Increasingly, It's Women Who're Driving Today's Hookup Culture

From Andrea Tantaros on Twitter:

Can women have sex like men? NYT says so in an article everyone is talking about. Up next on radio: Dr. Wendy James. http://t.co/i1JqqysMbf

— Andrea Tantaros (@AndreaTantaros) July 18, 2013

And click through at the link. An interesting piece.

Jason Patrick's Sperm Donor Child-Custody Dispute

Oh, modern scientific progress, the problems it creates.

At LAT, "Jason Patric custody case inspires sperm-donor-rights legislation":

SACRAMENTO — A child-custody dispute involving actor Jason Patric has evolved from Hollywood tabloid fodder into a policy battle in the state Legislature that could affect thousands of California parents.

Patric, a star of films including "The Lost Boys," donated sperm in 2009 as part of a fertility treatment that resulted in pregnancy for a former girlfriend, Danielle Schreiber.

The actor decided he wanted to help raise the child, Gus, who is now 3, but has been stymied in his attempts to gain partial custody in court. A bill unanimously passed by the state Senate, now pending in the Assembly, would change the law to make such efforts easier.

Under state law, someone who donates sperm through a doctor or sperm bank and who is not married to the woman who conceives is not recognized as the child's natural father. The only exception is if the couple agreed in writing before conception that the donor was to be considered a parent.

Patric had donated the sperm in a doctor-supervised procedure, but he and Schreiber had no such agreement, and the two are no longer together, according to Fred D. Heather, Schreiber's attorney. As a result, a judge denied Patric's claim.

A bill by state Sen. Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) would allow courts to grant parental rights to sperm donors under broader conditions — for example, if a donor showed that he openly acknowledged the child as his own and received the child into his home.

"In circumstances where you have a sperm donor creating a parenting relationship with a child, someone should not be allowed to take that away from the child," said Hill, who has written other parental-rights laws.

Hill said it is appropriate that the bill is being considered in California, which has more fertility clinics than any state. Parental roles are shifting with family dynamics and technological advances, he noted.

Frankly, I'm not that sympathetic here. If you're going to "donate" your sperm to create a child the best recipient would be a wife, no?

The Biggest Stakes in the Supreme Court Marriage Cases

This is from leftist Richard Socarides, at the New Yorker:

Rarely has the Supreme Court ended its term with as much suspense about its final rulings as now. On Monday morning, the Justices sent a case that could have ended affirmative action back to a lower court; Tuesday, the next scheduled day for decisions, may bring a ruling that strikes down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. And the two most anticipated remaining cases, expected by the end of the week, are on the future of same-sex marriage. Whatever the Court decides, it will, in an instant, dramatically change the political and legal landscape for gay rights.

What’s at stake? If you are part of a same-sex couple and are or want to be married, or are the child of gay or lesbian parents, your life and your choices will be directly affected. One of the cases, Hollingsworth v. Perry, a challenge to Proposition 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban, should, at least, determine whether or not you can marry the person you love in that state. That could provide the template for how courts view other states’ bans. Depending on how the decision is written, it could bring marriage equality to seven states, or to fifty. (The New Yorker has put together a map with possible outcomes.) Most ambitiously, the plaintiffs are asking the justices to find that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

The other case, United States v. Edith Windsor, is a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages sanctioned by the states. This means that it affects same-sex marriage in any of the twelve states that currently allow it, as well as any future ones. If DOMA is overturned, couples will be entitled to the federal benefits of marriage (preferential estate-tax treatment, social-security benefits) as well as the responsibilities (listing a spouse’s assets on financial disclosure forms), not to mention the dignity that comes with full recognition.

Exactly how the Court will rule has been subject to a lot of speculation. The expert consensus, which I think is correct, is that DOMA will be ruled unconstitutional. Prop 8 will end up being nullified, but not on the merits; instead, the Court will rule that the Prop 8 case is not properly before it and thereby allow a lower court ruling striking it to stand...

I'm not going to be surprised if that's the eventual outcome.

I'd like to see the Court uphold Prop. 8 and strike down DOMA (although I've argued that it should be upheld at times, so I'm ambivalent). My main concern is right here in California, and thus like everyone else I'm extremely anxious for the Court's ruling.

Anyway, read the rest of the piece at the link.

Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage

Dr. Helen Smith, wife to Glenn Reynolds, is interviewed at the Wall Street Journal's Digital Network, via Instapundit.

The "Insta-Wife," as Glenn often calls her, has a new book, Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters.

Why Marriage Matters? For the Children, at Least

I tweeted about Nathaniel Frank's essay, "Why marriage Matters," the other day.

Now there's some responses at the letters to the editor, at the Los Angeles Times, "Letters: Children and same-sex marriage":

Re "Why marriage matters," Opinion, June 9

Nathaniel Frank's piece revealed a compressed view of same-sex marriage. Nowhere did it mention children — conveniently dismissed, it seems, as if marriage is simply a celebration of individual rights and public recognition.

Through the centuries, in vastly different cultures all over the world, marriage has been a religious and social institution because it is the single greatest unifier of men, women and children. It is self-evident that marriage is much more than Frank's idea of "sharing in the symbolic space of first-class citizenship." This reduces marriage to something akin to membership in an exclusive country club. Marriage has historically enabled the entire concept of family and society to flourish. And that, of course, includes children.

So while Frank may believe same-sex marriage is about rights, benefits and recognition, those are secondary considerations. Perhaps he should consider marriage as something selfless, something based on giving, not just getting.

Gary P. Taylor
Santa Ysabel, Calif.

It's all me, me, me! with the freak narcissist progressives. They're destroying the country, the leftist ghouls.

Ericka Anderson Got Married!

This is outstanding, "How I Got a Date Worth Keeping (& Marrying)" (via Instapundit).

Congratulations. And many happy years!

FLASHBACK: I blogged about Ericka's running back in 2011, "Ericka Anderson Runs 36th Marine Corps Marathon."

How #GayMarriage Symbol Went Viral on Facebook

At the Verge, "Facebook maps out support for gay marriage as profile photo campaign takes off." And WSJ, "Facebook: Big Impact From Gay-Marriage Campaign."

And Gabby Hoffman's got the moral competitor, "I support traditional marriage..."

I support traditional marriage. #sorrynotsorry. RT if you do too! #values #tcot twitter.com/Gabby_Hoffman/…
— Gabriella Hoffman (@Gabby_Hoffman) March 27, 2013

Radical Homosexual Marriage Proponents Have Successfully Framed Their Opponents as Bigots

A great piece, from Mona Charen, at National Review, "Why We’re Losing the Gay-Marriage Debate":

Same-sex marriage is probably inevitable in America, whatever the Supreme Court decides. That’s because the public is clearly leaning that way. That the court is even being asked to impose a sweeping social change on the nation is illustrative of another lost battle — the idea that the Supreme Court is not a super-legislature and that nine robed lawyers ought to refrain from imposing their policy preferences on the whole nation.

Even two liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, have from time to time expressed caution about the Court’s imposing its will on matters better left up to the people and their elected representatives. It will be interesting to see whether those prudential considerations come into play in their decisions in these cases or whether the desire for a particular outcome overwhelms concerns about the Court’s proper role. Too few Americans recognize this for what it is — a loss of sovereignty.

Champions of same-sex marriage are carrying the day for a number of reasons. (1) The advocacy embedded in popular entertainment such as Modern Family and Brokeback Mountain has been funny, touching, and disarming. (2) Proponents of same-sex marriage appear to be asking for simple justice. (3) Americans would rather stick pins in their eyes than willingly hurt anyone’s feelings. (4) Proponents seem to be embracing the conservative value of marriage.

Beyond all of those factors, though, the most potent argument in the SSM quiver is the race analogy. During oral argument at the Supreme Court, advocates argued (as they have elsewhere) that impairing the right of homosexuals to marry is analogous to proscribing interracial marriage. If that’s true, it’s game, set, and match. If SSM is like interracial marriage, then the only possible motive for opposing it is bigotry.

Liberals slip on this argument like a comfortable sweater. It’s easier to impugn the good faith of your opponents than seriously to grapple with their arguments. Oppose forcing Catholic institutions to distribute free contraceptives? You hate women. Oppose changing the definition of marriage? You hate gays.

Continue reading. It's a thoughtful piece. And she hits it out of the park at the conclusion.

Ms. Charen might have added that in fact the real bigots are gay rights proponents, especially when it comes to traditional values and religion.

'Legalizing same-sex marriage would celebrate motherlessness and fatherlessness...'

From the letters to the editor, at the Los Angeles Times, "Letters: Gay in America":

Re " A gay marriage backlash? Not likely," Opinion, March 24

It is incredible to suggest that the effect of legalizing same-sex marriage is only "abstract and long term." A normal response to someone who says "I grew up without a mother" or "I grew up without a father" is to say, "I'm so sorry." Legalizing same-sex marriage would celebrate motherlessness and fatherlessness.

If the Supreme Court redefines marriage, we will tell ourselves and every child that women are replaceable and men don't matter. There is nothing more fundamentally equal than marriage as it always has been: You must have a man, and you must have a woman.

Gwendolyn Wyne
Los Angeles

Well, that's not politically correct to say that. You'll be attacked as homophobic!

More letters at the link.

Justices Show Reluctance for Broad Marriage Ruling

This morning's big front-page write-up at the Wall Street Journal, "High Court Uneasy Over Broad Ruling":

WASHINGTON—Two days of arguments on same-sex marriage revealed a Supreme Court uneasy about making sweeping moves on gay rights and holding doubts about whether the cases belonged before the justices at all.

The arguments also brought to life more familiar fissures between the court's liberal and conservative wings. On Wednesday, liberal justices suggested that a 1996 federal law denying benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples was motivated by animus against gays, while Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, challenged assertions that gays and lesbians need judicial protection from repressive majorities.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, seen as a pivotal vote, gave gay-marriage proponents some hope by suggesting the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act might infringe on states' rights to make their own marriage rules. That suggested at least five justices—Justice Kennedy plus the court's four liberals—might be ready to strike down the law.

But questions about whether the court could properly hear the case made it hard to predict any outcome.

Decisions are expected by late June on the Defense of Marriage Act case as well as the case the court heard Tuesday on California's 2008 voter initiative prohibiting same-sex marriage.

The arguments highlighted a point in common between the two cases. Normally, federal courts require two adverse parties before they can decide a case. Strikingly, however, both the federal and state governments agree with the plaintiffs that the challenged laws are unconstitutional, and have declined to defend them on appeal.

Other groups have stepped in to defend the laws banning gay marriage—the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives for the Defense of Marriage Act and the private citizens who officially sponsored Proposition 8.

But justices of different ideological stripes were wary of litigants without clear legal standing, even though advocates on both sides were eager for vindication in a roiling culture war.

"I can't think of another instance where that's happened," said Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal, referring to the House's intervention in the federal marriage law case. "I'm afraid of opening that door."

Continue reading.

Will Tolerance for the Faithful Be Tolerated?

From John Kass, at the Chicago Tribune, "As times change, will tolerance for tradition be tolerated?":

With the issue of same-sex marriage argued before the Supreme Court and raging elsewhere in America, a question:

Is it possible to be a traditional Christian or Muslim or Orthodox Jew — and hold to one's faith on what constitutes marriage — and not be considered a bigot?

And is faith now a problem to be overcome, first marginalized by the state and then contained, so as not to get in the way of great changes to come?

The issue of same-sex unions is by nature contentious and divisive. It is not merely about equal protection under the law, but redefining the foundation of our culture, which is the family itself.

It's not my intention to add to the anger and the noise. If you've followed the news of the crowds outside the Supreme Court this week, and watched those vicious little boxes within boxes on cable TV, with angry people barking at each other, you'll get plenty of noise.

I'm not angry. Yet I am struggling. And I've been silent on the subject for some time, trying to figure it out.

I'm not opposed to same-sex unions. Americans have the right to equal protection under the law, and same-sex couples should be able to expect the same tax benefits and other considerations allowed to those of us who are now being called, in some quarters, "opposite-sex couples."

As far as I'm concerned, Americans have the right to do as they please as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. America is all about liberty and freedom.

But this all comes now during the season of Lent, a time of fasting and prayer, when Christians are compelled to confront the obligations of their faith.

And while I hear the new moral arguments, about equal rights and equal protection, I've read little about the religious freedom aspects and what the Supreme Court's ruling might mean for houses of traditional worship.

All I'm asking is that in the rush to establish new rights, that tolerance for religious freedom be considered as well.

What?

Tolerance for Godbag religious bigots? Well, don't expect any of that from the pro-homo progressive left. They hate conservative Christians. And traditional Muslims? Well, folks like that are only good for attacking conservatives as Islamophobes, so they have their uses. Just screw 'em when it comes to their "backward" views on homosexuality. Throw those Muslim bigots under the bus.

 More from David Brody, at CBN, "Are the Faithful More Scorned Than Homosexuals?"

The New York Times Goes All In for the Left's Morally-Depraved Homosexual Marriage Scam

I have argued in previous posts that the Supreme Court should strike down the DOMA in furtherance of a genuine federalism protecting states' rights to regulate marriage according to local political interests.

That view is mistaken and I'm retracting that position. I still have questions about the effects of DOMA repeal on the states, as noted in my earlier post, "I'm Reading Around on the Defense of Marriage Act." However, folks should read this amicus curiae brief from the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund, "BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF EAGLE FORUM EDUCATION & LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC., IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL ON THE MERITS."

One of my questions that's now been answered is how, as I mentioned, would states be affected by married same-sex couples of a state who relocate and then make claims on another state that does not recognize homosexual marriage? Actually, there could be dramatic effects, if the Eagle Forum brief is accurate --- and it makes a powerful case in any event. Homosexual married federal employees who reside in a same-sex marriage state who then move to a state recognizing only opposite-sex marriages could then claim a violation of their rights under DOMA, and hence force the recognition of homosexual marriage on a state whose political system has rejected the redefinition of the institution. It's telling, then, that the Washington Post has this just now as I'm drafting this entry, "Federal employees in same-sex unions look to Supreme Court to overturn DOMA."

In any case, here's the key section at the brief, "As a Practical Matter, Rejecting DOMA Would Spread Same-Sex Marriage Nationwide":

Although Windsor and her allies often seek to minimize the issues at stake in challenging DOMA §3, the impact of the Second Circuit’s decision – and of any decision by this Court to affirm that decision – simply is not limited to Windsor’s tax liability or even a relatively few couples in New York and a few other states. The question of whom society allows to marry does not affect only the wedding couple.

Even without the direct force of law, federal employees with federally recognized, same-sex marriages from a few states will spread across the Nation when they are re-posted, transferred, or simply move. They will take with them not only their federal recognition, but also various property rights such as pensions, as well as child-custody issues. When they move to states that do not recognize same-sex marriages, they will raise countless substantive and procedural issues, as well as the sheer weight of practical problems that the differing legal regimes will present.

These issues posed by same-sex couples will arise when federally regulated persons such as federal employees and contractors either (a) move from one of the few same-sex marriage states to a state with a husband-wife definition of marriage, or (b) visit same-sex marriage jurisdictions (like Windsor here) while domiciled in states with a husband-wife definition of marriage. The latter category will require still further litigation to determine DOMA’s application to such “destination marriages” by non-domiciliaries. Whenever federal law recognizes a marriage that state law does not, the conflicts that the differing regimes pose will be magnified.

Be sure to RTWT. It's a very compelling argument.

Now, here are the editors at the New York Times, who're going all cultural Marxist for the left's family-destruction agenda, "A 50-State Ruling":

California’s Proposition 8 rewrote the state’s Constitution so that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, for purposes of any federal law, defined the word marriage to mean “only a legal union between one man and one woman.”

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on challenges to Proposition 8 on Tuesday and Defense of Marriage on Wednesday. In both cases, the court should rule that the Constitution prohibits the federal government and every state from defining the fundamental right of marriage so narrowly and fully protects the liberty of same-sex couples.

When Proposition 8 was on the California ballot in 2008, the official pamphlet explaining the initiative said that it did not “take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships,” which have the “ ‘same rights, protections, and benefits’ as married spouses.”

As the California Supreme Court said about legal attacks on same-sex marriage, the point of denying gay marriages was to say officially that these relationships were not of “comparable stature or equal dignity” to opposite-sex marriages. The intent was to stigmatize them, enshrine discrimination in law and encourage discrimination against gay men, lesbians and same-sex couples. The federal Defense of Marriage Act does the same, with the same effects. And in depriving same-sex couples and their children of federal recognition and benefits, it fails to meet any test under the Constitution.

Keep reading. The editors are making a radical call to stop the political process now moving toward greater acceptance of homosexual marriage across the land. A sweeping ruling like that endorsed by the Times will only radicalize and polarize the debate, and thus prevent the likely accommodation of all sides through the federal system. What a disaster.

Compare the Times to the Wall Street Journal's editorial board, "Marriage and the Supreme Court":

This week the Supreme Court takes up same-sex marriage, amid shifting American mores and a healthy debate about equality. Yet the two cases before the High Court are less about the institution of marriage than the sanctity of democratic institutions and the proper role of the courts.

Over time, through popular consent, the law comes to reflect an evolving social consensus. On gay marriage, state by state, election by election, voters are extending to gay and lesbian couples the same rights and responsibilities that pertain to a union between a man and a woman. Those choices are the pith of self-government, even if fair-minded voters in other states preserve the traditional meaning.

If the Supreme Court now reads a right to gay marriage into the Constitution and imposes that definition on all states, it won't settle the debates Americans are conducting. It will inflame them and ensure they never end, prematurely aborting the give-and-take on contentious moral and social issues the Constitution is designed to encourage. Five Justices—or fewer, if they split into pluralities—could further polarize the body politic and make compromise more difficult.

Also notice the discussion of upholding DOMA at the piece.

Today's my long day at the college, but I'll have more blogging tonight.

I'm Reading Around on the Defense of Marriage Act

Blogging will be light this evening while I read around on the background to DOMA.

I've noticed that most conservatives hope to preserve DOMA, but I'm interested in fully returning the issue of marriage regulations to the states. Plus, under DOMA the federal government determines what kinds of benefits are available to married couples. I'm looking to see how DOMA repeal will affect states that do not recognize same-sex marriage in their states. (What kind of claims might a same-sex married couple have on a state that doesn't allow homosexual marriage, for example?) For true federalism to work the national government is going to have recognize marriage as a right subject to state laws and that under Article IV states are required to honor the laws of other states. There could be drawbacks to this beyond the initial notion of recognition of same-sex marriage as violating ideological and religious convictions, but I need more information.

See Lyle Denniston, at SCOTUS Blog, "Argument preview: Marriage and the Court’s “friends” — Part I," and "Argument preview: Marriage and the Court’s “friends” — Part II."

#MarriageMarch is tomorrow myop.us/10HknTi retweet this meme to show your support! twitter.com/NOMupdate/stat…
— NOM (@NOMupdate) March 25, 2013

And until later, see Andrew Ferguson, at the Weekly Standard, "Politicized 'Science' of Gay Marriage."

The Major Groups Opposing Homosexual Marriage

An excellent front-page story at today's USA Today, "Gay marriage? These voices say 'No' and explain why."

And an interesting, if flawed, piece from Michael McConnell, at the Wall Street Journal, "The Constitution and Same-Sex Marriage."

McConnell argues that when courts attempt a final resolution to contemporary hot-button issues currently working through the political process, especially at the state level, they violate the concept of political legitimacy. He then goes on to argue that the Supreme Court should rule that the group of private citizens defending Proposition 8 (in place of the State of California, which refused to advocate in defense of California's voters) doesn't have standing to sue, thus upholding the decision of the Federal District Court striking down the measure back in 2010. Get that? It wouldn't be right for the Supreme Court to resolve a hot-button political issue, but it would be perfectly fine to let stand the mob-rule decision handed down by the corrupt Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, a homosexual, now retired, who clearly had a conflict of interest in the case. Biased much, Professor McConnell?

Althouse has more, "'If the court dismisses the Proposition 8 case on standing grounds and strikes DOMA down on federalism grounds...'" (via Memeorandum).

The Other Marriage Inequality

Glenn Reynolds discusses declining marriage rates among the low and lower middle classes, at USA Today.

A great piece.

Smokin' Wife of Long Island Millionaire Gets Judge to Throw Out Prenuptual Agreement

In your morning New York tabloid news, at the Post, "Wife of millionaire LI real-estate mogul gets judge to rip up her prenup":

The beautiful wife of a millionaire Long Island real-estate mogul got a judge to rip up her prenup — a rare, precedent-setting decision that could influence countless marriages to wealthy people.

Elizabeth Petrakis, 39 — sometimes acting as her own lawyer — got a an appellate panel last month to toss the agreement she signed with Peter Petrakis, 41, four days before their lavish 1998 wedding.

The prenup stipulated that Peter, who parlayed a string of smoke shops into a $20 million commercial real-estate empire, would keep everything in his name if they split up.

But Elizabeth argued for seven years that Peter coerced her signature, threatening to call off the wedding even though her father had already paid $40,000 for the reception.

“He told me he would rip it up as soon as we had kids,” Elizabeth, who has since had twin sons and a daughter, told The Post at her Old Brookville mansion.

“But he never did. The reason this happened was I was an advocate for myself and I didn’t give up.’’

She called the document “a knife in my heart from Day One.’’

'It was really awkward because he kept telling me that I was the perfect girl for him, but that a low credit score was his deal-breaker...'

Times have changed, I guess. My credit was shot when I met my future wife. And I was working minimum wage and driving a beaten down Toyota 2x4 pickup. I had a smokin' hot physique back in the day, so I guess that explains it.

In any case, a great piece at the New York Times, "Perfect 10? Never Mind That. Ask Her for Her Credit Score":

As she nibbled on strawberry shortcake, Jessica LaShawn, a flight attendant from Chicago, tried not to get ahead of herself and imagine this first date turning into another and another, and maybe, at some point, a glimmering diamond ring and happily ever after.

She simply couldn’t help it, though. After all, he was tall, from a religious family, raised by his grandparents just as she was, worked in finance and even had great teeth.

Her musings were suddenly interrupted when her date asked a decidedly unromantic question: “What’s your credit score?”

“It was as if the music stopped,” Ms. LaShawn, 31, said, recalling how the date this year went so wrong so quickly after she tried to answer his question honestly. “It was really awkward because he kept telling me that I was the perfect girl for him, but that a low credit score was his deal-breaker.”

The credit score, once a little-known metric derived from a complex formula that incorporates outstanding debt and payment histories, has become an increasingly important number used to bestow credit, determine housing and even distinguish between job candidates.

It’s so widely used that it has also become a bigger factor in dating decisions, sometimes eclipsing more traditional priorities like a good job, shared interests and physical chemistry. That’s according to interviews with more than 50 daters across the country, all under the age of 40.

“Credit scores are like the dating equivalent of a sexually transmitted disease test,” said Manisha Thakor, the founder and chief executive of MoneyZen Wealth Management, a financial advisory firm. “It’s a shorthand way to get a sense of someone’s financial past the same way an S.T.D. test gives some information about a person’s sexual past.”

Actually, Ms. LaShawn has some pretty great teeth --- and then some.

RTWT at that top link.

Added: I can't resist adding this passage:

Lauren Dollard, a 26-year-old assistant at a nonprofit in Houston, said her low credit score had helped to stall her romantic plans. Her boyfriend is wary of marrying her until she can significantly pay down the more than $150,000 she owes in student loans and bolster her credit score, she said.

I personally wouldn't marry someone who ran up that much in college debt. The numbers I read about in student loan debt these days are literally obscene. No one should ever take out that much debt for any kind of degree, any kind, including an attorney, doctor, or whatever. You start out your professional life in financial bondage. Talk about a higher education bubble. Oh brother...

Montana's 'Castle Doctrine' Law

At the New York Times, "'Castle' Law at Issue After Fatal Montana Shooting":

Heather Fredenberg, 22, said she and Dan [Fredenberg] were passionate about each other, but also bickered about child care, bills, fixing the car and other stresses amplified by having two infants and not enough time or money. The county attorney’s report said they were “mutually abusive with each other, both verbally and physically.” More than once they considered divorcing.

About three months before the shooting, Ms. Fredenberg started seeing Mr. [Brice] Harper. She has called it a flirtation and an “emotional affair” that was intimate but never sexual. She told her husband about the relationship, and the two men once clashed at Fatt Boys Bar & Grille in Kalispell.

Although Ms. Fredenberg said she and her husband were committed to each other despite everything, Mr. Fredenberg’s father said his son believed the marriage was breaking apart. The day before he died, he told his father, “I’m giving up on it. I just can’t put up with it anymore,” his father said.

On Sept. 22, Mr. Harper called Ms. Fredenberg and asked a favor: He was moving out of town the next day, and could she come over and help him clean the house? She took her 18-month-old twin boys and spent the afternoon at his home, a five-minute drive from hers. She swapped tense text messages with Mr. Fredenberg and talked on the phone around 8:30 p.m. He asked whether she was with Mr. Harper. She said she did not answer. He cursed and hung up.

As she was strapping her sons into their car seats and getting ready to leave, she said, she asked Mr. Harper to circle the block with her to diagnose a clunking sound in her car. As they drove, she saw headlights in her rearview mirror. Her husband had come looking for her, and he was behind them.

Ms. Fredenberg said she dropped Mr. Harper off at his house and told him to go inside and lock the doors. She said he told her that he had a gun and was not afraid of her husband. Mr. Fredenberg, close behind, parked his car and followed Mr. Harper into his garage, its light spilling onto the driveway.

Read it all at the link.

And at Althouse, "The NYT attempts an anecdotal argument against the law that lets you defend yourself in your home."

Lesbian Becomes Mother to Baby Girl After Finding Perfect Match on Her Own Sperm Donor Website

It's an interesting story, at London's Daily Mail, "San Diego lesbian gives birth to baby girl after finding perfect match on the free sperm donor site she founded."

RELATED: "The Kids Are Not Alright."

Tiki Barbar Remarries Just 4 Days After Finalizing Divorce From First Wife

I used to have a lot of respect for this guy, but he divorced his wife when she was pregnant with their third and fourth children, twin daugthers. I personally don't have that big a problem with divorce. I do have a problem with ditching your wife for a 23-year-old hottie while your ex-wife bears your newborn child.

In any case, at London's Daily Mail, "NY Giants star Tiki Barber marries 23-year-old pinup wife days after divorcing mother of his four children."

Check that link. He was cheating on his wife before they divorced, as his lawyers house. His popularity has taken a big hit, so I guess that's a comeuppance.