Ruth Institute Blog

So, the bottom line of that story on women’s mental health is this: we are really really depressed. All of us.

Depression is expected to become the world’s second biggest health problem after heart disease by 2020, according to the World Health Organisation.

This is not an easy society in which to live, for anyone.

by Amelia Hill

According to survey of 2,000 girls and women, around two-thirds have had mild to moderate mental health problems.

Almost a third of women aged over 18 have taken antidepressants, according to research published today which its authors claim reveals “generations of women in crisis” with mental health problems. Read more…

The Ruth Institute Launches Contest to Promote
Positive Views of Lifelong Marriage
SAN MARCOS, CA – The Ruth Institute, a project of the National Organization for Marriage Education Fund, announces its first annual Reel Love Challenge, a video contest for young adults, aged 18-30. The contest is open to all young adults, married or single, male or female, in college, out of college, or never been anywhere near a college. This contest is for everyone in the next generation to give their ideas about what sustains love over the course of a lifetime.

Young adults should submit 30 second to 3 minute videos on the Reel Love Challenge website answering either or both of these questions: What makes lifelong love possible? Why is it worth the effort? Contestants should enter soon and take advantage of the Early Bird Contest: $100 to the first 7 videos submitted before January 6, 2011. Read more…

I love this article, “Why this orthodox Jew loves Christmas music.” by fellow San Diegan, Michael Rosen.

Let me be clear: I am deeply proud of my faith, which I practice rigorously. While I genuinely respect the tenets of other creeds, I abhor religious syncretism of all sorts, and I have no desire to observe Christian holidays; …Yet Christmas music exerts a strong emotional and intellectual influence over me every December, for three distinct reasons, in increasing order of importance: its musical beauty; its deep-seated American-ness; and, most importantly, its powerful message of religious tolerance…. Read more…

Wow! I really hit a nerve talking about the rainbow and what it does or does not symbolize. It is very interesting to me that this offhand discussion of symbolism struck such a nerve. Trouble is, the various commentators can’t seem to get their stories straight.

One headline says, “Anti-Gay Ruth Institute Wants to Steal the Rainbow Flag from Gays.”

Meanwhile, gay columnist Dan Savage says, “we’ll let you have your f**king rainbows back,” as long as we completely capitulate on every single substantive point. (Such a deal!) The clear implication is that he thinks he is in a position to give the rainbow back. This sorta kinda suggests he thought all along that he did own it. (Note the charming language. And the charming headline on the story where it was reported.)

In contrast with these guys who evidently think they own the rainbow and are irritated that I pointed out its obvious Biblical symbolism, there are another whole batch of people calling me petty for caring about something as insubstantial as the meaning of a piece of cloth. (Some of the comments on the blog are of that sort.) If it is so unimportant, why the hysteria? That little interview has generated more attention than any other commentary I’ve done on seemingly more substantial matters.

I’m inclined to agree with our commenter Leland: my choice of Prop 8 courtroom attire and a five minute interview with One News Now has caused “widespread panic.” When this many people start circling the wagons to ridicule someone from mutually contradictory positions, there is definitely panic in the air.

Me outside the courtroom on Prop 8 trial day

Welcome to all the new visitors from this site. Now that you are over here, I call you my FRIEnds w/ Wrong Ideas. (I don’t have enemies.) What with Christmas parties and all, I haven’t had time to extend a proper welcome to all my new Friends from Queerty and TPM and other such places. Evidently, I stirred up a hornet’s nest with my comment about the rainbow flag. Glad you’re over here to talk with us.

Full disclosure: If you stay around over here long enough, like Nerdy Girl and Sean, you become my Peeps with Wrong Ideas, or PEEPWIs. And once you start showing up over here, I start praying for you. Just so you know.

On the First Day of Christmas, I turned in my last term paper… So, now I can start thinking about my Reel Love Challenge video!

The Prop 8 trial will be full of questions. Here at NOM and the Ruth Institute, we have a few questions of our own. We think the People of California, those people who had the audacity to vote for Prop 8, are on trial here. We are proud of our involvement in Prop 8, and we are proud to stand up for those voters. So, here are a few questions for those who are so eager to redefine marriage.
1. Do you seriously believe it is a “myth” or mere “prejudice” that children need their mothers and fathers?
2. Do you seriously believe that it is “beyond dispute” that redefining marriage will have no long term social consequences, except for making life better for same sex couples?
3. Do you really believe that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and that gender is irrelevant to parenting? If gender is really irrelevant, why do self-described “gays” insist on having a male sex partner? Why isn’t a really masculine woman just as acceptable as a male sex partner?
4. If you believe the law should be that “love makes a family,” do you seriously propose to make “love” a legally defined term?
5. Do children have any rights that adults are bound to respect? Not just the right to not be injured, but positive rights to care and relationship with particular adults, namely their parents?
6. What do you think is the essential public purpose of marriage? We think the essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.
7. When you have reduced marriage to nothing but a government registry of friendships, how exactly do you think children will be attached to their mothers and fathers?

Here’s a little snippet I came across and thought to share:

The Founding Fathers set aside a day to give thanks to Almighty God for all the blessings we receive.  George Washington called for a day of Thanksgiving because “it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor.”

The Continental Congress in Philadelphia issued a proclamation in 1782 under President John Hanson, recommending the following to the States:
Do hereby recommend to the inhabitants of these States in general, to observe, and request the several States to interpose their authority in appointing and commanding the observation of THURSDAY the twenty-eight day of NOVEMBER next, as a day of solemn THANKSGIVING to GOD for all his mercies: and they do further recommend to all ranks, to testify to their gratitude to GOD for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience of his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness.

Just wanted to remind everyone what this day is about. Happy Thanksgiving, readers. I’m thankful for all of you.

Stuart Schneiderman has a great post today about shame.

For most of its history psychotherapy has been at war with shame. This makes some sense. If you are in the feel-good business, you don’t want to appear to be making people feel bad.

But what happens when feeling bad is a necessary step on the road to change? In that case, you change your business model: you want to help people to feel better about not changing.

It also makes sense to be at war with shame if you are trying to promote free sexual and emotional expression.

Shame makes us modest and decorous. It tells us not to show off our sexuality and our private feelings in public. Read more…

The comments section in this blog has recently taken a turn for the worse.  Lacking a real grasp of the issues, the  lefties who populate the comments section have but one tactic at their disposal– accusations of hate. I pointed out in a recent post that I do not hate people with whom I disagree.  I also don’t necessarily hate people who do things of which I disapprove. Read more…

by Carolyn Moynihan

An Australian study has set the traditional-role-division cat among the gender equality pigeons: the tide of opinion seems to have swung against the feminist ideal of an equal division of domestic and market work between husbands and wives. Read more…

The article in the Kalamazoo Gazette may have caused some confusion about my views on same sex adoption.
My position on same sex adoption:
• There should be a social and legal presumption that kids need a mom and a dad, preferably their own mom and dad. When that is not possible, society should try to replicate the natural family as closely as possible.
• The state absolutely should not place its wards with same sex couples. The government has no business conducting social experiments on the most vulnerable children in society.
Read more…

This article from the Kalamazoo Gazette has caused some confusion. In my talk, I didn’t say a word about civil unions. The reporter came up afterwards and asked me some questions. I said that “all the practical problems of same sex couples can be solved without redefining marriage.” I didn’t say I favor civil unions or that I’m ok with civil unions. I’m not in favor of civil unions.
My position on civil unions/domestic partnerships: Read more…

Dr J is the featured speaker next Thursday for this event in Illinois.

Here is an image of the cover of Women, Sex and the Church, editted by Erika Bachiochi, which chapters by Cassandra Hough, Laura Garcia, Angela Franks, Katie Elrod, Sister Sara Butler and Elizabeth Schiltz. along with Yours Truly.

“Marriage between one man and one woman is the only moral cntext for sexual intimacy. This is because in marriage, and only in marriage, a man and woman freely and willingly commit their entire lives to one another in mutual love and fidelity. … Non-contracepted sex between a husband and wife is good regardless of whether or not it conceives new life, because the act completes and reconfirms their marital promises.” Cassandra Hough, in Women, Sex and the Church.

Get the book. Read the whole thing. (the publisher has a cool Adobe page that lets you read the introduction to the book for free. Check it out!)

The editors at National Review Online have posted an excellent article (The Case for Marriage) that quite eloquently refutes the arguments most commonly made for same-sex ‘marriage’ and concisely, but thoroughly, describes the damage that will be done to society if we allow marriage to be deconstructed.

If it is true, as we are constantly told, that American law will soon redefine marriage to accommodate same-sex partnerships, the proximate cause for this development will not be that public opinion favors it, although it appears to be moving in that direction. It will be that the most influential Americans, particularly those in law and the media, have been coming increasingly to regard opposition to same-sex marriage as irrational at best and bigoted at worst. They therefore dismiss expressions of that opposition, even when voiced by a majority in a progressive state, as illegitimate. Judges who believe that same-sex marriage is obviously just and right can easily find ways to read their views into constitutions, to the applause of the like-minded. Read more…

Sherlock Holmes once famously said, “Watson, I call to your attention the curious fact of the dog barking in the night.” “But Holmes, there was no dog barking in the night.” “That is the curious fact.”
It is a curious fact that Judge Walker did not discuss any of the previous cases that deal with the constitutional questions before him. Chuck Cooper puts it this way, in his Emergency Motion seeking a stay of Judge Walker’s judgement invalidating Prop 8:

“Given that the district court did not cite a single case that had addressed these issues, one might think the court was deciding issues of first impression on a blank slate. Nothing could be further from the truth. Read more…