Replies

Perhaps the only benefit to the growth in "alternative" family units is that the facts about their effects upon children are now becoming undeniable. We now have proof: There is no better institution for fostering healthy children than an intact, nuclear family. Whether it is easy divorce, sexual promiscuity, or celebrating "alternative lifestyles," ALL of these essential elements of social liberalism are destructive to raising healthy children into successful adults.

It may be true that there are some gay and lesbian parents who raise healthy, happy, and successful kids. However, the promiscuity, violence, and short life span, common among gays and lesbians does not lend itself to successful child rearing. That there are exceptions does not mean that designing our social systems around them is good policy. The effort to break down or broaden the historic institution of marriage is destructive to children and should be treated as such. It is high time for conservatives own that liberal phrase, "for our children."

They're not "the children;" they're not the government's children; they're ours. The best way to protect them is to foster intact heterosexual families. The legal system is set up to destroy them.

A married couple is a legal and financial unit, while the legal system operates upon an assumption that two married individuals are adversaries. That a family member can seek advice of counsel against the person to whom they are bound by a contract of mutual interest without a declaration of an impasse is in effect a conspiracy to commit a breach of a contract issued under State law. That lawyers advertise seeking to dissolve that unit for profit is beyond despicable. It should be illegal.

In all but the most extreme cases, no divorce should be granted to parents with children without an extensive period of counseling and mediation. If after all attempts have failed, the mediator could declare an impasse at which point the parties would be free to seek counsel. It would then be obvious that an attorney who actively worked to separate families in order to pad his or her wallet should be disbarred.

If a divorce of a married couple is granted, joint custody of children should be the default option. Parents who choose to move more than eight hours of travel-time from their former spouse should be faced with loss of joint custody. Sacrificing career aspirations for children has and must remain a fact. It shouldn't be such a hard choice.

There is no doubt that raising children is one of the most emotionally and morally maturing challenges an employee can undertake. Raising a child, forces an adult to confront bad habits before they are passed on. While it may be true that parents may have less time available for work, that doesn't mean that their productivity is less. Because of the maturity that comes with parenting, less of that work results in wasted effort or needless conflict

The obvious difference between heterosexual marriage and all other "alternative lifestyles" is that it is the optimal combination to produce productive future citizens. Both historic tax incentives and the other protections maintained by the State were dedicated in recognition of that distinction in licensing marriage in the first place.

Historically, the Church used to frown on second marriages among the elderly. Their reason was that such unions didn't serve the divine purpose of the continuation of humanity by which to spread the word of God.

The motives for these marriages among the elderly, or young heterosexual couples with no intention of raising children, are closely similar to those of gays and lesbians. It is thus only logical that we institute a form of legally sanctioned life partnership for these couples with the absolute provision that they may not raise children. Marriage must remain restricted exclusively to heterosexual couples intending to rear children.

The differences between these two types of unions would make drafting laws appropriate to each type much easier. Life partnerships would be subject to existing no-fault divorce laws and wave mandatory mediation, etc, as those features would not be necessary. Only full marriages would be eligible to adopt. If the woman in a life partnership became pregnant, the couple would have to get married or give the child up for adoption. Raising children is, after all, a life commitment.

That a life partnership law might include homosexual unions serves an important purpose. It encourages gays and lesbians to build the stronger relationships that might slow the spread of HIV. More importantly, it exposes the demands of gay and lesbian activists to be the political smokescreen any sane person knows they have been all along. This was never about what two people do in the privacy of their home, hospital visitation, or rights of inheritance. The objective of homosexual marriage is about the right to control the future of society by shaping children. They must never have that privilege.

Gays and lesbians have chosen a lifestyle that is in general destructive to raising healthy children. The risk of abuse is too high to allow these groups to be parents. Give them what they say they want; let them effectively get married; but don't EVER let them raise children. Conservatives should sue under Proposition 22 to strike down the tide of recent legislation granting to homosexuals privileges inherent to marriage to bar reproductive medical procedures, child custody, and adoption to gay and lesbian couples.