NO BABIES?: Russell Shorto

in the NY Times Magazine--Eve says: This is a really good basic piece, despite some reliance on the "usual suspects" and a perhaps over-quick dismissal of the spiritual issues. Even so!, a really good piece, more complex than most of what you read on this topic in the newspapers. It was hard to figure out what to excerpt, and you should read the whole thing:

...“Europeans say to me, How does the U.S. do it in this day and age?” says Carl Haub of the Population Reference Bureau in Washington. According to Haub and others, there is no single explanation for the relatively high U.S. fertility rate. The old conservative argument — that a traditional, working-husband-and-stay-at-home-wife family structure produces a healthy, growing population — doesn’t apply, either in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world today. Indeed, the societies most wedded to maintaining that traditional family structure seem to be those with the lowest birthrates. The antidote, in Western Europe, has been the welfare-state model, in which the state provides comprehensive support to couples that want to have children. But the U.S. runs counter to this. Some commentators explain its healthy birthrate in terms of the relatively conservative and religiously oriented nature of American society, which both encourages larger families. It’s also true that mores have evolved in the U.S. to the point where not only is it socially acceptable for fathers to be active participants in raising children, but it’s also often socially unacceptable for them to do otherwise.

But one other factor affecting the higher U.S. birthrate stands out in the minds of many observers. “There’s much less flexibility in the European system,” Haub says. “In Europe, both the society and the job market are more rigid.” There may be little state subsidy for child care in the U.S., and there is certainly nothing like the warm governmental nest that Norway feathers for fledgling families, but the American system seems to make up for it in other ways. As Hans-Peter Kohler of the University of Pennsylvania writes: “In general, women are deterred from having children when the economic cost — in the form of lower lifetime wages — is too high. Compared to other high-income countries, this cost is diminished by an American labor market that allows more flexible work hours and makes it easier to leave and then re-enter the labor force.” An American woman might choose to suspend her career for three or five years to raise a family, expecting to be able to resume working; that happens far less easily in Europe.

So there would seem to be two models for achieving higher fertility: the neosocialist Scandinavian system and the laissez-faire American one. Aassve put it to me this way: “You might say that in order to promote fertility, your society needs to be generous or flexible. The U.S. isn’t very generous, but it is flexible. Italy is not generous in terms of social services and it’s not flexible. There is also a social stigma in countries like Italy, where it is seen as less socially accepted for women with children to work. In the U.S., that is very accepted.”

By this logic, the worst sort of system is one that partly buys into the modern world — expanding educational and employment opportunities for women — but keeps its traditional mind-set. This would seem to define the demographic crisis that Italy, Spain and Greece find themselves in — and, perhaps, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and other parts of the world. Indeed, demographers have been surprised to find rapid fertility changes in the third world, as more and more women work and modern birth-control methods become standard options. “The earlier distinct fertility regimes, ‘developed’ and ‘developing,’ are increasingly disappearing in global comparisons of fertility levels,” according to Edward Jow-Ching Tu, a sociologist at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. According to the United Nations, the birthrate in 25 developing countries — including Cuba, Costa Rica, Iran, Sri Lanka and China — now stands at or below the replacement level. In some cases — notably China — the drop is explained by a concentrated effort at containing the population. In the rest, something else is happening. The lesson of southern Europe is perhaps operative: embrace the modern only partway and you put your society — women in particular — in a vise. Something has to give, and that turns out to be the future.

read it all!
posted by Eve at 9:22 PM | link

DOES HAVING KIDS MAKE YOU HAPPY?: Lorraine Ali at Newsweek

says no:

...The most recent comprehensive study on the emotional state of those with kids shows us that the term "bundle of joy" may not be the most accurate way to describe our offspring. "Parents experience lower levels of emotional well-being, less frequent positive emotions and more frequent negative emotions than their childless peers," says Florida State University's Robin Simon, a sociology professor who's conducted several recent parenting studies, the most thorough of which came out in 2005 and looked at data gathered from 13,000 Americans by the National Survey of Families and Households. "In fact, no group of parents--married, single, step or even empty nest--reported significantly greater emotional well-being than people who never had children. It's such a counterintuitive finding because we have these cultural beliefs that children are the key to happiness and a healthy life, and they're not." ...

For the childless, all this research must certainly feel redeeming. As for those of us with kids, well, the news isn't all bad. Parents still report feeling a greater sense of purpose and meaning in their lives than those who've never had kids. And there are other rewarding aspects of parenting that are impossible to quantify. For example, I never thought it possible to love someone as deeply as I love my son.

more

(Eve notes: It seems that many of the relationships which give us a sense of purpose, wholeness, love, or meaning are also among the most stressful things: Love is reassuring, but also tiring! Perhaps our real difficulty is that we too often conflate happiness or "emotional well-being" with sense of meaning or purpose, when in fact they're quite distinct....)
posted by Eve at 9:13 PM | link

WOMEN FROM POLYGAMOUS SECT START THEIR OWN CLOTHING LINE: USA Today

"breaking news" blog:

Forget OshKosh B'Gosh and Baby Gap. Have you heard of FLDSdress.com?

Female members of the polygamist sect at the center of a high-profile child welfare dispute are trying to capitalize on all the attention by selling children's "clothing that meets the FLDS standards for modesty and neatness" through the Internet.

The Salt Lake Tribune says the business grew out of necessity. State officials turned to the site when they needed to clothe hundreds of children who were taken into state custody with little more than the clothes on their backs. The children have since been returned, but many of the women are living outside the Yearning for Zion ranch while awaiting the outcome of child-protection investigations.

more
posted by Eve at 9:09 PM | link

Same-Sex Marriage Foes Argue to Keep CA Measure on Ballot: Mercury News

Supporters of a proposed constitutional amendment that would restore California's ban on gay marriage are urging the state Supreme Court to reject a bid to remove the measure from the November ballot.

In a 46-page petition filed Monday, lawyers for the Alliance Defense Fund and Protect Marriage groups argue that the legal challenge to the ballot measure is a "desperate" attempt to "evade the democratic process."

Secretary of State Debra Bowen, whose office certifies ballot measures, also filed a brief with the Supreme Court taking no position on the lawsuit. But Bowen did ask the court to resolve the issue by Aug. 11, when millions of ballot pamphlets are scheduled to be sent out to the printer.

Civil rights groups two weeks ago filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court, seeking to block the ballot measure because they consider it misleading and an improper method of amending the state constitution. Among other things, the suit argues that the petition to put the measure on the ballot was circulated before the Supreme Court found the state's previous gay marriage ban unconstitutional in May.

more
posted by Imapp Staff at 6:57 PM | link

Obama Opposes CA Marriage Ballot Measure: Sacramento Bee

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages.

In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group's annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco , the Illinois senator said he supports extending "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law."

"And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states," Obama wrote.

Obama had previously said he opposes same-sex marriage but that each state should make its own decision.

more
posted by Imapp Staff at 6:54 PM | link

Gay Couple Files Discrimination Case Against Online Adoption Service: The Advocate

reports:

Lambda Legal filed a discrimination complaint Tuesday with the New York State attorney general on behalf of a gay couple who were barred from posting their profile at an online adoption service.

Rosario Gennaro and Alexander Gardner of New York City claim the Arizona-based Adoption Profiles LLC and Adoption Media LLC violate New York State antidiscrimination laws. The companies' website, ParentProfiles.com, allows only opposite-sex couples to register.

It is not the first time a gay couple has lodged a complaint against the service. Last year it settled out of court a lawsuit brought by a San Jose , Calif., couple, Michael and Rich Butler, who alleged the companies violated California antidiscrimination law. ...

The companies have since ceased doing business in California, said Lambda Legal staff attorney Flor Bermudez, who added, "They can't come into New York and effectively hang a sign on the door saying 'Gay couples need not apply.' "

more
posted by Imapp Staff at 6:50 PM | link

Separation of State and Marriage Watch: Sacramento Bee

reports:

Some clergy think churches should divorce themselves from the wedding business.

The controversy over same-sex marriage – along with a growing sense that many couples who marry in churches never return – has prompted faith leaders to say it's time to reconsider how California couples tie the knot.

After the California Supreme Court ruled gay marriage legal, the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of California began encouraging all couples to marry outside the church.

"I urge you to encourage all couples, regardless of orientation, to follow the pattern of first being married in a secular service, and then being blessed in the Episcopal Church," Bishop Marc Handley Andrus wrote his clergy June 9. ...

George Raya is a member of Integrity, the Episcopal Church's support group
for gays and lesbians. "I heard about it last week," he said. "To me, it's (the church's) way of getting around treating us equally. As soon as we can get married, they want us to get blessed? A lot of us would like to get married in church."

The Episcopal Church does not allow same-sex marriages.

more
posted by Imapp Staff at 6:46 PM | link

Justices of the Peace Split on Civil Unions: Connecticut Post

reports:

Sonia Osuna beamed as she declared the woman in a white dress and the woman in a
suit standing before her as life partners.

It was the latest of about 30 civil union ceremonies Osuna has performed as a Stratford justice of the peace since they became legal under Connecticut law in October 2005. She conducted the ceremony with vigor, going so far as to call the union a "marriage" -- although under the law here and in 47 other states, it is not recognized as such.

"God does not make a love that is wrong," she told the Stratford couple, Vivien Byrd and Deirdre Simeon.

Osuna is among the justices of the peace in Connecticut who choose to join gay couples in civil unions. Others opt not to perform the ceremony and, unlike their counterparts in Massachusetts, aren't penalized for that decision. Justices of the peace in Connecticut can refuse to perform a civil union just like they can opt not to do a wedding, for whatever reason.

There are 53,000 justice of the peace slots in the state, but the Secretary of the State's Office estimates that fewer than half of those -- 20,000 to 25,000 -- are filled. Because not every community collects data, there are no official numbers on how many will or will not perform civil unions, which provide virtually the same legal rights as marriage in the state.

But it's clear that there is a significant difference between the numbers of JPs who will officiate at weddings between a man and woman, and same-sex unions.
Stratford reports that 15 of its 41 justices of the peace have specified they will perform civil unions, while Milford and Ansonia each name 17 of 24 as willing, according to their respective town clerk offices.

Byrd and Simeon, who picked Osuna to perform their ceremony after viewing her Web site, were surprised to learn that someone on the list they got from the Bridgeport Vital Records Department could have turned them down.

Simeon said they felt "more comfortable" with a justice of the peace officiating, and feel that all justices of the peace, as public officials, "should perform the ceremony as part of their duties.

"They play a major role because a lot of ministers ... don't want to get involved," she said. "We basically were left with no other choice."

more
posted by Imapp Staff at 6:42 PM | link

Gay Marriage and the Right to Religious Dissent: Mike Potemra

at National Review Online's blog:

My denomination, the Presbyterian Church (USA), voted in committee earlier this week to preserve the definition of marriage as involving one man and one woman. The denomination is a liberal, mainline organization, and generally pro-gay; just today, there was a vote of the full General Assembly to remove some obstacles to the ordination of openly gay ministers. I myself have been a supporter of gay marriage for years, and have said so on this blog.

I think it’s important at this juncture to stand up for the rights of those who disagree, and the PCUSA’s action this week offers a valuable occasion to do so. These are not people who can be demonized as right-wing, anti-gay bigots. (Indeed, there are very many opponents of gay marriage who cannot be justly dismissed in this manner; but that’s a point for another day.) The First Amendment right to free exercise of religion should not be infringed as a result of the decision of any branch of the secular state to change the secular definition of marriage. The gay-marriage movement has a bumper sticker that shows, simply, an “equals” sign. If churches are forced to participate in activities that violate the conscience of their faith, we will need to raise up that same “equals” sign in their defense. Their right to dissent is fundamental
to our system.

link
posted by Imapp Staff at 10:12 AM | link

McCain Supports Efforts to Ban Gay Marriage: US News and World Report

story:

After several weeks of silence on the issue of same-sex marriage, Sen. John McCain has made it official. The presumptive Republican nominee for president has endorsed efforts to ban gay marriage in California.

McCain sent this short statement to the Protect Marriage campaign, one of the conservative groups spearheading an effort to amend the state Constitution in November and define marriage as between a man and a woman:

"I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions."

more
posted by Imapp Staff at 10:06 AM | link

A Reply to David Benkof's SF Chronicle Column

at the Chronicle:

Editor - I'm not sure why you decided to print an essay by David Benkof "Monogamous same-sex adultery" (June 26). What does the right of marriage have
to do with fidelity in the gay community? Mr. Benkof, I would argue, does not really know the gay community. He gives no statistics on how many gays and lesbians either believe or do not believe in monogamy after marriage. He just extrapolates from a few blogs and Web sites and makes his judgment based on that. This sounds like shoddy research to me.

He wrote his article based on stereotypes. And it can hurt a lot of people who have been fighting for the right to marry. He also states something that I have not heard of coming from the gay community -- that gay marriage will be different from straight marriage because of the monogamy issue. I don't know what circles Mr. Benkof runs in, but I suggest he do some actual research before his next attack on gays and lesbians.

KEVIN KAATZ
Redwood City

link (scroll down to letter titled, "Hurtful stereotype")
posted by Imapp Staff at 10:03 AM | link

Where Can Gays Wed?: Newsweek map

here
posted by Imapp Staff at 10:01 AM | link

On marriage and "marriage"

By David Benkof
GaysDefendMarriage.com
DavidBenkof@aol.com

One of my favorite same-sex marriage advocates (and an occasional commenter at GaysDefendMarriage.com) is Fannie, of the fine blog Fannie's Room. A little over a week ago, she complained on her blog about the excessive use of quotation marks by marriage defenders (her term, not mine - thanks Fannie). Fannie describes the practice as

"excessive unnecessary quotations marks to cast suspicion on the legitimacy of same-sex relationships. Like stubborn segregationists blocking access to white schools, they fail to concede a loss when they have, in fact, lost. Scare quotes, or more accurately 'sneer quotes,' are non-direct quotations used to indicate scorn, sarcasm, and/or disagreement with another person's usage of a word."

As someone who uses such quotes around gay marriage some but not all of the time, I thought it might be useful for me to delineate three reasons why I do so, and give same-sex marriage advocates a chance to respond. We may not change each other's minds, but at least we'll understand each other better.

1. Liberals do it too. I have frequently seen quotation marks around terms conservatives use that liberals don't like. For example, many pro-choice people will say someone is anti-choice, but sometimes they'll call that person "pro-life." In other words, he calls himself pro-life, but in actuality his policies are anything but. He favors the death penalty, and he cares about the fetuses of poor women only until they're born, but then he cuts every program that might help the child have a successful life. Another example is referring to right-wing religious people as "Christian." They'll say the president of the California Values Alliance is a "Christian" who forgets the call of Jesus to help people in need. I wonder if Fannie and others like her object to the examples I gave above when used by liberals?

2. I have to do it. I know and understand and respect that Fannie thinks that Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin are married. I also know that the state of California considers them married. But in my opinion, they are not now and never can be married, for marriage is a union of a man and a woman. In fact, that's precisely what we're arguing about. Why should I give in when the debate has only begun? An analogy: Most opponents of the reparative therapy movement, including myself, refer to people who credit their therapy for a transition from gay to straight as "ex-gay." That's because I don't believe, and most LGBT people don't believe, that therapy can make a gay person straight. If I stopped using the quotation marks, I'd be surrendering on the debate before it even began. For the same reason, I refer to Messianic "Judaism" because no serious Jew of any movement considers it to be Judaism.

3. I think it's more respectful. Yeah, respectful. If I stopped referring to same-sex "marriage," which I'm open to doing if people on the other side tell me it's important to them, I'm not going to start using the term marriage to refer to things I do not believe are marriages. Instead, I'm going to look for creative ways to refer to same-sex marriages, husbands and wives. So: "Del and Phil had a same-sex legal ceremony of commitment at City Hall" and "Ellen DeGeneres and the woman in her life had a California lesbian union in front of several hundred friends." (Not Ellen and her wife got married.) I find it more respectful to use the word my opponents want to be used, but to put it in quotes to indicate I do not agree with it, but that's the term they prefer. Do you think a Muslim would rather I said that Islam is a "religion of peace" - or that Islam is a hate-filled faith of genocidal murderers? I think the former.

If anyone has a suggestion for how I can be more respectful of the other side of this debate without violating my conscience, I'm interested in hearing it.

Labels: Marriage

posted by David Benkof at 11:31 PM | link

New Exercise Discipline Strategy: Donate to iMAPP

Christine, how are you doing? : ) Maggie:

Orlando Sentinel, May 27, 2008, “Stick to it – or else,” by Denise-marie Balona.

Dean Karlan, an economics professor, and Ian Ayres, who teaches law, have teamed to create a new Web site that lets self-improvers make contracts with themselves that can come with pricey penalties.

Orlando attorney Christine Weingart said the thought of handing part of her paycheck to a group that opposes gay marriage makes her cringe. It's what gets her up for Pilates class at 5:30 a.m. twice a week.

She made a contract last month, vowing to cram exercise into her hectic schedule. The penalty for missing a workout: Give $5 to the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.

"I needed something I couldn't rationalize around," said Weingart, 26, who has gay family members. "I don't want to have to explain to them that I just didn't feel like getting up in the morning."

posted by maggie at 10:20 AM | link