DriveThru – Get What You Need

According to a column on Sunday:

“The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.”

As any reader of this blog already knows, I’ve criticized Walker’s handling of the case from the beginning. His rulings on discovery disputes, unnecessary factual issues he wanted to see developed at trial, and his incomprehensible series of maneuvers attempting to get television cameras in his courtroom, have all revealed a bias in favor of the anti-Prop 8 plaintiffs. The source of that bias could be the judge’s sexual orientation. At this point that’s just speculation. The fact that the bias exists is what’s important. As Andy Pugno, a lawyer for the Prop 8 folks said in the article:

“In many ways, the sponsors of Prop 8 have been put at significant disadvantage throughout the case,” Pugno said. “Regardless of the reason for it.”

Ed Whelan at Bench Memos comments on the Chronicle article in a post entitled: “Judge Walker’s Skewed Judgment.”  Key excerpts:

From the outset, Walker’s entire course of conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case has reflected a manifest design to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Prop 8’s sponsors.

….

Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation: that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage. Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now.

I agree with both Pugno and Whelan. Whatever the source of Walker’s bias, the results have been clear – any chance for an impartial trial based on the actual (as opposed to the Walker-contrived) constitutional issues surrounding marriage – has been lost.

Focus on the Family would like to thank you for your tremendous support, and invites you to share their message of “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life ”.  Do you like free prizes? Would you like the chance to win a FREE trip to Colorado Springs to have lunch with Jim Daly himself?

Sign up for our online contest today and share this link with your friends!  http://www.focusonthefamily.com/supporters

Proponents of same-sex “marriage” have gone to great lengths to try and convince Americans that gay relationships are fundamentally no different than heterosexual relationships – and therefore gay “marriages” are no different than straight marriages.

However, a recent story in The New York Times highlighting the prevalence of “open” relationships among homosexual couples – “Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret” – pulls back the curtain and exposes the gay “marriage” wizard for who and what he is – a fraud.

Here, we learn that a new study from San Francisco State University (SFSU) due out next month will reveal that “open relationships” are common among gay men and lesbians in the Bay area – to the tune of 50% of the gay male couples surveyed. And while gay activists have long claimed that societal “homophobia” is what drives them to be promiscuous, this argument is entirely undermined by the fact that this survey takes place in one of the most liberal and gay-affirming places in America – San Francisco.

Couple this with Joy Behar’s recent comments on “The View” about monogamy being “too much trouble” for gays, and it would seem that even pro-gay liberals can see that there’s a fundamental difference in sexual mores between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

Of course, this dirty little secret is not news to anybody who knows this community well. Before I walked away from homosexuality myself, I lived as an out and proud gay man for well over a decade. While I had hundreds of gay friends around the world, I never knew of a single gay male couple in a long-term relationship that was monogamous. Eventually each relationship became “open” to one degree or another – which seemed to be the only way the relationships could endure. I even remember seeing threesomes and other “open” couples go forward to receive communion together on a weekly basis at the gay-affirming church I attended.

While we await details from this new SFSU survey, it’s not unreasonable to surmise that the study will echo previous research on gay relationships indicating high levels of sexual infidelity. For example, in 1984, gay researchers McWhirter and Mattison studied 156 gay couples and found a 100% infidelity rate after 5 years. They concluded that non-monogamy was the norm in the gay community.

More recently, in 2003, a Canadian study titled “Relationship Innovation in Male Couples,” revealed that three-quarters of Canadian gay men in relationships lasting longer than one year are not monogamous. Here, the openly gay professor conducting the study concluded that “gay culture allows men to explore different, more successful, forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals.”

People who self-identify as gay are perfectly free to forge relationships on their own terms. They may even choose to justify this openness as somehow aiding in the establishment of stronger, longer-lasting, and more “highly evolved” partnerships.

But to say that these relationships are the same – and then to use this claim as a basis to redefine marriage away from the natural definition of.one man-one woman is deceptive.

Fidelity and monogamy may be “too much trouble” for a significant percentage of people in the gay community, but they’re central features of heterosexual marriage.

Write a love letter about your spouse for a chance to win a two-night stay at the The Broadmoor and admission to Focus on the Family’s marriage simulcast event.

More here about the love letter contest, and here about churches hosting the simulcast on February 27.

Gary Schneeberger, Focus on the Family VP, Ministry Communication, talks to Stuart Shepard about the Tebow Super Bowl ad, and some of the feedback the organization is receiving.

Watch it here: http://www.citizenlink.org/focusactionupdate/A000011988.cfm

The question often asked after I post something about the benefits of marriage is, ‘if it’s so good, wouldn’t it be good for same-sex couples and the children they are raising?”.

The question assumes that men and women are interchangeable and contribute nothing unique to a marriage and to their children, and/or that marriage is nothing more than the sum of legal benefits conferred by the government.

If you believe either of these, then you probably have no problem with redefining marriage.  But the benefits of marriage measured in social science depend on the male-female bond and commitment to the spouse and children.

Over at the Corner Maggie Gallagher responded to a similar criticism and relates this from her experience,

Back in the 1990s, when I went into the public square and said, “Marriage really matters because children need a mom and a dad,” I wasn’t permitted to rest my case on vague generalities — I was required to produce data. Mounds of data, in fact. We have no scientific evidence at all, that I know of, that children raised by same-sex couples benefit if their unions are legally considered marriages.

She briefly addresses the Biblarz and Stacey’s recent study claiming that parents’ gender doesn’t matter for children.

Stacey and Biblarz have published a new study (I have only scanned it), but one big fact leaps out: They concede, as the Prop 8 expert witness conceded, we have no scientific information at all on how children fare in motherless families.

The “rights” language used by those who want to redefine marriage isn’t convincing when we can see the need a child has for a mother and father, and believe that the child has a right to know them.

And Chuck Schumer’s, Dick Durbin’s, Russ Feingold’s – shoot, even Al Franken’s. If they’re paying attention, that is. Any Senate Judiciary Committee Democrat  who has ever contributed to the glut of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by continually pontificating against “extremist right-wingers” on the Supreme Court who are supposedly way, way “out-of-the-mainstream” are going to have trouble explaining this poll.

Seems that 58% of Americans would prefer the Supreme Court to keep the definition of marriage intact, but only 52% expect it to do so, when the Prop 8 case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger reaches there.

Now, I don’t know how Chairman Leahy and his board of mis-directors (a/k/a Judiciary Dems) define “mainstream” judicial philosophy, but it appears that the American public (I’d say 58% qualifies as “mainstream,” wouldn’t you?) views it as a few degrees to the right of where the Court is now. In other words, THEY WANT MORE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES in the future, not fewer.

So, my dear friends on the Left, when Justice Stevens retires this summer (I’m not saying he is or isn’t, just repeatin’ rumors), please don’t crank up the old “we must stop the ultra right-wing takeover of the Court” meme in order to justify another liberal appointment to the Court. You can’t protect the President on this one.

This poll shows that Americans want marriage to remain marriage. They want justices smart enough to figure out that same-sex marriage is not in the Constitution. And, in a happy coincidence, we may have an opening for just such a justice this summer.

You can either listen to what America is saying, or memorize six words: Martha Coakley, John Corzine, Creigh Deeds.

The Washington Post’s On Faith blog has a great post from my colleague, Chad Hills, about new findings in the world of abstinence education.

Many politicians and educators have long since dismissed the idea that abstinence education is a healthy – or perhaps even better – alternative to comprehensive sex ed. But now a landmark study from the February 2010 Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine adds to the ever-growing evidence that abstinence education works.

Chad put it well:

If you talk to young people, a gradual change is taking place. They’re experiencing the aftermath of a sexual tsunami, and are sorting through the refuge left in the wake of sexually liberated parents. The fallout from broken, dysfunctional families is painful – a model they don’t want to replicate. Young men and women are searching for brighter futures and not so sure they want to follow the road map they’ve seen modeled and taught.

There’s a new generation waking up and willing to do things differently… and better:

Abstinence-centered education is effective with this generation because it provides direction, character education and a guide for healthy living. It gives hope for a brighter future to those regretting their sexual involvement. It encourages parents to participate in and lead this discussion.

To read Chad’s full analysis, visit the On Faith blog.

And the good senators in the Democratic-controlled state senate of the Commonwealth of Virginia just passed it. That is, they passed a measure to make it illegal to require individuals to purchase health insurance. Talk about an in-your-face response to the proposed federal mandate I’ve talked about before. And Virginia is not alone – similar measures are pending in at least 29 other state legislatures. That seems like a sane response from states increasingly worried about the federal government  encroaching on their sovereignty.

Now, we can argue about whether such state measures are merely symbolic – i.e.,  is Virginia’s senate just whistling in the dark because a national takeover of healthcare insurance will preempt any contrary state measures?  Virginia says it’s trying to establish legal “standing” for itself to join a lawsuit with other states against the federal government over any healthcare bill that comes out of Congress.

I’m not so much immediately interested in whether such measures as Virginia’s are constitutionally effective when the dust clears from litigation, as I am in the non-partisan phenomenon of states rising up like Tea Partiers to draw a line in the sand to say “NO” to another enormous expansion of the federal government’s reach.

Rich Lowry at NRO has written an intriguing essay about all this entitled “How Big Government Became a Cultural Issue.” He thinks that at stake in the stunning Scott Brown election “wasn’t just a grab-bag of fiscal issues, but the meaning of the country – the ultimate cultural issue.”

If the“healthcare reform” bills passed by the Senate and House are now mortally wounded, I won’t mourn for them.

Besides, if we nationalize healthcare, where will Canadians go for their surgeries?

A national effort to celebrate and strengthen marriages kicks off this weekend.  National Marriage Week USA (Feb. 7-14) is a collaborative effort to turn attention to the benefits of marriage with the ultimate goal of reducing the divorce rate and the number of children living in poverty.

Pastors and churches are specifically encouraged to be involved because research shows the health of church and family are intertwined.

In an article about the event, columnist Cheryl Wetzstein wrote,

W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, said that the “fortunes of the church basically rise and fall with the fortunes of married families in this country.” That’s because married couples with children are 62 percent more likely to attend church than childless singles, he explained. Strong families also socialize children into religious traditions and “orient adults to the moral, social and spiritual goods found in these traditions.”

Wetzstein also quotes author and researcher, Elizabeth Marquardt:

In research for her book “Between Two Worlds,” Mrs. Marquardt found that many children of divorce lost confidence in God and their faith. In a real sense, she said, divorce doesn’t just break up a family, it “drives children away from the church.”

See a list of events here.