Marriage on The Huffington Post

Annabelle Gurwitch: The Year End Round-Up in Marriage

2009-12-22T13:18:45Z

It has been a banner year for marital tankings. We're talking supreme tankage here. Famous flameouts from the world of politics, sports, and celebrities provided countless hours of entertainment, overtime work for journalists, and taught millions of us the names of minor porn stars heretofore unknown (Ladies and gents... Jamie Jungers?).

So, let's do a round-up of the extreme highs and the lowest of the lows of marital woes 2009.

1. Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren
This was marriage blow-up #1 with a bullet!

She Says: I don't have problem with Tiger. Men like sex. Men like to have sex with women they're not married to. Where was the news here? Besides, isn't the possibility of acquiring as much quality vagina as possible why men want to be successful and rich? Alas, Americans look down on this, publicly. However, as much as we drag our prized pets through the mud, we love seeing them redeem themselves. I predict that six months into the new year, Tiger -- post-sex rehab with Dr. Drew -- will regain his endorsements and Gatorade will change their slogan to, "I'll have what he's having."

He Says: Tiger must be stopped; it's just not fair! As a lowly beta male I can't even imagine the temptation Tiger Woods has to deal with on a daily, perhaps hourly, even minute-to-minute basis. The world is his vagina. The eminent evolutionary psychologist, Robert Wright theorizes that monogamy evolved to prevent males like Tiger Woods who can have literally thousands of wives which would leave men like me, Jeff Kahn, with none. Wright believes and rightly so that nothing is more dangerous to society than a pack of frustrated Jeff Kahns roaming around without a chance in hell of procreating.

2. Mark and Jenny Sanford
This was fun from Mark's first lie to his last.

She Says: It's sad! Though the governor will pine and beg Jenny to let him have more time to fall in love with her again, he will be spurned and spend the next year nostalgically campaigning to have the signage in the Appalachian trial translated into Spanish.

He Says: It's stupid! Mark's biggest mistake was flying back to South Carolina from Argentina. He should have resigned as Governor, gotten a divorce, married his Argentinean hottie, and then rode that wave of political passion all the way to being president of Argentina. They love this kind of thing down there. No one sings, "Don't Cry For Me South Carolina" do they?

3. Frank and Jamie McCourt
Foul Play.

He Says: If money were an aphrodisiac, this couple would never leave their bed, but instead they're trying to screw each other legally. Jamie wants her job back as CEO of the Dodgers, plus $488,925 a month for living expenses ($330,000 goes toward her residences and vacation homes). It's gonna get ugly, folks. I feel bad for their children. And by children I mean the Dodgers.

She Says: My favorite aspect of this contentious debate is that his lawyers are accusing her of having an affair with her driver, which McCourt's attorney has deemed, "an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate employee." What would he say if she had an affair with a player? I'm rooting for Jaime and her driver. I'm tired of men in powerful positions sleeping with employees. Thank you Jamie, for breaking the glass bedspring.

4. Jon and Kate
The real reality of the couple trying to create reality is that they suck at it.

She Says: The worst part of their divorce, sadly, is that many of us who managed to miss the show know the name Gosselin, which is a terrible sign of how reality TV culture has migrated into mainstream news. I predict Jon will meet Madonna at Kabbalah and after losing custody of his own kids become the manny for her children, Kate will lose custody of her children to the Octomom who will need to get more children in her brood to compete with the new 19-kid show on TLC.

He Says: I never watched their show, I don't read about them in gossip magazines, but just seeing their photos on the cover at the supermarket checkout makes me never want to watch or read anything about them ever again.

5. Madonna and Guy Richie
This marriage didn't have Like a Prayer.

He Says: Richie gave her a baby and a really bad movie to star in -- what more could a material girl want? No seriously, I think what Madonna was really after in this union was a chance to try out her British accent and when the world collectively cringed, it was only a matter of time before Madge dropped the hubby and the accent, and hopped the pond back to the States.

She Says: Madge looks great. Just great. What is she doing and who is doing it? Divorce? Whatever? Who's her dermatologist?

6. Avril and Deryck
Ah, the stupidity of youth.

He says: Avril Lavigne and Deryck Whibley, winners of the 2009 Very-Odd-Celebrity-Names-and-Who-Cares-That-They're-Getting-a-Divorce Award.

She Says: I think their divorce is robbing the world of equally incomprehensibly-spelled children's names: Abigile, Alleysun, Dawren, Duglous. It's a loss, really.

7. Senator John Ensign's affair with his friend and colleague's wife, Cindy Hamilton
Family Values go to Hell

He Says: On the Senate floor, John Ensign declared,

"Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded. For those who say that the Constitution is so sacred that we cannot or should not adopt the Federal Marriage Amendment. It is not right to mold marriage to fit the desires of a few, against the wishes of so many, and to ignore the important role of marriage."

Sitting at my desk, Jeff Kahn declares, "John Ensign you're a huge fu#*ing hypocrite and the next time you're casting stones at gay marriage not being sacred remember to throw a big fat rock in your own lying cheating face. Good day, sir!"

She Says: Ensign was simply following in the footsteps of Nevada's governor, Jim Gibbons, who last spring was accused by his wife of sending more than 800 text messages to a mistress in 2007. Just another way that technology has let us down.

8. Marriage itself

2009 saw marital happiness lower than ever (same sex couples can marry in Iowa and D.C. but not in the West Village), but even more troubling, low property values and joint health care plans are forcing many couples to stay together. When the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers polled its 1,600 members, nearly 40 percent said that filings were down by 40 percent. We hope the economy recovers so couples can return to business as usual in America. And by that we mean screwing up their relationships and getting the chance to divorce repeatedly (like family values champion Rush Limbaugh, who announced that he'll marry wife #4 on July 4th, 2010).

Emma Ruby-Sachs: Obama Won't Push Equal Rights Law in the Right Direction

2009-12-22T08:14:24Z

American Presidents are famous for stretching the letter of the law: Nixon's attempt to sabotage the Democratic Party, Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal, George Bush's extraordinary rendition. When the political climate demands, the Executive is often willing to push the edges of legal behavior in order to achieve a political end.

But when it comes to gay rights, Obama doesn't want to breathe on the boundaries of the law, let alone give them the shove they need.

On Friday, the Office of Personnel Management -- a Federal agency controlled by the Obama administration -- refused to comply with a court order to extend family health benefits to a Federal staff attorney who has a same-sex partner. In an apologetically worded memo, the OPM stated that the Defense of Marriage Act barred the agency from recognizing same-sex partners as family members -- even for the purposes of the health plan. DOMA meant that the court order must be ignored.

This is one logical approach to the situation.

Justice Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has a different perspective: He states in his order that the Federal Employee Health Benefit Act creates general guidelines for minimum health coverage. For example, the health plan must cover an employee's children, but the upper age limit for the definition of "children" can be extended far beyond the common understanding of that term (age 25 perhaps) and still comply with the Act. Or, while the Act requires spouses be covered under the health plan, it says nothing about the ability of the Federal government to extend health coverage to same-sex partners in addition to spouses. There is no legally mandated upper limit when it comes to health insurance provision.

Justice Kozinski uses sound legal reasoning to grant the Obama administration permission to widen the umbrella. He points out, this broader health insurance provision would harmonize state and federal law on a touchy subject while still complying with the dictates of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act and DOMA.

Perhaps another Judge would see things differently. But as long as there is a plausible opportunity to provide equal rights, shouldn't an administration committed to equal rights jump at the chance to do the right thing?

The Obama administration would rather hide behind apologies and Department of Justice memos: "The decision in this matter was not reached lightly -- after we learned of this development, we examined our options and consulted with the DOJ. ...DOJ advised us that the order issued by Judge Kozinski does not supersede our obligation to comply with existing law."

While they pretend that the law is a concrete inflexible animal incapable of multiple interpretations, LGBT rights in this country continue to languish without the benefit of strong political leadership. This is a missed opportunity, and indicative of a dangerous tendency to avoid and ignore opportunities to fulfill election obligations put forward by Obama not so many months ago.

John Gray: Why Would Tiger Cheat On His Wife?

2009-12-21T17:28:35Z

I've been asked that a lot lately.

Since Tiger Woods' auto accident early on the morning of November 27th, his closely guarded private life has quickly unraveled as names of women involved with the married professional golfer have been leaked to the media at a rate even faster than the departure of many of his lucrative sponsorship contracts.

It puzzles many because Mr. Woods appears to be "the guy who has it all." He has a former model for a wife, two adorable children, great wealth, and a career in golf that has always shown the promise of unprecedented accomplishments.

At the time that Tiger married Elin Nordegren in 2004, he was reportedly asked why he chose to marry this Swedish beauty. His reply was, simply, "Because I can."

Obviously his answer was not indicative of a deep attachment to his new bride so much as the whim of a young and powerful man with great wealth.

Attraction, passion, respect, and trust are the four cornerstones of commitment. These traits are tested through time. They ebb and flow as we grow and mature. But if they stay in place during the stormy times, the marriage will last.

Ultimately, what keeps passion alive--in any relationship--are qualities that go well beyond beauty. For the attraction to last, there has to be a passion that goes beyond the strong physical connection as well. Having a partner of great physical beauty is like moving into a home with a fabulous view. At first the view is all that you see. After a year or less you notice the view less, and you focus more on the things that "need to be fixed."

Power is a potent aphrodisiac. It attracts all sorts of temptations. Obviously, if you are secure in yourself and your relationship, if you and your partner are passionate, you'll notice other attractive people--but you won't pursue those opportunities. Why should you? You are already in a happy, healthy relationship. There is so much too lose, and absolutely nothing lasting to gain.

Paul Newman put it best: "Why should I go out for hamburger when I have steak at home?"

What problems exist in this marriage is a matter for idle speculation, but I strongly suspect that this was not a satisfying sexual relationship for either partner. If he saw the conquest of other women as a form of validation, he was shortchanging his marriage. If Elin, his wife, did not question her own needs, let alone recognize his, in time this disconnect would have driven them apart.

Well, that time has now come.

It will be an expensive lesson for Mr. Woods, both financially and emotionally. Still, I'm guessing his bank account will bounce back before his ability to commit his heart again.

The bottom line: money and beauty cannot save a relationship that suffers from too little love.

Watch John Gray Talk About Why Tiger Cheated:

Video originally published on YourTango.com

John Gray, Ph.D is the author of 16 relationship advice books, including Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, one of the best-selling books of the last decade. You can reach him through his online magazine: www.marsvenusliving.com

Philip N. Cohen: Is the Recession Really Saving Marriages?

2009-12-19T14:50:00Z

The National Marriage Project, under the editorship of the sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox, has released a report titled The State of Our Unions, 2009: Money and Marriage. It has a lot of useful information on marriage and families, with some editorial bending in the pro-marriage-and-family direction.

My beef here is with the chapter titled "The Great Recession's Silver Lining?" In it, Wilcox writes:

Judging by divorce trends, many couples appear to be developing a new appreciation for the economic and social support that marriage can provide in tough times. Thus, one piece of good news emerging from the last two years is that marital stability is up.

That line was quoted by Ross Douthat at the New York Times, which is a shame, because there is no evidence about anyone's appreciation for marriage in the chapter. Instead, the evidence for this assertion is presented in a graph that shows three data points in the divorce-rate trend:

The figure shows a decline in the divorce rate from 2007 to 2008. In the press release he calls that drop "the first annual dip since 2005." (The rate shown here is divorces in a given year per 1,000 married women in the population that year.) Couple things:

1. There is no data point for 2006, so for all we know the divorce rate actually rose higher than it was in 2007, and started falling before the recession, which officially began in December 2007.

2. Despite the dramatic turnaround apparent in this graph, it's really not enough to go on to draw the kind of conclusion he draws.

The second point is more important, because there really is a lot of research that shows job loss increases the odds of divorce. So why should this recession be different? It's possible it is, but there's no evidence - in this report or elsewhere that I've seen - of such a change.

In fairness, Wilcox wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal that musters some anecdotal evidence for his theory. But nothing to get him this far: "For most married Americans, the Great Recession seems to be solidifying, not eroding, the marital bond." Even if the divorce did drop a little in one year - that doesn't say anything about "most married Americans."

That three-point graph is especially unfortunate because it leads to interpretations like this: "The divorce rate ... had previously been on an upward path, rising from 16.4 divorces per 1,000 married women in 2005 to 17.5 in 2007." That seriously misstates the real trend in divorce rates, which have actually been falling since 1981. And there is nothing in the trend to suggest that recessions teach couples a "new appreciation for the economic and social support that marriage can provide in tough times." In the appendix, Wilcox presents that longer trend, which makes his previous figure seem much less dramatic.

(The graph seems a little off to me - notice how 10.6 is closer to the line for 10 than 14.9 is to the line for 15 - but I'll work from his numbers below anyway.)

I think the story of a turnaround in divorce rates has traction because, like crime, divorce is one of those things many people assume is always getting worse (I see this in student papers frequently). So any decline in divorce rates looks like an important change.

What is recession's effect?

I previously speculated that, because this recession was costing so many men their jobs, more men were likely to be become primary caregivers, and do more housework. The downside - I speculated - was that "maybe men getting 'stuck' with childcare doesn't bode well for marriages." To support that speculation, I showed a graph of divorce rates that had little upward spikes during some recent recessions. The graph was not the real evidence for the argument - which was here:

We already know that economic hard times contribute to marital instability and divorce. Studyafter study after study have found that losing a job increases the likelihood of divorce, with some evidence that husbands' losses matter more.

Here is a new graph I made, with the "crude divorce rate" (divorces per 1,000 people in the population) in blue, superimposed over Wilcox's calculations in red. (His takes more work, which is probably why he doesn't have it for every year. But they track quite well, with some pulling apart some after 1980, which has to do with changes in the population composition that probably aren't important.) I also put the recessions on there, roughly, by hand with purple bars.

Source: Divorce rates from 2010 Statistical Abstract and various prior years; business cycles from 2010 Statistical Abstract.

Two things here:

1. Over the longer run, there is no obvious relationship between recessions and the divorce rate. There are big social forces at work here (like the rise of the legal practice of no-fault divorce, the increase in women's education and employment, the growing tendency of men and women of similar education levels to marry, later age at marriage, more cohabitation and unmarried childbearing, etc.). But on the surface - which is where the Wilcox conclusion is drawn - there is not much to go on.

2. The crude divorce rate I got from the Statistical Abstracts shows a little peak in 2006 - not 2007 - followed by two consecutive years of decline, beginning before the recession. So rather than talk about the reason for the decline in the last year - which really just fits in with the falling divorce rates since 1981 - the anomaly is 2006. I have no explanation for that, but in the long run it probably doesn't matter much.

I doubt the final word will end up as simple as, "Couples too broke to bicker," as heartwarming as that is. There may be something to the speculation that falling home prices are stalling some divorce plans, but that is not quite the same as developing a newfound appreciation for the benefits of marriage.

I'm sticking with this: in hard times, families are a big part of how people make it through, but hard times are also hard for a lot of marriages. If it's true that the husband's job loss especially increases stress on a marriage - as previous research suggests - we may yet see that emerge for the current crisis. If not, maybe something has changed.

Cross posted from the Family Inequality blog.

Anne Naylor: Can Your Vows Enrich Your Marriage In 2010?

2009-12-19T10:50:31Z

In a couple of weeks, you may be making New Year's resolutions. The start of a new decade, time to begin again with fresh hope and a chance to better your life. More exercise, better diet, wiser spending, a meditation routine? Resolution sounds very final and definite, and yet have you ever found that not long into a new year, resolutions are forgotten with the Christmas decorations, and life springs back to "normal?"

Resolutions, like commitments, agreements or vows, need to be at least in part workable. If not, you may feel disappointed with yourself, lose trust and confidence in your ability to direct your life as an accountable adult. I do not like resolutions. My preference is to set an intention, a direction that sets me on a certain course that I can refer to later. If I go "off track", what then? I can check whether the intention is still valid for me and modify it if necessary. I can also forgive myself when I fall short of my best intention.

What about the vows you exchange with a loved one for marriage or lifelong partnership? Do they still hold up from year to year? Do you even remember what they were? Vows can be seen as the bridge between romantic love and the love that lasts a lifetime. For better or worse, the commitment to love can lead to emotional maturity, understanding, compassion and appreciation of yourself and your loved one.

Any lifelong partnership will go through twists and turns. Nothing stays exactly the same. Negotiating the rocky moments will invite you to open and expand your love -- for yourself and your partner.

A partnership is like a growing plant. It needs regular nourishing. What is the equivalent of the sun and water that your relationship needs in order to flourish, blossom and bear fruit? The harvest can include a sense of security, trust, peace of mind, fun and laughter, self-confidence and well-being. In short, the return on investing your time and attention will be a growth of your love, individually and together.

Here are some suggestions for enriching your close partnership:

1. Make time for your loved one

The demands of work and a growing family can be a big distraction from nurturing your loved one. Each week, set aside an hour or two to be with the special person in your life.

I love you, not for what you are, but for what I am when I am with you.
Roy Croft

2. Communicate -- what is true for you

To be honest, you need to feel safe from threat or criticism. Do not make your own feelings wrong or bad. They are just feelings and can change from one moment to the next.

God turns you from one feeling to another and teaches by means of opposites,
so that you will have two wings to fly, not one.
Rumi

3. Listen

Keep your heart open and do not take what is said personally.

Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation.
Rumi

4. Be willing to forgive past mistakes...
.... and let go of disappointment, misunderstanding, hurt feelings. What have you learnt from your experiences? How can you now be enriched through them?

Love is, above all else, the gift of oneself
Jean Anouilh

5. Plan together -- share your dreams

Do you have any hidden dreams that you have not aired before? How will your next year together be most rewarding and fulfilling for each other? What are the areas for which you would like special support, encouragement and comfort? How will you best be dealing with any challenges you now face? How could you be rewarding and celebrating your love?

I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
William Butler Yeats

6. Acknowledge and appreciate each other

Notice and record the good deeds done, love expressed, challenges met and overcome in 2009. Be a kind witness to your partner and their endeavours. We are all of us doing the best we can in all of our circumstances. When we know better, we do better. Become a loving observer to your beloved.

Love is the feeling of wanting to be of service to others; love is not for your own sake.
Ryuho Okawa

7. Choose one vow to sustain and grow your love over the next year

For example, to take time each week to share your thoughts and ideas; to express your feelings honestly and without blame; to be a better listener; to take a special weekend away just the two of you.

I am like a falling star who has finally found her place next to another
in a lovely constellation, where we will sparkle in the heavens forever.
Amy Tan

Communication is the cornerstone to successful relationships. If you have not already read it, you might enjoy my recent post: Do You Know Your Love Language?

There is nothing more precious and enduring than the genuine love felt and expressed between two people. The spark of early romance can deepen and grow into a love that blesses a family and the larger community around it. When times are difficult, we most need, and can nurture, our inner strengths. When the good times come round again, there will be plenty more to celebrate.

Have your vows been meaningful for you? What do you appreciate most in your loved one? How would you like to celebrate your love in the New Year?

Please feel free to leave a comment below, or contact me at anne@annenaylor.com 
Re-tweet or pass to friends who may benefit from this post.  

For updates on The New Wealth Book, click here: The New Wealth Book blog. The latest: New Wealth, Forgiving And The Spirit Of Generosity

For information on my future blogs, click on Become A Fan at the top.

Christopher Brauchli: Catholic Charities Meet the DC Council

2009-12-17T14:28:58Z

He who is near the Church is often far from God.  -- Les Proverbes Communs (c.1500)

It was a pretty easy call for Pope Benedict XVI. He expressed outrage over the tales of abuse of children in Ireland. It turns out that when Jesus said, "Suffer little children to come unto me," what happened in Ireland was not what Jesus had in mind.

The Pope was said to be "deeply disturbed and distressed" by the report of the Independent Commission of Investigation known as the Murphy Report. It examined more than 300 abuse claims in the Archdiocese of Dublin between 1975 and 2004. The 700-page report said that instead of being concerned for the victims of the abuse, the Church was more concerned about "the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the church and the preservation of its assets." (The last item is easy to sympathize with since a number of dioceses in the United States have been driven into bankruptcy because of the claims of victims of sexual abuse.)

The Pope expressed that he shares "the outrage, betrayal and shame" experienced by the folks in Ireland over the disclosure of years of sexual abuse of children by priests in Dublin that went unpunished even after it was detected by the local police.

According to the Catholic News Service, he plans to write a special pastoral letter to Catholics in Ireland. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin said that a pastoral letter was "quite a significant document" and would mark the beginning of a whole process aimed at "a very significant reorganization of the church in Ireland."

The Pope probably won't have to spend a lot of time writing the letter. He can use some of the same language he used in 2008 when describing his distress at sexual abuse by those who work for him (and the Lord) in the United States and Australia.

As pleased as one has to be with the Pope's willingness to confess error, as it were, one cannot help but feel a touch of sadness that notwithstanding its distress over the Irish scandal. Its distress is not enough to cause it to abandon its willingness to abandon the poor and distressed in Washington D.C., now that the D.C. Council has acted.

On December 15, 2009, the D.C. Council voted 11-2 in favor of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the District. Subject to Congressional review within 30 days after its final passage, the District will join the states that already recognize same sex marriage. That distresses the Pope and his employees almost as much as sexual abuse of children. But, and this is unfortunate, the distress threatens to manifest itself not in a relatively harmless (if "significant document," as Archbishop Martin described it) pastoral letter, but in a withholding of support for the poor in the district. (The poor in Ireland can be grateful that the Pope's disapproval of what went on there is punished by a pastoral letter rather than withholding support from the needy.)

When the possibility of approval of same-sex marriage reared its head in November, spokespersons for Catholic Charities said they might eliminate social service programs that, among other things, help the poor with homelessness and health care.

Catholic Charities has long been a significant provider of benefits to those living in the District. According to the Catholic on Line, each year "it serves 68,000 people . . . through a range of services, including shelter, nutrition, counseling, employment and job training services legal and health care assistance, immigration assistance and more." It has been receiving $18 to $20 million annually for its services.

The bill does not require religious organizations to let same sex couples wed in disapproving churches' facilities or require the churches to perform the services. However, the church is worried that it might have to give same sex couples employed by the church employee benefits offered to couples in traditional relationships.

If the church is seeking peace of mind on this question, rather than political propaganda, it might wish to consult with Nancy Pollikoff, a law professor at American University.

In a thoughtful analysis of the question Ms. Pollikoff observes that the church could opt out of the requirement imposed by the District that requires that heterosexual spouses and same-sex domestic partners receive equal benefits. The church has the option of electing to be subject to federal law rather than the District's law and federal law does not require employers to treat same sex partners the same as married couples.

If the Pope is as concerned about helping the needy as his employees suggest, perhaps he could write a pastoral letter complaining about the District's actions and permit Catholic Charities to continue their useful work. The new law in D.C. hardly seems to warrant a harsher response than that given the Murphy Report. Christopher Brauchli can be e-mailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu. For political commentary see his web page at http://humanraceandothersports.com.

John W. Whitehead: Christmas Without Carol

2009-12-17T13:04:00Z

"Oh, you lucky Henry."--The angel to the Bishop concerning Julia, The Bishop's Wife

It's been a little over six months since my wife Carol passed away. Carol and I were married for 42 years and spent nearly every day together. She helped me found The Rutherford Institute and worked alongside me, never more than a few feet away. Unlike many couples whose outside interests take them in opposite directions, Carol and I were joined at the hip. We did everything together. Thus, when she passed away, I was devastated and more alone than I've ever been in my life.

Every occasion that Carol would have delighted in has become a little death for me now--Thanksgiving and Christmas and New Year's and Valentine's Day--all those occasions she fussed over and planned for endlessly, for weeks on end.

Now with Christmas approaching, my heart has that sinking feeling--like a dying sun at sunset. Everywhere I turn, I am accosted by reminders of the season--and the delight Carol took in them: bell-ringing Santas on the sidewalk, colorful displays in store windows, Christmas commercials and movies every time I turn on the television, carols on the radio. The memories, at once precious and painful, come flooding back.

You see, for Carol, Christmas was much more than a mere holiday. It was the ultimate holiday, something that could and would bring the family together even when our five children grew up. And she was right. It was the one day when we all gathered to open presents, laugh and eat dinner together--a feast that Carol joyously planned for weeks and cooked all by herself.

There were times when there were so many Christmas lights both inside and outside the house that I actually wondered whether we wouldn't cause a blackout from all the electricity we were drawing off. Carol even ran lights down both sides of the driveway and along the eaves of the house, sometimes hanging off the roof to get them just right.

Then there was the Christmas tree. Each year, we loaded the kids up and drove to the tree farm, in search of the perfect tree. And each year, we drove home with a tree that was somehow larger than the one from the year before. Without fail, by the time we had trimmed the tree with all the decorations the kids had made over the years, we would have to anchor it to the wall to keep it upright. When our children were small, a toy train circled the Christmas tree stand.

Even when we had little money to spare, Carol always managed to make Christmas a celebration. My parents never really celebrated Christmas, but Carol turned me onto the magic of Christmas, and I found myself responding with the eagerness of a child.

Every weekend, for weeks leading up to Christmas, I would take the kids out shopping, helping them search for just the right present for Carol. Then Carol and I would shop for the kids, taking pains to sneak the packages in and hide them from their eager eyes. Finally, on Christmas morning, when the kids were small, I would disappear, only to reappear to their wonder and amazement as Santa Claus, with a bagful of presents.

One year, as a tribute to Carol, my very own "Christmas Carol," I greeted her every morning with a drawing of one of the "Twelve Days of Christmas" and a personal serenade, with the kids providing a choral backup. Carol kept the drawings and hung them up in our kitchen every Christmas after that. And for years afterwards, in the days leading up to Christmas, I kept up the practice of serenading her for twelve days, beginning with the first verse of the song: "On the first day of Christmas, my true love gave to me, a partridge in a pear tree..."

Even when the kids were all grown and out of the house, Carol and I still celebrated Christmas in a special way. Over time, we established our own traditions. One of those traditions involved our annual Christmas moviefest. We'd turn the lights off and curl up on the couch together, warmed by the glow of the Christmas tree, and we'd watch Christmas movies--especially the old black and white ones: Scrooge, It's a Wonderful Life, A Holiday Affair.

Carol's all-time favorite was the 1947 Christmas movie The Bishop's Wife, starring three of her favorite actors, Cary Grant, Loretta Young and David Niven. The film is about a preoccupied young clergyman (Niven) who, in his quest to raise funds for a new cathedral, loses sight of the important things in his life, the most important being his marriage to a wonderful woman, Julia (Young). Only divine intervention can save his marriage, and help comes in the form of a charming angel (Grant), curiously named Dudley, who falls in love with Julia.

I wasn't oblivious to the parallels. All too often, I played the part of the distracted bishop, so focused on work and deadlines that I neglected the best thing in my life--Carol.

Carol loved this movie so much that one year, hoping to amuse her, I planned a "date" in which we reenacted three scenes from the movie--eating at Julia's favorite restaurant, visiting her friend the professor and going ice skating. We ate at our favorite restaurant, visited the professor (our son Jayson unknowingly stood in as the professor), and then we went ice skating. Since neither of us could ice skate, we stopped at our pond, which was frozen over at the time and touched the toes of our shoes to the ice. Then we kissed.

It was one of those perfect days. Carol laughed and smiled, and I joined in, happy to have pleased my Julia.

I hold fast to these memories, precious glimpses of my life with Carol--one that ended all too soon. But, like all of us who are left behind, I continue to hold onto the hope that one day I'll be with Carol again--in heaven, of course, because that's where she's at right now, happy as can be and probably decorating a Christmas tree.

Laura Trice: What Tiger Woods Can Learn From George Clooney: Why Marry and Have Kids?

2009-12-17T10:58:10Z

I want to ask the readers this question: If Tiger Woods did continue to act single once he was married, then why marry and have children at all if he wasn't ready?

George Clooney is a man who has dated many beautiful women over the years and has made no secret of it. He is single, does not have children and lives his life how he wants to and the public likes him.

The main difference is that is he is not married, has not promised to be faithful to one woman, therefore "forsaking" all others. One of my favorite quotes that I do not know the source of is that the best gift a father can give his children is to love their mother. It is difficult for a child to feel content and loved when Dad is out with multiple women while his wife is home, upset or off balance. So, when men who cheat on their spouses or do other upsetting behaviors but say, "But I love my kids", is that from the father's perspective or the child's experience Kids often can't understand the complexities and just feel unhappy about their mom or parents being unhappy.

Here are some traditional standard vows.

Do you GROOM'S NAME take BRIDE'S NAME to be your wife -- to live together after God's ordinance - in the holy estate of matrimony? Will you love her, comfort her, honor and keep her, in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, in sadness and in joy, to cherish and continually bestow upon her your heart's deepest devotion, forsaking all others, keep yourself only unto her as long as you both shall live?

Some marriages happen to please parents. Others to fit in. Others, to handle an unplanned pregnancy. As reason number seven, here is a good summary of one of the things that can lead to a long term happy marriage.

Marriages that begin because of genuine understanding and caring have better success than those started for the "wrong reasons," such as getting away from home, rebellion, or wanting to be "grown up.

So, why do you think some people choose to marry and have kids, which is essentially making promises of fidelity and loyalty and being consistently available spiritually, physically, emotionally and financially for their wife and children, and then don't follow through? Why not just stay single and sow more wild oats?

Sarah, Duchess of York: Celebrating The Young Victoria

2009-12-17T08:27:43Z

I married Her Majesty the Queen's best looking son. I agreed to become a naval wife. Two weeks after we were married, we were separated; he went to sea, and I went to the second floor apartment at Buckingham Palace. I was so sad without him. I saw him for 40 days for the first five years of our marriage. I was broken hearted. I missed him beyond words, beyond the description in these writings. I needed my man.

So I immersed myself into the life of Victoria and Albert.

I started by a visit to Osborne House on the Isle of Wight. It was the happiest of their homes, where their nine children would act out charades for their parents, and tend the vegetable gardens for the royal table once a month. I became fascinated by the love story of Victoria and Albert. Maybe because my own great love -- my Andrew -- was not at home. But whatever it took I would study with vigour the love story of these two incredible people. Benita Stoney and I worked tirelessly to bring the book to life. Eventually, George Wiedenfeld published it at Osborne House, followed shortly afterwards by The Travels of Queen Victoria and Albert through Europe.

The world had to know of this, the greatest untold love story in history. It had to be made into a movie for Hollywood. The world had to know The Young Victoria.

The black-clad, diminutive figure who suffered racking headaches, and who had a tempestuously volatile temper, was simply not the beautiful, magical young woman who ran down the hills of Coburg with no shoes collecting wild flowers for her hair.

And why do we remember Victoria as always in black? Is it because she lost her greatest love after only 21 years of marriage? Victoria lost her best friend, her lover, her father, her husband, her mentor and her guardian angel. When he died Victoria wrote in her diary that she had lost half her soul and half her body.

When I wrote the book Victoria and Albert: Life at Osbourne House in 1991, extracts from Victoria's diary hugely inspired my idea that this great love story had to become a movie.

Albert died on 14 December 1861, and Victoria reluctantly left Windsor to return to Osbourne where -- on the bitter, desolate January of 1862, three weeks after Albert's death -- she wrote:

"Can I -- can I be alive when half my body and soul are gone?"

She was mourning not just her husband, but the man who had been everything to her: "father, mother, friend, companion, advisor, lover, guardian angel." Without him she felt utterly lost.

"He did everything -- everywhere! Nothing did I do without him, from the greatest to the smallest, from State Affairs, from Political Questions to the arranging (of) our Albums, our little photographs, the designing and ordering of Jewelry, the buying of a dress or a bonnet ... all was done together; my first word was 'I must ask Albert.'"

To all the readers of the Huffington Post, come and join me in celebrating the love story of Young Victoria: a young girl who was the niece of the King and took the crown of England at 18 years of age.

This film is a contemporary love story written by the great Julian Fellowes, directed by Jean Marc Vallee, produced by Martin Scorsese and Graham King, Tim Headington and me, Sarah Ferguson.

Emily Blunt plays Victoria and the beautiful Rupert Friend plays Albert. It has a full British cast and was filmed on location in British castles and palaces. Graham King kept his word when he said this would be a film Her Majesty would be proud of, and Julian Fellowes certainly made the film historically accurate.

I have never been more proud, than when I was standing on a London pavement watching a red double decker bus go by with Emily Blunt's face on it, saying Young Victoria. A seed of an idea, which started some 15 to 17 years ago, was now a huge movie for the big screen, and as the doors of the Odeon, Leicester Square closed, preparing for the next premiere, I smiled inside, knowing that deep down this was my idea, and dreams really do come true if you have the passion and tenacity to hold on firmly and boldly to those dreams ...

"Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it."

-Goethe
(1749-1832)

Joseph Satto: Why Planning a Wedding Should Not Take Longer Than 3 Months

2009-12-16T18:01:00Z

When Maia James asked her now-husband, Daylon, what he was going to wear during their wedding ceremony, he replied, "That's a game-time decision, babe."

"Game-time" was also when he suggested they decide on the cake, music, and flowers (and Maia swears he was only half kidding). Luckily for Daylon, he was marrying a planner. Still, even Maia wasn't sure if three months was enough time but she had no choice; the due date for the birth of her son was four months out. So Maia was thrilled when her friend Kelly recommended mySomeday, which she had used to complete one of her own goals. With the right tools and a good dose of resourcefulness, Maia planned and pulled off an elegant wedding in just three months.

After interviewing Maia for our Spotlight On section, I started to question the conventional wisdom that couples need at least a year to plan their nuptials. What other type of party -- no matter how momentous the occasion -- requires twelve months of planning? A 100th birthday party? A blowout New Years Eve bash? The Olympics? (Okay, maybe the Olympics.) Maia grew and gave birth to an entire human being in less time! Not to mention the money most couples (or their parents) sink into the blessed event--the bride's bouquet alone can be a four-figure hit, and my lovely wife Elle spent a dizzying amount of money getting her hair dried (fine, "blown out straight," but still.)

I digress. It's not my intention to shatter anyone's dream of a storybook walk down the aisle. My hope is that perhaps Maia's story will inspire someone to stop the insanity. The fact is that you can pull off a fantastic wedding in much less than a year, and without being forced to mortgage the farm to finance it. Here are five tips Maia shared for those struggling to plan their nuptials on an abbreviated timeframe.

1. Do it yourself. Maia had the added challenge of a restricted budget, which she and her fiancee tried to overcome by making the wedding a homemade affair, starting with holding the wedding at Daylon's family home on Long Island. Daylon's family and friends prepared the food, and Maia's mom did the flower arrangements. A friend served as the marriage officiant, and an uncle provided the cocktail hour music. And the direct involvement of all of these people made the wedding much more personal and special.

2. Be flexible. With so much less lead-time (and especially in the current economy), you can really bargain with vendors. Maia was able to get the band she wanted at half-price. The flip side of this is that you have to be flexible; you can't have your heart set on only one florist or caterer or location, because odds are they won't all be available on such short notice.

3. Utilize "the cloud". With so many online resources at our fingertips, it can be tough to know where to begin. Maia found sites like theknot.com helpful in sorting through the massive amount of available information around wedding planning. "What really separated mySomeday from the pack was the community aspect," Maia says. "Having others provide support and guidance was key as we made decisions about music, food, my dress...everything!" Also, don't be afraid to exploit your social networks for volunteers or referrals.

4. Remember what's really important (namely, booze, booze, and more booze). The dirty little secret of all married people is that you don't really have fun at your own wedding -- you're too busy having obligatory conversations. So, focus on what matters most to your guests, and skip or cut down on the rest. Little attention is paid to the favors or the selection of fine tablecloths. However, your guests will certainly remember if they had to pay for their own drinks or if the DJ forced everyone to do the Macarena. The other benefit of free drink: if something goes horribly wrong, many of your guests won't even remember it!

5. Don't settle. Just because you don't have a year to plan doesn't mean your wedding has to have a "thrown together" feel. Maia and Daylon had nearly 150 guests and still managed to include fireworks (again, done by friends), a band, and transportation for all guests to and from their hotels. Prioritize what's most important to you, and enlist friends and family (and mySomeday.com!) to help you pull all the pieces together.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I have to come clean on one point: Maia recently admitted that her wedding cost nearly $40,000. I hope another intrepid Somedayer will tackle "Have a Fabulous Wedding Without Dipping into your 401(k)", but for now, let's try to ensure that the planning doesn't last longer than the marriage!)

Tobias Barrington Wolff: A Test for LGBT Equality: Why I Support Dan Hynes for Illinois Governor

2009-12-16T14:27:35Z

Democrats in Illinois are preparing to select their candidate for next year's race for Governor, and the primary election presents an important test in the fight for LGBT equality.

One candidate, Dan Hynes -- the long time and highly respected State Comptroller -- is strongly, proudly pro marriage equality, has a history of LGBT advocacy, and has made the elimination of all forms of anti-gay and anti-trans discrimination a central plank in his campaign. Here is Dan proclaiming his support for equality in a rally for the National Equality March:

And here is his campaign website, which lists marriage and LGBT equality as one of ten key issues -- alongside jobs, the economy, education, the environment, and health care -- that Dan wants voters to consider when making their choice.

Dan's primary opponent, Pat Quinn, does not even come close to this level of commitment. Quinn opposes marriage equality, and LGBT people and issues are nowhere to be found on his campaign website.

The choice in this race was a clear one for me. Dan Hynes's long commitment to LGBT equality, the leadership he has shown on marriage equality during this campaign, and the high regard in which he is held throughout the State have earned Dan my strong endorsement. I will be doing what I can to help him win this primary and become the next Governor of Illinois.

But the importance of Dan's candidacy extends beyond the fight for LGBT equality in Illinois. This race is another key test in determining the future of the Democratic Party. Around the country, the party is facing a moment of truth. LGBT voters have been among the most loyal supporters and contributors to Democratic candidates, but all too often Democrats have not produced. The recent vote on marriage equality in the New York Senate cast the problem in sharp relief. As we hold accountable those elected officials who fail to stand for our rights, we must also identify leaders who recognize the debt that the Party owes to its LGBT supporters and will make full equality a centerpiece of Democratic politics going forward.

Dan Hynes is one of those leaders. The Illinois chapter of Stonewall Democrats recognizes the importance of his candidacy and recently gave Dan their endorsement. (The other statewide LGBT group, Equality Illinois, has not yet weighed in.) It is time for LGBT advocates around the country to do the same. Every phone call and dollar that we devote to defeating anti-equality Democrats in states like New York must be matched with support for our champions in key elections like the Illinois Governor's race.

Dan Hynes's candidacy can be a model for what a positive, pro-equality politics will look like in the Democratic Party. His victory will advance the cause of equality in America's fifth largest state by a decade, and it will help to set a new tone for Democratic politics around the country. Dan Hynes wants to become the next Governor of Illinois because of, not in spite of, his commitment to core principles like full equality for all citizens. It is up to us to help him do it.

Tobias Barrington Wolff was the Chair of LGBT Policy for the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. He is a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a civil rights lawyer and advocate.

Jag Carrao: 5 Lies Women Tell Themselves

2009-12-16T12:45:46Z

The dating deceptions single women invariable confront range from the annoying (online photos that turn out to be a decade old), to the aggravating ("I'll call you"), to the agonizing ("Oh, her? Just a friend"). But usually we don't remain in the dark forever - one way or another, the truth comes out. Far more insidious, however, are the lies we women tell ourselves. These myths may feel comfy, but by insulating us from sometimes unpleasant realities, they undermine our ability to make rational decisions based on complete information, thus sabotaging our long-term romantic goals.

In my practice as a Rules dating coach, here are the most common dating myths women fall for:

1) He's intimidated by you. I hear this one all the time. What's even more mortifying is I used to fall for it myself. Women with lots going for them - attractive professionals with their act pulled together - will tell themselves that the reason the object of their affection isn't responding to their flirtation is because he's just overawed by their credentials, looks, or financial standing. Ladies, it just isn't true. Wish it was true - so much more palatable than "he's just not that into you." And yes, there are plenty of mousy guys out there. But even the mousiest specimen will discover his inner manly man when he sees a woman he wants to be with. Let go of the fantasy relationships to open yourself up to a real one.

2) Women love men who treat them like crap. I recently came across a heinous example of this sort of misogynistic claptrap in a blog by a self-styled pick-up artist guru - Roissy in DC - claiming: "The men women want most" are "cads and ***holes." That may be true for a minority, but women with high self-esteem find adoring, persistent and respectful attention an incredible turn-on. Such women instinctively avoid wasting time on men who cultivate "low expectations," as Roissy recommends. That's the benefit of The Rules mantra: "Love only those who love you."

"Because you love yourself, you are no longer interested in men who ignore you, cheat on you, hurt you ...You have no desire to chase someone who hasn't noticed you, sought you out, or dialed your number to ask you out."

3) It's what's on the inside that counts. Before you have a heart attack, let me emphasize that it IS what's on the inside - your essence, your spirit, your intellect - that a man falls in love with, and that is all important when it comes to building a relationship and sustaining it over the long run, especially during hard times. But unfortunately, this "truth" can become a myth, when we use it to dismiss the importance of looking our best when it comes to attracting men. In addition to diet and exercise, this includes making an extra effort to look pulled together, feminine and sexy. If you have a favorite feature, show it off! Your long legs, dazzling décolletage, or silky tousled hair may be the lure that leads him to contemplate and fall in love with your amazing personality.

4) He's teasing you because he likes you. We've been fed this line ever since we came home crying about Johnny's spitballs in 3rd grade. While it may have been true for young boys, still developing emotionally and sexually, a grown man who tries to put you off balance with verbal sparring on the first few dates doesn't really care that much about you - or is playing games, which, in my book, amount to the same thing. Again, the players' guru, Roissy, explicitly encourages men to ask a date questions "designed to put her on the defensive," such as "Are you a good kisser?" or "Are you rich?" I've detailed your options for dealing with such questions elsewhere, but suffice it to say here that a man who really likes you will NOT risk offending you, and thus spoiling his chances of sleeping with you, by playing such games.

5) It doesn't matter what night he wants to see you -- Thursday, Friday, Monday, Wednesday, Saturday, whatever - only THAT he wants to see you. You may want to believe it's not important whether he asks you for Saturday or not - but he knows the importance, believe me. Remember the Beach Boys' lyric? "None of the guys go steady, 'cuz it wouldn't be right to leave your best girl home on a Saturday night." On the other end of the spectrum, Roissy tells men to "train women to have low expectations for seeing you on prime [EXPECTIVE] hunting nights." If he's not seeing you on Saturday, he's seeing someone else - or looking for someone he WOULD want to see on Saturdays, and every other day, in perpetuity.

If you think you may be falling for one or more of these myths - but aren't sure about whether it applies to your specific situation, then sign up for a free 10-minute consultation at www.maliburulesgirl.com. Next week I'll fill you in on the next five lies women tell themselves in dating, so you can break out of self-destructive delusions to realize your highest romantic goals.

Tom Gregory: Brokeback Mountain Reclaims the American West

2009-12-16T11:35:13Z

In July, at the Museum of the American West, The Autry National Center (The Autry) installed the iconic intertwined shirts from Brokeback Mountain (BBM).
The shirts are center-stage beside the costumes of John Wayne, Kate Hepburn, Steve McQueen, and Clint Eastwood. It's an easy fit -great goes with great, but if clothes could talk, their arrival was the biggest "guess who's coming to dinner" moment in Los Angeles schmatta history.

The Autry was never naïve to the role of LGBT people in the early frontier, but 'the love that dare not speak its name' remained virtually mute in the American West. Apart from the stereotypical cowboy with his cowhand silhouetted alone on the long trail, heretofore-rural America wasn't the geography for such talk. With the shirts holding fast on their walls, The Autry has opened up a line of progressive, informative, bigot-fumigatin' dialogue.

"Gene Autry's legacy, is showing ...what?" you ask. Yes, the shirts from Brokeback Mountain are proudly on display at the Autry --That's what a progressive, modern institution of learning (a museum) does. They propel conversation and incite questions while pushing society to learn, grow, and evolve. According to his wife, Jackie Autry, Gene Autry would have loved this bold step.

Gene Autry was an original singing cowboy. He yodeled his way into radio. From there came a record deal. A flood of others - including his original and iconic version of "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" -followed his first hit, "That Silver Haired Daddy of Mine".

Children loved Gene Autry. In response to that admiration Gene wrote, "The Code of the Cowboy." Under the code he set up 10 rules all young bucks must follow. It's a code of peace and tolerance that his fans were instructed to embrace, even though the world was full of anger and hatred in the midst of WWII. Right in the middle is code number five:

A Cowboy must not advocate or possess racially or religiously intolerant views and ideas.

Following Gene's fearless lead, on Sunday, The Autry hosted the first of four programs on the LGBT contributions to the America West. Sunday's event was aptly entitled "What Ever Happened to Ennis del Mar". LA Times and NPR film critic Kenneth Turan was joined by sociologist Professor Peter Nardi, USC Associate Professor William Handley, and panel moderator, University of New Mexico history professor Virginia Scharoff.

The Museum's Wells Fargo Theater was full of western film fans, scholars, and people anxious for more of the story they can't get out of the soul. Like The Grapes of Wrath, The Searchers, or High Noon, BBM has grown a patina of scholarly importance over the last few years. BBM rocked the paradigm of the Hollywood love story, and became a personal catharsis, then a call to action for fairness and equality among LGBT people.

On Sunday, I witnessed The Autry making history in the trail-blazing style of America's boldest pioneers. For too long we've written off the America's most beautiful landscapes as real estate lost to the right. But all of America has been claimed for all Americans. By their trailblazing move, The Autry has branded The United States free to everyone.

Consulting Producer Gregory Hinton, not only facilitated the installation of the shirts, but was the driving force behind the next in the series which he calls "HIDDEN HISTORIES.", It is slated for May 13th.

Sponsors of the program were HBO, The Gill Foundation, The Small Change Foundation, GLAAD, HRC, and The Courage Campaign.

Mark Shaw: Tiger Woods, Thomas Merton, and the Consequences of Wearing a Mask

2009-12-16T07:31:01Z

Poor Tiger Woods. All he had was a million dollar reputation, a multi-million dollar bank account, a multi-multi-million dollar Florida mansion, and more important, a beautiful, loving wife and two young children by his side. He was hailed as the greatest golfer in the world, one who loved the game so much he gave millions to a foundation supporting youths who could not otherwise afford to play the game. Talk about a "goodie-two-shoes," Tiger was the poster boy for clean living, for being a devoted husband and father, and for being "Mr. Nice Guy" to all who knew him.

Woods became simply the latest celebrity to fall, the latest one who was discovered to be wearing a mask concealing a dark side consumed with sex and adultery. Like his most recent predecessors, the two cheating governors -- New York's Eliot Spitzer, and South Carolina's Mark Sanford -- Woods had projected a false self, a charade, when instead of dearly loving his wife and children; he carried on sexual affairs, one apparently while his wife was pregnant with their first child.

This contradiction is perhaps the most compelling element of BENEATH THE MASK OF HOLINESS. The wise sage and spiritual writer Thomas Merton knew all about masks and warned those who wore them of the dire consequences. In New Seeds of Contemplation, he wrote that people were "at liberty to be real or unreal . . . be true or false, the choice is ours." Merton believed that we may wear "one mask and now another and never if we so desire to appear with our own true face." Later, he added, "We have a choice of two identities: the external mask which seems to be real and which lives by a shadowy autonomy for the brief moment of earthy existence." Merton noted the danger of taking one's "vulnerable shell" as his true identity, taking the mask as one's own true face, and protecting "it with fabrication even at the cost of violating one's own truths." Sin, Merton asserted, was the result when the false self existed because of ego-perpetuated desires and false motives. This sheds light on Woods' secret life, where his inability to resist temptation of the flesh resulted in adultery, and his admission this week that he had lost sight of certain "values" important to any true existence.

The title of my book touches on this "double" self--something that Merton believed in. Merton believed the origin of man's alienation could be attributed to how a culture divided a person against himself, threw a mask on him, and presented him with a role he may not have wanted to play. But this was no excuse, and alienation was complete when the person identified with the role and thus the mask, and finally determined that any other role or identity was impossible. These words of wisdom are so relevant to today's world, where confusion and despair run rampant and a celebrity like Woods forgets who he really is, falls to temptation, and the projects himself as something he is not. But, like Merton, a celebrity himself who suffered beneath his mask of holiness through guilt and having never learned how to love and be loved, Woods suffered, and will suffer until he can discard his mask, admit his transgressions, and resort to a true self through forgiveness and the devoted love of his wife and children.

If Woods needed a sign from above that he must stop his sinful deeds, the automobile accident where he was knocked unconscious served as the thunderbolt, the sledgehammer, to wake him up. Woods has a chance to redeem himself and show the world -- and especially young people that idolize him -- that he no longer wears a mask but is the role model everyone believed him to be. Let's hope the wake-up call works, and like Merton, who finally shed his mask through the love of a woman he called "a miracle in my life," Woods may free himself of the heavy yoke of sin that has beat against his brain more than any five iron could ever do.

-- Mark Shaw is the author of Beneath the Mask of Holiness: Thomas Merton and the Forbidden Love Affair that Set Him Free (Palgrave Macmillan).

Jim Selman: Obama, Pundits, And Second Guessing Yourself

2009-12-15T15:23:45Z

Over the past few years, I have written about how life in our society is increasingly becoming a 'spectator sport'. I am again reminded of this as I listen to week after week of pundits second-guessing President Obama and other leaders as if their points of view are a) true, b) somehow contributing to a civil public discourse, and c) honest and not contrived to produce controversy or provoke conflict and drama.

I am not naive: I am aware that the media is in the business of creating and satisfying audiences and that drama, conflict and controversy sell more than relatively straight-forward information. Personally, I've managed to disconnect from the mainstream media channels about 90%, but even so the conversations are persuasive whether we're getting them first or second-hand. If my observation about all of us is valid that we're becoming spectators rather than being active participants in the democratic process, then the question becomes what can we do about it?

As an example, a majority of us voted for a President and before the ink was dry we began to hear daily 'score cards' about his 'popularity' and is he doing a good or a bad job. Mostly we're second-guessing his decisions and undermining his (or anyone's) capacity to lead. Imagine what it would be like if you got married and then had a daily report by all your neighbors of how the marriage was going and how you were doing as a spouse. Either you'd have to stop listening or you'd end up reacting to the feedback to the point where you are a pawn of public opinion and no longer an actor in the relationship. I admire any leader's capacity to balance sage advice and counsel from those committed to making things work and their ability to 'screen' out all the 'devil's advocates' who have no other commitments than to destroy whatever possibilities may exist for change and/or to forward their own points of view.

Lately there is a back-and-forth argument about whether the President is being tough enough on Wall Street. Frankly, I don't know what his longer-term game plan is, but I would bet the story isn't finished. He is fighting wars on a dozen fronts. He must pick his battles. He must be strategic. If any president were to declare war on Wall Street, it is not clear who will win and, as has been the case with healthcare, we will, in all likelihood, lose the opportunity to correct and clean up the mess we've created.

There is very little (if any) benefit to second-guessing our leaders. If we have personal priorities and requests, there are lots of ways for them to be communicated. There are lots of forums for discourse and debate that are not daily 'spectacles'.

We remember the story of Emperor Nero watching Rome burn. We forget that, for years before it burned, the population was drawn to the Coliseum to watch the gladiators live or die. They voted on the life and death of the combatants. Our Coliseum may be the public media. The stakes are the same. Are we going to empower them to succeed or will we decide their fate (and ours) by destroying them before the game is over? The choice will be ours.

Copyright 2009 Jim Selman. All rights reserved.

DC: Gay Marriage Vote PASSES City Council

2009-12-15T14:44:21Z

WASHINGTON — After suffering setbacks from California to New York, Maine to New Jersey, same-sex marriage supporters got a victory Tuesday with the City Council's vote to legalize gay marriage in the District of Columbia.

Gay couples could begin tying the knot in the district as early as March. The only hurdles left to clear are the city's mayor, who has promised to sign the bill, and Congress, which has final say over laws in the nation's capital. The district's nonvoting delegate to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, said she expects no opposition there.

Laura Trice: The Top 5 Dating And Relationship Tips For Women

2009-12-15T14:40:38Z

I forget who told me this, but she said it was the best advice she had ever received and came from her dad and mom. Both her parents really liked the man she was marrying, and the church was filled with family and friends. Just before she walked down the aisle her mom and dad said that they would love and support her even if she changed her mind and realized she did not want to marry. She went on to be happily married and have kids -- however, the knowledge that her parents would support her even if it cost them some money or created some social awkwardness told her that she was loved and her parents wanted what was best for her. They didn't care how her decision looked to others, they cared about her well being.

With that in mind, here we go with the top 5 relationship tips for women.

1) Know each other for four consecutive seasons, at least a year, before marrying. A grandmother married over 40 years always asked her daughters, "Don't think about getting engaged to him until you have seen him angry and seen how he handles his anger." This fits with know each other for long enough to see each other at your worst before making significant decisions. It is not how good your good golf swing is, it is how bad is your bad swing. A man might be a great guy, have a great income but if he loses your savings gambling once a year, hits you once a year or has an affair once a year, it may only be 20 minutes out of the entire year, but it is an extremely important 20 minutes. Know what is unacceptable to you and do not make excuses for another person not measuring up. Do not agree to something important out of pity, guilt or discomfort.

2) Do not have sex with or marry a man thinking he will change. You need to have all your non-negotiables met before taking either of those steps or you will feel crazy and off balance. A woman needs to feel completely comfortable and satisfied with who he is that day because he may never change. If she makes changing him her project, both people will be unhappy.

3) Make a list of the your top 5 non-negotiables in a partner and stick to it. If honesty is on that list, do not go out with him again if he lies to you. If available and puts you first is on your list but he doesn't, move on. There are plenty of good people who wil be compatible with you out there. Beware of marrying a man for his money alone. There is an old saying. "if you marry for money you will end up earning it." Trust your instincts and intuition no matter how strong the attraction or how good he looks on paper. The book Calling in the One can help you do this.

4) Date multiple people during the day time when you are rested and without drinking alcohol so you can really learn what feels right and comfortable to you. Look for compatibility (do you like each other?), communication (How well can you talk through problems and negotiate?) and chemistry (how well do your bodies like each other?) If you have great chemistry but are not compatible, you will have good sex but argue all the time. If you are extremely compatible but do not have chemistry, you will be like brother and sister.

5) Put time and effort into learning how to communicate with each other. You can have great compatibility and chemistry, but if you can't communicate constructively during the difficult times, words can wound and your relationship can be harmed and maybe destroyed from under developed communication skills. Dr. Pat Allen says that intimacy is built during the hard times, so learn to ritualize your communication through reading her book, Staying Married and Loving it Dr. Harley has a great book called His Needs, Her Needs, building an affair proof marriage. Consider doing pre-engagement counseling to formally look at the important categories together. There is another piece of wisdom: Do not give up your place and move in together until you have an engagement ring and a wedding date. You may have spent every night for the past 3 months at his place, but you are still a guest as long as you have your own place.

I recommend the books Calling in the One and The List for anyone looking at finding a good relationship.

So, I put this out to you, what is the best relationship or dating advice you've ever heard?

Peggy Drexler: Gay Marriage's Big Problem

2009-12-14T12:40:47Z

I found myself in a conversation at a friend's home with a man I just met. Small talk turned to the New York Senate's defeat of the marriage equality bill.

Given the crowd, I was surprised when he said he was "thrilled" by the defeat. I was surprised again when he said "I believe in equality. But not this. To be honest with you, I have a problem with the whole [pause to find the acceptable words] gay thing."

A friend's home not being the place for what could become a high-decibel exchange, I excused myself and walked away thinking: There you have it. This is what same-sex marriage is up against.

It might be about constitutionality. It might be about state's rights. It might be about the definition of marriage. But it is also very clearly about members of a majority withholding rights from members of a minority that they simply don't like.

I have some tangential experience here. I wrote a book that shared my findings that lesbian mothers were raising happy, healthy and masculine boys. I still get the occasional death threat.

Granted, my cocktail party encounter was a demographic of one. But let's also review the record.

Not one state has ever granted marriage equality through voter initiative. Voters in California and Maine have, however, taken it back. New York senators voted it down because -- post vote analysis has concluded -- they already had enough to worry about with angry home constituents. New Jersey supporters, feeling the shock waves rippling southward, canceled a gay marriage vote that was supposed to happen this week -- even though they only have until January 19, when the current governor who supports it will be replaced by a new governor who has promised to veto it.

What do we take from the recent setbacks? Is the glass half full, half empty or smashed against the wall?

Half full: Five states allow gay marriage, and seven recognize marriages from other states. Ten offer various civil protections. Some 38 percent of Americans live in a state that in some way addresses the rights of gay couples. On the hearts and minds front, yearly Pew surveys show a slow but steady shift toward greater gay marriage support.

Half empty: Early progress and "yes we can" optimism rode a Bush backlash and the coming of Obama. But anti-gay rights forces mobilized and a financial meltdown put Americans on edge and politicians on alert. The Obama administration's hands-off approach to Maine and the Democratic National Committee's refusal to aid in funding the campaign there show -- warm campaign promises aside -- which way the chilly political wind is blowing. The going will be tougher ahead.

Glass against the wall: The current progress is a high water mark. Preoccupied ambivalence will merge with more organized opposition. Weaponized messaging -- "they are going to teach homosexuality to our kids in school" -- will remain a powerful deterrent. The real battle will be to hold on to gains already made.

The open question in an age of polarization is this: have all those prepared to change their minds on the issue of gay marriage already done so? Are the divisions that remain calcified by deeply held fears and prejudices?

A recent article by Georgia State University's Gregory Lewis in Policy Studies Journal points to the possible hurdles ahead. In reviewing 24 national surveys since 1974, he found a strong link between belief in a biological basis for homosexuality and the support for gay rights. For those who see it as a choice, moral condemnation leads directly to opposition.

The state-by-state approach has been criticized as a popularity contest. If Lewis is right, and support is tied to the un-provable issue of choice versus genes, it's a contest that, for now at least, gays are not going to win.

The options are clear, even if the best choices are not:

Keep working state by state in the hope that the hard lessons of past disappointment will pave the way to better results. Take a page from civil rights history (try to envision 60s-era deep South referendums on voting rights) and launch an all-out effort at the federal legal and judicial levels. Go for a Washington-state-style "everything but marriage" approach and settle for legal, albeit civil, protections. Wait five or ten years until the economy has people in a better mood and nature begins to change the balance of younger supporters and older resisters.

While we ponder timing, demographics, politics and other issues, we will have to remember that any strategy must also embrace the intractable reality of a sizable group of voting Americans who believe fervently in individual rights, but have "a problem with the whole (pause to find the acceptable words) "gay thing."

More Brides-To-Be Suffer From Multiple-Dress Syndrome (POLL)

2009-12-14T10:45:51Z

Purchasing the perfect wedding dress seems like it would be the ultimate pre-marital headache, but the New York Times reports that more and more brides-to-be are buying not one, but multiple white gowns for their big days...yes, even during the recession!

Annie Hunter of Seattle bought four:

She bought two at a sample sale in Seattle for $3,800 combined. She bought a third dress, an Amsale, online for $3,000. "It had pockets," she said. "I wanted pockets." She wore it to a small wedding ceremony she and her bridegroom held in Mexico, but felt it was a bit too revealing for her formal wedding. The fourth, and final, dress she bought at a shop in Seattle, a Monique Lhuillier for $3,400.

Her husband purchased the first two, she bought the third and her mother shelled out for the fourth.

With the rise of wedding dress resale websites like PreOwnedWeddingDresses.com, there is a developing niche for brides who want to buy and sell--and feed their dress addictions--at bargain prices. However, the Wedding Report, which tracks marriage-trend statistics, doesn't have any numbers on how many women can't settle on one gown.

So, 'fess up:

Get HuffPost Style on Twitter and Facebook!

Larry Ross: In the Wake of Tiger's Sins, What Matters Most -- Reputation or Reconciliation?

2009-12-14T10:13:51Z

As the eye of the Tiger continues to heal behind closed doors, his statement of contrition on Friday was the first step in what will be a long journey out of the woods to repair the huge divot in his family and get his personal life and public persona back in sync.

Tiger Woods is the latest among many civil servants and celebrities whose public trust has been tested by moral failure. Amidst all the "woulda-, coulda- and shoulda-beens" since the news broke, he got run over by speculation fueled by his silence rather than getting ahead of the story like he does the rest of the pack at most major golf tournaments.

Despite what may be the fastest and farthest meltdown of a brand in recent memory, however, Tiger dipped into a counter-intuitive lexicon of transparency and accountability that distinguishes him from most other popular icons who have recently found themselves in his spiked shoes. In his latest confessional declaration he referred to his recklessness as "infidelity," building on his initial reference to personal "sins."

Sin is a word so seldom used in our culture that society has almost lost any point of reference from which to acknowledge or embrace the concept. In an effort to rationalize away bad behavior, immoral activities are often downgraded to mistakes and indiscretions, or responsibility blame shifted to one's upbringing or another individual.

I once heard sin defined as "an attitude of indifference towards God," which starts in the heart long before an act is committed. Of course the Bible speaks of Sin as inherent in our fallen human condition, for which everyone is in need of redemption -- including Tiger. Without introduction, God welcomes all men who turn to Him in repentance and faith. Perhaps through this ordeal, God may finally have Tiger's attention.

No Messiah
To my knowledge, I don't know that Tiger has ever expressed identification with a particular faith or professed to have any spiritual convictions. But in fact, perhaps no one has had to overcome such enormous spiritual expectations as he, established from the beginning by his father, Earl Woods.

In a 1996 interview with Sports Illustrated, the senior Woods told the reporter his son would have a greater impact than Nelson Mandela, Gandhi or Buddha:

"Tiger will do more than any other man in history to change the course of humanity...He is the Chosen One...The world is just getting a taste of his power."

Whether that reference was meant to be Messianic or merely metaphoric is not clear; but what is now painfully obvious is that neither applies.

It is axiomatic that an addict acting out in his addiction doesn't define the man, though if applicable to Tiger, it still doesn't give him a free pass. But anyone who has submitted to the process of recovery on which Tiger seems to have now embarked eventually discovers that they are far better in their brokenness than in their giftings or grandiosity, because it is at the bottom where one finds grace.

What Do We Lead With?
In an effort to feed the beast of our celebrity-driven culture over the past two weeks, media gatekeepers have had to face a daily challenge of media triage with a bizarre twist. Rather than having to choose their lead from among substantive stories -- like the economy, health care or President Obama's commitment of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan -- theirs has been the tough call between photos of or voice mails to Tiger's newest alleged paramour, and the sordid details of what became no longer shocking news of his latest bad lie.

In a 1984 TIME back page essay entitled, "What Should We Lead With?" Roger Rosenblatt wrote:

Journalists put the question in practical terms: What should we lead with? The rest of the population asks more generally: What matters most? They come to the same puzzle....What we confront in making such choices is not the events alone, but ourselves; and it is ourselves we are not able to place in order. The question is not what the press decrees is this week's news. The question is us. What should we lead with, what matters most?

All of us have followed this evolving story with fascination akin to driving by a car that is on fire by the side of the highway -- we have to look. But as Tiger has expressed repentance, sought forgiveness and asked for a "Mulligan" on his marriage, I think we need to give it to him. Restoration and redemption is possible if he faces his demons and does the hard work before him. But as a society, we are "sightseers for suffering," and can't give it up or let it go. As Mr. Rosenblatt states above, ultimately "it is ourselves we are not able to place in order."

What Matters Most?
What matters most is not satisfying our prurient interest in salacious gossip and innuendo, nor does it involve questions of when Tiger will return to the tour or the impact on his career and endorsements. Rather, as he pledges in his latest statement, it is to give him the space to find safe harbor to focus his attention on being a better husband, father and person.

Perhaps Tiger's greatest impact will not be how he has transformed golf, but rather how he transforms as a human being. Like his dad, who invested so heavily in his future, Tiger's own legacy may be found in the next generation of Woods as he attempts to properly father his own daughter and son.

Even when Tiger was in top golf form, he was never above constantly fine-tuning his game with a swing coach, with whom he would review the fundamentals of stance, grip, swing and follow-through, measuring the results by the resulting distance and trajectory of the ball. But, for anyone who has ever sought out such advice, the end-game is not hitting the ball straighter and farther, but rather the feeling one gets as one surveys from an elevated tee box the ground conquered in a long drive or tournament won.

It is the same with marriage. In Mere Christianity, author C.S. Lewis wrote:

"Love as distinct from 'being in love' -- is not merely a feeling...It is on this love that the engine of marriage is run: being in love was the explosion that started it."

If Tiger approaches his marital relationship with the same passion and dedication as he does golf, he can strengthen his grip (on his life and family), work on his stance (one woman, for life), perfect his swing (the integrity to keep his stories, not just his elbow, straight) and recognize the importance of follow-through (on his commitments).

Of course marriage is a partnership, requiring similar reconciliation and forgiveness from his wife Elin. For an ordeal that started in Tiger's driveway with an accident in his Escalade, perhaps lyrics from Buddy Holly's classic song, "Not Fade Away," provides her a blueprint for recovery:

"My love is bigger than a (black) Cadillac, I try to show you but you drive me back;
Your love for me has got to be real, you're gonna know just how I feel.
Love is real not fade away;
Know our love not fade away."

Whether or not the prodigal son has returned home remains to be seen, and the jury is still out on whether their love is real and not fade away. But one thing is certain: God is a God of second chances, whose love is real and not fade away. In golf parlance, we always have a "gimme" with God, whenever we stop trying to be our own savior and start put our trust in Him and His Son. That is the message of Christmas.

-30-

Larry Ross is president of A. Larry Ross Communications, a full-service public relations agency that provides cross-over media liaison emanating from or targeted to the Christian market. With more than 33 years' experience influencing public opinion, Mr. Ross' mission is to "restore faith in media," by providing Christian messages relevance and meaning in mainstream media.

Adultery Still A Crime In New Hampshire After 200 Years

2009-12-13T15:54:50Z

CONCORD, N.H. — The original punishments – including standing on the gallows for an hour with a noose around the neck – have been softened to a $1,200 fine, yet some lawmakers think it's time for the 200-year-old crime of adultery to come off New Hampshire's books.

Seven months after the state approved gay marriage, lawmakers will consider easing government further from the bedroom with a bill to repeal the adultery law.

Bella DePaulo: Two Scholars Ask: What if Marriage Is Bad for Us?

2009-12-12T17:10:00Z

People who dislike my writings are fond of calling me anti-marriage, but that's not quite accurate. What I really think is that marriage is not for everyone, and that people who want to stay single should not be targeted with singlism because of it. People who marry should refrain from becoming matrimaniacs, as should the rest of the society. I believe, based on a close reading of original scientific sources, that most of the demeaning claims about single people are grossly exaggerated or just plain wrong. I also question the status of marriage as a criterion of eligibility for such basic human dignities as access to health care (as when marrieds can access health insurance through a spouse's plan but singles have no comparable option) or to a secure retirement (as when a widow can access their deceased spouse's Social Security benefits but singles can neither receive benefits from, say, a close friend or sibling, nor can they bequeath their benefits to any such peers).

Earlier this fall, two scholars posed a starker question than my own: "What if marriage is bad for us?" The essay by Middlebury College sociologists Laurie Essig and Lynn Owens was originally published in the Chronicle of Higher Education and later reprinted elsewhere. You can read their fully-developed argument here. In this post, I'll describe some of the main points, then leave it to all of you to post your reactions in the Comments section.

The scholars begin by reviewing the usual claims about all the ways in which marriage is supposed to be good for us. They also take us through some of the segments of society, from progressive advocacy groups to conservative (and not-at-all-conservative) political leaders who have tried so hard to advance those beliefs.

Then they pivot and take on the claims, one after another. For example:

1. In response to the pronouncement that "marriage makes you healthy," they note (as I often have) that "married and never-married Americans are similar; it's the divorced who seem to suffer." They then dare to add this: "The lesson might be to never divorce, but an even more obvious lesson to be drawn from the research might be to never marry."

2. About the myth that single people are isolated and alone, the authors point to research showing that actually, married couples are more often isolated. They note that "we are instructed by movies, pop songs, state policy, and sociology to get married because 'love is all you need.' But actually we humans need more."

3. Does marriage make you rich? Not necessarily. And, "even when marriage does produce wealth, divorce often destroys it."

4. Surely we can all agree that (continue reading here at the Living Single blog at Psychology Today).

Annabelle Gurwitch: Underrated and Overrated Marital Coping Strategies

2009-12-11T15:40:14Z

Like many couples we read the article by Elizabeth Weil in the New York Times Magazine. We find marriage challenging too. We tried a lot of therapy too. We said screw it.

Underrated and Overrated:

OVERRATED: Talking.
UNDERRATED: Yelling.
It feels much better to get it out of your system.
OVERRATED: Listening.
UNDERRATED: Yelling louder.
Listening takes valuable time away from arguing and yelling. Yelling louder also increases your chances of embarrassing your partner in public, which was the point, right?

OVERRATED: Compromising.
UNDERRATED: Confrontation.
Playing the marital version of chicken -- first one to back off from a head-on argument that could lead to a divorce loses. Compromise is for pussies, no one likes a push over.

OVERRATED: Forgiveness.
UNDERRATED: Resentment.
Forgiving someone doesn't give you anything to obsess about later, it's much more satisfying to stew about all the things your partner has done wrong.

OVERRATED: Agreement.
UNDERRATED: Disagreeing.
Agreement is a conversation ender, while challenging each other's beliefs can become an inexpensive hobby you can enjoy in any weather.

OVERRATED: Planning for your future together.
UNDERRATED: Spontaneity. Don't plan for anything together beyond your grocery list, this way, if your relationship lasts for any amount of time it's just a bonus!

Madison Smartt Bell: Coco Chanel, Jane Austen and Anita Brookner: On Flying Solo And Free

2009-12-11T13:06:24Z

I saw "Coco Avant Chanel" in Paris last spring, because I wanted to see a French film and "Coco" (somewhat to my dismay) was the only French movie playing in the two multi-screen cinemas around the Carrefour de l'Odéon, the rest of them being American horror shows with subtitles, or otherwise from elsewhere. Normally I have next to no interest in either Chanel herself or in the more recondite subtleties of women's couture -- no! what I mean to say is that I am happy to observe women looking beautiful in their clothes but I don't really want to know how they do that.

Still, advance publicity, where Audrey Tatou exuded a darkly smoldering something or other, had caught my eye; moreover it was raining outdoors.... Then, last week, I saw the movie again in the States -- why? I wondered, twenty minutes in. Not for the compelling narrative, for there is practically no story. But in France I had missed most of what struck me as a pivotal scene even though I failed to understand most of the dialogue, when Tatou/Chanel stands in the light of a French window and speaks intensely to the man she loves, and I want to see that bit again with the crutch of subtitles.

Let us suppose that Tatou's character is strictly fictional; never mind how strong her rapport may be with the historical Chanel. The movie proffers Coco before Chanel after all, in a period before her public persona has hardened, when not so much about her is known. Suppose her to be the heroine of an invented narrative, to which she seems at first to bring little weight, for she arrives on the scene as an orphaned seamstress, or not especially talented cabaret girl, then struggles to transform herself from a petite amourette to recognized mistress in the household of the dissolute French country gent, Balsan -- a challenging but not wholly impossible career path in pre-WWI France.

Now turn for a moment to the novels of Jane Austen -- enduringly popular because of their acute understanding of social and economic parameters of mating which change very little over time or even between cultures. The nineteenth-century Austen heroine must deploy her very limited freedom to win a marriage both wise and good (the alternatives to marriage being quite unthinkable). After the honeymoon she will turn to accomplishing the same thing for her daughters. In the late twentieth century, Anita Brookner made a career of novels which enact the same sort of drawing room dramas around courtship but end by dumping their heroines into unhappy, inescapable solitude.

Our Coco will have none of this. The story behind this film's near plotlessness is her steely determination to become what she must be -- even though she doesn't know what that is. Reputed to be cute and kittenish in her previous films, Tatou plays Coco with a stern, lip-biting self-control, defining herself at first by negation. She will not be tossed off as a one-night stand, and later when Balsan breaks down and offers her marriage (a near unimaginable triumph for someone in her situation) she will not be his wife.

By this point in the story Coco and Balsan have evolved into companionable friendship (with benefits to be sure); the romance is between her and Arthur "Boy" Capel, who seems to appreciate, admire, even love whatever it is she is striving to turn herself into, who at the same time borrows her for a getaway from Balsan as if she were a horse or a dog, has no difficulty planning a marriage to an eligible English aristocrat while courting Coco, nor in telling Coco that his marriage "will change nothing between us."

That line finishes the scene by the window, but by then Coco has already stated her case. In Austen's novels, the women hope to marry for a function of love and practicality, and in Brookner's the failure to achieve that turns her tales into tragedies. Coco tells Boy that her mother married for love and so died in misery because her husband constantly betrayed her--the same husband who abandoned Coco and her sister in the orphanage, never to see them again.

So Coco means to take all her chips off the marriage table. In the next scene, as the two men play billiards, weighing their chances, Balsan raps out a quick marriage proposal, to which Coco says quickly, "I'm not going to marry whoever it might be." Balsan, who no longer regards her as a troublesome plaything, is jealous, in love, and hurt by her refusal; he turns from her quickly, half-swallowing his retort; Ça a la mérite d'être clair.

But of course the great virtue of this fictional Coco (and maybe of the real-life Chanel too) is to be clear. The main business of the film's story line is done with this scene. A denouement car wreck cheats Coco of her romance with Boy; thereafter we see her alone, though not pathetically lonely like Brookner's women once they've lost their loves. The solitary Coco is complete in herself and she makes everything from cutting fabric to smoking a fat black-tobacco French cigarette look like some kind of rapture.

The clarity is embodied in the clothes; their clean lines and their radically simplified relationship to the body, which in fictional Coco's early days is shown to be her main stock in trade. So much comes out of her lucid perception that she could cut clothes that suited her own androgynous form much better than the frou-frou fashion she eradicated -- and that the crisp new image she cut for herself would work for other women too. What Chanel created was a clean and simple, light-weight armor that protected women very well in their battle for a better place in a world becoming modern. Hers was a style that took no prisoners, cutting across parlors and down runways with the clean sweeping strokes of scissor blades.

Lisa A. Linsky: Out and About: LGBT Legal -- A Message to 38 NY State Senators: Shame On You

2009-12-10T18:21:56Z

I am angry.

There, I said it.

On December 2, 2009, 38 Senators voted to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying in the state of New York. 24 Senators got it, and sought to bring this important civil right to our state by voting "yes" to marriage equality in New York. Sadly however, the vote was not even close, and while some will argue that it was progress to get the bill debated and voted upon in the Senate, I ask, "What do I tell my daughter?"

Five years ago, my partner and I had a "commitment ceremony" in an Episcopal Church in Westchester. We have been in a loving, committed relationship for well over a decade. Our daughter, who was then seven years old, had always wanted to be the flower girl at our "wedding." When we announced to her that we were getting "married", she shouted with delight that "at last, we will be a real family." From the mouths of babes.

Now, five years later, my partner and I still face the same legal obstacles that we faced when we stood together in a house of worship, and proclaimed our love and lives to each other in the presence of our family, friends and neighbors. We are no more protected, nor recognized in the eyes of the law as a married couple. Yet, we are productive, contributing members of our communities, faithful taxpayers, devoted parents and partners, and role models. We share the joys and responsibilities of marriage, notwithstanding that our union has no name or legal import in this state.

Some suggest that we go to another state or country where it is legal for same-sex couples to be married. Even if we were willing to do that and forego being married in our home state, what happens when we return to New York?

This summer, I was asked to write an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief in connection with two cases that were pending before the New York State Court of Appeals addressing the broader issue of recognition of legally valid same-sex marriages performed outside of New York. My colleagues and I argued that there are no laws barring New York from recognizing these foreign marriages, and that supporting marriage recognition would not violate the state's public policy.

The four-judge majority issued a narrow holding, ruling that the government defendants had the discretion to extend benefits to the same-sex spouses of the employees of Westchester County and New York State who had been married outside of New York, but the majority declined to apply the broader, long-standing marriage recognition rule that was adopted by the three-judge minority, which would have established a uniform policy in New York to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside the state.

The point is, even were my partner and I to lawfully marry outside of New York, there is no guarantee that our marriage would be recognized here. And as long as the Defense of Marriage Act remains on the books, the federal government will also not recognize such a marriage. The New York Court of Appeals, in its recent decision, expressed the "hope that the Legislature will address the controversy", referring to both marriage recognition and marriage equality. Well, the New York Senate did indeed finally address marriage equality last week, but the outcome was contrary to what so many of us hoped it would be.

The Human Rights Campaign recently released a joint statement by many of the leading LGBT organizations in the country proclaiming outrage at the delays by the House of Representatives in passing ENDA, the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which will protect LGBT employees from discrimination in the workplace. As we approach 2010, it remains legal in 29 states to fire gay people based on their sexual orientation. This too makes me angry.

Matthew Shepard was a 21-year old college student who was brutally murdered in Wyoming in 1998. There was no doubt that this was a hate crime committed because of Shepard's sexual orientation as a gay man. His killing, and the trial of his murderers, highlighted the need for federal hate crimes legislation that would punish individuals for committing crimes of violence against others based on sexual orientation. Federal hate crimes legislation was, in fact, introduced by President Clinton in 1999, and rejected by the House of Representatives. The legislation was reintroduced several times in Congress, but was not passed until 2009 when President Obama finally signed it into law.

How can it be that a country so rich in diversity, that has touted the metaphor of a melting pot for well over 100 years to symbolize the melding of its citizens' many cultures, backgrounds, ethnicities and beliefs as a symbol of its strength, allow such discrimination against LGBT Americans to continue? Why did it take 11 years after the horrific murder of Matthew Shepard for the country to implement a federal hate crimes bill, when during that time there were over 12,000 crimes committed against citizens based on their sexual orientation? Why do our elected officials seek to deprive our LGBT citizens the protection of the most basic of civil rights?

What do I tell my daughter about these injustices and now, the actions of the 38 New York State Senators who had no compunction relegating me and my family to something less than other families? I suppose I tell her that any civil rights movement is a process, and that we are not finished advocating for equality and inclusion for LGBT citizens. More importantly, I suppose I tell my daughter that we are and always will be, a real family, regardless of the recent events in our home state, because at the end of the day, our family is defined by our love for, and commitment to each other.