Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- Thread starter
- #461
No, there are many reasons why a Catholic can object to two women acting as mother and "father" to a child. Because their marriage contract advertises the boy or girl adopted out to them will never know a father under their roof. Never. Not one chance with lesbian "marriages". The Bible has some things to say also about men lying with men and women lying with women.The case she’s referencing in the thread title is actually a case being brought by the ACLU which is about the State of Michigan providing government funding to a private Catholic adoption agency which refuses to place children with same sex couples.
Their argument is that gay couples can use other agencies. The ACLU is arguing that an agency which discriminates against gay couples should not receive government funding.
So even the premise of her thread is a lie.
The federal funding is sticky though. They will lose on that point, unless, they have children's separate counsel pitching the argument that finding in favor of the lesbians will make fathers legally-irrelevant as a benefit under a child's roof and share in the marriage contract's benefits the child would otherwise enjoy. THAT is the compelling argument that would make a judge sit with furrowed brows in his chambers for weeks.
What this judge decides to do may even open the precedent barn door to the soft form of child trafficking where semen, surrogacies etc. are creating children essentially for trade in the gay marriage market, where they cannot have children with each other otherwise. It's a distant spin off, but if you make fathers or mothers irrelevant, only as vessels to churn out babies, then all sorts of weird legal shit can follow. Yes, it's already happening, but states are resisting it with both heels dug in. This case would kick their good objections to this type of child trafficking to the curb.
I do not envy the judge in this case. He should look carefully at the fact that Obergefell ripped away the main benefit to children in marriage (both mother and father) without their having so much as a peep of a word, at any hearing I know of to date up to Obergefell, about the TITANIC legal ramifications of that miscarriage of justice.
Last edited: