American women are both incredibly dogmatic and anxious about our mothering.

When Amy Chua described her intense efforts to push her two daughters into high achievement in school, in music and, hence, in life, she caused an uproar among many Americans who consider her methods bordering on child abuse. (What? No playdates!?)

Two new studies do point out that there are costs to tiger mothering.

A study by professor Desiree Qin and colleagues was published this month in the Journal of Adolescence and is titled, "Parent-Child Relations and Psychological Adjustment Among High-Achieving Chinese- and European-American Adolescents."

Qin looked at survey data on 295 Chinese-American and 192 European-American ninth-graders at Stuyvesant High School, a well-regarded public magnet school in Manhattan.

Chinese-American teens reported lower levels of psychological well-being, less family cohesion and more conflict with their parents, on average.

The ethnic differences on psychological adjustment disappeared once family conflict and cohesion were controlled for, suggesting "such perceptions may be a key factor in understanding the high academic achievement/low psychological adjustment paradoxical pattern of development among Chinese-American adolescents."

"(Chua) said Western children are not happier than Chinese ones," Qin told the New York Daily News. "But at the same time, research from our study does show that when parents place a lot of pressure on their kids, the children are less happy."

Tiger mothering works, in other words. But having a mom or dad who constantly push you to perform well can also take a toll.

It takes a toll on the moms as well.

Labels: Asia, China, culture, Maggie Gallagher, motherhood, parenting, universities

VOTE

Marriage matters, but why?

For more than 20 years, social scientists have consistently found that children do better raised by their mothers and fathers united by marriage.

For most of that time policymakers have focused on the problem of "father absence," and it is a real problem. Very few boys and girls have involved, loving, supportive fathers if the man that made them is not married to their mama.

But a new crop of research is challenging the idea that the main or only problem with the decline of marriage is the absence of fathers. An equally big or even bigger problem may be the churning romantic lives of unmarried and divorced mothers. ...

Many family scholars, consistent with the liberal leanings of the academy, are responding to the accumulating evidence that marriage matters by urging society to make cohabiting and dating relationships as stable as marriages. Good luck with that one.

Here's the bottom line: When mothers' romantic lives churn, babies' and children's lives churn too.

Mothers, marriage matters because it restrains our romantic yearnings and our romantic losses. The restless search for soul mates is not really compatible with making your child feel he or she is the center of your world, infinitely beloved.

Labels: children, cohabitation, culture, dating, family structure, Maggie Gallagher, Marriage, motherhood, out-of-wedlock births, single parenting, unmarried parents

VOTE

The mainstream media have labeled marriage the “hottest front in the culture war.” Much to the media’s surprise, several of the GOP candidates have already signed the National Organization of Marriage’s (NOM) Marriage Pledge. They were surprised by major candidates’ willingness to sign NOM’s pledge because this was supposed to be the year the social issues did not matter.

Presidential candidates for the 2012 election need to know that marriage is not only an essential issue in this race; it is a winning issue.

Elites have sounded the death knell on the marriage debate again and again, but popular support for traditional marriage refuses to die. Americans at the ballot box have repeatedly shocked elite opinion by demonstrating that even in deeply blue states a majority of Americans continues to oppose same-sex marriage. ...

Yet recent polling also reflects that Americans in the mushy middle are no longer hearing much about the opposition to same-sex marriage. Their willingness to express support for a traditional understanding of marriage is starting to shift, depending on how the question is posed to them and what other questions surround the polling question.

This shift means something: when the issue is framed as one of fairness or equality, Americans are now reluctant to disagree with gay marriage, but when it is framed as a moral or family issue, they continue to adhere strongly to traditional norms of marriage.

As Ken Blackwell recently put it, marriage is not a wedge issue but a bridge issue, creating strange bedfellow coalitions never before seen in American politics across lines of race, creed, and color. ...

So why is marriage, the one issue that the progressive left is energetically making too radioactive even to address, also the one issue that a candidate committed to American civilization cannot evade, avoid, or downplay?

The first reason is the nature of marriage itself.

Labels: culture, gay marriage, government interest in marriage, Maggie Gallagher, Marriage, religion

VOTE

THE kids are not doing just fine.

The Institute for American Values’ new updated report, “Why Marriage Matters: 30 Conclusions From the Social Sciences,” is signed by an impressive list of family scholars ranging from professor John Gottman to professor Brad Wilcox. It concludes:

“The intact, biological, married family remains the gold standard for family life in the United States, insofar as children are most likely to thrive—economically, socially and psychologically —in this family form.”

The good news is that divorce involving children is down. The bad news is that children today are less likely to live with both parents. Thirty years ago, 66 percent of 16-years-olds lived with their mom and dad. By 2004, only 55 percent did so.

Divorce is down; family instability is up. How can that be? ...

The most important moral question every adult faces is: Which matters more to me—my love life, or my child’s love life?

Most of the really bad things good people do to their kids come from burying that question, rather than facing it squarely.

Labels: children, cohabitation, culture, divorce, Maggie Gallagher, Marriage, out-of-wedlock births, parenting, unmarried parents

VOTE

Is marriage bad for your mental health? Fox News expert Dr. Keith Ablow says so.

He lauds Cameron Diaz's claim that marriage is a "dying institution," and goes on to say that in his clinical judgment "marriage is (as it has been for decades now) a source of real suffering for the vast majority of married people."

The vast majority?

Dr. Ablow further asserts, "without a doubt" (and also without evidence), that marriage is "one of the leading causes of major depression in the nation," and points to marriage's status as a legal union as a key cause. Because the law makes it harder to leave a marriage, marriage deprives men and women of what he calls "the joy of being 'chosen' on a daily basis." If marriage had no legal status, he states, marriages would feel "less confining."

Dr. Ablow has impressive credentials. His website calls him "one of America's leading psychiatrists," and an assistant professor at Tufts Medical School. ...

A particularly persuasive study of "union formation and depression" by Kathleen Lamb and Gary Lee appeared in the Journal of Marriage and Family in November 2003. According to the authors, "Many studies have established that married people fare better than their never-married counterparts in terms of psychological well-being." The study then used two waves of the National Survey of Families and Households to test whether marriage reduces depression or whether depressed people are less likely to marry. The study concludes there is "no evidence of selection of less depressed persons into either marriage or cohabitation, but a negative effect of entry into marriage on depression, particularly when marriage was not preceded by cohabitation" -- i.e., marriage reduced depression.

Labels: cohabitation, culture, Maggie Gallagher, Marriage, mental health

VOTE

Shocking news: Virginity is on the rise in America.

The source is sober, academic, practically irrefutable: the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Its latest analysis of the sex lives of Americans age 15 to 44 includes a startling finding: Virginity is increasing among teens and young adults in the U.S.

Compared with data from the 2002 (National Survey of Family Growth), a higher percentage of males and females 15-24 in 2006-2008 have had no sexual contact with another person. In 2002, 22 percent of young men and women 15-24 had never had any sexual contact with another person, and in 2006-2008, those figures were 27 percent for males and 29 percent for females.

The survey was was drawn from in-person interviews with a national sample of 13,495 males and females. The data were collected using audio computer-assisted self-interviewing, or ACASI, in which the respondent enters his or her own answers into the computer -- known to be the most accurate way of collecting sensitive data.

The response rate for the 2006-2008 NSFG was 75 percent -- very high for this kind of data.

The increase in virginity is not just "technical virginity," mind you. These are young adults who say they have had no sexual contact of any kind: no intercourse, no oral sex, no anal sex. (Presumably, a lot of them have, however, kissed and hugged!)

I'm an old hand at stats. But even I was surprised by this finding buried in the report (Table 3): 32 percent of currently married women under the age of 45 say they have had only one sex partner in their life. ...

The same data show that less than 2 percent of adults under the age of 45 self-identify as "homosexual, gay or lesbians" (more if you count bisexuals, of course). If the data are accurate, they suggest there are at least as many adult women under the age of 45 who have never had sex with anyone but their husband as there are gay people in the general population.

Labels: culture, Maggie Gallagher, Marriage, premarital sex, sex, STDs, virginity, women

VOTE

What do the American people think of marriage? A new Pew Research Center/Time magazine poll has been misused to suggest Americans love family diversity and, oh by the way, marriage is "changing," not declining, and for the better! Nothing to worry about.

Meanwhile, scratch the surface support for pieties like "diversity," and you find a core of deep family traditionalism, unease and concern -- primarily about children.

Yes, 39 percent of Americans applaud or worry that marriage is "becoming obsolete," and a majority describe the growing diversity of family arrangements as either a good thing or a neutral thing.

Meanwhile, 61 percent of adults believe that a child needs a home with both a father and a mother to grow up happily; 69 percent say that single women raising children alone is bad for society; and 77 percent of Americans agree that it's easier to raise a family if you are married than if you are single.

When asked about the challenges facing children in non-traditional families, children with gay and lesbian parents top a worrying list: 79 percent of respondents say these children face more challenges than other children -- with 51 percent saying "a lot more challenges." Eighty percent of Americans say children of divorce face more challenges (42 percent say they face "a lot more" challenges), while 78 percent of the public say children of single parents face at least a few more challenges (only 38 percent say these children face "a lot more challenges" than other children).

Americans are relatively unconcerned about intact families where the parents are not married: Just 16 percent say these children face "a lot more challenges" than other children. Americans wrongly seem to imagine that marital permanence often exists without marriage. ...

Oh, money doesn't matter -- it's all about compassion and parenting, right? And yet here, again, the surprising vein of sexual traditionalism lies just under the surface: Two-thirds of Americans say a man who wants to marry ought to be able to support a family, compared to just one-third who say a good wife must able to support a family.

Labels: children, cohabitation, culture, divorce, gay parenting, gender, Maggie Gallagher, Marriage, men, parenting, single parenting

VOTE

...Ben-Peter: What’s one good news story on the traditional marriage side you can share with us?

Maggie: Well, let me tell you a story about the founding of the National Organisation for Marriage (www.nationformarriage.org). Brian Brown and I were asked to go out to California to try to get Prop 8 on the ballot, to be in a position to respond to the California Supreme Court decision that would strike down the definition of marriage as one man and one woman.

We were a brand new organisation–3 months old–we had no money in the bank, and we had to raise $1.5 million in 5 weeks. We had never done anything like that before. I talked to some people who told me: Don’t do it. It’s impossible. You can’t possibly raise that much money, you’ll raise part of the money and leave the donors hanging and even if by some miracle you can get it on the ballot, you will lose because the culture has changed.

Here’s the amazing thing: these were the people who agreed with me who were telling me this.

Here’s the important thing: None of that turned out to be true.

Labels: culture, gay marriage, Maggie Gallagher

VOTE

Maggie Gallagher is a veteran of the culture wars that have turned backers of marriage and family into frontline troops for Christian civilization.

In addition to writing such best-selling books as The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better-Off Financially, the scholar and syndicated columnist is chairman of the board of the National Organization for Marriage. She now also directs the Center for Research on Marriage, Religion and Public Policy, which opened in October at Ave Maria School of Law.

Gallagher spoke with Register correspondent Matthew Rarey. ...

Do any of these “interesting questions” pique your interest in particular?

One question I’m intensely interested in is why Mormon faith communities are so much more successful than other religious groups in terms of family. They have much higher rates of marriage, lower rates of abortion, divorce and unwed childbearing than, say, Catholics. We Catholics tend to go to orthodoxy for all the answers, but there’s something to be said for orthopraxy, too. How do we live the faith successfully and transmit a marriage culture to the next generation under modern conditions? What institutions and practices can parents, schools, neighborhoods, faith communities and professionals adopt that help make marriage not a theory but a lived reality?

The ancients cannot answer that for us. We have to figure it out ourselves. ...

CRM’s initial conference was entitled “Children, Kinship, Psychological Health, and Identity Formation: The Cases of Divorce and Donor Insemination.” Why this topic?

Both divorce and donor insemination affect children’s identities in ways that we have only begun to think about and explore. Divorce is not just a practical problem for children. It poses an existential or ontological problem: How do I trust the family when the family can fall apart? Without the family, what is my core identity?

Adult children conceived by donor insemination are beginning to point out similar existential issues on their origins. The parent they love deliberately deprived them of access to the other biological parent, the so-called sperm donor. For at least some — and it looks like many of these children — the biological relationship continues to matter, even though the actual family of the child pretends it does not.

They point to the reality that donor conception is used because biology does matter: Their mother wanted a child who was her natural child. But the child’s longing to be connected to his or her mother and father — the two people who made him or her — is treated as a non sequitur. It’s just not taken seriously.

We know biology isn’t everything. We know that adoption is good. But if biology isn’t everything, is it anything? Are parents just “caregivers” who’ve taken on a role? Or is there a relationship that is in some sense beyond choice — that is created by creation, as it were? These are big questions.

On the small side, I think the scholars present learned from each other some practical things, too.

Labels: Catholic Church, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, culture, donor conception, government interest in marriage, Maggie Gallagher, Marriage, religion

VOTE

While checking Facebook during the Yale Political Union debate between Evan Wolfson, head of Freedom to Marry, and Maggie Gallagher, a leader from the National Organization for Marriage, I was pleased to see a steady stream of debate-related statuses. As the night went on, the tenor of the statuses from my mostly liberal friends began to shift. The people who referred to Ms. Gallagher as evil earlier in the night ended up with “I think I enjoyed talking to [Gallagher] … What’s wrong with us?”

Ms. Gallagher was disorienting because, after seeing the damage her organization does to gay rights, it is hard for most people on the left to understand how she could devote her life to this cause without being profoundly homophobic. The National Organization for Marriage certainly benefits from homophobia — and doesn’t go out of its way to discourage its more extreme members. But after Wednesday’s debate, I can’t believe Ms. Gallagher is malevolent, though she is wrong. And, if you want to be engaged in politics, the distinction is important. ...

As long as both sides hold up different moral standards, both sides can honestly say that they honestly are trying to do good, even as they argue for diametrically opposed policies. Keeping this intention in mind, I can respect Ms. Gallagher. Yet, I don’t know how to debate her in a democracy.

Ultimately, when I engage with people like Maggie Gallagher in the political sphere, there’s little point in debating. I’m better off trying to arrange a demographic shift so I’ll be able to outvote her in a decade. I do more good by supporting the efforts of National Coming Out Day than in trying to debunk all the claims of the National Organization for Marriage. After all, if you know someone queer, you are far more likely to support for gay rights.

If I have to engage Ms. Gallagher her supporters in a public forum, I’m not going to be trying to convert her on the spot. My real goal is to discredit her in front of people who don’t yet have strong opinions about these values. Anecdotal evidence trumps philosophy as both sides try to pile up more evidence, hoping to prove that the other side’s views are profoundly harmful. Ad hominem attacks are used to signal that an opponent is not a reliable moral guide.

Labels: culture, Evan Wolfson, gay marriage, Maggie Gallagher, universities

VOTE

Two law professors have waded deep into the minefields of the culture war and come up with a doozy of a hypothesis: We Americans are not just divided politically into red states and blue states, our very families are colored-coded red and blue.

Oh, and the blue family is beating the red family, hands down.

"Blue family champions celebrate the commitment to equality that makes companionate relationships possible and the sexual freedom that allows women to fully participate in society," say Naomi Cahn and June Carbone in their book "Blue Families v. Red Families." "Those who have embraced the blue family model have low divorce rates, relatively few teen births, and good incomes."

What is a "blue family," you ask? On the individual level, blue families appear to be progressives who marry late -- often after finishing grad school -- and have relatively low rates of divorce or unwed childbearing. This is the blue family paradox: Blue families may talk liberal, but they end up living bourgeois lives.

The red family paradox, according to Cahn and Carbone, is that socially conservative red states have higher rates of divorce and teen childbearing. "Are 'family values' undermining the family?" as one reviewer put it.

The more you look at this provocative thesis, the more improbable it becomes.

The elephant in the room is the one issue Cahn and Carbone want to avoid because they wish to tone down the culture wars around the family: abortion. ...

Fueling this suspicion is the data that Cahn and Carbone provide on the out-of-wedlock birthrates. For here, the neat red/blue lines break down, especially once race is taken into account. In 2004, the five states with the highest white out-of-wedlock birthrates were a politically mixed lot: Nevada, Maine, West Virginia, Indiana and Vermont. States with the lowest rates of unwed childbearing were also mixed by party dominance: Utah, New Jersey, Connecticut, Colorado, Idaho and the District of Columbia. The authors note this fact but never integrate it into their theory.

Labels: abortion, culture, divorce, economics, June Carbone, Maggie Gallagher, Marriage, Naomi Cahn, out-of-wedlock births

VOTE

Leave it to Andrew Sullivan to make Maggie Gallagher seem sensible.

The erstwhile conservative writer, one of the more provocative voices of the 1990s and now a peddler of conspiracy theories ranging from the influence of Jews over American foreign policy to the provenance of Trig Palin, recently faced off against the country’s most dogged opponent of gay marriage in a room full of right-of-center gays at the Cato Institute, the country’s premier libertarian think tank. They, along with Nick Herbert, a gay Conservative Party member of the British House of Commons, were gathered to debate the question, “Is there a place for gay people in conservatism and conservative politics?”

What could have been a provocative and much-needed discussion, however, quickly devolved into a shouting match, thanks to Sullivan’s needless aggression. For instance, he demanded the names of any gay people who oppose same-sex marriage, since Gallagher claimed to personally know such individuals. (I do too, and while I may disagree with them, the reason I, and Gallagher, don’t divulge their identity is because of the onslaught of viciousness they would receive from other gays, perfectly exemplified by Sullivan.) What any of this had to do with the topic at hand was lost amid the theatrics. And Gallagher, who is perhaps the most effective opponent of gay marriage because she doesn’t resort to biblical arguments condemning homosexuality, was left looking like the reasonable one.

Sullivan also refused to address one salient fact: According to a CNN poll, 27% of self-identified gay voters supported John McCain in the last presidential election, the highest such figure ever recorded for a GOP candidate. In actuality, the number is likely higher, given that there are presumably many gay people who do not divulge their sexuality to pollsters. Regardless of whether the conservative movement thinks there should be room within it for gays, there are plenty of them already there.

Labels: Andrew Sullivan, conservatism, culture, gay marriage, James Kirchick, Maggie Gallagher

VOTE

"The same-sex marriage battle is only one part of a larger crisis in marriage that I've been confronting for 20 years," said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage.

She spoke to a full house at Franciscan University of Steubenville, April 6, 2010, on "The Future of Marriage: Why (and How) Christians Must Engage the Same-Sex Marriage Debate."

Gallagher traced the contours of the broader crisis in marriage, stemming from the sexual revolution and its lasting impact on the culture. ...

Gallagher described a dramatic shift in the marriage debate from the ’80s to the tenor of the conversation in 2000, when there existed "a genuinely cross-ideological movement for more stable families for our kids." And then the same-sex marriage debate commenced.

"You have to believe that framing ideas matters," Gallagher said. "The current idea at the heart of the gay marriage push is that there is no relevant difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples."

Labels: divorce, gay marriage, Maggie Gallagher, Marriage

VOTE

Featuring Nick Herbert, MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Conservative Party, United Kingdom; Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish Blog, The Atlantic; and Maggie Gallagher, President, National Organization for Marriage.

Labels: Andrew Sullivan, conservatism, culture, gay marriage, Maggie Gallagher, United Kingdom

VOTE

...How does marriage benefit children? The answer is not that marriage confers general respectability or practical benefits. If that were true, then children in remarried families would do better than children with unmarried parents. And they don't, on average.

Marriage benefits children to the extent that it keeps the child's own mother and father in a permanent, not-too-high-conflict union. ...

I do not think same-sex marriage will serve child well-being in any appreciable way, and I don't think there is much sign that that is the goal. The gay community is by and large supporting same-sex marriage as a right, not as a norm at all. Relatively few same-sex couples enter same-sex marriages [PDF] and the dissolution rates (at least in Sweden, where we have hard data) are extraordinarily high (roughly 50 percent higher for gay men, 100 percent higher for lesbian couples [PDF]).

Labels: culture, gay marriage, gay parenting, gay/straight differences, Maggie Gallagher, Marriage

VOTE

...What Gallagher and her cohorts are contending is that EVEN IF we were to take the consequentialist arguments off the table, there will still be the problem that same-sex marriage promotes a lie, much like calling a chicken a duck.

Let’s pause to consider a seemingly silly question: apart from consequences, what’s the problem with calling a chicken a duck—or more precisely, with using the word “chicken” to refer to both chickens and ducks?

If I go to the grocer and ask for a chicken and unwittingly come home with a (fattier and less healthful) duck, that’s a problem. But (1) same-sex marriage poses no similar problem: no one worries about walking his bride down the aisle, lifting her veil, and discovering “Damn! You’re a dude!” And (2) such problems are still in the realm of consequences.

If there’s an inherent problem with using the word “chicken” to refer to both chickens and ducks, it’s that doing so would obscure a real difference in nature. Whatever we call them--indeed, whether we name them at all--chickens and ducks are distinct creatures. ...

That might begin to get at what marriage-equality opponents mean when they claim that same sex marriage involves “a lie about human nature” (Gallagher’s words). But if it does, then their argument is weak on at least two counts.

First, one can acknowledge a difference between two things while still adopting a blanket term that covers them both. Both chickens and ducks are fowl; both silver and platinum are precious metals.

So even if same-sex and opposite-sex relationships differ in some fundamental way, there’s nothing to prevent us from using the term “marriage” to cover relationships of both sorts--especially if we have compelling reasons for doing so (for example, that marriage equality would make life better for millions of gay people and wouldn’t take anything away from straight people).

The second and deeper problem is that both the chicken/duck example and the silver/platinum example involve what philosophers call “natural kinds”--categories that “carve nature at the joints,” as it were. By contrast, marriage is quintessentially a social, or artifactual, kind: it’s something that humans create.

Labels: gay marriage, John Corvino, Maggie Gallagher, Marriage

VOTE

In a recent newsletter, the National Organization for Marriage cites a new government study as evidence that gay marriage will hurt kids, because the research finds that kids suffer less abuse with married biological parents than with a single parent, a parent living with an unmarried partner, or a parent and step-parent.

They got it half right. Having two married biological parents is good for kids, and better than the alternatives the study examined. We here at IGF are all for it. But that doesn't make having, say, an unmarried mom and mom better than having a married mom and mom. As a correspondent points out:

Does NOM never, ever learn? These same figures indicate that for either two-adult family structure (both biological parents, or one biological and one step-parent) the chance of abuse to the child goes down drastically IF THE COUPLE GETS MARRIED. For the first kind of family, the risk drops 80 percent. For the second kind of family, the risk drops nearly 60 percent. Even for single biological parents, the child's risk drops by about 15 percent if that single parent finds and marries someone.

Labels: cohabitation, gay marriage, gay parenting, Jonathan Rauch, Maggie Gallagher, Marriage, NOM, parenting, remarriage, single parenting

VOTE

Labels: Evan Wolfson, gay marriage, Maggie Gallagher, Maine

VOTE

A few years ago a highly visible and influential member of the Christian Right appeared on one of the cable news shows talking about homosexual marriage. He said that homosexuality was harmful to society and to the individuals who practiced it. A week later this same man appeared again on the same topic only this time he said opposition to homosexual marriage was not about condemning homosexuals but about protecting children who need moms and dads, something homosexual couples can never provide. Sometime between his first appearance and his second, he was visited by one of the wisest social analysts in the country, Maggie Gallagher of the National Movement for Marriage.

Labels: gay marriage, Maggie Gallagher, NOM

VOTE

Maggie Gallagher es una conocida periodista norteamericana, que publica su columna sobre temas familiares en más de 30 periódicos norteamericanos -entre los que se encuentra The New York Times, The Weekly Standard, and the Wall Street Journal- y ha escrito tres libros de gran éxito sobre el matrimonio, en los que aboga por lo que ya se conoce como el "Movimiento por un nuevo matrimonio". El más reciente se titula "The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better-Off Financially". Es conocida su actitud de nunca rechazar una invitación para hablar del matrimonio, lo que le ha llevado a innumerables debates de televisión -entre los que destaca su participación en el programa de Larry King o en los principales programas de la NBC- y de radio, a numerosas universidades y entidades públicas y privadas, así como a intervenir repetidas veces como experta en el Senado de los EE UU y en varias cámaras legislativas estatales. Hace algunos años creó el Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, del que es presidenta y cuya misión es realizar la investigación y la acción educativa necesarias para que la legislación y las políticas públicas protejan y refuercen el matrimonio como institución social.

Con ocasión de su participación en un Encuentro The Family Watch en Madrid, ha respondido a nuestras preguntas. La entrevista también puede verse grabada en vídeo aquí.

Labels: Maggie Gallagher, Marriage

VOTE