LEAVE NO CHILD INSIDE: Richard Louv

more
posted by Eve at 4:10 PM | Link | 2 comments

CAN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM SURVIVE GAY LIBERATION?: David Frum

You may already have heard that the British Parliament voted earlier this year to require all adoption agencies, including Catholic agencies, to place children with homosexual couples if requested.

Now an influential committee of the British Parliament is recommending that Britain take the next logical step. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, made up of 12 MPs and Lords, released a report on Feb. 26 that advocates drastic further increases in state supervision of religious organizations and religious schools.

more
posted by Eve at 3:15 PM | Link | 0 comments

BEING FERTILE: Karin Arad

here
posted by Eve at 3:04 PM | Link | 0 comments

ARE WE LIVING IN SIN?: Advice column

here--I noticed it because it was linked off my Yahoo front page, interestingly.
posted by Eve at 12:03 AM | Link | 1 comments

New Polls: Trends on SSM and all things Gay

A Gallup analysis here. An SF Chronicle story on a Field poll suggesting generational shift in Californians attitudes to SSM here.
posted by maggie at 12:57 PM | Link | 0 comments

GOP Presidential Political Roundup on Marriage

Marriage and gay marriage appear to feature so prominently in the latest news roundup (mostly taken from a Pew email, btw), I can't help this post.

Rudy news:

AP March 7, 2007"Evangelical Leader Says Giuliani's Divorce a Problem

A Southern Baptist leader said Tuesday that evangelical voters might tolerate a divorced presidential candidate, but they have deep doubts about GOP hopeful Rudy Giuliani, who has been married three times.

Richard Land, head of public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention, told The Associated Press that evangelicals believe the former New York City mayor showed a lack of character during his divorce from his second wife, television personality Donna Hanover.

"I mean, this is divorce on steroids," Land said. "To publicly humiliate your wife in that way, and your children. That's rough. I think that's going to be an awfully hard sell, even if he weren't pro-choice and pro-gun control." . . ."

On the other hand, this Bloomberg new analysis reports Rudy's surging past McCain based on support from religious conservatives. The author suggests Giuliani only needs social conservatives not to unite around some other candidate to win:

". . .The pragmatism of religious conservatives such as Douglass, combined with fundamentalists' inability so far to coalesce around another contender, means Giuliani may draw significant support from voters who typically make conservative positions on social issues a litmus test.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted Feb. 22-25 shows Giuliani leading Arizona Senator John McCain among Republicans by 44 percent to 21 percent, largely on the strength of surging support from white evangelical Protestants. Last month, Giuliani's lead was 34 percent to McCain's 27 percent. . ."

I Heart Huckabee--he's one of the few governors who made reducing divorce a public goal. But this interview with Newsweek is a parody of the problem he is having breaking through. Note the first and second question they ask:

"A Would-Be Knight for the Religious Right

Mike Huckabee is in an unusual situation for a politician. He doesn't have to pander to his base. A former Southern Baptist preacher, he starts his 2008 presidential bid well to the right of his party's most serious contenders. His long-held pro-life, pro-gun, and anti-gay marriage agenda would seem to be music to the ears of conservatives unhappy with the fact that social-issue moderates like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and (at least until recently) Mitt Romney are hogging the headlines. So why isn't the governor of Arkansas and current Republican presidential candidate, stuck around two percent in recent polls, catching fire among religious conservatives? Huckabee has a plan to fix that--and it starts with this interview. NEWSWEEKs Susannah Meadows talked with the other guy from a place called Hope about gays, hell and donuts.

NEWSWEEK: You recently lost more than 100 pounds. Are the people you meet on the campaign trail more interested in talking about your weight than policy?

Huckabee: It certainly is a point of fascination. It's one of the rare times a politician enjoys talking about losing. It also segues into talking about not only the health issue, but the fact that 80% of Americans' health-care costs are caused by chronic disease. And most of that is due to over-eating, under-exercising, smoking.

Would you put America on a diet?
A lot of people want this to be a simple solution: more P.E., less vending machines. There is an entire cultural shift that has to take place. What has to happen is that we change from a culture of disease to a culture of health. The government can't do it for people, but there is a role government can play. In Arkansas, we created incentives. For example, you got discounts on health insurance if you didn't smoke. [In this country] smokers can take breaks and smoke on company time. If you want to exercise, we say you do that on your lunch hour. People who are healthy pay high premiums for those who are not. There's no incentive in the system. . ."

Mitt Romney's problem:

Mormons rate up there with gays as a disfavored minority group in the public imagination, according to this March 3 Deseret Morning News story on a new Gallup poll: "Opinions are Diverse on 'Those Mormons'

Americans identify polygamy with the LDS Church more than anything else, including Donny and Marie.

And, a new Gallup poll released Friday shows, 46 percent of the nation has an unfavorable opinion of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, compared to 42 percent who have a favorable opinion. . ."

UPDATE: the Gallup poll on Mormons is here.
posted by maggie at 11:18 AM | Link | 0 comments

Pew/Federalist SSM Debate in Calif

Sharon Minter, Judge Ken Starr, John Eastman and others, here.
posted by maggie at 10:49 AM | Link | 1 comments

Online Poll: Marriage in New Zealand

A new online poll of unmarried adults in New Zealand by A.C. Nielsen, Via the Maxim Institute:

Kiwis still aspiring to marry, but living together is just as good
5 March 2007
Auckland

"Nearly three quarters of New Zealanders (72%) view marriage as a commitment for life and over half of unmarried New Zealand adults* (58%) say marriage is one of their lifetime goals, a survey released today by The Nielsen Company.

. . . .the Nielsen survey of over 25,000 consumers polled online in 46 countries, including 500 in New Zealand, uncovered some surprising views on what love, romance and marriage really mean in the 21st century.

But while most Kiwis aspired to marry, there was still a strong backing for co-habitation – nearly two thirds of respondents (64%) considered a stable, long term relationship just as good as marriage.

The vast majority of unmarried New Zealand adults* intended to have children after they married, with only 15 percent saying they did not intend to have kids.

On the effect of relationships on children, Kiwis were less likely than most other nations in the Asia Pacific to acknowledge that separation and divorce impacted on children. Just under one-third of Kiwis (32%) disagreed that children with married parents grow up happier and more stable than children whose parents separate - 14 percentage points higher than the regional average and six points above the global average.

New Zealanders were also the third most likely in the Asia Pacific to support working mothers, with 71 percent disagreeing that mothers with children shouldn’t work. . .

Looking around the world the Nielsen survey results indicated that the concept of marriage was largely dominated by a country’s cultural and religious beliefs, with very opposing views among consumers in the developed West and emerging East.

Muslim and Catholic strongholds in Asia topped global rankings in believing that marriage is for life, lead by Indonesia (97%), Turkey (92%) and The Philippines and Malaysia (both 89%). European nations were most likely to disagree that marriage was a life long commitment. An average of 39 percent of Europeans did not believe marriage was for life, with Spanish (66%), Portuguese (65%), Greek (56%) and Italian (52%) respondents leading the way.

* Responses received from those participants who were unmarried and over the age of 18 at the time of completing the survey. . ."

posted by maggie at 9:20 AM | Link | 0 comments

Cardinal O'Malley Blogs on Parker

He blogs! Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley, O.F.M. Cap., of the Archdiocese of Boston had the following to say in the March 2, 2007, entry of his blog:

"I’ve noticed some of you have posted comments regarding the recent federal court ruling involving two sets of Lexington parents who filed suit to be allowed to opt their children out of discussion of same-sex themes in the classroom. Massachusetts law states that parents must be notified in advance and have the option of removing their children from the classroom when their children from a classroom when “human sexual education or human sexuality issues” are presented. However, in this case, the judge ruled that the school’s discussion of same-sex marriage concerned diversity rather than human sexuality.

. . .The disturbing part of this affair is that it underscores how, by redefining marriage in Massachusetts, people’s religious rights are going to be challenged by the state. I think that people were very naïve saying that we can change the definition of marriage and it will not have any repercussions and will not affect anyone else’s marriage or society as a whole. . ."

posted by maggie at 6:22 PM | Link | 24 comments

Does Lawrence v. Texas Have a Legacy?

Howard Bashman has published an interesting article the other day about the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas invalidating a state sodomy law. His conclusion (that Lawrence has not led to the development of a broad right of sexual privacy) seems to be supported by the decisions issued since the Court’s 2003 ruling.

Although a comprehensive case survey is in the works, looking at 2005 and 2006 cases yields the following situations where courts have refused to apply Lawrence:

Same-sex marriage (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida)
Polygamy (U.S. District Court, Utah)
Considering Parent’s Sexual Conduct for Custody (Maryland Court of Special Appeals)
Brother/Sister Incest (U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit)
Solicitation of Sodomy in a Public Setting (Virginia Court of Appeals)
Obscenity Distribution (U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit)
Transportation of Obscenity in Interstate Commerce (U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit)
Solicitation of Prostitute (Arizona Court of Appeals)
Military “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy (U.S. District Court, Massachusetts)
Bigamy (Utah Supreme Court)
Same-Sex Marriage (Washington Supreme Court)
Sodomy Involving Minors (North Carolina Court of Appeals)
“Live Sex-Act Business” (U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit)
Commerce in Sexual Toys (U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit)
Teacher/Student Sexual Relations (Connecticut Supreme Court)
Stepfather/Stepdaughter Incest (Ohio Supreme Court)

On the other hand courts have applied Lawrence in the following situations:

Fornication Statute (Virginia Supreme Court)
Disparate Sentences for Same- and Opposite-Sex Sexual Conduct with a Minor (Kansas Supreme Court)

This imbalance does not necessarily mean that Lawrence is a dead letter. It is not always clear when a court will find an earlier opinion compelling. The Goodridge v. Department of Public Health decision mandating a redefinition of marriage for Massachusetts, quoted from Lawrence and a recent Virginia Court of Appeals decision suggested that the decriminalization of sodomy may have “weakened” state precedent unfavorable to homosexual parents involved in custody disputes.

While we shouldn’t count out a major impact for Lawrence in the future, exuberant claims about its effect seem to be premature.
posted by William Duncan at 3:33 PM | Link | 0 comments

The "NF" Word?

Is it really true as this San Francisco Chronicle story suggests (but frustratingly doesn't really really say) that the phrase "natural family" is sufficient to create a hostile work environment for gays and lesbians in California? What did that flyer say the government boss found objectionable and how was it reworded to satisfy the complaint?:

"The city of Oakland acted legally when it removed a flyer posted by two city employees promoting the "natural family'' after other workers had founded a Gay and Lesbian Employees Association, a federal appeals court ruled today.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal judge's decision two years ago dismissing a lawsuit by the two employees, founders of a religious club called the Good News Employee Association.

The suit was filed by Regina Regerford and Robin Christy, who worked in Oakland's Community and Economic Development Agency. In response to the founding of the Gay and Lesbian Employees Association in 2002, they put up a flyer on a bulletin board in January 2003 announcing formation of a "forum for people of faith'' to express their views "with respect for the natural family, marriage and family values.''
A supervisor removed the flyer six weeks later in response to an employee's complaint, saying it contained "statements of a homophobic nature'' in violation of the city's anti-harassment policy.

In today's ruling, the appeals court said government agencies can restrict free speech in the workplace based on "legitimate administrative interests.'' In this case, the court said, the two employees were not punished and were allowed to submit a reworded flyer. The interference with employee speech was outweighed by city officials' need to maintain "the efficient operation of their office,'' the court said. . . "

The court ruling here, is brief and since administrative efficiency generally outweighs employee's free speech rights (including government employees) dismissive.
posted by maggie at 12:26 PM | Link | 1 comments

NJ SSM Update

Two stories, one on the campaign for a NJ state marriage amendment:

"Two months after the state granted gay couples all the rights of marriage under civil unions, a pair of Republican lawmakers have joined a group of activists pushing to place a constitutional amendment before voters to block them from receiving the title. . .
Assemblyman Michael Doherty, R-Warren/Hunterdon, an opponent of gay marriage, wants voters to decide on a constitutional amendment to bar any gay marriage proposal. "This is not going to be resolved in the minds of eight and a half million people," he said, "until they have an opportunity to vote."

. . ."The move to ban marriage for gay couples in the state has as much chance of succeeding as I have landing on Mars in the next hour," said Steven Goldstein, CEO of Garden State Equality. "This is going nowhere, if anything, the movement is in the opposite direction."

But a group of activists have launched a petition drive for a ban.
Won Kyu Rim, legislative affairs for the New Jersey Family Policy Council, said the group has printed enough petitions for 300,000 names. "We definitely want to send a message," he said. . .

The Legislature would have to approve the measure by a 3/5 vote in each house to place the question on the ballot for a constitutional amendment. . ."

The second on a NJ mayor who says he doesn't do gay unions:

"One civil union was enough for Mayor Harry Wyant.

After uniting just one same-sex couple, the two-term Republican mayor decided to give up marriages and civil unions altogether. His last ceremony will be Saturday.
"I thought I could do it; I thought I could get by," Wyant said. "I found it somewhat uncomfortable."

When civil unions were approved under state law, Wyant thought of opting out of the ceremonies. But New Jersey public officials can't just perform marriages and not civil unions.

Instead, on Feb. 19 the town clerk's office posted a sign saying Wyant would perform both types of ceremonies for town residents only.

On Monday, that same sign had an addendum notifying the public Wyant would stop the practice Saturday. . . ."I feel I should have the right to do civil unions or marriages and the state has taken that right from me," Wyant said.

A recent opinion issued by state Attorney General Stuart Rabner said public officials could opt out of performing civil unions provided they didn't perform marriages as well.

Steven Goldstein, chairman of Garden State Equality, said out of 566 mayors in New Jersey, his group estimates 30 have opted out of marriages and civil unions. . ."

posted by maggie at 11:51 AM | Link | 2 comments

Rudy Family Values

From my column:

"Privacy is an important family value, but it is not more important than listening to children of divorce as they struggle to tell their side of the story.

There is a larger truth here that bears some attention. Illegitimacy is how poor kids lose their fathers. Divorce (and yes, remarriage) is how too many middle-class kids do.

For Andrew is not alone. One study of mostly white, middle-class adults whose parents divorced when they were kids found that the vast majority reported distant relationships with their fathers. A review of the social science in the Journal of Marriage and Family concluded that it's not just single unwed mothers whose kids struggle: "(M)ost researchers reported that stepchildren were similar to children living with single mothers on the preponderance of outcome measures and that stepchildren generally were at greater risk for problems than were children living with both of their parents."

Yes, remarriage, and the blended families it creates, can bring new possibilities of warm family relations, and the many divorced fathers and stepparents who've succeeded in rebuilding warm family ties deserve credit. But too often the blending process produces painful loyalty conflicts instead.

What can be more painful for any child than feeling that your father has chosen his new wife over you? . . ."

UPDATE: This 1993 Rudy commericial featuring his wife and Andrew. Via the Corner. Heartbreaking.
posted by maggie at 11:34 PM | Link | 2 comments

Alone Together: Cohabitation and Marital Quality

p 71. The proportion of people who cohabited with their spouses before marriage rose from 16% in 1980 to 41% in 2000 (in these samples).

p. 74. Marital happiness was not affected by premarital cohabitation. However couples who lived together before marrying reported more marital conflict, more problems and more divorce proneness.

Authors note that since cohabitation became more common over the 20 years, if cohabitation's negative affect on marital quality and divorce proneness were primarily a selection effect (more troubled couples live together), it should have weakened over the period, as cohabitation included a more "normal" population. Insteady they note on p. 75 "The pattern of findings is consistent with the belief that something about the experience of cohabitation lowers subsequent marital quality."

(I've always suspected that cohabitation operates as a "barrier to exit": it's harder to break up if you live together, esp. if you imagine that in order to get married you are going to have to find someone to live with first. ANd couples "settle" rather than make better matches because of it.)
posted by maggie at 11:21 PM | Link | 0 comments

BLACK MEN FORM GROUP TO REDEEM ROLE OF FATHERS: From the Modesto Bee

here

(via Black Male Appreciation)
posted by Eve at 7:56 PM | Link | 0 comments

Neologism Alert: "Spousal Unions"

A new (to me) term out of the New Hampshire legislature: a proposal to create "spousal unions" for gay couples, according to the Christian Science Monitor.
posted by maggie at 10:23 AM | Link | 0 comments

Obama: Fathers Matter

From Barack Obama's Selma speech:

". . .That's what the Moses generation teaches us. Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes. Go do some politics. Change this country! That's what we need. We have too many children in poverty in this country and everybody should be ashamed, but don't tell me it doesn't have a little to do with the fact that we got too many daddies not acting like daddies. Don’t think that fatherhood ends at conception. I know something about that because my father wasn't around when I was young and I struggled.

Those of you who read my book know. I went through some difficult times. I know what it means when you don't have a strong male figure in the house, which is why the hardest thing about me being in politics sometimes is not being home as much as I'd like and I'm just blessed that I've got such a wonderful wife at home to hold things together. Don’t tell me that we can't do better by our children, that we can't take more responsibility for making sure we're instilling in them the values and the ideals that the Moses generation taught us about sacrifice and dignity and honesty and hard work and discipline and self-sacrifice. That comes from us. We've got to transmit that to the next generation and I guess the point that I'm making is that the civil rights movement wasn't just a fight against the oppressor; it was also a fight against the oppressor in each of us. . ."

posted by maggie at 8:29 PM | Link | 0 comments

Campus Exposure

In case you missed the NYT Sunday magazine story on campus sex magazines run by students. *sigh* It's so hard for the young to avante-garde these days. They are too young to realize you can't properly scandalize anyone by doing anything with your clothes off any more. . .Or perhaps they do realize they are only doing what is now expected and applauded by adult society and hence a certain prim tone, caught by the reporter. A few things that caught my eye:

"Despite the sex magazines' brash names and general air of exuberance, a scrim of protectiveness, even primness hangs over many of them — a vestige, perhaps, of a not-so-distant past when topics like date rape, sexual harassment and AIDS were dominating the national discourse. . .

These publications vary in tone and content, but while all strive to be provocative after a fashion, they generally eschew the term "pornographic," hurling it as an insult with the good-natured mutual contempt of varsity football teams. "Outlet ... is not intended to be porn," sniffs a December letter from Traube to readers, saucily addressed "Dear Hotbottoms." "They do a very good job of that over at Harvard." On their Web site, Harvard staff members retort: "If you aren't mature enough to tell the difference between playful nudity and pornography you probably shouldn't be reading H Bomb."

From the former editor of Boston College's Boink (who the reporter perhaps slyly notes has graduated with a journalism degree and is working part-time as a bartender):

Sex is "everywhere, and it's always been everywhere for this generation," Oleyourryk said. "A body is a body is a body, and I'm proud of my body, and why not show my body? It's not going to keep me from having a job. . . .It's a little badge of honor."

And another profile of Harvard's H-Bomb's current editor:

"On a laptop computer, Vandenberg, 20, showed a few of the pictures she is planning to publish in the next edition of H Bomb, which will be online only for financial reasons. “Quite tame,” she said. In one, female Harvard science majors peered earnestly at test tubes, wearing lab coats opened to expose black lacy bras and panties, as in the old Maidenform advertisements. It was intended, she said, as a comment on the brouhaha that ensued after Lawrence Summers, Harvard’s former president, publicly remarked that genetics might account for why women are still a minority in the sciences. “I really don’t think he said much wrong,” said Vandenberg, who is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in biological anthropology. “I’m not a feminist. Feminism has this premise that men and women are equal, and I have a more biological view of things. I don’t think men and women are equal at all. I think we’re different, and what’s wrong with that?”

She spoke disparagingly of the prose submissions — H Bomb publishes both essays and fiction — sent in by Harvard women. “They’re sent in as fiction, but they’re always barely disguised personal confessions, or not even confessions, outpourings of angst: I entered Harvard and I thought to myself, I’m going to rebel against my sheltered upbringing, I’m going to have sex with whomever I want to — that’s the opening of the piece, and then the body will be Subject A: I led him on and then I felt bad, because I really liked him. Subject B: I thought I was leading him on, but actually he dumped me first. Conclusion: I’m so frustrated, I’ve ruined my reputation and now no one wants to have a serious relationship with me. They realized that they’re not fulfilled by casual sex, and yet they can’t find someone they connect with.”

. . .Sleek and attractive, with a low-key volubility, Vandenberg was a freshman when she walked into a crowded H Bomb meeting in Harvard’s Loker Commons, thinking it was for the film-society magazine. She stayed because there were free T-shirts. “They wanted me to be a model, and I was incredibly scandalized by this,” she said. Hrdy learned that Vandenberg had done some travel photography and offered to provide her with human subjects. “I thought, Well, this would be interesting,” Vandenberg said. “I’ve never taken nude photos before — why not?” Among her efforts was a series of black-and-white shots of a fellow female student sitting on a toilet with her legs crossed, naked but for a pair of pumps, her head turned to the side and mostly obscured, and another of a woman covered in red rose petals, “American Beauty”-style. “I thought it was great fun,” Vandenberg said. “It was a great, controversial thing to say, Oh, I’m a photographer for H Bomb.” Miss Rose Petals, a sophomore named Fiona, returned the compliment, saying on the phone later that she was “honored” by the opportunity. “It’s sort of a document of my time at Harvard,” she said. “My friends were very accepting. Those who saw my pictures thought they were very beautiful.”

You might expect that the staffs of campus sex magazines would convene in some sort of Dionysian, orgiastic formation — multiple bare limbs splayed over a king-size bed — but in fact the publications are just as likely to be produced in digital solitude, submissions beamed over the Internet, no one so much as touching hands. "Right now it’s a dictatorship,” Vandenberg said. “I'm the meeting. I really hate meetings, actually. I really just like to communicate online. It’s very inconvenient to meet physically."

posted by maggie at 8:06 PM | Link | 0 comments

SSM Update: Stateline

A handy-dandy all purpose update on gay marriage litigation and legislation from Stateline:

Gay marriage ripe for decision in 3 courts, March 01, 2007

". . . .Three years after its historic court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, Massachusetts stands alone in blessing gay marriages — 6,500 to date — and its example has spurred no imitators but lots of backlash.

Following the festive scenes of gay and lesbian brides and grooms waiting in long lines to wed in the Bay State on May 17, 2004, 23 states — for a total of 27 — fortified their state constitutions to withstand judicial edicts like the Massachusetts one. Massachusetts itself is considering a proposal to end its experiment with same-sex unions.

Gay-rights groups can point to some progress in expanding legal acceptance of same-sex relationships. New Jersey in February began issuing licenses to gay partners to enter into civil unions, joining Vermont and Connecticut in pioneering an alternative that bestows all the marriage benefits recognized at the state level without the title.

California grants full in-state marital benefits by allowing same-sex couples to register as domestic partners, while registries in Maine and Hawaii give gay couples a handful of spousal privileges such as rights to hospital visits and inheritance without a will.

But the key question is whether any states will follow the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s 4-3 ruling in November 2003. The court found that equal-protection guarantees in the state constitution made it illegal to deny full-fledged marriage to gays and lesbians.

All eyes now are on the highest courts in California, Connecticut and Maryland, where decisions on the constitutionality of gay marriage are likely this year. . .

Still, bills seeking to put constitutional gay marriage bans on the ballot in 2008 are pending in 11 states: Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Washington and West Virginia. New Mexico lawmakers are considering a statutory ban. . ."

New Hampshire UPDATE from 365gay.com:

"Concord, New Hampshire) The issue of same-sex unions will be front and center today at the New Hampshire legislature as a committee examines three bills - one that would allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, a second that would create spousal unions and a third to recognize civil unions and gay marriages performed in areas where they are already legal.

All three bills will be considered at the House Judiciary Committee."

posted by maggie at 7:56 PM | Link | 1 comments

Polygamy Watch

Reading the Sports section in today's NYT:

U.N.L.V. Forward Does Not Lack Family Support

". . .When the cheering section for Joe Darger is at full strength, it includes his father, his mother, his 18 siblings and his father’s other wife.
They wear red T-shirts, blow on red noisemakers and wave red pompoms. They appear no different from any other group in the U.N.L.V. family section — only larger and louder. . . .

John Darger is married to Carollee Darger, Joe’s mother. He is also married to Elizabeth Darger, the mother of eight of his children. He calls himself a polygamist. . . .

This does not seem like a place for a Mormon who left the student dorms last year when he learned they were coed. But Joe has found a home at U.N.L.V., perhaps because the family here is nearly as open as his own.

Dating to the days of Jerry Tarkanian, U.N.L.V.'s famous former coach, the Rebels have been noted for running the fast break and for accepting players who are out of society’s mainstream.

"We've always taught our kids to respect other people's beliefs and ways of life," John said. "We always tell them, Don't judge anybody for any reason."

College basketball has plenty of experience with nontraditional family structures: parents in jail, parents in shelters, parents missing entirely. Joe grew up with three parents in the house. . .

When Joe played at Riverton High School, he was a top prospect and a subject of intense gossip. During road games, opposing fans would taunt him with chants about his family. When he met college coaches, he would immediately tell them about his background. Some were taken aback, but they did not stop recruiting him. . .

John Darger is a 60-year-old real estate developer with bushy gray hair, a thin goatee and a deep singing voice. He grew up with 46 siblings. His father had several wives. Polygamy was passed down like a family heirloom.

When John met Carollee 32 years ago, he was a construction worker and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were married in the Salt Lake Temple. For anniversaries, John still writes songs for Carollee.

John considers himself a Mormon, but he is no longer recognized as one. Because polygamy is illegal and the church renounced the practice more than a century ago, John said that he had been excommunicated. His children, however, remain active members of the church and have given no indication that they will practice polygamy. . .

Carollee is 49, with long brown hair and a sharp sense of humor, often aimed at her husband. Besides rearing children, she runs a health-food store in Salt Lake City called Shirlyn’s Natural Foods. Over the years, her daughters have worked by her side.

As Carollee relaxed on the beanbag chair, children came and went. Her sons cooked burritos. Her daughters gave each other massages. When polygamy was raised as a topic of conversation, they laughed. They say they think it is amusing that people are so fascinated by it.

"We are just people,” Carollee said. “We are normal people." . . ."

posted by maggie at 12:17 PM | Link | 0 comments

New Study: Fathers Matter

When nonresidential fathers are more involved with their kids, the risk of delinquency delines. New study of low-income minority adolescents in the Jan/Feb 2007 issue of Child Development:

"Using a representative sample of low-income, primarily minority adolescents (N=647, aged 10–14 years at Wave 1), this study examined bidirectional longitudinal relations between nonresident father involvement, defined as contact and responsibility for children's care and behavior, and adolescent engagement in delinquent activities. Autoregressive and fixed effects models found that higher nonresident father involvement predicted subsequent decreases in adolescent delinquency, particularly for youth with initial engagement in delinquent activities. Adolescent delinquency did not predict subsequent changes in father involvement. However, the two factors covaried: As adolescent delinquency increased, so too did father involvement, suggesting that nonresident fathers may increase their involvement in the face of adolescent problem behavior, with this pattern driven primarily by African American families."

posted by maggie at 11:42 AM | Link | 0 comments

New Study: Marriage and Materialism

An original approach, the "first-ever" study of materialism as a factor in both financial and marital distress. This is from the Newswise press release on a study by Jason Carroll in the Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal:

"The first-ever study to examine the impact of materialism on marital satisfaction found that highly materialistic spouses are about 40 percent more likely than non materialistic spouses to experience high levels of financial problems, which consequently harm their marital satisfaction. What's more, the impact of materialism held true across all income levels. . .Carroll's study showed that materialism has an indirect effect on overall marital satisfaction by increasing the frequency of financial problems.

"For a highly materialistic spouse or couple, it takes less financial disturbance to trigger a financial problem," Carroll explained. "Some would say, 'I'm not living a good life and I don't have a good marriage if we can't afford to go on that vacation or purchase designer décor for our home,' where a less materialistic spouse would not view these limitations as a major issue."

The study looked at a nationally representative sample of 600 married couples, selected so that it reflected national averages in terms of ethnic composition, religious affiliation and socioeconomic levels. All spouses reported their household income level, the degree to which financial matters have been a problem in their relationship, their own level of materialism and their overall level of satisfaction with their marriage.

About 35 percent of the sample reported high levels of materialism, while the remaining 65 percent had low materialism. The materialistic spouses reported more financial problems on average, regardless of income.

Using complex statistical analyses, Carroll's research team found that materialism among one or both spouses was more predictive of the extent of a couple's financial problems than their income. The model also connected this higher level of financial problems with lower marital satisfaction.

"This study suggests that spouses set their own threshold for what they view as a money problem," Carroll said. "If spouses are overly materialistic, their threshold will be quite low, thereby increasing the likelihood that finances will be a problem in their marriages.". . ."

posted by maggie at 10:18 AM | Link | 0 comments