Andrew Sullivan Says. . .

I write like a man. (He thinks that's a compliment!)
posted by maggie at 2:14 PM | Link | 1 comments

Interview with David Blankenhorn

on The Future of Marriage:

"MercatorNet: Your book title suggests that marriage has a future. What does that future depend on?

David Blankenhorn: It depends on what we do now. We can either maintain and seek to strengthen marriage as society's most pro-child social institution, or we can turn it into a nice name for any private committed relationship. If we choose the latter -- choose what scholars call deinstitutionalization -- the biggest single likely result will be more children growing up in one-parent homes.

But who says we have to follow that path? I disagree strongly with those who say that marriage is already in such bad shape that nothing can be done. There are plenty of things we as a society can and should do.

MercatorNet: How important is the same-sex marriage issue to the future of marriage?

Blankenhorn: Same-sex marriage is one part -- probably not even the biggest part -- of the larger threat to the institution. We could probably deinstitutionalize marriage without adopting gay marriage, but gay marriage clearly presupposes and in some respects requires deinstitutionalization.

This became clear when I analysed data from the 2002 International Social Survey Programme. The countries with same sex marriage were also the ones where support for marriage as an institution was weakest -- where people tended to accept single parenthood and divorce, for example. Countries with marriage-like civil unions showed more support for marriage, those with only regional recognition of gay marriage showed more support still, and those without either gay marriage or civil unions were most supportive of all.

Same sex marriage may not be the main cause of weak support for marriage but the two clearly go together. Same sex marriage is not a sign of a strong marriage culture.

MercatorNet: After avoiding this issue for some time, what has convinced you to tackle it?

Blankenhorn: I avoided the issue until the issue hunted me down. I was the most unwilling entry into this debate that you can imagine! But when people advocating gay marriage started publicly insisting, for example, that children do not really need fathers, I felt that I had no real choice. I've spent my whole professional life arguing that children need fathers! . ."

UPDATE: Dale Carpenter's latest column on David' book another failed attempt he says at "demonizing our unions": CORRECTION: Dale points out that the phrase "demonizing our unions" appears in the headline, not the text. And I know, what most readers don't: writers do not write the headlines, editors do. Apologies to Dale.
posted by maggie at 10:34 AM | Link | 5 comments

Air Sex

The Corner labelled this "Japanese are Different" Me, I'd call it "Men are different":

"Love-starved Japanese men are gathering in Tokyo's theater district to mime their best bedroom moves in a performance they're calling "Air Sex," the Mainichi Daily News reported recently.

"Air sex was originally invented by guys who couldn't get girlfriends but desperately want to have sex," said the creator of the genre, J-Taro Sugisaku.

The men compete in much the same manner as air guitar, crowning the champions who best mimic those actions that usually appear under cover of darkness.

And it's dangerous, said last year's champ, a guy named Cobra.

"You can't care about what women watching your performance are thinking about you," he said. "When you get down to air sex, you've got to immerse yourself in the air sex world.

"Air sex can't be performed in half-measures," he continued. "If it is, you're only asking for trouble."

posted by maggie at 10:24 AM | Link | 0 comments

"This is What in Their World Good Men Do"

An elegaic re-evaluation of the old school blue collar masculinity by Jane Gross in the April 26 NYT. Really, I found it strangely moving:

". . .When I first moved into this old carriage house in 1997, after decades in Manhattan and California, I wondered about the motives of these attentive men, even though I am decades older than most of them and nothing special to look at.

Then I thought they must pity me, left to shovel my own snow while women up and down the street were inside making grilled cheese sandwiches and hot cocoa for the men of the house, as my mother and I once did for my father and brother. Most of my neighbors have husbands to deal with the heavy work of homeownership (although the tradesmen tell me that the busiest day of the week for them is Monday, when they get calls from wives whose helpmates couldn’t finish what they started on Sunday, or managed to turn a small problem into a big one).

But when I listened to these guys talk about their wives, sisters and mothers, I realized something that hadn’t occurred to me before. In their world, good men look after their women. They open doors and carry heavy packages. They change the oil in the car and label the circuit breakers.

They work hard — at the local hardware store or the Department of Public Works, or running landscaping or plumbing businesses — so their wives can stay home with the children, their sisters can feel safe even if they marry scoundrels and their mothers know they’ll want for nothing in old age. In what little free time they have, many of them serve as volunteer firemen or E.M.T.’s. What they do for me, the lady all by herself in an old house, is exactly what they’d do for their female kin if, God forbid, they wound up alone.

Sexist? I suppose. But also welcome. The contractor comes by if I can’t open a window. The painter changes light bulbs in outdoor spotlights beyond my reach. The auto mechanic jumps my battery every time I leave a map light on overnight. No big deal, all of them tell me. They were in the neighborhood anyway. Pay them for five minutes of work? Don’t be ridiculous. . .

Last week, when the northeaster sent the Saw Mill River spilling over its banks and overwhelmed the village drainage system, sewage backed up into houses, and a derelict toilet in my basement became a water cannon. . .

The sandbags remain. Someone will come back for them. Someone else will remove and cap the toilet. Another of these able and kind men will install a valve in the sewer line so water can flow in only one direction. One of them is getting rid of the ruined washer and dryer, and ordering and delivering new ones. Everything here is taken care of, except for the power-washing and disinfection of the basement, but that part of the job must be done by a cleaning service selected by my insurance company.

Still, the phone rings daily. My posse of protectors want me to know that the insurance adjuster has all the estimates. They think I should replace the water heater, which was coddled back into operation but probably not for long. They suggest I stay out of the basement until it’s disinfected. But if I must go down there, I’m to immediately clean my hands and feet with Clorox. If I need some, they’ll be happy to drop it off. . .

posted by maggie at 10:19 PM | Link | 1 comments

Linda Hirschman on Pushing Moms to Work

In the New York Times. She finds at least one tax cut for the rich she likes: tax spouses of rich men as if the husband's income didn't exist aka eliminate "the marriage penalty"; it has the added bonus of taxing families with stay-at-home moms at higher rates than families with similar incomes and two earners "a homemaker penalty." Voila! A Tax Cut only Linda Hirschman could love:

". . .We could make an effort to change men’s attitudes. Sociologists have found that mothers (rich and poor) still do twice the housework and child care that fathers do, and even the next generation of males say they won’t sacrifice work for home. But in the short term, it might be easier to change the tax code.
In most American marriages, wives earn less than their husbands. Since the tax code encourages joint filing (by making taxes lower for those who do), many couples figure that the “extra” dollars the wife brings in will be piled on top of the husband’s income and taxed at the highest rates, close to 50 percent, according to estimates made by Ed McCaffery, a tax professor at the University of Southern California. Considering the cost of child care, couples often conclude that her working adds nothing to the family treasury.
If married couples were taxed as the separate income earners they often are, women would be liberated from some of the pressure to reduce their “labor force participation,” as the labor bureau would say.
Labor statistics are always couched in such dry language, but it reveals a powerful reality: working mothers, rich and poor, struggle with their competing commitments. Now that we have seen the reality, it is time to address it."

posted by maggie at 9:52 PM | Link | 3 comments

NJ Judge Tells SS Couples: You Don't Need an Adoption

But the couple is worried because an act of adoption will likely be recognized in all or nearly all states but a NJ civil union or NJ SSM would not be. BTW the bio mom is probably safe in other states it is now the birth mother, or gestational mom whose rights could be in question, it seems to me but well, who knows? Story here in The Trenton Times: "Jo Brown's heart sank yesterday when she heard a judge say, "There's going to be no adoption today," just after she entered a courtroom.

For nearly a year Brown had been trying to adopt the twin girls she is raising with her partner, Robin Brown. Due to fertility problems, Jo Brown's eggs were implanted into Robin Brown through in vitro fertilization and their daughters, now 23 months old, were born. But only Robin's name was allowed on the birth certificate.
Although Superior Court Judge Gerald Council did not permit the adoption to go through, saying it was unnecessary since Jo Brown is the biological mother, he did issue an order to amend the little girls' birth certificates to add Jo Brown's name.
"He found that (Jo) is in fact the biological parent so she need not adopt," said Kimberly Gandy Jinks, the couple's lawyer. "He will simply give her an order recognizing her as the mother in fact."

"The order will say that my client has all the rights and responsibilities of a parent," said Jinks.

As the laws are written now there was no statute for Jinks to cite other than the adoption statute, she said.

"I'm a little bit upset," said Jo Brown. "They could have told us this months ago. Why did he have to wait for the article to be in the paper for a court date?"
The Times wrote about the Browns' plight earlier this month. Brown is a fictitious name. The Hamilton couple has requested anonymity to protect themselves and their children.

Jinks was also concerned that Council called Robin the "gestational surrogate" because "surrogacy has the connotation you're not keeping the child."
However, her name will not be removed from the birth certificate.
Council told Jinks there was no case law in New Jersey to cover this situation but mentioned prior cases from Ohio and California in rendering his decision. . .

Sally Goldfarb, a Rutgers University law professor who teaches family law, said Council's holding was "interesting in an era where egg donation takes place in many settings, including fertility clinics. It's not always obvious that an egg donor is the legal parent."

Debra Guston, a Glen Rock lawyer who handles many gay and lesbian adoptions, said adoption is the preferred method of establishing parenthood since it gives the couple protection in other states that do not recognize civil unions as New Jersey has since February.

"A problem for this couple is while it's great to have a court order based on New Jersey's law that the other party is a parent, there are theoretical questions whether that will be recognized in other states," Guston said. "We're really recommending that couples go through the adoption process."

While there are many cases where judges have ordered the birth certificate amended, Guston said, "It's something we're concerned about. There are a lot of wonderful things happening here in New Jersey but what happens if they leave the state?"
Linda Stein can be reached at lstein@njtimes.com or (609) 989-6437
posted by maggie at 9:46 PM | Link | 0 comments

"THIS AMERICAN LIFE" ON MISSING PARENTS

...Case One. Better Left to the Imagination.

Most sperm banks provide all sorts of information about their donors: education level, medical background.... They even have videotaped interviews and recorded answers to essay questions. But not all clients take advantage of this information. In fact, lots of women choose to avoid it. Reporter Alix Spiegel talked with single women who were planning to get pregnant with the help of a sperm bank, and found that they all wrestled with the question of how much they wanted to know about the father of their kid ... and how much they wanted their kids to know. Alix's story was produced in part with a grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (20 minutes)...

Case Two. Tell it to the Void.
We hear a series of letters that originally appeared on the brief-lived, little-known, but well-loved webzine Open Letters. They're written by a woman who signs her name as \"X\" and are addressed to the father of her adolescent son. X has no idea where to send the letters ... but she keeps writing. Since the letters' original publication on the Internet, X has decided to reveal her identity. Her name is Miriam Toews, and her book is called Swing Low, A Life. Her letters were read for us by Alexa Junge. (17 minutes)

more
posted by Eve at 3:32 AM | Link | 0 comments

New Study: If You're So Smart. . .

Why Aren't You Rich? This study finds little relationships between IQ and finanical hardship, or wealth. (Smart people do make more money than those of average intelligence, but less than you'd think). Here.
posted by maggie at 9:44 AM | Link | 0 comments

Archbishop Amato condemns gay marriage/abortion

Full story here:

"In an address to chaplains, Amato said newspapers and television bulletins often seemed like "a perverse film about evil." He denounced "evils that remain almost invisible" because the media presented them as "expression of human progress."

He listed these as abortion clinics, which he called "slaughterhouses of human beings," euthanasia, and "parliaments of so-called civilized nations where laws contrary to the nature of the human being are being promulgated, such as the approval of marriage between people of the same sex ..."

Amato spoke at a time when the Vatican and Italy's powerful Roman Catholic Church are at loggerheads over plans for a highly controversial law that would give unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples some form of legal recognition.

The Church and Catholic politicians, even some in Prime Minister Romano Prodi's centre-left coalition, see the proposed law as a Trojan Horse and say it could lead to gay marriages.

Amato, who is said to be very close to Pope Benedict, criticized the media's coverage of ethical issues.

After denouncing "abominable terrorism" such as that carried out by suicide bombers, he condemned what he called "terrorism with a human face," and accused the media of manipulating language "to hide the tragic reality of the facts."

"For example, abortion is called 'voluntary interruption of pregnancy' and not the killing of a defenseless human being, an abortion clinic is given a harmless, even attractive, name: 'centre for reproductive health' and euthanasia is blandly called 'death with dignity'," he said in his address. . ."

posted by maggie at 9:44 AM | Link | 2 comments

Tribal Church, after Lawsuit Threat, Permits SSM

Its hard to believe this account is correct: a threat of a lawsuit lead church officials to change their views on marriage, here:

"First Nation Church Removes Ban On Gay, Lesbian Unions

PARIS, TX (PRWEB) April 20, 2007 -- First Nation Church, the oldest traditional religious organization in the Western Hemisphere and the largest membership-based Native American religious society in the United States, has announced that it will no longer ban marriages among same-sex members of its national congregation.

Following a threatened legal challenge by several gay and lesbian church members, church elders voted to remove language from the organization's bylaws that could have been potentially unconstitutional. . ."

posted by maggie at 8:28 PM | Link | 3 comments

Marriage Debate Moves to Chattauqua in July

July 2, 3, 4 in Chattauqua, New York, you can hear Chief Justice Leah Sears of the Georgia Supreme Court, scholar and family diversity advocate Stephanie Coontz ("Marriage: A History") and David Blankenhorn on the Future of Marriage. More info here.
posted by maggie at 11:39 AM | Link | 0 comments

Our Marital Future: One Democrat Gets It

Robby George and Ryan Anderson review David Blankenhorn's new book, The Future of Marriage, on National Review online:

"David Blankenhorn’s new book, The Future of Marriage, explodes the widely promoted myth that redefining marriage to include same-sex partnerships would be a harmless innovation.

Blankenhorn, the Harvard-educated author of Fatherless America and founder of The Institute for American Values, unabashedly describes himself as a “marriage nut.” Long before the issue of same-sex “marriage” rose to national prominence, he was a founder of the “Marriage Movement” — a campaign to lower divorce rates, decrease out-of-wedlock child-bearing, and provide as many children as possible with the care and protection of their mother and father. As Blankenhorn knows, these problems preceded the push for legal recognition of same-sex unions. His concern is — and always has been — to strengthen marriage.

Homosexuality and “gay” relationships were not among Blankenhorn’s concerns — which is why he recoils from charges of “prejudice” or even “conservatism.” Having grown up in Mississippi during Martin Luther King’s leadership of the civil rights movement, Blankenhorn is “a lifelong Democrat,” thinks of himself “essentially as a liberal,” and cannot stand “to be viewed as a bigot.” He affirms that “the principle of equal human dignity must apply to gay and lesbian persons,” but insists that the institution of marriage is not the vehicle for advancing gay-rights, for marriage is not “fundamentally about the rights of adults.” “Marriage is fundamentally about the needs of children.” And “what children need most are mothers and fathers. Not caregivers. Not parent-like adults. Not even ‘parents.’ What a child wants and needs more than anything else are the mother and the father who together made the child, who love the child, and who love each other.”. . .

posted by maggie at 10:44 AM | Link | 14 comments