Skip to comments.Lesbian Couple Outraged -Vicar Says They're Not Both Moms of Baby (Church overrules vicar)
Posted on 09/09/2013 1:28:52 PM PDT by NYer
A lesbian couple claims a Church of England vicar refused to baptize a baby after they both insisted on being registered as the mother, according to the UK Telegraph.
Aimi, from Gosport, Hants, said: "Rev Gebauer sat there and told us no child could have parents of the same sex, no child could have two mothers.Reverend George Gebauer said he'd be willing to write one down as the mother but not both. So they stormed out and it would appear they called the press as well.
"There was no way one of us was going to be listed as the Godparent. We are both Alfie's mum.
"He did all this for about 10 or 15 minutes and was asking us why we want Alfie brought into the church.
"I'm baptised Church of England, and Victoria is a Catholic. We want him to be brought up the same as we were."
However, Ven Gavin Collins, Archdeacon of the Meon, said today he was happy for the christening to go ahead as planned - with both named as the mother...If you'd like to know why the Anglican Church is dying, here it is.
“We have addressed the legal issue. As I understand it, her partner Victoria has full legal co-parental responsibility for Alfie. We can therefore enter their details onto the baptism register as ‘mother’ and ‘mother’, as they would like.
“I’m pleased that this issue has been resolved, and we look forward to welcoming Aimi, Victoria, Alfie and their friends and family. I’m sure it will be a great occasion as we welcome him into the Christian family.”
"The couple are not even from our parish, so we could have informed their local church and directed them there instead. "We can only make sure the child is theirs. For all we know they may have pinched the child. "We suggested time and again that the natural mum be registered as mum.
It's all about tolerance only when it applies to them, ping!
What way is that, confused?
What, the old “one gives the egg, one carries the baby” gambit didn’t work??
These two people seem unclear about one of the most basic rules of biology. With that in mind, I wonder that they are deemed fit to raise a baby.
Stop the insanity! STOP IT! STOP IT NOW!
So why not baptize the baby? He’s an innocent who has nothing to with the issues raised by the Vicar.
Cut the baby in half and baptize each half under the name of each respective mother. (unfortunately, I suspect both lesbians would support the idea....)
Why is it, that homosexuals have temper tantrums about some aspect of society or institutions which offend them? And then, the news media comes in, and those who offended the homosexuals are reprimanded for their alleged crimes against homosexuality????
On the one hand, liberals tell us that gender roles are outmoded. We shouldn’t talk about mothers and fathers, we should talk about “parents” or “caregivers” to children.
But in this case, the lesbians insist on this retrograde designation that both be mothers. You can’t have it both ways, can you???
Where did baby Alfie come from? Did someone contribute sperm? If so, how was that sperm contributed? Is either of these females the biological mother? If so, it would seem clear that would be who should be listed as the mother. Then again, I am hopefully naive in my thinking, aren’t I???
Send me to re-education camp right now...........
In today’s world, we have to be liberal, and say that two females are just as good as a mother and a father. Otherwise, you are bigoted and hateful against the homosexual community.
Stupid beyond belief.
Well now I'm sure he will be!
Just because “The Church” says a horse is a camel doesn’t make a horse a camel.
Big Religion continues to marginalize itself.
Defies science this.
Defies biblical teaching too. Looks like the Anglican church in England has gone apostate. One can be a sinner and here is a church that will condone sinning.
What about the biological issue? That’s all that really means anything. Idiotic.
“”I’m baptised Church of England, and Victoria is a Catholic. We want him to be brought up the same as we were.”
What way is that, confused?”
Don’t know about the other chick, but Victoria clearly does not know her catholic catechism.
This couple is insane, as is anyone who supports them in their insanity.
CofE and Catholic are not the same. If she wanted to say that they wanted the baby raised CHRISTIAN, as they BOTH were that would be different.
To such the Vicar should have made explanation to the public.
I will baptize this child as Christ commands for we do not wish any to be left outside of the Wedding Feast. Notwithstanding, the women who desire to bring up this child are clinically insane yet capable of being corrected.
Yes, absolutely the baby should be baptized. The two women should be carted off to a quiet place in the country where they can receive help.
From the Church of England website on Baptism:
What is baptism?
In baptism, you as parents are: thanking God for his gift of life, making a decision to start your child on the journey of faith and asking for the Church’s support.
For your child, baptism marks the start of a journey of faith, which involves turning away from all that is evil, turning towards Christ and becoming a member of the local and worldwide Christian family.
The Church of England has two authorized Baptism services. One is taken from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and is in 17th century English.
Most baptisms use a service in contemporary English, taken from Common Worship (2000).
I would ask that the biological father also be present.
That would really blow the top off.
We have a winner.
This is because baptism of an infant or child presupposes that the parents will raise him in the Catholic faith. The godparent(s) must be Catholic, too.
Otherwise it's a hollow, or even a hypocritical gesture. Who makes the Baptismal promises on behalf of the child? What do they mean by it--- if not that they are (or are willing to be) "conformed to Christ" in their faith and morals?
In this case, the lesbian couple went, not to the Catholic Church, but to the Church of England, and I'm in no position to say what they mean by their Baptismal promises.
Tsk ... you're being much too rational. The 'sperm donor' is a minor technicality for these narcissists, who think only of "their" desires being fulfilled. From the getgo, Alfie's pediatrician will begin to ask probing questions like, "Is there a history of ....... in the family? That question will perplex and follow Alfie, all the days of his life. In about 20 years when "Alfie" discovers Ancestry.com, he will demand to know about his paternal father is in order to trace his true ancestors.
EVERY child has a mother and father. It is disingenuous and selfish to deny ANY child his or her rights to that information.
See my post #25.
I think King Solomon of Israel already thought of that one.
If I were this vicar, I would just walk away. Just walk away and never look back.
The Brits are talking about having their NHS fund artifical reproduction with 3 genetic parents: the father (provides sperm), mother #1 (provides an oocyte with mitochondrial DNA), and mother #2 (provides haploid nuclear DNA to be inserted into the oocyte).
The purpose of this is supposedly to enable mother #2, if she carries a mitochondrial disease, to reproduce and have "her" genetic child by putting her genetic code into another woman's ovum.
I say "supposedly," because the whole push behind this kind of reproductive interference, is to eventually develop fully depersonalized human laboratory reproduction, long dreamed of by people who really, really don't like procreative sexuality.
I think you are quite right. This is why I believe this is such an important document:
Apparently one of the ‘partners’ was impregnated by tongue.
I love that little touch: “Rev. Gebauer SAT THERE and told us...”
I mean, can you IMAGINE??? They allow crazy men like him to walk in the STREETS???
In the 21st century, Reality was politicized.