Category archives: Marriage

To Rebuild Society, We Should Rethink our Foundation

by MARRI

February 17, 2012

Social repair requires sociological thinking, says David Brooks, in his February 13th New York Times column. Sociological data consistently has revealed the significant role the intact family can have in reweaving the disintegrating social fabric. However, sociological thinking must be done within the correct paradigm. Patrick Fagan, director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute, states that Sociology done well cannot but reflect the way God made man. A correct anthropology in light of our state as fallen creatures must inform attempts at social repair. Sociology is reflective, but cannot be fundamentally reparative. Repair begins with grace from outside us that constrains our passions and reorders our will to what is good. The family is one means of such grace and the data cannot help but reflect the goodness of this first structure.

Click here to learn more.

Barack Obama, Gentleman

by Rob Schwarzwalder

February 14, 2012

So, Barack Obama urged the men of America - he called them “gentlemen,” specifically - to “go big” on Valentine’s Day. He said he speaks from experience that it is unwise to forget.

Good counsel. Yet why did this man whose views on marriage are “evolving” (read that, becoming ever more sympathetic to homosexual unions) not include “ladies” in his exhortation?

Perhaps because it is only normal for a man to think of traditional marriage when he talks about Valentine’s Day. The husband and the wife, the boy and the girl: Heterosexual romance is what comes to mind when one thinks heart-shaped candy boxes or red roses sent with a private note.

As a man married for three decades, I appreciated the President’s charge. Yet in it was a subtle reminder of what we all know, intuitively: Love is something to be shared by a man and a woman.

Mr. Obama’s call to remember that gallantry, affection, and initiative are qualities a man should possess, and direct toward the female love of his life, likely was unintentional. Still, it was welcome.

Ninth Circuit Marriage Decision: Take This JokePlease.

by Peter Sprigg

February 13, 2012

In the past, there has been controversy about American courts using foreign court decisions as an argument in favor of a particular decision.

But what about using jokes?

Thats exactly what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did last week. In support of their ruling that adoption of Californias marriage amendment, Proposition 8, violated the Constitution, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the 2-1 majority in the case, consulted such eminent jurists as Shakespeare, Lincoln, Sinatra, and Marx. Groucho Marx, that is. Oh, and dont forget Monroe. Not James, the president, but Marilyn, the movie star.

These sources were cited by Judge Reinhardt to illustrate the social importance of marriage. He declared, We need consider only the many ways in which we encounter the word marriage in our daily lives and understand it, consciously or not, to convey a sense of significance. He proves the point with this passage:

Groucho Marxs one-liner, Marriage is a wonderful institution … but who wants to live in an institution? would lack its punch if the word marriage were replaced with the alternative phrase. So too with Shakespeares A young man married is a man thats marrd, Lincolns Marriage is neither heaven nor hell, it is simply purgatory, and Sinatras A man doesnt know what happiness is until hes married. By then its too late… . Had Marilyn Monroes film been called How to Register a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire, it would not have conveyed the same meaning as did her famous movie … .

I wonder if it never occurred to Judge Reinhardt that quoting jokes might be taken as a less-than-serious way of arguing that amending the California constitution violates the Constitution of the United States. I also wonder if it even occurred to him that the four jokes he quoted were all ones denigrating marriage. They might make a reader puzzled as to why homosexuals are so desperate to redefine the institution in order to live in it.

In any case conservatives can legitimately say that Judge Reinhardts decision was a joke. The proof is right there, in Section V.B.

A Wise Verdict for One Man, One Woman Marriage

by Peter Sprigg

February 1, 2012

Legislation to change the definition of marriage abolishing the one man, one woman definition codified only 14 years ago is now working its way through the Washington State Legislature.

There is little doubt that the legislature has the power to engage in such social engineering if it chooses to do so. Such official affirmation of homosexual conduct would be a way for politicians to appease the two to three percent of the population who self-identify as gay or lesbian and placate others who do not grasp the implications of this massive social change.

But same-sex marriage is not being sold as a political payoff, or even (primarily) as a social service providing a package of legal and financial benefits to this population. Instead, advocates of redefining marriage argue that a belief in civil rights and equality actually compel such a radical redefinition of our most fundamental social institution.

Yet it was only six years ago that the states Supreme Court, in the case of Andersen v. King County, rejected such arguments in upholding the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act.

Justice (now Chief Justice) Barbara Madsen pointed out in her majority opinion that while the U. S. Supreme Court has declared marriage to be a fundamental right, it has done so only in the context of marriages between a man and a woman, since they relate to procreation and the survival of the human race.

In his concurrence, Justice James M. Johnson noted that the only inequality in the current law is between different types of couples, not individuals. Professed homosexuals, like all Washingtonians, are clearly allowed to marry in Washington. Yet all individuals also face limits on their choice of marriage partner: A person may not marry someone under age 17, may not marry if already married, may not marry a close relative, and may not marry if the parties are persons other than a male and a female. The last prohibition, like the bigamy/polygamy prohibition, is definitional.

There is no question that opposite-sex couples are unique; as Justice Madsen noted, [N]o other relationship has the potential to create, without third party involvement, a child biologically related to both parents. The link between marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couples willingness or ability to procreate, nor by the fact that some same-sex couples raise children; Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis for treating opposite-sex couples uniquely.

Marriage serves not only to encourage the potentially procreative relationships of opposite-sex couples, but also to regulate them. Justice Madsen quoted a 2005 Indiana court decision which noted that procreation is sometimes accidental: [The] institution of opposite-sex marriage both encourages such couples to enter into a stable relationship before having children and to remain in such a relationship if children arrive during the marriage unexpectedly.

Not only are opposite-sex couples the only ones capable of natural procreation, but they also provide the best environment for child-rearing. As Justice Johnson wrote: The legislature was offered evidence that children tend to thrive best in families consisting of mothers, fathers, and their biological children. … Direct comparisons between opposite-sex homes and same-sex homes further support the former as a better environment for children. For example, studies show an average shorter term commitment and more sexual partners for same-sex couples.

Advocates of same-sex marriage regularly confuse one of the personal reasons why individual couples choose to marry to express love and commitment with the public purposes of marriage as a social institution. Justice Madsen was blunt in noting that the right to marry is not grounded in the States interest in promoting loving, committed relationships. While desirable, nowhere in any marriage statute of this state has the legislature expressed this goal.

Some people argue that other changes in the institution of marriage, as well as technologies which have separated sexual relations from procreation, mean that the historic definition of marriage can be abandoned. But as Justice Johnson noted, quoting a brief submitted by Families Northwest, [W]idespread contraceptive and abortion rights may actually make more salient, not less, the traditional role of marriage in encouraging men and women to make the next generation that society needs. The more … choice individuals have about whether or not to have children, the more need there is for a social institution that encourages men and women to have babies together, and creates the conditions under which those children are likely to get the best care.

In 2006, Justice Madsen said for the court, We conclude that limiting marriage to opposite sex-couples furthers the States interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both.

The legislature would be wise to conclude the same today.

Is Marriage Even Relevant Anymore?

by Family Research Council

September 28, 2011

A recent Relevant magazine piece entitled (Almost) Everyones Doing it reveals that young adults ages 18-29 are having pre-marital sex more often than not. According to a 2009 survey by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 88% of all young adults have had sex before marriage. What should be shocking is that 80% of all self-identified Evangelical young adults have done the same.

Dont Christians understand the Bible on this issue? According to a Gallup poll quoted by Relevant, 76% of Evangelicals have a clear Biblical understanding on this issue. Or, to reverse the data, 24% of Evangelicals are alright with premarital sex.

Is the data really shocking though? In a world where nothing is sacred, and where what used to be considered sacred is now fodder for ridicule via every form of entertainment and media, why should the sanctity of marriage be considered any different? Young adults have grown up in an MTV world, where sexuality is glorified in television shows like Skins and where one cannot buy groceries without being confronted by magazine covers taunting chastity.

One professor quoted by Relevant says that a major sociological difference that contributes to (but does not excuse) the growing statistic of pre-marital sex is the average age of marriage. He compares Biblical arranged marriages of early adolescents to the current average ages of 28.1 for men and 26.1 for women. I posit that this temptation is not a modern one: Paul addresses it in 1 Cor. 7:8-9. Instead, it can be argued that adults ages 18-29 have grown up in an instant gratification society, where patience is no longer a virtue. This is even understood and glorified by secular society, as exemplified by the Black Eyed Peas song Now Generation with lyrics like I just cant wait, I need it immediately.

Merge the two contributing factors of an over-sexualized society, along with a generation craving instant gratification, and it is no surprise that young adults are engaging in pre-marital sex more than ever. What we need is an Evangelical culture that not only volitionally is against pre-marital sex, but practices what is preached. The church needs to restore that which is sacred, encourage young adults to stay pure, and exemplify purity to the secular world. Eighty percent of young Evangelicals is eighty percent too much.

PART 2Prop 8 Trial Transcript in the Spotlight: Plaintiff Destroys Born Gay, Cant Change Myth

by Peter Sprigg

September 19, 2011

This is Part 2 of a 2-part blog post based on the transcript of the Proposition 8 trial—the legal challenge to the state constitutional amendment, adopted by California voters in 2008, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Today (Monday, September 19), Broadway will be the scene of a star-studded staged reading of a new play—one based on the transcript of the trial in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now known as Perry v. Brown). The unprecedented trial, presided over by the (then closeted, now out) homosexual judge Vaughn Walker, resulted in Walkers opinion in August 2010 declaring that the male-female definition of marriage violates the U. S. Constitution. The ruling is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit.

Yet the testimony of one of the actual plaintiffs in the case, Sandra Stier, undermines the argument by same-sex marriage advocates that gay people are denied the fundamental right to marry just because of who they are. It also directly contradicts Judge Walkers finding of fact number 51: Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals. In fact, Stiers testimony undermines two of the most fundamental premises of the entire homosexual movement—the claims that people are born gay, and that a persons sexual orientation can never change.

Stier testified that she was married—to a man—for twelve years, and had two biological children with him. Even more startling is her admission that she did not learn that she was a lesbian until she was in her mid-thirties.

Part 1 of this post featured the beginning of attorney Ted Olsons direct examination of Stier, dealing with her marriage to her husband.

This, Part 2, features Stiers testimony about her relationship with her current lesbian partner, Kristin Perry.

Stiers testimony appears in bold; [my editorial comments are in bracket and italics].

 

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

TrialDay 1

1/11/2010 9:00:00 AM

 

Transcript pp. 163-167

… .

 

Q. When did you meet Ms. Perry?

A. I met Kris around 1996.

Q. And how did your relationship with her develop? And go ahead.

A. Well, when I first met Kris, of course, I hadn’t known her previously. I was teaching a computer class and she was a student in my class. So I just sort of knew of her, but then we started working together on projects at work and ended up being coworkers and became fast friends quite quickly. And we were friends for quite some time and I began to realize that the feelings I had for her were really unique and different from friends, feelings I normally had towards friends. And they were absolutely taking over my thoughts and my — sort of my entire self. And I grew to realize I had a very strong attraction to her and, indeed, I was falling in love with her.

Q. And tell us when you realized finally that you had fallen in love with her?

A. I really — I realized that in 1999, early in the year.

[Other anecdotal accounts of lesbian relationships suggest that this pattern is fairly typicalthey begin as friendships which grow more and more intimate emotionally, and only at the end become sexual. She does not report that she looked at her partner and immediatelyor even quicklyfelt a strong sexual attraction to her. Again, this undermines the claim that all lesbians have an innate orientation which makes them sexually attracted to women in general.]

Q. Did your falling in love with Kris have anything to do with the dissolution of your marriage?

A. My marriage was troubled on many fronts and had been in a very, very difficult state. And the end of my marriage was precipitated by my own extreme unhappiness, my ex-husband’s severe problems with alcohol and his inability to provide the type of support as a husband and a family person that I had to have.

[Since Stier realized in 1999, early in the year that she was in love with Kristin Perry, and her marriage also ended in 1999, it is somewhat difficult to give credence to this denial, whatever difficulties her husband may have had. Advocates of same-sex marriage often ask, What harm could same-sex marriage do to your marriage? In the case of Stiers marriage, it appears that societys growing acceptance of homosexual relationships may have made it easier for her to leave her husband. If same-sex marriage were legalized, and it were possible to go directly from a heterosexual marriage to a homosexual one, the incentive to break up the first marriage might be even greater. Thisthe breakup of some existing opposite-sex marriagesis a potential harm of same-sex marriage which is very real. However, it is impossible to predict in advance who will experience it.]

Q. Did your sexual orientation or your discovery of your sexual orientation have anything to do with the dissolution of that marriage?

A. No, it did not.

[Again, this is a fascinating admission. It would seem more consistent with typical homosexual propaganda for her to say, as noted above, I realized I was living a lie, or I decided it was time to be who I really am.

Judge Walker supported his Finding 51 with testimony from a witness who stated:

Some gay men and lesbians have married members of the opposite sex, but many of those marriages dissolve, and some of them experience considerable problems simply because one of the partners is gay or lesbian. A gay or lesbian person marrying a person of the opposite sex is likely to create a great deal of conflict and tension in the relationship.

Yet Sandra Stiers testimony clearly does not support this theory. She states flatly that her discovery of [her] sexual orientation did not have anything to do with the dissolution of that marriage. The implication seems to be that if her husband had not had severe problems with alcohol and had been able to provide the type of support as a husband and a family person that she needed; and if she had not met and fallen in love with Kristin Perry; she might well have remained married to her husband until his death, never learning that she was gay.]

Q. Your husband is no longer living, is that correct?

A. That’s true.

Q. Then tell us about how your relationship with Ms. Perry developed?

A. Well, my relationship with Kris, the romantic part of the relationship certainly started for me in a — just a very exciting place. I had never experienced falling in love before, and I think

Q. Are you saying that you weren’t in love with your husband?

A. I was not in love with my husband, no.

Q. Did you think that you were at some point?

A. I had a hard time relating to the concept of being in love when I was married to my husband. And while I did love him when I married him, I honestly just couldn’t relate when people said they were in love. I thought they were overstating their feelings and maybe making a really big deal out of something. It didn’t really make sense to me. It seemed dramatic. You know, when you grow up in the midwest and in a farming family — which is a really unique way to grow up, if anybody knows much about that — but there is a pragmatism that is inherent and it’s part of the fabric of life and an understated way of being that is just pervasive in terms of your development. And I remember as a young girl talking to my mom about love and marriage and she would say, “You know, marriage is more than romantic love. It’s more than excitement. It’s an enduring long-term commitment and it’s hard work.” And in my family that seemed very true.

(Laughter.)

[It saddens me that there was laughter in the courtroom at the statement that [marriage is] an enduring long-term commitment and it’s hard work. Truer words were never spokeneven with couples who were madly in love when they first married, and even with couples who still are.]

So I really thought that was what I was kind of signing up for when I got married; not that it would be bad, but that it would be hard work and I would grow into that love, and that I needed to marry a good, solid person and I would grow into something like my parents had, which was really a lovely marriage and still is.

[I am glad that she says that her mother and fathers marriagepresumably one that modeled that enduring long-term commitment and hard workwas really a lovely marriage and still is. It was also a fruitful onewithout the natural procreation possible only in opposite-sex relationships, Ms. Stiers life would never have begun. It is simply obtuse to deny that this is the central reason why marriage is a public institution, and why it is defined as a male-female union.]

Q. And then you were — I interrupted you. You were in the midst of describing what happened in terms of your own feelings as your relationship with Ms. Perry developed?

A. Well, with Kris my — so we have this wonderfully romantic relationship and — that just really grew and blossomed very beautifully. And not only were we in love, but we wanted we realized fairly soon that we wanted to build a life together. We wanted to join our families and live as a family. That we didn’t want to date. I was 36 or 37 years old, and Kris is a tiny about it younger than me, but we really wanted to build a family together and have that kind of life of commitment and stability that we both really appreciated.

Q. How convinced are you that you are gay? You’ve lived with a husband. You said you loved him. Some people might say, Well, it’s this and then it’s that and it could be this again. Answer that.

A. Well, I’m convinced, because at 47 years old I have fallen in love one time and it’s with Kris. And our love is — it’s a blend of many things. It’s physical attraction. It’s romantic attraction. It’s a strong commitment. It’s intellectual bonding and emotional bonding. For me, it just isn’t love. I really, quite frankly, don’t know what that would be for adults. I don’t know what else to say about it.

[She has fallen in love one time and its with Kris. This seems a rather limited data point on which to base any claim that she has an innate lesbian identityan enduring pattern of sexual attraction toward other women.]

Q. Why are you a plaintiff in this case?

A. Well, I’m a plaintiff in this case because I would like to get married, and I would like to marry the person that I choose and that is Kris Perry. She is a woman. And according to California law right now, we can’t get married, and I want to get married.

[This is a succinct and accurate statement of her situation under the current law. And some peoplepeople who feel there is nothing morally wrong with engaging in homosexual conduct; that the definition of marriage has nothing to do with the procreative potential of opposite-sex relationships; that being raised by both their mother and father provides no advantage to children; and that changing the definition of marriage would have no impact at all on the institution of marriagemay sympathize with it and wish to see Stiers desire to marry Perry be fulfilled.

However, this provides no basis whatsoever for claiming that Californias definition of marriage violates the United States Constitution. Thwarting a persons desires is not at all the same as violating a persons constitutional rights.]

Prop 8 Trial Transcript in the Spotlight: Plaintiff Destroys Born Gay, Cant Change Myth (Part 1)

by Peter Sprigg

September 16, 2011

On Monday, September 19, Broadway will be the scene of a star-studded staged reading of a new playone based on the transcript of the trial in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now known as Perry v. Brown).

The Perry case is the federal constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman which was adopted by California voters in 2008. The unprecedented trial, presided over by the (then closeted, now out) homosexual judge Vaughn Walker, resulted in Walkers stunningly biased opinion in August 2010 declaring that the male-female definition of marriage violates the U. S. Constitution. The ruling is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuitbut if upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court, it would force the legalization of same-sex marriage on all fifty states (overturning the constitutions of thirty).

The play, titled simply 8, was written by homosexual writer Dustin Lance Black, who won an Oscar for his screenplay for the biopic Milk, about the murdered homosexual San Francisco politician Harvey Milk. Actors Morgan Freeman and John Lithgow will portray attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson, the prominent Democratic and Republican attorneys (respectively) who teamed up to argue the case against Proposition 8. The one-night reading is a fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the organization formed to finance the lawsuit.

Homosexual activists seem convinced that publicizing the transcript of the trial will help persuade the public that Walkers ruling was correct. Yet in truth, there is much in the transcript that directly contradicts Judge Walkers opinion and his spurious findings of fact.

In particular, the testimony of one of the actual plaintiffs in the case, Sandra Stier, undermines the argument by same-sex marriage advocates that gay people are denied the fundamental right to marry just because of who they are. It also directly contradicts Judge Walkers finding of fact number 51: Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals. In fact, Stiers testimony undermines two of the most fundamental premises of the entire homosexual movementthe claims that people are born gay, and that a persons sexual orientation can never change.

As Stier made clear in answering Olsons questioning, she was marriedto a manfor twelve years, and had two biological children with him. Even more startling is her admission that she did not learn that she was a lesbian until she was in her mid-thirties.

Below is the transcript of the beginning of Olsons direct examination of Stier, dealing with her marriage to her husband. Part 2 of this post will go over Stiers testimony about her relationship with her current lesbian partner, Kristin Perry.

Stiers testimony appears in bold; [my editorial comments are in bracket and italics].

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

TrialDay 1

1/11/2010 9:00:00 AM

Transcript pp. 160-163

PERRY - DIRECT EXAMINATION / OLSON 160

 

THE COURT: Mr. Olson, your next witness.

 

MR. OLSON: Thank you. The plaintiffs would like to call plaintiff Sandra Stier.

 

SANDRA STIER, called as a witness for the Plaintiffs herein, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

 

THE WITNESS: Yes.

 

THE CLERK: Thank you. State your name, please?

 

THE WITNESS: Sandra Belzer Stier.

 

THE CLERK: Spell your last name?

 

THE WITNESS: S-t-i-e-r.

 

THE CLERK: And your first name?

 

THE WITNESS: S-a-n-d-r-a.

 

THE CLERK: Thank you.

 

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MROLSON:

 

Q. Ms. Stier, are you one of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit?

 

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Would you describe for us and for the Court your background; where you are from, your age, what you do professionally and your family?

 

A. Well, I — I grew up in the midwest. I grew up on a farm in southern Iowa. I’m 47 years old. My background is, really, I lived in Iowa for my youth. I grew up going to public schools, attended college in Iowa, moved to California right after college, and I now work for Alameda County — or for a county government as an information system director in healthcare systems.

Q. And do you — you live with Ms. Perry?

 

A. I do.

Q. And tell us about your family?

 

A. Well, our family is a blended family with our four boys. We each bring two biological children to our family and each other.

[Here is the first hint that the plaintiffsboth Kristin Perry and Sandra Stiermay not have always been lesbians. Both brought to their relationship biological children. Unless they were conceived by a sperm donor through artificial insemination, this would suggest that both had been in sexual relationships with men at one time.]

Q. And just their general ages?

 

A. Well, our two younger sons are in high school. They are teen-agers. And our two older sons are out of high school, young adults.

Q. How would you describe your sexual orientation?

 

A. I’m gay.

Q. When did you learn that about yourself?

 

A. I really learned it about myself fairly late in life, in my mid-thirties.

[Usually, when homosexual activists are promoting the born gay, cant change myth, they trot out people who say, Ive known I was gay all my life. Yet their plaintiff in this landmark court case admits that she did not learn that she was gay until her mid-thirties. This is an astonishing admission.]

Q. Had you been married before at that time?

 

A. Yes, I was married before.

Q. You were married to a man?

 

A. Yes, I was.

[Here is an important point. Advocates of same-sex marriage say things like, Gay people arent allowed to marry, or, Why should someone be denied the right to marry because of who they are? Not only is Sandra Stier not being denied the right to marryshe has actually been married in the past. Homosexuals, as individuals, already have exactly the same right to marry as any other individualand subject to the same restrictions (no one may marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, orin California and 43 other statesa person of the same sex). The law treats same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples, because a same-sex relationship is not a marriage but all individuals are treated the same in terms of the fundamental right to marry.]

Q. When did you get married and where did you live?

 

A. I got married in 1987, and we lived most of the — most of that marriage in Alameda, California.

Q. And you had no feeling at that point in time married to a man that you were a lesbian?

 

A. At that time I did not.

[Another important point. When the subject is raised of people who may experience same-sex attractions choosing to marry someone of the opposite sex, such unions are denounced by homosexual activists as repressing who they really are or living a lie. Judge Walker supported Finding 51 by claiming that for gay men and lesbians, opposite-sex marriage … would compel them to negate their sexual orientation and identity. Stier makes it quite clear that was not the case with hershe had no feeling that she was a lesbian, so her marriage to a man did not negate her sexual orientation and identity.]

Q. And did you have a warm, loving relationship with that individual?

 

A. Umm, I had, unfortunately, a difficult relationship for most of our marriage, but it did start out with the best intentions.

Q. Well, did you encounter gay people growing up in Iowa? I’m wondering how this evolved, this — your realization of how you characterize yourself these days. Tell us how that evolved from your youth in Iowa?

 

A. Growing up in Iowa on a farm in the country where the — you know, the small town that I went to high school in had 1500 people and the towns around us were fairly similar. I really had a fairly sheltered upbringing; a good upbringing, but sheltered. We spent most of our time in our home, you know, working with my parents. We didn’t really travel and go to any place that was very different from where I grew up. And I did not know of any gay people. I didn’t even know of gay people or, really, even the concept of a gay lifestyle or sexuality until I was like a teenager.

Q. Tell us when you moved to California?

 

A. I moved to California in 1985 when I graduated.

THE COURT: Were you married in Iowa before you came to California or were you married after you came to California?

 

THE WITNESS: I moved here in 1985 and got married in 1987. So that was in California.

 

THE COURT: And did you meet your husband in California?

 

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

 

BY MROLSON:

 

Q. Tell us about that. Did you have a relationship with him for a certain period of time before you got married?

 

A. Yes, I did. We dated for about a year before we got married.

[Again, her relationship with her husband developed in a way entirely typical of heterosexual relationships and marriages.]

Q. And give us the date, again, of the marriage?

 

A. November 14th, 1987.

Q. ‘87. And when did the marriage come to an end?

 

A. The marriage came to an end in 1999.

[Note that the marriage lasted for twelve years. This was not a short, doomed from the start type relationshipit even lasted well past the classic seven-year itch.

Part 2 of this post will go over Stiers testimony about her relationship with her current lesbian partner, Kristin Perry.]

Australian Report Shows Kids are Healthier, Wealthier…yet Worse Off

by Krystle Gabele

September 13, 2011

Are children better off growing up in a healthier environment and a higher socioeconomic class? This is all contingent on whom you ask. According to a recent study commissioned by the Australian Christian Lobby, this might not be the case.

The study, For Kids Sake: Repairing the Social Environment for Australian Children and Young People, noted that Australia ranks high on social development, education, and economic well being. However, there is something underlying: Increased reports of child abuse and neglect, as well as an increase in mental health disorders. These reports encompass all socioeconomic levels.

Why has this been occurring? According to the studys author, Patrick Parkinson, the increase in child abuse reports and mental health disorders can be attributed to one key factor: The breakdown of the family.

Living in a family other than that of the two biological parents before the age of 16 is well-documented as being associated with a wide range of adverse results for children’s well-being.

Some people consider that the reason for this is that the adults who form stable marriages tend to be more well-adjusted and better off economically, so it is not so much the question of family structures but rather the personal characteristics of the parents that is the deciding factor.

Although this might be true to some extent the report quoted research that said studies using sophisticated statistical controls, including genetic factors, point in the direction of family breakdown being a significant cause of problems for children, rather than it just being the quality of the adults.

There is no doubt that the breakdown of the family has been a key contributor to the rise in mental illness and child abuse cases. Poor family relationships, marital unhappiness, and divorce all have negative impacts on a childs well being. The statistics are alarming, and children in the United States are experiencing the same effects as well.

What can be done to prevent the breakdown of the family? Parkinson suggests stronger marriage preparation and implementing and providing greater support for organizations that help families.

However, Parkinson is also forgetting one important point: Encouraging families to attend religious services. According to FRCs Marriage and Religion Research Institute (MARRI), children who attend religious services weekly tend to be less depressed and that marriages tend to be stronger and happier when couples attend church together. Perhaps the greatest way to combat the breakdown of the family is through faith.

Listen to FRC’s Henry Potrykus on Family Policy Matters

by FRC Media Office

September 9, 2011

Henry Potrykus, Ph.D., senior fellow at the Marriage and Religion Research Institute at FRC was recently interviewed by North Carolina Family Policy Council President Bill Brooks on his radio show, “Family Policy Matters” this week. Henry discussed his new report, “Our Fiscal Crisis: We Cannot Tax, Spend, or Borrow Enough to Substitute for Marriage.”

Click below to listen to the interview:

Henry Potrykus on Family Policy Matters

Meet the Co-Parents: Friends Not Lovers

by Cathy Ruse

August 29, 2011

A few years ago the New York Times ran a story about a new social phenomenon: Couples, who claim to love each other, who have an exclusive sexual relationship, and who share financial expenses, are choosing not to live together. The arrangement is called Living Apart Together, and apparently its on the rise. The couples interviewed spoke of their need for alone time and personal space and a desire not to wait on the other person they claim to love. Why bother joining households and lose a great city apartment? one suggested.

Reading that story brought to mind how Woody Allen once described the perfect arrangement he had with Mia Farrow: separate apartments on opposite sides of Central Park where they could see each others lights go off at night. But we know how that ended. (For those too young to remember: Woody ended up having an affair with, and then marrying, his own stepdaughter, and in his defense famously said, The heart wants what the heart wants.)

Last week the London Telegraph reviewed another new social relationship trend: people who are neither married nor in love (nor, in some cases, even acquainted) are apparently having children together through the use of in vitro fertilization. Why?

The story leads with examples of homosexuals who wanted to have a child of their own partnering up with people of the opposite sex to share biological material. But also interviewed was this single heterosexual woman, approaching the end of her fertile years, who explained: In a worst-case scenario I would seek an anonymous donor, but Ive always thought a child needs a father. At the very least I wanted a donor who would visit regularly.

What kid wouldnt want Daddy Sperm visiting regularly? But why does little Johnny hide under the bed when the door bell rings?

Archives