At one time, the [Silo and Roy] seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly. Roy and Silo sat on it for the typical 34 days until a chick, Tango, was born. For the next two and a half months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Mr. Gramzay is full of praise for them.

"They did a great job," he said.

In the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, a piece by Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney extols marriage in language I'm sure Tony Williams embraces:

"[It is] the foundation of a harmonious family life. It is the basic building block of society: The development, productivity and happiness of new generations are bound inextricably to the family unit. As a result, marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health and enduring strength of society." Which, for me, helps make the case for heterosexual and gay marriages, but that's not what this column is about today.

If Williams believes marriage is a fundamental institution that plays a pivotal role in our society -- and I believe he does -- how can he say that the District is "stronger than ever"?

Get this, because you won't get it from the mayor or his economic development hucksters: About 60 percent of babies in this city are born to unmarried mothers. Most D.C. families are headed by a single parent. And most D.C. kids live in neighborhoods with high proportions of men who are unemployed.

Face it. Where do we find most of our abused and neglected children? Whose children are doing most poorly in school or are the most disruptive in class? Which kids fill the juvenile court dockets, the group homes and Oak Hill Youth Center? Whose sons are most likely to be in the D.C. jail or in the cemetery, cut down in the prime of life? Are they the children who were raised in loving and supportive homes with married parents (not wealthy or middle class but homes where couples are linked by a marriage license and love and respect among themselves and their children)? Or kids living with unmarried, self-absorbed and socially immature adults who run the streets almost as much as the kids do?

You know the answer and so do the mayor, the council, the business community, our clergy and community leaders. Yet the collapsed state of black family life in our city is the Great Unmentionable. More truth-telling: There is a correlation between our dysfunctional homes and the chaos in our public schools and on our streets. And, yes, the District's powers-that-be know that, too.

A national women's group says a federally funded program in Allentown aimed at promoting marriage discriminates against women by offering job training and placement services to fathers but not to mothers ... "This reveals the true intent of so-called marriage promotion: Help men find work, tell women to be dependent on them," said Jennifer Brown, vice president of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Plans to set up a national Marriage Fund have been warmly received by charity organisations, many of which already help out young couples where they can. Charity funds around the country organise mass weddings in their areas, offering the celebrations at a cut price or free where possible. It means that the grooms can celebrate in grand style without breaking the bank, leaving their savings intact to set up home with their new wives. The brides traditionally hold separate parties at home.

Either we send around semitrailers to help people who want to get divorced stay married or we propose constitutional amendments to make sure people who want to get married can't do so.

For the next year, David Kirkpatrick -- formerly the man charged with covering the book publishing industry -- will cover conservatives. Not the Republican Party or the Bush administration. No, it's real conservatives. In an announcement earlier this month Times national editor Jim Roberts said that Mr. Kirkpatrick "will examine conservative forces in religion, politics, law, business and the media -- a job that will take him across the country and make him a frequent presence in Washington. "His coverage will cut across the political campaigns this season," Mr. Roberts continued, "but we expect that much of what he does will transcend the race itself and delve into the issues and personalities that drive -- and sometimes divide -- conservatives."

"I winced a little when I read that job announcement," said Times executive editor Bill Keller, "because it was a little like 'The New York Times discovers this strange, alien species called conservatives,' and that's not what this is about."

...collegiality appears to have unraveled under the pressure of deciding whether to allow same-sex couples to marry. One of the most surprising things about Wednesday's 4-to-3 decision establishing gay marriage in Massachusetts, court observers say, was the degree of disagreement among the justices and the sometimes strident language they used to express it.

"There's an extraordinary level of invective that isn't characteristic of this court, which over their history has strived for collegiality and civility," said R. Michael Cassidy, a Boston College law professor who follows the court closely. "It reflects how much they struggled over this decision and apparently how badly it's affected their relationship."

For example, the majority opinion that only marriage, and not civil unions, would be permissible under the state Constitution was brusquely dismissive of Justice Martha B. Sosman's dissenting argument that civil unions would give gays exactly what marriage would, except for the ability to name it marriage.

Reacting to Justice Sosman's reference to the "Romeo and Juliet" line "That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet," the majority fired back:

"The denomination of this difference by the separate opinion of Justice Sosman as merely a 'squabble over the name to be used' so clearly misses the point that further discussion appears to be useless."

Justice Sosman, in turn, accused the majority of being "activist" and said that the majority opinion "merely repeats the impassioned rhetoric" of gay marriage supporters who filed briefs in the case...

It is unclear why Bush expects marriage alone to lift them into affluence and happiness.

"This reveals the true intent of so-called marriage promotion: help men find work, tell women to be dependent on them," said NOW Legal Defense Vice President Jennifer K. Brown. "Women not only often choose to have a job, but women in poverty need their own jobs to lift their families out of poverty."

I was also disappointed with the MA court's opinion ... [For instance, the justices say]:

"Because the proposed law by its express terms forbids same-sex couples entry into civil marriage, it continues to relegate same-sex couples to a different status.

It would deny to same-sex "spouses" only a status that is specially recognized in society and has significant social and other advantages.

Maintaining a second-class citizen status for same-sex couples by excluding them from the institution of civil marriage is the constitutional infirmity at issue."

...and so on, and so on, as if to say "those poor homosexuals, if only they were allowed to get married, they could aspire to be as good as we are." How patronizing! Since when are unmarried people second-class citizens? I rather like the idea of a new social institution, made expressly and exclusively for gays, i.e. civil union. For that matter, why does it have to be legally identical to marriage? Same-sex couples have different dynamics and different legal needs than married couples; heck, why do we even need to treat lesbian couples the same as gay men?...

I'm not sure I agree with you that Justice Marshall meant to support "marriages of convenience" between siblings, best friends, etc. SSM may not have much effect on that trend anyway, since opposite'sex couples can already arrange marriages of convenience. At any rate, I do agree that something valuable is lost when marriage is viewed as just a piece of paper….

I think the meaning of the phrase "largely homosexual" was making reference to the fact that some forms of domestic partnerships and civil unions are, or could be, opened up to heterosexual couples as well. But thier primary purpose would be to segregate out homosexuals, thus they would be "largely homosexual."

While I haven't completely read the decision, my guess is that Justice Marshall was parsing her words to fit the analysis. To call it "homosexual marriage" would be confusing for the equal protection argument because homosexuals can marry, they just cannot curerntly marry each other. To just call it just "same-sex marriage" would miss the point that this is about denying equal protection to homosexuals. Thus, the clumsy language cause by legalese.

Even if she was opening up the door to something broader, that isn't inconsistent with the current marriage laws anywhere in this country. Opposite sex friends are permitted to marry in the United States. People enter into loveless, sexless marriages for many reasons and have for
generations. ... On a less theoretical level, I don't believe Marshall is trying to redefine marriage by inviting best friends and roomates into the relationship. First, they are there already. Second, I imagine they would be just as rare as their opposite-sex counterparts.

In setting up the institution of marriage, society offers special support and encouragement to the men and women who together make children. Because marriage is deeply implicated in the interests of children, it is a matter of public concern. Children are helpless. They depend upon adults. Over and above their parents, children depend upon society to create institutions that keep them from chaos. Children cannot articulate their needs. Children cannot vote. Yet children are society. They are us, and they are our future. That is why society has the right to give special support and encouragement to an institution that is necessary to the well being of children — even if that means special benefits for some, and not for others. The dependence intrinsic to human childhood is why unadulterated libertarianism can never work.

The "discrimination" inherent in the legal institution of marriage is relatively minor. Single people are "discriminated against" by the benefits granted to married couples. Those who prefer to live with multiple lovers are also "discriminated against" by the institution of marriage. So, too, are same-sex couples "discriminated against" by marriage. Each of these groups is now demanding redress from this "discrimination." Such redress will spell the end of marriage.

The court seemed to offer one alternative. In a footnote, the decision found that same-sex unions would not have to be called marriages if "the Legislature were to jettison the term 'marriage' altogether."

Want to study the effect of welfare reform? Pay attention to the song lyrics, not the income tables! When the equivalent of Jay-Z starts boasting about all the women he's scoring with because he has a full-time job, we'll know welfare reform is working.

Maybe the process by which welfare reform affects marriage is a long-term, multi-step, even dialectical process. 1) The first step is that single moms no longer have to settle, and no longer want to settle, for no-good men. (Cf. the 1999 song "No Scrubs," by TLC. The newly-working post-1996 single moms would be the "honeys with the money." The no-good men would be the "scrubs.") 2) The no-good single men, sensing the playing field shift against them, are initially disoriented and react angrily with nostalgia, machismo and bewilderment. (Cf. Rap lyric noted by Katherine Boo: "Give me a project chick./Give me a hoodrat b----,/One that don't give a ----.") 3) But, eventually, over years or maybe generations, the men will do what is necessary to qualify for the newly-selective honeys-with-the money, even if it means getting not-so-enjoyable jobs themselves and publicly respecting women and fidelity instead of glorifying "players." (Cf. "Let's Get Married," by Jagged Edge.) ... It's widely recognized that the great challenge of welfare reform isn't transforming single mothers on welfare into working single mothers -- that's the easy part! The hard part, as Paul Offner and others have argued (and as many single ex-welfare mothers would probably tell you) is transforming those ghetto-poor men who are no-goodniks into husbands and fathers.

Me give my heart to a woman?
Not for nothin, never happen
I'll be forever mackin'

Yeah, can I get my grown man on for one second?
...
Only thing missin is a Missus
You ain't even gotta do the dishes, got two dishwashers
Got one chef, one maid, all I need is a partner
to play spades with the cards up, ALL TRUST
...
Everybody's like, "He's no item! Please don't like him.
He don't wife 'em, he one nights 'em!"

Love, let's go half on a son, I know my past ain't one
you can easily get past, but that chapter is done

Asked if Vermont-style civil unions would be sufficient, the opinion stated: "The answer is 'No.'"...

"The dissimilitude between the terms 'civil marriage' and 'civil union' is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status."

The Iowa Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to review a divorce case involving two women.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, six state lawmakers and the Church of Christ of Le Mars and its pastor sought the review. They seek to block the divorce, saying Iowa law does not recognize a marriage between two women.

The court's action effectively halts the divorce of Kimberly Jean Brown and Jennifer Sue Perez. The two women from Sioux City were granted a divorce by Woodbury County District Court Judge Jeffrey Neary on Nov. 14.

Neary later amended the decree to eliminate any reference to marriage and changed the wording to civil union.

The two women went to Vermont in March 2002 to take advantage of the state's civil union laws and returned to Sioux City to live.

Single mothers should not isolate themselves but instead play an active roles in social activities, Malaysia Nanban reported yesterday.

Quoting Negri Sembilan Single Mothers Association chairman Datuk Siti Rahma Kassim, the daily reported that single mothers would have more problems if they chose to live in isolation.

Siti Rahma, who was speaking at a health campaign for single mothers at Pedas near Rembau on Saturday, also advised single mothers to join the association which could provide help in solving their problems. ...

Using the term "civil marriage" is indeed a clever rhetorical trick. The risk, as you rightly point out, is that it will fragment the meaning of marriage. "Covenant marriage" might have been the first volley in this campaign. Not that I want to pick on the idea, but it set up the notion that some marriages would be viewed (by the state) differently than other marriages. I suspect that as "civil marriage" gains a foothold in the debate, "traditional marriage" will become the rhetorical response. And Rush Limbaugh or his ilk will likely try to tag "civil marriage" with the nickname "sinful marriage."

The National Black Justice Coalition has announced the support of civil rights leader Julian Bond. Bond joins with Coretta Scott King, Carol Moseley Braun, Al Sharpton, John Lewis, Henry Louis Gates and other African American leaders who publicly support marriage equality. Julian Bond, chairman of the board of directors of the NAACP, has announced his personal support of legitimizing gay marriage. "I see this as a civil rights issue," said Julian Bond. "That means I support gay civil marriage." Bond, the chairman of the board of directors of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, was speaking in his personal capacity and not for the NAACP. "We are very pleased that Julian Bond has spoken out affirmatively on this issue," said Keith Boykin, president of the board of the National Black Justice Coalition. "His statement helps to clarify two important points. First, marriage is a basic human right, and second, outlawing discrimination in civil marriage does not change the rules for religious marriage."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, backed the president's initiative, saying: "Children are better off with two parents, intact families. And I think anything we do to encourage healthy marriages between a man and a woman will bring the maximum benefit to our children." The Senate has addressed fears that counseling could raise violence levels by inserting a provision in its bill that would require domestic violence specialists to review all contracts, Godzich said. Arizona now promotes marriage through six contractors, he said. The state has funded counseling for two years, said Godzich, who hopes eventually to deploy 25 of the $250,000 Marriage Mobiles. More than three-quarters of federal aid to children goes to single-parent families, according to a report in The Christian Science Monitor. "Only the poorest families get these benefits, and single-parent families tend to be among the poorest in Texas," said Patrick Bresette, associate director of the nonprofit Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin. "Single-parent families tend to be way poorer than anybody else." Bresette questions whether the government should be involved in teaching people how to strengthen marriages. He also notes that the funds will have to come from existing programs. National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy called the initiative "social engineering" and echoed Bresette, saying the proposed $1.5 billion would come from "already underfunded poverty programs." "They're trying to play to some audience that really believes poor people are lazy," Gandy said. "They're saying you don't need an education, you don't need a good job, you just need a man." The real issues are education, day care and transportation to a job, said Becky Orander, director of the Arlington Life Shelter. Marriage counseling also fails to address drug addiction, she said. Sonyia Hartwell, associate executive director of the Women's Shelter of Tarrant County, pointed to problems the state of Oklahoma has experienced with its $10 million Oklahoma Marriage Initiative. Brett Sharp of Oklahoma Central University examined the state's initiative as part of a 2003 independent research project funded by the Rockefeller Institute of overnment. "Encouraging marriage within a subculture that resists the inherent constraints and responsibilities requires more than tinkering with public policy," Sharp wrote in "Great Expectations and Recent Frustrations: Oklahoma's Continuing Quest to Partner with Faith-Based Organizations."

A scientific advisory panel urged the Food and Drug Administration on Monday to issue stronger warnings to doctors now about the possible risks to children of a newer generation of antidepressant drugs, rather than wait until the agency's review of the drugs was completed...

Dr. Rudorfer said the committee was struck by the fact that in some cases described at the hearing doctors had seemingly prescribed antidepressants casually and failed to monitor the children closely while they were taking them...

About 11 million prescriptions for a group of newer antidepressants were written for American children under 18 in 2002, according to the F.D.A. ...

I was checking the German papers on the Web, to see whether maybe this was some euthanasia law gone awry, and it looks like, first, no, it wasn't, the judge didn't *have* to give that light a sentence, and second, not only is he sentenced to only eight and a half
years, he can be out in four and a half years. And, finally, I found an article where someone went and interviewed the friends of the victim. His lover said that they were happy together, planning a summer vacation, and buying various household appliances, then one day he went to work and never returned, and after a short while a sympathy note arrived from the man who killed and ate him.

Money alone will not cure this problem. The Center for Law and Social Policy analyzed findings from a national study of unmarried parents and, in a paper released last month, said: "Researchers found that relationship quality has a larger effect on likelihood of marriage than employment." For these families - and countless other, more affluent ones - having a child together is not enough of a reason to marry. The decision instead ought to be made on the basis of the quality of the relationship between the two adults. And if they don't feel emotionally ready, well, they'll just wait. And wait. From this perspective, marriage education makes sense. If a couple can learn how to maintain a relationship, they are more likely to choose to marry and stay married. The White House is right: Money can't always buy love. Couples counseling may be a wise down payment. It cannot be the only public policy response to the troubling specter of American children growing up in homes that are financially and emotionally unstable. But we have to be honest about the causes of marriage's decline. If it were only about money, the Paltrow-Martins would be the rule in Hollywood and elsewhere, not the welcome exception.

President Bush's $2.4 trillion budget released on Monday includes expanded initiatives to promote teen sexual abstinence and "healthy marriages," causes highlighted in his State of the Union speech and championed by conservatives. The initiatives would be financed in part by shifting some funds from within the federal welfare budget. Spending for abstinence and marriage promotion, as well as for subsidized day care, is likely to be pivotal when Congress shortly makes another attempt at extending the landmark 1996 welfare reform that emphasized getting people off relief and into the workplace. That program expired in 2002, but Congress has passed several short-term extensions as Democrats and Republicans have been unable to agree. The budget includes doubling, to $270 million, spending on programs to encourage teens to abstain from sex. It includes several initiatives to promote marriage. One $240 million program, which includes state and federal funds, would give a limited number of states grants to try to promote marriages and limit out-of-wedlock births. In addition, the budget includes a $120 million fund for research and pilot programs on marriage promotion. The money would come out of a welfare-related fund that had rewarded states for reducing out of wedlock births. The budget calls for another $50 million to promote responsible fatherhood.

It is a perennial complaint among members of the clergy that many straight couples regard the chapel as little more than a stage set for a picture-perfect wedding. In contrast, many of the gay couples who are heading for the altar are regular worshipers who say in interviews that religion is central to their lives. They represent an often-overlooked slice of gay America: the monogamous homebodies more likely to have met their mates at Bible study than at a bar.

While it is true that the divorce rate is higher in the so-called Bible Belt (parts of the South) and the divorce rate is higher among self-identified "Born Again" (or conservative) Protestants, the divorce rate is NOT HIGHER among Born Again (or conservative) Protestants who regularly attend church. In this part of the country, the divorce rate is highest among nominal conservative Protestants, who rarely darken the door of a church in an average year. By contrast, conservative Protestants who are regular churchgoers are much less likely to divorce than the average American married couple.

In fact, active conservative Protestants do well on a whole range of marital outcomes--from domestic violence to marital happiness. I suspect that their religious faith, and their desire NOT to end up divorced or unhappy like their nominal conservative Protestant family members or friends, motivates them to invest themselves in their marriage.

President Bush wants to spend $1.5 billion teaching Americans how to get and stay married. I suggest he simply write a check to the Learning Annex. That venerable night school, now operating in seven cities, teaches everything from Finding the Work You Love, to How to Shoot Your Own Live Adult Video. (Not the same class.) But some of its most popular courses - at least among women - are those teaching precisely the skills Bush is pushing: How to snag a spouse.

"Marriage promotion is a good idea," Cherlin said. "We don't know how to do it for low-income families, but even a skeptic like me thinks this is worth trying."