A note...

That last post (and this one) was from Dr. J's friend, Betsy, not Dr. J herself.

Hooray for Dr. J!

In the news: Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse was featured with other supporters (and opposers) of Prop. 8 here in California. The newspaper was the San Diego Union Tribune. Even though our side was outnumbered, the pro-Prop 8ers clearly knew their stuff and did well to promote the message of what true marriage is. Check it out here.

Here's a little taste of it:

Hasn't marriage always been available for couples who don't have children,
for 65-year-olds who want to get married?

MORSE: Yes, It's quite true that not every married couple has children.
But every child has parents. And every child is entitled to a relationship with
both of their parents, and no child is in a position to protect that right on
their own. Adult society has to create institutions to do that.

Ding! Point for our side! Someone has to look out for the children. Those against Prop. 8 seem to forget about them.

And there's lots more where that came from.

I Predicted this....

Those of you who attended my series, Same Sex Marrige Affects Everyone, know that I predicted that same sex marriage would lead to the end of gender in society. Now, as if on cue, there is a story out of California, removing the gendered words for spouses.

"Brides" and "grooms" are no longer allowed to marry in the State of California.

That privilege is only extended to individuals who allow themselves to be called "Party A" and "Party B" on marriage licenses.

Pastor Doug Bird of Abundant Life Fellowship in Roseville, Calif., was alarmed to find the state now rejects the traditional terms after he officiated his first marriage ceremony last week following the California Supreme Court decision to overturn Proposition 22.

The couple had written the words "bride" and "groom" next to "Party A" and "Party B" because they wanted to be legally recognized as husband and wife.

However, the Placer County marriage license was denied.

"I received back the license and a letter from the Placer County Clerk/Recorder stating that the license 'does not comply with California State registration laws,'" Bird said in a statement from the Pacific Justice Institute.

I also predicted that Same Sex Marriage Affects Everyone precisely because one definition of marriage must drive out the other definition. Marriage used to be a child-centered, gendered institution. With same sex marriage in place, marriage is becoming an adult-centered, gender-neutral institution.

3 Minute Clip on Voting in 2008

This is a great commercial that puts voting into prospective for all of us. It is important to prioritize the issues in the upcoming election! The protection of life, family and faith must be at the forefront. Please add your comments about this clip.

It can also be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqzMB-gA6Ro

Sarah Palin

Just for the record, I knew about Sarah Palin before last Friday. I blogged about her new baby in May. "Alaska Governor Looks out for the Little Guy."
here is one of the things I said then:

The Pro-Abortion Left and their allies in the Main Stream Media seldom realize that the pro-life movement is dominated by women, courageous, strong women, like Gov. Palin.

The treatment of Palin by the MSM is disgraceful. But it really shows that they are completely tone-deaf to the vast number of women pro-life leaders.
I'm listening to Rudy Guiliani pumping John McC....

Sarah Palin

What I like about Sarah Palin: she is a post-feminist, professional woman. She doesn't so much reject Establishment Feminism: she just ignores it. She has a collaborative relationship with her husband, not, as far as I can tell, an adversarial or competitive relationship with him. He is not an obstacle to her life goals: he is a help and support to them. And her life goals include accepting children lovingly from God, in fact, all the children God may choose to send her.
For all these reasons, she is a complete mystery to most of the mainstream media, including much of the conservative media that should be sympathetic to her. Notice the WSJ: and here. They talked about her reform streak. They seem to be clueless about why her life story is so exciting to so many women.

The L.A. Times is Scared of Dr. J

Although she met with the editorial board of the L.A. Times three weeks ago, they have ignored Dr. J. since then. The L.A. Times published an article quoting other people from that meeting, but not Dr. J.

When we left the L.A. Times board Dr. J felt confident that she had answered all their questions. However they choice not to call upon her again. Why is this? Possibly because her answers are harder to make look bad in print? Her comments backed with facts and social science research must be too much truth for one article.

Read it all here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-faith24-2008aug24,0,5092135.story

All the Letters Unfit to Print

I've started a new blog, to take out my frustration at my friends not getting their pro-marriage letters published. I'll publish your letters! Go Here to join the fun!

The Pro-Marriage Alliance: Hip-Hop meets White and Nerdy

The book, Take Back Your Family: A Challenge To America's Parents, by the stars of MTV's Run's House is an excellent tribute to marriage and family and a highly worthwhile read.

This article was published August 10th, 2008 in the New York Post by Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse.

If I do say so myself, I am the perfect person to review Take Back Your Family: A Challenge to America's Parents, by Rev. Run and Justine Simmons. I am a complete media naif. I don’t own a TV. I have never seen MTV’s Run’s House. I’ve never seen Justine’s Brown Sugar jewelry line, or the Pastry shoe line founded by daughters Angela and Vanessa. I’ve never seen either Angela’s magazine Run Down, or Vanessa’s performance on The Guiding Light. The family’s larger-than-life presence in the rap music world, (Rev. Run, his brother Russell, and now his son JoJo are all hip hop recording artists) is lost on me. My personal theme song is "White and Nerdy" by Weird Al Yankovic.

But I am qualified to judge a book on marriage and family. I am the Founder and President of The Ruth Institute, a non-profit educational organization promoting marriage as a fundamental, gender-based institution of society. I have a doctorate in economics. I can judge this book on its own merits, without being unduly influenced by the family’s media presence.

It's a good book. You should read it.

Reverend Run and Justine take a stand for some radically counter-cultural ideas that happen to be correct. Let me mention just three areas where hard data support the Simmons’ common sense down-to-earth approach.

First, while this book is ostensibly about parenting, the Simmons’ opening salvo is that their marriage comes first. As the Rev. puts it, “Everything worthwhile I have is a by-product of my union with my wife.” Rev. and Justine believe parents need to nurture their relationship with each other and not allow their kids to absorb so much time, attention and energy, that the spousal relationship suffers. Nerd Alert: research shows that marriage builds wealth, and that happy marriages build happy kids.

Their second politically incorrect idea is that gender roles are legitimate, necessary and helpful. Rev. Run says, “All the decisions that get made in Run’s House, both large and small, are collaborations.” Yet, they agree, without apology, that everything works best when one person has the final say. “Run has the final say at Run’s House.”

They recognize the counter-cultural nature of their stance and rush to the others’ defense. Rev. recognizes that male leadership of the household isn’t necessarily appealing to men. He pointedly observes that too few MEN, especially African-American men, step up and take this responsibility for their families. Justine points out, “Just because I’m a powerful, independent woman doesn’t mean I want some sucker husband.”

For both of them, mutual respect is the key. Justine puts it this way, “Just like I wouldn’t want my kids to grow up around a woman who’s constantly undercutting her husband, I wouldn’t want them around a father who disrespects his wife by treating her like a maid.” Justine’s sentiments echo the results of survey data gathered by University of Virginia Sociologist and fellow marriage-nerd Brad Wilcox. The happiest wives are those who feel their husbands appreciate their contributions to the household.

Third, and probably most importantly, the Simmons’ unapologetic support of marriage is a stinging rebuke to those avant garde types who claim that matrimony is out-dated, fathers are disposable and marriage is for white people. In my humble opinion, those in the media, the academy and government who lead the charge against life-long married love have a lot to answer for.

Like many African-Americans, the Simmons’ don’t give a hoot about being politically correct. Another Nerd Alert: Survey data shows that some 95% of African-Americans support traditional marriage.

Rev. Run and Justine Simmons are doing a great public service by giving people hope that they can build a happy family. Through projects like Take Back Your Family and Run’s House, they are doing their part to make marriage cool.

On behalf of Marriage Nerds everywhere, I thank them.

Mom might be the reason dad is not there....

This moving and honest article by Renee Mitchell just moved to the top of my list of must-shares.

this is my way of making amends for contributing to the epidemic of children being raised by single parents. I've come to realize: Fatherlessness can sometimes be a result of the mother's choices.

When I made the decision to divorce my children's father and move to Portland when our twins were age 2, I thought I was the only parent my sons, Alex and Zavier, would ever need. I was mistaken.

Read it all here.

"Bigots Against Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

That's the name of a new satirical group that has organized itself to defeat Proposition 8, the Marriage Amendment here in CA.

the "bigots" have some big plans to grab your attention through a campaign of satirical advocacy, the centerpiece of which will be a campaign Web site, www.marriagebigots.com, which at press time was not yet operational. But the site will soon have some pretty spectacular content, according to Nelson.

"We have secured [exclusive] interviews some of the worlds favorite bigots; Osama bin Laden, who has been very hard to find. Another one of our very favorite bigots is Saddam Hussein. Kim Jong-Il has also weighed in," said Nelson. The site will also "honor" over a hundred individuals who have veritably advocated for Prop 8, and present the exaggerated arguments in favor of the measure, in the hopes of pointing out the flaws in the arguments for banning gay marriage.

How will they secure an interview with Saddam Hussein? Hold a seance?

At first glance, this might seem like an effective rhetorical strategy: make people feel ashamed for supporting man/woman marriage. But on second thought, it isn't so smart. Lots of people who believe in man/woman marriage know perfectly well that they are not bigots. They know that their views have nothing to do with what they beleive about gay people and everything to do with what they believe about marriage. These people may think to themselves: "Vote NO on Prop 8 is not likely to be the last demand of the gay lobby. Sooner or later they are going to demand that I support something I can't support. I don't care to empower people who are calling me names now, and are likely to keep calling me names. It's time to put a stop to this."

I could be wrong. Mark Nelson, the organizer of "Bigots Against...." could turn out to be the marketing genius of the century.

But I don't think so.

The Papacy Stands for Freedom?

Usually, the Papacy is a symbol of unfettered authoritarianism. But in the topsy turvey world of the conflict within the worldwide Anglican Communion, things have taken an interesting political turn.

A leading conservative cleric has launched a devastating attack on the Archbishop of Canterbury, accusing him of “betrayal” and calling his office a “remnant of imperial colonialism”.
Writing in The Times, the Most Rev Henry Orombi, Archbishop of Uganda, says Rowan Williams has betrayed churches that remain true to the Bible by inviting colleagues who consecrated the openly gay Bishop of New Hampshire to the Lambeth Conference. ...
The Archbishop of Uganda stands by the biblical texts that rule against homosexuality but says that he and his peers do not want to cause schism by leaving the Anglican Communion.

So far, this is a pretty typical statement of the conflict between the conservative African south and the liberal European North. But here is the statement that got my attention:

He writes: “Even the Pope is elected by his peers. But what Anglicans have is a man appointed by a secular government. Over the past five years, we have come to see this as a remnant of British colonialism, and it is not serving us well.

“The spiritual leadership of a global communion of independent and autonomous provinces should not be reduced to one man appointed by a secular government.”

Wholesale conversions to Catholicism, as a protest against remnants of colonialism? Stranger things have happened.

Androgeny is on the Ballot in Maryland

I have been saying for some time that one of the goals of the Life-Style Left is to create a completely androgynous society. A certain style of Marxist-Feminists have seen gender as a completely suspect category. A significant subset of homosexual activists agree with that.
Now, there is a ballot measure in Montgomery County, Maryland that supports this interpretation. The county passed a law outlawing all references to gender in any part of the county code. A citizens group place a measure on the ballot to overturn this law. Their opponents? Homosexual activists.

After the Montgomery County Board voted to render the citizens of their county legally androgynous by removing all references to gender from the county code, Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government began a petition drive to get the measure on the November ballot. Homosexual activists with Equality Maryland sued, trying to keep the people from voting.

In this article I had given the gay rights activists the benefit of the doubt. I made no claim one way or another about whether they intended to create a completely de-gendered society. I still believe there are many sensible gay people who do not want that outcome. But I now think it is clear that a completely de-gendered society will be the outcome, whether anyone wants it or not.
And plainly, some people in Maryland do want this outcome. I feel vindicated.

The Power of the Powerless and the Lavender Curtain

One of the most troubling aspects of the same sex marriage debate is the complete capitulation of corporate America. Large companies are falling over themselves in an effort to outdo each other in accommodating gay rights. A Is this because they all agree 100% with every aspect of the gay agenda? I doubt it. The troubles of San Diego’s Manchester Grand Hyatt suggest that there is more going on than a handful of people with signs in front of the hotel. The Public Utility company, PG&E, has donated money to an anti-Prop 8 group, and is lining up other businesses to fight the amendment.

The donation from the utility, and the formation of the business council, represents a shift from the last time that the question of gay marriage was on the ballot, in 2000. Back then, many businesses stayed on the sidelines.
Analysts said businesses may be more willing to get involved this time because they have more gay and lesbian employees who are out and in positions of power…

That is what worried me: gays in a position of power, using it to intimidate people into supporting their agenda. In the short run, each business believes that acquiescing is in their interests. The gay lobby gives them bad press if they hold out. They pressure their target behind the scenes, with money, with threats of cutting off other business relationships. If the business surrenders, the Lavender Mafia can make all those problems go away.

This blog is available to anyone who has been harassed by the gay lobby or other agents of political correctness. Send me your story. Try to keep it brief and to the point.

I am inspired to do this by the success of Czech dissident Vaclav Havel in fomenting the Velvet Revolution. His famous essay, “The Power of the Powerless,” is credited with helping to bring down the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. The allegory of the greengrocer encouraged his fellow dissidents in the Soviet bloc to stop cooperating with the regime. In spite of my request to “keep it brief,”I ask your indulgence for a not-so-brief summary of Havel’s argument.

The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

Is PG&E’s enthusiasm for same sex marriage so great that they feel an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with this ideal? Would not the business of the public utility, which is, after all, a monopoly, go on without this expression of solidarity with gay people? Have the owners of the public utility really given more than a moment’s thought to what same sex marriage would mean? Vaclav Havel again:

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say.
Obviously the greengrocer . . . does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace."

Our California businesses that support Equality California evidently expect to be left in peace. They behave in the manner expected of them. But what is the price they pay? Vaclav Havel’s genius is that he revealed to the greengrocers behind the Iron Curtain the price they paid.

Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with the workers of the world uniting?"

What is wrong with same sex couples getting married? They love each other.

Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology. …The… system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.

Human rights commissions suppress freedom of speech. Thought control takes place under the guise of prosecution for hate crimes. Private property rights are abrogated to accommodate the “privacy” rights of the newest and most powerful protected class. The democratic process is protected by bypassing people’s right to vote.

A Lavender Curtain is falling across America. Fair-minded Americans want gay people to be treated with dignity. But they don’t want to be pushed around. People are being quietly and not so quietly bullied by gay millionaires who don’t want the American people to ever have the opportunity to vote on the meaning of marriage. Institutions of civil society are being intimidated about pursuing their missions, for fear of running afoul of a high profile lawsuit, followed by a financial shake-down. Ordinary people are losing their rights to educate their children as they see fit.

Am I being hysterical? I don’t think so. Gays and lesbians are no more than 3% of the population. Their influence is all out of proportion to their numbers. But there is reason for hope.

Let us now imagine that one day something in our greengrocer snaps and he stops putting up the slogans merely to ingratiate himself. He stops voting in elections he knows are a farce. He begins to say what he really thinks at political meetings. And he even finds the strength in himself to express solidarity with those whom his conscience commands him to support. In this revolt the greengrocer steps out of living within the lie. He rejects the ritual and breaks the rules of the game. He discovers once more his suppressed identity and dignity. He gives his freedom a concrete significance. His revolt is an attempt to live within the truth. . . .

We know how the revolt of all the hypothetical greengrocers ended. Those thousands of individuals who stopped living the lie produced the Velvet Revolution. The Czech Republic, and the other countries of the former Soviet bloc obtained their independence without ever firing a shot. They just started living within the truth. They discovered that they were not alone. And they prevailed.
As I said earlier, this blog is available to anyone who has been harassed by the gay lobby or other agents of political correctness. Send me your story. I’ll review it before posting it. Try to keep it brief.
You are not alone.

Even More on Humanae Vitae

One more thought: The Pill was supposed to deliver us from every manner of trouble by separating sex from reproduction. We now have sex without babies and babies without sex. In the end, the culture of contraception has separated men and women from each other.

More on Humanae Vitae

I posted about Mary Eberstadt's article on Pope Paul IV's birth control encyclical, Humane Vitae (Of Human Life) earlier. I have been thinking about Paul's prediction that artificial birth control would sour relations between the sexes. Now, I have to say, in advance, that my training is in economics. One of the first things you learn in economics is that the best test of a theory is its predictive power. Sounding reasonable at the outset isn't enough. Having "realistic" assumptions isn't enough. The real test of a theory is whether the predictions of the theory are falsified or verified by events.

By that standard, Paul VI should get a Nobel Prize. The enthusiasts who predicted that birth control would usher in an era of "every child a wanted child," look pretty silly in retrospect. Paul VI had a superior theory of the human condition.

In any case, here is what Mary Eberstadt has to say about his prediction that contraception would damage relationships between men and women.

Perhaps the most mocked of Humanae Vitae's predictions was its claim that separating sex from procreation would deform relations between the sexes and "open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards." Today, when advertisements for sex scream from every billboard and webpage, and every teen idol is sooner or later revealed topless or worse online, some might wonder what further proof could possibly be offered.

But to leave matters there would be to miss something important. The critical point is, one might say, not so much the proof as the pudding it's in. And it would be hard to get more ironic than having these particular predictions of Humanae Vitae vindicated by perhaps the most unlikely—to say nothing of unwilling—witness of all: modern feminism….

Consider just what we have been told by the endless books on the topic over the years. If feminists married and had children, they lamented it. If they failed to marry or have children, they lamented that, too. If they worked outside the home and also tended their children, they complained about how hard that was. If they worked outside the home and didn't tend their children, they excoriated anyone who thought they should. And running through all this literature is a more or less constant invective about the unreliability and disrespect of men. …

Beneath all the pathos, the subtext remains the same: Woman's chief adversary is Unreliable Man, who does not understand her sexual and romantic needs and who walks off time and again at the first sashay of a younger thing. What are all these but the generic cries of a woman who thinks that men are "disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium" and "no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection"?...

That there is no auxiliary literature of grievance for men—who, for the most part, just don't seem to feel they have as much to grieve about in this new world order—is something else that Humanae Vitae and a few other retrograde types saw coming in the wake of the revolution. As the saying goes, and as many people did not stop to ask at the time, cui bono? Forty years later, the evidence is in. As Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver observed on Humanae Vitae's thirtieth anniversary in 1998, "Contraception has released males—to a historically unprecedented degree—from responsibility for their sexual aggression." Will any feminist who by 2008 disagrees with that statement please stand up?

I'm not exactly a feminist. And I don't exactly disagree with Archbishop Chaput. But I do think that there is a grievance literature for men: the dispossessed fathers that I and Steven Baskerville have written about. Ironically, these are the men who are doing what they ought to be doing. They are trying to be good husbands and fathers, but have been kicked out of their family's lives. These men, are, for all practical purposes, invisible in our society. (My website has a page called The Reluctantly Divorced. I call them the Unknown Soldiers of the Culture Wars.) They are dismissed by some, even in the Fatherhood Movement, who call them "Mad Dads."

There is something seriously wrong when the most aggrieved people in society are those who are trying to be responsible parents and spouses.

Tempest in a Teapot

The San Diego Union Tribune posted an editorial on its front page yesterday: "Will gays' boycott turn the tables?" The article is notable for having no facts, but many opinions. The headline suggests that this boycott will somehow change the outcome of the election on Prop 8. Or maybe the headline just means that gays are doing boycotts just as their Christian opponents have done. In any case, gay rights groups are protested the fact that Doug Manchester, owner of the Manchester Grand Hyatt, gave money to get the marriage amendment on the ballot. I wrote about that protest when it was first announced.

Here are some facts that would be relevant: is the boycott still going on? The photo on the front page, prominently displaying the rainbow flag, has a caption " gay rights activists gathered at the Manchester Grand Hotel earlier this month." The boycott opened last Friday, July 18^th, the first day of the Gay Pride celebration weekend, with a lot of fanfare. Is anyone still out in front of the Hyatt? The story and the photo together suggest that there is, but the article doesn't explicitly say that. I haven't been downtown and can't verify.
The boycott organizers have their own website: Californians Against Hate and offered the prospect of thousands of Gay Pride partiers showing up to join the boycott of the hotel. A bunch of us Marriage Supporters went down that Friday to form a counter-demonstration. Despite the fact that we had one day's notice, we had nearly as many people on the street as they did.

Here is another fact that would be good to know: what was the occupancy of the Hotel during the night of the boycott? We heard the place was booked solid, including Christians from across the country who booked rooms they didn't need, just to spend money at the Manchester Hyatt. Is the hotel still full? Has the boycott had any effect on business? Our intrepid reported doesn't tell us, even though he quotes No on Prop 8 supporters who claim that it has been effective.

And take a look at the photo: see all those red shirts? Those are the union members who helped organize the boycott. The article doesn't mention them until the very bottom of the story, and has only this to say:

Both Manchester and (openly gay Hyatt Marketing Manager, Kelly) Commerford contend that Unite Local 30, which is co-sponsoring the boycott, is using the same-sex marriage issue to pursue its real agenda of trying to unionize Manchester's two hotels.

(Activist Fred) Karger said there is nothing unusual about the alliance – unions and gay rights organizations frequently have worked together to end discrimination.

True enough, that groups work together. But there is something slightly disingenuous about claiming vast support for a boycott when about half the protesters are paid union members, and when the other side has no trouble getting regular people to take the day off from work to stage a counter-protest. And, the word on the street is that the union is financing the Californians Against Hate effort, which might explain their website-for-a- day.

My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that consumer boycotts are seldom effective. And this particular boycott may just backfire. California businesses may decide to draw the line at marriage, if they realize that they too, could have protesters on their doorstep. Defeating Proposition 8 will not be the final demand of the gay lobby. Count on it.

Southern California residents may be interested in this:

California Marriage Amendment Fundraiser
Protect Marriage
Yes on Proposition 8
Roger Hedgecock, Master of Ceremonies

Saturday, August 16, 2008
3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
$100.00 per person
(Hors d'oeuvres and Cocktails)
Speakers:

Bishop Salvatore J. Cordileone, Auxiliary Bishop of the Diocese of San Diego

Brian Brown, Executive Director of the National Organization
for Marriage

Ron Prentice, Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com

Special Guests: 
Duncan D. Hunter, Candidate for U.S. Congress
Philip Thalheimer, Candidate for San Diego City Council
Michael Crimmins, Candidate for U.S. Congress
Please R.S.V.P. to Brian Brown at bbrown@nationformarriage.com
No Later Than August 8, 2008.  Space is Limited
Websites:  www.nomcalifornia.org and www.protectmarriage.com

Mama Mia! A Girl Needs a Papa!

My friend David Benkof sent me this commentary about the new ABBA movie:

Gay men flocked to see Mamma Mia! this past weekend, drawn by the show-tune jukebox musical, the openly gay character played by Colin Firth, and the gay icon Christine Baranski in a stunning supporting role. That's not to mention Meryl Streep, who was simply fabulous. But how many gay viewers actually noticed the most important and socially relevant theme of the musical, which is that girls who grow up without a father feel like there's something missing? Sophie, the bride who invites three possible Dads to her wedding, isn't just curious about who provided half of her DNA. She's aching for the missing father she never had as a child and an adolescent, and she wants him to celebrate her wedding. The father role could have been filled by someone other than her biological father, but not even the butchest lesbian would have sufficed. Why can't gay people look at Mamma Mia!, tap their toes, sing along, and realize that whatever kind of equality we ask for, we need to respect that whenever possible, children need both a mother and a father?

I have noticed that Hollywood very often presents stories that are not politically correct. "Juno" comes to mind as another example. When Hollywood wants to tell a good story, some of the political correctness has to go out the window, because it just isn't believable! It is not credible to think that a young girl would be completely indifferent about the identity of her father, or of whether she even has a father. I agree with David that it would be refreshing if gay people re-evaluated their political priorities. It would also be refreshing if the highly visible Hollywood types who promote the sexual revolution in so many ways, actually watched their own movies long enough to see that the sexual revolution hasn't made people happy.

More on Men's Fertility Decline with Age

The Irish Times reports that the chances of miscarriage increases with the man's age.

A new study presented last week at the annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology in Barcelona found that miscarriage rates increased significantly when the man was older than 35, and that pregnancy rates dropped when the man was older than 40. The study was based on more than 12,000 couples attending a fertility clinic in Paris....

Prof Sheena Lewis, who is a scientist at the Regional Fertility Centre at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast, said there was a growing trend of people leaving it later to have children when their careers were established, and of people trying to start second families later in life. She said the clinic was seeing an increasing number of men in their 40s and 50s who wanted to have children, often in a second relationship....

She said there were now quite a number of studies showing that as a man ages, the likelihood of his sperm being damaged increases. "A sperm is a very specialised little cell - it is just DNA with a tail and it has one single function, to get the DNA to the egg to fertilise it. In order to do that, the cell gets rid of everything but DNA, so it gets rid of repair mechanisms that you find in other cells. So if it gets damaged it can't repair itself."

She said that after fertilisation, the DNA damage of the sperm becomes part of the genetic make-up of the embryo. "If a poor sperm fertilises an egg, and even if you get a pregnancy, there is quite often a miscarriage," Prof Lewis said.

Read the whole article.