FAMILY: by Babette FrancisNews Weekly
Canada sets the way on gay parenting
, June 14, 2003
Those who oppose giving homosexual partnerships the status of marriage, generally do so on the grounds that throughout history marriage has been recognised as a union between a man and a woman, a covenant which is publicly recognised by society in the interests of the couple, their children and society itself.
However a new threat to marriage is appearing out of left field, as it were, in a case filed in Canada, where a lesbian couple and the biological father of a child have all sought recognition as the legal "parents" of the child.
The next edition of the primary school reader promoted by the homosexual lobby in the US, Heather has Two Mommies
could possiby be Heather has Three Parents
A court in London, Ontario, was asked to declare three people the legal parents of one child: the biological mother and father, and the lesbian partner of the biological mother. Both lesbian partners live with the child, but the biological father, a close friend of the biological mother and her partner, frequently visits the child's home.
All three adults consider that they are the parents of the child. This case could be the stepping-stone to the effective elimination of marriage as currently defined in Western systems of law.
One of the main reasons for the special status given to marriage in all societies is for the protection of children. Once multiple parents are granted legal recognition, marriage can practically be replaced by a range of fluid contracts involving any numbers and genders of people.
The UN already has recognised up to seven genders, and many of the most intense debates at UN conferences on social issues are on whether the definitions "male" and "female" are adequate to describe all human beings, or whether we need five, seven (or it may be up to eleven since the last time I was in New York) new classifications.
Family Court Judge David Aston rejected the application to grant legal status to the three petitioners. However, the case may be appealed, and the judge's discomfort in rejecting the application was apparent. At the initial hearing, he announced he would have liked to have granted the petitioners' application, if he had the power.
In his own words, the only reason he held back from granting legal parenthood of one child to three adults is that he lacked the jurisdiction under the relevant law. His regret at this decision, and the possibility of an appeal, suggests that triple parenting may soon be granted legal recognition in Canada.
Justice Aston clearly understood the importance of the case when he said: "If a child can have three parents, why not four or six or a dozen? What about all the adults in a commune or a religious organization or a sect?"
There are two inferences to be derived from Judge Aston's finding: despite his liberal sympathy for the petitioners' case, he possibly baulked at the legalisation of triple parenting.
On the other hand, if he meant what he implied, that if only he had the jurisdiction he would have found for the petitioners' despite the slippery slope towards multiple marriage partners, then this is another example of a judge's enthusiasm for destroying marriage and the definition of "family" based on marriage. This is where "homosexual family law" is leading society.
Most opponents of homosexual marriage have focussed on the promiscuity of male homosexuals, many of whom, despite legal recognition of their partnership, may favour an "open marriage" arrangement whereby they have multiple sexual partners.
The undeniable parental status of the biological father means that he is entitled to seek legal parental recognition. Once homosexual relationships are given the status of marriage, it will become legally difficult to deny parental status for a child to three adults.
The movement for homosexual marriage may fail in the political arena, but homosexual lobbyists are undermining legislative definitions of marriage and family through the courts - with the connivance of judges.
In the Australian Family Court, Chief Justice Alastair Nicholson, who has previously indicated his approval of homosexual partnerships being given the status of marriage, ruled in the case of "Kevin" and "Jennifer" , that "Kevin", a female-male transsexual, was indeed a man, and that therefore his marriage to "Jennifer" was valid.
Joined by two colleagues, Justice Nicholson determined that the word "man" in the Marriage Act includes a post-operative female-male transsexual. "Kevin", born a woman, had undergone surgery to remove her breasts and female reproductive organs.
Although this case only applies so far to post-operative transexuals, the reasoning in the judgement and various comments by the justices suggest that any individual who thinks he or she is a "man" may be considered one for the purposes of the Marriage Act.
- Babette Francis - firstname.lastname@example.org