World Family Policy Center Newsletter

*News relative to protecting the family worldwide*

Volume 8 Issue 201 – November 7, 2008

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Quote of the Day: "Marriage is the mother of the world. It preserves kingdoms, and fills cities and churches, and heaven itself."

~ Jeremy Taylor

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Professor Richard G. Wilkins, Managing Director of the World Family Policy Center, would like to announce the recent decision by the Brigham Young University to close the Center. Professor Wilkins and Acting Managing Director Dr. A. Scott Loveless express their profound thanks to everyone who offered service to the World Family Policy Center. Brief statements from Professor Wilkins and Dr. Loveless will be included in the final edition of the Center's newsletter, which will be sent in late November or early December of this year.

Today’s Contents:

A. Featured Scholar: Richard G. Wilkins, J.D.

B. Featured News Articles

1. Backers Focused Prop. 8 Battle beyond Marriage

2. Wash. Voters Approve Assisted Suicide Initiative

3. Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg: Roe v. Wade Went Too Far on Abortion

4. Commons Approves Embryology Bill

5. Peer to Peer Porn a Growing Problem

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

FEATURED SCHOLAR

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Richard G. Wilkins, J.D.

Managing Director, the Doha International Institute for Family Studies and Development, Doha, Qatar

Robert W. Barker Professor of Law, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA

The following is an excerpt from Richard Wilkins’s paper “Strengthening the ‘Natural and Fundamental Group Unit of Society’” presented at the 8^th Annual World Family Policy Forum, Provo, Utah, 2007:

During the past 50 years, growing numbers of academicians became disenchanted with the family – and marriage in particular. These academicians slowly, but surely, persuaded ever-larger segments of the past two generations that marriage requires neither a man, nor a woman, and has no necessary connection to procreation. Rather, marriage is now described as a utilitarian concept that can (and should) be reconstructed to satisfy the longings of autonomous individuals, who are entitled to define their intimate relationships without the fetters of established sexual and social norms, including those related to human reproduction. Gender, in turn, has been similarly deconstructed. Professors (and politicians) now insist that gender is a “social construct” that is “mutable,” “changeable” and not “essential” to “individual identity.” “Fatherhood,” when and if acknowledged, is described in modern classrooms as a relic of patriarchal oppression, while international human rights organizations – including the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women -- criticize “motherhood” as a “harmful traditional stereotype.”

In short, in recent years, rather than recognizing the family as the “fundamental group unit of society,” various actors (including UN agencies) have concluded that the family is merely a social construct and (perhaps) a harmful construct at that. Accordingly, numerous international documents now recite a near-talismanic phrase: “In different cultural, political and social systems, various forms of the family exist.”

On one level, such language is absolutely correct. The family has always included single-parent households, households involving stepchildren, and those embracing aunts, uncles, grandparents and other inter-generational relationships. But the modern international assertion is more expansive – the “various forms of the family” now have nothing to do with “[t]he right of men and women of marriageable age to marry,” as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Furthermore, the “various forms” not only have nothing to do with the union of a man and a woman, they also have no relationship to human reproduction. Instead of the union of a man and a woman, centered on the bearing and rearing of children and predicated on law and ages-old social custom, the modern deconstructed family has become an amorphous concept defined solely by personal choice. The family – thus understood – can no longer play the role assigned to it by the drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

An individually defined, socially variable, and norm-free “family” can hardly serve as the “fundamental group unit of society.” A “fundamental group unit,” by its very nature, must possess clear parameters and boundaries, an established mission, expected outcomes, and governing norms. A “family” based solely on personal (and variable) choices, freed from any boundaries, mission, outcomes or norms, cannot serve as the foundation for an ordered (and orderly) civil society. As a result, in place of the family, the foundation of modern society has increasingly become a mutable morass of newly invented legal rules enforced by judges, lawyers, prisons, reformatories and various other enforcement personnel.

As the family declines (as it did in Nazi Germany), government power grows and the international community moves – one step at a time – from freedom toward totalitarianism. Oddly (and tragically) enough, all of this has taken place because of society’s increasing (and unthinking) obeisance to the modern totem of “individual autonomy.” A society composed of completely autonomous individuals, it seems, requires hordes of policeman (and scads of laws) to keep the unruly and autonomous herd of humanity from running complete amuck.

I believe the great men and women who founded the United Nations System in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s would be genuinely dismayed that the fundamental group unit they established as the necessary foundation for peace and social progress has been ignored, criticized and (perhaps) fatally deconstructed. Nevertheless, in the first decade of this new millennium, there is indeed reason for hope.

I will make three observations. First, regardless of theological and cultural differences, the world’s great faiths share a common understanding of the natural family. Second, this shared understanding is supported, not just by religious beliefs, but by the preponderance of social scientific evidence. Third, and finally, by returning to the foundation left by those who drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we can make real that noble generation’s promise of peace. By building upon the norms established during the founding period of the UN System, we will not only strengthen the family—we can also bring peace to the world.

To read the entire paper, visit http://www.worldfamilypolicy.org/forum/2007/Wilkins.pdf

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

FEATURED NEWS ARTICLES

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Editor’s Note: The following excerpts are taken from the week’s news around the world all relating to family and family policy. By clicking on the following links, you may read the entire article from its source. Our intent is to help our readers remain current on the state of the family in the world today. The positions taken and choice of wording and advocacy belong to the authors of the articles; inclusion here does not imply endorsement by the World Family Policy Center.

1. Backers Focused Prop. 8 Battle beyond Marriage

LA Times

November 6, 2008

The measure on the ballot was only 14 words long -- a simple statement that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

But supporters of Proposition 8, in what political analysts said was an extremely effective strategy, made the race about much more than that.

They were able to focus the debate on their assertion that without the ban, public school children would be indoctrinated into accepting gay marriage against their parents' wishes, churches would be sanctioned for not performing same-sex weddings and the institution of marriage would be irreparably harmed.

Supporters of gay marriage, along with political leaders including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-San Francisco) and the state's superintendent of public instruction, denounced those messages as scare tactics, but they were not able to sway voters. Preliminary returns showed Proposition 8 passing 52% to 48%.

"It was masterful of the campaign to raise the implications of what it could mean in terms of the school system," said Republican political consultant Wayne Johnson. He said voters may have started out "thinking that as long as it doesn't affect me, do what you want" but the supporters shifted the focus to children. In the wake of the vote, gay couples and their supporters mourned, held rallies, including one in West Hollywood on Wednesday night, filed legal challenges and, in some cases, rushed to the county recorder's office to tie the knot before the state stopped allowing it. The Los Angeles County registrar-recorder stopped issuing same-sex marriage licenses Wednesday afternoon.

To view the entire article, visit http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage6-2008nov06,0,2331815.story

................

2. Wash. Voters Approve Assisted Suicide Initiative

Seattle Times

November 4, 2008

Voters approved Initiative 1000 on Tuesday, making Washington the second state to give terminally ill people the option of medically assisted suicide.

The ballot measure, patterned after Oregon's "Death with Dignity" law, allows a terminally ill person to be prescribed lethal medication, which would be self-administered.

With about 43 percent of the expected vote counted Tuesday in unofficial returns, I-1000 was being approved by a margin of about 58 percent to about 42 percent.

Supporters, led publicly by Democratic former Gov. Booth Gardner, said the initiative would provide a compassionate way for terminally ill people to die.

Gardner has Parkinson's disease, an incurable disorder that causes tremors and stiff or frozen limbs. Gardner, who would not be eligible under I-1000 because Parkinson's is not considered fatal, said he pushed the measure in his "last campaign" because he understood why other ill people would want the option.

Opponents, including the Catholic church, said assisted suicide is a dangerous step that devalues human life. Critics also said the assisted suicide measure could exploit depressed or vulnerable people who worry they've become a burden on their families.

The measure involved a multimillion-dollar campaign, including TV advertisements featuring actor Martin Sheen, who urged a "no" vote. But polling before Election Day showed I-1000 with significant support.

Outside of Oregon, advocates of similar laws haven't fared well. California, Michigan and Maine voters rejected the idea, and bills have failed in statehouses around the country. In Washington, voters rejected physician-assisted suicide in 1991.

To view the entire article, visit http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008352565_apwaassistedsuicide2ndldwritethru.html

................

3. Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg: Roe v. Wade Went Too Far on Abortion

LifeNews.com

October 29, 2008

Washington, DC -- In an amazing admission, pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says the Roe v. Wade case that allowed virtually unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy went too far. She admitted that the sweeping decision made it an easy target for critics.

In the conversation with Princeton University Provost Christopher Eisgruber, Ginsburg also mentioned her favorite part of the Constitution as the due process section of the 14th Amendment. . . .

The conversation between the high court judge and Eisgruber came last week, according to Town Topics, a weekly newspaper devoted to all things Princeton.

At the Richardson Auditorium, Ginsburg said the decision in Roe to topple the pro-life laws in states across the nation "wasn’t a big surprise" -- though she admitted she was surprised at “how far the Court had gone.”

“I think the Court bit off more than it could chew,” she said, according to Town Topics, and explained that she thought the high court left little room for state legislatures to limit abortions.

"There would have been an opportunity for dialogue with state legislatures” to “reduce restrictions on access to abortion” had the ruling been written differently.

“Of course it has to be the woman’s choice, but the Court should not have done it all,” she said. “It is dangerous to go to the end of the road when all you see in front of you are a few yards.”

To view the entire article, visit http://www.lifenews.com/nat4509.html

................

4. Commons Approves Embryology Bill

Evening Standard (United Kingdom)

October 23, 2008

Controversial new legislation allowing scientists to conduct experiments using hybrid human-animal embryos has been approved by the House of Commons despite a small rebellion by Labour backbenchers.

The staunchly Catholic former minister Ruth Kelly, who quit the Government earlier this month, was one of 16 Labour MPs who voted against the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

But the third reading of the Bill was overshadowed by rows over "shabby" Government tactics which prevented a debate on abortion law reform.

Pro-choice MPs were furious that no time was made available to debate their calls for the law to be liberalised to allow terminations to be conducted with the approval of one doctor rather than two and for abortion to be legalised in Northern Ireland.

And pro-life campaigners were disappointed that there was no signal of Government support for their call for a special committee of MPs and peers to investigate the issue and recommend changes to abortion law.

To view the entire article, visit http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23576764-details/Commons+approves+embryology+Bill/article.do

................

5. Peer to Peer Porn a Growing Problem

News on 6

October 20, 2008

TULSA, OK -- Police say peer to peer pornography is a growing problem among teenagers. That's when they take nude or sexually explicit pictures of themselves and send them to others, either with their cell phone or on the internet.

In response, some prosecutors are taking drastic measures.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Ohio prosecutors charged a 15-year-old girl with felony child pornography after she took a nude picture of herself and sent it to some of her classmates on her cell phone.

They say the charges send kids a message, that these pictures are not just inappropriate, they're illegal.

Technology changes everything, including, it seems, exhibitionism. Now, it's easy to make yourself the star in nude pictures and send those pictures to others.

Many teenagers are doing just that, usually, between boyfriend and girlfriend. They have no idea it's against the law and most parents have no idea it's going on at all.

To view the entire article, visit http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=9208502