Ruth Institute Blog

by Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D.

“The Liberation of Lifelong Love: Church Teaching on Marriage” is the opening of my contribution to a new book called “Women, Sex & the Church: A Case for Catholic Teaching.” I realize that many of my readers are not Catholic. However, I still enthusiastically encourage you to consider purchasing this book. Many of the chapters contain valuable information from the social sciences that will be helpful to anyone from any faith tradition making the case for traditional sexual morality. Read more…

Today, I discovered a blog called “[Expletive] Feelings.”  Considering my stoic, unsentimental and unromantic outlook, I knew that I found kindred spirits in the writers of this blog.  Sure enough, I found this post.  It’s every kind of awesome I can think of.  And more.

In it, he says just about exactly what I’ve been saying on these pages.  But he says it without as much cheeky sarcasm and obscure cultural references randomly hidden among the hyperlinks.  He also says it with the authority of a psychiatrist.

But, dude, check this post out:

I love my wife, and I have since we met in college. She’s also been very devoted to me, supporting my fledgling career as an artist and even taking a part-time job as my manager (on top of her full-time job, which supports us both). The problem is that, as much as I love her and as much as I’ve tried to ignore my feelings for other men, I’m pretty sure I’m actually gay. To admit that I’m gay would mean divorcing her, which would not only break her heart when all she’s ever done is sacrifice everything for me, but throw every aspect of my life, personally and professionally, into chaos. I don’t want to hurt her or lose her, and, well, I don’t want to go on welfare. My goal is to be true to both of us. Read more…

It’s a great way to keep your head clear. But does anybody care, I wonder?

by Carolyn Moynihan

It is always gratifying when research coincides with common sense and everyday experience, as in the case of a new study showing that a relationship in which sexual intimacy is delayed is more likely to endure. Read more…

Considering the posts I have written on romantic love and on sentimentality, some readers of this blog may have the mistaken impression that I am unromantic.

This is not so.

Recently, I saw a movie, the movie featured the recitation of some poetry.  That got me to thinking about my wife’s upcoming birthday.  So, to honor this blessed event, I have written a poem in my wife’s honor.   I hope you enjoy. Read more…

Gotta love the first paragraph.

by Stephen J. Heaney

Re-examining the essential characteristics of marriage.

Abraham Lincoln once asked how many legs a dog has if we call a tail a leg. The answer, he said, is four: calling a tail a leg does not make it so. We chuckle and move on.

But what if people began to argue that a tail really is a leg? They might say that what defines the leg is that it is an appendage of the dog’s body, that it contains bone and muscle covered with skin and fur—just like a tail. Tails just happen to come out of the body at a different angle than other legs. When a tail hangs down low, who can tell the difference? Read more…

Book outlines stark divisions

By Cheryl Wetzstein, The Washington Times

Young parents Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston may have gotten engaged again recently, but they are still a quintessential “red” family trying to swim against the tide of family change, say two family law professors who have launched a debate about “red” and “blue” American families.

The 2004 and 2008 elections showed a divided America — and that division extends even to families, Naomi Cahn and June Carbone write in their book, “Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture.” Read more…

You will recall that I claimed in my AOL News article that the Essential Public Purpose of Marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. Some people dispute this by pointing to alternative purposes of marriage, or by discovering groups of individuals who seem not to be participating in this public purpose. I deal with some (but admittedly not all) of those cases in this podcast.
Here is the purpose of marriage as outlined in Judge Walker’s opinion. He quotes a Harvard historian, with approval, who offers this alternative understanding of the purpose of marriage:

marriage is “a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another, and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another, and their agreement to join in an economic partnership and support one another in terms of the material needs of life.”

I would issue this challenge to those who take issue with my characterization of the Essential Public Purpose of Marriage. How would this definition exclude college roommates? Read more…

My Acton Institute friend Anthony Bradley has this in World magazine today, on the Black Marriage Crisis. Read it and weep.

In the black community, the institution of marriage is essentially dead. While marriage in Western developed nations is declining in general, the black community and black women are being disproportionately affected. Unless marriage and family issues receive a higher priority, tackling other major problems, like declining high school graduation rates, will be like treading water in the Mississippi River 10 feet above a strong undercurrent.

ABC News recently cited a Yale University study reporting that 42 percent of African-American women have yet to be married, compared to only 23 percent of white women. By their early 40s, 31 percent of black women have never been wives compared to 9 percent of white women. An alarming 70 percent of professional black women are single. ABC also reported, citing the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, that at least 60 percent of black students who receive college degrees are women. Black women also make up 71 percent of black graduate students. According to the most recent data, only 43.3 percent of black adult men are married compared to around 60 percent for white males.

I will be in LA this morning, representing NOM at a press conference for the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles. from their press release:

The Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, an organization of conservative Hispanics, will announce the details of a $1 million campaign in support of California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina at a press conference in downtown Los Angeles on Tuesday, July 27 at 11:00am Pacific Time.

NOM was asked to provide a speaker in support of this effort. When I became acquainted with their views, I was eager to help. The Partnership gives voice to the vast majority of Latinos who are pro-natural family. 56% of Latinos oppose gay marriage, compared to 42% of all non-Hispanic people. In 2008, for example, Latino voters helped provide the margin of victory for Proposition 8 in California restoring the traditional definition of marriage, supporting the initiative by 53% (compared to only 49% support among non-Latino whites).

Latinos strongly believe in the dignity of the human person. 57% believe abortion should be illegal, compared to 40% of all non-Hispanic people.

The Partnership supports Carly Fiorina because she believes in the right to life, from the moment of conception, and opposes same-sex marriage.

I am happy to stand in solidarity with my Latino sisters and brothers who share these views. See you in LA!

In the beginning, there was patriarchy.  And it was EEEEEEEEEVIL.  Under patriarchy, men were expected to get married.  And they were expected to have children soon after getting married.  You know why they had children?  Because patriarchy was oppressive and forced them to marry women.

There was not a lot of choice built into the system.  Men not only had to marry women, but they had to marry women of the appropriate station.

If Henry wanted to get married, he could marry Katherine or Anne or Jane.  That was it.

Now that the enlightened Baby Boomers have overthrown the dreaded Patriarchy, people have more choice in matters marital and sexual.  Henry does not have to confine his choices to Katherine, Anne or Jane.  He can now also marry Tiffany, Barbara, Aiko, Taliqua, or Fatima.  Not only that, in some states Henry can even “marry” James, Edward or Robert.  Or he can even forget about marriage altogether and play the field for the rest of his life.

It seems that Henry is spoiled for choice.  He must constantly frolic and rejoice to celebrate all that choice.  That’s how things work, right?  The more choices people have, the happier they are.  Right?  Right? Read more…

I have had the misfortune to overhear conversations between women bashing their husbands.  Few types of conversations make me feel more ill.

In my religion, conversations about the misdeeds of others is called “Lashon Horah.”  It is one of the more serious sins.  As it turns out, such conversations that women have about their husbands are not only sinful but they’re also deeply detrimental to marriage.

For instance, see this article.

At first, Layna was comforted by the fact that she wasn’t alone. It wasn’t exactly like “misery loves company,” but in her heart, the camaraderie of the complaining was nice. She sort of thought they were providing a nice service to each other. Complain to each other, spare your man the nagging. That said, she also knew none of the men were being spared any nagging. In her case at least, the more she complained to the girls, the more fire she had to take it to Josh. Read more…

by Carolyn Moynihan

Here is a useful little nugget of information — an abstract describing a study that showed the protective effect of marriage for the health of newborn babies. The study concerned African American women and showed that the lowest risk for a low birth weight baby was found when marriage preceded childbirth for two generations. Read more…

by Matthew J. Franck

The latest decision from our judicial overlords on same-sex marriage spells trouble for republican constitutionalism and the institution of marriage.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was grounded on a fear of judges run amok. This past Thursday, federal district court judge Joseph Tauro of Boston justified this fear when he struck down section 3 of the act in two separate cases, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In the Gill case, Judge Tauro held that the law unjustly denied various federal benefits to spouses in same-sex marriages contracted under Massachusetts law, contrary to the equal protection principle. Meanwhile, in the HHS case, Tauro ruled that the state itself was the victim of an unconstitutional intrusion by the federal government on its reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment. Read more…

This is a crock, and, undoubtedly, a double standard.

by Sheila Liaugminas

This story is picking up press, and it should. Freedom of speech is at the heart of it, as is the effort yet again to attack legitimate expression of belief, expressed…where? In a classroom setting that fosters intellecutal inquiry and critical thinking skills?

Not exactly.

The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church’s teaching that homosexual sex is immoral….

[Prof. Ken] Howell, who taught Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought, says he was fired at the end of the spring semester after sending an e-mail explaining some Catholic beliefs to his students preparing for an exam.

“Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY,” he wrote in the e-mail. “In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same.”

These days, this gets someone in academia in all sorts of trouble, which is what he quickly got. An unidentified student complained, on behalf of an “offended” student, (not sure why the offended student didn’t speak for himself or herself…), that this was ‘hate speech.’

“Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing,” the student wrote. “Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another.”

Just to clarify a point here, the phrase “natural laws of man” is an oxymoron. (Just Wiki natural law and read the first three sentences.)

But that wasn’t all the student complained about that was contradictory.

The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.” Read more…

Regarding their July 13 Argentines for the Children demonstration before the Argentinian Congress was to vote on traditional marriage: “The demonstration gathered 60000 people in a very cold day. Some others estimation spoke about 130000, but we think the first one is the correct one. It was plenty of families, young people and old, all claiming for a family with a mum and a dad and the rights of the children to have them. Read more…

http://www.marriagetour2010.com/2010/07/dr-j-in-manchester/

The titles of certain posts just write themselves.  Phrases like the one in the title are catnip to people like me who salivate at the opportunity to poke at the pet peeves of lefties and feminists everywhere.

It comes from an article in which a “reluctant housewife” discovers that she and her husband quickly grew tired of trying to jam the square peg of feminism into the round hole that is human nature.  Instead of dividing household duties in a feminist approved (read foolish) manner, they gave up and divided those duties up according to the dictates of human nature.

I used to feel guilty that my marriage seemed so normal. When I got married, I imagined my marriage would be different. I wanted to bust up traditions. Reinvent what marriage meant. I was determined not to let my marriage resemble the traditional roles of my parents’ relationship. So, two months after I said “I do”, when I found myself unemployed and picking up my husband’s socks off the floor, I started to cry. When Dave came home and found me sobbing on the couch, I threw my apron at him. “You make dinner!” He made hot dogs and mac and cheese from a box. Breaking down traditions didn’t taste as good as I thought it would. Read more…

This story in the Buenos Aires Herald reports on the groups rallying for natural marriage, but it doesn’t give an estimate of the crowd. We’ll have to rely on our friends on the ground there, to let us know their estimates of the numbers of people there. As in the US, this cause of natural marriage is an inter-faith effort.

The demonstration was organized by the Lay Department of the Argentine Episcopal Conference (DEPLAI), the Christian Alliance of Evangelic Churches (ACIERA), the Pentecostal Evangelic Confraternity Federation (FECEP), and self-convened families, that were joined by representatives of the Muslim and Jewish communities.

Read more…

SAN MARCOS, CA – Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Founding President of the Ruth Institute, issued the following statement in response to the overturn of DOMA by a federal judge in Boston, Massachusetts, earlier this week:

“This decision reflects an extremely superficial understanding of the social purposes of marriage. Read more…

Recently, I posted about Professor John Gottman.  He has a list of four things that predict divorce:  criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling.   He calls them the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

Here’s a different sort of list.  It compiles various research studies and makes predictions about the likelihood of divorce given some more exotic variables such as occupation, the status of the children, hormonal levels and even facial expression in old photographs. Read more…