In a conversation with grad students the other day, I suggested that all other things being equal, adoption policy should give preference to couples. Though a few of them agreed, others objected that such a policy would amount to “punishing singles.”
I found that an interesting expression.
In the older view, duties come before rights. The important thing is the wellbeing of the children; parents have rights to care for their children because this is best for the children themselves.
In the newer view, rights come before duties. The important thing is what grown-ups want; anyone who wants a child has a right to be given one, and the state has a duty to hand one over.
John Madigan, an Independent senator from the state of Victoria, made a blistering speech in Federal Parliament in Canberra on Tuesday evening about the right of Australia’s Catholic bishops to place their position on same-sex marriage before the public.
I rise tonight to speak in support of our Constitution, I rise to speak in support of freedom of speech and I rise in support of the freedom of religious belief.
Additionally I want to put on the record the hypocrisy of those in this place who seek to silence people for their religion. I want to put on record my condemnation of the use of lobby groups who are not necessarily representative of the wider community, that do not have widespread support yet seek to bludgeon our religious institutions.
A transgender activist is trying to silence the Catholic Church in the Australian state of Tasmania on the issues of homosexuality, transgender, and same-sex marriage.
Martine Delaney, who will be a Greens candidate for the next Federal election, has lodged a complaint with the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commission over a booklet produced by Australia’s Catholic bishops, “Don’t Mess with Marriage”. It was distributed in Tasmania by the Archbishop of Hobart, Julian Porteous, to the parents of students in Catholic schools. The two parties have just announced that they wil attend a conciliation conference.
In a lengthy press release Ms Delaney said that the booklet only pays lip service to respect for same-sex-attracted Australians by insisting that they should be treated with “respect, sensitivity, and love”. But she interprets these as weasel words. She says:
Arguing for same-sex divorce before Mississippi's Supreme Court
Not all American states have placidly accepted the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v Hodges to declare same-sex marriage constitutional. Some are listening to advice from legal scholars that “state officeholders” should “refuse to accept Obergefell as binding precedent”.
If this gathers momentum, there could eventually be some scope for state governors to ignore Obergefell as a precedent. Instead, they could argue that the Court had spoken authoritatively only for the parties involved in that case alone. It’s not likely, but a crack may be opening.
Here is what happened in Mississippi.
Lauren Beth Czekala-Chatham, a 52-year-old credit analyst, who already had two children from a failed heterosexual marriage, moved to California in 2008 so that she could marry Dana Ann Melancon. But the relationship soured and they separated in 2010. When…
click here to read whole article and make comments
The progressive press is seething with indignation towards the voters of Houston, Texas, more than 60 percent of whom have rejected a city council ordinance that would allow transgender women (that is, biological males) into women's restrooms and locker rooms.
More precisely, the media standard bearers for the never-ending sexual revolution are furious with the Campaign for Houston, a group in which pastors featured prominently, for focusing voters’ attention with the slogan, “No men in women’s bathrooms”. Their brisk and effective ad suggested that The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance would provide a cover for sexual predators to threaten the privacy and even safety of women and girls.
“Myths!” lectured Vox. “Hate! Bigotry! Fearmongering!” fumed the New York Times. “Definitely fear,” agreed The Atlantic.
Polyamory is a familiar theme in Brazil's telenovelas
In other countries they just talk about changing family models; in Brazil they do something about it. A lesbian trio recently had their love recognised when they took their vows in the presence of Rio de Janeiro notary public Fernanda de Freitas Leitao.
This is not a marriage, but it is more than symbolic because the polyamorous trio intend to have a child. The unnamed women -- a businesswomen and a dentist who are both 32 and a 34-year-old office manager -- have been living together for three years.
In the sudden avalanche of publicity for transgender issues since Bruce Jenner announced that he had become Caitlin Jenner, it is often said that transitioning from one sex to the other is a positive experience.
Some even claim that there is no evidence that sex reassignment surgery is psychologically harmful and that criticism is due only to prejudice and “transphobia”. As one activist has written, “gender dysphoria as a psychological disturbance has been consigned to the wastebasket of medical history, much like hysteria, lunacy, and the disease view of homosexuality”.
This is simply not true. Any discussion of transgender issues, particularly for adolescents or young adults, must bear in mind the lessons from the following peer-reviewed articles in major journals.
Twenty years ago I attended the United Nations’ Beijing Conference on Women. The focus of the gathering was the definition of “gender”. The word appeared at least once in almost all of platforms over 300 sections. While many people believe that the words “sex” and “gender” are interchangeable, the goal of the Beijing conference was to change radically the definition of both.
Until then, sex had described to the totality of what it means to be male or female, and gender was a grammatical term. But gender theory downgraded sex to the biological level only. In normal usage sex was to be replaced by gender, and gender would describe socially constructed roles that could be changed. A male could have a female gender identity.
Would the Great Emancipator have defended Obergefell v Hodges?
The decision of the Supreme Court in Obergefell v Hodges effectively legalised same-sex marriage throughout the United States.
Or did it?
A group of 60 distinguished scholars, mostly lawyers, insist that it does not. They have thrown down the gauntlet, arguing that the Supreme Court is supreme in the federal judicial system. But the justices are not supreme over the executive and legislative branches of government. “And they are certainly not supreme over the Constitution.”
Behind this audacious challenge is Princeton Professor Robert P. George, an eminent academic and a seasoned campaigner in the battle to stop same-sex marriage.
For village pump lawyers, this might sound strange, even arrogant. Surely, in all legal disputes, the Supreme Court has the final word? Not necessarily – although it requires a finely calibrated legal mind…
click here to read whole article and make comments
Along with proof of cold fusion, photos of the Loch Ness monster or a sure cure for baldness, there’s nothing like the discovery of the gay gene to set the pulse of headline writers racing.
Here’s a few from the last few hours: Boys “turned gay by childhood change in genes” (Irish Independent); “The DNA test 'that reveals if you're gay'” (Daily Mail); “Scientists find DNA differences between gay men and their straight twin brothers” (Los Angeles Times); and “Study: DNA test can reveal male sexual orientation” (San Diego Union-Tribune).
But today’s Hall of Shame Award for Horrible Headlines goes to New Scientist, which ought to know better: “Gay or straight? Saliva test can predict male sexual orientation”.
Conjugality deals with the true nature of marriage and the challenges it faces today. Our current focus is on the campaign to legalise same-sex marriage. We'd love to get your comments and suggestions. Send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org