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.