http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/a-reality-based-approach-to-childrens-stake-in-marriage-dispute
A ‘reality-based’ approach to children’s stake in marriage dispute
By Benjamin Mann
*** begin quote ***
San Francisco, Calif., Oct 9, 2011 / 06:02 pm (CNA).- As California’s largest gay activist group Equality California launches its new “Breakthrough Conversation Project” to change public opinion on marriage, Catholics for the Common Good wants to talk about what society’s basic institution really is – and who loses out if it is redefined.
“We are taking an entirely fresh approach to communicating the reality of marriage in secular society,” said William B. May, founder and chairman of the San Francisco-based group that promotes Catholic social teaching on society’s common interest. “Marriage is the reality that unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union.”
“We call it a ‘reality-based’ approach – reality, as an antidote to relativism,” May told CNA on Oct. 6. “We’re looking at the reality of marriage from the perspective of the child.”
*** and ***
“Underlying the proposal to redefine marriage, is an assumption that marriage is merely the committed relationship between two loving people,” he said. “And a lot of us think of marriage in terms of the adult perspective, and the benefit for adults.”
“That’s a private interest – and that’s not what marriage really is.”
“Marriage is more than that. It’s a communion of persons. And when we look at it from the perspective of the child, it’s the heart’s desire of every person – without exception – to be united with, and to know, the man and woman that they came from. That’s part of who we are.”
“What’s happening now, with the redefinition of marriage in the minds of people, is that more and more children are becoming deprived of that experience – which is a human right – to be born into, and raised in, a family with a mother and a father united in marriage.”
Society and culture, May explained, have perennially defined marriage in this manner for the sake of binding men and women to fulfill this duty to their children.
Thus, any redefinition weakens the unique cultural and legal standing of the only institution that secures the integral bond between children and parents.
“The harm is this,” he said. “By redefining marriage as merely the public recognition of a relationship between adults, we essentially ban the promotion of marriage as the only institution that unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union.”
“It creates a conflict with the human rights of the child, to know and be cared for by their mother and father in the union of a marriage.”
*** end quote ***
I continue to assert that the Gooferment should have no role in “marriage”, its definition, or anything related to it.
Not everything requires the Gooferment’s “involvement”.
Some things are Constitutionally reserved to “The People” and to the individual States. (You must remember them. Before everything became a “federal case”.)
This author’s attempt to fight the battle on children’s rights fails to note that it’s possible to be “married” and not have any children.
I’d prefer to fight the battle on the “MYOB” basis.
“Marriage” is only the Gooferment’s business because of racism and the tax code. Further, redefining marriage is a contra-survival act of a nation on the decline. (Remember Rome’s excesses?) Along
# – # – #
[JR: In addition to a Google Reader problem, the ENDNOTE was truncated. Argh! ]
# – # – # – # – # 2011-Dec-03 @ 23:27