Engineering British Souls

From City Journal:

". . . .In the same week, Britons learned that several public education authorities were piloting a scheme—at huge public expense—to provide students with storybooks in which children grow up with two adults of the same sex. The scheme, run by an enterprise called the No Outsiders Project, was the idea of several state-run institutions, including the Institute of Education (the ultimate source of much of Britain’s anti-educational pedagogy, which has left so many of its young unable to read, write, or reckon). The very name—No Outsiders—is an implicit lie, since the project’s organizers will treat people whose views they find contrary as outsiders, indeed as nonexistent.

Project director Elizabeth Atkinson said, with the dishonest imprecision that one now expects of British academics, that “the most important thing these books do is reflect reality for children.” Insofar as what she said had denotation rather than mere connotation, it was wrong: a very small percentage of children, even now, grow up with two adults of the same sex, and therefore the books do not reflect reality for them. She went on: “My background is in children’s literature and I know how powerful it is in shaping social values and emotional development.” She is a self-confessed engineer of souls.

The ultimate goal of the books, however, is not to promote gay parenting but to convey to children that it is not normal for them to grow up with their biological parents; and thereby, by erasing the very idea of such a “normal” path through life, to help bring about a world without nuclear families, which require no state assistance in many important matters. To paraphrase Freud, where the father was, there shall the state be. . ."

posted by maggie at 2:38 PM | Link | 3 comments

At Last, It's Maggie's Turn

here.
posted by maggie at 11:54 AM | Link | 0 comments

YourMorals.org

This is interesting. An effort to quantify the universal content of morals and values, and to associate it with conservatism/liberalism. I found the Schwartz value scale fun. yourmorals.org
posted by maggie at 10:07 AM | Link | 0 comments

MR RIGHT DOESN'T TAKE CLASSES: From the NY Times

AFTER more than two years of disheartening online dating, Charlotte Kullen resolved to spend less time pursuing men and more time pursuing her hobbies. She plunged into tennis, running, sailing, horseback riding, fitness boot camp and scuba diving classes, assuming that somewhere between the situps and the strapping on of fins she might meet some eligible prospects.

She did. They all just happened to be women.

more
posted by Eve at 12:03 AM | Link | 3 comments

A CATHOLIC PRIEST BATTLES BRIDEZILLA!: Fr. Jim Tucker

[my headline, not his! --Eve]

On the Diane Rhem Show yesterday, there was an excellent interview with Rebecca Mead, who has written the book, "One Perfect Day," which is a look inside the "161-billion dollar wedding industry." Without being judgmental, she describes the state of weddings in this country, and a normal person will be left fairly appalled. The interview is about one hour and well worth one's time.

Some of the points to reflect upon: the emotional manipulation ("seduction" as one caller put it) of brides into making ever more expensive purchases, the costs imposed upon guests, the commercialized sentimentality, the unnecessary stress, the twisting of priorities, the fake "traditions" (driven by commercial interests again), the secularization of the thing, the huge differences between modern industrial weddings and simple traditional weddings, the $28,000 average price of an American wedding, the debt into which many couples enter the married life. Couple all that with the high divorce rate. Consider, too, the booming "second wedding" market that allows you "to get everything right the second time that you didn't get right the first time." And what the author refers to as using a minister and church setting as "religious decoration."

I contrast that to the weddings that we celebrated last Saturday night in the Spanish Vigil Mass. Twice a year, we encourage couples who are in merely civil unions or long-term cohabitation to take advantage of a program I started up a few years ago. We take these couples, most of whom have children and are together for several years, and who for whatever reason didn't seek the sacrament of matrimony when they got together. They hear it advertised at Mass, so almost all of them are regular Mass-goers, but obviously unable to receive Holy Communion or to fill leadership roles in the parish. Two married couples and I give them marriage talks, meet with them, put together their paperwork, and make sure there are no obstacles to solemnizing their marriages. Then, together with the people with whom they've taken the classes, they make their vows in the parish Mass, surrounded by fellow parishioners who've been praying for them while they've prepared. The parish pays for the music, pays for the decorations, and doesn't charge a dime. And they return to the Sacraments that night at the same time they receive the convalidation of their marriages.

The week afterward, we always get a deluge of phone calls of people who were moved by the beautiful and festive celebration and want to have their own unions blessed in the same way, as well.

more
posted by Eve at 11:57 PM | Link | 1 comments

JESSE WALKER ON INDIAN CHILDREN VS CHINESE CHILDREN

here
posted by Eve at 11:56 PM | Link | 0 comments

Mass Equality Video Ads

"It's Wrong to Vote on Rights" a $750,000 media campaign, here.
posted by maggie at 5:01 PM | Link | 1 comments

SSM Update: Much Manueviering in Mass. to Keep Amendment Off the Ballot

Boston Globe May 17 story (Anyone have a link to the three ads mentioned below? I'll post it):

"Legislative support slim for same-sex marriage ban
Efforts heat up to keep issue off 2008 ballot

A proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages is clinging to a razor-thin margin in the Legislature, as major political figures from Beacon Hill to Capitol Hill step up their attempts to kill the measure.

With a lawmaker who opposes same-sex marriage eyeing a new job and several others ready to switch their votes, Beacon Hill leaders and gay political activists are convinced that they are within at most four votes, and perhaps as few as three, of stopping the amendment from reaching the 2008 ballot and preventing a heated campaign that could draw energy and money away from the Democratic Party's national efforts.

According to senior State House sources, state Representative Brian P. Wallace, a South Boston Democrat who has voted for the amendment, is a leading candidate for a lucrative post at the Massachusetts Sports and Entertainment Commission, a move supported by legislative leaders seeking to kill the amendment. Wallace's departure from the Legislature is likely to take place before the amendment is voted on, the sources said. Wallace did not return calls made to his office and home.

At least four lawmakers who had initially voted for the gay marriage ban in January have signaled that they may switch their votes, the sources said, giving same-sex marriage supporters growing confidence they can kill the measure and spare Massachusetts from becoming the epicenter once again in the country's cultural wars during a presidential election. On May 17, 2004, just six months before the last presidential contest, the nation's first legal same-sex weddings took place in Massachusetts, following a landmark state high court decision.

The stepped-up lobbying and reports of changed votes come as same-sex marriage advocates celebrate the third anniversary of the first such weddings today with a party and a $750,000 media campaign.

A final vote by the Legislature on the constitutional ban could take place as early as June 14, when lawmakers reconvene at a constitutional convention, but would be delayed by leaders if the votes are not yet in place.

Still, few of those seeking to block the proposal would publicly predict success, beyond acknowledging that some movement is taking place. . .

Tension over the legislative showdown is mounting as national leaders begin to press their case on Democrat-dominated Beacon Hill that the party cannot afford for Massachusetts to become a battleground over same-sex marriage next year.
US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi weighed in with calls in the last few days to DiMasi and Murray. She emphasized to state Democratic leaders that national Democratic officials feel strongly that a high-profile over the issue in 2008 would galvanize conservative voters nationally and undercut their efforts to capture the White House and keep control of Congress. Most observers agree that the Supreme Judicial Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage was a major hindrance to US Senator John F. Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004.

Other Washington figures are also expected to enter the fray. Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean has offered to make himself available to lobby legislative leaders. Gay activists say they have also lined up Kerry, US Senator Edward M. Kennedy, and many members of the state's US House delegation. . .


According to State House sources involved in the high-stakes struggle to block the proposal, the Beacon Hill leadership is confident it is on the verge of cutting the support for the measure to as few as 52 votes out of the 200 lawmakers. To make it to the ballot, the voter- initiated amendment must be approved by at least 50 in two consecutive legislative sessions.

If he needs votes, DiMasi is expected to call upon some of his top lieutenants, including Speaker Pro Tempore Thomas M. Petrolati of Ludlow and House and Ways Means Chair Robert A. DeLeo of Winthrop, to back off from their support of the amendment.
One target of lobbying -- Representative Paul Kujawski, a Democrat from Webster who voted for the amendment in January -- said that he is facing pressure from both sides. "I am listening to every body," said Kujawski, who represents a socially conservative district. "But if the vote were tomorrow, my vote would still be the same."

Wallace's quest for the job at the quasi-public sports and entertainment commission began well over a year ago, a senior Beacon Hill political figure confirmed yesterday, long before the intensive lobbying effort began. Still, if he resigns before the final vote on the amendment, advocates of the ban will probably charge that legislative leaders and Patrick dangled a job in front of him in order to diminish the ranks of supporters of the measure.

Patrick has denied that he is using jobs in his administration to lure pro-amendment lawmakers out of the Legislature. Neither the governor nor legislative leaders have direct control over the Sports and Entertainment Commission, but such agencies do not easily brush aside their requests. No one at the commission's office could be reached late yesterday.

Adding to the lobbying is a $750,000 media campaign launched yesterday by MassEquality that will argue that a civil rights issue, including the right to marry, should not be the subject of a popular referendum.

"We have never voted to restrict individual rights in this state, let alone sought to amend the constitution to take rights away," said Solomon. "We hope this campaign makes people aware of how unfair and dangerous this ballot measure is to everyone, not just committed gay and lesbian families."

The 30-second television spots feature three gay couples whose lives MassEquality says have been improved by the 2003 decision that legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts."

UPDATE: Mass. judge rules 170 NY SS couples validly married in Massachusetts:

"Invoking a little-noticed legal loophole, a Massachusetts judge has legally validated the marriages of at least 150 same-sex couples from New York who wed in Massachusetts between May 17, 2004, when gay marriage became legal here, and July 6, 2006, when gay marriage was declared illegal there. .

."
posted by maggie at 4:32 PM | Link | 0 comments

New Study: CIhild Trends Says More OWB to Cohabiting Couples

From a Child Trends press release, the research brief is here:

Unmarried and Living Together With Children: Births to Cohabiting Couples at All-Time High

". . .The proportion of births in the United States that occur outside of marriage has climbed dramatically over the last few decades—reaching 36 percent in 2004, up from 22 percent in 1985. And more of these births are occurring to unmarried couples who live together (or cohabit).

A new research brief published by Child Trends takes a closer look at trends in childbearing outside of marriage, in general, and trends within cohabiting relationships, in particular. Using nationally-representative data on babies born in 2001, the research brief finds:

--Of all the babies born in the United States in 2001, one in five, or 19 percent, were born to women who were in cohabiting (unmarried) relationships.

--Of all babies born to unmarried women in the United States in 2001, 52 percent were born to women in cohabiting relationships – up from 29 percent in 1980. . .

The brief also looks at the demographic characteristics of women who have children within cohabiting unions. For example, it finds that:

--Hispanic women and non-Hispanic white women are more likely than are non-Hispanic black women to be in a cohabiting union when they have a child outside of marriage.

--The most highly educated women are the least likely to have a child outside of marriage, bu t if they do, they are the most likely to do so within a cohabiting union.

---The majority of women over the age of 20 who have a nonmarital birth do so within a cohabiting relationship; nonmarital births to teens are far less likely to occur within such relationships. . ."

posted by maggie at 3:25 PM | Link | 0 comments

What do Dads Do?

Jennifer Roeback Morse wants your stories, on her blog, here.
posted by maggie at 7:17 PM | Link | 0 comments

PFOX YouTube Videos

This is not on topic, and I'm not going to permit comments therefore. But nonetheless I know the readers of this site, both those who like this kind of thing and those who will be very opposed, are likely to be interested, so I'm posting this email from PFOX on these new video:

"Definition of “homophobia” by young Jewish man -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qLyyPcqqAU “I’m no Nazi, I’m a Jewish American, and I don’t believe people should be given special rights based on who they have sex with.”

A man in a wheelchair explains what “innate” and “immutable” mean --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGTYllsaXY0“Sex is an option, but cerebral palsy isn’t.”

African-American male says being gay is not an ethnicity --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-MFDod9Rkc“Our parents did not march with Dr. King so Tom and John could get married.”

Gay man assures straights not to be scared of gay marriage --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-DLb8IMqIM

Dr. Robert Spitzer, a renowned psychiatrist who helped remove homosexuality as a disorder from the medical manual, is sympathetic to gay rights and maintains that some gays can change their sexual preference -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qdeoh_ruI0 Gay rights also includes the right of gays who want to explore their heterosexual potential. . ."
posted by maggie at 12:21 PM | Link |

Another Parenting Case

The recent three-parent case has been noted below but there has also been a recent decision in the Minnesota Supreme Court that also has some interesting implications. In this case, a trial court had granted child visitation to the former partner of the children’s adoptive mother. The mother challenged the decision, arguing that the statute allowing third parties to have child visitation over the objection of a child’s legal parent was unconstitutional.

The supreme court supported the trial court’s ruling. The court said it was employing “strict scrutiny” to assess the law but had no problem concluding the state had a “compelling interest” “in promoting relationships among those in recognized family units.”

Unlike the three-parent case, this case is notable for its lack of novelty. The court spends very little time concluding the former partner is essentially a part of a “recognized family relationship” despite her failure to adopt or any kind of legal relationship, citing evidence that the children called her “mommy.”

Also significant is the use of “strict scrutiny” language by the court (because the rights of parents are supposed to be fundamental) followed by a very lax standard where the court finds that a parent’s wishes can be disregarded where the state is “promoting relationships among those in recognized family units.” This looks like an exception that nearly swallows the rule since the court’s understanding of “family units” is not tied to any biological or legal status (babysitters are probably still excluded but many, many others would presumably be able to seek visitation over the parent’s objection). The court says the burden of proof is on the third party to show that the visitation will not interfere with the parent child relationship (this in a case where the visitation order includes alternating holiday arrangements) and is in the best interest of the child but this too is not tied to any clear standard that would present a robust constraint.
posted by William Duncan at 4:16 PM | Link | 3 comments

More on Massachusetts A.G. Comment

When the Attorney General of Massachusetts threatens a lawsuit against an approved marriage amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution she may mean a federal lawsuit as Maggie suggests. She may also, as strange as it may seem, mean to imply that the amendment violates the Constitution it will become part of. When the proposed marriage amendment was litigated before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (and allowed to go forward), two justices wrote an opinion suggesting that it was in fact possible for a constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional. Their opinion openly invited “an appropriate lawsuit” because they believed that “the Goodridge decision may be irreversible.”

Here’s the relevant passage (with some citations omitted):

There is no Massachusetts precedent discussing, or deciding, whether the initiative procedure may be used to add a constitutional provision that purposefully discriminates against an oppressed and disfavored minority of our citizens in direct contravention of the principles of liberty and equality protected by art. 1 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. This basis for noncertification was not argued to the Attorney General when he considered validity of the initiative, nor has it been raised by any of the parties in their briefs. Put more directly, the Goodridge decision may be irreversible because of its holding that no rational basis exists, or can be advanced, to support the definition of marriage proposed by the initiative and the fact that the Goodridge holding has become part of the fabric of the equality and liberty guarantees of our Constitution. If the initiative is approved by the Legislature and ultimately adopted, there will be time enough, if an appropriate lawsuit is brought, for this court to resolve the question whether our Constitution can be home to provisions that are apparently mutually inconsistent and irreconcilable. We may then give careful consideration, in view of what has been said above, to the legal tenability and implications of embodying a provision into our Constitution that would look so starkly out of place in the Adams Constitution, when compared with the document's elegantly stated, and constitutionally defined, protections of liberty, equality, tolerance, and the access of all citizens to equal rights and benefits.

posted by William Duncan at 1:40 PM | Link | 1 comments

SSM Update: Mass AG declares state marriage amendment "unconstitutional"

Gee, if the voters amend the constitution can the state courts declare the amendment 'unconstitutional'? Or I suppose she is proposing a federal court challenge? Story from May 12 365gay.com:

"Proposed Gay Marriage Ban Likely Illegal

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley says that a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage is likely unconstitutional and if it gets to voters and is approved her office will work with gay rights groups to challenge it in court.

Coakley, a Democrat, made the announcement in a speech to the Massachusetts Lesbian & Gay Bar Association.

"If that battle is necessary, you have my support," she said to thunderous applause.
Coakley said that she has asked the civil rights division in her office to begin preparing legal arguments if the measure is approved by the Legislature to go to voters next year.

"I think we can easily anticipate that if the proposed amendment was successful, there would be protracted, hard-fought litigation about the constitutionality of such a provision," Coakley said.

Since same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts in 2003 more than 8,500 gay and lesbian couples have wed. . ."

posted by maggie at 11:06 AM | Link | 2 comments

I INTERVIEWED DAVID BLANKENHORN...

...about The Future of Marriage, here.
posted by Eve at 12:24 AM | Link | 8 comments

Marriage in Popular Culture: 1954

Last week I saw a sweet scene in the 1955 best picture, “Marty” (screenplay by Paddy Chayefsky) where Marty (played by Ernest Borgnine) is attempting a ham-handed consolation of his dance partner (and himself) who has been brushed off by a blind date who thinks she’s a “dog.”

Marty: And I also want you to know that I'm having a very good time with you right now and really enjoying myself. You see, you're not such a dog as you think you are.

Clara: (smiling at his choice of words) I'm having a very good time too.

Marty: So there you are. So I guess I'm not such a dog as I think I am.

Clara: You're a very nice guy. I don't know why some girl hasn't grabbed you off long ago.

Marty: Well I don't know either. I think I'm a very nice guy. I also think I'm a pretty smart guy in my own way...You know how I figure. Two people get married and are gonna live together for forty or fifty years so it's gotta be more than whether they're just good-looking or not. Now you tell me you think you're not so good looking. Well, my father was a real ugly man but my mother adored him. She told me how she used to get so miserable sometimes - like everybody, you know? And, and she says my father always tried to understand. I used to see them sometimes when I was a kid sitting in the living room talking and talking. And I used to adore my old man because he was always so kind. That's one of the most beautiful things I have in my life - the way my father and mother were. And my father was a real ugly man. So it doesn't matter if you look like a gorilla. You see, dogs like us, we ain't such dogs as we think we are.

posted by William Duncan at 5:52 PM | Link | 1 comments

The Fight Against the Massachusetts Marriage Amendment

As Maggie noted below, the Massachusetts Legislature is waiting until at least June 14 to take up the proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage in the state to be the union of a man and a woman. Meanwhile, political elites in the state are working hard to keep the amendment from ever going to a vote in a general election. When Senate President Therese Murray was elected, she promised an up-or-down vote on the amendment (an earlier version had been defeated when the legislature unconstitutionally ended a constitutional convention without voting on the amendment). Since she is opposed to the amendment, the hope is that the amendment will not get the votes in needs to advance to the ballot and thus be defeated without a political vote.

The Governor has been very actively lobbying to prevent a favorable vote on the amendment (though he denies his administration is offering jobs to potential swing voters to gain a defeat of the amendment). Pressure groups and state party leaders are seeking help from the Democratic National Committee in their efforts to defeat the amendment. Now, the state’s attorney general has announced that if the amendment is approved, she will help challenge it in court. Her theory seems to be that the amendment would violate some kind of "higher law" so it would be an unconstitutional constitutional amendment (there are people who feel this way about the income tax but they haven’t been very convincing to the IRS).

This seems like a lot of fuss just to keep voters from having their say on the issue. In a few weeks, we’ll see whether it works.
posted by William Duncan at 5:31 PM | Link | 2 comments

SSM Update: Connecticut

New York Times on Sunday on today's oral arguments before the Connecticut state supreme court:

Couples Enter New Terrain in Push for Gay Marriage in Connecticut

". . .With civil unions now legal in a handful of states and gay marriage permitted in Massachusetts, advocates and scholars on both sides of the debate are watching the case closely to see how judges navigate the new legal terrain.

Last July, a Superior Court judge ruled against the plaintiffs, saying that the state’s civil unions already gave same-sex couples the rights and protections of marriage. The couples are being represented by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the same group that successfully sued for marriage in Massachusetts.
But Bennett Klein, one of the lawyers leading the plaintiffs’ case, said the civil union law made the argument for marriage “more powerful and compelling.”

“A law that says every right, every benefit and every legal aspect of marriage is given to same-sex couples shows that this is nothing more than a legislative policy decision of a special legal institution,” Mr. Klein said. “The legislature already determined a fundamental sameness between couples. Constitutional law has discarded long ago any notion that a separate institution for a minority can ever be equal.”

Opponents of gay marriage, who generally opposed the civil union law in 2004, also say that the outcome of the court case will bring clarity to the question of whether the state has the authority to define marriage.

Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, which opposes gay marriage, said the case was likely to turn same-sex unions into a “black and white, either-or” issue.

“That is a striking and unfortunate consequence of a compromise,” Ms. Gallagher said, adding that she did not necessarily oppose civil unions. “That means that every debate will come down to the question of all or nothing; that either you think there is no difference for gay couples or you are a bigot.” . . .

posted by maggie at 4:45 PM | Link | 11 comments