Keeping track of stories the press won’t cover helps maintain one’s grip on reality, but people who complain about spiked stories don’t always have the firmest grip themselves. Here though are some items that seem believable:
- John Lott complains that the press simply won’t cover defensive gun use.
- Wesley J. Smith complains the mainstream media routinely ignores promising news about adult stem cell research (it doesn’t make pro-lifers look bad).
- Rian Malan (in The Spectator) says the estimates of AIDS incidence in Africa are grossly inflated. The world’s most politicized disease continues its career.
The information on AIDS and
The information on AIDS and Africa is new and interesting to me, especially with the many conspiracy stories and advocacy analyses that are floating around about it. It’s something that’s enticing to look further into.
A story of mine was recently spiked.
The Federal Marriage Amendment – Fathers’ Rights Activists Weigh In
http://familyops.us/columns/lemasters/marriageamend.html
It was a rebuttal to Roger Gay’s piece.
“Why I Oppose The Federal Marriage Amendment” (Roger Gay)
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/03/gay121103.htm
Was I erroneous in assumptions about “third parties” and “common law marriage” in the first few paragraphs? Concerned Women for America thinks so, as they’ve issued a statement to that effect.
http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/8_august/082003_mn_cwa_against_homosexual_marriage.shtml
My column is getting quite a bit of attention from readers at law schools. This is a bit surprising, because I am not a lawyer and lack understanding as to why they would be interested. If the piece was erroneous, it would be interesting to further study and write a new one on the same topic.
I don’t think the FMA would
I don’t think the FMA would affect common-law marriage as it stands now. It says courts can’t confer marital status or the incidents of marriage on “unmarried couples.” It doesn’t say what an “unmarried couple” is, though, except that two men or two women would always be an “unmarried couple.” So if a court declared that a man and woman who’ve been living together as man and wife constitute a “married couple” under state law I don’t think the amendment would affect it.
I don’t see what the amendment has to do with third-party intervention in custody disputes. That wouldn’t normally be based on marital status.
Thank you.
I thought that
Thank you.
I thought that joint property ownership (with regard to common law marriage) and parental custody of children might be considered legal “incidents” of marital status but was mistaken. I was mistaken, though, and that explains why more lesbian “partners” are taking custody of children from mothers (and fathers) in the divorce courts.
That’s what happens when we word mongers don’t look for legal definitions and decisions before writing about public policy. I’ll read more and write again.