Is there a natural right to same-sex marriage?

The people of California, Arizona and Florida recently voted to amend their state constitutions to defend the age-old truth that marriage is the life-long union of a man and a woman with the object of mutual love and the raising of a family. Ever since, those in favor of recognition of same-sex marriage have complained that they have been deprived of their civil rights and denied equality. The recognition of same-sex partnerships with legal and financial benefits akin to marriage is not enough for them. They repeatedly lament the supposed loss of their civil rights and compare themselves to oppressed slaves.

Defenders of traditional marriage often have trouble defending the obvious precisely because it is self-evident and defies sound bites.

Is there any truth in these claims?
None. In fact proponents of same-sex marriage are usurping the natural and civil right to marriage between a man and a woman. Unfortunately defenders of traditional marriage often have trouble defending the obvious precisely because it is self-evident and defies sound bites. Here I’d like to present a few simple reasons why defending the uniqueness and dignity of traditional marriage is not discriminatory and unfair.
Biblical revelation about God’s creation of man and woman and his plan for marriage is abundant, but arguments for traditional marriage and against same-sex marriage are not exclusively religious. Far from it. The most convincing ones are based on universally recognised natural rights which exist prior to the state and are not created by government fiat or popular consent. Civil rights are the legal recognition of rights which derive from natural rights.
All one needs to do is reflect upon the human experience. It is easy to grasp that each human faculty, including the generative faculty, has its proper functions and ends. We can also discern basic human goods that are necessary for existence and social life, such as procreation, health, safety, freedom, friendship and religion.
Throughout the centuries people have come to recognize different rights -- such as the right to just trials, the right to practice a religion, and the right of universal suffrage. Civil rights are important mainly because they safeguard these basic human rights. Governments protect natural rights, but they do not create them.
Marriage is one of these basic human rights, one which is based on complementary sexual differences between men and women and the good of procreation. Marriage joins a male and a female in a way the involves the total person: soul, body and affections. Usually this union brings forth offspring and the children are raised in a stable environment where the children learn about manhood and womanhood. Children need both a father and a mother because each parent is different and as male and female provide for different needs.
For example, boys need a father to teach them how to respect women, to develop masculine traits and to learn discipline. A Nobel Prize laureate in economics, George Akerlof, has shown how the breakdown of marriage (1)  and the absence of a father in the family or some good father figure is related to the sharp rise of delinquency in the US. This alone is nearly conclusive evidence that there is no natural right to same-sex marriage.
What about the mutual affection of homosexuals? Isn’t that enough for marriage?
Not really. Homosexual persons can be united by an emotional union, but never by a biological union. Their sexual activity does not lead to procreation. Heterosexual marriage, on the other hand, involves more than this. “The same sexual act that unites the spouses is also the act that creates new life.”(2)  Heterosexual marriage provides offspring for society and a home where children are raised with the love of a father and a mother and the corresponding masculine and feminine role models.
Homosexual sex is essentially different from heterosexual sex within marriage. The conjugal act has an inherent language of self-giving expressed by the man’s giving of his progenitor cells to his wife. Their love is always linked to procreation even though procreation does not always follow the conjugal act. Widespread contraception and co-habitation have separated procreation from sexuality in such a way so that sexual acts between two persons of the same sex are now considered normal by many. But the sexual union of a man and a woman is objectively different.
Are we just quibbling about words here? Partnerships are more or less like marriage, people often argue. Why be so defensive about a few syllables?
But this approach is completely unrealistic. Marriage is more than a word. Words are subject to development, but they mean something. Words are conventional, but they represent fixed realities. No change in language or law can alter reality. Sodomy by any other name is still sodomy. Sexual intercourse between persons of the same-sex is not procreative. A meal is not a snack; work is not play; adultery mere consented sexual behavior among adults. Language both describes reality and defines moral standards. By changing accepted language about marriage, new moral standards regarding marriage and procreation gradually emerge.
If traditional marriage is natural, why does it need to be fenced around with laws? Can’t it fend for itself?
Yes and no. Traditional marriage will survive, but it needs the support and protection of society to flourish. Laws not only recognize existing natural rights; they create and solidify social habits and standards. A bad law creates social standards that others gradually come to accept as good and true. Abortion is an instructive example. What began as a rare concession has become a "right" to take the life of an innocent human being.
So the consequences of legal recognition of same-sex marriage are serious. The first will be moral damage to our understanding of human beings and marriage. By elevating human choices to the status of human rights, governments undermine the very idea of natural rights, which is the recognition of what corresponds to our human make-up and the basic goods necessary to flourish as human beings.
Legal recognition of same-sex marriage also threatens freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Those who disagree with same-sex unions, including educators, doctors and adoption agencies, are already being treated with contempt and intolerance by proponents of same-sex marriage. The next target is surely the tax-exempt status which churches enjoy because of their important service to society.
Furthermore, although proponents of same-sex marriage contend that they only want equality of rights for their own personal choices, they also want equality of esteem. The normality of same-sex marriage will be taught to school children, beginning with those in public schools and eventually reaching schools with religious affiliations.
Already in Massachusetts an adverse judicial ruling was passed against a parent who did not wish his children attending public school to be taught that two fathers can constitute a family. In San Francisco, young children have been obliged to witness a same-sex "marriage" ceremony. Forcing children to accept same-sex marriage as normal constitutes a grave abuse to children and their parents.
To be sure, every person deserves equal respect before the law; but equality is not sameness, and there can be no true respect for human rights apart from a clear understanding of human nature with the sexual and psychological differences between male and female, and the needs that children have for a father and a mother.

Juan R. Vélez is a Los Angeles Catholic priest. Before becoming a priest, he worked as a physician.

Notes: (1) Akerlof, GA, et al. "An Analysis of out-of-wedlock childbearing in the United States". Q J Econ. 1996 May; 111(2): 277-317.
(2) Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles, The Witherspoon Institute, Princeton, June 2006, p. 47.

So Sexy So Soon

Communication critical: Want to help your children navigate a sex-saturated culture? They'll need to learn your beliefs -- not those all around them.

For a generation, conservatives have discussed the dramatic and oftentimes negative effects of cultural changes on our kids. In So Sexy So Soon, liberals join in and talk about the pernicious effects of the “new morality” on children from the perspective of the other end of the political spectrum. [1] Diane Levin, professor of education at Wheelock College, and Jean Kilbourne, a senior scholar at the Wellesley Centers for Women, highlight the gravity of a hypersexual consumer culture: the insidious way in which advertisers and the media use sex to drive a wedge between children and parents, to create demand among children for provocative toys and clothes, and to redefine even kindergarten to include “sexiness.”

The authors describe a six-year-old, who asks his parents about pornography seen at a friend’s house, and a seven-year-old who cries in the bath because she thinks her body isn’t skinny or sexy enough. Issues that previously surfaced in adolescence are percolating down to kindergarten, and Levin and Kilbourne place the blame for this phenomenon squarely upon mass consumer culture.

Their response is a call for expanded government regulation and more time spent on “media awareness” at school. They also suggest scripts for opening conversations about how to enlist teachers and principals in the effort to keep classrooms and playgrounds free of sexual innuendo. Readers won’t agree with every suggestion, but common ground can be found with their emphasis on good parenting and good communication with kids.

Few parents are prepared to react appropriately to fairly explicit questions about sexuality from their kids in grade school—or younger. But parental response is crucial. Parents, horrified to hear that their five-year-old told a friend he wanted to have sex with her, (when asked, the child said he thought that having sex was the same as giving a hug), should use this as a springboard to a calm and loving discussion—one that builds the kind of relationship that will help transmit values.

If parents erupt in anger, children will still have the same questions and instead go looking to find explanations on TV and in the playground, the very places that presented poor information in the first place. Respectful but firm discussions with parents of children’s friends about media exposure for younger children during play dates and parental supervision at parties when children are older are also important.

Even the most cloistered upbringing cannot fully prevent exposure to popular culture. In fact, especially as children grow up, Levin and Kilbourne argue that this isn’t even really desirable, since young adults can only navigate successfully on their own if they have internalized their family’s values about sex, sexuality and moral behaviour. Children raised in a home with no television or internet connection are part of the broader, and increasingly vulgar culture. Billboards and ads on buses are sexually suggestive when they are not actually explicit, as are magazines in grocery stores. Children internalize values more readily from their peers than from their families, and new research shows how powerfully media acts as a “superpeer,” shaping attitudes and behaviour among teens.[1] Levin and Kilbourne attribute weakening parental influence in part to the thorny nature of most discussions of sex and sexuality between parents and children.

Levin and Kilbourne are certainly liberal—they point approvingly to parents who take their daughter to a same-sex commitment ceremony as an example of open-minded parenting, for example. But as such, they are carrying a message to those who most need to hear it, those who have outright dismissed cultural concerns, pretending they are part of some conservative conspiracy. In the end, an increasingly sexual world affects all of us. “Culture warriors” must partner with liberals in order to effect change, whether in private life or public policy. So Sexy So Soon highlights some of the elements of the culture wars in which traditionalists and liberals can partner for the benefit of our kids.

Rebecca Walberg is a Winnipeg-based writer and policy analyst. She wrote this review for The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada

[1] Brown, J., Tucker Halpern, C. and Ladin L’Engle, K. (2005). Mass media as a sexual super peer for early maturing girls. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36: 420–427.

The cold hearts of digital voyeurs

Earlier this month, the world witnessed the internet version of a man standing on a ledge threatening to jump. Instead of snarling strangers yelling “jump!”, digital voyeurs tapped away on their keyboards as they watched the life drain out of 19-year-old Abraham Biggs.

On November 19 at about 3am, Biggs (aka feels-like-ecstasy), began his web cast on Justin.tv with an announcement that he had overdosed on drugs. He also posted a suicide note. As this modern tragedy progressed, the chorus debated whether he had taken enough pills or whether he was faking. Others challenged Biggs to finish the job. A few tried to talk him out of it. Throughout, there were the laugh messages -- LOL and ha-hah-ha. At 11am, a few noticed that Biggs was motionless. Eventually, one viewer contacted the moderator to get Biggs’ contact information. Twelve hours after Biggs’ declaration of death, the curtain came down. Police broke down the locked door of the Florida apartment and found the young man dead.

Biggs is not the first to commit suicide on a webcam. Last year a British man hanged himself on camera. His viewers also taunted and laughed at him until they noticed that he was turning blue.

Rosalind Biggs, Abraham's sister, described her brother as an outgoing college student who loved taking his nieces to Chuck E. Cheese. Biggs also had a darker side, a history of bipolar disorder. Still, his sister says that her brother’s death was sudden and a shock.

Biggs’ family was understandably angry with his son’s callous chat room acquaintances. “It didn’t have to be,” she lamented.

His father was “appalled.” Abraham Biggs Sr. chastised his son’s viewers: "It's a person's life that we're talking about. And as a human being, you don't watch someone in trouble and sit back and just watch." The death of his child could have been prevented. A quicker response might have saved his life.

The father’s anger may be easily dismissed because there is no clear legal accountability. Nonetheless, he is correct about the moral responsibility. Abraham Biggs Sr is tortured by the idea that his son’s webcast was a cry for help. He is further tortured by the lack of response.

Understandable, but less forgivable, has been the reaction of journalists and their experts. Much of the media coverage has been focused on finding a scandal. The obvious scandal is the question of liability. Can chat rooms be sued? Lawyers say it’s a stretch.

The echo chamber of the press and cultural experts assure us that this is basically kids being kids. Associated Press summed up the event as an “extreme example of young people’s penchant for sharing intimate details about themselves over the internet”.

A University of Ohio assistant professor of popular culture told AP that the public suicide was not shocking (emphasis mine) given the way teenagers chronicle every facet of their lives on sites like Facebook and MySpace. When did suicide become a banality in our culture? Furthermore, how could the revelation of a suicidal threat be placed in the same category as some schoolgirl’s latest crush? Even stranger is the notion that people who remain anonymous and talk about themselves are being intimate or sharing secrets. How intimate was Biggs with the public? He never even revealed his name and address.

If Biggs is just another exhibitionistic teen, then what can be said about the spectators of this 12-hour death watch? Some may not have been certain that he was dying. They may thought that he was joking. Yet the audience watched because in the dark recesses of their minds, they were titillated by the idea that he might actually be dying. Are young people naturally this callous or does the internet harden their hearts?

Yes to both questions.

Consider the popularity of fight videos on YouTube. In a recent interview British philosopher, Roger Scruton predicts that “the result of the internet will be a widespread hardening of the human heart, and a replacement of true relationships between people with their cyber-substitutes.”

The Florida teen’s suicide shows the deficiency in these cyber-substitutes. One may find mutual interests on the internet and a semblance of friendship. Can a friendship grow in chat room where the occupants buzz by like bees going from flower to flower? As with many people seeking companionship on the web, Biggs may have bought the line that chat rooms are communities. True communities are neighbors helping neighbors; not neighbors watching neighbors for amusement.

Like the man standing on the ledge, Abraham Biggs may have been hoping for a rescue, hoping for someone standing on the street with a safety net. Unfortunately, on the web, there is no net.

By: Theron Bowers MD is a Texas psychiatrist.

Same sex marriage and its threat to religious liberty

Tactics used by gay marriage campaigners confirm believers’ worst fears.

As wildfires blazed in California last week, anger at the outcome of the state’s referendum on marriage blazed across the country. After a hard-fought campaign over Proposition 8, which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, a clear majority of California voters endorsed it, and the gay marriage lobby was enraged.

Now, as same sex marriage campaigners take the issue back to the courts, it is unclear what the outcome of this battle will be. Will their demands trump the democratic process? It has happened before.

What is clearer than ever is that same sex marriage threatens religious liberty. Disagreement over the extent of that threat played a key role in the debate over Proposition 8. As an independent consultant to the campaign, I must say that the post-election behaviour of the opponents of Prop 8 does not reassure religious believers.

The editor of a new book, Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, summarizes the general issue this way: “All six contributors (to the book)—religious and secular, left, center and right—agree that same sex marriage is a threat to religious liberty.” The demand for same sex marriage brings in its wake a demand for identical treatment of same sex couples and opposite sex couples. Churches that resist this demand can have their tax exempt status challenged, can be investigated by “human rights commissions,” and can have parts of their operation shut down completely.

The Yes on Prop 8 campaign applied this argument in print and electronic ads. “Churches could lose their tax exempt status,” we said. “People could be sued for their personal beliefs.” The opponents of Prop 8 replied by calling us liars. Their argument was, “No church will lose its tax exempt status for refusing to perform same sex weddings.”

Note the sleight of hand: we made a general statement that churches could lose their tax exempt status, as well as have other legal problems. The opponents of Prop 8 brought up the one issue -- refusing to perform weddings -- which they knew the court had specifically exempted from legal challenge. On this basis, they accused us of misleading the public.

I personally was asked many times whether pastors would be forced to bless same sex unions. I told people the pastors were probably safe for now, but that the trend was not encouraging. The most likely outcome, I consistently said, was that the zone of religious freedom would become steadily more constricted. We cited many cases to support this prediction.

Catholic Charities in Boston shut down its adoption agency, rather than comply with the anti-discrimination requirement for the placement of children. A Knights of Columbus chapter in Canada was sued when it refused to rent out its hall for a same sex wedding reception. A Christian marriage counselor lost her job when she referred a lesbian couple to another therapist, rather than counsel them herself. A Christian photographer was fined by a Human Rights Commission in New Mexico because she refused to take pictures at the commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple.

The No on 8 forces claimed that the cases we brought up had nothing to do with marriage. Gays had used anti-discrimination law in these cases, not marriage law, to sue and otherwise harass churches and religious people. (In fact, marriage was an issue in some of the cases.) In effect the gay lobby argued: “We already have all the legal authority we need to do all sorts of Dreadful Things that You Don’t Like, so vote no on 8.”

Oddly enough, people of faith were not reassured by this message.

But refusal to take the religious liberty argument seriously was not the only way the No on 8 forces showed their hostility to religion. On the Sunday before the election, our opponents ran a truly despicable hate-filled ad against the Mormon church. The ad ran the day before the election, when it was almost impossible to respond to it.

Proposition 8 won the election. Over six million people voted for it for a whole variety of reasons. It is safe to say that the religious liberty argument played a significant role. People waved signs that said, “Proposition 8 = Religious Liberty” and “Proposition 8 = Freedom of Speech.” Even though no one could predict the exact form the legal harassment might take, many voters decided the risk to their own churches was unacceptable.

In the aftermath of the election, the No on Prop 8 forces have taken to the streets, attempting to de-legitimize the election. Their behavior toward religious people amply confirms our worst fears.

The gay lobby targeted the Mormon church. Thousands of protesters surrounded Mormon temples in Los Angeles and in Salt Lake City in an obvious attempt at intimidation. Protestors carry signs saying, “Mormon Scum,” a sentiment that would be widely condemned as bigoted if directed at anyone else. Envelopes with suspicious white powder arrived at the Mormon church in Utah and the Knights of Columbus headquarters in Connecticut.

People have called for the LDS church to lose its tax exempt status. An enterprising reporter found that the LDS spent a grand total of less than $3,000 in an in-kind contribution. The other “Mormon millions” were small contributions by thousands of individual members of the church. Gay activists are scouring the election law, looking for minor violations the church or its members might have made.

This attempt to enlist the government for intimidation actually illustrates the point that concerned us throughout the campaign. If you cross the gay lobby, they will use the legal system to go after you. By passing Prop 8, the voters declined to give the gay lobby any additional legal tools.

The authors of Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty were not exaggerating. The drive for same sex marriage really does clash with religious liberty. The nation-wide post-election outburst gives Yes on 8 voters all the evidence they need that they did the right thing.

Reference: (Jennifer Roback Morse, PhD, is the Founder and President of the Ruth Institute.http://www.ruthinstitute.org/)

UK government pushes contraceptive jabs for teens

Desperate to meet a target for reducing teenage pregnancies by 2010, the British government has instructed 21 local authorities to promote long-acting contraceptive injections or implants for girls in their areas. The government also wants more school-based clinics to administer the jabs, which can makes girls infertile for up to three months. Teenagers can receive the injections or implants without their parents’ knowledge. The contraceptive push targets areas with high and increasing rates of teenage pregnancy and repeat abortions.

Official figures show there are 1200 girls under 15 taking long-acting contraception, as well as 2900 15-year-olds and 11,500 girls aged 16 or 17. These jabs and implants have been given to girls as young as 13. The government wants to see a big increase in the uptake because it has identified failures by teenage girls to take the daily pill correctly as one reason for under-age pregnancies. The UK has the second-highest rate for under-18s (41.3 per thousand) after the US.

Some health experts oppose the move, saying that contraceptive use over a long period may impact adversely on bone growth, and that girls will get a false sense of security since they will not necessarily be protected against STIs, which are also on the increase. “And will it work?” asks Dr Hans Christian Raabe. “I have not seen a single convincing study to show that provision of contraception leads to a reduction in teenage pregnancy. What is needed is behavioural change.”

China forced abortion dropped after US pressure

Forced abortions can still occur in China under the one-child policy, as a case that has been brought to international attention shows. An ethnic woman in the north-western Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region who is six months pregnant was forcibly taken by police to a hospital early this week to have the baby, her third child, aborted. However, pressure from the United States led to the abortion being abandoned. “I brought her home,” the local population control committee chief told Radio Free Asia. “She wasn’t in good enough health to have an abortion.”

The one-child policy applies mainly to majority Han Chinese and allows ethnic minorities, including Uyghurs, to have additional children, with peasants permitted to have three children and city-dwellers two. But while Tursun is a peasant, her husband is from the city, so their status is unclear. The government also uses financial incentives and disincentives to keep the birth-rate low. Couples can pay steep fines to have more children, although the fines are well beyond most people’s means.

The official website China Xinjiang Web reports that in three almost exclusively Uyghur areas, women over 49 with only one child are entitled to a one-time payment of 3,000 yuan (US$440), with the couple receiving 600 yuan ($88) yearly thereafter. The government plans to spend 25.6 million yuan ($3.7m) this year rewarding families who have followed the population policy, which it claims has prevented the births of some 3.7 million people in Xianjiang over the last 30 years.

The policy is enforced more strictly in cities, but penalties for exceeding the quota can be severe, including job losses, demotions, or expulsion from the Communist Party. Officials at all levels are subject to rewards or penalties based on whether they meet population targets set by their administrative region.

Happiness is not watching TV

Unhappy people watch more television, while people who describe themselves as very happy spend more time on reading, socialising and religion, a new American study shows. Researchers at the University of Maryland analysed 30 years worth of data from time-use studies and social attitude surveys and found that spending time watching TV may cheer people up briefly but leave them dissatisfied in the long run. That means, says co-author and sociologist John P Robinson, that as the economy worsens and people lose their jobs, TV viewing might increase significantly and also sleep. However, happiness would take a plunge.

The study, which aimed to find out how various activities correlate with happiness, found that unhappy people watch about 20 per cent more TV than very happy people, after taking into account education, income, marital status and other factors with a bearing on happiness and TV viewing. One reason seems to be that TV viewing is “easy”. Viewers don’t have to go anywhere, dress up, find company, plan ahead, expend energy, do any work or spend money in order to view -- but they get instant gratification. No wonder Americans spend more than half their free time as TV viewers, the researchers say.

Unhappy people had two problems with time: they either had too much on their hands (51 per cent) compared to very happy people (19 per cent) or felt rushed for time (35 per cent vs 23 per cent). Having too much time was the bigger burden of the two. The researchers liken the passing pleasure of TV to addiction and note that socially or personally disadvantaged people are most vulnerable to addiction.

It is worth noting that General Social Survey data showed that very happy people go to church five times more a year than those who are somewhat happy and seven times more than not happy people.

“What Do Happy People Do?”, by John P Robinson and Steven Martin. Social Indicators Research, December 2008

Regaining lost ground

Learning how to harness the power of the internet is something that most pro-life organizations have yet to learn.

A 17-year-old girl discovers she is pregnant. She is no longer dating her boyfriend and feels scared and alone. Rather than turn to her parents for advice and support, she logs onto Google and searches for 'unplanned pregnancy'. The websites she finds will heavily influence whether or not she continues with her pregnancy.

What is the outcome of her searching? At the time of writing, not one of the websites presented will encourage her to keep her unborn child. In fact, seven of the first ten results are links to abortion providers or websites supported by pro-choice organisations (eg, Marie Stopes International). Similar results are produced for searches on 'abortion help' and 'abortion information'.

Pro-choice organisations are vitally aware of the importance of the internet in a pregnant woman's decision making process. For example, Marie Stopes International opened their online 'abortion information chat service' after feedback showed that "when it comes to seeking out information on sexual health services, women have nominated the internet as their second preferred avenue for information after their GP." (1)

As it stands today, the pro-choice movement is winning the abortion war. By moving with the times and harnessing the power of the internet, these organisations are ensuring their message is heard.

Regaining Lost Ground: Investing Online

For pro-life organisations, a dramatic shift in campaigning priorities is required. It is no longer enough to simply publish a template-driven website, created by an untrained operator, and then direct all attention to ‘taking action on the streets’. Funds need to be invested online, which one could say is now the 'frontline' in this war against abortion.

First impressions count: Design is important

Firstly, the website. To be taken seriously, the site should have an appealing design and provide informative content that is easy to navigate. It is recommended that a professional designer be engaged for the initial development. A professional, custom website can be acquired for as little as $1000-$2000 (depending on the number of pages required). It will likely be the most 'influential' campaigning investment the organisation ever makes.

Be Visible in Google: Implement Basic SEO Techniques

Secondly, if the website is to have any chance of being effective, it must rank highly in the major search engines - namely, Google, Yahoo! and nineMSN. Of these, Google is by far the most important with 88% of the search market in Australia. (2)

 

Notes
(1) What women want when faced with an unplanned pregnancy, Marie Stopes International/WebSurvey, Nov 2006
(2) Source: HitWise June 2008 Search Engine Update

Reshaping the bioethical landscape

The electoral tidal wave which swept Democrat Barack Obama into the White House and Democrat majorities into the Senate and the House of Representatives could reshape the bioethical landscape in the United States.

The most obvious issue is abortion. Mr Obama is a strong supporter of a woman’s right to abortion. The leading abortion action group, Planned Parenthood, gave him “100%” on its electoral scorecard. After reviewing Obama's legislative record, Professor Robert P. George, of Princeton University, wrote a scathing analysis of his views on pro-life issues. His conclusion: “Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.”

Under George W. Bush, a relatively pro-life president, abortion activists felt threatened. On his first day in office he had blocked federal aid to foreign groups that promoted abortion. He appointed two justices to the Supreme Court who apparently took a dim view of Roe v. Wade, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He signed a ban on partial-birth abortion. His appointees in the Federal bureaucracy tried to thwart sales of emergency contraception to minors and promoted abstinence-only sex education. In Planned Parenthood’s eyes, Bush had declared war on women.

The website of the new administration’s transition team does not mention FOCA. But it does reassure abortion activists that Obama “has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.” It also declares that he will support the Prevention First Act, which will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education and promote emergency contraception.

Obama still has not taken office, so many details remain to be worked out. Will hospitals which currently refuse to do abortions be threatened with loss of funding? Will health care workers effectively lose the right to conscientious objection in abortion and emergency contraception?

YES on 8 wins: One man one wife

SAN FRANCISCO — A giant rainbow-colored flag in the gay-friendly Castro neighborhood of San Francisco was flying at half-staff on Wednesday as social and religious conservatives celebrated passage of measures that ban same-sex marriage in California, Florida and Arizona.

In California, where same-sex marriage had been performed since June, the ban had seemingly passed with more than 52 percent of the vote, according to figures by the secretary of state and projections by several California news media outlets. Opponents of same-sex marriage won by even bigger margins in Arizona and Florida. Just two years ago, Arizona rejected a similar ban.

The across-the-board sweep, coupled with passage of a measure in Arkansas intended to bar gay men and lesbians from adopting children, was a stunning victory for religious conservatives, who had little else to celebrate on an Election Day that saw Senator John McCain lose and other ballot measures, like efforts to restrict abortion in South Dakota, California and Colorado, rejected.

“It was a great victory,” said the Rev. James Garlow, senior pastor of Skyline Church in San Diego County and a leader of the campaign to pass the California measure, Proposition 8. “We saw the people just rise up.”

The losses deeply dismayed supporters of same-sex marriage, and ignited a debate about whether the movement to expand the rights of same-sex couples had hit a cultural brick wall, even at a time when another civil rights success — the election of a black president — had occurred. Thirty states have now passed bans on same-sex marriage.

Supporters of same-sex marriage in California, where the fight on Tuesday was fiercest, appeared to have been outflanked by the measure’s highly organized backers and, exit polls indicated, and hurt by the large turnout among black and Hispanic voters drawn to Senator Barack Obama’s candidacy. Mr. Obama opposes same-sex marriage.

California will still allow same-sex civil unions, but that is not an option in Arizona and Florida. Exit polls in California found that 70 percent of black voters — and 74 percent of black women — voted for the ban.

Sarah's Law: YES on proposition 4

Once again, California voters will be given the opportunity to vote on an initiative -- Proposition 4 -- that would require family involvement when a girl under the age of 18 is facing a decision about abortion. And once again, opponents are using scare tactics to prevent Californians from protecting our daughters.

The problem

In California, a girl under age 18 can’t get a tan at a tanning salon, a cavity filled, or an aspirin dispensed by the school nurse without a parent knowing. But a doctor can perform a surgical or chemical abortion on a young girl without informing a parent.

The answer

Proposition 4 will require a doctor to notify at least one adult family member before performing an abortion on an under-18-year-old girl.

Facts

Medical professionals know that a young person is safer when a parent or family member is informed of her medical situation. Someone who knows the girl and cares about her future can help her understand all her options, obtain competent care, and work through the problems that led her into the situation to begin with.

On a daily basis, older men exploit young girls and use secret abortions to cover up their crimes. More than thirty states currently have parental/family involvement laws like Proposition 4 in effect. States which have laws like Proposition 4 have experienced real reductions in pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases among young girls.

This year's measure is a refinement of earlier attempts that sought the same thing -- that girls not face such a difficult decision alone. The coalition of doctors, nurses, educators and law enforcement behind Proposition 4 have made several changes to answer criticisms, most notably that a physician may notify another family member if parental abuse is suspected. That, after all, was the rallying cry of opponents to the last parental involvement initiative -- that a child would be in danger if an abusive parent were notified.

Vote YES on proposition 8

The Joint Legislative Hearing on Prop. 8, held in downtown Los Angeles, included about 75 Yes on 8 supporters who took to the curb to voice their support for Prop. 8.  Supporters of all backgrounds came to listen to debates on marriage and to speak to California Senators and Assembly Representatives about the importance of passing Proposition 8.

Steve Marshall, 20, made his pro-Proposition 8 video, "Four Men In Black,” as a college project. "I go to a Catholic film school in San Diego," he said in explaining why he focused his film on the "activist judges" who legalized same-sex marriage in California in spring. "It's an issue we really feel passionate about, and we had the resources available to take some action."

Other students at John Paul the Great Catholic University also made videos in support of the proposition. One of them, "Marriage Rights,” features a man haplessly trying to fit two electrical plugs together instead of into a socket. Finally, he looks into the camera and declares, "It doesn't work." Then a signs says: "Keep marriage real."

Grant Johnson, a 49-year-old traffic engineer who lives in the Sierra foothill town of Coarsegold, passionately supports Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to ban gay marriage.
In past elections, Johnson might have written a letter to the editor about his views. This year, he had a better idea. He made a video and put it up on YouTube.

The spot Johnson made, "Garriage," is one of dozens of homemade advertisements for and against Proposition 8 that are dueling it out in cyberspace. It begins with images of gay weddings and then moves on to dramatic photos of lightning striking San Francisco and fires burning around California, leaving the viewer to infer that the state is being punished for allowing same-sex marriage. Johnson included the photos, he said, because he thought it was "interesting . . . an elephant in the room" that so many fires erupted in California the same week the state Supreme Court issued its ruling to legalize gay marriage.

Same-sex marriage: lessons from Canada

In May this year the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 22, which affirmed opposite-sex marriage, was unconstitutional. To date, only Massachusetts in the United States allows same-sex marriage. So what are the Canadian lessons for California and other states that will, in time, face a debate about the redefinition of marriage?

Firstly, where gay rights triumph, new rights battles begin. One example is over the rights of children. Another is over polygamy, which soon involves freedom of religion. A third battle is over freedom of speech -- the right to publicly advocate traditional marriage can be challenged as homophobic. Secondly, where marriage is not understood as an institution, it cannot be defended adequately in the public square. In short, if North Americans are not educated on what marriage is, they will not, in the long term, support an exclusive definition, one that will appear discriminatory even if this is not the case or the intention.

Marriage as an institution is meant to constrain human behaviour, not liberate or grant rights. Put differently, where individuals have both rights and responsibilities, marriage falls more in the latter category; it is a responsibility, not a right. In his book, The Future of Marriage, American family scholar David Blankenhorn says that "a social institution creates and maintains rules, including rules for who is, and is not, a part of the institution… [A] social institution creates public meaning… [Such institutions] exist to solve basic problems and meet core needs.”

Blankenhorn goes on to say this: “In nearly all human societies marriage is socially approved sexual intercourse between a woman and a man, conceived both as a personal relationship and as an institution, primarily such that any children resulting from the union are—and are understood by the society to be—emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with both of the parents.”

On August 16, 2008, presidential hopeful Barack Obama told a California church audience that marriage was between one man and one woman. California is not a conservative state, yet polls there show support for traditional marriage. But the law also acts as a kind of teacher, which means that, in time, Californians could vote differently, given the recent Supreme Court ruling.

Since same-sex marriage became law, Canadians have been quiet. This is largely self-censoring, led by the real possibility that speaking out will result in public maligning, or worse. California is at a crossroads that Canada has already passed. But both north and south of the border, we need to begin to learn about marriage as an institution, and let those lessons lead public policy in the future.

Andrea Mrozek and Peter Jon Mitchell are staff members of the Institute of Marriage and the Family Canada, a social policy think thank based in Ottawa. This article first appeared in the IMFC's bulletin eReview.

Lesbian fertility rights

Two California doctors endure an eight-year legal vendetta for declining to help bring a fatherless child into the world. In the case of the lesbians versus their doctors, the California State Supreme Court continued its war against religion by declaring that equality trumps liberty of conscience. But, contrary to the impression created in the media, the case of Guadalupe Benitez v. North Coast Woman’s Care is not over. The case still has to be tried. The Supreme Court’s ruling only means that the doctors cannot use religious liberty as a defense for violating the prohibition on sexual orientation discrimination.

The complaint against the doctors is simple: they have a policy of not performing artificial inseminations on unmarried women. Benitez and her allies in the gay rights movement find this offensive and wish it to be outlawed. I believe the doctors’ policy should not only be permitted, but positively celebrated, praised and supported by law.

That is because I believe that every child is entitled to a relationship with both of his or her biological parents. Children have a right to know and be known by both parents. Every child has a right to their genetic and social heritage. Every child is entitled to care, bonding and attachment with both parents.

That is because I believe that every child is entitled to a relationship with both of his or her biological parents. Children have a right to know and be known by both parents. Every child has a right to their genetic and social heritage. Every child is entitled to care, bonding and attachment with both parents.

Children cannot possibly defend these rights by themselves. Adult society must protect them by preventing harm, not through restitution after the fact. By the time a child is old enough to grasp that something of value has been withheld from him the damage has been done. He has gone through a significant part of his childhood without his father. That loss can not be restored.

So when Benitez demanded the use of fresh, non-frozen sperm from a friend, the doctors declined to participate. And for declining to participate, they have endured an eight-year legal vendetta, along with irreparable harm to their medical practice, their personal finances and their reputations.

But the doctors are in the right. Benitez and her army of left-wing lawyers are wrong. Children are entitled to a relationship with both of their parents. The state has no business helping mothers disrupt that most natural of relationships by creating artificial barriers between fathers and their children.

And to require each and every doctor to assist these women is more than cruel to the child. It is unjust to medical professionals who really deserve our respect and gratitude.

(Jennifer Roback Morse, PhD, is the Founder and President of the Ruth Institute.http://www.ruthinstitute.org/)

Europeans begin their decline in just 7 years

While some experts and officials harp on about the population explosion in the developing world, a problem is developing on their own back doorstep which is usually downplayed. This week for the first time the European Union has conceded just how close the region is to demographic decline. A report from Eurostat, the official number cruncher warns that in a mere seven years, deaths will begin to exceed births in Europe as a result of low fertility.

Germany would lose its status as Europe’s most populous nation but several East European nations would experience a sharp drop in numbers, with populations shrinking by a quarter or more. Ireland would be one of the few countries with significant population growth. Adding immigration at the current level would stave off population decline until around 2035. The EU’s population would grow from the present level of 495 million to 521, but then fall back to 506 million in 2060. By then, the United States population would have grown from the current 301 million to 468 million.

Of course, these are only projections, but the implications are a stark warning. At present, there are four persons of working age for every person aged 65 or over, says Eurostat. In 2060, the ratio is expected to be two to one. The burden of pensions and healthcare for an expanding older population will be economic and political problems. Increased immigration may be an option, but at present it is unpopular with Europeans. Most low fertility countries are trying to encourage more births, but economists tend to be afraid of the impact of an increasing young population needing services right at the time when older citizens are draining the public purse. It looks as though meddling with fertility, as most governments have done, was not a good idea after all.   (International Herald Tribunal-Europe)

Homeschooling: a learning experience for the whole family

Just recently, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District reversed its earlier ruling to make homeschooling in California illegal unless the parents had teacher certification. This ruling, which would have affected over 166,000 homeschoolers, ignited a huge outcry from people across the nation. So strong was the support for homeschoolers, that in the Court of Appeal, the three judges voted unanimously in  favor of reversing the former ruling.

This incident sheds light on the fact that homeschoolers in the United States are now a force to be reckoned with. And their numbers are growing. According to a survey made by the US Department of Education, there were 850,000 homeschoolers in 1999. By 2003, the numbers had grown by 29 per cent to 1.1 million. In 2006, according to the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI), there were between 2.0 to 2.5 million children being educated at home. “Homeschooling,” writes the institute’s Dr Brian Ray, “is now bordering on ‘mainstream’ in the United States. It may be the fastest growing form of education in the United States.”

Why are so many parents choosing to educate their children at home?According to the same survey, put out by the US Department of Education, 31 per cent of parents chose to home school because of their concerns with the school environment, such as negative peer pressure and drugs. And 30 per cent of parents did so in order to give religious and moral instruction. Indeed, these would be our primary reasons for choosing this path.

Does making babies make sense?

Why so many people find it difficult to see humanity in a developing foetus. In December of 2005 an op-ed piece by sociologist Dalton Conley appeared in the New York Times, stating that “most Americans... see a fetus as an individual under construction.” This widespread vision of the embryo and fetus as “under construction” is the key to understanding why good people may find pro-life arguments to be absurd or otherwise non-rational, eg, religious, particularly with regard to embryonic stem cell research.

The construction idea also may explain how Republican presidential candidate John McCain has been able to support both the right to life from the moment of conception and embryonic stem cell research.

I think that this is exactly the way that many people see the embryo, like the car-to-be at the very beginning of the construction process. In the first stages of construction you don’t have a house, you don’t have a car, you don’t have a human individual yet. You don’t ever have what you’re making when you’ve just started making it. This does not mean that our “constructionist” friends are anti-life. They may believe that a baby should have absolute protection once it has been fully fabricated. But until that point, for them, abortion just isn’t murder.

What happens when a constructionist hears a pro-lifer argue that a human embryo has the same right to life as any other human being? Journalist Michael Kinsley, writing in the Washington Post, expressed his utter bewilderment: “I cannot share, or even fathom, [the pro-life] conviction that a microscopic dot – as oblivious as a rock, more primitive than a worm – has the same rights as anyone reading this article.

As a result of accident or of age, many of us will become no longer capable (in this world) of expressing well, or expressing at all, the speech, reason, choice, and love for which we remain formed. Our humanity will have once more become partially hidden, as it was when we had just been conceived, but it will still be there.

(A longer version of this article appeared as "Construction, Development, and Revelopment" in XVII LIFE AND LEARNING 243-255(2008), edited by Joseph Koterski, SJ.)

Legalising polygamy for Muslims

An Australian Islamic leader has announced that polygamous marriages should be recognised by the Australian government. Keysar Trad from the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia said that polygamous relationships in the Muslim community should be legalised, because this would make things safer for Muslim women.

"If this woman has wilfully chosen to enter into this rel ationship and make a lifelong commitment to this person to be married, it [polygamy] shouldn't matter,” said Mr Trad. “If it was a business and the business had four partners we'd recognise that, but why don't we recognise it when it comes to consensual relationships amongst adults?" His thoughts were echoed by Sheikh Khalil Chami of the Islamic Welfare Centre in Sydney who also said polygamous marriages should be recognised in Australia.

This raises what many consider to be the two major assaults on the Judeo-Christian West today: from without, the push for sharia law; from within, the push to redefine the institution of marriage. Both are major areas of concern, and both must be firmly resisted.

All true Muslims want to see the rule of Allah spread throughout the earth, and want all infidels to submit to his laws. And bit by bit we see the encroachment of sharia law in Western nations. We even have Christian leaders such as the Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams saying that at least partial recognition of sharia in countries like the UK is inevitable.

Increasingly, Western societies...more

Reasons without virtue

A claim that gay marriage requires only modest changes to family laws has a Swiftian air, minus the satire In its June 21-22 edition the venerable Wall Street Journal published an op-ed, “Gay Marriage Is Good for America”, in which Jonathan Rauch argued in support of the California supreme court’s recent decision to allow homosexual marriage. There have been many such favorable articles, but this one is the best illustration I have seen of the inexorable logic of rationalization that drives those who choose a moral disorder upon which to base their lives. It achieved an air of complete unreality.

There is a Jonathan Swift aspect to Jonathan Rauch’s  argument that would serve it well if it were intended as satire. In his Modest Proposal Swift suggested eating babies to alleviate the famine in Ireland: “I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled.” This was brought to mind by Rauch’s suggestion that homosexual marriage required only “modest changes to existing family laws.” Homosexual marriage, he claimed, would serve to stabilize American society “on the conservative -- in fact, traditional -- grounds that gay souls and straight society are healthiest when sex, love and marriage all walk in step.” However, Rauch is not a satirist. He is serious, which would make it funnier, if it wasn’t so sad.

Rauch wrote, quite correctly, that marriage is not only a contract between two people; it is a contract with the community which recognizes it. The couple is...more here

Dignified arguments

The human embryo is very small, far smaller than the head of a pin. It cannot feel. It cannot think. It has no autonomous existence. And products derived from it are potentially both profit-making and wonder-working. No wonder scientists in the United States and Britain are exasperated by government restrictions. They see no ethical problem whatsoever with dicing embryos up on a laboratory bench.

But anyone who doubts the immense moral seriousness of the debate over the use of human embryos in stem cell research need only read a recent issue of Nature. Nature is the world’s leading scientific journal and its crisp editorials express the views of the world scientific establishment. For years it has been a fervent supporter of therapeutic cloning and embryo research, a harsh critic of President Bush’s restrictive stem cell policy and a cheerleader for the Labour government’s push to make the UK the world’s stem cell capital. In the words of Diana Schaub, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, "It is recognizably one of us — recognizable not to the naked eye, but to the scientifically trained eye."

So what has the scientifically trained eye of Nature done? It has followed Groucho Marx’s precept: "Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others." Since human dignity leads inescapably to the conclusion that embryo experimentation is inadmissable, it has ditched human dignity. "Dignity as a concept cannot be a director of moral judgement," it insists.

What is cringingly embarrassing about this argument is that it was cribbed from a controversial article by the Harvard neuroscientist Stephen Pinker in The New Republic. Nature has taken seriously Pinker’s bad-tempered and abusive attack on a report from the President’s Council on Bioethics. This strongly supported human dignity against a growing number of bioethicists and scientists who claim that it is too squishy to serve as a rationale for bioethical decisions. "[W]hat it reveals should alarm anyone concerned with American biomedicine and its promise to improve human welfare," sneered Pinker. "For this government-sponsored bioethics does not want medical practice to maximize health and flourishing; it considers that quest to be a bad thing, not a good thing."

From ‘safer sex’ to ‘safer drugs’

An official drug booklet used in some Australian secondary schools for two years has been withdrawn after an uproar in the community over its mixed messages. The New South Wales state government booklet -- Choosing To Use … But Wanna Keep Your Head Together? -- suggests young people should not experiment with drugs until they are over 18, know their family medical history and “use only small amounts and not too often”. It says: “The best way to keep your head together is not to use drugs at all. But, if you choose to experiment … remember some people will react badly and become seriously unwell after using only a small amount of a drug.”

State health minister Reba Meagher said that “the reference to what young people should choose to do if they ignore anti-drug advice or information is simply not acceptable.” However, the booklet was defended by a state health executive, the deputy director-general for schools, and the head of a charity whose son died of a heroin overdose. “We know from ongoing school surveys that up to 50 per cent of young people have experimented with alcohol and illicit drugs by the time they are 16,” said the health official. No wonder. 

The harm minimisation approach of the booklet was condemned in a Daily Telegraph editorial, which pointed out that 170,400 people aged 14 and older claimed to have used the highly destructive methamphetamines (or “ice”) in NSW in just one year. It noted how “Just say no” has evolved into “Just say maybe” among “certain bureaucracies”, and noted the need for vigilance against creeping drug tolerance.

Gay Couples Find Marriage Is a Mixed Bag

As same-sex couples rush to “marry” in California (again) following a state high court ruling and before a referendum there on the subject, the New York Times takes a look at the “mixed bag” which is same-sex marriage across the country in Massachusetts, the first state to legalise such contracts (2004). Case studies cover a wide range: partners who never wanted to marry; who were advised against it; who couldn’t agree about the step; those who say it has changed their relationship for the better; those who have since divorced; those who are struggling to make it work; those who allow third parties in.

After an initial rush, “marriages” have dropped right back: of more than 10,500 since 2004, 6121 happened in the first six months and the number has dropped each year to 867 in the first eight months of 2007. The Census Bureau reported that there were 23,655 same-sex households in Massachusetts in 2006. Nearly two-thirds of the weddings have involved lesbian partners, and while nearly half of real marriages involve people under 30, same-sex couples tend to be older -- nearly a third are in their 40s.

One lesbian couple who had been together for nine years but five months after the wedding one of them decided she was "straight". "Maybe being married trigged those feelings," said the other. "I didn't see it coming." Prominent among the split couples are Julie and Hillary Goodridge, the lead plaintiffs in the case that paved the way for same-sex “marriage” in the state. One of them has a daughter, Annie. Their separation after only two years was described by a spokeswoman as “the maturation of marriage”.

The shameful history of population control

“The great tragedy of population control, the fatal misconception, was to think that one could know other people’s interests better than they knew it themselves,” says Matthew Connelly, summing up one of the major global forces of the last 50 years. Although that assessment comes nowhere near my own sense of outrage at the movement that has filled the world with aborted fetuses and sterilized men and women, Connelly’s book as a whole is an unprecedented admission, from a supporter of what is now known as “reproductive rights”, that the movement, historically at least, has trampled wholesale on the rights of Third World people. As a citizen of a developing country I can breathe a sigh of relief: finally, the truth is coming out.

Connelly, an associate professor of history at Columbia University in the United States, set himself a task that has been avoided by mainstream academics; the result is what his publishers call “a withering critique [that] uncovers the cost inflicted by a humanitarian movement gone terribly awry”.

In spite of my familiarity with human rights violations committed in the name of population control in the Philippines, I am still appalled by what this movement has done in India, China, Bangladesh and other Third World countries.

Connelly has done well to expose the failure of the population control movement to get the consent of its victims, but to see this alone as its “fatal misconception” is to fail to get to the heart of the matter. The historian does not see, or at least acknowledge, that the “reproductive rights” he champions involves the systematic violation of the rights of the unborn child through abortion, the unbreakable link between abortion and contraception, and the disastrous personal and demographic effects of the culture of birth control.

And all for what? The population control/reproductive rights movement has never produced one single piece of evidence showing the direct connection between family planning and economic development. But if Connelly is neither an economist nor a moral philosopher we must be grateful that at least he has used his historical skills to salutary effect. As the saying goes, those who do not acknowledge their history are condemned to repeat it.

Obama preaches responsibility to black dads

Father’s Day in the United States brought some hard-hitting comment from black leaders. Presidential candidate Barack Obama preached a message of responsibility to black fathers at a church in his hometown, saying too many were missing from their families lives, “acting like boys instead of men” and weakening “the foundations of our families”.

Obama himself grew up without his father from the age of two, but said he was lucky to have loving grandparents who helped his mother. “I resolved many years ago that it was my obligation to break the cycle -- that if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father to my girls,” he told the congregation, which included his daughters Sasha and Malia, and his wife, Michelle. He urged black parents to demand the best from themselves and their children -- not to be satisfied with just B grades but to go for A's.

Bill Cosby, who has been hassling black dads for several years, wrote a comment in USA Today together with Alvin F Poussaint (they co-authored the book, Come On People: On the Path From Victims to Victors) about father-child estrangement. Unemployment and imprisonment made many black men unmarriageable but they tried to prove their manliness by sexual conquests; abandoning their “drive-by babies” only showed their insecurity. Many had never seen a real father in action.

However, there were now many organised efforts to help young black men address these problems. Some men avoided their children because they saw themselves as bad role models. “What they need to appreciate is that from the moment they commit themselves to their child, they can still become good role models,” said Cosby and Poussaint.

Can happiness be bad for your child?

For a few years, now, the British government, hounded by professionals and various do-gooders, has been exercised over the question of how to make children happier. To counter a veritable epidemic of anxiety and depression among youngsters, education authorities have engaged the services of a happiness expert from the United States to conduct workshops for teachers and have run pilot programmes on emotional literacy in schools. Richard Layard, a professor at the London School of Economics and a peer in the House of Lords, goes so far as to say that teaching “the secrets of happiness” should be the central purpose of schools. 

It looked like sabotage, then, when it was revealed early this week that researchers had discovered that sad children could concentrate better than happy ones and so cope better with tasks demanding attention to detail -- which real learning generally does. Efforts to boost happiness in children may have a negative impact on their cognitive development, warned academics at the University of Plymouth in the UK and the University of Virginia in the United States. “The good feeling that accompanies happiness comes at a hidden cost,” they wrote in the journal Developmental Science. “It leads to a particular style of thinking that is suited for some types of situations, but not others.” (1) 

Does that mean it is time to enforce a little misery among the young and the sanguine? Not at all. The fact is that the study tells us very little about either happiness or misery, which are stable conditions; it tells us mainly about feelings, or moods, produced by passing stimuli.

Teachers everywhere know this. They are well aware that the quality of home life -- the presence of two parents who are able to impart to their children good values and habits -- is the key to the behavioural and mental health problems they encounter in so many young students. Family breakdown was a major issue at teachers’ conferences in the UK earlier this year. It emerged as the leading factor in a recent poll of children and adults on the subject of children’s happiness. It has been highlighted by masses of social research.  

Authorities who really care about children’s wellbeing know where they should start: support for the two-parent family based on marriage -- real marriage, that is, not the up and coming look-alikes. Focusing on remedial “emotional intelligence” lessons in schools is a feeble substitute that looks more and more dishonest.

Notes:

(1) “A hidden cost of happiness in children,” by Simone Schnall et al, Developmental Science, June 2008

The empty European village

"It Takes a Village to Raise a Child," was Hillary Clinton’s Big Idea in the 1990s. Hillary’s supporters and detractors alike regard that slogan as a thinly-veiled code for increasing the government’s responsibility for the care of children. The demographic decline of Europe illustrates what would happen if we took this Village-Raising-Children image seriously.

The State Village takes over a substantial portion of the economic responsibility for the family, regardless of the marital status of parents. As state support becomes more significant, the mutual support of family members becomes less important. Parents no longer feel the need to marry each other, or even cooperate with each other. The state replaces the married couple as the primary support for children. And as a not-so-unintended consequence, state-funded child-care frees women from child-care responsibilities inside the home so they can work outside the home.

Welfare state advocates on both sides of the pond are quick to point out the benefits of state support. But let’s look at the cost side of the equation.

A recent report by the family-friendly Madrid-based Institute for Family Policies reports the broad European demographic trends. The number of marriages has dropped precipitously since 1980. The percentage of children born outside marriage has increased to one third. More children are born outside of marriage than inside marriages in Estonia, Sweden, Bulgaria and France. Divorce rates have soared.

One out of every four European household is a lone individual. Two out of three households have no children. Half of European children have no siblings. So much for the Fraternity part of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.

Unfortunately, the Institute for Family Policies recommends more of the same, failed welfare state policies. Steve Mosher, president of the US-based Population Research Institute, has a different approach. "Not one of the schemes adopted by the European countries has succeeded in recovering the birth rate to replacement. Why?" he asks rhetorically in his new book, Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits.

"Statist solutions will not solve the problem of the empty cradle, for it is the modern welfare state itself that relentlessly suppresses fertility. By its very existence, it discourages the formation of the very kind of strong, independent families that are necessary for robust fertility by fracturing the intergenerational dependency of the family, by adopting "gender-neutral" policies that undermine the complementarity that is at the heart of successful marriage, by providing abortion on demand, by mandating sex education for children, by pushing state-funded contraception schemes on teenagers and young adults, and above all, by high tax rates."

I think Mosher is correct. The statist Village has sucked the life out of marriage, which just happens to be the one self-sustaining institution that can oppose the pretensions of the state to control all of social life.

The European experience demonstrates that the Village needs the family far more than the family needs the Village.

Thanks for supporting family values, but what about the family?

If strong, intact, loving families are so important, why don’t politicians have them, too? Of all the issues facing the two American presidential candidates -- Iraq, the economy, health care, climate change, immigration -- the one that is most crucial to the future of the United States doesn’t even rate a mention on the Washington Post’s Issues Tracker for election coverage, namely, the family.

There is no doubt at all that both Barack Obama and John McCain talk about families in their speeches -- social security for families, health care for families, employment, education and many other things families need -- but do they talk about “the family”? Do they think about it? Do they realise how important it is for the health and prosperity of America to support the domestic unit founded on marriage and open to the generation of children? Not so as you’d notice, unfortunately. 

The United States is doing better than most Western nations when it comes to producing children, but the birth rate masks a disintegrating marriage culture that makes the future much less certain. By the time the last state has signed gay marriage into law, the troubles of the Iraq war may seem light by comparison with those of a generation who have no idea what marriage actually means.

The final phase of the presidential election presents us with two apparently happily married candidates -- Barack Obama for the first time and John McCain for the second. In this respect Mr Obama, whose website says he is “especially proud of being a husband and father of two daughters”, has more credibility, but it seems unlikely he would use it to promote the family as such. He speaks of his “fight for working families” in the form of tax cuts and early childhood education, but he supports civil unions, opposes a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and defends the abortion regime ushered in by Roe v Wade.

Among the other original candidates there was some potential. But having good values is not enough to get you into the White House or the prime minister’s office. Whatever it takes, the world needs more of it.

Italian film festival has family focus

A new type of film festival will be launched at the end of July when families, celebrities, officials and film aficionados gather at Fiuggi in Italy for the first edition of the International Festival of Cinema. The week-long family-friendly festival will see the Italian premiere of The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, and will feature a competition for good movies that are not readily available at the box office. Among the latter this year is Bella, the Public Prize winner at Toronto last year.

As participants relax among the attractions of the popular holiday spot, they can also choose from a menu of entertaining films suitable for all the family -- hits such as Finding Nemo, The Incredibles and Harry Potter. Also on offer are sessions in which leading figures will speak on topics related to the family, the arts and communication. A “family passport” allows any size family to watch all the films and attend all the activities for only 45 euros.

Backed by Italy’s Forum of Family Associations, the Fiuggi Family Festival aims to become an international point of reference for the family and the cinematic world

U.S. campaign to Promote Abstinence Begins

Encouraging sexual abstinence among teenagers is receiving a boost in the United States from a national campaign, called Parents For Truth, aimed at enlisting the support of one million parents. The National Abstinence Education Association sent emails last week to about 30,000 supporters, practitioners and parents and planned to email 100,000 this week as part of the first phase of the campaign. A registration fee of $30 per participant will provide funds to back lobbying efforts by parents to get schools to adopt sex education programmes focusing on abstinence and work to elect officials who support this approach.

“There are powerful special interest groups who can far outspend what parents can in terms of promoting their agenda,” said NAEA executive director Valerie Huber. “But we recognise that parents more than make up for that by their determination and motivation to protect their own children.”

The campaign comes as Congress is debating whether to authorise about $190 million in federal funding for abstinence education programmes, which have been under attack by advocates of so-called comprehensive sex education. The Parents For Truth website has a very effective video conveying the message that comprehensive sex ed typically puts its emphasis on safer sex practices and teaches kids how to have sex rather than how to avoid it. The website also offers advice to parents about sex education. 

Experimenting with children’s sexual identity!

Gender benders are consigning more and more disturbed children to the path of sex change on the basis of a shaky philosophy. Adolescents, by definition, are immature people. Once, the pop scientific diagnosis of teenage rashness was all about “raging hormones”. Now, it’s mainly about brains; hardly a week goes by that does not bring new revelations about the teen brain and its unfinished, evolving nature. No-one is really grown up until they are at least 25, we are told.

It turns out that some people have significant lapses of common sense even then. Among them are the mother of 12-year-old Australian girl who is encouraging her daughter to become a boy; the psychiatrist, family counsellor and endocrinologist who support the move; and the Victorian family court judge who decided last December after a two-day hearing that the girl had the right to begin hormone treatment with a view to a complete sex change. It has taken six months for the judgement to be issued. 

Despite the claim of her lawyer that she is capable of giving informed consent, and a claim that the hormone treatment is reversible should she change her mind, the girl is patently too young to make such a life-changing decision According to researchers, someone of her age has barely begun the process that should ultimately see the higher functions of the brain -- those connected with self-awareness, empathy with others and wise decision making -- wrest control from the pleasure seeking functions that burgeon during adolescence. A Dutch team has been conducting a trial involving youths since the late 1990s, according to Spiegel. The prestigious Boston Children's Hospital runs a clinic where children are helped to change their sex.

Collapsed schools: a preventable tragedy

One of the most heart-rending results of the devastating May 12 earthquake in China has been the deaths of thousands of children in collapsed schools. More than 13,000 schools in Sichuan -- over 40 per cent of schools in the province -- were damaged. Nearly 7000 collapsed. As many as 10,000 students and teachers may have been killed. The children’s deaths are more than usually tragic among people generally forbidden to have more than one child. Population planners have proved just as heedless of nature as the construction industry and its official overseers in that regard.

As bereaved parents come to realize the vulnerability of the schools their grief is turning to anger at officials, whom they are accusing of corruption. Beichuan Middle School, at the heart of the disaster, opened in 1998 after taking five years to build, then collapsed in a matter of seconds in the earthquake. More than 1300 of the school’s 2900 students and teachers are either dead or missing. In the small town of Wufu a junior school was reduced to rubble, burying the children, while the buildings around it stood firm. “We believe this disaster was man-made,” said a parent who lost his son. 

Local authorities have promised an investigation and say that builders will be held responsible for shoddy work. Yesterday an official in Sichuan withdrew from the prestigious Olympics torch relay as "atonement" for construction problems at collapsed schools. The government has moved quickly to offer families whose children have been killed or disabled exemption from the one-child policy. 

But the Beichuan earthquake is a wake-up call to more than the Chinese. Experts attending an international conference on school safety in Islamabad, Pakistan, shortly after the quake warned that the problem of poor buildings was widespread, and not just in developing countries.