Recently in Domestic Policy Category

[Note: I haven't had a chance to process the recent same-sex marriage decision in California. But in the meantime I thought it was worth pointing out why few gay men in that state will be taking advantage of their new "right to marry."]

"Suppose same-sex marriages were introduced by legislation that also made divorce much harder to obtain," mused National Review editor at large John O'Sullivan. "How many same-sex couples would then be rushing to join San Francisco's wedding carnival?"

My suspicion is that lesbians would heavily outnumber gay men and that there would be a great many grooms left waiting at the municipal altar. It is not lifelong commitment that the couples are seeking (except in moments of romantic fantasy), but the revolving door of modern marriage with no-fault divorce.

On the same February day in 2004 that O'Sullivan published his article, I wrote a similar post, proposing that advocates of gay marriage raise the bar on marital commitment:

By adopting a form of "covenant marriage," gays and lesbians could lead the charge in restoring the sanctity of marital commitment. It would also be much more difficult for foes of same-sex civil marriage to justify excluding homosexuals if they would be willing to adopt such a proposal. The American people are becoming more receptive to the idea of civil union yet are hesitant to expand the definition of marriage. If the purpose of same-sex marriage is to recognize a lifelong commitment to one partner, then homosexual couples should lead the way by adopting this higher standard.

I'll readily admit that my suggestion was made simply to call the bluff of gay marriage advocates. Calling it "marriage" does not change the fact that it has no resemblance to the actual institution. But I also have no illusions that male homosexuals would desire such a marital bond. Gay men--like men in general--tend to be more promiscuous than women. Yet unlike married heterosexual men, gay men don't assume that taking wedding vows means accepting sexual exclusivity.

A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds that one in four (26%) female adolescents in the United States has at least one of the most common sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The teens were tested for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, chlamydia, herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) infection, and trichomoniasis. The authors of the study examined high-risk HPV types, including "23 types of the virus that are known to cause cancer, and the two types that cause most genital warts."

The researchers estimate that with the overall STI prevalence of 26 percent, "about 3.2 million adolescent females in the United States are infected with one of these STIs." However, they also note that the total prevalence might be slightly higher than these estimates indicate, because some STIs less common for that age group (e.g., syphilis, HIV and gonorrhea) were not included in the analysis.

In addition to overall STI prevalence, key findings of the new study include the following:

• The most common STI was cancer- and genital wart-associated HPV (18.3%), followed by chlamydia (3.9%), trichomoniasis (2.5%), and HSV-2 (1.9%). Among the teenage girls who had an STI, 15 percent had more than one.
• By race, African American teenage girls had the highest prevalence, with an overall STI prevalence of 48 percent compared to 20 percent among both whites and Mexican Americans.
• Overall, approximately half of all the teens in the study reported ever having had sex. Among these girls, the STI prevalence was 40 percent.
• Even among girls reporting only one lifetime partner, one in five (20.4%) had at least one STI. Girls with three or more partners had a prevalence of over 50 percent. The predominant STI was HPV.

The authors note that "the high prevalence of HPV indicates that teenage girls are at high risk for this infection, even those with few lifetime sexual partners."

You would think such news would generate a backlash against the failed sex education policies that encourage young girls to engage in such risky sexual behavior. Yet in The New York Times the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Cecile Richards, is quoted saying the new findings "emphasize the need for real comprehensive sex education" and that "The national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure...and teenage girls are paying the real price."

The executives of Planned Parenthood make the tobacco lobbyists look like models of veracity, so it isn't surprising to hear their president tell such a bold-faced lie. But while Ms. Richards is evil--and yes, she is evil--I doubt she is stupid. She certainly can't be as stupid as she thinks we must be to accept her reality-twisting claim about "comprehensive sex education."

Despite what you've heard, solving the immigration problem doesn’t require building a fence of mortar and wire along the border. All it takes is a "paper fence"--strict laws strictly enforced--to stem the tide of illegal aliens. Specifically, we need a true "no-amnesty" solution, one that denies amnesty not only to illegal workers but also to illegal employers.

Illegal employers--individuals and businesses that hire undocumented immigrants--are the single greatest cause of our immigration problem. As Texas Congressman Lamar Smith said in a Heritage Foundation lecture:

The magnet that attracts most illegal immigrants is the easy availability of jobs. Yet the 1986 law that makes it unlawful to hire someone in the country illegally is seldom enforced. In 2005, only four employers were fined under this law. If we make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to get jobs, won't many go home?

This flouting of our laws must end. I suggest a five-step plan to make it much more difficult for illegal immigrants to get jobs. Here is my proposal for a "No-Amnesty for Illegal Employers" policy: