Saturday, August 30, 2003
 
THERE'S THE RIGHT TO DO IT, AND THEN THERE'S DOING IT: Since SSM become legal on June 10, fewer than 500 Toronto SSM couples (out of an estimated 5,500 couples) have gotten married. It's early, and there are many possible reasons for the small number so far, but one possible reason is that SS couples, especially gays, don't want to get married -- in general because of the institution's retro image, and specifically because of disagreeing with the idea of monogamy. From Sunday's NYT:
"Personally, I saw marriage as a dumbing down of gay relationships. My dread is that soon you will have a complacent bloc of gay and lesbian soccer moms." When he moved in with David Warren, a 41-year-old software company project officer, he wrote up a set of vows that remains above their bed, seven years later. They promise "a confidant, playmate, partner in crime, biggest fan and protector." But they stop short of monogamy, which is something Mr. Andrew also says he does not believe in ... "Will queers now have to live with the heterosexual forms of guilt associated with something called cheating?" Many gays and lesbians who celebrate their new rights view such thinking as retrograde.



 
FOR SALE:
As a married father-of-four who until last year was earning a lucrative living as a head-hunter in the City, John Gonzalez is an unlikely crusader for lesbian rights. But the success of his latest business venture has earned him both a substantial profit and widespread praise from the lesbian community. Gonzalez is the founder of mannotincluded.com, the website that hit the news last week after the birth of the first baby in Britain to be conceived from sperm purchased on the internet.



 
FROM PAKISTAN:
The show is called Shaadi, or Marriage Online, and is broadcast on the GEO TV network. It sticks to a simple format, steering clear of setting up blind dates between the couples. Instead, the prospective bride or groom is invited to state their case before the millions who watch the show. The set may be designed to look as if a wedding is about to take place on it - but the pace is not adventurous. The show's presenters ask the participants about their likes and dislikes, family background and their reason for wanting to marry outside the family or clan. Then, if viewers like what they see, they are expected to contact the participants directly.



Friday, August 29, 2003
 
FROM NIGERIA:
A tearful woman cuddled her toddler in an Islamic appeals court yesterday as lawyers pleaded that she be spared death by stoning for having sex outside marriage ... Judges ordered her buried up to her neck in sand and stoned. While appeals continue, courts have ordered Ms. Lawal's execution postponed until the child is weaned. The alleged father denied responsibility and was acquitted. Introduction of Islamic law, or sharia, has heightened Muslim-Christian tensions in Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation. Religious, ethnic and political violence has claimed at least 10,000 lives since President Olusegun Obasanjo's 1999 election ended 15 years of repressive military juntas.



 
MORE ON TWO SPECIES OF KIDS (see below):

Further support for my idea that our society has two different childrearing philosophies, one for children of married parents and one for children of divorce � that we essentially treat them as if they are two species of kids:

How often do married parents put their children on airplanes by themselves?

How often do married parents send their child away from the home for days, weeks, months, or years at a time? How often do married parents spend multiple nights apart from their kids?

How often do married parents divide their financial responsibilities for their children down to the penny, and then argue about who is paying a penny more?

How often do married parents take each other to court?

How often do married parents expect their children to come home to an empty house in the afternoon?

How often do married parents sleep with someone besides the child�s parent, in the home when the child is present?

Do married parents avoid doing all of these things? No. Do divorced parents do all of these things? No. But these actions are all quite common among divorced parents, so common that no one bats an eye at them, while it�s almost unheard of for married parents to do any of them. Yet the needs of children of married parents and children of divorced parents are the same. They are the same species, we just find it inconvenient to treat them that way. Children of divorce are resilient we say. Why? Because we need for them to be.





 
MORE ON REVOLVING BABIES (see below): In fact, it is just this kind of talk that gets me most angry. What�s our society�s attitude on babies and children generally? We see babies as vulnerable and highly needy. Most of us think babies needs lots of consistency and predictability. We new parents fret about taking the crib bumper out of the crib, because it will be a change and maybe it will upset baby. We undertake decisions such as switching to a different brand of formula as if we were sending people up in the space shuttle and not sure what the terrible consequences might be. We agonize over day care decisions. How will my three year old handle two days a week of half-day preschool? Would three days be too many?

Granted, some of us new parents may be hyper conscientious. One thing you eventually learn as a parent is that most babies can handle changes pretty well (although babies with extra physical or mental vulnerabilities often do not). Sometimes we go overboard in thinking that everything has to be just right for our little baby.

But when it comes to children of divorce, suddenly everything our society thinks about babies and young children gets thrown out the window. Babies need constant care from their mothers? Forget it, babies do fine going three days without seeing their mothers! Babies need a predictable environment and love having the same routine? Forget it, they�re happy to wake up anywhere! Households should be organized around the baby�s needs? Forget it, babies do great adapting to adult needs!

We have two childrearing philosophies in this society � one for children of married parents, and one for children of divorce. We act as though these are two different species of kids.

They�re not. They�re the same kids, with the same needs. Divorce doesn�t magically make turn a baby into a hardy creature. It just demands that babies become that way, whether they are capable of it or not.



 
REVOLVING BABIES: In the column David noted below Bettina Arndt argues for increased overnight visitation for young children with their divorced fathers, including those under two years of age. �Children become stressed by separations from either parent that last more than three or four days, say the researchers�� that she cites. Arndt says courts should move beyond the outdated notion that children have one primary �psychological parent� (i.e., the mother) and recognize that children are attached to and need to see both their parents. If they don�t, it adds to their post-divorce stress.

I agree wholeheartedly that children are attached to both their parents, and although as a new mother I feel a little queasy about divorced dad caring for an infant alone at his own apartment, I recognize that most men are probably capable of it, and maybe even many babies are able to be that flexible when they must (though some certainly aren�t). But the thing everybody seems to miss when they talk about kids of divorce needing both parents is that children of divorce can only see one parent at a time. To be with one parent always means not being with the other. Yes, they miss dad and they need to see dad. But when they�re with dad they miss mom.

What do we do, then, with the supposed finding that children �become stressed by separations from either parent that last more than three or four days��? Limit their time with each parent to three days? So that within the period of one week they would go from mom�s house to dad�s and then back to mom�s again, only to repeat the same cycle the next week, and the next, and the next?

Do we really think that spinning through a revolving door between two �homes� is any less stressful for these kids?




 
Warren Farrell, the author and fathers rights advocate, is running for governor of California, along with everyone else.


 
"The group format will include lectures, small group discussions and Divorce Care videos."



 
Divorce is up in Britain -- stories here and here.


 
JOINT CUSTODY (CONT.): From Melbourne, the very smart Bettina Arndt on the joint custody and post-divorce parenting.


 
CIVIL UNIONS (CONT.):
Same-sex couples in California will enjoy more rights than ever before and all domestic partners will receive most of the same legal benefits as married couples under a bill approved by the Senate on Thursday that Gov. Gray Davis has pledged to sign. Sponsored by Assembly member Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, the bill allows one partner to take custody of children if the other partner dies; gives them the right not to be forced to testify against each other in court; and gives them the same rights as married couples to transfer and share property. Goldberg's measure, which passed by a 23-14 vote, extends to the more than 22,000 registered same-sex couples nearly all of California's marriage-based entitlements. Only Vermont, which has legalized gay marriage known as ``civil unions,'' has more expansive rights for gay couples.



 
CIVIL UNIONS (CONT.): "Half of California voters remain opposed to gay marriages, but more than seven in 10 support domestic partnership laws granting same-sex couples legal recognition and rights, according to a Field Poll released Friday."




Thursday, August 28, 2003


 
FROM IRAQ: According to IslamOnline, it's getting tough to schedule a wedding in Iraq these days.

P.S. Yesterday I left New York for law school. I've heard law school is a lot of work, so I won't be blogging as often as I used to. But I'll still pop in from time to time, and I just wanted to say thanks to all the people out there who've read the site, sent me tips, and so on. It's been fun.


 
A SUMMER CAMP FOR CHILDREN OF DIVORCE:
A FATHER'S Day camp in Mt Evelyn is set to bring separated fathers closer to their children. Upper Ferntree Gully father Brad Mander is the instigator and organiser of the weekend camp, which aims to help dads and their children have fun together and strengthen their long-term relationships ... Mr Mander said the camp was even more important in light of recent reports that separated men were vulnerable to depression and six times more likely to commit suicide than married men. "If guys can network and make some friends out of it by being able share their experiences and know they're not alone and use the weekend as a support mechanism, it will be great." Mr Mander said he had big hopes for the camp and wanted to attract sponsorship and government funding to run it nationally.



 
U.K. DIVORCE STATS:
In 2002, the number of divorces granted in the UK increased by 1.9 per cent, from 157,000 in 2001 to 160,000. This is the highest number of divorces since 1997, but still 11 per cent less than the peak of 180,000 in 1993. In 1961 there were 27,000 divorces in Great Britain which had doubled by 1969 to 56,000. It then doubled again by 1972, to 125,000 in both Great Britain and the United Kingdom. This latter increase was partly a 'one-off' effect of the Divorce Reform Act 1969 in England and Wales, which came into effect in 1971.



Wednesday, August 27, 2003


 
"Arnold Schwarzenegger today made his first public statement on gay issues in the campaign to unseat California governor Gay Davis. The bodybuilder-turned-actor-turned-politician told a radio audience that he is opposed to gay marriage, but supports domestic partnership rights."




 
CHANGING TIMES (CONT.): On Elizabeth's point below, a few weeks ago I had lunch with a young liberal assistant professor of sociology at an Ivy League school who does research on family structure issues. I told her old war stories from the late 1980s about the heated insistence by sociologists that the family was "changing, not declining" and that anyone who was worried about family fragmentation was worried about the wrong thing. She looked at me like I was ... an old guy. I guess I am. I sense that, for more and more young scholars today, the evidence is the evidence and denial is a river in Egypt.


 
NEW BOOK: Black Fathers in Contemporary American Society, edited by Obie Clayton, Ron Mincy, and your blogger, just out from Russell Sage.


 
THE TIMES ARE A�CHANGIN� Two articles in the NYT yesterday were noticeable for their matter of fact acknowledgement that family structure is linked to serious problems in children and young people.

Jane Brody�s health column on stress among college students notes there is a �sharp increase in the need and demand for mental health services,� and one reason among many is �family support systems are not what they used to be for students whose parents are separated, divorced or remarried.�

In the same section, an article on a new study on childhood obesity reports that, among several other reasons for the increasing problem, �Researchers have also linked the risk of obesity to growing up in a single parent home.�

These used to be fighting words, with incensed advocates from the left charging that pointing out a connection between family structure and serious social problems among the young was stigmatizing single parents and stepfamilies.

But the links are there and they are real. Thank goodness reporters and researchers are increasingly willing to acknowledge them.



 
CIVIL UNIONS ANYONE? (CONT.):
With a 7-4 vote, the [California State] Senate Appropriations Committee passed a bill that grants same-sex domestic partners nearly all of the state rights associated with marriage. Already approved by the state Assembly, the bill is headed for debate by the full Senate. If passed, the measure will put California on par with Vermont regarding legal recognition of same-sex couples. More than 20,000 same-sex couples are registered as domestic partners in California.



Tuesday, August 26, 2003
 
"A recent FOX News national poll, conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation, finds that 26 percent of Americans favor but 62 percent oppose same-sex marriage, and almost as many would ban it through a constitutional amendment. Over half (58 percent) favor passing an amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman."


 
"The Census Bureau found children who live with single fathers are less likely to be covered by health insurance than those with single moms -- or with both parents. Experts are puzzled because Census Bureau data for 2001 shows the median income for single-mother homes is about $22,000, roughly $10,000 less than single-father households."


 
"All good parents instinctively know you cannot separate the role of mothers and fathers," writes Angela Shanahan from Melbourne.


 
FROM TORONTO:
"Premier Ernie Eves, who supported same-sex marriage last summer, now says he personally opposes gays and lesbians being allowed to wed. In a major change in position on the eve of a provincial election call, the Premier said yesterday his Anglican religion forbids him from endorsing same-sex unions.



Monday, August 25, 2003
 
WILLIAM RASPBERRY, OUR BEST COLUMNIST, ON HOW TO HELP POOR KIDS:
Poor parents love their children and want them to be happy and successful. The problem is, they don't always know how to make it happen. I've concluded that it may be easier to teach the parents some of the necessary "tricks" than to rescue children who've already fallen behind. Indeed, I believe it so strongly I've decided to invest time and personal resources to see how much meaningful difference can be accomplished in the small community that happens to be my Mississippi hometown. I'll let you know how it goes.
Bravo. I can't wait to see what he does, and how some of the rest of us can help.


 
BAD PENNY, NOW FROM THE A.P.:
According to the 2002 Current Population Survey of the Census, 10 percent of all people over 50 are divorced, a significant increase from 1990 when 6 percent fell into the category. Some divorce attorneys and marriage counselors report a higher senior caseload as well.
As Tom and I have pointed out, this "more and more older couples are getting divorced" story keeps turning up, like a bad penny. What a shame. There's no evidence to support this claim, and we can blame the Wall Street Journal for getting the ball rolling.


 
FROM A BRITISH TABLOID, THE SUN:
A BOY whose mum was made pregnant with the wrong sperm in a shocking IVF clinic blunder said last night he always KNEW his �dad� was not his real father.
Sciscoop blogs on this issue here.


 
FROM AP: "The poll, conducted for the AP by ICR-International Communications Research of Media, Pa., found 52 percent favor a law banning gay marriages, while 41 percent oppose such a law."



 
My friend Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation does a slash-and-burn on "Marriage Plus" proposals (they are an attempt at "sabotage") coming from people such as my friend, and long-time marriage researcher and advocate, Theodora Oooms. Clearly he and Ooms disagree on some aspects of how government might best seek to encourage marriage. But there is real agreement on the basics, and even on the details, more agreement than disagreement. Yet the article is so fierce, almost all heat and accusation. Why? Maybe I don't understand how things work in Washington. Or maybe I do, and just don't approve.


 
FROM AMSTERDAM:
A 60-page manual produced by Holland`s leading LGBT rights group and released Friday tells gay groups around the world how to convince governments to permit same-sex marriage. The book was put together by COC, the gay civil rights organization that successfully lobbied The Netherlands to pass the world`s first same-sex marriage law.



 
MARRIAGE TRENDS IN CHINA:
"Marriage and motherhood are no longer obligations for women, but a status women can choose," said Bao, adding that she did not want anything, even a child, to disturb the harmony of her relationship.







 
Responding to my post on the five options facing us in the SSM debate, a Canadian reader writes in:
EAGLE rejects the registered domestic partnership (i.e. civil registration) option because it knows that the gay and lesbian community are the more equal animals in Canada (under the "equality" section 15 of the Charter Of Rights). Their basic argument is that if gays are not admitted to the state-stamped legal definition of marriage, their dignity would be impaired. This position however immediately creates a conflict insoluble under Canadian constituion, which recognizes 'group' rights alongside individual rights. If the marriage definition were to change to include SSM, this would create a mirror indignity for all the Catholics and other traditional Christian Churches, the Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Sikhs and other religions, for the new definition clashes sharply with their cosmologies and traditions. The new measure would allow them 'traditional rites' in their temples. But if the principle of equality prevailed, then the new state definition of marriage not coinciding with their view, condescends to them.

So, in Canada the options are somewhat thinner. I would say there are realistically only three options:

1. Dejuridification -- the state manages all monogamous relationship as partnerships. The problem with this currently is the uncertain status of certain services like 'fertility' treatment which is provided to only to married heteros under national medicare, and the access to adoption by the couples.

2. Nationwide referendum -- the issue is deeply divisive in Canada. The liberal media manipulate the debate as a conflict between religious traditions and equal rights. To that end they excise views which cast it in different light or want to debate the reproduction and adoption rights as an inserapable marriage matter (EGALE forces these issues out, reasoning that once they won 'equal marriage' all else follows automatically). But as a bottom line the government lacks support for the measure. The latest polls show the majority is opposed to SSM. As things heat up (yesterday there was a clash between gays and pro-family group in B.C.) they will have to have popular mandate for this.

3. Constitutional ratification of SSM: this is what the government wants to do. Right now it looks there are no obstacles on that road but things may quickly change. The traditionalists will likely band together and request a Supreme Court injunction against the definition change, on grounds that I have described above. But we really have a problem with our Constitution amending process. The lower courts invoked section 15, into which 'sexual orientation' as grounds on which discrimination is prohibited, was added later by an Act of Parliament. The 'equal marriage' debates started in Canada in mid-nineties, fifteen years after the constitution was patriated. Unfortunately, unlike the US we do not have legal traditions which would force the Supreme Court to consider the 'original intent' of the framers. Worse still, our judiciary is a runaway horse which as a group enhusiastically underwrites SSM, and already allowed the decoupling of the reproduction/adoption issues. On the equality merits alone, the SSM is a virtual certainty in Canada.



 
GOOD GOLLY, MORE ON POLY: The Associated Press reports that polyamorists are seeking recognition from Unitarians:
Activists define polyamory as "responsible non-monogamy," or the potential for loving more than one person at a time. They say "polys" want honest, intimate, enduring love relationships. They just don't want relationships to be limited to two people.
(Thanks to reader Lauren Cole.)


 
THE GOOD DIVORCE: The NY Times Magazine tells the story of one couple's mediated divorce.
[Most Americans] marry for love. Yet an enduring truth of our time is that marriage dissolves as often as it holds. So how is it that ordinary love ordinarily fails? If love is, as Wallace Stevens suggests, a dwelling ''in which being there together is enough,'' how does silence fall on a thousand evenings and the possibility of intimacy flicker and die? How do lovers become lonely?
It's a good piece, except...it refers to a bogus WSJ article that claimed, without any convincing evidence, that divorce rates were on the rise.





 
WHERE ARE THEY NOW? In an interesting feature, the NYT weddings page is checking up on couples featured in their pages years ago, to see how they're doing now. In a charming piece on Helen Hiebert and Ted Katauskas, who were married in 1996 and have since moved from NYC to Portland OR, had two children, and continue to (barely) support themselves freelancing and making art, Ted was asked "if they felt anything like a 7-year-itch":

Mr. Katauskas paused incredulously as if he had been asked whether he had shopped at Prada recently. "It's been difficult, it's been fun, it's been hell, it's been happy, it's been sad," he said. "But neither one of us have ever thought of leaving each other."