Abstinence vs. 'Safe Sex'

I'm only just now beginning to get caught up on all the reading you all have been sending me.

Conventional wisdom holds that parents who teach and encourage abstinence rather than proper condom use are fools and idiots who put their children at risk for STDs and teen pregnancy.

There are even scientists out there manipulating samples and outright misinterpreting the data to arrive at these conclusions.

A very liberal press--a press completely unfriendly to the religious (unless they're Muslim)--parrots these "findings" and spins them even further than the spin given them by some of the researchers.

Folks, beware statistics.

William McGurn of the WSJ recently analyzed the latest such story:

The real difference is their more conservative and religious home and social environment. As she notes, when you compare both groups in this study with teens at large, the behavioral differences are striking. Here are just a few:

- These teens generally have less risky sex, i.e., fewer sexual partners.

- These teens are less likely to have a teenage pregnancy, or to have friends who use drugs.

- These teens have less premarital vaginal sex.

- When these teens lose their virginity they tend to do so at age 21 -- compared to 17 for the typical American teen.

- And very much overlooked, one out of four of these teens do in fact keep the pledge to remain chaste -- amid much cheap ridicule and just about zero support outside their homes or churches.

Let's put this another way. The real headline from this study is this: "Religious Teens Differ Little in Sexual Behavior Whether or Not They Take a Pledge."

Did you catch how far this data was spun by the press/"researchers?" It should have read, as McGurn points out above, "Conservative/religious teens, regardless of taking an abstinence pledge, are far more conservative about sex than their peers." Instead, the media, taking their cue from the researchers, somehow parsed the data to show that chastity pledges don't matter.

This, of course, is not the significant variable. And if they'd been honest about their data, they would have pointed that out. The significant variable--the point of McGurn's article--is the conservative/religious home & family life.

Religious, conservative teens from religious, conservative families are far more conservative about sex than their, ah, less conservative & religious peers. Seriously, does this surprise anyone?

(thanks to Branden B.)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

More Evidence Mormons Have Joined The Club

A couple of weeks ago I cited a story about the support Mormons were receiving from some of their Prop 8 coalition friends and suggested (with supporting statements from Dr. Wiseman (an alias)) that perhaps this was the issue (Prop 8) and persecutorial (word? word.) backlash that would bring Mormons into the mainstream of political Christendom.

An article run in the NYT last week further buttresses this argument. From the Deseret News:

Declaring "no mob veto," a full-page ad in the New York Times on Friday denounced the "violence and intimidation" directed at members of the LDS Church who supported California's ban on gay marriage.

"When thugs ... terrorize any place of worship, especially those of a religious minority, responsible voices need to speak clearly: Religious wars are wrong; they are also dangerous," reads the advertisement paid for by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, based in Washington, D.C.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has come under fire from gay rights activists across the country since coming out in support of California's Proposition 8, an amendment to the state's constitution that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

In a statement Friday, church officials expressed gratitude to the dozen civil rights and religious leaders, ranging from Catholic to evangelical Christian to Orthodox Jew, who attached their names to the advertisement.

"This was a thoughtful and generous gesture at a time when the right of free expression of people of faith has come under attack," said Elder M. Russell Ballard, a member of the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve, in a statement. "We join with those of all religious faiths and political persuasions who have called for reasoned and civil discourse on matters that affect our nation."

Of course, when it comes to intramural scrabbles about religious matters, many of these churches will still attack the LDS. Prop 8 cooperation (and other, similar cooperation) will not halt the institutional jealousies that arise from the increasing growth of the LDS church, but when it comes to matters of shared values, I think they will remember the horsepower members of the LDS church brought to the issue.

Indeed, Dr. Matt Holland (full disclosure, this professor is a friend and former mentor) seems to agree. From the same article:

Matthew Holland, a political science professor at Brigham Young University, said he sees an unprecedented show of support for the LDS Church from a wide spectrum of coalitions, affinities, associations and even some unexpected groups.

"The fact that they are willing to step forward and, in such a prominent way, be so supportive is something that we haven't really seen before," Holland said Friday night.

Many of the individuals who signed the ad are prominent national and international figures, Holland said, including Richard Cizik, vice president for Governmental Affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals; Nathan Diament, director of the Institute for Public Affairs of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America; William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious & Civil Rights; Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Michigan; and Chris Seiple, president of the Institute for Global Engagement.

Holland said he finds it significant that high-profile members of conservative Evangelical groups supported the ad because of divisive sentiments that emerged during LDS Church-member Mitt Romney's failed presidential campaign.

"These very prominent leaders from the Evangelical right are now stepping up to give voice and solidarity to the church," he said.

The next time Mitt Romney (or some other Mormon) runs for President and members of the religious right raise questions about his religion, whatever, he'll be able to point to his very good speech about religion in American and the important role Mormons have played in this country in defending marriage and the family.

I think these two things--the success of his 2008 campaign and Prop 8--will be a persuasive and unifying argument.

We'll see.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

National Review Sticks Up For Mormons, 1st Amendment

I'm tempting the Fair Use fates (again) by posting this, but I just don't see any other way around it. If you care about the 1st Amendment, you must read this article.

Last week in a Denver suburb, someone lit a Book of Mormon on fire and dropped it on the doorstep of a Mormon temple, presumably as a statement about the church’s support of Proposition 8 in California, an initiative that amended the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In a move that may make gay-rights supporters’ heads spin, the incident is being investigated as a hate crime.

The outbreak of attacks on the Mormon church since the passage of Proposition 8 has been chilling: envelopes full of suspicious white powder were sent to church headquarters in Salt Lake City; protesters showed up en masse to intimidate Mormon small-business owners who supported the measure; a website was created to identify and shame members of the church who backed it; activists are targeting the relatives of prominent Mormons who gave money to pass it, as well as other Mormons who are only tangentially associated with the cause; some have even called for a boycott of the entire state of Utah.

The wisdom of hate-crimes legislation aside, there is no doubt that a lot of hate is being directed at Mormons as a group. But why single out Mormons? And why now?

Dozens of church bodies — including the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Christian bishops of California, and a wide variety of evangelicals — supported the proposition. It’s also worth considering that, while gay-rights advocates cannot discuss same-sex marriage for more than 30 seconds without making faulty analogies to Jim Crow-era anti-miscegenation laws, some 70 percent of blacks voted for Proposition 8. While there have been a few ugly racist statements by gay-rights supporters, such vile sentiment has been restricted. Not so the hatred directed at Mormons, who are convenient targets.

To date, 30 states have voted on initiatives addressing same-sex marriage, and in every state traditional marriage has come out on top. But somehow the fact that Mormons got involved during the latest statewide referendum constitutes a bridge too far? In truth, Mormons are a target of convenience in the opening salvo of what is sure to be a full-scale assault on much of America’s religious infrastructure, which gay activists perceive as a barrier to their aspirations. Among religious groups, Mormons are not the biggest obstacle to same-sex marriage — not by a long shot. But they are an easy target. Anti-Mormon bigotry is unfortunately common, and gay-rights activists are cynically exploiting that fact.

There are no websites dedicated to “outing” Catholics who supported Proposition 8, even though Catholic voters heavily outnumber Mormons. And the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not remarkably strident in its beliefs on the subject. So far, no gay-rights activist has had the brass to burn a Qu’ran on the doorstep of a militant mosque where — forget marriage! — imams advocate the stoning of homosexuals.

Churches oppose same-sex marriage in part because it represents an implicit threat to freedom of conscience and belief. California already had one of the broadest civil-unions laws in the country. There was little in the way of government-sanctioned privileges that a state-issued marriage license would confer. But the drive for same-sex marriage is in practice about legislating moral conformity — demanding that everybody recognize homosexual relationships in the same way, regardless of their own beliefs. Freedom of conscience, or diversity of belief, is the last thing the homosexual lobby will tolerate: In New Mexico, a state civil-rights commission fined an evangelical wedding photographer $6,637 for politely declining to photograph a gay commitment ceremony. In California, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously against two San Diego fertility doctors who refused to give in-vitro fertilization to a lesbian owing to their religious beliefs, even though they had referred her to another doctor. And just this week, evangelical dating site eHarmony, which hadn’t previously provided same-sex matchmaking services, announced it had been browbeaten into doing so by New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights and the threat of litigation. The first 10,000 same-sex eHarmony registrants will receive a free six-month subscription. “That’s one of the things I asked for,” crowed Eric McKinley, who brought the charges against eHarmony.

Where do they go from here? Gay activists are already using the legal system to try to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Mormon church. If you believe that churches and synagogues, priests and rabbis won’t eventually be sued for their statements on sexuality, you’re kidding yourself. Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor and gay activist who helps draft federal legislation related to sexual orientation, says that, when religious liberty conflicts with gay rights, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” A National Public Radio report on the conflict noted that if previous cases are any guide, “the outlook is grim for religious groups.”

Given their cavalier disregard for the freedom of conscience, it’s little surprise that the gay lobby is equally disdainful of democracy: They began pursuing legal challenges to Proposition 8 practically before they were done tallying the votes. Lamentably, the state attorney general defending the will of the people will be former Jerry Brown, the liberal former governor who was an open opponent of the measure and tried to sabotage it. The legal challenges will be heard by the same state Supreme Court that overturned California’s previous law forbidding gay marriage back in May. There’s a real possibility the will of the people will be spurned a second time, democracy be damned. They’ve already burned the Book of Mormon. The First Amendment is next.

(emphasis added)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Prop 8: Building A Strong Conservative Alliance

In the run-up to last week's round-table discussion on PJTV, I thought a lot about what I wanted to say. After consulting with my brother and a Wise Man, I concluded that I would speak to the strength of social conservatism, as evidenced by Prop 8's passage in California.

(In the end, it didn't really matter, as they just wanted to talk about conservatism on college campuses.)

Specifically, as prompted by this point from the aforementioned Wise Man, I wanted to talk about Mormonism's inclusion in the broader coalition of socially conservative Christians:

given the demographic change that now favours the Democratic Party and certainly the voting in California on Prop 8 bore this out--young people voted overwhelmingly against it--and seeing the excellent cooperation between Catholics, Evangelicals and Mormons--isn't now the time to embrace Mormons who are bucking the demographic trend (largest families amongst Christian denominations in America) into the Conservative alliance

Indeed, this may be the silver lining to the cloud of persecution facing Mormons post-Prop 8. There is no question that members of the Church of Jesus Christ played a lead role in GOTV in favor of Prop 8 and that they also funded much of the Yes on 8 ad campaign.

Members of other Christian faiths witnessed Mormons' efforts first-hand and have seen the persecution these efforts brought in the wake of Prop 8's passage.

A recent press release from the LDS church notes the common cause coalition being built by the fight for traditional marriage. Michael Barber, Professor at John Paul the Great Catholic University:

As a Catholic school, we stand beside our friends in the Mormon Church and of people of faith who work tirelessly to preserve the freedom of religion in America. We also strongly oppose any attempt to ridicule another person’s faith, even faiths with which we have strong historical and theological disagreements."

This is the key point: theological differences ought to be put aside in favor of a partnership in defense of common goals and values.

Mormons can and should make common cause with other faiths on issues regarding life (abortion, stem-cell research, assisted suicide, etc.), family (marriage, divorce, adoption, etc.) and other issues without having to get into debates about theological questions.

Chuck Colson, The Christian Post:

Two days after the election, 2,000 homosexual protesters surrounded a Mormon temple in Los Angeles chanting 'Mormon scum.' Protesters picketed Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, holding signs reading 'Purpose-Driven Hate.' Calvary Chapel in Chino Hills was spray painted. Church members' cars have been vandalized, and at least two Christians were assaulted. Protesters even hurled racial epithets at African-Americans because African-Americans voted overwhelmingly in favor of traditional marriage. What hypocrisy from those who spend all of their time preaching tolerance to the rest of us!

Apart from highlighting the hipocrisy of the tolerance crowd, this comment groups together 3 churches which never would have found themselves on the same side of any question prior to Prop 8. Calvary Chapel and Saddleback Church have typically been critical of Mormonism, but on marriage, they agree.

Again, this is where the focus should be.

Rod Dreher, Beliefnet.com:

Now is the time for traditional Christians -- Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox -- to come to the aid of our Mormon friends. They put themselves on the front line of the traditional marriage battle like no other church group. And now individual Mormons are paying a terrible price for standing up for something we all believe in. I don't know how we can stand with them from afar, but at least we can thank them, and speak out when we see them being abused. We might also think again about how we view them. … I have deep disagreements with Mormon theology. But they are our friends and allies and fellow citizens, and they deserve our thanks and support.

This is the time. On the most important questions that face American families (especially from a socially conservative, religious perspective), Mormons and "traditional" Christians see eye-to-eye.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

No On 8 Folks Really Helping Their Cause (Not Really) (UPDATED, Bumped)

As I've written several times in the past: For the homosexual community, this fight was never and will never be just about being allowed to be married. It is about forcing the rest of the United States to accept as normal every aspect of their lifestyle. It's about forcing it into our churches, schools, and the institution of marriage.

The word marriage has always described, for thousands of years, the unique relationship between man and wife. Words matter. Understandings and definitions of words matter. They affect how we look and think about the objects and ideas behind them.

I won't lump all homosexuals together, because I know there are many who just want to live and let live. But there are many, some in the video below, for whom the main goal is to militantly break down and destroy the thousands of years old understanding of marriage. They've demonstrated this over the course of the campaign for Prop 8 and violently in the aftermath of their loss by 600,000 votes in the liberal state of California.



(thanks to Lance G. for the vid)

And, of course, the Prop 8 loss caused someone to send suspicious white powder (code for 'maybe anthrax') to the Mormon temples in LA and SLC.

This sends a very clear message: 'Accept our lifestyle or die.'

Do they really think this will help their cause?

UPDATE 16 November 5:11am BST: Laura W. writes: "Not sure if you heard, but the little old lady who was spit on and vilified in that vid is pressing charges, and they are using that vid to identify the suspects...
Go, Little Old Lady!"

Sure enough, here's the article.

You know, in a democracy such as ours, these people have alternatives: They can try and persuade people to see the world the way they do and then vote accordingly, or they can harass sweet old ladies, threaten, vandalize, assault, send suspicious white powder (this is just a short list, readers have written me about more).

Given that they failed in California (California!), I wonder where they can succeed? This makes pro-marriage amendments 30 for 30 in terms of approval by statewide initiative (that is, amendments like this one have passed in the 30 states that have put it to a vote).

So, they'll follow the time honored tradition of liberal activists throughout the ages (like, the last 30 years or so): Get some liberal, activist judge to overturn the emphatically voted will of the people, you know, because she/he is more enlightened and knows better than the millions of Californians who voted to amend their constitution to protect marriage.

Mind you, this is a preemptive rant (the Bush Doctrine at work). I hope I don't really have to use it.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

National Review On Prop 8 & Attacks On Mormons

Thanks to Blake C. for this one:

On Tuesday, by a margin of 52 to 48 percent, voters in California amended their state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, as did voters in Florida (62 to 38 percent) and Arizona (56 to 44 percent).

Those who argue social conservatism is behind the GOP’s current electoral malaise take note: In Arizona marriage outperformed John McCain by 2 percentage points, in Florida by 14 percentage points, and in California by 15 percentage points.

The Arizona win, reversing a defeat for a marriage amendment in that state in 2006, also restores to state marriage amendments an unblemished record of victory: They have won in 30 out of 30 states where they have been on the ballot.

What lesson can we take from Tuesday’s marriage victories? Here’s one obvious one: Americans still care a great deal about this issue. The California supreme court may have believed that the public would acquiesce when it foisted same-sex marriage on the state earlier this year. But the successful campaign to overturn its ruling was an astonishing effort, unprecedented for a social issue, that raised more than 100,000 volunteers and almost $40 million from over 60,000 donors.

How have the leaders of the movement for same-sex marriage responded to their California loss at the ballot box? The same way they usually do: by getting lawyers to make ever more outrageous arguments to impose their values on unwilling people. (The ACLU is preparing to argue that a one-sentence definition of marriage constitutes such a wholesale revision of California’s constitution that the California Supreme Court should invalidate Prop 8.)

Just before they lost on Tuesday in California, same-sex marriage advocates in California descended to a new low. A group affiliated with Moveon.org, United Healthcare Workers, and the California Nurses Association released a television ad, “Home Invasion,” which portrayed Mormon missionaries as ransacking a California home: “We’re from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We’ve come to take away your rights.” (The ad was referring to the financial contributions Mormon citizens had made to the initiative campaign.) Are there any other religious minority groups whose political giving liberals believe should be stigmatized? Can we expect the Anti-Defamation League to speak up?

So far, not a single same-sex marriage advocate in California or outside of it has been willing to repudiate this vicious tactic: not MoveOn.org, of course, and not the ACLU or the Human Rights Campaign either. But also not, for example, Sen. Diane Feinstein, who appeared in an anti-Prop 8 TV ad saying that “we must always say no to discrimination.” But not, it seems, to bigotry.

The current conflict over marriage is in part a proxy for a larger ongoing conflict about the role of religious people and religious values in public life. As courts come to endorse the principle that sexual orientation is just like race, American government is going to find itself in the position of treating traditional faith communities just like racists. Voters should beware — if they are consulted on the matter.

(emphasis added)

Religious bigotry is the last acceptable form of bigotry in this country.

One of the lessons to be drawn from this election is that social conservatism is alive and well. Coupled with fiscal conservatism and strong-on-defense foreign policy positions, conservatism as a whole, has a bright future.

Conservatives must do as Ronald Reagan always did when confronted with a new problem: Return to first principles. It's why we are conservatives--because we have sure principles which we can always apply to new problems, if we work and think hard enough.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Yes On Prop 8: My Best Shot -UPDATED - Email To Your Friends Edition

[ed. note: I'm going to keep reposting this through 4 November. Skip if you've already read it. Read if you haven't. Pass it along to friends and acquaintances--especially those voting in California.]

For the No on 8 folks, Gay Marriage isn't just a positive right they want enforced, it's a lifestyle they want normalized and accepted--by force, if necessary--by the rest of America. It's not enough to live and let live. It's about changing definitions and understandings and traditions and reshaping society and American culture.

Take, for instance, one California school where kindergartners were encouraged to sign "Gay Pledge Cards." This isn't just about marriage for the homosexual community.

Consider the latest back-and-forth between the Yes and No on 8 folks (h/t Branden B.):

The top issue that has emerged in the Proposition 8 campaign is whether same-sex marriage will be taught in California public schools if the initiative is not enacted. Opponents of Proposition 8 are spending millions of dollars on television commercials telling voters that the Yes on 8 campaign’s claim that gay marriage will be taught in public schools is a lie. Yet a review of public records filed with the First District Court of Appeal in Boston shows these same organizations who claim our statement is a lie fought to make it true in Massachusetts. Specifically, they fought to ensure that gay marriage be taught in Massachusetts public schools, even over the objection of parents who sought an “opt out” for their children. Gay marriage was legalized by Massachusetts courts in 2003.

Further, their assurance that parents can always “opt-out” of such instruction when it is taught is belied by the fact that in Massachusetts, they argued successfully that Massachusetts’ parental opt-out provision should not be permitted.

“These damning public records show that it is in fact the organizations leading and financing the No on 8 campaign who are lying to California voters,” said Yes on 8 campaign manager Frank Schubert. “On one coast of the country they tell judges that gay marriage should be taught to children in school at the youngest possible age. But, on the opposite coast, here in California, they have the audacity to tell voters that gay marriage has nothing to do with public schools.”

A friend who watches such things, told me that a recent episode of the popular teen soap 90210 (the 2008 version), had a scene in which students were paired up, given fake babies, and told to take care of them. The liberal utopians in Hollywood paired up two straight male teens, told them they were a gay married couple, and designated one of them the "caretaker."

After reviewing the shows treatment of the couple, I'm not so sure it wasn't an inadvertent argument against gay marriage. Sure, the writers depicted the teacher as enlightened and the students as ignorant & chauvinist (the liberal stereotype of conservative men). But the two guys regarded each other with disgust, cared not at all for the assignment (their fake child), and ultimately failed, going their separate ways--hardly a successful gay couple w/child.

How did that one get past the editors/director/producers?

At it's core, conservatism and traditionalists and the religious defend marriage as being between a man and a woman because history has shown that it is the most successful way to raise a family and perpetuate a society and culture. Empirical data from Europe is just beginning to trickle in and it doesn't look good for gay couple-based families.

Even so, I can't prove, based on evidence, that gay marriage would ruin society. But I can't prove it in the same way that defense of marriage advocates couldn't prove that the loosening of divorce laws in the 60's--making "no fault" the rule--would erode marriage and lead to more single-parent homes. We reap what we've sown there with higher crime, drop-out, and illiteracy rates from those coming from these less-than-ideal homes.

Moreover, it is the burden of those who want to change the status quo to prove that at least, the change will not negatively impact society. This is an assertion they cannot prove. And further, their claim of this positive "right" does not outweigh the potential negative impact on our society and culture.

We did not start this so-called "culture war," but we will fight to defend and conserve traditional marriage, because history has proven its success.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Yes On Prop 8 - My Best Shot (Bumped, Re-Posted)

For the No on 8 folks, Gay Marriage isn't just a positive right they want enforced, it's a lifestyle they want normalized and accepted--by force, if necessary--by the rest of America. It's not enough to live and let live. It's about changing definitions and understandings and traditions and reshaping society and American culture.

Consider the latest back-and-forth between the Yes and No on 8 folks (h/t Branden B.):

The top issue that has emerged in the Proposition 8 campaign is whether same-sex marriage will be taught in California public schools if the initiative is not enacted. Opponents of Proposition 8 are spending millions of dollars on television commercials telling voters that the Yes on 8 campaign’s claim that gay marriage will be taught in public schools is a lie. Yet a review of public records filed with the First District Court of Appeal in Boston shows these same organizations who claim our statement is a lie fought to make it true in Massachusetts. Specifically, they fought to ensure that gay marriage be taught in Massachusetts public schools, even over the objection of parents who sought an “opt out” for their children. Gay marriage was legalized by Massachusetts courts in 2003.

Further, their assurance that parents can always “opt-out” of such instruction when it is taught is belied by the fact that in Massachusetts, they argued successfully that Massachusetts’ parental opt-out provision should not be permitted.

“These damning public records show that it is in fact the organizations leading and financing the No on 8 campaign who are lying to California voters,” said Yes on 8 campaign manager Frank Schubert. “On one coast of the country they tell judges that gay marriage should be taught to children in school at the youngest possible age. But, on the opposite coast, here in California, they have the audacity to tell voters that gay marriage has nothing to do with public schools.”

A friend who watches such things told me that a recent episode of the popular teen soap 90210 (the 2008 version) had a scene in which students were paired up, given fake babies, and told to take care of them. The liberal utopians in Hollywood paired up two straight male teens, told them they were a gay married couple, and designated one of them the "caretaker."

After reviewing the shows treatment of the couple, I'm not so sure it wasn't an inadvertent argument against gay marriage. Sure, the writers depicted the teacher as enlightened and the students as ignorant & chauvinist (the liberal stereotype of conservative men). But the two guys regarded each other with disgust, cared not at all for the assignment (their fake child), and ultimately failed, going their separate ways--hardly a successful gay couple w/child.

How did that one get past the editors/director/producers?

At it's core, conservatism and traditionalists and the religious defend marriage as being between a man and a woman because history has shown that it is the most successful way to raise a family and perpetuate a society and culture. Empirical data from Europe is just beginning to trickle in and it doesn't look good for gay couple-based families.

Even so, I can't prove, based on evidence, that gay marriage would ruin society. But I can't prove it in the same way that defense of marriage advocates couldn't prove that the loosening of divorce laws in the 60's--making "no fault" the rule--would erode marriage and lead to more single-parent homes. We reap what we've sown there with higher crime, drop-out, and illiteracy rates from those coming from these less-than-ideal homes.

Moreover, it is the burden of those who want to change the status quo to prove that at least, the change will not negatively impact society. This is an assertion they cannot prove. And further, their claim of this positive "right" does not outweigh the potential negative impact on our society and culture.

We did not start this so-called "culture war," but we will fight to defend and conserve traditional marriage, because history has proven its success.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Prop 8 Video

(Thanks to Fernando M.)


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Yes On 8: Supporting A Traditional Definition Of Marriage

I haven't written about this topic--marriage--for awhile. Looking through the archives, the most recent entries I can find were this series here, here, & here. I haven't forgotten about it and I certainly haven't changed my mind. A recent email from Laura W. reminded me of everything going on in California.

What do you make of this? There was a great editorial in the LA Times on Friday about Proposition 8 (same sex marriage ban), to which 74 comments were made which were negative, nasty, and insulting. I and about 6 of my friends tried multiple times to send in positive comments in support of the writer, and (of course) not a single one of those made the comment thread. So obviously, the liberal idiot webmaster was just deleting anything positive and only posting the anti-prop. 8 rants. Oh, I was totally incensed. I wrote a letter to the editorial dept. at the Times and I was nasty. But I started to wonder. Is this a miscarriage of free speech? Or is it actually a benefit to our side? If all the liberals in the LA area think there is absolutely NO ONE who would be so stupid as to vote yes on Prop. 8, then maybe they won't battle as hard. I don't know, just a thought.

(emphasis, link added)

In fact, there is something to what she suggests. From Monday's edition of the WSJ Political Diary (John Fund):

Opponents of a measure that would cement a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in the California constitution were cheered by a new Field Poll last week showing the measure losing 55% to 38%. Just a few weeks ago, the measure was trailing by only nine points.

But the battle over Proposition 8, which seeks to reestablish a traditional definition of marriage that was overturned by the state's Supreme Court this summer, isn't over.

A new study of polling in 26 states -- including California -- that have voted on the issue of gay marriage shows that support for such measures is often under-reported in polls. For example, in 2000 when California first voted on gay marriage, polls showed that Proposition 22 -- which would have banned gay marriage -- had 53% support in the final pre-election poll. It wound up winning with 61%.

"I can't say for sure why polls almost always understate support for traditional marriage," says Frank Schubert, a strategist for anti-gay marriage forces. "I believe it is because the media portrays same-sex marriage as being politically correct. Supporters of traditional marriage don't want pollsters to consider them intolerant, so they mask their true feelings on the issue."

In states that have voted on gay marriage, the study found that polls underestimated support for traditional marriage by an average of seven points. In only two states (Texas and South Carolina) did pre-election polls accurately predict the outcome of the vote. In only one state (Arizona), polls overstated the final percentage of voters who backed traditional marriage.

[...]

(emphasis added)

If, like me, you care about this issue and want to lend your support, check out Restoring Marriage & Protecting California Children.

In other, related news, my pals at NB and I are looking in to the LA Times coverage of Prop. 8. Stay tuned.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

We've Got Some News For Senator Obama

Obedwards? Really?

If only Obama and his handlers could be so good to Republicans. Running against an Obama-Edwards ticket would be a dream come true for John McCain.

Is John Edwards supposed to help Senator Obama with blue collar Democrats? Edwards is the guy who spends hundreds of dollars on hair cuts, lives in a multi-million dollar mansion, and made his money as a trial lawyer (admittedly, a strong Democratic constituency).

Obama's ignorance of West Virginia and Kentucky is of a piece with his "bitter" comments in San Francisco. We know how some of our Democratic friends feel about "small-town hicks." They, like their fav. candidate, can barely conceal their contempt for these people and their favorite issues.

As our friend Morgan would say, "we've got a newsflash for you, Walter Cronkite," Obama is going to need these voters to win the election in the fall. Otherwise, he'll be just another Michael Dukakis.

***

Speaking of Republican electoral dreams, liberals seem hell-bent on aligning the stars for Republicans in a year when they need everything to go right to win the White House or even hope to maintain seats (to say nothing of picking up new ones) in Congress. We're talking, of course, about the California Supreme Court decision to allow gay marriage. This, in defiance of 61% of California voters who, in 2000, voted in favor of an initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Word out of California is that gay marriage opponents will have sufficient signatures to put a California State Constitution amendment on the ballot this November defining, once again, marriage as between a man and a woman.

In an uninspiring year for conservative voters, this could be just the thing to get them out to vote. And if they're already there voting on this amendment, it's likely they'll also vote for John McCain (and other conservative Republicans).

(evil genius alert: this ruling is probably one of Karl Rove's sinister plans)


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

A Friend Of The NAACP

For those of you not fortunate enough to be members of the NAACP (don't you care for the plight of African-Americans in this country?!), we post the following email we received this morning. It's appropriate because we want to honor the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who was assassinated 40 years ago today (and like Lincoln, left this world before he could finish his work).

Dear Friend,

Today, on the 40th anniversary of his assassination in Memphis, the NAACP honors the memory and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Forty years after his death, America has seen some progress in equality: educational opportunities have increased and workplaces and political leadership are more diverse. But when you consider these facts, it is very clear that we still have a long way to go.

- African Americans represent just 12% of the overall population, yet almost 30% of those arrested are African American. (link) And once arrested, African Americans are three times more likely to be incarcerated than whites. (link)

- The average net worth of white families is $70,000, compared to just $6,000 for African-American families. (link)

- African-American women are 10% less likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer than white women, but 36% more likely to die of breast cancer than white women. (link)

Dr. King's involvement with the NAACP dates back to his work in Alabama in the 1950's, and the NAACP honored Dr. King with its most prestigious prize, the Spingarn Award. We were proud to work side by side with Dr. King, and to carry on our work today on behalf of all people of color.

Dr. King pushed America to fulfill its promise of equal rights for all. Today we should all honor his life and legacy by recommitting ourselves to keeping the dream alive.

Sincerely,
Dennis Courtland Hayes_Interim President

A couple of thoughts:

- Unlike the NAACP, when we see these statistics, we don't automatically assume the root cause is racism or that the solution is greater equality. We've said it before and we repeat it again here: we value liberty over equality.

As we first pointed out in our MLK day post, the NAACP uses "adverse impact" to explain these differences. We repost Justice Thomas' deconstruction of this flawed logic. He uses the difference between white and black results on the bar exam as his example. From his book, My Grandfather's Son (OL&L Book of the Year 2007):

In the seventies you rarely had to look very far to find a theory, or a black person on whom it was being tried out. Like every other black law student, I was uncomfortably aware that blacks failed to pass the bar exams at a much higher rate than whites, and that the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund had filed lawsuits alleging that the exams they took were racially discriminatory. Lani Guinier, one of my classmates, was involved with the Legal Defense Fund, so I asked her to supply me with information about the extent of the problem and the strategy that the Legal Defense Fund was pursuing. At first I assumed that the disproportionate black failure rate was conclusive evidence of racial discrimination, but the more closely I looked at the facts, the more apparent it became that I was wrong. At that time each question on the bar exam was graded separately by a different scorer and each completed exam identified solely by number, thus making it impossible for the graders to tell which examinees, if any, were black. Some claimed that blacks wrote in "black English" and thus could be identified from the syntax of their responses, but in addition to finding that unlikely, I didn't think it unfair to expect lawyers representing their clients in a court of law to be able to write in standard English. In any case, the inability of a black law student to write and speak English properly wasn't evidence of discrimination by the graders--it was an indictment of the quality of the education he had received. This left only one argument, the Legal Defense Fund's "adverse impact" theory, which held that if a neutral examination produced disparate results among the races, then it could be considered discriminatory. But I didn't buy that, either, knowing that no measurement of any part of our lives ever produced identical results for all racial or ethnic groups. To argue otherwise, I thought, diverted attention from the real culprits, the people who were responsible for the useless education these young people had received.

The problem with my analysis, of course, was that it was of no help to those black students who had already finished school and now found themselves unable to pass the bar exam. But the adverse impact theory had its own built-in problem, which was that its advocates appeared to be suggesting, knowingly or not, that blacks could never catch up with whites. Neither alternative was attractive to me, and I had no easy solution of my own to offer, but at least I'd thought the problem through for myself instead of jumping to a quick and easy conclusion that might be emotionally satisfying but failed to fit the facts. This, I decided, was the right way to approach any problem that excited my passions, and if it led me to disagree with the solutions that were generally accepted, or to advocate positions that would make me unpopular--especially when it came to matters of race--then so be it.

- What's really unfortunate about these African-American crime statistics is that most of these crimes are being perpetrated against African-Americans. It's not unfortunate in the sense that we'd like to see them equally spread out against whites, Asian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, etc. It's unfortunate in the sense that it represents self-destructive behavior.

We think it's a product of, like Wilson pointed out in that article we linked to but no one read, the dissolution of the black family. A dissolution that began with slavery and continued with the destructive results of liberal social policy in Johnson's Great Society. As Wilson notes, what's truly amazing is the resurgence of the African-American family despite the odds.

- 'The family' is the theme. African-American families with mother and father, according to research done by Thomas Sowell (which we are unable to locate now, but with which we will update this post later) compare favorably in terms of income, etc., to white families. The problem with this statistic is how the NAACP defines family.

*UPDATE 4:22pm MST: From Juan Williams' column in today's Wall Street Journal on Barack Obama:

He has stopped all mention of government's inability to create strong black families, while the black community accepts a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate. Half of black and Hispanic children drop out of high school, but he no longer touches on the need for parents to convey a love of learning to their children. There is no mention in his speeches of the history of expensive but ineffective government programs that encourage dependency. He fails to point out the failures of too many poverty programs, given the 25% poverty rate in black America. (emphasis added)

Remember earlier in the column when we said "the family is the theme?"

**Update 5 April 4:26am MST: From McCain's speech honoring Dr. King:

Dr. King stirred the conscience of our nation to ensure that the self-evident truths of human freedom held true for all Americans. The power of his work and vision was not ended forty years ago in Memphis. Across the world, men and women are living Dr. King's dream as they strive to extend the blessings of human liberty and human rights to all. Today, we mark a tragic day in our nation's history while honoring the work of a man who was the voice for our nation's highest ideals.

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Family Policy

Image link

Buroboi asks, and we deliver. This post is about government policy that could be used to help families in America. Lest we be accused of plagiarizing the ideas, let us say up front: we've read most if not all of these somewhere else. That said, we've been unable to locate exactly where we read everything first so as to give proper credit. We're pretty sure some of it came from the pens of Ramesh Ponnuru and Jim Manzi.

And again, our caveat: these policy ideas should not be confused for a complete solution. We reaffirm our general agreement with buroboi and Decker by saying that there needs to be a cultural sea change with respect to marriage. We maintain that, however difficult, a legal prong to our family pitchfork is necessary. If we can get Constitutional protection of marriage, we'll take it.

- Child Tax Credit: As it stands, families can receive up to $1000 per child in tax credit. This is limited by income and marital status. We would do two things: at least double the tax credit to $2000 and raise the limit from $110,000 to at least $200,000. Our goal, simply put, is to subsidize the production of children. If that sounds overly economic, so be it. We want to reduce the financial costs of bearing and raising children.

- Eliminate the marriage penalty: Because of our progressive tax scheme, married couples filing together often occasion higher taxes than if they were single, filing separately. Our goal should be to eliminate any financial incentive that encourages people to remain unmarried. At a minimum, we should create tax policy that is neutral with respect to marriage.

- Marriage Tax Credit: There are obvious rule of law problems with this one. Some people can't or won't get married and thus, will never qualify for this tax credit. But families are a net benefit to society and it is in society's and our government's interest to promote them. Some sort of tax credit for married couples would accomplish this.

- Family Insurance Tax Credit: Our final suggestion is part of John McCain's health insurance proposal. We've written about health care before, here & here. Currently, because government taxes wages, but not health care provided by employers, they are essentially subsidizing the HMO's everyone hates. This is also why wages haven't risen the way everyone thought they should: your wages are being paid out in increased health care costs.

John McCain and his team of policy experts have proposed, and we endorse, eliminating the tax exception on company health benefits and providing each individual and family a large tax credit so that they can purchase their own insurance independent of their employer. If we remember correctly, he proposed $5000 per couple.

We understand that rising health care costs put stress on families. We aren't unsympathetic to these problems. We just disagree with Obama and HillaryCare. To employ a little demagoguery, we don't want the DMZ administering universal health care.

Separating insurance from employment would give families greater choice, not only in selecting their insurance, but in picking a job. With no fear of losing insurance, working family members would be free to take the job for which they are best suited and best compensated--regardless of "benefits." This would reduce or eliminate one more family stressor.

- Conclusion: This is by no means a finished (or, as you can tell, polished) product. As Mark Steyn concluded in a column on the family last October:

In the space of 40 years, the middle class abolished “living in sin” and embraced “long-term partners,” and the working class stopped worrying about “broken homes” and accepted the sociological designation of “alternative families.” And reversing it will take a lot more than targeted tax breaks and entitlements: It’s the stupidity, economists.

These policy recommendations are simply the easiest solutions to suggest and the easiest to quantify. There must be legal and cultural prongs to our American Gothic family pitchfork.

*UPDATE 4 April 12:13pm MST: For more on expanding the child tax credit, see this now-found article by Ramesh Ponnuru. Really, really good stuff.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Family Follow-Up

Yesterday's post prompted some very thoughtful discussion. We appreciate your comments whether you agree with our point or not.

We hope that you will not get distracted, as in times past, by our examples. Of course gay marriage is an issue that affects the family, but it is by no means the only or even the biggest issue--it's part of a larger cultural problem afflicting marriage. The larger cultural problem surrounding marriage is that marriage and family is no longer a big deal. And we don't mean this in the Anchorman sense.

Marriage and families are started on a whim. We keep referring to Wilson because he's awesome, and his point about the diminution of the family bears repeating--especially for those of you who haven't done your homework. Speaking of marriage, Wilson wrote

we have learned how it (marriage) can be undercut by people who think that their lives will be fuller, their opportunities greater, and their burdens fewer if they are allowed to treat sex as recreation, children as toys, and income as an obligation of government rather than a result of work.

We probably should have had said that "relationships and children" are had on a whim. Meaning, people get together, live together, whatever and have unwanted children with little or no thought to the consequences.

We can think of few more selfish acts.

Then, they either get married or put the child up for adoption or abort the baby, etc., etc.--nearly all of these, certainly the most common, are complete abrogations of their filial responsibilities.

As "rights" have increased in this country, so too have the methods for escaping what should be the responsibilities that automatically accompany them. It's easy to point to women and the right to choose, but where are the prospective fathers? Don't they care at all for their children? Historically, men have always been able to avoid their paternal responsibility because they can just up and leave. Rarely could a woman could do the same with her pregnancy. Abortion, in some women's minds, has leveled the playing field--as though sex and children were some sort of tit-for-tat game.

Spikers is right in the sense that it would probably take a Constitutional Amendment to legally protect marriage in this country. As difficult as that may be, it doesn't mean that it's not a battle worth fighting.

An equally difficult battle, but one which we can fight every day, is the larger cultural battle that buruboi referred to in their comments:

we, those who believe that functioning families are integral to society, should pursue cultural standards that protect the traditional and intrinsic values of marriage. That means cultivating sensible cultural norms that motivate people to realize the right, responsibility, privilege, commitment, and even sanctity of marriage and family (i.e. the Mormon community). This can be effectively accomplished, I think, without instituting legal parameters defining what constitutes marriage.

We would expand the thrust of their comments to include not just marriage, but also the family. Regrettably, there are cultural assaults on more than just marriage and motherhood and fatherhood. In Wilson's articles, the impact of culture on the family is a constant theme. We agree with him and buruboi in believing that there needs to be a cultural sea change with respect to marriage and the family.

For this reason, we oppose abortion and pop cultural attacks on the family and gay marriage and all that stuff because it all affects the family. And for us, the family isn't just this nebulous thing that needs saving just because of political-religious mores. For us, it makes good policy sense. As we mentioned in yesterday's post, strengthen the family and you strengthen America. Want to combat crime or illiteracy or, pretty much anything? Do whatever you can to encourage the necessary policy and legal and cultural changes to help America's families.

*UPDATE 3 April 12:20am MST: Obama's Abortion Extremism, by Michael Gerson


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Conservatism & The Family

We've been thinking about the American family for quite a while now. First came the Peggy Noonan quote (see below) and then we had a conversation with one of our former professors. This isn't our first word on the family, nor will it be our last. We can't even make this a coherent essay on the topic like we might normally prefer. Please excuse the disjointed nature of this post.

The moral traditionalist wing of conservatism and the Republican party has long waged political battle with so-called progressives over issues related to the family. They understood, and we with them, that families are the very building blocks of a successful society. Every measurable statistic related to an individual's potential success and happy life improves significantly when they come from a home with a mother and a father.

We mention this with caution, as we have a number of friends who come from homes without either a mother or a father. This does not, of course, make it any less of a family. In many instances they, and others across this country, have overcome the odds to be successful, productive members of society. But those who have done so without the support of a traditional family are the exception.

We first wrote about family-related issues when a former BYU professor wrote an open letter in the Salt Lake Tribune encouraging the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to be more allowing of homosexual unions. (here and here)

Then, a couple of weeks ago, in a column about Obama and Clinton, Peggy Noonan mentioned by the by that the great divide in America was not between the haves and the have nots or even between black and white or brown and white, but between those who have functioning families and those who do not. Or, as she put it, "the great divide in modern America, whether or not you had a functioning family." We think she's right.

What's fascinating is that the Left, (for whom it is now chic to refer to oneself as "progressive") which loves to solve societal problems with the latest, greatest gimmicky idea--it takes a village!--ignores the very simplest solution: strengthen the family. This, despite the fact that empirical evidence shows that everything they'd like to improve with their village!, from test scores to jail rates to literacy (really, the list could go on indefinitely) improves when an individual comes from a functioning family. There is nothing more or less complicated to it than that.

It would seem prudent, therefore, that we do what we can to shore up the American family. What the heck is a no-fault divorce, anyway? Marriage for life has ceased to be the norm. Heck, two marriages are quickly ceasing to be the norm. We conservatives almost nominated a man on his third marriage. And much of the multiple marriages and single parent families can be traced back to the easing of divorce laws in the '60's. As James Q. Wilson pointed out, it's easier to get out of a marriage than it is to get out of a mortgage.

(though it would seem many now might wish it were the other way around)

As anyone who has taken intro to economics will tell you: lower the cost of something and demand will rise. As marriage has devolved from lifelong union to a union of convenience, fewer and fewer people get married and fewer and fewer children come from 2-parent homes.

To come at this from another angle, if you want to invest in America's human capital, do what you can to strengthen marriages. Our friends in the teaching profession often talk to us about how they are unable to "reach" certain students or have the impact they'd like because the students' parents are not involved. We still think that vouchers and more school choice could help alleviate that problem, but they do nothing to address the core issue--the breakdown of the family.

And this isn't something we can go about haphazardly. When we first debated gay marriage on this blog, those in favor said, 'where is the empirical evidence that gay marriage doesn't equal successful home?' We pointed to a number of studies coming out of the United Kingdom and the nordic countries, but, unfortunately, we can't prove it conclusively one way or the other.

But we can't prove it now the same way those who were against the loosening of divorce laws in the '60's couldn't prove the disastrous effect that would have on families either. That is to say, progressives are convinced that whatever the latest idea to come down is better than whatever we have now. The case for and from moral traditionalists and conservatism, broadly speaking, is that things are the way they are now because over the centuries of human experience, it has proven to work.

We know that families with a mother and a father have a far greater chance of creating successful happy offspring than any other organization developed. Why experiment with something so essential, something so integral to civilization as the family? The burden of proof in favor of something new, of change for change's sake or because it is being trumped up as a right(!), lies not with conservatives to defend what is, but with progressives to convince that what they have, whether gay marriage or polygamy or some sort of arrangement with them and their vacuum cleaner or a communal village pitch-in effort, can match the success of the family.

Because marriage in this country is not a right, it's a privilege and a responsibility. Furthermore, it's one which should be closely guarded and fortified and strengthened and whatever other verb we've used in this post. We will continue to argue in favor of the family on principle and because it makes good policy sense.

Wherever you may be reading this, we invite you to take up the cause of defending marriage. There are many ways you can do this: vote for and helping to elect people for whom family is important; vote in favor of initiatives that define marriage as between a man and a woman; write letters to the editor of your local newspaper... the list goes on.

For further reading on this topic, see the following from James Q. Wilson:

Why We Don't Marry
The Ties That Do Not Bind: The Decline Of Marriage And Loyalty
The Family Way
Welfare Reform And Character Development
No Easy Answers
James Q. Wilson Interview


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.