YIKES. Seems Pitt’s pet cause — a deeply important one — is in trouble, according to SFGate.com (scroll down to second item):

A poll sponsored by CBS 5-TV indicates that California voters now favor passage of Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment to ban same sex “I do’s,” by 47 to 42 percent.

The poll of 670 registered voters taken by Survey USA is a big shift from one taken just last month by the Public Policy Institute of California. That one showed Prop. 8 losing, 55 to 41 percent.

Advocates of same-sex marriage over at the No on 8 campaign say their tracking polls show the same trend, with the ban now leading, 47 to 43 percent. The Yes on 8 campaign happily reports that it’s seeing a shift as well.

One explanation? Well, the latest poll was taken a few days after Prop. 8 proponents put commercials on the air featuring Newsom celebrating the state Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage by half-yelling, half-growling to a City Hall crowd, “This door’s wide open now! It’s gonna happen – whether you like it or not!”

The same ads show a law professor warning that if the measure passes, it could jeopardize the tax-exempt status of churches and lead to “gay marriage taught in public schools.”

Same-sex marriage proponents dispute both arguments — but the ad does seem to be working.

Learn more — and take action — here. There’s even a wedding registry!

Here’s a sweet New York Times story about Gotham’s storied marriage bureau (locus of Matt Damon’s lowest-of-keys wedding to Sarah Silverman Luciana Bozan).

As the Times reports, the office itself may be heading for an extreme makeover — but it’s still a nice reminder that not all nuptials are extreme weddingpaloozas.

Let’s say I, all 34 unwed years of me, was Bristol Palin’s older sister. I wonder how our mom (first name: Hockey) would introduce us to constituents and rallygoers. Would she moon over Bristol’s courage and convictions for surrendering to a for-show, shotgun wedding to a gutter-mouthed hunk of man-child, then mention me with a half-joking, “And here’s our choosy one.” Or worse: “And she’s single, guys!”

Signs point to yes, if (if!) the McCain-Palin ticket falls into lockstep with the Bush adminstration’s marriage propaganda programs. And if this analysis of the pro-family photo ops that ran throughout both conventions holds water. Not only would I be shunted to the kids’ table come Thanksgiving (the sort of holiday embarrassment I’ve fretted about before), but I bet Bristol — half my age! — would be promoted to the adult table by virtue of her less-than-virtuous insemination.

If marriage must be mandatory for an invite to A White House Family Christmas, at least let it defy the Republican party’s seeming “do as I say, not as I do” pedagogy and stiff-limbed public appearances. Whether you’re single, married or somewhere in between, there’s little denying that the Barack-Michelle union’s got zum zizzle, baby — evidently enough to carry them through awkward spouse-gaffes with humor and aplomb. And that many think their mere presence together on a world stage could do more in defense of marriage than any “fatherhood grant.”

And so is next week, and the week after …

In other words: sorry we missed it! (Again!) But now that folks who are “anything but married” (actually, it’s now called the National Unmarried and Single Americans Week) comprise the majority of households, hey, it’s your year.

(Now somebody tell the folks in charge.  From the San Francisco Chronicle:

“There’s a very heavy focus on marriage as a public-policy matter,”  said Nancy Polikoff, a professor of law at American University’s Washington College of Law in Washington, D.C. “You have it in the Bush administration’s policies that spend three-quarters of a billion dollars to promote marriage, and a really widespread campaign to convince the country that the decline of lifelong heterosexual marriage is responsible for all our social problems.”

She says  there’s a need to define family in a more expansive way, so that close family-like relationships are also defined by affinity or blood, not just by marriage. Such a change would allow people to take family or medical leave or paid sick days to care for family members “however they define them,” she says.

Nicky Grist, executive director of the decade-old New York nonprofit Alternatives to Marriage, says a broader definition of family than “the floor” currently used by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act “would make for a more just system, not a more abused system.”

Unmarried.org, as her group appears on the Web, is most concerned with health insurance access. The United States is “the only country that relies on marital status for access to health care,” says Grist.)

Again I say: Those poor kids.

From the Times of London, via TPM:

In an election campaign notable for its surprises, Sarah Palin, the Republican vice- presidential candidate, may be about to spring a new one — the wedding of her pregnant teenage daughter to her ice-hockey-playing fiancé before the November 4 election.

Inside John McCain’s campaign the expectation is growing that there will be a popularity boosting pre-election wedding in Alaska between Bristol Palin, 17, and Levi Johnston, 18, her schoolmate and father of her baby.

“It would be fantastic,” said a McCain insider. “You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week.”

News from The American Sociological Association: “For years, researchers have known that adults who have swapped rings say they are healthier than their never-married peers are. According to a recent study, though, singles are catching up when it comes to good health.”

Among self-reports by adults ages 25 to 80, never-married folks reported a quality of health close to that of all those hale and glowing married folks in the New York Times.

But wait! The ASA article is all about “never-married adults” and “people” and otherwise gender-neutralicious until paragraph 5. Then this: “This narrowing health gap between the married and the never married applies only to men, but not women.” Hey! No fair burying the lede, and … no fair! The piece also doesn’t mention that the apparent health benefits of marriage apply predominately to men in the first place.

(more…)

According to Chinese custom, 8/08/08 is a super-lucky day to get married.

(Or, if possible, launch the Olympic Games.)

Advertising Age reports that The Parents’ Television Council (PTC) is wagging quite the stern finger at broadcast networks for undermining marriage, they say, by making affairs look much more interesting. Networks show sex between married couples as “boring, burdensome or nonexistent, while depicting extramarital sex as positive,” according to the PTC. “[Prime-time] verbal references to nonmarital sex outnumber references to sex in marriage nearly 3 to 1, and scenes implying sex between unmarried partners outnumbered similar scenes between married couples 4 to 1.”

Sure: Shows such as Desperate Housewives, Lipstick Jungle, and Sex and the City certainly have their philandering plot lines, even if they end up with Carrie ending up with Mr. Big. Sunday’s episode of Mad Men showed Don Draper having ho-hum coitus with his wife, while sultry, unmarried Joan Holloway had anything but. And let’s not even get into the implications of Swingtown. Of course, in fairness to writers — TV and otherwise — a happy marriage makes a happy couple … but maybe not so great a story. (At least once the reality-wedding show ends.) But still: have we come so far that it is no longer risqué enough to merely say “Sex Sells,” but that “Forbidden Sex Sells”? And does it not just sell, but also, you know, drive us to seduce the pool boy?

(more…)

Courtney E. Martin had an interesting piece at The American Prospect the other day about the ways in which the legalization — here and there (but not there) — of gay marriage and has prompted her to reevaluate her own aversion to the tying of the knot. As a feminist wary of wedlock myself, I can’t help but nod along with her argument that historically, marriage is both heterosexist and just plain sexist. At the same time, it’s hard for a straight gal to condemn an institution that once considered women property at the same time that her gay friends are happily flocking to California to make their love public, official, and legit in the eyes of the very law that heretofore shut them out.

(more…)

Alas, the bloom’s off this rose: Bachelor Brit Matt Grant and his chosen fiancé Shayne Lamas have, as you may have heard, announced that their engagement is off.

“We tried hard to make it work but we realized that we were both heading in different directions,” the two said in a statement. “We truly care about each other and will remain close friends.”

Over the past 12 seasons, The Bachelor‘s ratings — as opposed to relationships — have remained fairly solid. Who knows what’s to blame: the pressure of the spotlight, the alleged unlikelihood that a true bachelor will ever change his spots, or retribution from the gods for ABC’s casting almost exclusively white people.

Yet we can’t help but watch, and we can’t help but hope. Could season 13 prove to be the luckiest in love? Maybe … if Brooke and Matt from Farmer Wants a Wife write some sort of self-help guide. (No country wedding yet, but at least they’re definitely still together.) That, or perhaps all Mr. Season 13 needs to do is ditch the tux and hop a tractor?