Romney Speaks on SSM at FRC Values Voter Summit

From Governor Mitt Romney's Address to the Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit, Friday, Oct 19, 2007, As Prepared For Delivery, mittromney.com:

...I will work with the people in this room, as I have for the past four years, to champion a federal marriage amendment to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Within months of taking office as governor, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court got the gay marriage ball rolling. They said it was in our state Constitution. John Adams, who wrote it, would be surprised. It was not in our Constitution, but it was in the heads of a one vote majority on the bench to birth new law without the benefit of democracy.

The Court's error I believe was that it focused on adult rights – if heterosexual couples can marry, it reasoned, then to have equal rights, homosexual couples should also be able to marry. But they forgot that one of the primary purposes of marriage is the development and nurturing of children. Every child deserves a mother and a father.

The Court's opinion is as astonishing as its ruling. It said that traditional marriage between a man and a woman 'works a deep and scarring hardship...for no rational reason.' No rational reason? How about the strength and preservation of our civilization?

And this is no longer just a Massachusetts issue. As recently as a few months ago, a judge in Iowa said that gay couples have the right to marry because current marriage law 'operates ONLY to harm same sex couples and their children.' Astonishing.

After the ruling in Massachusetts, I testified in Washington in favor of a federal marriage amendment. I wrote every Republican U.S. Senator to support it. But even some of our own voted against it. Make no mistake: a federal amendment is the only way we can protect marriage from liberal, unelected judges...

posted by Imapp Staff at 9:39 AM | link  

The Epidemic of Fatherlessness in Black Families

From "Tough, Sad and Smart" by Bob Herbert, NY Times Op-Ed Columnist, October 16, 2007:

...For three years, [the veteran comedian Bill] Cosby and [Harvard professor of psychiatry Dr. Alvin] Poussaint have been traveling the country, meeting with as many people as possible to explore the problems facing the black community...

Speaking about the epidemic of fatherlessness in black families, Mr. Cosby imagined a young fatherless child thinking: “Somewhere in my life a person called my father has not shown up, and I feel very sad about this because I don’t know if I’m ugly — I don’t know what the reason is.”

Dr. Poussaint, referring to boys who get into trouble, added: “I think a lot of these males kind of have a father hunger and actually grieve that they don’t have a father. And I think later a lot of that turns into anger. ‘Why aren’t you with me? Why don’t you care about me?’ ”

The absence of fathers, and the resultant feelings of abandonment felt by boys and girls, inevitably affect the children’s sense of self-worth, he said...

The most important step toward ending the tragic cycles of violence and poverty among African-Americans also happens to be the heaviest lift — reconnecting black fathers to their children...

posted by Imapp Staff at 9:15 AM | link  

WHO'S YOUR DADDY?: Cecil Adams/The Straight Dope

Is it true 10-15% of children in modern society were not sired by their putative fathers?
posted by Eve at 12:35 AM | link  

Gays Differ on Marriage Fight

From "Gays differ on marriage fight" by Michael K. Lavers, gay.com:

As lawmakers on both coasts debate marriage rights for same-sex couples, the issue stands at the top of many LGBT activists' agendas. But not all. Some say this focus on same-sex marriage actually works against their advocacy on other queer issues.

Queers for Economic Justice Executive Director Joseph DeFilippis is critical of the recent focus on gay marriage. His New York-based nonprofit seeks more affordable housing, access to health care, employment and education for economically disadvantaged LGBT New Yorkers.

"The movement for gay marriage has been a disaster," DeFilippis said..."We have a much broader and exciting and creative vision for our families than reflected in the narrow marriage rights movement."...

A small but significant faction of LGBT activists has questioned the efficacy of focusing on marriage. More than 250 leaders across the country urged gays and lesbians to look beyond marriage equality in the statement, "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for Our Families & Relationships," released in July 2006. DeFilippis says activists should focus their time and resources on access to health care and other efforts he concludes would generate more tangible results.

"These are more winnable fights than this one has turned out to be," he said...

posted by Imapp Staff at 9:29 AM | link  

ONE BY ONE, THE SEATS WERE EMPTY: Gabriel Rossman

on countries without cousins:
...In the near future, the only intra-generational tie a Chinese man is likely to have is marriage (and that only if he’s lucky, given the 1.3 sex ratio). But this marriage will not link him to any brother- or sister-in-laws and is a dead-end as far as the intra-generational kin network goes. So in the very near future, within any given generation, familial ties among the Chinese will consist entirely of isolates and dyads. ...

...Spaniards may have even fewer babies that the Chinese, but paradoxically a Spanish baby is more likely to have a sibling than is a Chinese baby. The upshot is that while intra-generational family ties are going to disappear in China, they will only weaken (a lot) in Europe. More technically, I’m making a confident prediction that in 30 years mean component size for kin networks will be appreciably higher in Spain or Italy than in China.

Well, so what? Who needs brothers, sisters, brother-in-laws, sister-in-laws, nieces, nephews, and cousins? It’s not as if we can’t substitute non-familial friends. There are two problems with this. First, family ties are unique in that they can’t be replaced (you can stop talking to your brother, but you can’t recruit a new brother to replace him) and this makes them very important in low trust societies. It could be that a lack of relatives could drive people to trust strangers of necessity and you’ll have a decline in corruption, or it could be that they just won’t trust anyone, transaction costs will go way up, and nothing will get done.

Second, in the United States non-kin strong ties are rapidly disappearing as people are basically discussing serious issues only with their spouses and parents. While I’ve seen no evidence that this change is also occurring in low fertility countries, if it is then the “mass society” nightmare scenario of atomized individuals wasn’t wrong, just ahead of its time.

more

lyrics to "Will the Circle Be Unbroken?" here
posted by Eve at 10:14 PM | link  

Tying the Knot Behind Bars

From "Gay inmates to tie the knot in Quebec pen," CanWest News Service, October 16, 2007:

...Two gay prison inmates at the federal penitentiary in Cowansville, Que., 60 kilometres southeast of Montreal, will tie the knot in the institution's first gay marriage on Oct. 29.

It will be Canada's third gay wedding in a federal institution, according to Corrections Canada, following a 2006 wedding in Ontario and another in Alberta this year...

David Bedard, 22, is serving a 10 year sentence for involuntary manslaughter while his partner Sony Martin, 26, is serving a life sentence for second-degree murder and is ineligible for parole before 2020...

"The fact that they are getting married does not grant them any privileges, they will remain in their respective cell blocks and won't benefit from private family (conjugal) visits," [said Lucette L'Esperance, assistant warden at the institution]...

posted by Imapp Staff at 9:02 AM | link  

New Study: Babies Suffer if Maternity Leaves Cut Short

From the Sept. 5, 2007 National Post, a Canadian study " BABY PAYS IF LEAVE TOO BRIEF: STUDY Returning To Work Quickly May Risk Child's Development":

"Women who rush back to work after giving birth may do so at their baby's peril, suggests a new Canadian study that fuels the emotional debate over career versus parenthood.

The less time a new mother stays off the job, the more likely her child's motor and social development will be impaired, University of British Columbia researchers concluded.

The analysis of federal survey data underlines the importance of government-funded maternity leaves, but does not mean mothers should avoid work outside the home, says Dr. Rebecca Sherlock, the neonatology specialist at the BC Children's and Women's Health Centre who spearheaded the research. . .

Dr. Sherlock, also training as an epidemiologist, admitted she conducted the study in part out of self-interest.

Dr. Sherlock had just had two children of her own, took relatively little time off work afterward and expected the research to confirm that the length of maternity leave has no bearing on childhood development.

She said she was so surprised by the findings that she rechecked the statistical analysis several times to be sure the results were sound. . .

For her study, Dr. Sherlock analyzed data on more than 6,000 families with young children, gathered between 1998 and 1999 by the Canadian National Longitudinal Survey on Children and Youth. The information included length of maternity leave and answers to questions about the children's development at different stages, such as whether they could sit up at nine months old.

She compared the children's score on a scale that measures social and motor development with the maternity leave length.

The less time the mother spent off work, the more likely the child would have a developmental impairment -- meaning their motor or social skills were clearly below where they should be at that age. The chance of impairment dropped by 3% with each extra month of leave. There was no link to development impairments for mothers who took at least 24 months off, the study found.

In Canada, the federal government offers 15 weeks of maternity leave benefits and another 35 weeks of parental leave benefits that can be used by either the father or mother. . ."

posted by maggie at 3:07 PM | link  

The Power of the Family Meal

From "The Family Meal Is What Counts, TV On or Off," NY Times, October 16, 2007:

…[Research] published this month in The Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior...is the latest testament to the power of the family meal. While many parents worry about what their kids are eating — vegetables versus junk — a voluminous body of research suggests that the best strategy for improving a child’s diet is simply putting food on the table and sitting down together to eat it.

The importance of the family meal has been shown mainly in studies from the University of Minnesota, Harvard and Rutgers that have looked at family eating habits of nearly 40,000 middle-school students and teenagers. The research has shown that those who regularly have meals with their parents eat more fruits, vegetables and calcium-rich foods, ingest more vitamins and nutrients, and consume less junk food. Some of the research has shown that kids who regularly sit down to a family meal are at lower risk for behaviors like smoking and drug and alcohol use…

[In the latest study, girls] who dined alone ate fewer fruits, vegetables and calcium-rich foods and more soft drinks and snack foods than girls who ate with their parents. And girls who ate with their parents ate more calories — up to 14 percent more, suggesting that dining alone puts girls at higher risk for eating disorders. Boys who didn’t eat with their parents had fewer vegetables and calcium-rich foods than family diners.

The lesson for parents, say the study authors, is that being together at dinner is what counts…

The key…is togetherness, not timing. A family that is scattered at the dinner hour might be able to meet regularly for breakfast instead. And even adding one or two more family meals to the week is better than nothing. “I would put the emphasis on just looking at where your family is now and seeing what you can do to improve,” Dr. Neumark-Sztainer [who has led much of the Minnesota research] said. “I think many people just don’t realize how important the family meal really is.”

posted by Imapp Staff at 9:55 AM | link  

UK Divorces Fall to Their Lowest Level in 30 Years…Because Fewer People Are Marrying

From "Divorces fall to their lowest level in 30 years ... because fewer people are marrying," Daily Mail (UK), October 12, 2007:

The number of couples getting divorced is at its lowest level for nearly 30 years...

There were fewer than 133,000 divorces last year, a 6 per cent fall on 2005 and the lowest number since the mid-1970s.

One reason for the decline is that fewer people are marrying.

Only around half of women now have a husband and the ranks of cohabiting couples have grown by twothirds in a decade.

But the figures also show that those who do tie the knot are more likely to stick together.

Last year, the divorce rate fell to 12.2 in every 1,000 couples, the lowest since 1984, according to the Office for National Statistics.

In 2005, the figure stood at 13.1 in every 1,000 couples.

The divorce count follows the publication last week of an ONS analysis of family life which acknowledged that married couples tend to be better off, enjoy better health and have better-educated children.

The report said: "There are benefits in partnership, particularly marriage."...

posted by Imapp Staff at 9:36 AM | link  

16,000 Gay Couples 'Married' In First Year of New UK Law

From "16,000 gay couples 'married' in first year of new law," Daily Mail (UK), October 11, 2007:

More than 16,000 gay weddings took place in Britain last year…

A National Statistics study shows that in the first full year since civil partnerships were introduced, 16,106 same-sex marriages were registered…

The figures indicate the Government's introduction of civil partnerships in December 2005 was a popular move.

Nearly 2,000 gay weddings took place in the first month after the new law came in and more than 4,000 partnerships were registered in each of the first three quarters of last year…

posted by Imapp Staff at 9:29 AM | link  

A TALE OF TWO TOWN HOUSES: Virginia Postrel

...Dallas and Los Angeles represent two distinct models for successful American cities, which both reflect and reinforce different cultural and political attitudes. One model fosters a family-oriented, middle-class lifestyle—the proverbial home-centered “balanced life.” The other rewards highly productive, work-driven people with a yen for stimulating public activities, for arts venues, world-class universities, luxury shopping, restaurants that aren’t kid-friendly. One makes room for a wide range of incomes, offering most working people a comfortable life. The other, over time, becomes an enclave for the rich. Since day-to-day experience shapes people’s sense of what is typical and normal, these differences in turn lead to contrasting perceptions of economic and social reality. It’s easy to believe the middle class is vanishing when you live in Los Angeles, much harder in Dallas. These differences also reinforce different norms and values—different ideas of what it means to live a good life. Real estate may be as important as religion in explaining the infamous gap between red and blue states.

The Dallas model, prominent in the South and Southwest, sees a growing population as a sign of urban health. Cities liberally permit housing construction to accommodate new residents. The Los Angeles model, common on the West Coast and in the Northeast Corridor, discourages growth by limiting new housing. Instead of inviting newcomers, this approach rewards longtime residents with big capital gains and the political clout to block projects they don’t like.

The direct results of these strategies are predictable: cheap, plentiful housing in some places, and expensive, scarce housing in others.

more
posted by Eve at 12:25 AM | link  

Mr. & Mrs. Science

From "Forecast: Sex and Marriage With Robots by 2050," FOXNews.com, October 15, 2007:

Humans could marry robots within the century. And consummate those vows…

"One hundred years ago, interracial marriage and same-sex marriages were illegal in the United States. Interracial marriage has been legal now for 50 years, and same-sex marriage is legal in some parts of the states," [artificial intelligence researcher David Levy at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands told LiveScience]. "There has been this trend in marriage where each partner gets to make their own choice of who they want to be with."…

Levy recently completed his Ph.D. work on the subject of human-robot relationships…

"My forecast is that around 2050, the state of Massachusetts will be the first jurisdiction to legalize marriages with robots," [Levy said]…

"Massachusetts is more liberal than most other jurisdictions in the United States and has been at the forefront of same-sex marriage...There's also a lot of high-tech research there at places like MIT."…

posted by Imapp Staff at 9:07 AM | link  

Schwarzenegger Vetoes Gay Marriage

From "Schwarzenegger Vetoes Gay Marriage," AP, October 13, 2007:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed another gay marriage bill Friday, saying voters and the state Supreme Court, not lawmakers, should decide the issue.

The Republican governor turned down a measure by Assemblyman Mark Leno that would have defined marriage as a union between two people, not just a man and a woman. Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill from Leno, a San Francisco Democrat, in 2005 and has said he would veto all such bills…

Schwarzenegger said in his veto message that Californians "should not be discriminated against based upon their sexual orientation." He said he supports state laws that give domestic partners many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage…

posted by Imapp Staff at 9:04 AM | link  

UK Labour Party to Promote Traditional Family?

From "Minister hints at tax reforms for marriage," Daily Telegraph (UK), October 13, 2007:

Labour today signals a major shift in policy as a cabinet minister calls for married couples to get tax incentives from the Government in recognition of the benefits their children and society gain as a result of the union.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Andy Burnham, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, says there is a "moral case" for promoting the traditional family through the tax system. "I think marriage is best for kids," he says. "It’s not wrong that the tax system should recognise commitment and marriage."

His comments will be seen as a sign that Gordon Brown intends to seize another area of policy from David Cameron, following his raids on Tory proposals for cutting inheritance tax, penalising non-domiciled workers and introducing a flight levy.

The Conservative leader has promised to put support for marriage and the family at the heart of his manifesto for the next general election…

Mr Burnham, who is married with three children, stresses that he is not "judgmental" about single parents, divorced people or cohabiting couples. He lived with his partner before getting married and his first child attended his wedding.

"I don’t seek to preach to anybody," he says. "But in an abstract way I think it’s better when children are in a home where their parents are married and I think children do notice if their parents are married or not."

The tax system should, he adds, "recognise" the benefits of marriage for the good for society. "There’s sometimes a metropolitan myth that Labour people are all a bit liberal," he says. "I don’t think the Tories should have a monopoly on this kind of thinking…. This is totally where Gordon is coming from, your roots and your family are everything."

posted by Imapp Staff at 9:26 AM | link  

Study: Girls More Cooperative

Women, actually, in a "prisoner's dilemma" type-game known as "the Snowdrift game."
posted by maggie at 7:05 AM | link