The Importance of Saying Nice Things to Your Spouse

In the song, it had a happier ending, this summary is from the WSJ's James Taranto's Best of the Web:

"They met online, where he called himself "Prince of Joy," and she called herself "Sweetie." Their real names were Sana and Adnan. "The pair [each] thought they had found a soulmate with whom to spend the rest of their lives," reports Metro.co.uk:

[They] poured their hearts out to each other over their marriage troubles. . . . Sana, 27, said: "I was suddenly in love. It was amazing, we seemed to be stuck in the same kind of miserable marriages. How right that turned out to be."

Finally they decided to meet in person, and they discovered that they were married to each other:

When it dawned on her what had happened, she said: "I felt so betrayed."

Adnan, 32, said: "I still find it hard to believe that Sweetie, who wrote such wonderful things, is actually the same woman I married and who has not said a nice word to me for years."

posted by maggie at 11:49 AM | link  

New Study: When A Kiss is Not Just a Kiss

Plus, breaking news: men and women are different! Story in the Hartford Courant.
posted by maggie at 11:40 AM | link  

TEEN GIRLS REPORT ABUSIVE BOYFRIENDS TRY TO GET THEM PREGNANT: Science Daily

...In a new qualitative clinical study published in the September-October issue of the journal Ambulatory Pediatrics, Miller and her research colleagues report that a quarter of the teenage girls interviewed for the study -- all of whom had histories of abusive relationships -- say their partners were actively trying to get them pregnant. The study is the first in the general adolescent health literature to document the role of abusive partners in promoting teen pregnancy. ...

Miller's study is based on interviews with 61 girls from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds with a known history of intimate partner violence living in the poorest neighborhoods in Boston. The analysis included 53 girls between the ages of 15 and 20 who reported being sexually active and involved in relationships that included recurring patterns of physical, sexual or emotional abuse from a male partner. Twenty-six percent of these girls reported that their partners were actively trying to get them pregnant by manipulating condom use, sabotaging birth control use and making explicit statements about wanting them to become pregnant.

more
posted by Eve at 3:34 PM | link  

Garden State Equality on Ocean Grove

Gay City News:

"Tax Break Denied to Jersey Anti-Gay Church By: ANDY HUMM
09/20/2007

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ruled on September 17 that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist group, is not entitled to tax breaks under the state's "Green Acres" program for its boardwalk pavilion because it is refusing equal access to the facility, specifically for holding gay and lesbian civil union ceremonies. Garden State Equality had asked that the tax breaks be revoked.

Steven Goldstein, chair of the gay rights group leading the fight for marriage equality in New Jersey, called it a "significant victory" from the administration of Democratic Governor Jon Corzine for "all in Ocean Grove."

Goldstein asked, "How much more hell will the Camp Meeting Association and its national right-wing backer put the good people of Ocean Grove through?"

He predicted the pavilion would be opened to civil unions, because it "is public property by virtue of being used by the public for decades"

posted by maggie at 2:17 PM | link  

No Comment

"MUNCIE, Ind. - Prosecutors have filed two misdemeanor charges against a former police officer who authorities say crashed a squad car while showing off for three female college students riding with him. . ."
posted by maggie at 2:08 PM | link  

German Politician Proposes Seven-Year Limit on Marriages

From "German politician proposes seven-year limit on marriages," AFP, September 20, 2007:

MUNICH, Germany (AFP) — A conservative German politician on Wednesday proposed making marriage contracts expire after seven years, with the option to renew for those not feeling the proverbial itch.

"I propose that marriages lapse after seven years," Gabriele Pauli told reporters in Munich, the capital of the largely Catholic southern state of Bavaria.

"This would mean that one will only commit for a fixed period and will actively have to renew your vows if you still want to continue."…

The proposal is part of her manifesto as she prepares to contest the leadership of Bavaria's governing party, the ultra-conservative Christian Social Union (CSU), next week.

posted by Imapp Staff at 9:07 AM | link  

IVF & DANISH FERTILITY: Stanley Kurtz

"It seems that an unusually high rate of resort to in-vitro fertilization (IVF) has been 'artificially' propping up Denmark’s fertility rate for some years now." (more)
posted by Eve at 5:47 PM | link  

KIDS, TAXES, & REPUBLICANS: Ramesh Ponnuru

...What would be a serious middle-class tax cut? One answer is to expand the tax credit for children. But none of the candidates is proposing to do so, or any other big tax relief for regular folks. You might think that Mr. Giuliani would want to do everything he can to appeal to social conservatives short of actually becoming one himself. But why should he offer a pro-family tax cut when even the hard-core social conservatives in the race aren’t interested? Mike Huckabee wants a national sales tax and Sam Brownback wants a flat tax. Either proposal would increase taxes on a lot of middle-class families.

The Republicans in Congress are no better. For much of the right, the great passion of the moment is to make sure that the carried interest at hedge funds is taxed at what look an awful lot like preferential rates. For years, liberals have said that Republicans talk about “family values” but won’t do anything to meet the economic needs of families. Right now, on taxes, that charge hits home.

Two ideological misconceptions underlie the party’s lack of imagination. First, Republicans worry that taking people off the income-tax rolls, as an expanded child credit would do, would make voters think big government is free and turn to the Democrats. But there’s no real evidence for this. Besides, parents are likely to be future-oriented voters, and they will realize that they will be paying higher taxes again once their children have grown up.

Second, Republicans believe, in general, that the tax code should generate its revenue in a way that does the least damage possible to the economy. So they seek tax reforms that cut taxes on investment returns and thereby increase economic growth. What they ignore is that we overtax investments in children, too. Parents make financial sacrifices to produce the next generation of taxpayers, who will pay for everyone’s retirements. Yet the tax code does too little to recognize parents’ investments.

more
posted by Eve at 5:44 PM | link  

Dobson Says He Won't Support Thompson

From "Dobson Says He Won't Support Thompson," AP, September 19, 2007:

DENVER (AP) — James Dobson, one of the nation's most politically influential evangelical Christians, made it clear in a message to friends this week he will not support Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson.

In a private e-mail obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, Dobson accuses the former Tennessee senator and actor of being weak on the campaign trail and wrong on issues dear to social conservatives.

"Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson wrote.

"He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"

The founder and chairman of Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, Dobson draws a radio audience in the millions, many of whom who first came to trust the child psychologist for his conservative Christian advice on child-rearing.

Gary Schneeberger, a Focus on the Family spokesman, confirmed that Dobson wrote the e-mail. Schneeberger declined to comment further, saying it would be inappropriate because Dobson's comments about presidential candidates are made as an individual and not as a representative of Focus on the Family, a nonprofit organization restricted from partisan politics...

posted by Imapp Staff at 9:17 AM | link  

New U.S. Census Bureau Data re. Marriage

Link to U.S. Census Bureau News Release: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/marital_status_living_arrangements/010624.html

From "25th Anniversary Mark Elusive for Many Couples," NYT, September 20, 2007:

…More than half the Americans who might have celebrated their 25th wedding anniversaries since 2000 were divorced, separated or widowed before reaching that milestone, according to the latest census survey, released yesterday….

But David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, a marriage research and advocacy group, said he was struck that the percentage of people who celebrated their 15th anniversary had declined. “This seems to be saying more recent marriages are more fragile,” Mr. Blankenhorn said.

About 80 percent of first marriages that took place in the late 1950s lasted at least 15 years. Among people who married in the late 1980s for the first time, however, only 61 percent of the men and 57 percent of the women were married 15 years later….

The survey by the Census Bureau, in 2004, confirmed that most Americans eventually marry, but they are marrying later and are slightly more likely to marry more than once...

posted by Imapp Staff at 9:00 AM | link  

New Poll: Harris Interactive on Social Issues/SSM

I don't know what I think about this kind of 'internet pool' survey. Its expertly weighted allegedly to make it nationally representative. But what if people who agree to join the Harris pool are just different from people who turn down that chance? In any case results are here.

Just 43 percent of Democrats support gay marriage (although that more than oppose it). In the intensity poll (strongly support/strongly oppose) overall Americans who strongly oppose gay marriage outnumber those who support it two to one. Yet I just got back from a panel in which a very smart man whom I respect explained that gay marriage is inevitable so the only thing we can do is try to prevent some of the religious liberty damages that will ensue by asking legislatures to provide generous exemptions.

On the other hand, youngsters are more socially conservative than their elders on most issues--except gay marriage.
posted by maggie at 10:33 PM | link  

More reaction to Maryland decision

“We’re pleased that the Maryland Court of Appeals did not allow the demands of advocates of homosexual behavior to be furthered in this case,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Chris Stovall. “The court appropriately ruled that the proper place for public policy is with the public and the policymakers, not the judiciary. It remains critical for voters not to be lulled to sleep by this victory. It is crucially important that Americans support state marriage amendments, and, ultimately, a federal marriage amendment.”

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: "Marriage between one man and one woman is rooted in American history and forms the foundation for stable families and prosperous communities. The Maryland court has sided with common sense and objective reality."

"I think history will hold them in contempt," plaintiff Lisa Polyak said of the judges. "To create a legal solution in a vacuum, that doesn't recognize that the constitution is there to support the people, is to create an ignorant and irrelevant solution."

Today's court decision will not deter us," said Dan Furmansky, Executive Director of Equality Maryland. "All lesbian and gay Marylanders, including the brave couples who petitioned the court in this case, need and deserve the protections and stability of marriage for our relationships and our families. It is now time for the General Assembly to honor Maryland's tradition of tolerance and justice, and to strike down the ban on marriage for same-sex couples."
posted by Margaret at 10:57 AM | link  

News report on Maryland decision

From the Washington Post

Maryland's highest court yesterday upheld a 34-year-old state law banning same-sex marriage, rejecting an attempt by 19 gay men and lesbians to win the right to marry.
In reversing a lower court's decision, the divided Court of Appeals ruled that limiting marriage to a man and a woman does not discriminate against gay couples or deny them constitutional rights. Although the judges acknowledged that gay men and lesbians have been targets of discrimination, they said the prohibition on same-sex marriage promotes the state's interest in heterosexual marriage as a means of having and protecting children.

posted by Margaret at 10:42 AM | link  

Reaction to Maryland Decision

William Eskridge will be online at the Washington Post at 12:15 ET to discuss MD decision: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/18/DI2007091801050.html

See Dale Carpenter on MD decision: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_09_16-2007_09_22.shtml#1190149576
posted by maggie at 9:50 AM | link  

Mitt Romney’s New Iowa SSM Radio Ad:

Mitt Romney’s New Iowa SSM Radio Ad (via NYT The Caucus, September 18, 2007):

ANNOUNCER: “In 2004, a judge in Massachusetts tipped the balance – paving the way to same-sex marriage for the first time in history.

“But the Governor of Massachusetts stood up, defending conservative values in our most liberal state.

“Governor Mitt Romney – he stood up for traditional marriage and fought the activist ruling every step.”

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: “The courtroom should be a place where laws are interpreted, not made.”

ANNOUNCER: “Now, Mitt Romney is standing up for traditional marriage in Iowa, opposing the Polk County decision to permit same-sex marriage.”

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: “The court ruling in Iowa is just another example of an activist judge trying to find things in the Constitution that aren’t there. As Republicans, we must oppose discrimination and defend traditional marriage: one man, one woman.”

ANNOUNCER: “That’s why Mitt Romney is supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution.”

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: “Not all Republican candidates for president agree, but defending marriage is the right thing to do.”

ANNOUNCER: “Mitt Romney.”

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: “I’m Mitt Romney and I approved this message.”

ANNOUNCER: “Paid for by Romney For President. MittRomney.com.”

posted by Imapp Staff at 9:40 AM | link  

Maryland Decision

The Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state’s highest court) today issued a decision in a case brought by nine same-sex couples and others challenging the state’s definition of marriage. A trial court had ruled that the marriage law was a form of sex discrimination but today’s decision reversed that ruling. The majority in today’s decision consisted of four justices, two of whom had retired but were recalled to participate in the decision.

As to the sex discrimination argument, today’s majority said that the state’s Equal Rights Amendment was intended only to end discrimination against men or women as a class and “to remedy the long history of subordination of women in this country.” Since the marriage laws “do not separate men and women into discrete classes for the purpose of granting to one class of persons benefits at the expense of the other class” and the statute does not “place men and women on an uneven playing field” it is not sex discrimination.

The court then ruled on whether a sexual orientation classification should require the court to subject the marriage law to more exacting scrutiny. The court noted the prejudice and legal disabilities experienced by gays and lesbians but pointed out that they are not politically powerless, having experienced a number of legislative gains in past years. The court also said it could not assume “that gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons display readily recognizable, immutable characteristics that define the group” based on “the scientific and sociological evidence currently available to the public.”

The majority next rejected the idea “that a right to same-sex marriage has taken hold to the point that it is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty or deeply rooted in history and tradition of Maryland.” In fact, the court noted that previous cases recognizing a fundamental right to marry “infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species.” In fact, the court said that virtually all of the cases “indicate[] as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”

In terms of the justifications for the current marriage law, the court ruled “fostering procreation is a legitimate government interest” and the “‘inextricable link’ between marriage and procreation reasonably could support the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only, because it is that relationship that is capable of producing biological offspring of both members (advances in reproductive technologies notwithstanding).” The court held “the fundamental right to marriage and its ensuing benefits are conferred on opposite-sex couples not because of a distinction between whether various opposite-sex couples actually procreate, but rather because of the possibility of procreation.”

One justice agreed that the definition of marriage might be justifiable but would have endorsed the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision that the benefits of marriage must be given to same-sex couples.

Two justices dissented, the first endorsing an absolute reading of the state Equal Rights Amendment (if sex is even mentioned, the law should be presumed unconstitutional) and the second endorsing a dissenting opinion in the New York marriage case.
posted by William Duncan at 4:09 PM | link  

Breaking News: MD supreme court Upholds Marriage

Opinion here. (the Court of Appeals is the highest state court).
posted by maggie at 11:43 AM | link  

NJ Group Loses Tax Break Over Gay Union Issue

From "Group Loses Tax Break Over Gay Union Issue," NYT, September 18, 2007:

A boardwalk pavilion in the seaside town of Ocean Grove, N.J., that has been at the center of a battle over gay civil union ceremonies has lost its tax-exempt status because the state ruled it no longer met the requirements as a place open to all members of the public.

In a letter to the administrator of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization that owns the pavilion property, the state commissioner of environmental protection, Lisa Jackson, declined to recertify the pavilion as eligible for a real estate tax exemption it has enjoyed since 1989 under the state’s Green Acres Program, but did renew the tax-exempt status of the rest of the boardwalk and the beach, also owned by the association.

The issue arose after the association, which has owned the land, the beach and 1,000 feet of the sea itself since 1870, rejected the requests of two lesbian couples to have their civil union ceremonies at the Boardwalk Pavilion...

posted by Imapp Staff at 10:03 AM | link  

New Book: "A Nation of Bastards"

McGill Prof. Douglas Farrow has a new book out, A Nation of Bastards: Essays on the End of Marriage. I have not yet read it, but Amazon says this:

"Erudite and impassioned - an act of faith and of resistance to the insidious claims of the post-Christian and post-liberal state."
F. C. Decoste, Professor of Law, University of Alberta

A brilliant exposé of the implications of same-sex marriage - and a compelling analysis of what it will take for society to reclaim the birthright of freedom it has lost in a reckless social experiment.

To some, same-sex marriage is evidence that society has finally come of age. To others, it is yesterday's issue, posing no danger to traditional marriage. To still others - McGill University's Douglas Farrow among them - it has turned civil society on its ear, creating a new political situation in which several things are no longer clear:

. Is the state the property of the citizenry? Or are citizens, with their cherished personal associations, including marriage, now the property of the state?

. Who "owns" the children, now that natural parenthood had been replaced by legal parenthood?

. Is the family still "the natural and fundamental group unit of society," as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights claims? Or is the concept of the "natural" moribund?

. What is marriage for, anyway?

Douglas Farrow is associate professor of Christian Thought at McGill University in Montreal. He is the editor of Recognizing Religion in a Secular Society and co-editor, with Daniel Cere, of Divorcing Marriage

posted by maggie at 5:21 PM | link  

Believe It or Not!

From "The greedy marriage," BOSTON GLOBE, September 16, 2007:

[T]wo Massachusetts sociologists say…marriage can be greedy...Analyzing two nationwide social surveys [in a paper called "Marriage: the Good, the Bad, and the Greedy"], they found that married couples spend less time than singles calling, writing, and visiting with their friends, neighbors, and extended family. According to their research, married people are also less likely to give friends and neighbors emotional support and practical help, such as with household chores.

[The research of Naomi Gerstel of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Natalia Sarkisian of Boston College] flies in the face of recent academic studies and political speeches arguing that marriage is the endangered cornerstone of a healthy society, benefiting the mental, physical, and financial well-being of children and adults, and, ultimately, their fellow citizens. They argue that marriage may actually, albeit unwittingly, have just the opposite effect - sapping the strength of American communities and diminishing our ability to think and act for the common good.

posted by Imapp Staff at 10:43 AM | link  

New Study: Interfaith Marriages and Child Well Being

RICHARD J. PETTS, CHRIS KNOESTER (2007)
Parents' Religious Heterogamy and Children's Well-Being
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46 (3), 373–389.

"This study considers the impact of having parents of dissimilar faiths on children's well-being. Using data from the National Survey of Families and Households . . . we find evidence that religious heterogamy is positively associated with marital conflict and negatively associated with religious participation. Second, our results suggest that children with religiously heterogamous parents are more likely to engage in marijuana use and underage drinking than children with religiously homogamous parents. . . . or grades in school."
posted by maggie at 8:58 PM | link