California to re-define family

When politicians return from summer break

2homosexualmenandtheirsocalledchild_smallerThe following comes from a July 28 posting by Randy Thomasson on Save California.com.

This is not a family you see. These are two very confused men who were likely sexually abused as children. And now they have a boy that one or both have adopted. And this boy is now being indoctrinated with big lies about family and sex….

When Associated Press was preparing a widely-published July 27 article saluting another homosexual-agenda bill redefining family, the reporter pitted three liberal voices against me. But despite misspelling my name, and putting a qualifier before me and a subtle put-down after me, I was still able to warn the readers that AB 2344 was not merely changing the family but eroding the natural institution of family in state law.

“Social conservatives say legislation to change family law wouldn’t be necessary if traditional family structures remained the norm.

“’This shows how far our society has fallen: It used to be a simple answer to who’s your father and who’s your mother,’ said Randy Thomason, president of SaveCalifornia.com and an advocate of traditional families.

“Such arguments didn’t resonate in the Assembly, where the Modern Family Act passed on a 62 to 4 vote with some Republican support and little organized opposition.”

To read entire Save California posting, click here.

 

The AP story

The following comes from a July 27 AP story in the DailyBulletin.com.

As the rise of nontraditional families leads to disputes under outdated law, California lawmakers returning from summer break will consider bills that seek to update family law.

Here are the bills:

• AB2344 by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, creates methods for sperm donors and surrogate mothers to clarify their parental and financial responsibilities over biological children and expedites adoptions for non-biological parents, such as a lesbian whose spouse gave birth to their child.

• AB1951 by Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez, D-Los Angeles, would update state birth certificates to accommodate same-sex couples by including a gender-neutral parent option. Gay men must identify as mothers and lesbian women must identify as fathers under the existing system.

• AB2034 by Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Los Angeles, would allow adult children to petition for visitation rights of their parents, even over objections of future spouses. This is meant to simplify their options under existing law.

• AB1628 by Assemblyman Steve Fox, D-Palmdale, would allow grandparents to petition for visitation rights of their grandchildren when a parent is incarcerated or institutionalized. This adds to a list of reasons that grandparents are allowed visitation when the parents are still married.

• AB1701 by Assemblyman Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, is an annual update to California adoption law. One provision allows parents who pre-arrange adoptions to win temporary custody of a child if a birth mother disappears without relinquishing parental rights. Under existing law, the child can be reclaimed during a six month abandonment period without a court hearing.

To read entire AP story in the Daily Bulletin, click here.

 

 

 

Comments

comments

To add a comment, click on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ icons OR go further down to the bottom of comments to the Post your comment box.

Comments

  1. I see a family. 2 parents and the child they are raising. Hopefully they live in a state that supports marriage. How is that not a family?

    • Yes, it’s an inter-racial family. I’ll give you that . . .

    • tom in san jose says:

      It’s child abuse. I don’t care what else the “elites” call it.

    • Jim McCrea says:

      You are correct, but good luck on getting much support on THIS site!

    • I see two men and a little boy.

      • Your Fellow Catholic says:

        I see a smiling family.

        • Augustine Thomas says:

          I see two men suffering from homosexual perversion and a young victim.

        • How absolutely SICK and PERVERTED. Dear Lord SAVE this precious CHILD.

          • I see two very selfish adults who think they have a right to the possession of a child. If one of them is actually the biological father of the child, shame on him for taking his child from his mother. I see a little boy who need a mother, and one father! why would any adult purposely do this to a child, except for their own selfish needs?

          • Ann Malley says:

            Well said, Alice. Nobody seems to consider the child in these situations, outside of the secular notion of being financially cared for and ‘loved’ – whatever that means. Sentimentalism reigns supreme.

            Who advocates for the child in a situation such as this? Who supplies or answers with regard to the intense patterning that children experience and the deep need they have for mother and father, working together for their benefit.

            Patterning proper relationships is critical to child development. There seems to be no thought put into what vital reality the child will be lacking in this scenario, the incorrect example notwithstanding.

            Likely no thought will be placed to the long term effects on the child until mass numbers of children are abused in this way and there is resulting outcry from the mentally scarred.

      • I see two men with gender identity confusion and unfortunately, with the baby as a victim who will be damaged forever.

  2. Anonymous says:

    It was not a simple question as to who your mother is and who your father is for everyone.
    Lots of people were lied to about who their parents were.
    Lots of people had parents change over the course of their life.
    And lots of people would love to have traded their parents for someone who would love them and treat them well.

    • Anonymous, so if I have this right: the fact that some parents sin by lying, and some parents sin by bed hopping (or have the tragedy of the death of a spouse), and some parents sin by not loving their children and/or mistreating them, we should now accept the sin of two men having unnatural sex while demanding the right to purchase a child. Hmm. since when did all of these sins make a right?

      As far as your statement that “lots of people would love to have traded their parents….” I find this hard to believe. I think most mistreated people would have loved if their parents had treated them right, PERIOD! Most abused kids taken away from their parents will tell you that they want to be with their mother.

      • Anonymous says:

        I said nothing in support of accepting a sin.
        I just pointed out an error in the author’s writing.

        • Ann Malley says:

          But to what purpose, Anonymous? To agitate and deflect from the sinful promotion that having a child reared to believe two men make a marriage? For that is what you did.

          • Anonymous says:

            Some of us just have sore spots.. OK? Quit trying to make anybody that says something you don’t like out as a gay person or gay sympathizer.
            Sheeesh

          • Ann Malley says:

            Nobody is making you out to be anything, Anonymous. “To what purpose?” It was a fair question. If your parents are the sore spot, I’m sorry for that. But nobody is attempting to ‘make you out’ as gay or a gay sympathizer.

        • Anonymous says:

          Ann Malley, yes, you did.

          • Ann Malley says:

            I can’t help your interpretation, Anonymous. But again, if your sore spot is your own childhood, I’m sorry for that. You did, however pique my curiosity with what you wrote:

            “…And lots of people would love to have traded their parents for someone who would love them and treat them well.”

            In light of the topic, I was curious what that meant. A distraction? I don’t know for sure. An indication perhaps that ‘someone who would love them and treat them well,’ would equal same-sex parents? Again, I don’t know.

            That’s why I asked to what purpose, Anonymous.

          • Anonymous says:

            It had no purpose other than to point out the error in the writing-or I should say a false assumption in the writing. My response had nothing to do with same-sex parents.
            You made that assumption. I assume because that’s where your head is at.
            If you read the whole article, not much of it is about same-sex parents.The initial part is but not the part about family laws in the California.

          • Ann Malley says:

            I asked you to clarify, Anonymous. You did!

            Thanks.

      • Amen Tracy…..you said it all.

      • Tracy, I saw your post and when you are little, yes, you just want your parent to love you and you blame yourself and all that stuff.
        After you are an adult, if you have a sense of obligation and don’t just refuse to have anything to do with the parent, you really are more realistic; you realize the person is self-indulgent and you just wish you had a healthy parent and healthy relationship and sometimes you “adopt” an older person to fill that role.
        People always tend to think of child abuse as with minors but it continues on and on…..

        • Ann Malley says:

          But one would usually “adopt” an older person that is female to stand in for a mother figure, k. And a “male” to stand in for a father figure. The sadness that comes with not having our valid childhood needs met is a terrible reality. But still not something that should have society endorse ‘same sex parents’ as a viable alternatives that will only, in future, cause a different suffering.

          • I agree. Unfortunately, people’s experiences can lead them to seek out comforting, nurturing people and sex and sexual identity and orientation may not be that important. One of the signs of dysfunction is seeking people who use and abuse you. (One of the things that dismays me the most on this website is that when there is an exceptionally abusive post, it is not unusual for people to call it charitable-confusing the intention of the post with what was actually said. I really pray for the people who have only known abuse masquerading as love Sometimes they project it onto God, also.) People seek love. When you know the divine love, your need for human love diminishes.

          • Ann Malley says:

            “…When you know the divine love, your need for human love diminishes.”

            Very true, k.

  3. juergensen says:

    They adopted a boy, and not a girl, for a reason: sodomites are disproportionately prone to sexually abuse underage boys. It’s their ultimate lust. It’s why sodomites, who make up only 2% of the population, make up whopping 33% of all child sex abusers. See the scientifically supported articles below.

    http://www.tinyurl.com/HomoAbusers

    http://www.tinyurl.com/10SodomiteMyths (see in particular “Myth No. 8”)

    • Ah yes. Two links to propaganda distributed by a hate group (Family Research Council) in response to hysteria disseminated by another (Save California).

      Posting these links 2-3 times a day, multiple times in a single comment feed makes them no more true. Calling them scientific doesn’t make them valid.

      But it does illustrate nicely exactly why the hate group designation is valid. It’s not just bad science or polemics, but an attempt to misinform, play to the biases of the gullible, and be used as a battle cry to demonize and harm a minority group.

      In posting these, you’re being used by the FRC (however unwittingly) as a means to an end, which is the dictionary definition of tool.

      • juergensen says:

        Ah, yes. Another dutiful worker of the sodomite movement conveniently ignoring the 76 footnotes to external secular scientific sources cited by the Family Research Council.

        Below is just a sample of the 76 scientific sources cited by the Family Research Council. Now, why don’t you tell us again what it is exactly that makes them “propaganda”?

        * The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications)
        * Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18
        * Journal of Child Psychiatry 33
        * Wall Street Journal
        * Archives of Sexual Behavior 22
        * Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa
        * Child Abuse and Neglect 19
        * FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 53
        * Behavior Research and Therapy 26
        * International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45
        * The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out about Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles (New York: Summit Books)
        * Journal of Homosexuality 20
        * The Journal of the American Medical Association 262
        * International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45

        Thanks for playing!

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          The best of sources can be taken out of context and misquoted, as FRC has time and time again been proven to have done with these sources. Which is WHY FRC earned its hate group moniker by Southern Poverty Law Center.

          • The southern poverty law center? Wow what a resource! They list the Catholic Church as a terrorist organization as well! What else do you have?
            I would trust any child in this country to the care of any member of the FRC before I would even let them in the same room with the two in the picture!

          • juergensen says:

            You’re citing the Southern Poverty Law Center? Founded and headed by Morris Dees? LOL. Google his name, and perhaps add to your search such words as “pervert” and “child molester”. Then come back and tell us what you find.

          • @Alice
            Your claim that the Catholic Church is designated a terrorist organization: patently false.

          • YFC….The Southern Poverty Law Center has become what they hate: a hate group themselves! Actually, FRC had a ‘hate crime’ committed against them by a, you guessed it, a person with confused gender identity…..The Southen Poverty Law Center has lost it’s soul and is a joke!

        • The footnotes make it look legitimate, but start going through them and they fall apart. Seriously.

          Many are used to support claims contrary to the work cited, or outside the scope, or things that aren’t research, intentionally confuse or misrepresent terms, or cite something that isn’t even relevant to the research in order to have a citation…

          These really are propaganda. They’re not meant to hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. They’re preaching to a choir that is going to take them at face value. You’ll never see these cited outside a political context.

          Skepticism is healthy. If you blindly accept propaganda, you look foolish.

      • I agree. LOL! The multiple posting are really crossing the line into self-parody: meaningless.

        • juergensen says:

          I see that disciples of Saul Alinsky have infested this forum. When faced with facts, they attack the messenger as “hateful”; when faced with more facts, they call the facts “propaganda”; when faced with even more facts, they call the facts “repetitious”; on and on it goes. Duplicity and deception . . . . the marks of those who do the bidding of Satan.

      • Hugh…Who is being used as a tool and propaganda apologist for these people who use a child to further their disordered confused lifestyle? And for your limited information, FRC had a ‘hate crime’ committed against them. The SPLC is an bigoted, anti-life, and anti-family organization. Too bad it didn’t stick to what it did best, fight racism. Now they engage in intolerance and bigotry against those who want to prevent their religious liberties from being violated.

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          Everyone in the gay community denounced the hate crime against FRC. Violence has no place in our movement. But the fact that a sad sick individual doesn’t agree with that does nothing to negate FRC’s reason for being: deliberately, repeatedly and systematically spreading falsehoods about the gay community. It is this pattern of lies that earned FRC the moniker of hate group.

        • Ronnie: Which people? The people in the totally benign stock photo that’s being used by Save California here as a symbol of societal collapse, so they can do some fundraising? (the CTA is the only part not excerpted here).

          The various bills presented here are simply reflecting reality. It’s a response to practical issues that are arising from the changes that have happened… and has as much to do with the prison industrial complex and unstable home environments (the heterosexual variety) representing a high proportion of the birthrate as it does same sex couples … who don’t need to be two men adopting, btw. They’re often biological children from varying circumstances.

          Interesting that you seem to respect the SPLC’s work regarding racist groups, rather than dismiss it entirely. Anti-LGBT groups are different (and they don’t present them as equal to heavily armed neo-Nazis) but the FRC (along with several others that distort the word ‘family’ in their names) really is a hate group. It’s whole purpose is to use deceitful propaganda to demonize a minority group… in that sense, not too far removed from the fascists (who also trumpeted their own moral superiority).

          • Hugh…..Oh, I think I get it….because heterosexual marriages are failing (the 50% rate is being disputed in a new book) and society is collapsing, the answer is to have a so-called ‘stable’ disordered coulple to raise children now. Is that right?
            And I don’t know where you’re getting your facts, but there is no one or no group that I know of that doesn’t credit SPLC with their past accomplishments against racism.
            But I’ll grant you, nice try attempting to discredit FRC and at labeling them as a ‘hate’ group. Perhaps the real ‘hate groups’ are those who are so full of intolerance and hate that they will stop at nothing to force people to violate their religious liberty and indoctrinate their children into these disordered unnatural sexual perversions.

          • Not quite sure what your point is… Of those five AB1xx bills, only one is expressly about same sex couples (and affects nothing but taxonomy on a form). The rest have to do with heterosexual parent dynamics that are generally associated with poverty dynamics (incarceration, unfit or absentee parents, grandparents as caregivers), or adoption/surrogate situations, which apply broadly.

            … and the 50% statistic on divorce is an old one. These days, if people generally marry much later and cohabitate for years prior, and marriage is not at all necessary but a symbolic gesture of commitment, you would expect a much lower divorce rate.

            You can use words like “disordered unnatural sexual perversions” all you like… That’s just subjective opinion. What makes the FRC a hate group (by designation) is the intent to spread harmful falsehoods under guise of science. It’s been successful, too. Prior to the designation, the FRC was regularly given talking head media time, and presented as legitimate. But the big asterisk has put them in context. That’s all.

          • Justify your hate and smear FRC all you want but the truth is the real hate groups are now SPLC (a hate crime was commited against FRC by someone confused and believing the lies of SPLC) and the radical gay lobby. But people are waking up. Even those who were sympathetic to the gays are now having second thoughts because of the facism coming from these hatelful and intolerant gay groups.
            As for marriages, contraception and abortion have led the way towards dismantling this insitution. People living in sin and promiscuity and now same-sex disordered unions have added to this confusion. Marriages last only when two people do not cohabitate and I believe many are realizing that now also or will in the future when their lives and marriages are a mess….

  4. Even AP refers to these arrangements as nontraditional. “As the rise of nontraditional families……”

    Once again the definition of another word, “family”, which has always had universal recognition, is being changed by adding an adjective; in this case “nontraditional”.

    Traditional – 1. The passing down of a culture from generation to generation, esp. orally. 2. A custom handed down. 3. Any time-honored set of practices, beliefs, etc.

    Those who smugly try to convince us that they are not out to destroy marriage and family by changing the definitions of each are frauds.

    • Again Tracy, I could not have said it better. Thank you for posting Truth.

    • St. Peter says:

      Non-traditional means not following the tradition, and nothing more. It is not traditional for white Americans to marry black Americans, but it happens. It’s just nontraditional. It’s not traditional for Catholics to marry Muslims, but it happens. It’s just nontraditional. Similarly, it’s not traditional for a woman to marry a woman, but it happens. It’s just nontraditional.

      I wouldn’t read too much into the term.

      • calling this a “family” of any sort makes about at much sense as calling you “St. Peter”

        • Anonymous says:

          nasty nasty nasty. just keep being nasty to each other and see where that gets you!

          • Ann Malley says:

            Why is honest observation increasingly relegated to the misnomer “nasty?” Why to shut people up of course. Too bad the focus isn’t on being truthful.

            In truth, I’d say that presenting perversion as normative is darned nasty and downright cruel. Especially when presenting such an example to a developing child.

          • Anonymous says:

            Do you see any real argument here to support traditional marriage?
            Smart remarks are never going to explain anything to someone who does not understand the Catholic position on this.
            The tendency on this website is to focus on the gay, rather than on the marriage. Every once in a while someone tries the ‘natural law” argument.
            Justifying ad hominum argument as “honest observation” does not indicate a high priority on discussion and conversion, but an enjoyment of entertainment by abuse.

          • Ann Malley says:

            So what, in your estimation, is the Catholic perspective on this situation, Anonymous? On the level of natural and moral law. And where did you gain this perspective?

            What would be your Catholic perspective on adulterous marriage? Would you say that those who focus on the adultery portion and decry it as opposed to the latter are somehow focused only on adultery or misconstruing Catholic teaching?

            There is much in your post that denotes an entertainment by abuse as you seem to take some pleasure out of accusing Catholics following the moral and natural law as somehow misguided in their normative behavior. Which includes a fervent innate desire to protect innocent children.

          • Anonymous says:

            The Catholic perspective, thank you for asking, is that God has devised a plan for man to live and thrive on the Earth. His plan includes the good of marriage where one man and one woman live and love, producing offspring and teaching them how to live well on the Earth. The union of man and woman in marriage is exclusive and permanent. it is for the good of the couple, for their children and for society. There is much more Catholic teaching, which of course I learned from the Catholic Church. You can see it here: http://www.foryourmarriage.org/ and here:
            http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/church-documents-on-defense-of-marriage.cfm
            You will find all your questions answered.
            The Catholic perspective on adultery can be found here:
            http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
            I have never and would never accuse Catholics who follow the moral and natural law as misguided and there was nothing in my post that would lead you to believe that. I assume it was just another nasty, smart remark. Please try to be civil as the CCD publisher asks you to be. I assume my post stung your pride which I apologize for.

          • Ann Malley says:

            Thank you for your kind and thorough reply, Anonymous. But I must say you may want to review what you wrote for it was rather lofty and condemnatory, making assumptions about what you supposed was the, what was it – entertainment of abuse? It would appear your own hubris keeps you from adequate self-assessment.

            You may wish to be less cryptic in future and speak plainly instead of making sideways comments that are anything but dull or productive. If your interest is to illuminate, that is, why not set the example and state the Catholic perspective up front? Be the change you want to see.

            For whereas you may believe yourself incapable of accusing Catholics who follow the moral and natural law as misguided, the tone of your posts would indicate that you are not above playing games. So yes, let’s be civil as CCD asks us all to be, but honest as well. And as it is obvious that I tapped your vindictive streak, you have my apology.

          • Anonymous says:

            You are one nasty person!

          • Anonymous says:

            And it did not entertain me to write that. It was done out of hurt and humiliation. So you put a feather in your cap or wherever. I will never read a post of your again. You are not a sincere Catholic.

      • St. Peter…Non-traditional is being used to cover up an abnormal gender identity confused arrangements. To compare race, or religion to disordered sexual perversions is absurd.

    • “Traditional” marriage and family are not destroyed by extending their definitions to include non-traditional constructs. In fact, their definitions are enhanced and given more value through their expended inclusiveness. In this way, eventually non-traditional becomes the norm (traditional), which is the way a healthy society evolves for the better.

  5. Augustine Thomas says:

    Pray for that poor child! He’s a victim in this perverted game.

  6. St. Peter says:

    I would agree with the commentators above: it looks like a family to me.

    I thought this was a funny thing for Randy Thomason to say: “’This shows how far our society has fallen: It used to be a simple answer to who’s your father and who’s your mother”.

    How hard is it to say: “I have two dads”?

  7. Of course that child could love those two men and the men can love the child, but the best scenario is for a child to grow up with his mother and father. The family unit should exhibit the natural laws of nature. Yes, there are exceptions to the norm, but what is best for the child. The only reason to allow exceptions is to cause confusion and to tear down what is normal. Remember Jesus’ warning, “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he was drowned in the depth of the sea.” Legalizing and acceptance of same sex marriage has caused many of his “little” ones to sin.

  8. juergensen says:

    The first thought that came to my mind when I saw that photo was “NAMBLA”.

    • Anonymous says:

      Of course that was the first word that came to your mind. Because you are obsessed with lies about homosexuality.

      • juergensen says:

        ^^^ Typical Saul Alinsky acolyte. Cannot deny the obvious connection between two sodomites holding a young boy and NAMBLA, so he resorts to an ad hominem attack against the messenger.

        • Anonymous says:

          maybe you just have a dirty mind.

        • Anonymous says:

          juergensen, your comment about NAMBLA, implying that these two guys are molesting their child was disgusting and absolutely an ad hominem. You constantly hurl ad hominems and insults in virtually every post you make, leaving you no room to complain when other people complain about your disgusting accusations. Your mind seems to be filled with a highly unnatural desire to degrade people and to make up false accusations without a single shred of evidence.

  9. juergensen says:

    Can you imagine being the biological father of that boy and finding out your boy has been handed over to two sodomites?

  10. St. Christopher says:

    “juergensen” and “SandraD” and others are correct: this picture represents a perversion, the result of a political victory in an America becoming increasingly pagan. Pray for the boy (and for the two men, as well), he is a captive in an arrangement with the State that now elevates sodomy — one of the four Biblical sins that ‘cry to heaven for vengeance’ — to normalcy, if not admiration. One day, history will look back at this time (or avenging angels) as a time when Mankind truly lost its way, deciding to abandon his belief in a just and moral God and instead worship the golden calf of personal lust and perversion. No one, and no group, that supports such a truly awful result for a child can be trusted, or supported. Curiously, in a way that perfectly demonstrates the Homofascist way of debate, the many, many examples of literature describing homosexual sexualist child abuse, are dismissed by “YFC” as the result of thinking by a “hate group”. Such supercilious argument is doubling obscene, like Satan arguing with Eve about God’s non-truth and fear. This is evil.

  11. There is nothing normal about this picture at all. If they chose to commit sodomy on each other and pretend it is love and not perverted lust, then go commit their mortal sins and DO NOT bring an innocent child into their sinful world. This child’s soul is in jeopardy. This little boy needs and deserves both a mother and a father! Being a mother of four, two boys and two girls, I know there are times when my sons needed me and my daughters needed my husband. They have a right to a mother and a father. Imagine for yourself what it would have been like if you didn’t have your mother or father! I just lost my mother in April of this year and I have been going through a very tough time. I miss her whole heartedly! I still cry every day. I can’t imagine what life would have been like without her and I can’t imagine my life without my dad eiher. This child will never know what it is like to have a mother. This child will be deprived of that because of these two selfish, immoral men! Terribly sad!

  12. Sociology 101 – the family is the basic unit of society.

    To redefine the family to include all forms of “relationships” will breed confusion and consequently, a weakened, disjointed society.

    Nothing good can come of re-engineering society to satisfy the urges of any form of groupings imaginable. Pedophilia, bestiality, and other perversions
    are clamoring to be respected as normal as well. Is it to be “Anything Goes” ???

  13. MIchael McDermott says:

    The California Family Alliance has an excellent analysis of the state of Family Law and the Attacks on it (by the likes of Senator Mark “Kiddie Porn King” Leno and Tommy ‘TP’ Ammiano, seeking to use the Demicrat legislature to overturn the Constitution. I recommend a full read of the whole alert, as it discusses numerous Bills and Points of Relevance:

    traditional marriage – further undermined in California after Gov. Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill #1306 (“KPK” Leno)…goes much further, though, by also sanitizing traditional parental roles by substituting the gender-neutral word “spouse” for all references to “husband” and “wife” in the Family Code.

    Leno incorrectly stated last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 “made permanent the August 2010 federal District Court judgment that found Proposition 8 unconstitutional and resulted in the restoration of same-sex couples’ freedom to marry in California.”

    That assertion is misleading.

    In a narrow, split decision, the Supreme Court ruled only that supporters of Proposition 8 had no legal authority, called “standing,” to appeal the case, thereby nullifying the appeal court ruling declaring the amendment unconstitutional.

    http://californiafamilyalliance.org/DownloadbleFiles/2014.08.04CFATWIC.pdf

  14. MIchael McDermott says:

    Every Child has Two Parents – a Male (XY) and Female (XX), disciples of ‘Turkey Baster Creationism Notwithstanding. If these Same Men had engaged in Heterosexual Intercourse to create Their Children – they could be held legally & financially responsible for their offspring, it is only the Absence of the Male – who is Physically Removed from the process. that provides its ‘justification’ for tax subsidy & and legal immunity.

    “British gvmt to fund sperm bank for lesbians and single women

    British taxpayers will soon be on the hook for a sperm bank that will allow lesbian and single mothers to create children without the involvement of a father.

    As reported by The Daily Mail, for approximately $500 women will be able to find anonymous sperm donors. The database will allow searches for a variety of characteristics, including ethnicity, weight, religion, and hobbies. The sperm bank is being funded by over $120,000 in taxpayer dollars, in addition to approximately $200,000 given to the National Gamete Donation Trust (NGDT).

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/british-government-to-fund-sperm-bank-for-lesbians-and-single-women?

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Speak Your Mind

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.