Posted on 07/18/2011 1:51:18 PM PDT by NYer
Yet another bill opposed by the state’s 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 group’s 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 father’s voluntary acknowledgement of paternity and require a court to decide who gets parental rights.
According to a legislative analyst’s 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 ...
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.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1411918/posts>
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:
Wow.
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.
Placemark...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.