United Nations targets Churches on their homosexuality stance
The push to redefine marriage and the family and thereby to de-gender society on the whole always ends up targeting religious individuals or groups for abject discrimination.
You see, this radical agenda is its own kind of "orthodoxy" and dogmatism, and doesn't brook competition: it is intolerant of any "heresy" and insists on either converting or condemning absolutely — with no room for negotiation. Humanity, as made in God's image, "male and female," will be remade according to their own imaginings — genderless, sexless, role less — and the meaning of marriage written on our hearts will be scribbled over with nonsense. In their minds, it's as if the Creator made marriage to cause harm to gays and lesbians and to punish them with a cruel attack on their basic human dignity. It does not ever occur to them that marriage is a profound public good that greatly benefits men and women, and especially their children.
But in this most recent assault by the U.N. — against beliefs shared not only by members of the Catholic Church, but by billions worldwide of any one of many religions or of no religion at all — the real outrage is that it has been done under the pretense of protecting children's rights!
I will repeat here something I've said more times than I can remember, and will continue saying again and again because it so much bears repeating: Every child has the right to the love of both a mom and a dad.
This right is fundamental and foundational, really next in importance to the right to life itself: because it is bound up with that very right, since moms and dads are the natural way kids come into the world and have the gift of life. Marriage makes men and women responsible in recognition of the magnitude of that incredible power to bring new life into the world!
Now for a Refreshing Counterpoint
The State of Utah recognizes this basic truth: Utah's voters, who decided by a 66% margin to pass a constitutional amendment in 2004 to define marriage; and Utah's leaders, are now defending that amendment in appeals court. The other day the state filed its brief to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to overturn the outrageous ruling of an activist federal judge declaring that marriage itself is unconstitutional.
In its brief to the court, the State explains its position in clear and common-sense terms. The introduction to their brief is worth quoting at length:
As with other issues of domestic-relations law, choosing a definition of marriage in today's world presents a clash between deeply held interests and values. On one hand are the interests of Utah citizens who have formed intimate, committed relationships with someone of the same sex — and in some cases are raising or wish to raise children together — and who want the State to confer on them the benefits of marriage. The State respects and values those citizens and their children as both equal before the law and fully entitled to order their private lives in the manner they have chosen.On the other hand are the long-term interests of all Utah's children — both now and in future generations. They cannot defend their own interests. The State thus has a duty to consider their interests in deciding whether to abandon the man-woman definition of marriage. And Utah voters, in enacting the constitutional amendment known as Amendment 3, reaffirmed among other things their firm belief — also supported by sound social science — that moms and dads are different, not interchangeable, and that the diversity of having both a mom and a dad is the ideal parenting environment.That model is not intended to demean other family structures, any more than giving an "A" to some students demeans others. As between mutually exclusive models of marriage, the man-woman model is simply the one the State and its people believe is best for children.What makes the decision about redefining marriage particularly poignant is not merely the uncertainty inherent in predicting its long-term effects. It is also the mounting evidence that such a redefinition poses real, concrete risks to children—especially in future generations. Many of those risks flow from the inevitable effect of shifting the public meaning of marriage away from a largely child-centric institution... and toward a more adult-centric or "consent-based" view.
Now here are leaders and statesmen who understand the rights of a child!
