The Republicans' doctoring of Moynihan's quote reflects a broader tendency to cut corners in making a case against gay marriage. Call it, says the Brookings Institution's Jonathan Rauch, "defining Moynihan down," a nice echo of Moynihan's famous 1993 speech in which he coined the phrase "defining deviancy down." The central leap is from the widely accepted notion that children do better with two parents to a hazy link between gay marriage in Massachusetts and the high divorce rates that preceded it by more than 40 years.

Political opposition to gay marriage does rely on those who think homosexuality is a sin and even that gay sex should be criminal. But there are scholars, like David Blankenhorn at the Institute for American Values in New York, who make an argument against gay marriage that doesn't tacitly veer into bigotry. Putting it as clearly as it comes, he says gay marriage is "an effect that will become a cause" of the collapse of marriage. Like the Senators last week, he leans on Moynihan, who started talking about the crisis in American families in a then-controversial, now-obvious 1965 report entitled The Negro Family and the Case for National Action.

"If there was one thing he did make clear over and over again, it was the importance of the two-parent, mother-father, married-couple family," Mr. Blankenhorn said.

The problem with this is that, as the report's title indicates, Moynihan was concerned about African-American children and their single mothers, not gay and lesbian couples who are unlikely to find themselves with unwanted babies. The Senator seems not to have considered same-sex marriage directly. In his "defining deviancy down" speech, Moynihan approvingly quotes criticism of "alternative family structures;" but he added that, for his purposes, "alternative" means "other than two-parent families." He doesn't dwell on the gender of the parents. 

Who knows what Moynihan would say about gay marriage.  But I think it's safe to say that most people who talked about the importance of "two-parent" families ten years ago generally took it for granted that the two parents were a mother and a father. 

More than 80 percent of single German women are perfectly happy without a man in tow and say living solo gives them more freedom to do what they want, according to a survey for Stern magazine.

Coming amid mounting political alarm about Germany's low birthrate and aging population, the survey of 1,003 women showed only two percent did not enjoy their solitary lifestyle and 36 percent opted to stay single because it was more fun.

Two Toronto women who split up just five days after they got married in June of last year have found the act does not provide for same-sex divorce because it defines spouse as "a man or a woman who are married to each other."

Lawyers for the women...asked the Ontario Superior Court to remedy the situation by removing the words "to each other" from the definition.

But the government said that it doesn't believe that solution would go far enough.

"We prefer to remove the definition altogether," Justice Department lawyer Lisa Hitch said.

...Derek Rogusky, the vice-president of family policy for Focus on the Family Canada, said..."I'm not so sure that the government's approach of eliminating spouse is the right approach,' he said.

"The vast majority of marriages, no matter what, are still going to be husbands and wives, males and females, and I think we have to be careful that we don't neuter all the language just to accommodate what may be a half a per cent of all marriage."

The British fertility watchdog today announced it is to broaden its rules on embryo screening to allow the birth of "designer babies" to cure sick siblings. It means that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has changed its policy to allow screening for purposes other than weeding out genetic disorders.

"It's like Muzak," said Mr. Klopper, 58, a landlord on the Upper West Side. "Sometimes it has no meaning. Sometimes you're not even listening. But it's there all the time, and I miss it."

Badgett has no trouble accepting the idea that gay marriage might be an effect of an increasing cultural separation between marriage and parenthood. But how could gay marriage be a product of this cultural trend without also locking in and reinforcing that same cultural stance? 

The reason why out of wedlock births are on the increase is because it is simply possible to arrange proper contracts for joint parenthood quite easily without marriage in the Netherlands now and quite a few people like it that way. The insinuation that this results in unstable parenting is preposterous.

[T]he meaning of traditional marriage was transformed every bit as much by the decade-long national movement for gay marriage in Holland as by eventual legal success.

How convenient. Now, merely campaigning for equal marriage rights weakens marriage. So you can blame the fags for the decline of an institution they have had nothing to do with. A million sighs of relief go up from the social conservatives.

The women married on June 18, 2003, a week after a landmark court decision legalized same-sex marriage in Ontario, Canada's most populous province. They had been together for nearly 10 years, but separated after five days of marriage.

The women are now seeking to change Canada's divorce law, which still applies only to marriages between a man and a woman.
...
Their hasty split, after such a long premarital relationship, raised questions as to whether the women were divorcing simply to test Canada's laws. Martha McCarthy, a lawyer for the other woman, said they were parting over differences just as any other couple might.
One of the women sought to shield her identity to avoid the embarrassment and the "stigma" of being the first divorced gay couple.

...arguments tying benefits to marriage are being used to justify repressive federal "marriage promotion" policies that pressure single mothers receiving welfare benefits to marry, and deny them (and their children) significant benefits if they do not. 

We are residents of Massachusetts who have been in a committed relationship for 20 years. Yet, two months ago--when the state began allowing same-sex weddings--we made a decision not to get married. Although we affirm the right of gays and lesbians to marry, we chose not to do so because we wanted to challenge the ways our society distributes rights and benefits according to marital status. Now that Bush-camp Republicans are preparing a major offensive on the supposed threat to the social order posed by gay marriage, we find ourselves walking a familiar tightrope.
...
As the Massachusetts judges themselves noted, marriage is a conservative force. "The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other...brings stability to our society," they said. Ironically, in affirming gay-marriage rights, the judges invoked the same traditional argument Republicans are using in their opposition. Both are telling us, in different ways, that marriage is central to the social order.

A focus on the right to marry contributes to the perpetuation of a norm of coupledness in our society. That norm marginalizes single people, single parents, those widowed or divorced and those living in nontraditional households; including many in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.

Seeking expanded benefits through marriage also contributes to what amounts to the increasing privatization of responsibility of caring for children, the elderly, the ill and disabled. Thus, in the case of children, the Massachusetts decision argues that gay marriage is good for society because children ought to be raised by two parents.

Yet, precisely such arguments tying benefits to marriage are being used to justify repressive federal "marriage promotion" policies that pressure single mothers receiving welfare benefits to marry, and deny them (and their children) significant benefits if they do not.

Some Sense Knocked into Girlfriend's Son

ENOCHVILLE, NC--Stu Ayden knocked some sense into the thick skull of 9-year-old Jesse Wilkerson Monday night. "Since Jesse's real father is not around, it is sometimes necessary for another man, in this case Ayden, to step in as a male parent surrogate," said Dr. Frank Gillette, a child psychologist. "Jesse spilled half a glass of Hi-C fruit punch on the carpet of Ayden's mobile home, so as Jesse's mother's boyfriend, it was his responsibility to answer the behavior with a thorough ass-beating." When questioned by reporters, Ayden said he is glad to serve as Jesse's caretaker so long as his mama keeps payin' the rent.

"[Monogamy is] one of the pillars of heterosexual marriage.... Could it be that the inclusion of lesbian and gay same-sex marriage may, in fact, sort of de-center the notion of monogamy and allow the prospect that marriage need not be an exclusive sexual relationship among people?"

Ultimately gay people only want what straight people already have: the right for each couple to define marriage for themselves. Kids? No kids? Sexually exclusive? Open relationship? A lifetime? A starter marriage? Other people's standards -- particularly their double standards -- do not bind straight couples. They shouldn't bind gay ones either. 

[M]arriage is never viewed as merely a private matter, but is everywhere publicly surrounded with legal, cultural, religious, moral, and familial supports all of which impinge on an individual's rights and choices, once the marriage is made. 

Same-sex-marriage advocates have argued that marriage is nothing more than a personal choice, that what gay people were denied is the "freedom to marry." But marriage -- or any legal or social contact -- never concerns only one or two people. It concerns the entire fabric of the society in which they live.

But the simple fact remains that the fight for marriage equality is at its essence not a progressive fight, but rather a deeply conservative one that seeks to maintain the social norm of the two-partnered relationship -- with or without children -- as more valuable than any other relational configuration.

Things fall apart when 25 percent of the male population is jobless. ... Men in a permanent state of joblessness are in no position to take on the roles of husband and father. Marriage? Forget about it. Child support? Ditto.

How sad that child support even makes it as a question.

But of course Herbert is right: black male unemployment is a huge, huge impediment to more stable families.  If you missed Katherine Boo's phenomenal article on the subject, The Black Gender Gap, don't worry, it's still here.  For the wonkishly inclined, here's Bruce Reed of the Democratic Leadership Council arguing that policy should expect poor non-custodial dads to work just as we expect poor single mothers to work.  The problem is that there isn't a big political constituency for improving the employment status of low-income black men.  But it's the right thing to do.

"Look how good this divorce has been for you," Grandma says. "It's what has extended your family."

Beyond the proscription on sex outside marriage, evangelicals grapple with relationship issues many other young Americans do not, spiritual leaders and authors say. For example, many single people raised in conservative Christian denominations believe it is not necessary to actively pursue a partner. "They believe that God will deliver their mate to their doorstep," said Ben Young, an associate pastor at Second Baptist Church in Houston and author of the book "The Ten Commandments of Dating." "What I always tell these people is, `Well, then the only person you're going to meet is the postman or a Jehovah's Witness.' " Mr. Young said.

Such passivity, some ministers and Christian counselors say, can lead to the sort of poor decisions that result in failed marriages. Consequently, many of the new books stress a near-scientific approach to analyzing compatibility. A recent book by the popular Christian writer H. Norman Wright, "101 Questions to Ask Before You Get Engaged," asks couples to reveal not only what they might ask Jesus to change in their lives, but also what they would like to say to their parents that they never did.

"There's a belief that as long as you marry a Christian and you're turned on to that person, that's enough," said Neil Clark Warren, the author of spiritually minded relationship guides like "Date ... Or Soul Mate?"

Nowadays, due to work schedules and other complications, many couples can't get away for their honeymoon right after their wedding. Some couples opt to delay their honeymoon until a more convenient time. Others take a nice romantic trip together within a month or two of the wedding, either to make up for a lack of a honeymoon, or because the actual honeymoon will be delayed for until many months after the wedding. I call this trip a "preneymoon."

In a similar vein to Constance Ahrons, in the latest issue of Chicago Parent magazine I found this astonishing statement in an article called Divorcing Well: Keeping Your Family Together When Your Marriage is Falling Apart: "Putting your children's interests first starts at the beginning of the process." Never for a moment the suggestion that putting your children's interest first might mean keeping your marriage together.

This column by Ehrenreich is terrifically written, wonderfully entertaining, and utterly obtuse about its central point. While she's right to note the absurdity of promoting marriage for the poor while attacking it for poor gays, she's wrong to take aim at the idea of marriage education in lower income areas. Children born to single-mothers -- or for that matter, single fathers -- are far more likely to be born into poverty, 50% more likely to drop-out of high school and 20% more likely to have a child as a teen. This is not, as some would argue, the fault of single mothers. It's very much the fault of having one parent who needs to support x children on one income -- there's simply less time for parenting. Two parent families offer more support and supervision flexibility than do one parent households, and that's simply good for the kids. It's clearly not a cure for poverty, but two incomes make the financial pain less excruciating.

For the Bush Administration to offer classes helping with marriage skills like communication and conflict resolution is immensely positive; relationships require work and an interpersonal expertise that very few are born with. Where they fail is in denying marriage to couples who genuinely and desperately want it; couples who could adopt and care for children who'd otherwise be shuttled from one foster home to the next. Ehrenreich should aim her guns at this contradiction. Instead, she attacks the Bush Administration for denying and promoting marriage, leaving her argument as incomprehensible as theirs.

A new green paper will propose giving both parents "frequent and continuous contact" with their children. But fathers' rights campaigners have complained that the changes would not enshrine "shared parenting" in law ... The proposed legislation due out next week is expected to introduce the idea of "parenting plans" to improve contact with children. The BBC's Graham Satchell said that mediation would not be compulsory but would become standard practice, leaving courts to concentrate on the most difficult cases. But Gary Birch, of campaign group Fathers 4 Justice, said: "They are not going to provide a legal presumption of shared parenting and unless you have got that balance, that equality within the system, then you can't mediate because there is a gun against your head as the non-resident parent."

The petitioners also have been galvanized by the Goodridge court decision in Massachusetts, which legalized same-sex "marriage" in that state as of May 17.

In a milestone for same-sex parents, a married lesbian couple from Jamaica Plain is believed to be the first homosexual pair recognized as parents on their child's birth certificate. Cora Roelofs and Liz Steinhauser are named as mother and "second parent'' on a certificate issued by the town of Wellesley and approved by the state ... The milestone became possible when same-sex couples gained the right to marry in Massachusetts on May 17. Under state law, married couples that have a child through artifical insemination are automatically recognized as parents. Officials with the state Department of Public Health said yesterday no final decisions have been made on whether to change the wording on birth certificates, which currently have spaces for a mother and father.

Here's the situation: Marriage licenses have already been changed as a result of Goodridge.  Gov. Mitt Romney testified that immediately after May 17, the Dept. of Health began to argue that it was also  obligated by Goodridge to change states birth certificates from "mother" and "father" to "Parent A and Parent B."  Romney has so far resisted the change (supported apparently by Child Support Enforcement). Ultimately the answer will be up to he same court that found there was no reason, other than animus, the people of Massachussetts might want to reserve marriage licenses to husbands and wives.  As I noted in an earlier NRO column, the Massachusetts court has laid down a marker in Goodridge, describing something called the "presumption of parentage"  (formerly known as the "presumption of paternity") as one of the rights and benefits conferred by marriage.  Lots of things will have to change if the court is going to deliver on its promise that two men (or women) raising kids will be viewed and treated by the state as no different than a husband and wife.