August 23, 2005
Judicial Activists Redefine ParenthoodTopics: Judicial Activism
"We perceive no reason," the [California] Supreme Court ruled, "why both parents of a child cannot be women."
Reason? How about, "it's an assault on the family and social stability" or "it's a rejection of traditional and Christian values". Perhaps the definition of "marriage" and "parenthood" has eluded these judicial activists.
When two is denied as the answer, one plus one remains a mystery.
Posted by tim at August 23, 2005 7:54 AM
Although the California Supreme Court can't perceive "why both parents of a child cannot be women," I wonder if they can perceive how two women can become parents? I'll personally buy in on the gay-parenthood agenda when two parents of the same sex can come together to produce a child, by natural and normal means.
Otherwise, all and any attempts to categorize two people of the same sex as parents - is both unnatural and abnormal.
Posted by: richard at August 23, 2005 10:37 AM
I agree with Richard. Has anyone does any research on what becomes of these children? How do they turn out? What choices do they make?
Posted by: Molly at August 23, 2005 10:54 AM
Should have preview my message. :|
Has anyone DONE any research....
Posted by: Molly at August 23, 2005 11:04 AM
TAKING THE EMOTIONAL FACTOR OUT ... the "issue" at point has to do with what is a "MATTER OF JUSTICE" ... from the Latin "jus" or "right"
"RIGHT" in law, alas, has nothing to do with what "structures" or "definitions" that a religion may have imposed upon that concept (e.g. it is "right" for a man and woman to be married; it is "not right" for a woman and a woman to be married)
Nor does it matter that the "will of the people" demand that a CONCEPT be deemed law or unlawful -- e.g. it is unlawful for a woman and woman to be married; it is unlawful for a "married" woman/woman to be "parents."
Were the "WILL OF THE PEOPLE" to prevail, the "institution" of slavery would have endured far longer in the USA than it did -- notwithstanding that the (then) definition of "men" only "meant" WHITE MEN (..."all men are created equal")
They're Queer; they're here. As a "MATTER OF JUSTICE" their "rights" will prevail -- no matter how distasteful this may be to me (or you!).
Jack in Southern California
Posted by: Jack in Southern California at August 23, 2005 2:44 PM
By what standard does one evaluate "justice" and what standard of justice gives gay couples the "right" to marry or parent children?
Posted by: tim at August 23, 2005 6:35 PM
Jack in Southern California: it has nothing to do with emotion, but everything to do with common sense, values, and societal norm. Two homosexuals can never have children on their own, there must be a message there somewhere, even for those too blind to see it.
The last sentence is not directed to JISC, but to those secularists that are all too happy to disregard certain core values carried forward for generations throughout man's history that have allowed mankind to continue it's existence. Homosexuality is unnatural, homosexuality is an ill-suited lifestyle for children, and homosexuals, although certainly capable of being loving and caring, cannot and do not provide a model relationship that is condoned by the vast majority of human beings on the planet.
This, having been said, I do not now nor would I ever condemn homosexuals as human beings, but I do condemn the lifestyle of those who are not celebate, and could never find a homosexual, non-celebate "couple" as capable of serving as a suitable role model for a child.
And of course there's always that not-so-little matter of what's right and wrong, and that if God had wanted mankind to cease to exist, he wouldn't have made men AND women, and endowed them the means to be fruitful, and multiply.
Now, I can hardly wait to see the diatribes to follow..... , I have my hardhat on!
Posted by: Richard at August 23, 2005 6:54 PM
"By what standard does one evaluate "justice" and what standard of justice gives gay couples the "right" to marry or parent children?"
RESPONSE BY JACK:
...presumably the US CONSTITUTION and its ANCILLARY DOCUMENTS (Case Law Decisions, etc.).
Thus, for better or for worse:
They're Queer; they're here. As a "MATTER OF JUSTICE" their "rights" will prevail -- no matter how distasteful this may be to me, you or anyone else.
Alas, I only have to look at what is happening in this regard in countries like Spain; the last place I would have ever thought gay marriages would have been recognized.
Posted by: Jack in Southern California at August 23, 2005 6:55 PM
"...and that if God had wanted mankind to cease to exist, he wouldn't have made men AND women, and endowed them the means to be fruitful, and multiply."
OK. Then what is the "lesson" the "trial" the "test" that God would manifest a world with homosexuals?
"...condoned by the vast majority of human beings on the planet..."
Slavery was condoned by the vast majority of human beings on the planet for millennia. Heck! the Bible gives specific instructions on how one should "treat" one's slaves.
Posted by: Jack in Southern California at August 23, 2005 7:02 PM
I agree about Spain, would have thought it would never happen there.
Still, it's an injustice to all parents and all children, and the institution of marriage itself.
Knowing how society in America has deteriorated over the years, I'd be the last person to render an opinion as to where this issue is going.
I can only hope that decency and common sense prevail, the only injustice to be done has nothing to do with homosexuals - wrong is wrong.
When two men or two women can come together and produce a child - hell will freeze over and on that day I'll say, gosh, that was neat, but it's still wrong.
I've got to get back to posting and reading emails, I'll turn the diatribe slate back over to the readership
Posted by: Richard at August 23, 2005 7:30 PM
Articles Related to Judicial Activism:
- Judicial Activists Redefine Parenthood - Aug 23, 2005