As odd is it might seem, the next to last day of 2003 may someday be seen as a fateful moment for the traditional family. That is the when the United States Drug Enforcement Agency busted a pair of methamphetamine dealers in Philadelphia.

In a remarkable example of the corrosive force liberalism exerts on our society, the arrest of these drug dealers led to an opinion issued July 31 by U.S. District Judge Marvin Katz that -- if sustained by the Supreme Court -- could erase the special status marriage and the traditional family enjoy in American law…

Citing Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court decision which absurdly held that the Constitution prohibits states from banning same-sex sodomy, [Katz] declared: "The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to intimate association."

Because of this, he argued, probation rules must treat two unmarried men who claim an "intimate association" just as if they were a married couple or a brother and a sister. "The Probation Office has violated defendants' Fifth Amendment right to equal protection by refusing to grant defendants permission to associate with each other, while maintaining a policy of granting such permission to similarly situated individuals in other kinds of family relationships (i.e., siblings, parent and child, and spouses)," he said…

Many Americans have been worried that a federal judge will declare same-sex marriage a right. In fact, Judge Katz's decision goes beyond that. It suggests that government must treat all claimed "intimate associations" equally.

If that becomes the law of the land, three drug dealers living together in the same apartment, or even a commune full of 1960s hippies, will become the legal equivalent of mom and dad.

Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor of Human Events.

God Is Watching You: Priming God Concepts Increases Prosocial Behavior in an Anonymous Economic Game
Azim F. Shariff, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and
Ara Norenzayan, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

ABSTRACT—We present two studies aimed at resolving experimentally whether religion increases prosocial behavior in the anonymous dictator game. Subjects allocated more money to anonymous strangers when God concepts were implicitly activated than when neutral or no concepts were activated. This effect was at least as large as that obtained when concepts associated with secular moral institutions were primed. A trait measure of self-reported religiosity did not seem to be associated with prosocial behavior. We discuss different possible mechanisms that may underlie this effect, focusing on the hypotheses that the religious prime had an ideomotor effect on generosity or that it activated a felt presence of supernatural watchers. We then discuss implications for theories positing religion as a facilitator of the emergence of early large-scale societies of cooperators.

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) -- A Malaysian villager who took a second wife has been ordered by a court to compensate his first wife and their children with a buffalo and a pig, an official said Wednesday.

The Native Court in Penampang district on Borneo island annulled the man's 10-year marriage to his first wife and granted her custody of their three children Tuesday, said District Native Court Chief Innocent Makajil, who presided over the panel deciding the case.

''It is a symbolic punishment because he violated his people's customs by marrying more than once,'' Makajil said by telephone.

The identities of the couple are not being revealed due to a request by the wife, Makajil said.

The man, a self-employed 30 year old, is from Borneo's Kadazan-Dusun indigenous community. His second wife, whom he married earlier this year, is a Muslim, and he converted from Christianity to Islam, Makajil said.

Polygamy is rare within the group, he added.

First there was this:

"I think with regard to gay marriage you have a [inaudible] issue. I don't think one state ought to be able to pass a law requiring gay marriage or allowing gay marriage and have another state be required to follow along under full faith and credit. There’s some exceptions, exemptions for that. Hasn’t happened yet, but I think a federal court very well likely will go in that direction. And the constitutional amendment would cure that. I think Roe versus Wade was a bad decision. There were things that are bad law and bad medicine. You don't just get up one day and overturn the entire history of the country with regard major social policies without any action by Congress, without any action by the American people or a constitutional amendment. And that's what happened. Shouldn’t have happened. It ought to be reversed."

And the "Team Thompson" clarification:

I'm afraid CNN story you linked mischaracterized Thompson's comment on gay marriage. They've since altered the story....without noting the change. For the record, the Thompson camp has officially noted that "Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage." He supports the rights of States to choose their marriage law for themselves.

The Thompson camp issued this statement:

In an interview with CNN today, former Senator Fred Thompson’s position on constitutional amendments concerning gay marriage was unclear.

Thompson believes that states should be able to adopt their own laws on marriage consistent with the views of their citizens.

He does not believe that one state should be able to impose its marriage laws on other states, or that activist judges should construe the constitution to require that.

If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states.

Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

“What happened to Bailey is important, because the harassment was so extraordinarily bad and because it could happen to any researcher in the field,” said Alice Dreger, an ethics scholar and patients’ rights advocate at Northwestern who, after conducting a lengthy investigation of Dr. Bailey’s actions, has concluded that he is essentially blameless. “If we’re going to have research at all, then we’re going to have people saying unpopular things, and if this is what happens to them, then we’ve got problems not only for science but free expression itself.”

To Dr. Bailey’s critics, his story is a different kind of morality tale.

“Nothing we have done, I believe, and certainly nothing I have done, overstepped any boundaries of fair comment on a book and an author who stepped into the public arena with enthusiasm to deliver a false and unscientific and politically damaging opinion,” Deirdre McCloskey, a professor of economics, history, English, and communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and one of Dr. Bailey’s principal critics, said in an e-mail message.

Poll: Family Ties Key to Youth Happiness
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK (AP) -- So you're between the ages of 13 and 24. What makes you happy?... Spending time with family was the top answer to that open-ended question, according to an extensive survey -- more than 100 questions asked of 1,280 people ages 13-24 -- conducted by The Associated Press and MTV on the nature of happiness among America's young people.

Next was spending time with friends, followed by time with a significant other. And even better for parents: Nearly three-quarters of young people say their relationship with their parents makes them happy…[C]hildren of divorced parents are somewhat less likely to be happy. Among 13-17 year olds, 64 percent of those with parents still together said they wake up happy, compared to 47 percent of those with divorced parents.

… Overwhelmingly, young people [also] think marriage would make them happy and want to be married some day. Most also want to have kids.

Finally, when asked to name their heroes, nearly half of respondents mentioned one or both of their parents. The winner, by a nose: Mom.