Same-Sex Marriage Violates the Rights and Dignity of Children

As a matter of natural law, a child possesses a right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to one another in marriage. (CCC 2376). No one has a right to a child; rather, “only the child possesses genuine rights: the right ‘to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,’ and ‘the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception.'” (CCC 2378).

The ubiquity of children born or raised outside traditional marriage is not a valid defense for its legitimacy. Such situations are not optimal for children, although some situations may be better in some fashion than other potential circumstances. 

Same-sex “married” couple Bob and Joe can engage in same-sex activity a million times and will never make a baby. Babies come from a father’s sperm and a mother’s egg. In terms of procreation, “parents” can never be so unless one parent is a mother and the other a father.

Today I received an e-mail alert concerning California Assembly Bill 1951, which is currently sitting on Governor Brown’s desk, awaiting signature. This bill represents an advancement of the euphemistic, erroneous, and illusory claims of those seeking to normalize same-sex relationships in the context of the human family; it is an assault upon the sanctity of the family and the human personLegality is not the same as justice for those affected. 

If signed, AB 1951 will modify gender-specific labeling on every certificate of live birth recorded in the state. Birth certificates will have lines for two “Parents”. Each designated “Parent” will provide a checkbox option to identify if the parent is a “Mother”, “Father” or “Parent”. According to the Legislative Analysis of the Bill (go here and search ‘1951’), the law:

Requires the State Registrar, beginning January 1, 2016, to modify birth certificates to recognize same-sex couples, allowing for a gender neutral option on the certificate
identifying a “parent.”

….the current practice in completing a birth certificate
limits the choices for a same-sex couple, forcing same-sex parents to inaccurately place one of their names in the “Father” or “Mother” field.

….this bill will allow same-sex parents to accurately identify each parent as Mother, Father, or Parent in check boxes, allowing for birth certificates to reflect two mothers or two fathers, as well as a gender-neutral parent option.

Equality California, the sponsor of this bill, writes that it will allow same-sex couples to eliminate inaccurate designations on California birth certificates, stating that the current forms that designate parents as just “mother” and “father,” regardless of the gender of the parent are confusing, often inaccurate, and do not reflect the realities of modern families.

It will therefore be possible and legally permissible for any birth certificate to state that a child is born of two “parents”, but not also a mother and father. This is, of course, something entirely contrary to Truth and the natural rights of the human person.

The basis given for this assault upon the rights of the human person is that this will better “reflect the realities of modern families”, which is a euphemistic way of identifying less than just 1% of the state’s population.

According to 2010 Census data, in California there were 494,058 children age “0” (i.e., newly born) statewide. There were 23,346 children under the age of 18 living in households headed by male same-sex couples in 2010. There were 37,841 children under the age of 18 living in households headed by female same-sex couples in 2010. In total there were 61,187 children living in households headed by same-sex couples.

Assuming an even distribution of ages in those households, and dividing the total by 19, there were 3,220 children “born” to same-sex couples in the same period that there were 494,058 children born statewide, or just 0.65% of the total children born in the state.

This isn’t about fairnessconfusion, or even a proper reflection of the realities of modern family. This is about forcing society at large to affirm and normalize the bad “choices” of a tiny minority of individuals. These choices — and society’s affirmation of them — harm children.

As a result of the passage of AB 1951, any children born in this state will be potentially deprived of official recognition from their government that they have a FATHER and a MOTHER. Further, every child, regardless of the options selected by his or her “parents”, will be deprived of official recognition from their government that they have a right to a FATHER and a MOTHER.

Same-sex marriage affects my marriage. Same-sex marriage affects the rights of everyone. This is just one example.

 

 

/

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Same-Sex Marriage Violates the Rights and Dignity of Children

  1. I’m a tad perplexed in your logic. One cannot dispute a child is born by-way of spermatozoa and occyte; therefore CCC 2376 aligns perfectly with animal biology, but CCC 2378 is curiously silent on the matter of children who are abandoned and/or suffer the death of both parents. That said, CCC 2379 invites the sterile married couple to consider adoption.

    What then of these children who are eligible for adoption?

    I don’t see where the CCC offers guidance is this area. Are we to assume that children raised in an orphanage attain better outcomes than those who are raised by same-sex couples? I’m certain we’d be most interested in seeing the data, particularly if you have any to share.

    Lastly, what substantive burden can you demonstrate against marriage equality (let alone ‘gay adoption’)?

    You may not like it, but SCOTUS will soon make it unambiguously clear that discrimination against orientation is no less onerous (and illegal) than is discrimination against color, creed, or origin.

    BTW, it’s well-documented among higher vertebrates the survival of the species relies heavily upon the ‘adoption’ of orphaned members by both same-sex and opposite-sex guardians. And to really blow your mind, RC Kirkpatrick in 2009, exhaustively outlined the outcomes and compelling benefits of homosexual members.

    God’s plan?

    That’s a head-scratcher.

    • SCOTUS may well declare it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but this would be a corruption, and will only lead to the further unraveling of the rule of law in these United States. The rule of law unravels whenever the state declares something true that cannot possibly be true, e.g., same-sex marriage.

      In Evangelium Vitae, St. Pope John Paul II cites to Aquinas on the question of the natural law and its relationship to the civil law: “human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence”. And again: “Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law“. (para. 72).

      I’ve already identified one substantive burden in this very article: same-sex marriage necessitates the state’s recognition of a falsity: that there is no material difference between two “parents” versus a mother and father. This recognition not only goes to the heart of what constitutes marriage, but also, what defines parental relationship. In this sense, people who advocate for same-sex marriage may not realize what they are doing, but the state will use these decisions regarding the nature of social order to exercise a completely impermissible degree of control over the family. The state is effectively re-defining “family” as it does so with “marriage” and we will all suffer from voluntarily giving that authority to the state.

      As for RC Kirkpatrick, why don’t you send me the link or study rather than just telling me it’s mind-blowing?

    • Love is not merely showing affection to a child or providing food and housing; rather, authentic love is an act of the will ordered toward achieving the good for another, without regard for self. Depriving a child of his or her rights is not love or care. And remaining silent, being tolerant, etc., is not loving or charitable. Christian charity demands that we assist one another toward eternal salvation. It is a necessary part of authentic love to state with charity when particular actions lead one out of communion with God, because communion with God is the highest and best thing that we can desire for ourselves, and one another.

  2. I thought your marriage would be between you, your wife, and God. I do not understand why your marriage and values are so frail that you must try to take away the rights and freedoms of others so that you can feel safe from having to live in a world where others are respected. Why would someone else’s marriage affect yours? Why can’t you find the love in your heart to respect others who are different from you?

    • In the future your comments would be more impactful if you actually bothered to carefully read the arguments to which you respond. I carefully articulated *how* someone else’s marriage affects my marriage. This issue concerns the well-being of children and the natural rights that THEY possess. In the state of California, due to same-sex marriage, the state will not have to recognize that a child has a mother and a father, in violation of the child’s natural rights.

      Please think about what this means.

  3. Pingback: St. Andrew the Patron Saint of Scotland - BigPulpit.com

  4. We are a country of laws. We have a constitution that tries to protect the equal rights of all–even if that sometimes upsets other citizens.

    You can claim that “natural law” or the CCC stays any number of things–but that doesn’t make it law under the constitution of the United States.

    One thing you can’t claim is that being raised by SS parents causes harm to the children. Studies claiming such have been routinely de-bunked.

    And I’d remind you to think of something the next time you want to vote on the civil rights of certain groups of citizens–next time we might decide to vote on YOURS.

    • You missed the point of the article….. as it pertains to civil rights, this legislation violates the rights of children.

      As for being raised by SS parents causing harm to children, the studies de-bunking the studies have been de-bunked. So there.

  5. Pingback: Outcomes for Children Raised in Same-Sex Households | Quartermaster of the Barque

  6. Pingback: Pray for Marriage | Quartermaster of the Barque

  7. Pingback: “The reign of God has really begun; but we know now who God is.” | Quartermaster of the Barque

Comment on this Post

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s