Having just listened, on CBC Radio One, to someone from a generic Catholic organization get her panties in a bunch over the recent ruling that granted three legal parents to a young boy, it occurs to me that all of Canada's news organizations could save themselves buckets of time in situations like this.
Rather than actually interviewing this country's religious devout, that same media could simply send out a form letter to be filled out appropriately for the situation. I'm guessing something like the following would be sufficient for almost everything:
Dear [Fill in name of news organization here]:
We, members of Canada's [devout/Christian community/frothing wingnuts], are [concerned/upset/gibbering with outrage] over the recent [ruling/judgment/hideously irresponsible decision by a group of religion-hating activist judges] related to [fill in name of relevant issue here].
It's obvious that such a [ruling/judgment/decision] strikes at the very heart of the definition of ["family"/"marriage"/"religious freedom, and by religious freedom, we mean the freedom to make howling idiots of ourselves in public"]. In addition, such a [ruling/judgment/decision] clearly violates the unquestionable word of God, as can be read in [insert reference to appropriate verse of Scripture here].
It should be obvious to everyone that this recent [ruling/judgment/decision] is just the beginning of a slippery slope that will eventually redefine the very concept of [family/marriage/society/religious idiocy] in Western civilization, to the detriment of us all.
Yours in Christ,
[Insert name of deranged Christian wingnut organization here]
I'm guessing this will be a real time-saver for everyone.
5 comments:
The story has a happy ending, heart warming.
Being gay is as natural (albeit not as frequent in occurrence)as being hetro.
The taboos are finally being broken about, the myths destroyed.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-2527347,00.html
I don't get it. This isn't judiciary activism that ignores the 'elected' power. The decision is *obviously* in response to the recent re-opened debate on equal marriage in Parliament.
I listened to hours of heart rending commentary from Equal Marriage opponents that someone needed to think of the children.
Yes, think of the children and the needless suffering they would know if subjected to a lack of mixed gender role models. The point raised most (and in eerily repetitive rote)as world opinion backing the stance was an out of context, garbled version of a phrase from Principle 6 of the "UN Declaration of the Rights of a Child". These opponents somehow interpreted it to mean a child must remain with its biological cross gender parents for a child's well being to be met. The actual Principle is uhm, *somewhat* more discerning and nuanced.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/25.htm
So, according to the very arguments of equal marriage opponents themselves, a biological parent is legally accepted as a guardian of the child to help ensure that child's well being, but now this is a bad thing.
Because...the lesbian couple willingly sought to include the genetic dad as a legal family authority, instead of legally excluding him through adoption laws?
Isn't this a bit like getting upset because the new step-parent in the second marriage is happy to have the former half of the original partnership as a viable guardian to the kids they all care about?
I think most people will be afraid of this new development because they sense a built-in babysittership headed their way.
If these people didn't have this to bitch about, they'd be forced to spend more time looking honestly at their own paranoid, bleak and unhappy lives.
"The lesbian partner brought the case against the biological mother and father, seeking a declaration for parentage. They fully supported the legal action."
There isn't any argument between the surogate father and the parents (have you read the story?) - rather - they realized there is a hole in the legislation, and they wanted that brought to the attention of the courts.
Good for them, they stood up, and let the court decide. Clearly, the court realized the gap.
Another day when it feels great to be Canadian.
I heard that same Catholic Loon and I was thinking the same thing as Niles. In the case of a child's mother re-marrying, doesn't the child have a mommy and two daddies? Why doesn't that scare the stupid religious folks?
Oh, wait, I know. Because being scared of that doesn't get you any air time. Forgot about that for a second.
Post a Comment