Saturday, September 13, 2003
 
FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT?: Six law school professors write a letter to Congress opposing it:
The proposed amendment interferes with the rights of states, rights that have been consistently recognized since the founding of our Nation. Under our federal system of government, family law has long been the province of the states. A basic principle of American democracy and federalism is that government actions that control a citizen�s personal life and liberty -- such as government actions that control people�s decisions about whom to marry -- should be made at the level of government closest to the citizen, rather than by the U.S. Congress or by the legislatures of other states. States already actively regulate marriage; for example, 37 states specifically prohibit marriage between same-sex couples. That is a choice that they are now free to make. The Amendment will wrongly deny those states -- which is to say, the states� citizens and their representatives -- this choice. Of course, the Constitution does impose certain limitations on States, but only when this is needed to protect the national government, the national economy, or individual rights -- for instance, where article I, section 10 prohibits states from creating separate currencies, or where the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to treat people equally. But there is no need to federalize the definition of marriage. If Oregonians, for instance, choose to define marriage more broadly than citizens of other states do, there�s no reason for the federal government to step in. (Nor is such a sweeping amendment necessary to satisfy the narrow goal of letting each state choose whether to recognize out-of-state homosexual marraiges. There�s no need to impose a one-size-fits-all solution on the whole nation, either by banning all homosexual marriages, or requiring them to be recognized throughout the country.)
I"m only beginning to think about this one, but a couple of quick reactions. First, I think it's likely that different states will come up with different solutions to the SSM controversy in the next few years, but in the long term, it seems unlikely, and undesirable, to have competing and contradictory definitions of marriage operating in the same country. What a blow to the notion of marriage as a coherent social institution! I'm reminded of Lincoln's reply to Douglas in 1858, when Douglas said, let each state decide whether or not to permit slavery ("popular sovereignty") -- he said that we could not in the long term remain a house divided on such an important issue.

Second, Andrew Sullivan (here) and other pro SSM leaders make a big deal of the fedealism argument, as the six law professors do above, but their fervency on this issue strikes me as a bit self-serving. Their main goal is SSM. The proposed amendment would prohibit SSM. That's the disagreement here. Issues of federalism are at best secondary considerations, at least for Sullivan. If he thought a constitutional amendment, or a Supreme Court decision, could establish SSM tomorow, I'm pretty sure he'd find a way to be in favor of it, today's passionate embrace of federalism notwithstanding. I think he'd be better off just making his case straight up.

However, at the risk of contradicting my own argument -- perhaps it's because I'm still a MAFS on this issue -- amending the constitution to solve this debate just strikes me as a bad idea.


 
"Talent tries to focus welfare reforms on marriage":
When Congress remade national welfare policy, out-of-wedlock births were a major concern to a young Missouri House member involved in the 1996 overhaul. The lawmaker, Republican Jim Talent, went on to become a U.S. senator and is now helping to shape the next welfare reform bill. Today, Talent regards out-of-wedlock births as a symptom, and he's targeting what he sees as the cause: not enough healthy marriages.



Friday, September 12, 2003
 
Images published for the first time yesterday seem to suggest that unborn babies can smile, blink and cry weeks before they leave the womb.


 
FROM THE ONION:
NEW MEADOWS, ID�In spite of predictions to the contrary, Larry Naering, a 45-year-old research scientist, has failed to make someone very happy one day, his mother Nancy reported Monday. "He's always been such a handsome, responsible boy," said Nancy, who used to look forward to having grandchildren. "I always told him that some girl was going to discover a real hidden treasure if she took the time to look at him. I guess I was wrong." Nancy said her son's chances of finding that one-in-a-million love have dwindled to one in 50 billion.



 
LET KIDS VOTE?: In Germany, some policymakers are toying with an idea to get politicians to care more about the interests of children and families.


 
ART AND LIFE:
Blurring the boundaries between life and art, the couple will take the stage and tie the knot Friday before invited family and friends, fellow artists and paying ticket holders in what they're calling a "collaborative multimedia performance ritual." "For most people, the closest thing they do in their lives to what we do as performers is getting married," Price said. "That became a major idea for us."



 
JOINT CUSTODY (CONT.):
Bob Geldof made an impassioned plea last night for fathers to be given equal access to their children when a marriage breaks down ... Geldof fought a bitter custody battle with Yates after she left him in 1995 for the Australian rock singer Michael Hutchence ... The musician's comments came during an address to academics and family groups at the Nuffield Institute in central London during the launch of Children and Their Families; Contact, Rights & Welfare, a collection of academic articles to which he has contributed a chapter.



Thursday, September 11, 2003
 
FROM VIRGINIA:
Powered by federal grant and local dollars worth $1.4 million, the Hampton Roads Healthy Marriage Coalition is out to prove that marriage is an institution worth promoting and saving ... The local coalition - one of just three federally funded nationwide - is focusing on just four communities during this four-year program: Hampton, Newport News, York County and Poquoson. Its dollars originate from the Bush Administration's efforts to promote marriage through an unlikely door: child support enforcement. Todd Areson, who wrote the grant application as the research manager for the state's department of child support enforcement, calls the coalition's goals a "grand experiment." The local effort, Areson says, will take its place among the sorts of federal programs that put theories on how to improve American life to the test ... Babineaux says the hard work of the next four years won't be to push single moms and dads back into relationships that have already failed. The purpose, he says, is to identify ways to strengthen families already created, along with those in development. "This is not like the DMV where you have to get the license to drive the car," says Babineaux. "This is more like you want to go fishing so you go to Target and look around for the right fishing gear so you can be ready when you go." Babineaux sees the coalition offering two phases of marriage preparation courses. The first would be to assess compatibility, the other to share what it takes to create a healthy, lasting union. The coalition won't be the place offering services, though. Its purpose is to be a clearinghouse that links organizations and services to the people who need them. He expects faith-based groups and secular nonprofits to be the coalition's backbone.



 
FAT DOWN UNDER:
The number of obese Australian adults has climbed dramatically over the past decade and will continue to soar in coming years, a report released yesterday says. While 2.4 million adults already fall into the obese category, this figure will rise 12.5 per cent by 2010, say researchers at the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Their report, A growing problem: Trends and patterns in overweight and obesity 1980 to 2001, collated data from all relevant national surveys since 1980. It found that the proportion of obese Australians had increased by almost 80 per cent over the past 13 years.



 
FROM MISSISSIPPI:
The [Jackson County] Fatherhood Initiative program has attracted dozens of fathers to the agency's seminars, classes and field trips ... "We try to create fun things to do so dads have the opportunity to get involved with their children in ways they normally wouldn't," Harris said. The program also focuses heavily on educational aspects of fathering, which help dads better handle their responsibilities in child-rearing. Local churches also help with the program, Harris said. Herman Barnum of Moss Point is raising his three grandchildren ages 4, 16 and 18. He said the Fatherhood Initiative program is a great tool. "I get quite a bit out of it. It looks like the state of Mississippi is trying to bring the family together but I think they still need more participation by the parents," Barnum said.



 
From the National Science Foundation: "Baboon Fathers Really Do Care About Their Kids"




 
"A man living in Fez was astonished to see his wife's picture among candidates for next Friday's local elections and judged the insubordination serious enough to divorce her."


Wednesday, September 10, 2003
 
DOES MOVING AWAY AFTER DIVORCE HURT KIDS?: Remember the news stories a couples of months ago about a study by Sanford Braver and colleagues purporting to show that a divorced mother moving away with the children after divorce causes "significant" harm to children? There were lots of headlines and newspaper stories to this effect.

Norval Glenn of the University of Texas and I try in an op-ed to untangle the study and story. Bottom line:
The two of us disagree on the policy issues at stake here. But we agree that the Braver study is a weak one that provides no credible evidence on the effects on children of moving away after divorce.



 
MAGGIE GALLAGHER ON GOOD NEWS ABOUT MARRIAGE:

For marriage nuts, the big question lately has been: Are things getting a little bit better, or are they still getting worse and worse?� At a fascinating Health and Human Services-funded conference last week in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the National Poverty Center, we finally got the answer. And the news is good. The analysis of the National Survey of America's Families (a survey of 40,000 nationally representative families) was done by Urban Institute scholars Gregory Acs and Sandi Nelson:

Between 1997 and 2002, the proportion of children under 6 living in intact married families actually increased. So did the proportion of all children in low-income households (the bottom quarter) by close to 4 percent.

It's encouraging evidence that the apostles of despair are wrong: The decline of marriage is not inevitable. Social recovery is possible. In fact, it is under way.




Tuesday, September 09, 2003
 
A U.S. Newswire piece on Hardwired to Connect.


 
MORE ON KIPNIS: Laura Kipnis� new book, Against Love: A Polemic, has struck a chord, at least with journalists. Indeed, her editor at Pantheon must not have forecasted this or the book would have been titled differently. The book is not really against love but against marriage, and its argument is nicely constructed to fly directly in the face of all the warm and fuzzy, pro-marriage facts and anecdotes that we marriage movement types like to offer up. In a recent Guardian piece Kipnis writes:

Consider, for instance, the endless regulations and interdictions that provide the texture of domestic coupledom. Is there any area of married life that is not crisscrossed by rules and strictures about everything from how you load the dishwasher, to what you can say at dinner parties, to what you do on your day off, to how you drive - along with what you eat, drink, wear, make jokes about, spend your discretionary income on?

As a married person I find some of what Kipnis has to say appealing. It is true that living within the small community of a marriage does subject even the smallest of one�s actions to comment and, too often, criticism.

But all of you coupled people out there, I ask you this: Have you ever relished the thought of your spouse leaving town for a few days? Ah, you think. I can do whatever I want. Rent movies. Get pricey take out. Take a nap or sleep in. Then, after two or three days of being on your own you look around. Dishes have piled up in the sink. The bed is unmade. You don�t have much appetite. And life feels pretty empty.

Yeah, the small petty details of marriage get old. But what I�m hooked on is the meaning, of submerging your own little life, with its petty desires, in a story that�s larger than both of you. Of sharing a history and a future with someone who�s willing to stick it out with you even though they know intimately your every fault. And that�s not even the biggest stuff. Better still, of raising a child with that child�s other parent, all sharing a single identity as one family, bumping along the road of life together laughing and crying all the way.

By comparison, being able to cook your eggs how you want them, or even being able to sleep with anyone you want, seems like pretty small stuff. Kipnis is welcome to it.



 
SSM AND COHABITATION IN SOUTH AFRICA: In a move that sounds possibly similar to American Law Institute recommendations made in the U.S. earlier this year:

An advisory group to the South African government is proposing the legalization of same-sex marriage. In a report to the government the South African Law Reform Commission has made seven proposals, addressing both same-sex and heterosexual relationships, and invited public comment. The proposals address legal problems faced by a growing number of people who are not married but are in dependent or committed relationships.




 
CANADA MAY DEBATE SSM IN PARLIAMENT THIS FALL:

Prime Minister Jean Chr�tien is seriously considering bringing the controversial bill legalizing same-sex marriage before Parliament this fall, before he retires. �A fall vote would be a dramatic change of course for Mr. Chr�tien, who has until now rejected calls from his own caucus to allow a full debate in the House of Commons as soon as possible so MPs can voice their opinions on the divisive issue.




 
CHILE SET TO ALLOW DIVORCE:

Marriage in Chile is regulated by the Civil Matrimony Law of 1884. The measure allows boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 to marry. Under no circumstances can they, or anyone else in Chile, get divorced�.Lacking the option of divorce, Chileans who can afford the legal costs of $600 or more typically pursue annulments, available through Chilean courts, which decree that the marriage never existed. Other people simply separate and form new partnerships. Reflecting this trend, the number of children born out of wedlock in Chile rose from 23 percent in 1990 to 39 percent in 2001.



Monday, September 08, 2003
 
"HARDWIRED TO CONNECT": It's the title of a new Institute report, to be publicly released tomorrow in D.C. Kathy Kline, the principal investigator, is scheduled to appear tomorrow morning on ABC TV's "Good Morning America" to talk about the report. If you can, you might want to check it out.


Sunday, September 07, 2003
 
FAITH, POLITICS, AND THE LEAST OF THESE: It's only indirectly related to marriage and the family, but I want to say a word about David Beasley, the former governor of South Carolina, and Bob Riley, the current governor of Alabama. Both are card-carrying conservative Rebublicans. Both are believing, evangelical Christians. And both got into deep electoral trouble -- Beasley lost his bid for re-election, and Riley is about to get clobbered in a statewide referendum -- when (as they saw it, and as I see it) the latter conflicted with the former.

Beasely wanted to move the Confederate flag from the State Capitol. He told me that, especially as a conservative white guy, he didn't want to ask African American leaders to come meet with him in an office that sat under a Confederate battle flag. And that as a Christian, he felt called to do what he could to advance racial reconciliation in his state. I'm a Southerner too, and I understand the complexity of the flag issue, and its deep resonance with lots of people, but basically I thought Beasely was right. But large numbers of his fellow Republicans didn't; Democrats were happy enough to watch him self-destruct on the issue, and he went (at age 40-something) from being a rising star in GOP politics to just another ex-governor with no political future.

Riley in Alabama wants to cut taxes for the poor and raise them on the affluent in order to redress a budget deficit and spend more on basic social services that tend especially to help the poor. And as a Christian, he is arguing publicly that we are judged by how we treat the least powerful among us. But large numbers of his fellow Republicans do not agree -- his ex-pals in the Christian Coalition diagree, and national anti-tax leaders like Grover Norquist vehemently disagree -- and Democrats are happy enough to watch him self-destruct on the issue. So on Tuesday, barring a miracle, he's going to suffer the political defeat of his life.

Growing up in Mississippi in the 1960s and 1970s, I saw this time and time again. Among the powerful, politics -- and especially the politics of race -- trumps Christian faith, at least insofar as the social teachings of that faith point us toward greater consideration of the least of these. As a Christian, this breaks my heart. So, as Beasely settles into political obscurity, and on the eve of Bob Riley's huge defeat; and at a time when lots of people are looking around for real life examples of what another Republican leader calls compassionate conservatism, I say to these two men, bravo, you have my respect, and to their politically victorious former-allies-turned-opponents, I say shame on you.


 
THE GOOD DIVORCE:
Having at least a civil cooperative relationship with your former spouse, especially about matters concerning your kids, is important for your kids' well-being. So is making sure that they don't become the rope in your tug-of-war with each other or the battlefield upon which you wage your marital war. And be sure that it is clear to them that the divorce was not their fault; kids tend to irrationally blame themselves, and that is much more responsibility than any kid needs. It may also be a good idea to get professional help for your kids if they seem to be suffering from the divorce. In St. Louis, where I live, there is a group called "Kids in the Middle." It is a not-for-profit organization that provides subsidized counseling for such children. One of its big supporters is Ozzie Smith, the Hall of Fame former shortstop for the St. Louis Cardinals. It offers some wonderful tips for both adults and kids about how to help kids deal with divorce in its literature and on its Web site (www.kidsinthemiddle.org). And much of it sounds like advice for any parent and kid, not just for kids of divorce. Things like "allow children to have and openly express their own feelings," "be honest," "spend quality time with each child" and "be consistent with rules and expectations." Just plain sound parenting.
This is the classic how-to-have-a-better-divorce proposition -- well intentioned, sincere, helpful in many ways, something that every divorcing couple should try to act on, endlessly repeated in our society ... and ultimately more false than true. The falseness is in the claim that, if divorcing couples will just follow these guidelines and practice "plain sound parenting," the basic crisis from the child's perspective is somehow solved, or at least substantially remediated. But it's not. My colleague and fellow blogger Elizabeth Marquardt is writing up her research on this issue now, for a forthcoming book that I think will influence the debate dramatically.


 
CIVIL UNIONS (CONT.): "Leaders of the Massachusetts Senate are preparing to push legislation to establish civil unions for gays and lesbians, a form of legal recognition for same-sex relationships that only Vermont has enacted into law. The move by Senate President Robert E. Travaglini and his top lieutenants comes as the state's highest court considers whether to legalize gay marriage. Increasingly, some members of the Senate believe the court may direct the Legislature to address the question of the legal status of same-sex relationships, and they want to be prepared."