian couples who have children that if a partner wants visitation rights with the child once the relationship has ended that person must have adopted the child.

The case involved a lesbian who sought visitation rights with the five-year old biological child of her former partner. The legal battle between the two women began before the same court ruled that same-sex couples must have the right to marry.

In the parental rights case the court ruled that during the 18 months the women were together after the baby was born the appellant had ample time to adopt the child.

The ruling brings the rights and obligations of people in same-sex relationships in line with similar rulings involving opposite couples.

The names of those involved in the case are sealed since it involves a child.

The appellant argued that she should automatically be considered a de facto parent because she was the primary breadwinner in the family and that she and the birth mother had an agreement to raise the child together.

But she had no documentation to back that up.

In a unanimous decision the high court said that while she may love the child the plaintiff had failed to prove she had an emotion bond with the child that was so strong the court should mandate visitation rights.

The decision, written by Chief Justice Margaret Marshall who also penned the gay marriage ruling, the court said the appellant had 18 months to file for adoption which she did not take advantage of. The ruling also noted that because of her work she had not spent an equal amount of time with the birth mother in caring for the infant.

Jennifer Levi, a senior staff attorney with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders had filed a brief in support of the plaintiff and was critical of the ruling.

"The child shouldn't take the fall for the legal missteps of the parents," she told the Boston Globe.

posted by maggie at 8:03 PM | Link | 1 comments

From Civil Unions to Marriage Lite/D. Saunders

You've heard straight supporters of same-sex marriage quip before: How can same-sex marriage affect their heterosexual unions? Unwittingly, Migden [CA State Senator] has given ammunition to those who argue that same-sex unions will change the institution of marriage for everyone as she works to offer all heterosexuals Marriage Lite.

Migden is the author of the 1999 civil union bill that allowed same-sex couples to register with the state as domestic partners. Unfortunately, no state bill can offer same-sex couples all the protections of marriage, such as Social Security survivor benefits -- and that should change.

The 1999 bill also allowed heterosexual couples with one partner older than 62 to register as domestic partners -- in order to allow seniors to protect their pensions while enjoying some benefits of marriage. Migden had wanted civil unions to apply to straight and same-sex couples of all ages, but agreed to the over-62 compromise.

Now with Senate Bill 11, she is pushing to extend the benefits of having it both ways to all heterosexual couples. Migden's rationale? More than half of couples in the United States are living together without getting married. ...An SB11 fact sheet notes that some 40 percent of unwed mothers are "professional, older women who want to have babies" and some "may simply have chosen to live with their significant others first. If those unmarried couples prefer registering as domestic partners so their children can have access to health and other benefits, they should be provided that opportunity."

Except: Whether parents marry or not, they have an obligation to provide for their children and can list their children as dependents for health care. SB11 would not affect children -- it would benefit unmarried parents. And, I'll add, while saddling employers with cost of benefits for adults who choose not to wed. ...

Now for the sake of uncommitted heterosexuals, Migden is ready to weaken the institution of marriage. I guess she thinks it's the government's job to help unwed parents stay uncommitted.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/10/EDGRMLJJ8Q1.DTL&hw=gay&sn=003&sc=243

posted by Margaret Nell at 10:17 PM | Link | 0 comments

South Korea Turning to TV to Raise their Birthrate

From the LA Times:

"SEOUL — Faced with a tumbling birthrate and women souring on the idea of marriage and family, the South Korean government is reaching out to a small group of people believed to have the power to avert a demographic catastrophe: prime-time drama writers.

Last month, the Planned Population Federation of Korea held a two-day seminar for writers of TV soaps and dramas and urged them to create more situations that show happy mothers with their children. The aim is to counter an anti-baby mood that is leading South Korea down the path to being, well, a smaller country.

For many years we have been pondering what influences people the most, and we concluded it was TV dramas and other news and documentary programs," said Shin Sun-chol of the family planning group. "We are just asking the writers to be more considerate because some programs now depict career women as being very egoistical, thinking only of themselves."

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fg-koreatv10dec10,1,4119469.story

posted by Margaret Nell at 9:54 PM | Link | 0 comments

The Wedding Wars

Now that's entertainment:

"Love, family, politics and the right to marry intersect in the A&E Network original movie Wedding Wars. The romantic comedy from Executive producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron (Chicago, The Reagans), stars John Stamos (ER, Full House), Eric Dane (X-Men: The Last Stand, Grey's Anatomy), James Brolin (The Reagans, Traffic, Catch Me if You Can) Bonnie Somerville (The O.C.,Grosse Point), Sean Maher (Firefly, Brian's Song) and Rosemary Dunsmore (The Grid).

Shel (Stamos), a gay party planner, agrees to organize the nuptials for straight brother Ben (Dane) to Maggie (Somerville), the Governor of Maine's (Brolin) daughter. After Shel finds out that Ben, a campaign manager for his future father-in-law, is behind the governor's speech against gay marriage, he decides to go on strike for equal rights. Shel's strike picks up steam and eventually spreads nationwide, leaving the impending wedding vows in the hands of a tacky planner and overall, in question.

Wedding Wars is directed by Jim Fall (Trick, The Lizzie McGuire Movie) from a script by Stephen Mazur (Liar, Liar)."

posted by maggie at 8:55 PM | Link | 0 comments

The Thrill of the Chaste

New York Times Style section piece on "Blogs into Books" features Dawn Eden's new book The Thrill of the Chaste:

". . .DAWN EDEN, a Jewish rock journalist turned born-again Christian and social commentator, has a secret, too. In her blog, the Dawn Patrol (www.dawneden.com/blogger.html), and in the blook it has spawned, "The Thrill of the Chaste," Ms. Eden argues that women who have premarital sex injure their self-esteem and hurt their chances of finding the Right Man.

What is "a furtive fumble with a handsome hedonist" against the promise of marriage and salvation, Ms. Eden asks. The chaste life is "more hope-filled, more vibrant, more real," than the "superficial and libidinous" gallivanting of the "Sex and the City"-style single girl, she promises. . ."

posted by maggie at 12:22 PM | Link | 0 comments

Catholicism and Mary Cheney's Baby.

A rather vigorous discussion in the comments over at the Commonweal blog.
posted by maggie at 11:45 AM | Link | 0 comments

Should Priests Be Allowed to Marry. . .

each other? Church of England ponders. Schism ahead? (Hat tip to Amy Welborn).
posted by maggie at 10:52 AM | Link | 1 comments