Utah taxpayers spend about $276 million on the effects of divorce and out-of-wedlock childbirth. But while there are effective tools to strengthen marriage and families, those who statistically need help most are the least likely to seek it out, experts say.
"Those who are younger, less educated and less religious feel that such education is not important. But they are more apt to divorce, as well," said Melanie Reese, coordinator for the Utah Healthy Marriage Initiative, which is housed in the Utah Department of Workforce Services.
... The group said children are particularly impacted by marriage failure, with "potential risks" that include poverty, mental illness, physical illness, infant mortality, lower educational attainment, juvenile delinquency, behavior problems, criminal activity as adults and early unwed parenthood. Reese notes that research shows children who live with both biological parents do better socially than peers in other family structures.
Rhode Island might want to take note of the troubles a CU billl--without adequate religious liberty protection--is already causing in Illinois:
Illinois begins allowing gay civil union next month. Catholic adoption agencies will then face a choice of working with gay couples or sending them to other groups.
If they turn away gay couples, they might face lawsuits or lose state funding. --Chicago Tribune
... [The] Catholic Conference of Illinois says religious concerns bar its charities from working with gay couples on adoption or foster care.
They worry the charities will be sued or have their state contracts canceled. At a news conference Wednesday, they said that would be a "catastrophe" for Illinois children. --Chicago Tribune
ProtectMarriage.com, in its court filing, argues that Walker had a responsibility to disclose his relationship before the trial.
“It is important to emphasize at the outset that we are not suggesting that a gay or lesbian judge could not sit on this case,” the group’s attorneys said in their motion, which was submitted to the district court. “Rather, our submission is grounded in the fundamental principle, reiterated in the governing statute, that no judge ‘is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.’”
Arthur D. Hellman, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, called it a “very skillfully done document” because it ties in Walker’s own words from his ruling about marriage.
“He himself has said how beneficial marriage is, and having said all that, wouldn’t a reasonable person think that he would want to?” Hellman said.
But even those who say the argument has merit acknowledge that it may not be enough to persuade a judge to vacate Walker’s ruling. They say Proposition 8 proponents should have raised their concern earlier, when the rumors about Walker’s sexuality began to surface. And they point out that there is no evidence that Walker planned to marry his partner of 10 years.
Still, the challenge may have planted doubt in the public’s mind about Walker’s impartiality, said Gillers, the New York University professor.
“Unfortunately, Walker has muddied the waters and given the opponents of gay marriage the ability to undermine the credibility of his opinion,” he said. “That doesn’t mean the opinion becomes wrong, but it gives the proponents of Proposition 8 ammunition to cast doubt in the public debate.”
Coming hard on the heels of the resignation of Marriage Equality Rhode Island's executive director Kathy Kushnir, MERI spokesman Bill Fischer's resignation bespeaks a genuine disarray among gay marriage advocates in Rhode Island.
Blowback for opposing civil unions?
Fischer said that while there is "a lot of finger-pointing at Gordon Fox," the openly gay Speaker of the House who declared the gay marriage bill dead and embraced a civil unions push instead, advocates "really need to look inward."
Christopher Wolfe is an emeritus professor of political science at Marquette University and argues in the Public Discourse that "New conceptions of marriage threaten to make 'traditional marriage' not only unfashionable but also inaccessible":
One of the ways in which marriage can become unavailable to people is for the political community to offer people an institution called “marriage” that is not really marriage. By inculcating in its citizens—through social practices and laws—a notion of marriage that lacks some of its essential ingredients, a political society could, effectively, make “real marriage” impossible for many of its citizens.
... Homosexual marriage is one more indication from society that marriage is whatever we want it to be: a malleable human institution that we can shape (or even dispose of), rather than a natural institution, with its own internal dynamics and demands, to which we should submit. But if we go down the road of making marriage such a malleable institution, why should we be surprised if it doesn’t fulfill the functions it is designed to fulfill—providing a stable and secure setting for the rearing of children?
By Dr. John Grohol, founder and Editor-in-Chief of PsychCentral:
If ignorance is bliss, then delusion is even better — if you’re in a new marriage, anyways.
So says new research from investigators at the University at Buffalo, who examined 193 newly-married couples over three years to see what kinds of variables might predict greater marital satisfaction.
How could this be? Weren’t we always told the common wisdom — that we needed to be realistic in our relationships, and not look for that Knight in Shining Armor who comes to our rescue (or a Maiden trapped in a castle tower who needs rescuing)?
Apparently the common wisdom may need to be revisited, because continuing to idealize your partner long after the glow of the wedding fades away seems to help keep you happy.
Here is a summary of recent public reaction to the campaign to force law firms to drop the defense of marriage, from all shades of the political spectrum.
Gay Voices:
Andrew Sullivan in The Atlantic: "When civil rights groups bully, they lose the moral high-ground. When you have men like David Brock leading the charge - and there are no means he has ever eschewed to achieve his ends - the danger is that we prove the far right's point."
Jonathan Rauch on the Independent Gay Forum: "[King & Spalding dropping the defense] did show gays have some muscle. It didn’t show we’re smart about using it."
Liberal & Mainstream Media:
William Jacobson at Cornell Law School on the Legal Insurrectionblog: "When attorneys put business convenience ahead of the attorney's duty of loyalty to a client, there is no good outcome."
Andrew Cohen in The Atlantic: "The Human Rights Campaign's misguided case against Paul Clement's law firm ignores the basic tenets behind the counsel of law."
Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post: “Strong-arming the lawyer to drop or avoid the unpopular client is not an acceptable tactic. This is not, or shouldn’t be, a left-right debate.”
The editors of the New York Sun: “The principle of sticking by an unpopular client is as old as our republic”
Jonathan Capeheart, a Washington Post columnist: "Paul Clement’s decision to bolt for Bancroft PLLC was the right one."
Margaret Talbot at the New Yorker: "[HRC's tactics carries a] whiff of McCarthyite groupthink."
Attorney General Eric Holder in AP: "Holder told reporters Tuesday that Clement is "doing that which lawyers do" to take on the responsibility of representing the lawmakers who wrote the ban."
LATimeseditorial staff: "...it beggars belief that it dropped this hot potato because of that provision rather than because of the efforts of Human Rights Campaign, the gay-rights organization, to 'shame' the firm."
Ted Olson to the LATimes: "I don't know of anything comparable to this. You have to be willing to stand your ground."
Steve Sanders at the U. of Chicago Law Schoolblog: "Those who would label lawyers like Clement as (at best) amoral mercenaries do not understand how the world of public-law appellate litigation works."
The Wall Street Journal'sReview and Outlook blog: "...once a firm takes on a client it is the firmest of legal obligations to see a case through save for a clear conflict of interest. To drop a case under political pressure is especially unethical."
Steve Gillers of NYU to NPR/NYTimes: "[Kate & Spalding's] timidity here will hurt weak clients, poor clients and despised clients."
Former Solicitor General (under President Clinton) Seth Waxman: "Paul is entirely correct that our adversary system depends on vigorous advocates being willing to take on even very unpopular positions."
Conservative Media:
National Rifle Associationpress release: "...we expect [King & Spalding] to zealously advocate for our interests and not abandon the representation due to pressure from those who may disagree with us."
Deacon Keith Fournier at Catholic Online: "The effort to force Paul Clement to withdraw from legal representation in defense of Marriage is one more manifestation of the growth of bullying in our culture."
Matthew Franck in the Public Discourse: “Resistance to … intimidation, in the name of the ethic of institutional integrity, is fast becoming the duty of all persons in positions of institutional responsibility, whatever their private views on homosexuality or same-sex marriage.”
Tony Perkins at the Family Research Council: “The people who avoid a debate are the ones afraid of losing. That's why the groups like GetEQUAL and others are forming what is basically a mobile protest unit.”
Brian Wilson at the Red State blog: "Who deserves legal representation - the American people, or their sworn enemies? To the Atlanta, Georgia law firm of King & Spalding, the answer most emphatically is only the latter."
William C. Duncan at NRO's The Corner: "This tantrum and its seeming success tell us that many on the left believe they have a veto on the principle that everybody deserves to be represented in court."
Chairmain Dan Lungren (R-CA): I admire [Paul Clement's] unwavering commitment to his clients and his dedication to uphold the law – qualities that appear to be inconsequential at King and Spalding where politics and profit now appear to come first.
“This bill is an engraved invitation for the courts to impose same-sex marriage.” – Chris Plante, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage – Rhode Island
PROVIDENCE – The National Organization for Marriage – Rhode Island (NOM-RI) completely rejects as unacceptable legislation introduced Tuesday in the RI House of Representatives that would legalize civil-unions. House Bill 6103 makes no effort to protect marriage between one man and one woman, is restricted to same-sex couples, contains the weakest religious liberties protection language possible, and provides a mechanism for same-sex divorce. “This bill is an engraved invitation the courts to impose same-sex marriage. HB 6103 fails to protect, indeed, invites the courts to strike down marriage, and offers no realistic religious liberty protection for religious charities, schools, organizations, or for small business owners,” stated Chris Plante, executive director of NOM-RI.
“Like similar legislation enacted in Connecticut and California, the proposed civil union legislation is nothing more than a Trojan Horse that will usher in same-sex marriage sooner rather than later,” stated Plante. “NOM – Rhode Island urges those legislators who bravely stood strong for marriage between one man and one woman in defeating same-sex marriage legislation last week to recognize this bill for what it is – a clear path for the courts to redefine marriage without the vote of the people.”
Further, NOM – Rhode Island will once again begin to equip, educate, and empower the grassroots network that defeated gay-marriage last week. At the same time, NOM – RI will work closely with Rhode Island’s faith communities to strengthen their voice in the public square in opposition to thinly veiled legislation. “As in the gay marriage debate, the voices of the people of Rhode Island will be heard loud and clear by members of the House Judiciary Committee and individual Representatives. Rhode Islanders made it clear that they do not want same-sex marriage and when they see this bill for what it really is – a backdoor attempt to pave the way for redefining marriage – Rhode Island voters will again carry the day,” continued Plante.
From CitizenLink, a Focus on the Family affiliate:
Even though Rhode Island House Speaker Gordon Fox was forced to abandon his plans to legalize same-sex marriage this session, he is not giving up. A Democrat and an open homosexual, is set to introduce [...] a civil unions bill.
But gay activists aren’t lining up behind him. In fact, Marriage Equality Rhode Island is mounting a protest rally to coincide with the bill’s introduction.
...Maggie Gallagher, chairman of the board of National Organization for Marriage, said the stunning defeat of the same-sex marriage bill has left gay activists in disarray.
“It’s the bluest of the blue states,” she said. “And their inability to pass gay marriage in Rhode Island — coming on the heels of their defeat in another deep blue state, Maryland — is a sign of how little popular support there is for gay marriage.”
Ovide Lamontagne came from nowhere to almost defeat Kelly Ayotte in the GOP primary for the U.S. Senate.
With Kelly Ayotte now Sen. Ayotte, this story is focusing attention on who Ovide Lamontagne will endorse for president prior to the GOP primary. Tim Pawlenty or..?
Ian Robinson is President Emeritus of the Rationalist Society of Australia and a former editor of their journal, the Australian Rationalist. He writes in Online Opinion, an Australian e-journal of social and political debate:
... The norm for human beings is sexual reproduction which requires not same-sex but opposite-sex unions. At the most basic level, our survival as a species requires the coming together of male and female gametes.
In human societies the way this essential union is symbolised is in the institution of marriage. This is how the centrality of the male-female partnership is celebrated in our culture and, in a non-religious sense, it is sacred; that is to say, heterosexuality is so important to our survival, so fundamental to the continuation of the species, that we have an ingrained sense that marriage as a heterosexual union should not be tampered with. It symbolises in the social sphere the vital role that the male-female gamete union plays at the biological level.
William Jacobson at the Cornell Law School writing for the Legal Insurrectionblog:
King & Spalding dumped the House of Representatives as a client in DOMA litigation after coming under threatened protests and boycotts by groups opposed to DOMA. A key aspect of the threats was that protesters not only would protest King & Spalding, but would go after other King & Spalding clients which had nothing to do with the DOMA case. That, apparently, was too much for King & Spalding to bear, so it threw the House of Representatives overboard. King & Spalding may have started something it cannot stop.
... King & Spalding, like many seemingly powerful large law firms, actually is extremely vulnerable once it becomes known that it will give in to political pressure. ... It just so happens that almost every state in the country has either DOMA constitutional amendments or DOMA legislation, including Georgia:
When attorneys put business convenience ahead of the attorney's duty of loyalty to a client, there is no good outcome.
I toldPolitico the same thing, but Carl M. Cannon gets first publication credit for suggesting this:
"Specifically, I wonder whether the ease with which HRC caused King & Spalding to capitulate might cause Tony Kennedy to reach an obvious, real-world conclusion: namely, that gays and lesbians are far from powerless, and are doing just fine without any "heightened" protections. If it comes down to that, the campaign against Paul Clement would have backfired -- and produced its own rough justice."
I note, however that HRC shows no signs of backing down from its tactics, which Cannon called "bullying."
The National Rifle Association today is dropping King & Spalding as an outside counsel in the wake of the firm's decision last month to withdraw from representing House Republicans in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. The NRA's action follows a similar decision last week by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to end the commonwealth's relationship with the firm.
In a letter dated today [May 2nd] to King & Spalding chairman Robert Hays, NRA general counsel David Lehman said the firm's decision was "indefensible" but emphasized that the NRA's action in dropping King & Spalding is "not motivated by any position on the statute itself." The NRA is a "single issue organization" focused on the Second Amendment, Lehman wrote. But he said that in retaining outside counsel, "we expect them to zealously advocate for our interests and not abandon the representation due to pressure from those who may disagree with us."
