Monday, June 29, 2015

Gay Marriage: Why Do We Care? (and what do we do now?)

In the wake of Friday's Supreme Court ruling that made gay marriage legal across the United States, I figured I'd share a few thoughts and a mailbag question.



Especially in light of all the social media frenzy over the SCOTUS decision, all the unfriending and name calling, I think those are the two questions we want to ask ourselves as Catholics. Why do we care? and What do we do now?

Let's look at the second one first. Here's what WE can do going forward . . .

1. We Can Live Our Own Marriages



It's been a LONG time since what the world calls marriage and what the Catholic Church calls marriage have been the same thing. Contraception, abortion, no-fault divorce, the normalization of cohabitation and the having of children outside of wedlock, pornography and the sexual revolution, are all as great or even greater threats to marriage than is this redefinition of civil marriage.

We are missionaries in a pagan culture.

I think the most powerful thing we as Christians can do is to live committed, loving, monogamous, open to life marriages. We can raise strong and loving and well-formed children. We can hope that people will see the joy in our lives, and ask us about it.

2. We Can Love the People Around Us

I think there were good reasons to fight for the preservation of a traditional definition of marriage. But I don't think this supreme court decision was a surprise to any of us.

What I think WOULD surprise people is what the Catholic Church actually teaches about same sex attraction. There is no hate there.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
We can and we must treat the people around us with love and respect. Even if they hold beliefs at odds with our own. Even if they are behaving in ways we know aren't good for them. Even if they are being frustrating on Facebook.

3. We Can Fight for Freedom of Conscience


'Cause THAT'S the thing that actually scares me in all of this. I worry that I, or my children, will live in a country without freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. 

I can't say I don't get a tiny bit excited about the idea of being a part of an illegal, underground church like in the bad old days. Secret Masses in the catacombs? Now THAT is badass. 

But, also, it would be really sad. And inconvenient.

My hope is that the activists and agitators of the world and all of us regular folks can turn our focus to protecting the rights of individuals to be free to behave according to their consciences, to think differently from one another, and to practice their own religions without persecution or interference from the government.

Ya know, like the founding fathers said.


To address the first question, I want to share this mailbag question. I received it a few weeks ago from a college student, and seems particularly of interest now.

Question:

In one of your latest posts, with the list of how to be a good Catholic, you say that one must vote in accordance with the Catholic doctrine to be a good Catholic. I am just wondering why that need be the case. I feel that as an adult, I can believe that certain things are wrong, and I can choose not to practice them, and I can discourage those I love from practicing them, but I can also allow those things to be legal for other adults that choose to engage in them. The best example of this for me is gay marriage (because I think something like abortion exists separately) but I have a hard time understanding why I am supposed to vote to make gay marriage illegal between two consenting adults. I understand thinking it is wrong and discouraging people from pursuing it, but why am I supposed to vote against it? People do a lot of things that I morally disagree with that I don't think needs to be illegal. I am sorry if that seems like a silly question, but I really would appreciate clarification.

Answer:

Honestly, I totally get where you are coming from on the gay marriage issue. I really, really do. My natural inclinations definitely skew libertarian, I kind of want people to let me do whatever I want to do and I'll let them do whatever they want to do and we'll all just leave each other alone. But . . . it turns out that's not a very Christian attitude to have.

One of the things I mention in the Exactly How to Be a Good Catholic post are the "works of mercy." They are Bibically based (from the beatitudes, the two Great Commandments, and Matthew 25:34-46) and have been a constant tradition since the earliest days of the Church.

The corporal works of mercy are:
  • To feed the hungry;
  • To give drink to the thirsty;
  • To clothe the naked;
  • To shelter the homeless;
  • To visit the sick;
  • To ransom the captive;
  • To bury the dead.
The spiritual works of mercy are:
  • To instruct the ignorant;
  • To counsel the doubtful;
  • To admonish sinners;
  • To bear wrongs patiently;
  • To forgive offenses willingly;
  • To comfort the afflicted;
  • To pray for the living and the dead.
So even if my personal preference is to not bother or be bothered by other people, I have the responsibility, as a Christian, to try to look after their physical and spiritual well-being as much as I am able. When I have to make an account for my life at the final judgement, I'm going to want to be able to say that I fed the hungry and clothed the naked and visited the sick AND I instructed the ignorant and counseled the doubtful and admonished sinners. That I didn't just turn a blind eye to sinful behaviors because I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings, or look uncool. That means I personally must help actual people I know, and support good charities, and vote for politicians and policies most likely to benefit the physical AND the spiritual well being of my fellow man.

In theory, it's easy.

In practice, of course, it's much more complicated. Because voting for one person means you're not voting for another, and sometimes the same person supports some morally good policies, and some morally bad policies.

Also, certain behaviors, like homosexual activity, get singled out by prominent Christians as the only important issue, when things like pornography and adultery and heterosexual cohabitation are just as much against Catholic teaching and bad for people's souls. An ideal Christian society should have laws that uphold the sanctity of marriage against ALL of the threats against it. But those laws need to go hand in hand with good formation and cultural support, so that people understand WHY marriage is important and what it entails. It's easy to wonder, with what marriage has actually come to mean in our society, whether it's worth bothering with trying to defend it at all. (I think the answer is, it's still worth a try.)

Basically, what I think it comes down to is an informed conscience. Catholics use "conscience" to justify engaging in all sorts of behaviors condemned by the Catholic Church. It doesn't "feel" wrong to them because they've never bothered to learn and understand the Church's position on an issue like fornication or contraception. And if it doesn't feel wrong to them, they think they can do it. But the key is to have an informed conscience. To really take the time to learn and know and understand Church teaching, and to research candidates and propositions and vote in the way that you believe will help the most souls to get to heaven.

That's the best you can do for yourself and for your fellow man.

Cheers,
Kendra

Mailbag Disclaimer: I am not a theologian, nor am I an official spokesperson for the Catholic Church. (You're thinking of this guy.) If you read anything on this blog that is contrary to Church teaching, please consider it my error (and let me know!). I'm not a doctor or an expert on anything in particular. I'm just one person with a lot of experience parenting little kids and a desire to share my joy in marriage, mothering, and my faith.

If you've got a question, please send it along to catholicallyear @ gmail . com . Please let me know if you prefer that I change your name if I use your question on the blog.

Let's get out there and be pleasant and truthful on Facebook, people. Both.


p.s. Happy Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. It's a solemnity, so don't forget dessert!



SHARE THIS POST - {PINTEREST}

36 comments:

  1. I'm putting a lot of effort into (and really enjoying) forming my newly-Catholic conscience. And oh, wow, I see HOW WRONG I WAS but also how wrong all the people who think just like I used to think still are. That's hard. My first approach was to write pages and pages with all the Scripture and reasoning and arguments, but now I'm getting feedback like "I understand where you are coming from but I don't want to hear what you have to say about X anymore because I disagree with you and am going to keep right on doing X." So now... I pray. And I'm not sure what else, if anything, I should be doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Elisa, I think the best you can do is plant seeds, and set a good, joyful example. And it sounds like that's what you've been doing. You can't rip the veil from people's eyes, that has to come in its own time. But you can be truthful and loving, and they'll know they can come to you when they have questions.

      Delete
  2. YES. Thank you for this loving, thoroughly Catholic response. I'm so appreciative that this was the 1st thing I read before I jumped back into the world of social media this morning.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for this post. I think it is right on. I have one little perspective I would like to add or offer (and I'm six months pregnant --and feeling like it today-- so hopefully this will make sense.) The ruling to me is further proof that the government has nothing to do with marriage. It used to be that only the churches were involved in marriage, and they were privately conferred. As I understand it, the government got involved when it had to sort out alimony and child support and incidentally perhaps after voting stopped being the family vote and started being the votes of individuals. Marriage belongs to God -- He created it, defined it, and it exists for His purposes. The state has no idea what marriage is. So whatever this recent ruling is, it is probably actually not about marriage at all! It seems to me, at least. Or, I could say, it is arguably the case that it is not. I suppose it is a statement of profound confusion, deceit, and blindness on the part of many people in the US. The blindness on this issue is a result of long-formed false beliefs about reality.

    The notion of a witness and testimony in this post spoke so well to me. We can show what marriage really is and it will show that it is actually a different species than whatever people are looking to the government to approve. (I realize that everyone might not agree that marriage shouldn't be a legal matter, but we could agree that real marriage as defined by God will stand out, regardless of the government's role or lack of role.)

    Praise God for His constancy and character. He will never change. And He and His ways are perfect.

    Peace!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The government began recognizing and distinguishing married couples in law and giving benefits to married couples because it recognized that the family unit was good for the future of the city, state, and country. Children are (or, at least, were, especially before birth control became as readily available) the product of almost every marriage, and politicians generally viewed the family unit as a favorable environment for raising the future leaders and citizens of the country. Hence, government benefits for married couples. We see that reflected in our tax code, both with the recognition of marital benefits (for most married couples) and dependent exemptions. Alimony and child support had little to do with anything back when most of these laws recognizing marriage came onto the scene. Likewise, the government passes laws for many other things it regards as good for the general welfare of society, e.g., tax breaks for charitable giving, FMLA leave, loan programs to help people purchase homes, etc., etc. It also passes laws to simplify things for most regular people who do not have access to an attorney (or choose not to pay for one), e.g., laws that explain how possessions are passed down to other family members in the event of death. All of these laws/programs can be viewed as discriminatory in some respect. But that's the point of them -- the government is trying to encourage certain behavior that it deems to be good for society and/or to protect its citizens. It was no different (until Friday) with marriage. I tire of hearing the argument that the government should not be involved in marriage. The government's involvement with marriage is no different that its involvement in any other law/program that fosters or encourages what it considers to be "good behavior." If we are going to tell the government to get out of marriage, then, at the very least, let's be consistent and reexamine other laws that also favor certain people or encourage certain behavior.

      With that said, sacramental marriage and legal marriage are clearly different. Kendra is right on -- they have been different for some time. To my thinking, that does not mean that we, as Catholics, should "give up" on aligning the definitions of sacramental marriage and legal marriage. But Friday's decision and the challenges to marriage ushered in by divorce on demand, birth control, pornography, etc., make that much harder.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps even more important though is what the effects of Friday's decision will be on religious liberty. I don't think our churches are very far away from being driven out of certain areas in which they perform charitable work and/or losing their tax exemptions (as an aside, tax exemptions for religious institutions and non-profit organizations were another type of "discrimination" created by the government to encourage what politicians believed to be "good behavior"). Both of those things will have serious effects on our society, and such losses are inevitable when/if a church's tax-exempt status ever turns on whether its beliefs/doctrines are viewed as "discriminatory." When bakers, photographers, and other wedding vendors are being sued (and losing!) for refusing to provide wedding services to gay couples because of their religious objections, is it really that difficult to imagine that a beautiful Catholic cathedral might face the same type of lawsuit for refusing to allow its facilities to be used for a gay wedding? Sure, the First Amendment should, in theory, protect the Church. But the First Amendment does not protect the Church's tax-exempt status. Simcha Fisher wrote on this issue recently, and, to my thinking, this is the major battle that Catholics need to prepare for now: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/simchafisher/2015/06/26/will-the-catholic-church-be-hurt-by-the-supreme-courts-ruling-on-gay-marriage/. Take a moment and consider how harmful it will be to your Catholic Church if they suddenly need to pay tax on their offertory and other donations. At a minimum, church employees would lose their jobs, and good Church ministries and programs would become even more understaffed than they are now. There would be less money to help the needy and serve the larger Church community. Not to mention the money that would be lost by churches in paying for accountants and tax services that are unnecessary now. Then, think of the effects on the wonderful work done by Catholic Charities and your larger Diocese. This is not a small issue, and it is one that will impact all Catholics and the communities and populations that depend on the Catholic Church for aide and support. Friday's decision did not decide this issue, but it is a stepping stone on that path. To Catholics who say that this decision does not affect them and their religious beliefs, that may be true for now. But "for now" is not "forever," and there will come a day when religious liberty and marriage equality clash on a much larger scale that will have an impact.

      Delete
    3. TCLM,

      Thank you for your reply. In response to your first comment, I guess this does reveal my bias or belief about government. Indeed, I don't believe the other programs are very good, either. I lean heavily toward 'negative' government, meaning that it protects against bad things but does not grant good things. This is the conservative, classical (19th century) liberal position that espouses natural rights rather than civil (not to be confused with its 180 degree opposite, 20th century and current day liberalism). So I guess we have a different view possibly on the best role of government -- mine is that the government should be as small as possible and basically get out of the way. I will look into the origins of government involvement in marriage, as it is possible I was given wrong information about how it started. What I had thought was that as the nation moved from being a nation of families to a nation of individuals, government started to legislate in the area of marriage. I'll check it out further, more carefully.

      In response to the second comment, the ending point caught my attention. How crazy that religious groups would have to be forced to change their definition of marriage to accomodate activities of others who are trying to go outside God and attach meanings to the same words. This is definitely an infringement on the rights of individuals. It seems like it stems from a confusion on a definitional matter, that of the word "marriage".

      Moral decline and diminishing freedom go together. If the gospel spreads, and the moral roots are intact, we will see greater liberty.

      Delete
    4. Just to emphasize -- by 'how crazy...' I mean not the view that it could happen, but rather, I am agreeing with you that it is a major infringement on the religious freedom of citizens.

      Delete
    5. This is interesting--

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_civil_marriage_in_the_United_States

      Delete
  4. So if a presidential candidate makes his campaign all about outlawing fornication, I'm supposed to vote for him??

    You're right that in practice it is not easy. Americans made all these laws that put married in an advantaged place in our society, financially of course but in lots of other ways that increase their ability to determine how their life goes. People are not incorrect in seeking equal treatment under CIVIL laws

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But we can only ask equal treatment for things that are actually equal, that is, the same. Men and women are not the same - they are the same in human dignity, but not the same when it comes to relationships. This isn't a Catholic thing; it's a biology thing. Men and women come together in romantic relationships and make babies, and no matter how much same sex couples love each other, that can't happen. That is why we made all these financially advantageous laws about marriage - because the government has a vested interest in children, who are the natural products of marriage, because they are future citizens/workers.

      All people had the same marriage rights on Thursday: anyone could marry anyone else of the opposite sex. Gay people had that right as much as straight people. The right that has been asked for, and given, is to make marriage mean something else.

      As an attorney, I can see how gay marriage could become legal - but not in the way it was done. There is no constitutional right to gay marriage, and the idea that we would read it into our constitution just because we think it's the right thing to do is maddening. It should either have been passed as a constitutional amendment or as a federal law. That was the appropriate civil channel, not completely ignoring all federalism and distorting our poor constitution even more.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for bringing up the legal perspective! I think that is an area of this scandal that is important but largely being ignored. Wonderfully put!

      Delete
    3. Currently inactive, but I have a legal background. The first gay marriage case based itself on two woman who used sperm donation.

      Since it was legal to for a heteror couple to use it, and create a legal fiction that the husband to be listed as biological father with no rights of the child to know who the sperm donor is.

      We do not do this to adoptive kids, who hopefully can get originals unsealed and meet birth family.

      Even if mom had an affair, husband and the biological father have legal recourse if there a challenge to paternity.

      With egg/sperm/surrogacy the child has no options. S/he is contracted out and biological kin are paid not to be known and walk away.



      Delete
  5. Kendra,
    Thank you for writing this post and for continually sharing a level-headed solid Catholic viewpoint on all the hot button issues that arise in our culture. I posted that exact picture/quote from JP2 on my Facebook page and have been attacked by people who have been my friends for nearly 20 years. My heart breaks for our country and the future of our families - not because I think same-sex attracted people are evil, but because already my freedom to speak in accordance with my beliefs has been viciously attacked.

    Any tips on how to deal with long-time friends who refuse to talk to you because of this issue? I'm so heartbroken....

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is why everyone loves to hear what you have to say. Because you're all, calm down, be happy, keep doing that catholic thang.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rosa, I love your comment almost as much as Kendra's post :)

      But yeah, I'm so glad to see a level-headed and authentically Catholic response to this issue. week. Thanks Kendra!

      Delete
    2. Lol. Facebook this week was either, yay gay! Or, the world is ending. I'm like oh yeah this is just the very worst sin ever out of all the sins of the world and God is sending down fire and brimstone right now people. Solely based on the United states. And then Kendra comes out and is like, in the grand scheme of things, nothing has changed! Just gotta keep doin you! Because that's what attracts people to the faith.

      Delete
  7. It is important to speak now.

    Social media manipulates us into silence, when face to face we would speak up.

    Get out. Meet people (like face to face). Talk.


    http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/26/social-media-and-the-spiral-of-silence/


    As of interest children of third party procreation, are speaking up for the equal right to know their mom & dad

    .http://anonymousus.org/stories/

    ReplyDelete
  8. I love this perspective, and feel like you really focused on the "love" aspect, which I think might be missing from many other dissenters, and it is probably why supporters feel so persecuted. I'm not very outspoken on the issues, while I would feel comfortable talking one-on-one with someone about my beliefs (mostly so I can fully flesh them out - a Facebook "sound bite" just doesn't do it justice), I hope my own marriage can be a beacon of light, hope, and love for others.

    Another question - if a close family member DOES choose to have a serious relationship and/or decides to make it "official," how can we be loving while showing our disagreement on the issue? I think in some family situations, completely being uninvolved could really put a rift AND alienate any opportunity for future evangelism, etc. And how to talk about it with children? How to let them lovingly know that this isn't something that we believe to be what God wants for us, but still allowing them to have a good/important relationship with their aunt/uncle/etc.?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a super difficult situation. My last post was deleted somehow so I can going to post the short version. Please contact your local Courage or Encouage group in your diocese. If you don't have one, you can contact the National Courage group. They are very helpful. This situation can be very scandalous for children so it need to be dealt with correctly. Peace and blessings to you and anyone else in this situation.

      Delete
    2. Jena,

      It's a challenging situation for sure. And not one I have specifically dealt with in my own family.

      I think it's important to remember that "admonishing" doesn't mean disliking, or disowning. I admonish my kids all day long, and also love and interact with them all day long. I think you owe it to the Truth and to your family member (if it's someone you know well enough to have this conversation) to be honest about your beliefs and that you love them but don't think this is the right course, and I wouldn't personally attend any ceremonies. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't have them in my home or go over to their house or otherwise interact with them socially.

      Kids, of course, complicate everything. But in general I try to walk the line with my kids between giving them enough information to deal with the life they are living without giving them too much information too early, when they deserve the innocence of youth. We talk about current events, my older kids (9 and up) know about the Supreme Court decision, and they knew about same sex attraction before that.

      As long as I was confident a family member wasn't trying to recruit or behave inappropriately to my children, I imagine I would be okay with them being in each other's lives. Especially if my (hypothetical) gay family members had kids of their own. I'd hate to deprive those kids of their family relationships, and I'd want to be visible in their lives as another option. I would be upfront with my kids that we don't believe that Uncle J has made the right choice, and we believe that only a woman can really be married to a man, and that kids deserve a mom and a dad, but we love him and each of us has big struggles in our lives. This is just him struggle. And then I'd remind them very often that none of this is appropriate party talk, and I'd hope and pray that they'd remember that.

      This is all just off the cuff for me. I'm sure you've thought about it a lot more than I have. As with most parenting stuff, you've got to inform yourself, then go with your gut on it.

      Cheers,
      Kendra

      Delete
    3. As long as they aren't advocate gay sex, just treat them like everyone else.

      I have a cousin with a live in boyfriend. They're older so I rather use them term companion. Being cousins, we don't talk about lots of things, but I've never shared my heterosexual experience with him. (Ewww... Totally awkward, gay or straight).

      I understand for legal practicalities why they may get legal recognition, but the intent is not to undermine the relationship of a child with his/her mom & dad.

      I'm fortunate my cousin had a good mom & dad. His boyfriend also had a good mom & dad, plus he comes from a family with a few siblings. They never had to fly the rainbow flag, and when I visit, a rainbow flag just well... would CLASH with the decor of his home.

      Our lifestyles are different. And I'm not talking sexual, my son just wanted a glass of milk & a peanut butter sandwich and their fridge consisted of a fridge for two guys would look like.

      They did have popcorn.



      Delete
  9. I love this perspective and I share it! I think you have a new follower here! Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I really like how you bring in the corporal and spiritual works of mercy; that excellently shows how we do have a responsibility to help others. Plus, people who are seeking same-sex marriage are looking for what is really a cheap imitation of something incredibly epic. So why do we want to encourage or legalize a cheap, false imitation, instead of encouraging the REAL DEAL?

    Finally, paraphrasing something the priest said in his homily on Sunday: Authentic Faith changes us and changes the way we deal with others and situations in the world. So, the priest said, our Faith should affect the way we deal with marriage. We should live holy marriages, encourage holy marriages, and actively teach others that same-sex "marriage" is NOT a marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I love this, as usual. And I am pretty libertarian myself, so I have struggled with that. My husband is against gay marriage morally and for it legally, as an equal rights under the law thing. (I want equal rights for all beliefs but not under marriage laws.) the debate I'm trying to win him with now isn't religious, and it's one thing that has me really convinced: according to our laws, it is no longer preferable for a child to have a mother and a father. Often people need to be married to adopt, and so 2 parents can be necessary, but it's official now that they don't need to be a man and a woman. Even from a biological standpoint, that's not the case, and the studies back it up. My heart aches for all the babies created with the purpose of taking them permanently from at least one biological parent, and being told what they get is just as ideal.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Excellent post. Thanks Kendra!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi Kendra, Thanks for your post! I think it is a great reminder that just living our vocations is a great witness and help to society.

    As for why to oppose gay marriage, I think what the two lawyers above said is central. The union of two people of the same sex is not the same as the union of people of the same sex in the central fact of procreation: that's why we have an interested in defining it that way, giving benefits to those who are (all going well) able to give life out of their love.

    It is also a matter of protecting the weakest and most vulnerable in our society, in this case children. That is also why no-fault divorce should be outlawed.

    I don't think this is the same as outlawing contraception (which PROTESTANTS actually wanted to do, not Catholics, historically), fornication, sodomy, etc. While I think the law can be instructive, I don't think outlawing these things is helpful even though they are sinful. Outlawing fornication, for example, can put women and children (especially unborn children) at risk. Having a society that does not approve of fornication can protect women and their children conceived outside of marriage, as it encourages the father to do the honorable thing and marry the mother.

    Gay "marriage" is different than this. It is not allowing homosexuals to live together or engage in sexual acts. That is already allowed. It is not conferring the legal benefits of hospital visiting rights or shared bank accounts; these can be conferred on same-sex partners, the latter very easily. It is saying that their union is the same as the union of two people of the opposite sex when it is pointedly not. See Ryan Anderson's videos or articles for more (especially for people who think we should live and let live in this situation, or even charitable instruct outside the law).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Giggling at the label you assigned your post.

    Besides that, I'm applauding you on this one. So well said, so clear, so filled with truth and compassion. Sharing it!

    ReplyDelete
  15. This post is really interesting. I'm admittedly a Cafeteria Catholic (and liberal democrat), but I like and respect what Kendra said here and how she said it.

    Personally, I want to live in a country where there is a clear separation of Church and State and where our laws are based on secular humanism and ethics. As much as I don't personally object to our laws being based on Christian values, I am fully aware that I would never want to live in a country whose laws were based on a different religion's values, e.g. an Islamist state or Orthodox Jewish state, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Elizabeth- I more or less agree with you about the basis of our laws, since we live in a pluralistic society (and maybe even if we didn't). I don't think we should outlaw sodomy or formication, as I said above. But redefining marriage is not the same as that. Marriage between a man and a woman is based on biology and what's best for the children that result from the marriage. For more in depth look, see Ryan Anderson's talk at Stanford on YouTube. The q&a is worth watching.

      Delete
    2. Even gay atheists have a mom & dad, right?
      If I said in court just ten years ago, it would be agreed to.

      NY's highest court defended this concept. Children are conceived by a man & woman.

      An obligation is objective.

      "Commitment and even love are terminable in a way that obligation is not because both are subjective and can, to some degree, be chosen or unchosen. On the other hand, one may ignore an obligation, but cannot will it out of existence. An obligation is objective."

      This quote comes from the Howard Law Review's "Portrait of a Marriage." 2006

      I think about this law review article constantly.

      "In a recent decision from New York’s appellate division, (which is not old) the court stated that: It is an undisputed fact that the vast majority of procreation still occurs as a result of sexual intercourse between a male and a female. In light of such a fact, “[t]he State could reasonably decide that by encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry, thereby assuming legal and financial obligations, the children born from such relationships will have better opportunities to be nurtured and raised by two parents within long-term, committed relationships, which society has traditionally viewed as advantageous for children.”65 The risk of a redefinition of marriage is that this social understanding and the goods it promotes are in danger of being lost in the new adultcentered version of marriage."
      We lost something really important, and there isn't a quick fix.

      Delete
    3. Renee, I may be misreading, but the above quote seems to indicate that gay marriage is a positive because "the children born from such relationships will have better opportunities to be nurtured and raised by two parents within long-term committed relationships..." Note the use of the word "parents" rather than "hetersexual parents" or "man and woman" etc.

      This is not simply about biology. That is a cover for what it's really about, which is religion forming the basis of our society. Gay couples are biologically and legally able to adopt children - and many do. Not allowing those parents to make a legal, long term commitment to each other is not best for the children that they are raising.

      I think it's absolutely fine if people want the basis of our laws to be centered around Christianity, but I think they should call a spade a spade and admit that.

      Delete

    4. I can't lie to my children who their father is, what gives me that exception to their right to their father, if I happen to be a lesbian.

      I guess someone who was trained as a lawyer, we were suppose to be testifying to the truth or else it's perjury.

      Claiming a child has two moms or two fathers is nothing more than LEGAL FICTION. And I will not participate in that lie. No one has two moms that loves them, that person has a father that doesn’t want them and a mom that hates the idea of them having their father and paid him to walk away. (This applies to third party procreation, by heterosexual couples and singles, as well)

      If you lie about a canine's pedigree it's fraud, but it's OK to lie to a child parentage out of equality????

      Look even adoption laws are changing. Less coerced adoption, less secrets about identity, and more support for moms so they have give up their own children.


      Do people realize when they assert that it doesn't matter who raises you, they are turning human beings into chattel. I'm throwing this out as a legal hypothetical, but once people defended slavery as long as they were treated with dignity and cared.

      Look I know and love gay relatives, and they're greatful for their mom & dad. If they are OK with that idea, that every child (gay or straight, atheist or religious) be loved by their own mom & dad, then why can't you?




      From the United Nations Rights of Children...
      UNCRC
      "The Convention acknowledges that every child has certain basic rights, including the right to life, his or her own name and identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a family or cultural grouping, and to have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated."


      But of course you would question "both parents", because this document was written in the 1990s.

      Not basing it on religion at all. Yes. It is ALL about biology. Why else do courts order DNA tests on putitive fathers?

      No child is created by homosexual behavior. In fact your victim shaming the child for his/her desire for both biological parents.

      BTW I'm anti adoption, primary function is to keep children with kin. That means if bio parents can't raise kids, the go to kinship care to relatives. I know several aunt's & uncles that raise neices & nephews, some are even gay. But we don't say a married relative is better then a non related relative.

      Delete
  16. Focus on Children's Rights and stop female exploitation.
    http://www.stopsurrogacynow.com


    Keep children unified with parents.

    http://www.americanbar.org/groups/child_law/what_we_do/projects/nrd/heroes.html

    ReplyDelete

Have an opinion? Leave a comment.

We don't always have to agree, where's the fun in that? But no name calling or speculating about what people "really" think or mean.

Sorry, no more anonymous comments. Too much spam/unpleasantness!

Including a link? Then use your html cheat sheet: <a href="LINK ADDRESS">YOUR TEXT</a>

 
SITE DESIGN BY DESIGNER BLOGS