USA TODAY ON AGING ITALY

here
posted by Eve at 6:41 PM | Link |  

RELIGION IN THAT PEW RESEARCH STUDY: Mollie Z. Hemingway

here
posted by Eve at 12:37 AM | Link |  

Pew Poll: What Americans Think About Marriage

My syndicated column this week on the Pew poll on marriage:

"One key finding: Americans have a problem with unmarried childbearing. The Pew poll asked this question in a variety of ways: Seventy-one percent of Americans say the growth in births to unwed mothers is a "big problem" for society, while 69 percent agree "A child needs a home with both a mother and father to grow up happily." By a margin of 66 percent to 25 percent, Americans say that "single women having children" is a trend that is "bad for society," rather than "good."

The breadth of this consensus across lines of age, race and education is striking: Seventy percent of whites and 67 percents of black agree it's a bad trend for society (as do 54 percent of Hispanics). Seventy-two percent of senior citizens say it's a bad thing, but so do 65 percent of 18 to 29-year-olds. Sixty-eight percent of college grads worry about unmarried childbearing, but so do 65 percent of Americans with only a high school degree or less. . .Even 61 percent of never-married parents agree a child needs a mom and a dad, and 54 percent of never married parents say the trend of single women having kids is bad for society.

In fact the only group in which less than a majority agree that single women having children is bad for society are the "seculars." Forty-five percent of seculars say single women having children is bad for society, while 41 percent say it is a good thing -- which kind of makes one wonder about the reality-base of this particular community.

But Pew also asked the same question in a slightly different way: What do you think of the trend of unmarried (START ITAL) couples having children? . . . .a significant generation gap emerges: Among 18 to 29-year-olds just 46 percent say unmarried couples having children is a bad thing and 45 percent say it is a good thing for society. . . .

On gay marriage, Americans are against it 57 to 32 percent. Even young adults ages 18 to 29 oppose gay marriage 46 percent to 44 percent.

The next generation is persuaded that children need a mom and a dad. They are less convinced that marriage is the key to giving children that gift. Closing that loop in the mind of young adults is the key to marriage's -- and children's -- future."

posted by maggie at 10:45 PM | Link |  

Michael Pakaluk: "Surprise! You are Now a Bigot"

In the Boston Pilot:

"Surprise! You are now a bigot
Michael Pakaluk

www.thebostonpilot.com/articleopinion.asp?ID=4900

In my last column, I argued in effect that Catholic parents should no longer send their children to public schools in Massachusetts. Seek a private or parochial school, instruct your child at home, or simply leave the state. Why? Because public schools are now required by law to be instruments of indoctrination in gay ideology.

Few Catholic parents seem to grasp this point, because they do not yet appreciate the revolution that has been worked in our laws over the last four years. They think that when “same-sex marriage” was recognized legally, the only thing that changed was that tolerance was extended to a handful of people. Not so. What really happened, is that the apparatus of the state changed its direction of support. Those laws that used to support you (admittedly, only in a vestigial and minimal way) have now been turned against you.

In order to see how the schools must now act, it helps to reflect carefully on the civil rights movement of the ‘60s. Think first about the long decades of segregation in the South and “separate but equal.” Think about the absurdity of a black-skinned man not being able to use the same water fountain or restaurant as a white-skinned man, because his skin was a different color. When you recall these things, are you feeling angry again? Now think of that righteous anger as expressed in the zealous efforts of the civil rights activists. Think of all the righteousness and moral fervor that was directed by those activists in the North against any bigots and white supremacists in the South who defended segregation.

Think next about how the public schools became enlisted in efforts to combat racism. I do not mean desegregation and busing. I mean: Black History Month; textbooks which prominently displayed interracial couples; films about how wrong prejudice is; discussions about the importance of accepting different people regardless of their appearance. The schools, rightly so, saw it as their solemn duty to educate children against racism. They aimed to eliminate racism, and the entire curriculum in the school was adapted to this goal.

I am asking you to contemplate these things because, as a Catholic parent, you won’t have the slightest idea what you are up against unless you appreciate that now you are on the receiving end of a similar assurance of moral righteousness.

“Same-sex marriage” is ultimately based on a misguided analogy with racism. It presupposes that, just as we shouldn’t treat someone differently based on the color of his skin, so we shouldn’t treat someone differently based on his sexual proclivities and patterns of sexual behavior.

Don’t get me wrong: I agree that the analogy rests on a hundred confusions. Skin color is irrelevant to our character (as Martin Luther King famously said), but how we act sexually is not irrelevant. There is no “natural” skin color, but there is a natural and right use of sex organs. Male and female are complementary, but it’s nonsense to speak of complementary skin colors. Again, the fact that some men desire to have relations with other men no more inevitably settles their identity as “gay,” than the fact that most men desire to have relations with all other attractive women inevitably settles their identity as “promiscuous.”

But it hardly matters that the analogy makes no sense. That might have mattered, if a law proposing “same-sex marriage” were ever debated by the people and voted on, because then the arguments bearing on its nonsensicality could have been stated and discussed. But there was no public discussion, and there was no vote. Four whacky justices were abetted by one weak-willed governor and a hundred cowardly legislators.

Now the analogy is firmly embedded in law. But then so is a chief consequence of the analogy, namely, that anyone who rejects “same-sex marriage” is an irrational bigot whose hateful views should be suppressed. And that (I trust) includes you.

Suppose you are a decent family man, not unlike David Parker in Arlington, working hard at a job and trying to raise a family. You take it for granted, as something unquestioned, that only a man and a woman can get married. The alternative strikes you as ridiculous, not even up for debate. Perhaps you are religious and you base your views ultimately on the Bible or Church teaching, or perhaps you simply have good sense. As for homosexuality, you perhaps distinguish between the feelings and the actions; and you wouldn’t think it a good thing to engage in the latter, even if you had the desire to do so.

In the state of Massachusetts, something happened to such a person between 2003 and today. Four years ago he was a good family man and an upstanding citizen. His views were still reflected in the law and supported in the schools. Today, however, that same man is a bigot. The law is against him, and public schools on principle must teach that such a person is filled with hatred (a “homophobe”) and despicable. Indeed, the schools are obliged to teach his own children that he is a bigot. More than that, they’ll do so convinced that they are fulfilling their high moral duty. And any sign of resistance on his part will be interpreted by them as only more evidence of the man’s bigotry.

They’ll no more listen to him than the SJC, the governor, or the Legislature did before them.

They’ve left such a man little alternative but to vote with his feet.

posted by maggie at 10:18 PM | Link |  

Ocean Grove, NJ Update

"Group has new deadline for civil rights complaint
At issue: Ban on same-sex unions

Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 07/5/07
BY BILL BOWMAN

http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070705/NEWS01/707050369/1004/NEWS02

OCEAN GROVE — The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association will have an extra 10 days to respond to a complaint filed with the state Division on Civil Rights by a couple challenging the association's ban on conducting same-sex unions in the boardwalk pavilion.

The new deadline is July 19, said Scott Hoffman, the association's chief administrative officer.The association originally had 20 days to either answer the complaint or request mediation. But, Hoffman said, officials decided to ask for the extension.

"It's just because we needed some extra time internally and didn't want to run the risk" of missing the original deadline, he said.
Lee Moore, a spokesman for the division, said it's "standard practice" for the division to grant such requests.

Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster of Broadway filed the complaint with the division on June 19. The two claim that the association's refusal to let them conduct their civil union ceremony in the pavilion violates the law against public accommodation discrimination.

They have since scheduled their ceremony for the Bradley Beach pavilion.
The association maintains that the Methodist Church Book of Discipline prohibits civil union ceremonies in any church building. The association contends that the pavilion, even though it is open-air and on the boardwalk, is just as much of a church structure as is the Youth Temple or the Tabernacle.

Bernstein said Tuesday that she has heard nothing from the association and that she and Paster remain amenable to settling the dispute through mediation."We did agree to mediate, but I don't know what their situation is," she said of the association.

Hoffman said that while the association does not have an official attorney, it has been receiving advice from "a number of different sources." Among them, he said, is the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Alliance Defense Fund. Fund spokesman Greg Scott said the alliance is a "Christian legal alliance of nearly 1,000 Christian attorneys nationwide. We defend religious liberty, sanctity of life and marriage and family."

The Alliance is no stranger to the Shore area. In 2005, its lawyers won a federal court decision against the Asbury Park Board of Education, in which the court ruled that community members could not be restricted from speaking against board President Robert Di-Santo. Some members of the public objected to DiSanto's employment as the manager of a gay nightclub in the city and his postings on its Web site. . ."
posted by maggie at 10:13 PM | Link |  

Another Religious Liberty Case

A recent New York trial court decision provides another illustration of the potential conflicts raised by a change in marriage laws.

In an employment discrimination lawsuit, a former employee argued that his former employer’s president had fired the employee because of the employee’s sexual orientation. In his complaint the plaintiff alleged the employer’s president expressed “revulsion” of homosexuals, avoided contact with them and “frequently quoted the Bible as evidence that homosexuality is a sin against God” and when the president found out that the plaintiff was gay, he was fired.

As part of the litigation, plaintiff asked the defendant to answer a series of questions including: (1) “State whether defendant Doudak [the company president] believes that ‘homosexuality is a sin against God’” and (2) “State whether defendant Doudak believes that ‘gays and lesbians are doomed to eternal damnation.’” The defendant objected to these questions on religious liberty grounds, arguing that “compelling a response to such an inquiry would be a state action which would dissuade individuals from membership in certain religions, as the religious teachings themselves may be used against the member in a civil proceeding.”

The court ruled that the company president’s beliefs were arguably related to the firing of the plaintiff. The court also said that, “Any burden upon one’s freedom to exercise one’s religion must be balanced against the State’s paramount duty to insure a fair trial” and that “no person should be permitted to use that right as a cloak for acts of discrimination or as a justification of practices inconsistent with the protections against invidious discrimination proscribed in New York State law.” Since, to the court, “the state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest . . . [w]hen it appears that one’s religion is relied upon to form a basis of discrimination against a person who is a member of a protected class, to wit: homosexuals, an inquiry into and balancing of the competing interests favors disclosure in order to uncover evidence from which a jury may infer that the proffered reasons for plaintiff’s termination was prohibited discrimination.” Thus, the questions were allowed.

Interestingly, the court cited to the U.S. Supreme Court case of Bob Jones University v. United States in which the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the revocation of a religious university’s tax exemption because the university’s policy of prohibiting interracial dating conflicted with the public interest.
posted by William Duncan at 4:43 PM | Link |  

Adultery Costs: "Alienation of Affection" lawsuit.

An Illinois man was surpised to find he can be sued for sleeping with another man's wife. (The facts in this case seems under dispute). Associated Press, July 1 2007:

"CHICAGO -- Stealing someone's heart can cost you: Just ask German Blinov. A Cook County jury ordered Blinov to shell out $4,802 last week after he was sued by a husband from a Chicago suburb for stealing the affections of the man's wife.
Arthur Friedman used a little-known state law to mount the legal attack against Blinov. The alienation of affection law, one of eight across the country, lets spouses seek damages for the loss of love.

But Natalie Friedman, the woman at the center of it all, claims her husband asked her to have sex with other men and women _ including Blinov _ to spice up their relationship. She supposedly began having feelings for Blinov, prompting her husband to file the lawsuit.

"This guy ruined my life _ he backstabbed me," Arthur Friedman told the Chicago Sun-Times. "What he did was wrong. And I did what I had to do to get my point across."
Blinov doesn't deny having a relationship with Natalie Friedman while she was married, but he was surprised to learn he could be sued for it. His attorney also said Natalie Friedman was unhappy with her marriage before the relationship started.
"German was not a pirate of her affections," attorney Enrico Mirabelli said. "Her affections were already adrift."

posted by maggie at 11:56 AM | Link |  

New Poll Marriage and Parenthood

The Pew poll referenced in the AP story below has a rather different headline on the Pew site: "As Marriage and Parenthood Drift Apart, Public Is Concerned About Social Impact"
posted by maggie at 1:41 PM | Link |  

New Poll: Fewer Americans Connect Kids and Marriage

AP story in the July 1, 2007 Star-Telegram. The poll also finds opposition to SSM holding at 57 percent, and 69 percent of Americans agreeing its important for children to have a mom and dad:

Fewer see kids as key to marriage
By DAVID CRARY
The Associated Press

NEW YORK -- The percentage of Americans who consider children "very important" to a successful marriage has dropped sharply since 1990, and more now cite the sharing of household chores as pivotal, according to a sweeping new survey.

The Pew Research Center survey on marriage and parenting found that children had fallen to eighth out of nine on a list of factors that people associate with successful marriages -- well behind "sharing household chores," "good housing," "adequate income," a "happy sexual relationship" and "faithfulness."

In a 1990 World Values Survey, children ranked third in importance among the same items, with 65 percent of respondents saying that children were very important to a good marriage.

Just 41 percent said so in the new Pew survey.

Chore-sharing was cited as very important by 62 percent of respondents, up from 47 percent in 1990.

'Happiness, fulfillment'

The survey also found that, by a ratio of nearly 3-to-1, Americans say the main purpose of marriage is the "mutual happiness and fulfillment" of adults rather than the "bearing and raising of children."

The survey's findings buttress concerns expressed by numerous scholars and family-policy experts, among them Barbara Dafoe Whitehead of Rutgers University's National Marriage Project.

"The popular culture is increasingly oriented to fulfilling the X-rated fantasies and desires of adults," she wrote in a recent report. "Child-rearing values -- sacrifice, stability, dependability, maturity -- seem stale and musty by comparison."

Virginia Rutter, a sociology professor at Framingham (Mass.) State College and a board member of the Council on Contemporary Families, said the shifting views may be linked in part to America's relative lack of family-friendly workplace policies such as paid leave and subsidized child care.

"If we value families ... we need to change the circumstances they live in," she said, citing the challenges faced by young, two-earner couples as they ponder having children.

The Pew survey was conducted by telephone from mid-February through mid-March among a random, nationwide sample of 2,020 adults. Its margin of error is 3 percentage points.

Out-of-wedlock births

Among the scores of questions in the survey, many touched on America's high rate of out-of-wedlock births and of cohabitation outside of marriage. The survey noted that 37 percent of U.S. births in 2005 were to unmarried women, up from 5 percent in 1960, and found that nearly half of all adults in their 30s and 40s had lived with a partner outside of marriage.

According to the survey, 71 percent of Americans say the growth in births to unwed mothers is a "big problem." About the same proportion -- 69 percent -- said a child needs both a mother and a father to grow up happily.

Delving into one of the nation's most divisive social issues, the survey found that 57 percent of public opposes allowing gays and lesbians to marry. However, opinion was almost evenly divided on support for civil unions that would give same-sex couples many of the same rights as married couples.

Asked about the trend of more same-sex couples raising children, 50 percent said this is bad for society, 11 percent said it is good, and 34 percent said it made little difference."

posted by maggie at 1:37 PM | Link |