Also this week, the House may vote on a package of bills intended to make couples better prepared for marriage and help those getting divorced better communicate with their children about their separation. "It really emphasizes making marriage stronger," Rep. Joanne Vorhees, a Republican from Wyoming, said about the legislation she's been working on for six years. The package of bills includes one that would allow couples who attend a four-hour marital education class to continue to receive a marriage license in three days. The waiting period would be extended to 28 days for couples who don't attend the class, according to the legislation. Such instruction is offered by nonprofit, religious and community groups. The legislation would require that marriage certificates include a check-off box to show whether a couple received counseling before getting married. Vorhees said that's intended to help the state figure out whether couples who received counseling stayed married.

Saying "I do" in front of an iconic landmark or in a stunning natural setting is one of the driving forces behind the increase in popularity of wedding ceremonies being performed by marriage celebrants. More than 50 per cent of weddings are now civil ceremonies, rather than traditional church weddings, and most are performed by celebrants. The most recent figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that 55 per cent of wedding ceremonies in 2002 were civil ceremonies, a jump from 41.8 per cent in 1992. One of the major reasons for the increase is that, when couples are married by a celebrant, they can choose where their nuptials will take place, said Elisabeth O'Brien, the director of celebrant training company Australian Celebrations Training. "A lot of people want the Sydney Harbour Bridge in their photos," Ms O'Brien said.

A couple has been ordered not to conceive any more children until the ones they already have are no longer in foster care.

A civil liberties advocate said the court ruling unsealed Friday was "blatantly unconstitutional."

Monroe County Family Court Judge Marilyn O'Connor ruled March 31 that both parents "should not have yet another child which must be cared for at public expense."

The advertising business has long touted the virtues of self-regulation when it comes to marketing to children. Now a mothers' group is planning to call them on their boasts, launching a grassroots campaign designed to spur the industry to do a better job of self-policing.

An Iranian television series in which a woman introduces a friend to her husband for marriage has outraged female activists in the Islamic state who say it encourages polygamy and reinforces prejudice against women. Protest gatherings and editorials in feminist publications have singled out the Another Woman mini series, whose run on state monopoly IRIB ended last month, as a prime example of the broadcaster's negative portrayal of women. "Promoting polygamy in television programmes is a big insult to women here," reformist parliamentarian Akram Mosavarimanesh told Reuters. Men in Iran, where Islamic law has been in force since 1979, can marry up to four permanent wives and as many temporary wives - via religious contracts lasting as little as a few hours to several years - as they wish.

Chile has long been one of only three countries in the world where divorce is banned. The Roman Catholic church has attacked the new legislation, saying it would threaten the family and undermine the sanctity of marriage. Under the new law, a couple may divorce a year after separating if both partners agree to split up. If one partner disagrees, a divorce is allowed after three years.

The labor force participation rate of mothers ages 15-44 with infant children -- under 1 year old -- slid from a record 59% in 1998 to 55% in 2002, part of the first downward slide since the Census Bureau began tracking the figure in 1976. While those women may represent a return to more traditional family arrangements, some workplace experts suspect they may be leaving the workforce, at least temporarily, because they can't find the flexibility they seek. "Some of the reasons women are going to the home is because organizations are not stepping up to the plate. Some organizations are cutting back," says Lisa Levey of Catalyst, a research and advisory group in New York.

A study by an Italian researcher shows that when couples fall in love their testosterone levels alter. It falls in men and rises in women so they become more like each other.
...
Not all scientists agree with Marazziti's interpretation of the results and some say changing testosterone levels could be a result of increased sexual activity.

"For political and ideological reasons, Republicans claim that what it takes to create a good home for children is marriage, when it's really economic and emotional stability," says Terry O'Neill, vice president of the National Organization of Women.

While I certainly like the general principal behind your proposal, I think it's a bit silly to give twice as much money to two-parent households. A two-parent household has the capacity for two incomes, whereas a one-parent household only has the capacity for one. Under your proposal, a child living with two parents receives greater financial aid than a child with one. You have to explain why the child with two parents requires greater support. How would, say, widows fit into your proposal? Parents who escaped an abusive marriage? These situations may not be the norm among single-parent households, but they still affect apply to a huge number of parents. The idea is a good one, but only if all children (that need it) receive equal support regardless of the marital status of their parents. I am shocked that someone that professes to be so concerned with the welfare of children would suggest a proposal that benefits some children more than others. Yes, I understand you want to promote "traditional" families--but how can you justify the injury inflicted on children of "non traditional" families?

Tom says that I overstate the case that Prof. Alstott's caregiver accounts proposal is out of touch with most mothers. He cites statistics showing that over time a majority of mothers work part or full-time and that 80% of women are concerned about childcare. To me, another relevant question is what percentage of these women would like the option of using Prof. Alstott's proposed $5000 subsidy to eliminate their participation in the paid labor market? I don't have precise statistics, but I know that many women express a desire to do just that so they can spend more time with their families and children.

Alstott's proposal is heavily slanted toward a particular view of women's roles. Mothering is not just an unpleasant interruption to the really important work of school and careers. I dare say that for most women, it is the single most important vocation of their lives. Alstott's proposal not only quite intentionally dissuades mothering by providing generous and immediate financial incentives for mothers to pursue studies and careers, it is also anti-natalist, since at-home mothers may be convinced to opt against having additional children so that they can access the $5000 yearly subsidy sooner.

Also, since it does not appear to be appropriately means-tested, Alstott's plan would be heavily regressive in its redistribution of wealth during the critical years of child-rearing. Significantly higher earning two-parent homes would reap an immediate windfall, while lower-earning families with at-home mothers may way well have to wait until retirement (if they live that long) to see any benefit from the plan. That outcome is not only inequitable, it's not very child-friendly. It would make it even harder for at-home mother families to provide for their children in a way that "keeps up with the two-earner Jones's," an area in which they are already disadvantaged. In short, I still don't see much reason to like this idea. I think children who would rather be with their mothers than at a daycare facility will like it even less.

This year, the 184,000 tax filers with incomes of $1 million or more will receive slightly more in total new income tax cuts as a result of the new legislation -- $17 billion in tax cuts -- than the $16 billion in increased child tax credits going to 26 million tax filers.

Over the next 10 years millionaires will receive approximately $90 billion in tax cuts from the legislation. This is nearly three times the $32 billion the legislation provides in increased child tax credits.

"The earth-shattering thing that's going to happen after May 17 is nothing," says Andrew Koppelman, author of The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law. Massachusetts same-sex marriages will be available only to Massachusetts residents; and, when those couples travel outside the state, a series of well-developed judicial precedents, dating back to the anti-miscegenation era, will guide courts in their effort to carve out a moderate path, recognizing Massachusetts marriages for some purposes but not others. As long as judges follow existing precedent, predictions of a political or judicial bloodbath after May 17 are unlikely to materialize.