<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Ruth Institute Blog &#187; family</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ruthblog.org/category/family/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ruthblog.org</link>
	<description>An intellectual climate favorable to marriage</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:23:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Children protect against divorce contagion</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/07/08/children-protect-against-divorce-contagion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/07/08/children-protect-against-divorce-contagion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 21:44:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Happy Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[happy marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=3193</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is interesting. Yet another reason having kids is a good thing.
by Carolyn Moynihan
A study showing the contagious nature of divorce among social networks has been receiving a good bit of attention this week. Not only friends, siblings and people you work with, but also friends of friends are more likely to divorce if you [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/07/08/children-protect-against-divorce-contagion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Freedom Is Not Enough: The Moynihan Report</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/07/07/freedom-is-not-enough-the-moynihan-report/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/07/07/freedom-is-not-enough-the-moynihan-report/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 04:09:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>leland</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parenting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[african americans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fathers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[out-of-wedlock childbearing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=3147</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Monday (July 5th) I listened to a broadcast on the Diane Rehm Show of an interview with James T. Patterson, author of Freedom Is Not Enough: The Moynihan Report and America&#8217;s Struggle over Black Family Life from LBJ to Obama. That title was already on my long (long&#8230;) wish-list of books I’d like to buy [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/07/07/freedom-is-not-enough-the-moynihan-report/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Nurturing&#8217; isn&#8217;t parental equivalent</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/07/04/nurturing-isnt-parental-equivalent/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/07/04/nurturing-isnt-parental-equivalent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jul 2010 20:36:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ginny</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Parental Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[adoption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gay adoption]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=3090</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Finally, some good news from a family court:
A Wisconsin court has told a lesbian that legal adoption, not merely nurturing a child, determines parental rights.
A lesbian identified as Liz K. and her former partner Wendy M. adopted two children from Guatamala. The couple decided that since Liz was a practicing attorney and could add the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/07/04/nurturing-isnt-parental-equivalent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Parenting and Thought Reform</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/07/02/parenting-and-thought-reform/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/07/02/parenting-and-thought-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Jul 2010 02:46:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Arlemagne1</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fathers' Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Correctness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fathers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=3036</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Family law Judges are famous for their truly disgusting rulings.  But no matter how low they sink into the muck, they continuously find a way to achieve new lows of tyranny and immorality.
Witness this case:
The court order said that “Father to be in individual counseling to address issues with a male therapist regarding father‘s racist [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/07/02/parenting-and-thought-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Family meal as therapy</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/30/family-meal-as-therapy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/30/family-meal-as-therapy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parenting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Teenagers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[adolescents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eating disorders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family meals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=3013</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s so true. Many studies have proven the lasting value of family meals on children especially, including improved test scores and health, and decreasing the chances of drug and alcohol abuse.
by Sheila Liaugminas
I have few T-shirts with words or pictures on them, preferring simple solid colors instead. But there’s one I couldn’t resist, and my family [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/30/family-meal-as-therapy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Parenting and Happiness</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/29/parenting-and-happiness/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/29/parenting-and-happiness/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:06:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Arlemagne1</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judaism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fathers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[happiness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stoicism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virtue]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=2969</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is a lot to be said for cultivating stoic virtues.  The best people in the world, as far as I&#8217;m concerned are those that are determined to bestow upon others what they need.  And they will make their own wants secondary.
The pursuit of happiness is fine.  But assigning too high a priority to happiness [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/29/parenting-and-happiness/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Breeders&#8217; Cup</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/23/the-breeders-cup/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/23/the-breeders-cup/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:34:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parenting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fathers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[babies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=2909</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thumbs up from me for this article.
Social science may suggest that kids drain their parents&#8217; happiness, but there&#8217;s evidence that good parenting is less work and more fun than people think. Bryan Caplan makes the case for having more children.
By BRYAN CAPLAN
Amid the Father&#8217;s Day festivities, many of us are privately asking a Scroogely question: [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/23/the-breeders-cup/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Focusing Illusion</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/17/the-focusing-illusion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/17/the-focusing-illusion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 02:53:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Arlemagne1</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Happy Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[love]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[happiness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=2828</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many of the discussions in the comments section of this site fall into a very familiar pattern.  Take, for instance, one issue that we here at the Ruth Institute support: lifelong marriage.  Lifelong marriage means that we are not particularly fond of divorce.  (I&#8217;m sure my opinion as a Jew differs from that of Dr. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/17/the-focusing-illusion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Surviving a big family, helps with college survival</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/10/surviving-a-big-family-helps-with-college-survival/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/10/surviving-a-big-family-helps-with-college-survival/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:30:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[families]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=2740</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Something a little light-hearted; plus, it makes sense!
Click here to watch this video featuring famous big family members. It cracks me up that many of these &#8220;big families&#8221; contain only three members, and that they show Mother Teresa a few frames before Madonna as though they were on equal footing, but I get their point. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/10/surviving-a-big-family-helps-with-college-survival/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>“Cumulative Number of Women’s Lifetime Sexual Partners” by Religious Attendance and Present Family Structure</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/07/%e2%80%9ccumulative-number-of-women%e2%80%99s-lifetime-sexual-partners%e2%80%9d-by-religious-attendance-and-present-family-structure/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/07/%e2%80%9ccumulative-number-of-women%e2%80%99s-lifetime-sexual-partners%e2%80%9d-by-religious-attendance-and-present-family-structure/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:29:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=2690</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Pat Fagan of the Family Research Council
Women in always-intact marriages who worship at least weekly are more likely to have had fewer lifetime sexual partners than those in other family structures who never worship. According to the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), women in always-intact marriages who attend religious services at least weekly [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/07/%e2%80%9ccumulative-number-of-women%e2%80%99s-lifetime-sexual-partners%e2%80%9d-by-religious-attendance-and-present-family-structure/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>It’s Family Week in Britain &#8211; if they can find the time</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/02/2606/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/02/2606/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:08:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parenting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=2606</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Basically the gist of this article is that parents don&#8217;t spend enough time with their kids, and kids would like to spend more time with their parents. I suspect that many social ills would lose popularity if families spent more time together.
Here are my two favorite paragraphs, followed by the rest of the article:
There was [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/02/2606/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>If Michelle Obama wants a solution, here&#8217;s one&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/01/if-michelle-obama-wants-a-solution-heres-one/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/01/if-michelle-obama-wants-a-solution-heres-one/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 22:12:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Arlemagne1</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parenting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Correctness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=2572</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Michelle Obama has lectured the nation on childhood obesity.  It probably won&#8217;t shock you that her proposed solutions involve government action.
However, I would suggest a different solution&#8211; marriage and active child rearing by biological parents.  This article discusses some of the causes of childhood obesity.  The causes it discusses are less politically correct than blaming [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/01/if-michelle-obama-wants-a-solution-heres-one/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sarah Palin&#8217;s Girl Power</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/20/sarah-palins-girl-power/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/20/sarah-palins-girl-power/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 20:28:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parenting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mothers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=2453</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Maggie Gallagher
Wednesday, May 19, 2010 Townhall.com
I walked in late for the Susan B. Anthony List breakfast last Friday and, right away, Sarah Palin blew me away.
Trig.
She hadn&#8217;t planned to have a special-needs child. She was governor of the state of Alaska with four other children, for goodness sake. The thought of abortion flitted across [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/20/sarah-palins-girl-power/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Call it a win for parents</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/19/call-it-a-win-for-parents/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/19/call-it-a-win-for-parents/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 23:54:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parental Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parenting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=2435</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This part cracks me up: The woman in charge of the sex ed program was upset saying that they had to &#8220;kow-tow to parents.&#8221; Oh, please forgive parents for caring what their children learn on the topic! She acts as though parents are idiots and know nothing. Well, they ARE parents.
by Brian Lilley
A government plan [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/19/call-it-a-win-for-parents/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How much do dads need to help at home?</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/19/how-much-do-dads-need-to-help-at-home/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/19/how-much-do-dads-need-to-help-at-home/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 23:44:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Happy Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fathers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dads]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stay at home moms]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=2431</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This article states that mothers who stay at home, stay married more often than those who don&#8217;t. The stats for divorce and working mothers is highter. Interesting. Couples where the husband helps out, especially with the kids, have an even better chance of staying together.
by Carolyn Moynihan
Four jobs a week. Honestly, guys, that is all [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/19/how-much-do-dads-need-to-help-at-home/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>“Abort, or Lose Your Benefits”</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/19/%e2%80%9cabort-or-lose-your-benefits%e2%80%9d/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/19/%e2%80%9cabort-or-lose-your-benefits%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 15:55:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ginny</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pro-life movement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=2405</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bishop Victor Galeone of St. Augustine tells a story that his mother told him, 30 years ago.  I didn’t know that this kind of pressure was being exerted on the poor as far back as the Great Depression.
[My mother] continued: “I’m going to tell you something that I’ve told no one except your father. It [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/19/%e2%80%9cabort-or-lose-your-benefits%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dante&#8217;s Infernal Post:  Part IV:  Challenge #1</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/11/dantes-infernal-post-part-iv-challenge-1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/11/dantes-infernal-post-part-iv-challenge-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 22:00:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Arlemagne1</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Kos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Happy Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[happy marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=2303</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dante Atkins wrote:
The real mission of the Ruth Institute is to erase the gains that women  have made with regard to their social, economic and sexual liberation  and ensure that they become baby factories like something out of  Margaret Atwood&#8217;s Handmaid&#8217;s  Tale.
Now, before you run away in a screaming panic, please [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/11/dantes-infernal-post-part-iv-challenge-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Waxing State, Waning Family: The Radical Agenda of the American Law Institute</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/10/waxing-state-waning-family-the-radical-agenda-of-the-american-law-institute/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/10/waxing-state-waning-family-the-radical-agenda-of-the-american-law-institute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 21:54:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Newsletter articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=2273</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Very enligtening.
by William C. Duncan, Ruth Institute Advisory Board Member
The one great principle of the English law, is to make business for itself.—Charles Dickens, Bleak House
In the modern state, law—like nature—displays a marked distaste for a vacuum. Spurred by elites distrustful of independent social institutions and a cultural embrace of atomistic individualism, the United States [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/10/waxing-state-waning-family-the-radical-agenda-of-the-american-law-institute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Family and Civilization</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/03/family-and-civilization/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/03/family-and-civilization/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 May 2010 23:05:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=2250</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Family and Civilization is an excellent book by Carle Zimmerman. You can read a review of it in this blog post: The Origins of the Red State–Blue State Divide.  
Find the book on Amazon.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/03/family-and-civilization/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Adoption law axed, pro-family appeal to come</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/04/26/adoption-law-axed-pro-family-appeal-to-come/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/04/26/adoption-law-axed-pro-family-appeal-to-come/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:12:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ginny</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[adoption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=2111</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From OneNewsNow:
&#8220;A pro-family leader in Arkansas is denouncing a state  judge&#8217;s decision to strike down a law banning unmarried, cohabiting  couples from adopting or fostering children.
&#8220;The  American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit against the law that  was approved by 57 percent of Arkansas voters&#8230;.&#8221;
Read it here.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/04/26/adoption-law-axed-pro-family-appeal-to-come/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (enhanced) (user agent is rejected)
Database Caching 11/19 queries in 0.062 seconds using disk

Served from: www.ruthblog.org @ 2010-07-30 21:27:08 -->