Consequences of Civil Unions and the Governmental Elevation of Same-sex Relationships// do you know what courts and legislators in the land of the free and the home of the brave have been up to?


Consequences of Civil Unions and the Governmental Elevation of Same-sex Relationships

This post is just to refresh everyone’s memories and shed some light on the subject for those who might still be confused about the horrific damaging effects of SSM… (the info was directed at the voters of Hawaii– letting them know of the chaos that has been plaguing the country with regards to SSM).

Negative Impacts on Families and Children

Intentionally denying children both a mother and a father elevates the wants of adults over the needs of children. The result of same-sex “marriage” to satisfy the desires of adults means that children no longer have a right to their parents. Instead, same-sex couples have a right to get children. It’s as though children are a commodity to have. “I want to have a car. I want to have a house. I want to have a child.”

This tragic attitude is seen in many examples. In a famous interview with Diane Sawyer, Rosie O’Donnell, a T.V. personality and outspoken activist for the normalization of homosexual behavior, was asked by her son, “Mommy, I want to have a daddy.” Rosie answered, “I’m the kind of mommy who wants another mommy.” Thus, Rosie’s son has a need to know his father, and expressed that innate need, but it was overruled by Rosie’s want for a female sexual partner.

This can also be seen in the parenting literature produced by those who support same-sex parenting. In The Lesbian and Gay Parenting Handbook, same-sex partners who are attempting to raise children are told that “[s]ome children do express an intense longing for the other biological parent, talking about it frequently and emotionally …” Thus, the innate need of children for both a mother and a father is acknowledged and something about which same-sex couples are warned. This is also seen in In For Lesbian Parents: Your Guide to Helping your Family Grow Up Happy, Healthy, and Proud. In this book, mothers who prefer their own homosexual behavior over the needs of their children are encouraged to deal with their daughters in this fashion: “If it’s hard sometimes not having a father. Let her know that you understand that sometimes it is hard.”

The Lesbian Parenting Book goes further than a mere warning, but states that “[i]t is very normal for children to long about and ask for a father … . It is natural to feel defensive when your child longs for a father. We encourage you to remain patient while she asks questions, sorts out information and comes to terms without knowing her father’s identity, or not having her biological father in her life. She needs to do it … . [Artificially Inseminated] children of lesbian parents may grieve never knowing their biological father.” Therefore, this book warns of the problem, but then encourages same-sex couples to push their children to “do it” come to terms with the fact that they will never know their father’s identity, and that those who seek to love and raise them will continue to place their needs over that of the child.

These people are unbelievable. . .talk about selfishness. And they think that Prop 8 supporters and those fighting for marriage to remain between one man and one woman are the ones with a problem. Most other parents don’t need “how to” books to raise their children.

Negative Impacts on Adoption

State-sanctioned civil unions will have devastating implications on the continued missions of faith-based organizations regarding the successful placement of adoptable children. In this realm, successful adoptions are ones where children are placed in loving homes and guaranteed that they have both a mother and a father.

It’s happened in Massachusetts. At one time, Catholic Charities of Boston actively placed hundreds of orphaned children with loving families, and giving them what they once previously did not have, a mother and a father. But after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex “marriage” was as virtuous and valuable as marriage between one man and one woman, Catholic Charities was forced to cease its adoption mission, unless the church was willing to adopt out children to same-sex couples, whereby those children would intentionally be denied either a mother or a father. The implementation of same-sex “marriage” led to an attack on the church and its mission to both the community and its most vulnerable citizens, abandoned children.

In a March 10, 2006 statement, Cardinal Sean O’Malley, archbishop of Boston, pointed to the history of Catholic Charities in the United States as an agency “exercising constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom” that “stepped forward to provide placement for orphaned children.” “Sadly,” he said, “we have come to a moment when Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Boston must withdraw from the work of adoptions, in order to exercise (that) religious freedom.”

Negative Impacts on Individual Religious Rights

In New Mexico, a Christian couple who run a photography business were fined more than $6,000 by the state’s Human Rights Commission. Their crime? The photographers refused to accept a commission to take photographs at the “commitment ceremony” of a female same- sex couple.

According to the Alliance Defense Fund (Alliance Defense Fund), “the commission issued an order finding that Elane Photography engaged in ‘sexual orientation’ discrimination, prohibited under state law, and ordered it to pay $6,637.94 in attorneys’ fees to the two women who filed the complaint. “The government cannot make people choose between their faith and their livelihood,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “Could the government force a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for the new butcher shop in town? American business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate.”

Sadly, this type of case will be seen in Hawaii if our state changes the definition of marriage, and elevates to a preeminent social position relationships that run contrary to the tenets of every major religion in this country. One of the results is that business owners will no longer enjoy the right to refuse business based on their own conscience.

Negative Impacts on Religious Organizations

Founded in 1869, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (CMA) is ministry organization that provides opportunities for spiritual birth, growth, and renewal in a Christian seaside setting. Affiliated with the United Methodist Church, Ocean Grove is located on the shore within two hours of both New York City and Philadelphia. It’s a beautiful spot, and couples have used the grounds for marriage ceremonies for many decades. But in 2007, a same-sex couple filed a complaint with the state attorney general’s office on the basis of “sexual orientation” discrimination after the CMA refused to allow the same-sex couple to use its grounds for a civil union ceremony, which clearly ran contrary to the tenets of the CMA’s faith. A second same-sex couple sued on the same grounds.

Making matters even worse, in 2007, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) stripped the CMA of its tax-exempt status on part of its property. Thus, the church was now forced to pay taxes for continuing to use its property in accordance with the tenets of its faith, as it had faithfully done since 1869.

But the removal of the CMA’s tax-exempt status wasn’t enough for some advocates of same sex “marriage.” One group threatened to appeal the DEP’s decision, saying that it didn’t go far enough, according to a report by the Associated Press. “We’re looking for a bigger victory here,” said Steve Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality. “We have the symbolic victory of the state telling Ocean Grove they’re wrong, but there is a bigger victory to be had by having the entire tax-exemption removed. We’re happy, but there’s a lot more happiness to be had.”

Isn’t this disgusting?  Just another example of the GLBT crew at it’s finest. They don’t just want marriage, they want control over our rights to act according to our beliefs and our conscience.

Negative Impacts on Parental Rights

In 2005, a Lexington, Massachusetts couple – David and Tonia Parker – discovered a book that their son was given in his kindergarten class entitled “Who’s in a Family?” The book, in the author’s own words, was intended to “get the subject [of same-sex parent households] out into the minds and the awareness of children before they are old enough to have been convinced that there’s another way of looking at life.” The Parkers objected to the fact that the school system was teaching their son different values from their own. After an exchange of letters and emails, the couple was told by the principal that “she had checked with administrators and that no parental notification is required to discuss homosexual families/issues.” The principal added, “Faculty can discuss homosexual families and homosexual issues with your son.”

That Spring, the Parkers sent a letter to the school specifically stating that they did not authorize any teaching of same-sex marriage or sexual orientation to their sons. The response from the school was that discussion of same sex couples was not an issue in which parental notification was required. This statement was made, although Massachusetts law clearly provides that “[e]very … regional school district or vocational school district implementing or maintaining curriculum which primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues shall adopt a policy ensuring parental/guardian notification.”

David Parker was ultimately arrested for trespassing at a meeting that was intended to produce an agreement with the school system! Parker filed a lawsuit, claiming his civil rights had been violated. After immense pressure brought by activist groups, the suit was ultimately dismissed by a federal judge. The dismissal of Parker’s lawsuit was subsequently upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case, and the litigation has now concluded.

Therefore, notwithstanding clear Massachusetts law, activists for same-sex “marriage” have effectively made an end-run around parental rights in that state regarding the role of public schools in teaching children – children as young as five – about same-sex “marriage.” You can expect similar things to occur in Hawaii if civil unions are enacted.

Negative Impacts on Health Care Providers

In 2006, after the California Legislature gave same-sex couples all of the full rights and benefits of marriage through “domestic partnerships,” a practice of fertility doctors was sued by a lesbian couple because the doctors, acting out of conscience, refused to artificially inseminate one of the partners. The medical practice refused to inseminate one of the women on the grounds that the couple was unmarried. The plaintiff claimed that she was discriminated against based on her “sexual orientation” – a claim the physicians denied. The doctors even referred the plaintiff to another practice, and reimbursed the plaintiff for additional costs. Moreover, the couple was subsequently inseminated by different physicians and bore three children.

Still, the couple filed suit against the first doctors that they saw. The case wound its way through the legal system. In August 2008, a mere four months after the California Supreme Court judicially imposed same-sex “marriage” upon its citizens, that same court ruled “that patient demand for nonessential, elective care trumps the freedom of conscience of physicians and their ability to practice medicine in accordance with their religious or moral beliefs.”

Thus, the California Supreme Court told physicians in that state that they cannot act on the basis of conscience in administering elective, non-lifesaving care. And conducting a legal defense against even a frivolous lawsuit can be extremely expensive. Enacting civil unions in Hawaii only opens the door to additional lawsuits when a health care provider decides, based on personal conscience, not to provide elective services to a same-sex couple.


10 thoughts on “Consequences of Civil Unions and the Governmental Elevation of Same-sex Relationships// do you know what courts and legislators in the land of the free and the home of the brave have been up to?

  1. Dear Journalista, Please allow me to correct some misinformation from this article about Catholic Charities’ adoption program in Massachusetts. Before Cardinal Sean O’Malley became archbishop of Boston, Catholic Charities did not discriminate in its adoption work, but placed a priority on meeting the best interests of each child. Catholic Charities sometimes placed children with single adults, and with gay or lesbian couples, in addition to traditional married couples. When the Archbishop learned that Catholic Charities had been placing children with gay and lesbian couples, he sought to end the practice, and sought an exemption from the state’s antidiscrimination laws. It had nothing to do with Massachusetts’ legalization of same-sex marriage. The state refused to allow Catholic Charities to begin discriminating against gays and lesbians, so the Archbishop closed the adoption service (which was transferred to a private adoption agency).

    Right now, there are 129,000 U.S. children in foster care waiting for adoption. Tens of thousands of these children “age out” of foster care as young adults every year, without ever gaining the stability of a permanent, loving family. Teens who age out of foster care are at high risk for homelessness, unemployment, drug abuse, dropping out of school, violence, and early pregnancy, often perpetuating the very problems that put them into foster care in the first place.

    Single parenthood is hard. A two parent household provides significant benefits for the child and the parents. But some of these children have been traumatized and abused by an adult of one sex. If we will not consider a same-sex couple as potential parents for that child, we are requiring the child to either face the challenges of a single-parent home or age out of foster care.

    These are our children, their daily needs for food and shelter funded by our taxes, through no fault of their own. If they age out of state care without ever finding a permanent adoptive family, we as a community may need to provide a lifetime of care for them – from homeless shelters to prisons to emergency medical care.

    These children want and need what the rest of us take for granted – the chance to grow up in a family where they know they belong and are loved.

    We do not have enough families, traditional or not, stepping forward to meet the need. How can we tell these children that we would rather have them grow up without a family at all because we don’t like the sexual orientation of the adults who are willing and able to give them a safe and loving home?

  2. Fostercare is designed to be temporary.

    Half of children in fostercare reunite with their families.

    Of the remaining, about half do not have adoption plans and so are not eligible for adoption.

    That leaves about one-quarter of the children in fostercare, at any given time, available for adoption.

    There are more than enough married people interested and motivated to adopt, if only we would remove the obstacles and better manage the recruitment of married adoptors.

    Some children are difficult to place because we tend not to split-up siblings; some because we have race-based priorities; some because the children are near the age of majority. That last group is a large segment of the foster care population. We have very humane programs — and more being piloted and launched every year — to ease the transition from fostercare to adulthood.

    Obviously there are alternatives to adoption. Legal guardianship can be more appropriate than adoption for some children and the adults who’d care for them. Although orphanages have unfairly gotten a bad rap nowadays, humane group homes and schools are fantastic solutions. And, as we are already doing, family reunion makes a good deal of common sense.

    It is false to present the gay and lesbian population as the saviors of the fostercare system, as gay activists routinely do in the newsmedia. Their contribution is infitismal compared with that of the rest of society.

    The fact is that fostercare and adoption are for meeting the special circumstances of children in need, not for satifiying the wants of needy adults.

    Surely we can all agree that there is no adult right to adoption.

    * * *

    Catholic Charities in Boston was indeed forced out of adoptions in Massachusetts in the wake of the imposition of SSM in that state.

    It is a fallacy to say that Catholic Charities discriminated against gay adoptors. They had a higher standard. They arranged the largest share of adoptions in that city and in that state. Their services were integral to their religious mission to their community. Pushing them out of adoption benefited not one child in need. Not one.

    But if gays and lesbians sought to adopt there were many alternatives agencies with different standards. Indeed, some agencies specialized in gay and lesbian adoptors.

    As for the two or three adoptions to single gay or lesbian adoptors that the Boston agency had arranged over the course of the past decade or so, these were not done with the knowledge of the presiding Bishops. So let’s not exagerate in the name of gay identity politics.

    When the Bishop reaffirmed the Church’s teachings, and rejected the Government’s attempt to force anti-Catholic policies on Catholic agencies, the handful of pro-gay activists resigned from Catholic Charities of Boston. Their priorities were not with the agency’s Catholic mission but with identity politics of the gaycentric kind.

  3. Janice,

    I don’t think we need to correct one wrong (foster care) with another (pretending that gay couples are just like married couples). I don’t have a problem with foster children going to single parent households. I know some very nice single people that would provide great homes for these children. The research, evidence and statistics surrounding the kind of dysfunctional, sexually explicit, unstable and even violent lives and homes and relationships that homosexual couples have is in no way better for these children then staying in the foster care system. I agree that the system is fundamentally flawed, however, putting these children in further danger and exposing them to the damaging effects of the gay lifestyle is not going to remedy the problem.

  4. I have adopted children through the foster care system, and have also served as a foster parent for many years. There are many problems in foster care, but there are many stable families who would be willing to adopt if the state was easier to work with. There are ample solutions to the problems in foster care. The main problem isn’t finding the families, it’s clearing red tape.

  5. Thanks for your comment Beetle! You’re exactly right. Everything with the government is chaos and unnecessary drama, and all it does is hurt these kids and deter great people from getting involved. My husband and I have talked recently about becoming foster parents. I’ll have to get some more info about your experiences if we decide to pursue it. Your kids are all very blessed to have you and Mr. Beetle!

  6. Chairm–Thanks for commenting and providing the real facts! It never ceases to amaze me that the GLBT group is always so focused on “themselves.” Never what’s best for anyone else, or what someone else might need or what or believe.

  7. Interesting discussion going on here. I imagine that there would be many families willing to adopt or foster care children. I think it is really unnecessary to attempt to include same sex couples into the equation. This will only cause children to accept as valid a disordered type of lifestyle.

  8. Exactly Secular! Thanks for commenting. Not to mention all of the reports and statistics of how homosexual relationships are wrought with violence, abuse and infidelity. Besides it being wrong to exposes children to that type of lifestyle, those children already come from unstable homes. Putting them with gay foster parents will not be helping the situation, or adding to the security of these kids.

  9. This reminded me of something that came up in Texas during the spring of 2005.

    Randall Ellis, executive director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas, repeatedly claimed that there were “upwards of 3 thousand” foster children living in same-sex households in Texas.

    I looked into it and discovered that at the time there was about 17,000 fosterchildren in Texas. Of these about 1,600 (10%) might have been living in the households of unmarried cohabitators, based on the Census data.

    Same-sex households are a very small subset of unwed cohabitors.

    So what’s the likelihood that Ellis was exagerating? I’d say about 200% or so.

    If Ellis was to be believed, gay and lesbian cohabitors somehow managed to attain twice as many foster children as there were foster children residing in all unmarried partnered households throughout the state.


    So I said, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. A supersized one.

    There were 17,000 fosterchildren in Texas, but same-sex householders would have had 18% of them?


    There were 15,000 children living in same-sex households, according to the Census, but 1 in 5 would be foster children?


    Let’s put this as gentlely as possible.

    While same-sex householders may have about one-quarter of 1 percent of the entire child population of Texas, it is highy improbable that they’d have almost 20 percent of the foster child population of Texas. At least not without someone noticing it. Or covering it up.

    If they had as much as 2% of the foster children, that still would be less than 300 kids.

    So Ellis exagerated tenfold, at least.

    The newsmedia did not challenge his claim which was repeated reported at face value. So even if he, and they, didn’t know he was exagerating, they didn’t bother to do a reality check on his assertion.

    And that seems to be par for the course.

    * * *

    When I saw this issue given some attentin by “The Numbers Guy” in the Wall Street Journal, I wrote him and asked that he look into the fishy numbers.

    He kindly responded and wrote about it in his column:


    Reader Chairm Ohn said that statistics cited by opponents of the ban also deserved further scrutiny. In particular, he noted that Randall Ellis, executive director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas, had told reporters the ban could affect between 2,000 and 2,500 foster children in Texas. Since Texas only has about 17,000 children in public and private foster homes, that number seemed high to Mr. Ohn. As it turns out, the number is likely inflated.


    Opponents of the ban would do better […] than to parrot estimates about the number of children who would be affected immediately — those estimates are essentially guesses.

    Stop QUOTE

    * * *

    At the time, I blogged about this at The Opine Editorials.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s