Skip to comments.Rejection of common law, history and tradition (Law that redefines fatherhood clears CA state leg)
Posted on 07/18/2011 1:51:18 PM PDT by NYer
Yet another bill opposed by the states Catholic bishops is on its way to the governor for his signature this one co-sponsored by homosexual advocacy groups that seek to redefine fatherhood in a way that favors children with same-sex parents.
The bill, AB 1349, sponsored by Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, passed the state Senate by a vote of 23-14 on July 14. It cleared the Assembly 52-22 in May. The measure was co-sponsored by Equality California and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
AB 1349 is a bill that is intended to redefine fatherhood for children born to unmarried mothers, wrote Bill May, chairman of Catholics for the Common Good, on the groups website. It undermines the entire notion of natural parenthood. It also undermines the rights of fathers and the internationally recognized right of every child to know and, as far as possible, be cared for by his or her biological mother and father.
In essence, AB 1349 would allow the unmarried mother of a child to reject a biological fathers voluntary acknowledgement of paternity and require a court to decide who gets parental rights.
According to a legislative analysts report on the bill, one supporter of the measure put it this way: The 'Protection of Parent-Child Relationship Act' will allow courts to have discretion in determining parentage disputes between presumed parents and biological fathers who have signed a voluntary declaration of paternity, and it will protect established family relationships among non-traditional families, including those in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender community."
(Excerpt) Read more at calcatholic.com ...
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Here’s the thing, as far as I am concerned.
A man gets parental rights by being married to his children’s mother.
If she is unmarried, and say, wants to give the child up for adoption, the father should have no say.
“In essence, AB 1349 would allow the unmarried mother of a child to reject a biological fathers voluntary acknowledgement of paternity and require a court to decide who gets parental rights.”
And I am sure if the court deems the mother justified in excluding the father, he will still be required to pay support for this child without the benefits of watching and aiding in the a childs raising.
Goal 16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
Goal 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
Would love a link to that Communist Goals web site. Can you post it? Many thanks!
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
from “The Naked Communist” by W. Cleon Skousen
So what happens if he wants parental rights but the woman will not marry him?
Nor am I clear about its implications. It seems, in the matter of fatherhood, to reduce the child's natural rights to a theoretical zero.
As I gather from your brief explanation, the child has no "stake" in his matter: has no claim (based on justice or truth) to derive either support or identity from his natural father.
But perhaps I've miunderstood you. Is this correct?
A judge deciding paternity by fiat rather than law.
Demand your 14th Amendment rights to equal protection. Make that a$$hole living with her now pay child support.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the Catholics. Like the Mormons with Harry Reid and Mitt Romney, the Catholic hierarchy does nothing to it’s adherents who pass/sign legislation that goes against their theology. And with Jerry the Fairy Brown, who trained as a Jesuit but never took his vows, it should be a no brainer to excommunicate him.
In which case, I'm with you.
The message to men is, Don’t have sex with a woman who isn’t your wife, unless you’re willing to have her turn your child over to homosexuals, and you have no legal avenue other than making your case before a homosexual judge. And they’ll probably hit you for support, too.
Don’t you think that, at some point, the cost of easy sex would sufficiently outweight the benefits that some would change their behavior?
She can already murder their baby without his say so. You're just feeding into that sickness.
28 Communist Goals
The following goals of the Communist Party, USA were entered into the Congressional Record on January 10, 1963:
1. U.S. acceptance of peaceful co-existence with communism.
(Note - this has been official iforeign policy under both Democrat and Republican administrations for many years with
Soviet Russia. It has been expanded to include Red China and Cuba under Comrade Clinton)
2. U.S. promises to surrender rather than engage in atomic war.
(Note - Bill Clinton issued an executive order on 12-7-1998, which took all of our defensive missles off alert status and
ordered our military not to retaliate if we are attacked. This EO reuires us to absorb a first strike without retlaiation.)
3. U.S. acceptance of the premise that total disarmament would be a sign of moral strength.
(Note - only a fool could believe such propaganda)
4. “Free trade” with communist nations.
(Note - such agreements have the effect of strengthening communist tyranny while undermining US prosperity)
5. Long-term “loans” to Russia and communist satellites.
(Note - Russia has never paid back any loans, which amounts to stealing. They also received millions of the US
taxpayers’ dollars through money-laundering schemes, which funneled the funds through Yugoslavia under Tito.)
6. Foreign aid to communist nations.
(Note - communism would have truly died everywhere if it had not been for capital from the USA to keep it propped up.)
7. United Nations recognition of Red China.
(Note - this was accomplished during a Republican administration [Nixon’s], which proves that both major political
parties are accomplices to this treason.)
8. UN representation for each of the Soviet satellites.
(Note - this was establishd when communism pretended to die and the USSR was split up. When I prayed about this
event, God told me the Soviets were merely playing possum in order to multiply their representation in the UN)
9. Acceptnce of the UN as mankind’s “only hope.”
(Note - the Lucifer Publishing Co. was founded by Alice Bailey at the UN in 1953 and operated there until they changed
their name to Lucis Trust and moved across the street. Bailey admitted in The Externalization of the Hierarchy to
being both a communist and a satanist. Our hope should be in Jesus Christ, not Antichrist.)
10. The use of court decisions to undermine the constitutional rights of Americans.
(Note - I overheard an ACLU lawyer tell a fellow communist in 1962 that Thurgood Marshall was sympathetic to
communism, and that he would use his influence to subvert the Constitution by perverting its intended meaning.)
11. Using the public schools to teach socialist and communist propaganda, and to “dumb down” students.
(Note - when I was in public school [1949-1962], I was told to regard John Dewey as the father of modern education.
When he retired, he moved to Russia to collect his Social Security because he was a communist infiltrator)
12. Communist control of campus newspapers.
(Note - when Mark Hardie became the editor of his college paper, he received many death threats due to his
conservative and patriotic views. Free speech in college is only for communist traitors.)
13. Use of student riots to trigger public protests against U.S. policies.
(Note - this was very effective during the Vietnam war. Bill Clinton’s anti-war activities proved that he wanted the
communists to win. I respected the protestors, who didn’t like US involvement in Vietnam, but they were not
pro-communists like Clinton, who was wined and dined by the KGB on his visits to Moscow.)
14. Infiltration of the press.
(Note - the Stock Market was deliberately crashed in 1929 when some of the richest men in America all pulled their
money out at the same time of the same day. They did not lose a penny from the crash. They used their fortunes to
buy control of the nation’s 50 most influential newspapers during the 1930’s. They bought out the next 50 during the
1940’s, including the news services, UPI and AP.)
15. Control of mass media.
(Note - members of the Council onForeign Relations and rilateral Commission, mostly pro-Marxists, have control)
16. The degradation of American culture and art.
(Note - this is being accomplished primarily by the ACLU and the NEA)
17. Controlling art critics and museum directors to promote ugly, repulsive, and meaningless art forms.
(Note - a recent example of this is the so-called art exhibit at a museum in New York City degrading the virgin Mary)
18. Repeal of all laws banning obsenity.
(Note - the lst Amendment freedom of speech was intended to protect those who criticize government corruption)
19. Promotion of pornography and obsenity in the mass media.
(Note - in 1923, Lenin instructed the CPUSA to do everything possible to corrupt the morals of Americans because
their psychologists learned that people, who are morally degenerate, lose their will to resist tyranny. At the highest
levels there is a link between communism and the Mafia, which controls most pornography)
20 Establishing homosexuality as normal and natural.
(Note - the communists began recruiting gays in the mid-1920’s. See the book, Whatever Happened to Harry Hay?)
21. Infiltrate churches to replace revealed religion with the “social Gospel” and deny the truths of scripture.
(Note - Rev. Carl McIntyre is one of the best informed patriots on this issue)
22. Banish all prayer from public schools.
(Note - do you really think Madeline Murray O’Hare’s case in 1962 was an accident?)
23. Discredit the Constitution as old fashioned and a hindrance to international cooperation.
(Note - Bill Clinton has had people arrested as terrorists for their support of the Constitution. He also had material
printed in FBI manuals, which treats people, who display Christian bumper stickers on their cas, as terrorists)
24. Discredit the founding fathers as slave-owning aristocrats who despised the common man.
(Note - Bill Clinton arranged for the recent attack on Thomas Jefferson to not only discredit the Constitution, but also to
make his adultery with Monica acceptable)
25. Promote all movements aiming to centralize government control over cultural and social agencies.
(Note - a recent example is the way the INS disobeyed the 11th Circuit Appeals Court regarding Elian Gonzales)
26. Transfer arrest powers from the police to social agencies and reduce all behavioral problems to matters only a
psychiatrist can handle; for example, arresting and imprisoning parents who use corporal punishment or home-school
(Note - Sigmund Freud hated God so much that he vowed to invent a religion, which could be used to destroy
Christianity. He teamed up with Carl Joung, who was so heavily into the occult that Freud fainted from fear)
27. Infiltrate the psychiatric profession and use it to promote “mental health” laws to oppress those who oppose social
disintegration caused by the Communist program.
(Note - I personally know someone, who was put in a mental hospital in 1972 for a nervous breakdown. After he
recovered, the doctors refused to release him on the grounds that he was crazy because “he believed in God and did
not believe in adultery.”)
28. Undermine the institution of the family, encourage promiscuity, and easy divorce.
(Note - when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, he spent some time in Italy studying the communist philosophy of
Antono Gramshe. Gramshe advocated the subversion of society by redefining certain things like the family, etc.
Comrade Clinton has used his influence in the White House to include sodomites in families, as well as change the
meaing of such words as “alone,” “sex,” etc.)
A radio talk-show host named Rollye James did a program several months ago on WWDB in which she compared the Communist Party platform of 1962 to the Democratic Party platform of today. They were identical, which proves that the Democrat elite are really communists in disguise.
Boy! Are you misinformed.
He obtained the responsibilities when he impregnated the mother. The rights come with marriage.
The breakdown of marriage is responsible for a HUGE proportion of the problems with modern society.
And I don’t believe that the mother has the right to an abortion on demand, either.
Study up, man. I’m sure your heart is in the right place. Get your head there.
The child has the right to support from the father. The father has no rights without marriage to the mother.
Sometimes you just have to pay the price for the mistakes you make.
I have no objections, whatever, to some accommodation being reached between the parents.
So the man is denied rights because of his act of copulation before marriage and can be continuously denied these rights by a woman because of her act of copulation before marriage.
Child’s best interest be damned I guess.
What is the child’s best interest? It seems to me that that is the question.
Suppose the man is a total, abusive jerk? Should the mother have to go to court like if she was married? I don’t think so.
I just think, in this case, that it is pretty clear which systems have worked, both for the best interests of the child, and of society.
Yeah. Keep in in your pants, or in a rubber till marriage, and these problems will cease to exist for you.
By the way, did you read the article?
As I understood it, the mother would be allowed to reject the father’s voluntary acceptance of paternity so that somebody else could have those rights.
Now THAT is pretty bad.
At this point, whether he is married to the child's mother or not --- and sometimes it's she who refuses --- he cannot stop her from killing the child before it's born; and unless she acknowledges him as the father, he can't prevent her from handing his child over to be adopted by a couple of men or a couple fo women with a sexual disorder and a bizarre idea of how to raise a child.
In short, he doesn't have the "right" to carry out his most solemn moral duty of identifying, providing for, and protecting his child.
And that in turn violates the child's natural rights to paternal identity, provision and protection.
Always good to know my state government has a laser-like focus on the things that really matter.
Which seems to me to be the reason to return to a less complicated state of affairs, such as existed before the ‘60s.
Out-of-wedlock births existed then, of course, but far less of them, because there was a certain social stigma attached to them, and because the law hadn’t been set so far in favor of women with no concern for anything but “the best interests of the child” as determined by some feminist judge.
“The best interests of the child” is, if not marriage between the parents, at least justice between the parents, which we do not now get.
Still, if a man wants parental rights, he should at least offer to marry the mother to get them. If she refuses, that’s another can of worms that I don’t have time to address right now, even if I had settled my position on it, which I haven’t. As I said elsewhere, sometimes we just have to pay for our mistakes.
As for the mother’s right to murder the child without even consulting the father, I think we both can agree that she should not have that right, even if they both agreed.
I think we agreeon much, including the child’s primordial right to have married parents.
BTW, “keeping it in a rubber” isn’t enough. Do not underestimate the slip, rip and drip factor. Something like 40% of the women who get abortions, were using (or the man was using) a contraceptive at the time of conception. The unmarried ought not to have sexual intercourse, period.
The unmarried ought not have sexual intercourse, period? I agree with you there. But how likely is it?
People should, if they are going to drink, keep off the road. If they are going to have sex, they ought to try such preventives as they can.
If they don’t, truly severe consequences (for somebody)can arise.
I used to see "preventives" as part of the solution; now (after 40 years of seeing the real-world consequences) I see "preventives" as part of the problem.
The barrier types do 2 thing simultaneously: (1) they moderately reduce the chance of pregnancy per each act of intercourse, but (2) they very much increase the amount of intercourse: at earlier ages, with different partners, etc.
So effect #1 is canceled by effect #2. Which is why, the more prevalent contracpetive use is in a given society, the greater number of surprise pregnancies.
The hormonal contraceptives are far more effective at #1 (reducing the chance of pregnancy), but they also skyrocket the amount of STD's, and simultaneously (for hormonal reasons) increase depression and loss of libido.
So you've either got a lot of unwanted pregnancies, and abortions (abortion goes up in contraceptive societies, not down) OR you've got hormonally-confused, diseased depressed people who no longer even find that much spark in sex anymore.
With a lengthening history of abortions and infections, Doin' it more and enjoying it less.
Not a recipe for satisfaction.
The Fool's History: a Play in Two Acts:
That’s messed up.
Well, other than people returning to basic morality, it’s gotta be one or the other, IMO.
All I’m suggesting is that society should make it easy to get married, and hard to duck responsibility. I don’t know why this seems so complicated to everybody.
I don’t think so.