Monday, December 15, 2008

NY Law and Paterson's Agenda: Separated at Birth

New York State is moving toward a head-on collision over same-sex "marriage." After Gov. David Paterson (D) assumed office, he made a unilateral decision to recognize the out-of-state "marriages" of homosexuals. This week, Paterson took his agenda a step further by instructing the Department of Health to list both same-sex partners on children's birth certificates. Under state law, a woman's husband is automatically listed as a parent of a child conceived through artificial insemination, even if he isn't the biological father. Homosexuals have complained that they deserve the same right. Until Paterson's directive, gay and lesbian couples were required to file for adoption of their partner's child. Because it requires an additional legal step, two Canadian lesbians sued. Without waiting for a resolution from the court, the governor took it upon himself to declare homosexual couples equal to married, heterosexuals, despite the fact that his own state doesn't recognize gay "marriage." The policy shift is an important one, because it chips away at a fundamental defense of traditional marriage-procreation. Our friends at the Alliance Defense Fund are prepared to challenge. They rightly argue that these decisions belong in the hands of the legislature-not the governor.


My humble opinion:

Well, if they wouldn't take money from these groups, they wouldn't feel obligated to return the favor. The number one problem just has to be, once again, $$$$$ as the core of these issues.

I don't think we have a slippery slope anymore. That's over. We have a can of worms and it would appear that too many in the government don't have the juevos to put the lid back on it. Now, as a Catholic, I am not going to judge the soul of any of these people no matter what they do or what they decide. But, I am going to judge their actions. And, their actions are selfish, demanding, self-centered, and very immature.

It's not that everything has to be legal. That isn't the issue. The issue is that these people think that once it is determined "legal" then it is a sign to the world that their behavior is acceptable....that they have been validated.

California recently said NO and still the homosexual community rejected democracy. They don't want to be made to feel that their sex life is wrong. This is about validation. And that just isn't going to happen by the majority of people.

If they all win in every state to make all of their sexual desires and playing house is made legal....all the legal documents give them what they want....they will not be happy with that. They are searching for happiness in a place and in a way that isn't going to be gratified by "legal."

If all homosexuals are atheists, I could almost understand their lack of understanding on this. And yet so very many claim to be Christian. I don't know what Bible they are reading but if they do read a Bible, and believe themselves to be Christian, then it would be incredibly obvious that Jesus, Himself, has mentioned the seriousness of this.

And what is wrong, if one really wants to be a true Christian, with chastity? Sure, it's hard for anyone to abide by chastity in their state of life. But, it is very possible but it is never possible without the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I want to remain chaste and so I do what I need to do to remain that way. One cannot learn to play the piano if one doesn't practice it. If one wants to be chaste, they have to practice ! And, with the grace of God, the more one practices, the better we get at it.

No one mentions this much so I will. Stats show that homosexual relationships have a lasting power of about 5 years max. So with more homosexual marriages, we shall clearly see more divorces and more broken homes if children are brought into these unions.

A child who gets teased at school because they don't have the same shoes as everyone else....and add to that two moms or two dads. If I were a child growing up with that, you have to know I would be a mental mess. Wouldn't you?

No comments: