Ruth Youth

Catholic Bishops Letter on Marriage

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:25:00 +0000

The Bishops recently published a letter on marriage: its definition, what marriage means to the Church and how it calls us to live!

We encourage people of all faiths to take a look at this holistic view of the human person seen through the vocation of marriage! We all have something to learn from their in-depth anaylsis of marriage and the family!

http://ncrnews.org/documents/marriage_divine_plan.pdf

No Surprise: Coed Dorms Fuel Sex and Drinking

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:53:00 +0000

Taken from LiveScience.com livescience Staff livescience.com – Tue Nov 17, 8:35 am ET

It's no secret to students that coed dorms are more fun than same-sex dorms. But they can also fuel very unhealthy behavior that might otherwise be moderated.
A new study finds university students in coed housing are 2.5 times more likely to binge drink every week. And no surprise, they're also likely to have more sexual partners, the study found. Also, pornography use was higher among students in coed dorms.
Some 90 percent of U.S. college dorms are now coed.
More than 500 students from five college campuses around the country participated in the study. Among the results:
42 percent of students in coed housing reported binge drinking on a weekly basis.
18 percent of students in gender-specific housing reported binge drinking weekly.

Read the rest>>

Fathers Gain Respect from Experts (and Mothers)

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:30:00 +0000

First found in the NYTimes, November 2009: This is a must read for all young adults hoping to be good parents one day. Being a good parents means having a good marriage, research shows! In particular, when couples have "positive relationship traits like willingness to compromise, expressing affection or love for their partner, encouraging or helping partners to do things that were important to them, and having an absence of insults and criticism, the father was significantly more likely to be engaged with his children."

by Laurie Tarkin
But since the couple attended a parenting course — to save their relationship, which had become overwhelmed by arguments about rearing their children — Ms. Calapini has had a change of heart. Now she encourages the father-daughter car talk. “Daddy’s bonding time with his girls is working on cars,” said Ms. Calapini, of Olivehurst, Calif. “He has his own way of communicating with them, and that’s O.K.” As much as mothers want their partners to be involved with their children, experts say they often unintentionally discourage men from doing so. Because mothering is their realm, some women micromanage fathers and expect them to do things their way, said Marsha Kline Pruett, a professor at the Smith College School for Social Work at Smith College and a co-author of the new book “Partnership Parenting,” with her husband, the child psychiatrist Dr. Kyle Pruett (Da Capo Press). Read the rest of this article....

Michigan Speaker says legalizing SSM will help stimulate the MI economy

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:49:00 +0000

Speaker Byrnes is using Same Sex Marriage in the hopes to increase Michigans poor economy. Young people want to live in progressive cities that allow Same Sex Marriage. Her platform: it will be best for Michigan’s economy to legalize Same Sex marriage so that young people will move Michigan cities!

This article found at Detriot New.com

Speaker Pro Tempore Pam Byrnes, D-Lyndon Township, introduced a resolution to amend the state constitution to allow same-sex marriage. Voters instituted the ban in 2004, when they approved Proposal 2. read the rest of this article here...

ITAF Alumni Kendal Christensen writes on Same Sex Unions

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:14:00 +0000

In August the Ruth Institute held its first student conference, where students came from schools all over the United States and Mexico to participate in a long weekend of lectures and discussion. Kendal Christensen, BYU undergrad, was one of these students. Read his well thought out argument for traditional marriage! Bravo Kendal!!!!!

This article first appears on the Love and Fidelity blog here: http://www.loveandfidelity.org/blog/
____

“Though I agree with proponents of gay marriage that “our nation was founded on the principle that all people should be treated equally,”[1] I profoundly disagree that extending the word “marriage” to include gay couples is only about “equality, freedom, and fairness, for all.”[2] The implications surrounding a redefinition of marriage go much deeper than merely “extending freedom” to everyone. The reasons I support the institution of marriage as only an association between one man and one woman—are (1) the intrinsic one-sidedness to redefining marriage and (2) the far-reaching consequences of such a redefinition. read the rest of this article...

LGBT students praise gender-neutral housing program

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:13:00 +0000

Is Gender Neutral housing the wave of the future on campus? It seems to be as it starts to pop up on campuses like Princeton University. What do you think about Gender-neutral housing? How does this affect your safety and the over-all enviroment on your campus? we want to know!

This article take from The Daily Princetonian by Nava Friedman:

When Arlyn Katen ’12, an LGBT peer educator, read about gender-neutral housing in the Princeton Progressive Nation last year, “It just seemed like a very far-off decision,” she said, noting that she was “very surprised” when the University announced last week it would pilot a gender-neutral housing program next year. “I’m really happy about the decision,” she added. Katen and other members of Princeton’s LGBT community have enthusiastically received the news of the pilot program

For the 2010-11 academic year, the University will be offering a gender-neutral housing option in Spelman Halls. The pilot program will permit gender-neutral occupancy in the apartment-style rooms of Spelman, eliminating the requirement that draw groups for Spelman must have four students of the same gender. The program is not expected to affect any other dorms during its first year.

read the rest here: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/10/26/24270/

Money Talks to Have before Marraige...

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:39:00 +0000

This was a recent article in the NYTimes on marriage and divorce:

Divorce tends to be emotionally gut-wrenching for the people who go through it (not to mention those around them). But most couples don’t realize that divorce can also be among the most ruinous financial moves anyone can make.
Sure, you could bet big and lose on a single stock or money manager. Or your small business could go bankrupt, taking your life savings with it. But divorce and the costs that often come with it — from legal bills to the sudden need for an additional residence — affect far more people.
The risk that any marriage will end in divorce is about 45 percent, according to David Popenoe, a professor of sociology emeritus at Rutgers University. The chances fall to about 40 percent for first marriages and decline further for college-educated couples, people from intact families and couples who share the same religion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/your-money/24money.html?_r=1&em

Marriage More then Cohabiting

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:10:00 +0000

Sparked by the David Letterman sex scandal, the nation is again talking about the "rules of engagement" in love. Plenty of chatter has focused on the famous talk-show host's affairs with female co-workers and on the workplace suite (dubbed "the bunker" by insiders) that he used for trysts. There's also the blatant hypocrisy - Mr. Letterman routinely mocked people for their sexual peccadillos. Now it's his turn to look hangdog into the cameras.
My take is that Mr. Letterman is now a poster boy for an aspect of cohabiting often gets glossed over: Cohabiters are more likely to cheat than married spouses.
Marriage is built on sexual exclusivity, and spouses typically vow to forsake all others in front of witnesses (and God). But cohabiters take no such vows. They may not even promise privately to be faithful.
And while society expects married spouses to be faithful, it shrugs its shoulders about cohabiters' fidelity. Listen to what a former staff member at "Late Show With David Letterman" told People magazine this month: Mr. Letterman had an affair with an older female staff member, too, the anonymous staff member said, but it "wasn't a big deal because he wasn't married."
"We heard he had a girlfriend, but she never came around, so it just wasn't a big deal," the staff member added, referring to Regina Lasko, Mr. Letterman's longtime girlfriend, cohabiting partner, mother of his young son and wife since March.
I suppose in coming days we will hear whether Ms. Lasko agrees that it "wasn't a big deal." Mr. Letterman said she was "horribly hurt by my behavior."
Was it normal for Ms. Lasko to have expected fidelity from her longtime cohabiting partner? The answer is yes, according to the landmark 1994 National Sex Survey from the University of Chicago. ... . read the rest here>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/13/marriage-more-than-cohabiting/

Executive Director at Ruth Institute Participates in Youth Panel

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:49:00 +0000

This past week Dr. J and I ventured to the National Summit of Marriage, Parenting and Family, at Hampton University, a historically black college. It was a beautiful setting for a conference set along the James River; the oak tree leaves were beginning to change colors and students bustled to and from class. There sits a large Oak Tree on campus that is known as the Emancipation Oak. It is the first place in Virginia that the Emancipation Proclamation was read. It was also on this same spot that those gathered for the Marriage Summit signed the Hampton Proclamation that declares a commitment to the revitalization of marriage and families. In addition it invited our fellow Americans to join us in the fight for marriage. Hampton University created The National Center of African American Marriages and Parenting this year to address the serious issues of low marriage rates in the African American culture.

I participated on the Next Generation Panel at the Summit where we addressed the issues that threaten the future of our marriages and those of the next generation. We established that while most young adults see marriage as the best environment to raise children and to have good relationships, there seems to be multiple barriers that prohibit us from seeking healthy marriage. We created a vision for our peers, and formed a social change action plan to begin the efforts to restoring the institute of marriage!

Some of the barriers to healthy marriages that the next generation faces include: inaccurate concepts of marriage and of themselves, the misplaced need to be established before getting married, the tidal pull of the media on the minds of the next generation, and the attack of the gender identities leaving us clueless as to the roles of husbands and wives.

We envision for our peers a better understanding of the institution of marriage. Our hope is that we as a generation better understand the self-sacrifice and mutual benefit of marriage. this will produce homes with both a mother and a father; homes that teach children what it is to be a man or a woman; homes that foster service for one another, and the power of working together. Our hope for empowered families is that children will be taken care of—and will grow up to be confident and secure in who they are and what they are purposed to do…. That they will be contributing members of society and the world will be better because of them.

There are not enough intergenerational conversations going on. Young people need to hear real talk about certain issues to develop a healthy view of marriage.

The Full write up:

How do youth in today’s society view marriage and family?

Youth in today’s society desire life-long married love, but have been wounded by the family breakdown and the lack of good examples to model in their own lives. Overall, there is an unrealistic and overly romantic view of marriage among youth. With the entertainment business promoting the hook-up culture, there are a growing number of people who are adopting notions of alternative family structures. Because of divorce and the increasing numbers of blended families, youth are accustomed to the idea of many notions of family.

Many youth view family as a structure in which to raise children most effectively. Even people without fathers rebel against fatherlessness. Many young men want to be strong fathers and want to have a presence in their children’s lives. However, because examples are few, they may not have the model necessary to endure the growing pains of being a husband and father.

What are the barriers to healthy marriages and families that the next marrying generation faces? Please include among the barriers, specific social and economic realities or forces affecting these institutions?

There are several barriers to healthy marriages and family that the next generation faces.
1. Concepts: Many in the next generation have an inaccurate concept of marriage, of themselves, and of their role in marriage due to laissez-faire family structures that have diminished the importance of marriage and family.
2. Education: People have bought the idea that higher-education should precede marriage. This contributes to the ever enlarging gulf between males and females where women are complaining that there are not enough “qualified” men. It also leads to infertility issues—women are most fertile during their 20 and early 30s.
3. Money: Youth either feel they should be established before they get married which prolongs the process, or they feel that marriage is economically beneficial by having two incomes.
4. Economy: Most young people look at dating, weddings, and children as a high price tag. Materialism is a huge barrier to the success of married relationships and family happiness.
5. Welfare: There are many parents today who grew up in fatherless households because of the requirements that made it unlawful for recipients to have a man in the house. The lack of fatherhood is associated with negative outcomes many of which perpetuate the absent father problem.
6. Media: The entertainment business—which has tidal pull on the minds of the young, overwhelmingly favors the hook up culture over life-long marriage. And yet this is where our youth are learning about relationships, romance, and sex. Exploring/ experimenting with sex and sexuality is now normal- even homosexuality.
7. Roles: Gender identities are under attack. Sexual Revolution and woman’s liberation, have blurred the lines of male and femaleness. This leads to complication in marriage, when we don’t understand our roles as husbands and wives.
8. No fault Divorce: The easier it becomes to get a divorce, the more we see marriage as a temporary institution. When we have one hand on the door, the stability of the family deteriorates.
9. Cohabitation: Cohabitation is widely accepted as a good and healthy way to trial a marriage. However, social science shows no positive outcomes for cohabiting couples.

Describe a vision (from a youth perspective) for transformed marriages, effective parenting and empowered families? (What is the hope and promise for marriage, parenting and families?)

We envision for our peers a better understanding of the institution of marriage. Our hope is that we as a generation better understand the self- sacrifice and mutual benefits of marriage. This will produce homes with both a mother and a father; homes that teach children what it is to be a man or a woman; homes that foster service for one another, and the power of working together.

Our hope for empowered families is that children will be taken care of—and will grow up to be confident and secure in who they are and what they are purposed to do… that they will be contributing members of society and the world will be better because of them.

Why is it important to youth that there be a nationally organized effort to strengthen marriages, parenting and families? Why is it important for youth to be involved in this effort?

There is a national effort (unorganized or organized) to weaken marriage—there must be a national effort to strengthen them. It is essential that our efforts show youth the benefits of healthy and happy marriages. Most importantly this effort must be cool and fun to be a part of. We need to take advantage of the Medias that the youth use such as Facebook and twitter. It is also vital to our effort that youth are involved in organizing. Peer to peer support will resound louder than any adult’s voice. Youth are most influenced by their friends!

What can and must youth do to transform marriages, empower parents and strengthen families in our country? (Social change action items)

There are not enough intergenerational conversations going on. Young people need to hear real talk about certain issues to develop a more healthy view of relationships and marriage and family. There needs to be an alternative position presented against the Medias presentation for purposes of balance. To that end, some social change/ action items are:

Share their desire to succeed at life- long married love.
Get involved on their campuses to support marriage
Fight the hookup culture by talking about the negative consequences of sexual activity outside of a monogamous marriage.
Communicate their stories of being hurt by divorce
Rally in support of marriage
Blog, facebook and twitter message of hope and encouragement for marriage
Set standards for themselves on the issue of chastity
Create habits that will prepare them for marriage (this could be expounded on)
Downsize
Get married sooner

Visist the National Center on African America Marriage and Parenting

U of N Texas Student Senate Says NO to Same Sex Couples on Homecoming Court

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:21:00 +0000

Taken from the Dallas Morning News.com

The University of North Texas’ student governing body has voted down a proposal to allow same-sex couples to run for homecoming king and queen.
Five of the senators at the meeting voted Thursday to amend the Student Government Association’s bylaws, 10 voted against and eight abstained.
Jason Howeth, a junior who represents the College of Music, said he voted against the proposal because of opposition from parents who threatened to remove their children from the school and alumni who said they would withdraw their financial support.
He also said that the current student regulations do not prohibit homosexuals from running for a homecoming court position.
Current student regulations state that the homecoming couple comprises a man and a woman.
Hunter Nelson, a graduate student who represents the College of Arts and Sciences, said the university should provide a supportive environment that allows students to express themselves.
“Right now, we’re limiting that by keeping the status quo with the Homecoming court requirements,” he said. “We’re limiting students’ chances and that’s not fair. It should be equality for all.”

A good point from: "Hooking Up, Hanging Out, and Hoping for Mr. Right"

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:23:00 +0000

A student at UC-Berkeley shared a rich vision, also based on observing her own parents, of how a good husband and a good wide support each other"

"A good husband is someone who cares about how his wife's day went, someone who
wants to make her a better person, who loves her faults and her good qualities,
who, if they have children, loves his children very much and dedicatres much of
his time to... their growing up and becoming good people... A good wife is
someone... who loves her husband, who loves his faults, who dedicates herself to
her children growing up. But yet who also spends time on hersef, on making
herseld a better person, on contributing to society, on taking time to relax,
and not just giving everything away so that there is nothing left for herself."

Among the national survey respondents we found that interest in marriage and expressed degree of religiousity were rather strongly associated. Only seven percent of the "very religious" women said marriage was not an important goal for them, compared with 32 percent of the women who said they were "not religious at all." Several of the on-campus interviewees for whom marriage was an important goal made religious statemetns when they discussed marriage. A student at SUNY-Stony Brook said her commitment to her future husband will be "basically a commitment of service, love, mutual respect, and obviously mutual devotion to God. She went on to say:

"Some people say to me oh my goodness, you're going to serve your husband? tey
dont realize they're already serving people in probably a lot of bad ways... so
for me it's how do i love my husband and how do I serve him?"

Join others who want to LIFE LONG MARRIAGES! >>RuthYouth now on facebook!

Dating when the ATM Warns against it

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:36:00 +0000

Taken from a New York Times Blog

"Dating is a complicated dance we do even during the best of economic times. So now with the recession hitting many a dater’s pocket (or pocketbook, for the Sadie Hawkins set), daters across the city are finding creative ways to court.
They have taken advantage of the city’s free spaces like parks and pedestrian malls. They have traded expensive nights on the town for nights at home with Netflix or streaming video on their laptops. They have swapped fancy-schmancy dinners for home-cooked meals or a quiet spot in the park with a picnic and their favorite board games.
“As the economy has tanked, our relationship has gotten better,” said Maurice Watkins, 35, whose companion, Terry Glanville, was in the process of whipping him in a game of Trivial Pursuit on a recent afternoon in Central Park.
“We don’t go out as much,” said Ms. Glanville, 32, who is in the real estate business and was recently laid off. “We do a lot of home cooking, things like this, taking advantage of the park and sites around New York, and bringing our own food and our games, and we have fun.”
In the past, the couple said, they would routinely spend lots of time and money meeting with friends for drinks after work and socializing. And at the height of their spending, they would go out to eat three or four times a week.
The recession has slowed their roll.
“I think we’re probably saving like $500 a month,” Mr. Watkins said.
But the rough financial times have brought the couple closer together, they said.
“We have talked about our future and talked about marriage,” Mr. Watkins said. “This time actually builds a foundation for the mentality necessary to get married.”
On busy evening in Times Square, at the pedestrian mall on Broadway, E. J. Bonilla and Melissa Oyola found an empty table and two chairs, content among the seas of calm and waves of chaos surrounding them.
This is date night.
“Ever since they hooked this place up, it’s like a lifesaver,” Mr. Bonilla, 21, said. “If you’re with somebody, you’re with them because you like each other. You shouldn’t necessarily need something else to help you guys along.”
They have cut back on their date-night spending.
“It wouldn’t just be the movies,” Ms. Oyola said. “It’d be going out to eat, then desserts, then I’m thirsty. Then it’d be like …” The list goes on, and the cash would add up, she said.
At one point they had a talk — a conversation about the money they were spending.
“I was, like, listen, I checked my bank account a couple times recently and that’s not cool,” Mr. Bonilla said, the two laughing as they recalled that moment. “That little receipt that comes out of the A.T.M., it’s not lying. It keeps going down!”
The two said the choice to slow down their spending was a no-brainer. They now frequent parks, take long walks, watch their favorite television shows on YouTube (they save money by not having cable), and bake cookies at home.
The cookies seem to be the only hiccup in an otherwise happy relationship.
“I’m a hundred times better at making Pillsbury chocolate chip cookies,” Ms. Oyola proclaimed.
“Absolutely not,” Mr. Bonilla said. “She cooks them and they come out hard and dry. You got to soak them in milk just to —-”
“No, way!” Ms. Oyola said, cracking up. “He’s lying!”
New York on Less is a new weekly City Room feature about coping with the recession. We will be posting reader questions on selected topics and profiling how neighborhoods are doing. Please share your thoughts on today’s question in the comments box below.
For more coverage on the human side of the recession, visit the Living With Less guide, where readers can share their photos, moods, and tips for weathering the economic downturn.

Safeguarding Yourself, Your Partner, and Your Marriage: Principles to Discussing Pornography in Dating and Beyond

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:39:00 +0000

Pornography is pervasive and pernicious. Nearly 70% of college-aged men and 10% of college-aged women have viewed pornography in the last month.[3] Over 50% of divorces involve one spouse having an excessive interest in internet pornography.[4] Pornography can decrease sensitivity toward women.[5] It can decrease the desire to get married and to have children and raise a family.[6] It can decrease your trust in your partner.[7] It increases the risk of becoming sexually abusive toward others.[8] It increases the risk of becoming sexually dissatisfied with your partner and even cheating on your partner.[9] It encourages unhealthy and distorted views about sexuality, such as the belief that sex is nothing more than a physical, recreational activity or that reserving sexual relationships for marriage is unrealistic.[10] It also increases the risk of experiencing difficulties in serious, intimate relationships.[11]
Nobody ever wants to experience these or the many other negative effects of pornography,[12] but every individual and relationship, including you and your current or future marriage, is at risk. The situation, however, is not hopeless. By openly discussing pornography with your partner, you can go a long way in safeguarding yourself and your marriage from pornography.[13] This article addresses seven questions to help you discuss pornography with your partner:
1. What is pornography, really?
2. What are the reasons for discussing pornography?
3. What things should you discuss?
4. When should this discussion take place?
5. How should you approach discussing pornography?
6. What things should you understand before discussing pornography?
7. Who should have this discussion?
While these points are addressed to couples who are dating, many of the principles also apply to married couples. I invite you to seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost to know how to apply this information to safeguard yourself, your partner, and your current or future marriage from pornography.

Read the rest here.

RUTHYOUTH members interviewed for an article!!!

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:52:00 +0000

On-campus groups, the Student Coalition for Marriage Equality and Won Together, campaign for Proposition 8 repeal
Some clubs support same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue; others urge protection of marriage definition
By Cristina Chang
Updated: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 at 2:36 a.m.
Published: Tuesday, September 8, 2009

printer friendly
mail this article
iPod format
digg

-->
In response to the passage of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the last election cycle, a state-wide gay rights advocacy group has announced its intention to repeal the measure in 2010.
In August, Yes! On Equality members announced that they would place a measure on the upcoming state ballot to repeal the proposition. UCLA groups such as the Student Coalition for Marriage Equality and Won Together are planning to engage their members in the campaign for the repeal.
The Student Coalition for Marriage Equality is a politically motivated organization founded in 2005 to get same-sex marriage legalized in California, said Kathleen Quach, a fourth-year neuroscience student and incoming co-president of the Student Coalition for Marriage Equality.
The coalition has canvassed, identified voters and phone-banked to sway undecided voters against Proposition 8, Quach said. She added that the group plans to get more students to participate in door-to-door canvassing in the community to place a face on the issue.
“I love love. And I mean it in all seriousness. I want to not just have civil unions but have everyone on equal footing,” Quach said.
The coalition wants to get more students involved in the cause and will support any ballot initiative legalizing same-sex marriage, regardless of when the measure will be placed before voters, said Jordan Galindo, a third-year history student and incoming co-president.
Galindo said he believes that the right for same-sex couples to marry is a civil rights issue. “We are all created differently, and instead of treating people differently because of that, we should come together and accept one another,” Galindo said.
Won Together is a UCLA-based group that raises awareness about important contemporary civil rights issues and works to bring change for students’ futures and for future generations, said Jason Bernabe, a second-year nursing student and the group’s current president.
Won Together was started by students who were inspired by the movement to oppose Proposition 8 and the many things the community did to fight it, Bernabe said. He added that he hopes his group will tell the people of America that the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community should not be viewed any differently than the heterosexual community. Currently, Won Together is working to send students to Washington DC to attend the National Equality March this October, he said.
Won Together is the first group to mobilize a social movement using social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, on a mass scale, said David Valk, founder of Won Together and recent graduate of UCLA.
Bernabe said that he does not believe legalizing same-sex marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriages. “I don’t think we’re going to destroy the institution but instead join the institution. That argument implies that liking or marrying someone is a choice, but sexuality is not a choice.”
At the same time, opponents of the legalization of same-sex marriage are bracing for challenges to Proposition 8 on the future California ballot.
There are a large number of young people who support a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, but who are never heard about in the media, said Maggie Gallagher, president of National Organization for Marriage. She said her organization is a strong proponent of Proposition 8 and campaigned to get it passed in California.
Gallagher said she believes that young people should support heterosexual marriage because “it’s the whole future generation at stake. We can support gay people without a radical redefinition of marriage.”
Michele Combs is a spokeswoman for the Christian Coalition of America, a group that supported the passage of Proposition 8.
“We believe that you have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise you just open a Pandora’s box on who can get married,” she said. Combs said she believes the younger generation is becoming more family-oriented and looking for more family values, and it should uphold the traditional definition of marriage.
Ryan Sorba is a recent graduate of California State University, San Bernardino and a founder of the college group Young Conservatives of California. The group has been passing out fliers and yard signs and plans to host more lectures opposing the legalization of same-sex marriage, he said.
“Students should be more involved in protecting the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman because marriage is the central unit and building block of society. As marriage goes, so goes the family. And as the family goes, so goes the neighborhood, the city, the state and the nation,” he said. “There is no scientific evidence that (being born gay) is an identity,” he added.
Katrina Murata graduated from UCLA in 2008 with a degree in history and gave out fliers in support of Proposition 8 weeks before voters decided on the measure.
She said that, although she believes that marriage may not be something a lot of students think about, the institution nevertheless affects them and should be taken seriously. “The future of the family depends on our actions as young people.”

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/stories/2009/sep/8/-campus-groups-campaign-prop-8-repeal/

Gay Marriage, Democracy and the Courts

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:39:00 +0000

[Robery George found in the Wall Street Journal]

We are in the midst of a showdown over the legal definition of marriage. Though some state courts have interfered, the battle is mainly being fought in referenda around the country, where “same-sex marriage” has uniformly been rejected, and in legislatures, where some states have adopted it. It’s a raucous battle, but democracy is working.
Now the fight may head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Following California’s Proposition 8, which restored the historic definition of marriage in that state as the union of husband and wife, a federal lawsuit has been filed to invalidate traditional marriage laws.
It would be disastrous for the justices to do so. They would repeat the error in Roe v. Wade: namely, trying to remove a morally charged policy issue from the forums of democratic deliberation and resolve it according to their personal lights.
Even many supporters of legal abortion now consider Roe a mistake. Lacking any basis in the text, logic or original understanding of the Constitution, the decision became a symbol of the judicial usurpation of authority vested in the people and their representatives. It sent the message that judges need not be impartial umpires—as both John Roberts and Sonia Sotomayor say they should be—but that judges can impose their policy preferences under the pretext of enforcing constitutional guarantees.
By short-circuiting the democratic process, Roe inflamed the culture war that has divided our nation and polarized our politics. Abortion, which the Court purported to settle in 1973, remains the most unsettled issue in American politics—and the most unsettling. Another Roe would deepen the culture war and prolong it indefinitely.

READ the rest: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322084279548434.html

Cookie Cutter Campus Sex Columnists

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:33:00 +0000

[This was taken from TownHall.com written by Ashley Herzog]

Being powerful, Margaret Thatcher once said, is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.
On college campuses, that rule applies to “sex columnists” who tell us they’re bold and cutting-edge for writing about their sex lives in the student newspaper. These columns are overwhelmingly written by uncreative girls who have modeled their personalities and lifestyles after Carrie Bradshaw from “Sex And The City”—right down to the slang, the clothes and, apparently, writing a ludicrous sex column.
“Vibrators, cross-dressing, oral sex, multiple orgasms, masturbation, bondage — no topic is too hot to handle,” USA Today said in 2002.

Actually, there are few things less “hot” (“hot” meaning controversial) than explicit sex talk on a college campus. As USA Today noted, sex columns are most popular at places like Berkeley and the Ivy League, where campus authority figures support events like Sex on a Saturday Night (required for all freshmen at Princeton) and an on-campus “Exotic Erotic” party at Yale. Only on a modern campus could an “iconoclast” be defined as “someone who engages in behavior accepted by 90 percent of students, faculty and administrators.”
Although many college sex columnists are indistinguishable from each other, two behaviors are extremely common to all of them. First, they assume the entire campus is fascinated by their personal sexual adventures. Second, they bash students who are unimpressed with their columns as “prudes.”
In an article for the Ivy Gate blog, Harvard “sex columnist” Lena Chen rated various sex and relationship columns for their alleged “shock factor.” She praised fellow sex columnist Miriam Datskovsky for her “risky approach” because she adopted a style “most reminiscent of Sex and the City” and tackled “adventurous topics.” Imitating a massively popular TV character: So bold!
Chen then attacked a relationship columnist who wrote a piece on dinner dates, sneering, “A virgin could write a better column. Next.”
I don’t know. Writing a column on dinner dates seems to require more creative brainpower and independent thinking than recycling articles from Cosmo. If one characteristic seems to link all raunchy college sex columnists, it’s a complete lack of originality.
Yale columnist Natalie Krinsky wrote a novel, “Chloe Does Yale,” which was savagely attacked by critics—not for being “shocking” but for being precisely the opposite. Reviewers on Amazon.com complained that Krinsky “stole shamelessly from Sex and The City” and wrote “a boring, half-baked ripoff.” “The worst thing about the book is how cliched every sentence is,” one said.
After publishing outside the Yale bubble, I’m sure Krinsky was shocked to find that the general public didn’t find her raunchy prattle all that fascinating.
I’d love to see these wannabe iconoclasts do something truly shocking, something that might actually be met with social disapproval on campus rather than widespread acceptance. Like defending gun rights in speech class (after a student at Central Connecticut State University did that this year, he was arrested by campus police). Or challenging the usefulness of a program like Sex on a Saturday Night (when Princeton’s Cassandra DeBennedetto did, she was slammed as a “virginity worshipper”). Or even, apparently, writing a column about dinner dates.
But that’s the problem with college campuses: the people who keep telling you they’re individualistic and anti-establishment never are.

RUTHYouth member writes on marriage....

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:00:00 +0000

Sociology of Marriage

I've been working on this post for a couple days, but I had a new inspiration for how to introduce this information last night. See, just yesterday I met someone who had that strong aversion to "the institution of marriage". You know, the person who says "I'm hell-bent against ever getting married" or "Marriage doesn't really matter since its basically the same as dating". I'm always intrigued when I meet these people because for: 1) at one point in my life I didn't see myself married either so I can relate on some level, but also because 2) I can't figure out someone would hate marriage itself and in its entirety or can't see its value/difference from dating. Maybe they didn't have the best experience with it growing up.

Maybe they saw their parents duke it out their whole life and that has made them cautious about getting into a relationship for life. But does that mean that a rational conclusion is that marriage itself is the problem? Why not blame the individuals? Or the situations that led to conflict within the marriage? But to blame marriage, that 'institution' that been around longer than any of us? It's an interesting take to me.So instead I find myself trying to understand the person and their experiences which usually lead to their feelings, because although marriage exists in virtually every known human society, it can be difficult to formulate an exact response for why its good for society and many times this is ineffective since people cling so tightly to their experiences they know to be true. Also, I do believe that for a marriage to be healthy, the people entering the marriage have to understand themselves and the point of their actions first, otherwise it can almost be a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Fortunately we have people like Dr. Brad Wilcox compiling social science data based on many studies (summarized in Why Marriage Matters, 2nd Edition, Institute for American Values from which I get almost all this data) which concretely conclude that marriage:1) is an important social good, associated with positive outcomes for children and adults alike;2) is an important public good, associated with rage of economic health, educational, and safety benefits that help all governments serve the common good; and3) has benefits that extend to the poor and minority communities, even though it is more fragile in those communities.Before I go into the specific results, I first want to point out the common issue in social science of "selection effects" - i.e. the idea that there are pre-existing differences between people who choose to marry, cohabit, divorce, etc. As was stated in this summary,"Good social science attempts to distinguish between causal relationship and mere correlations in a variety of ways. The studies cited here are for the most part based on large, nationally representative samples that control for race, education, income, and other confounding factors....have been able to use longitudinal data to track individuals as they marry, divorce, or stay single, increasing our confidence that marriage itself matters. Where the evidence is, in our view, overwhelming that marriage causes increases in well-being, we say so. Where the causal pathways are not as well understood, we are more cautious. ...Despite its inherent limitations, good social science is a better guide to social policy than uninformed opinion or prejudice."

The 26 following conclusions are taken directly from the document Why Marriage Matters, headed by Dr. Bradford Wilcox, cited earlier. I expand on a few of the points I thought were particularly interesting based on reasons the paper. Some of these may seem like no-brainers and at parts during his presentation I definitely thought to myself, "Wow, isn't it kind of sad that someone has to do research to prove this? Shouldn't these results be obvious?" But the fact is that they are needed to define and quantify, as much as possible, the benefits/side effects of marriage in order to help the Ben Affleck types (RE: "He's just not that into you") who have an aversion to marriage, maybe from bad past experiences (maybe fear of #3?). I believe that understanding that marriage is indeed a good thing in and of itself on many levels is crucial to our generation's future well-being and happiness, regardless of how personal experiences have tainted your perceptions of it.*Also, please note that these are based on averages and statistics, so outliers are always possible/present. The author himself came from a single-parent home so I find it interesting how he removed his own bias-ness. The fact is that many people grow up in single/divorced parents homes and do not face these consequences, but you can't argue with the trends that the numbers show. Also, keep in mind that social science data is better at showing THAT something is happening rather than determining the CAUSE of why its happening.Effects on Family

1. Marriage increases the likelihood that fathers and mothers have good relationships with their children.

2. Cohabitation is not the functional equivalent of marriage. - Although it looks like marriage at a first glance, studies show that children of cohabiting couples have outcomes more similar to single parents than married ones. Also, cohabiting relationship are not surprisingly less stable (50% of children from cohabiting couples see this relationship end by age 5, compared with 15% of children from married couples). This is mostly due to selection differences since cohabiting couples generally have lower income and education, and also report relationships of lower quality, lower satisfaction, and higher conflict than married couples. Cohabitation is different than marriage in part because Americans who choose to live together are generally less committed to each other as partners than married couples (see 2 below for more references).

3. Growing up outside an intact marriage increases the likelihood that children will themselves divorce or become unwed parents. - Daughters raised outside intact marriages are approx. 3 times more likely to become young, unwed mothers than daughters raised in intact marriages. Remarriage is also shown to hurt even further, with emphasis to child well-being based on stability of the family home.

4. Marriage is a virtually universal human institution. - This isn't a conspiracy theory. Something that's been around this long is bound to be there for a reason, right?

5. Marriage, and a normative commitment to marriage, foster high-quality relationships between adults, as well as between parents and children. - A new belief that all family structures are created equal as long as there is love in the relationship is all that matters is gaining popularity recently. But by offering legal and normative support to direct a relationship, providing an expectation of sexual fidelity and lifelong commitment, and by furnishing a unique social status as "spouses" marriage typically fosters better romantic and parental relationships than do alternatives. Interestingly, just valuing the institution of marriage for its own sake, makes your marriage better. Individuals who embrace a conditional ethic to marriage are shown to be less happy in those marriages. Its like believing is living.6. Marriage has important bio-social consequences for adults and children. - I thought these were some of the most interesting findings. Marriage reduces men's testosterone levels (associated with aggression, sensation seeking, and other antisocial behaviors (selection factors may play a role - i.e. men with lower testosterone may get married, cohabiting also lowers it, but marriage definitely plays a causal role in driving down testosterone). Also, girls who grow up apart from an intact married family are significantly more likely to have early menstruation and premature sexual activity. Girls with close, engaged relationships with their fathers have menstruation at a later age than those who lose their bio father at a young age. Also, girls who live with an unrelated male have even earlier menstruation than those living with only their mother. Speculations is that development is influenced by male pheromones.Economic Effects

7. Divorce and unmarried childbearing increase poverty for both children and mothers. - Even after controlling for race. Between 1/5 and 1/3 of divorcing women end up in poverty following their divorce.

8. Married couples seem to build more wealth on average than singles or cohabiting couples. - Partnerships are generally more economically efficient. Norms that encourage healthy, productive behavior and wealth accumulations (such as buying a home) also appear to play a role. Help from grandparents is also present, while not necessarily so for cohabiting couples.

9. Marriage reduces poverty and material hardship for disadvantaged women and their children. - In one study, mothers with low academic abilities who married saw their living standards rise about 65% higher than similar single mothers with no other adult, over 50% higher than single moths with another adult, and 20% higher than mothers cohabiting.

10. Minorities benefit economically from marriage. - These economic benefits are not limited to whites. Not only materially but African Americans and Latinos who are married also enjoy significantly higher levels of household equity, compared to their peers who are not married.

11. Married men earn more money than do single men with similar education and job histories. - Marriage increases earning power of men by 24% (selection effects possible factor). Reasons not entirely clear but married men appear to have greater work commitment, more strategic approaches to job searches, healthier and more stable personal routines (including sleep, diet, and alcohol consumption). Also, one study found that married men were more likely to quit a job only after having lined up the next, which was not as true with unmarried men. Husbands also benefit from the work effort and emotional support of their wives. Interestingly enough, I looked into this to see the effect on women and generally when they get married, the woman earns less on average, mostly due to the differences caused by raising children. I will go into this topic in another post :)

12. Parental divorce (or failure to marry) appears to increase children's risk of school failure. - These kids are more likely to have lower grades, more likely to be held back, and more likely to drop out of high school. The absence of a father actually affects African American children's performance in school more than whites.

13. Parental divorce reduces the likelihood that children will graduate from college and achieve high-status jobs. - Children of divorced parents have lower occupational status and earnings and have increased rates of unemployment and economic hardship. Less likely to attend and graduate from college, even after controlling from family background and academic achievements.Effects on Physical Health and Longevity

14. Children who live with their own two married parents enjoy better physical health, on average, than do children in other family forms. - Studies show that children of married parents live longer (4 years longer) even after controlling for childhood health status and family background, as well as personality characteristics such as impulsiveness and emotional instability.

15. Parental marriage is associated with a sharply lower risk of infant mortality. - On average, having an unmarried mother is associated with an approx. 50% increased in the risk of infant mortality.

16. Marriage is associated with reduced rates of alcohol and substance abuse for both adults and teens. -Not only that but teens who parents stay married are also the least likely to experiment with tobacco or alcohol. Pathways involved that lead to this are likely increased family stress, reduced parental monitoring, and weakened attachment to parents.

17. Married people, especially married men, have longer life expectancies than do otherwise similar singles. - Marriage can increase you life expectancy by about as much as not smoking can. Where are those public service announcements?

18. Marriage is associated with better health and lower rates of injury, illness, and disability for both men and women. -Married people manage illness better, monitor each other's health, have higher incomes and wealth, and adopt healthier lifestyles that do otherwise similar singles. These health effects of marriage vary by martial quality, especially for women (not so much for men). Marriages need to be of high-quality in order to get the health benefits.

19. Marriage seems to be associated with better health among minorities and the poor.Effects on Mental Health and Emotional Well-Being

20. Children whose parents divorce have higher rates of psychological distress and mental illness. - "Divorce typically causes children considerable emotional distress and doubles the risk that they will experience psychological problems later in life." Seeing your parents break up can be nothing short of traumatic and foundation shaking, so this is understandable. Children of divorce are at a higher risk for depression. This however did not appear to be correlated to a consequence of some underlying genetic predisposition towards psychological difficulty that the parents and kids share, its situational. Twin studies to prove this. High-conflict marriages were conflict is high and sustained, children were shown to benefit from divorce, but not from "low-conflict" (2/3 of divorces in America are low conflict).

21. Divorce appears to increase significantly the risk of suicide. - Both men and women are twice as likely as their married counterparts to attempt suicide. Sad :(

22. Married mothers have lower rates of depression than do single or cohabiting mothers. - Single mothers can be depressed due to burdens of child rearing alone, whereas cohabiting mothers have less confidence that their relationship will last. [41% of single white 18-19yr old single mothers reported depressive symptoms compared to 28% of their married counterparts.] Longitudinal studies also shows that marriage boosts mental and emotional well-being for both men and women. Focus on maternal depressions here because it is a mental health issue and risk for the children.

23. Boys raised in single-parents families are more likely to engage in delinquent and criminal behavior. - Even after controlling for factors such as race, mom's education, neighborhood quality, etc, one study found that boys raised in single parents homes are twice as likely to commit a crime that leads to incarceration by their 30's.

24. Marriage appears to reduce the risk that adults will be either perpetrators or victims of crime. - Single and divorced women are 4 to 5 times more likely to be victims of violent crime than married women, are TEN TIMES more likely to be raped, and 3 times more likely to be victims of aggravated assault. Marriage also reduced male criminality.

25. Married women appear to have a lower risk of experiencing domestic violence than do cohabiting or dating women. -Does NOT mean marriage can reform men. Selection effects are big here since women are less likely to marry and more likely to divorce violent men.

26. A child who is not living with his or her own two married parents is at a great risk for child abuse. - You see this repeatedly in studies, mostly because these children have contact with people who are not their biological parents and do not have their best interests at heart. "One study shows that although boyfriends contribute less than 2% of non-parental childcare, they commit half of all reported child abuse by non-parents." Also, "young children in step-families are more than 50 times more likely to be murdered by a stepparent than by a bio parent, 40 times more likely to be sexually abused."Ok, so there is SO much more to this topic but I had to condense it and leave some stuff out since this post is getting ridiculously long. Please ask for clarification where you think I could have put more and let me know if you would like any topics expanded! Again, almost 100% of what I wrote here was not my own, but from the research by Bradford Wilcox out in University of Virginia.

A movie review: My Sisters Keeper

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:15:00 +0000

The use and misuse of artificial reproductive technology (ART) is a subject that deserves more attention than it commonly gets. My Sister’s Keeper is a thought-provoking dramatization of one of the most troubling ethical issues of the ART industry: the creation of “savior siblings”.

The premise of the story is that one child in the family has a virulent form of leukemia. The mother devotes herself completely to saving the life of this daughter, Kate. The search for tissue donors fails. Their doctor suggests, strictly off the record of course, that they could have another child, designed to be a perfect donor match for the critically ill sister.

So, the movie begins with a voice-over flash-back from Anna, the savior sibling. She describes herself as a “designer baby”, but this is probably not exactly accurate. It suggests that the doctors were somehow able to manipulate her genes in order to make her the perfect match for her sister. More likely, the doctors would have created a number of embryos, tested them, and kept the one that matched. What happens to the others? They are discarded, of course. These discarded siblings are not part of the story. Somehow, they never are.

In any case, the tension begins when the girls are teens. Kate’s kidneys fail. The mother schedules an organ transplant. She takes for granted that Anna will donate one of her kidneys to her sister. Anna refuses.

She hires a lawyer to represent her in a suit against her mother. She declares that she wants the rights to her own body. The irony here is rich. Western societies have come to accept an unlimited abortion license, declaring that the woman has absolute autonomy over her own body, in spite of the distinct life growing within her. But the disregard for human life occasioned by the abortion license has led us to reduced regard for human life more generally, of which our willingness to create savior siblings is just one manifestation.

In My Sister’s Keeper, the adults -- mother, father and doctor -- convince themselves that it is morally licit to create a human being whose body would be available to serve the medical needs of another child. One need not be a religious believer to find this troubling. The Categorical Imperative of moral philosopher Immanuel Kant states clearly that we must always treat people as ends in themselves, not as means.

I have talked with people who were adults when Roe v Wade legalized abortion in the United States. These people will usually say they did not expect there would be so many abortions. They envisioned that women would only choose abortions in the “hard cases” of rape and incest, not to the tune of a million abortions per year. These same people also admit they would never have anticipated the moral callousness that society has developed around the sanctity of human life. They thought the predictions of euthanasia, assisted suicide, infanticide, and sex selection abortion were hysterical fantasies of religious fanatics. But those wild-eyed religious fanatics proved to be sober-minded prophets.

This back-story is worth keeping in mind as we think about the future of reproductive technology. Proponents of the unlimited use of ART dismiss the fears of excesses as over-wrought and hysterical. But once we decide that it is morally acceptable to do “selective reduction” of embryos, why isn’t it even more acceptable to eliminate non-useful embryos before implantation in the womb? We have allowed ourselves to do pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for the purpose of screening out embryos that have medical conditions we don’t want to deal with. What could possibly be the problem, then, with “screening in” for a baby that has the traits we positively want, for whatever reason.

In other words, given the things we already allow ourselves to do, we have no principled reason to oppose the creation of “savior siblings”.

As the story progresses, we see that the parents really do love Anna, the useful child. They do realize that she isn’t merely a bundle of spare parts, but a full human being. But the mother, in particular, really does believe she is entitled to direct the use of one daughter’s body for the benefit of the other daughter.

Only the sisters’ love for each other keeps the family from completely disintegrating. (The plot twist is the explanation of why Anna is so adamant that she will not donate her kidney.) While this is certainly uplifting and inspiring, the love of teenagers for their siblings is hardly a reliable barrier against moral excesses and medical abuses.

Some day, somewhere along the line, some adults are going to have to give serious thought to the question of how much we are entitled to use each other. In the meantime, we have to rely on fictional accounts like My Sister’s Keeper to keep this compelling moral question before our eyes.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse is the Founder and President of the Ruth Institute, a project of the National Organization for Marriage, and whose mission is to promote lifelong married love to the young by creating an intellectual and social climate favorable to marriage

Celbrity Love Done Right

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:36:00 +0000

It seems congratulations are in order for the eldest Jonas. Kevin Jonas, the 21-year-old member of the hugely successful sibling band Jonas Brothers, proposed to his longtime girlfriend, Danielle Deleasa of New Jersey, early Wednesday morning (July 1st).
“She said yes, yes, yes like 500 times super fast in a row,” Kevin told People magazine who broke the story.
Nick and Joe Jonas couldn’t be happier for their big bro. The two took to their Twitter page to leave a little note expressing their happiness: “Congrats big brother…..Dani welcome to the family, we can’t wait to have you join us on the road.”
“Our hearts are filled with joy today and we are happy to share with you that our son Kevin has asked Danielle for her hand in marriage,” Kevin’s parents said in a joint statement released to People. “It is such a blessing that she will be joining our family. Kevin and Danielle have not yet set a date. Family is very dear to us, and we hope we have raised Kevin to be a wonderful man and husband.”...

We applaud the Jonas brothers, who maintain there stance to stay virgins until marriage. They rock out proudly wearing their promise rings. It can be done...even if you are a celebrity!!

Marriage can wait?????

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:11:00 +0000

Marriage Can Wait??

By: Msgr. Charles Pope

OK guys, time to man up and ask her out on a date! Too many of you men are slow in looking for a bride. When I was ordained twenty years ago I had a lot of marriages. Today there are far fewer, and those that marry are much older. Perhaps maturity is a good thing PRIOR to marriage but couples are really waiting a long time these days. Now I was not born yesterday and I know that part of the reason for the delay is that couples are often fornicating and are just plain shacked up as well. True marriage is delayed as false notions of sexuality and marriage are indulged.
But there is also another phenomenon that is harder to understand. I have quite a number of young women, who are very attractive I might add, tell me that they are seldom asked out on dates, that young men don’t seem very good at taking initiative when it comes to dating and marriage. Now come on guys, be a man and get out there and ask her out! .....

READ THE REST HERE: http://blog.adw.org/2009/07/marriage-can-wait/

Assumed truth

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:16:00 +0000

TAKEN FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH ROBERT GEORGE ON PUBLIC DISCOURSE

PD: It seems clear that elite opinion these days is virtually unanimous in supporting the redefinition of marriage. That view is now the unquestioned orthodoxy in Hollywood and among mainstream journalists, college and university professors, and the like. Many young people embrace it. How did that happen?

George: The movement to redefine marriage is part of a larger movement to entrench and extend the sexual revolution that got into full-swing in the mid-1960s. This movement wields extraordinary cultural power. Its hegemony in the elite sector of the culture enables its proponents to transmit its ideological tenets through television shows, movies, newspapers and magazines, popular music, colleges and universities, high schools, middle schools, and, increasingly, even elementary schools. Many people today, especially younger people, take these tenets for granted. They usually go unquestioned. I find in talking to students that when I raise questions about their assumptions about the legitimacy of non-marital sexual cohabitation, their first surprise is the recognition that they were making assumptions; their second surprise is that there are grounds for questioning those assumptions. Of course, only a fraction of college students ever encounter professors who question these assumptions.

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE

The Divorce!...

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:20:00 +0000

Maggie Gallagher--This weekend, as Jon and Kate made their big announcement, I attended the 50th wedding anniversary of a close family member, who had married in India. The wedding was arranged. One of the children, making the toast, asked:
"How does a marriage survive 50 years? Here is what I have learned: Meet your wife on your wedding day. Surround yourself with family and friends. Wait."
I understood what he meant. I'm asked by the young, "How do you avoid divorce?" The first and most important answer is: Don't go down to the courthouse. If neither of you does, there won't be any divorce.
Oh, they follow up, "What we really mean is 'How do we create a happy marriage?'" That's a noble goal, but really a different question....

http://townhall.com/Columnists/MaggieGallagher/2009/06/24/the_divorce_will_be_televised?page=full&comments=true

Good Married Advise

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:00:00 +0000

When you and your spouse first met, talking, doing things for each other or just being together was probably very romantic. How can you keep that glow going in your marriage? Do the stresses of life prevent you from taking the time for one another? Many responsibilities compete for your attention. Stresses and worries can crowd out time for your spouse and your marriage. It is possible to keep love and romance alive in your marriage. The key is friendship, according to the Utah Healthy Marriage Initiative....

READ THE SEVEN HERE

What would you do as a 5th grader????

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:51:00 +0000

It's high time that schools took anti-bullying measures more seriously. We just never thought that would include requiring fifth-graders to recite the meaning of each letter in LGBT.In attempting to discourage taunting of gay students, the Alameda Unified School District turned what should be a basic lesson on treating others kindly into a primer on sexual identity. Its new anti-bullying curriculum for kindergartners through fifth-graders will begin in the fall and focus solely on gay and lesbian issues -- as if harassment based on race, religion or failure to wear cool clothes were nonexistent. Parents who might object cannot opt their children out of it. It's a heavy-handed approach to take with students at a tender age.

School officials defended the new curriculum as a necessity after some of the younger students used derogatory words about gay people. No two ways about it, such behavior must stop. Childhood cruelty can make school a matter of daily dread for its victims, and gay and lesbian students, along with the children of same-sex couples, have been particularly singled out.

read the rest: http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-ed-alameda19-2009jun19,0,6964133.story?track=rss

For Better or for Worse: When Marriage Vows get Created

jgruber@ruthinstitute.org (Jamie Gruber) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:28:00 +0000

WALL STREET JOURNAL--It's the end of spring, and that means engaged couples are putting the last touches on their summer wedding celebrations. Should the cake have three tiers or four? Do the chairs for guests need bows? And, finally, what will they say in their vows?
This wasn't always a problem, of course. Until recently, everyone just used the words provided by his or her church or synagogue. In recent years, however, more and more couples have decided to write their own vows. This departure from tradition has become so common that some couples now choose to buy the words that will bind them together for a lifetime -- online.
In the world-wide Web of wedding options, instantvows.com offers a competitive "Instant Vows Wedding Package" ($17, limited time offer). Ghostwriters Central promises vows "that capture your personal voice while encompassing the appropriate etiquette and emotion" -- with "the added advantage" of being written by professionals. You send the site a brief description and some memories of you and your beloved and it will send you the vows (for $125).

READ THE REST HERE: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124537660360130153.html