IVF not only helps couples have children of their own--it sometimes helps them have other people's children.
Is this doctor's behavior a human rights violation or merely a technological innovation designed to increase success. Does biology matter?
I'm guessing it does to most people. (Want to bet how many of these kids are the doctor's biological children?)
Almost two weeks ago a Judge on the Brazilian High Court ruled that gay civil unions did not violate their constitution:
Brazil’s Supreme Federal Tribunal has ruled that homosexual unions are equivalent to the “stable unions” of heterosexuals under national law, despite the Brazilian Constitution’s clear limitation of such unions to heterosexual couples.
“Stable unions,” which are roughly equivalent to “civil unions” in English-speaking countries, are arrangements “between a man and a woman” who live together “as a family entity” according to article 226 of the Brazilian Constitution. Couples in stable unions have access to over one hundred privileges also given to married couples.
But the judge who had principal charge over the case, Carlos Ayres Britto, justified extending the explicitly heterosexual language to homosexual couples based on the Constitution’s prohibition of discrimination based on sex, and the fact that the Constitution does not prohibit homosexual relations --LifeSiteNews
Meanwhile, Wagner Moura, a Catholic blogger in Brazil, writes on his blog (Google Translate version) about gay activists who unfurled a rainbow banner on the steps of a Catholic Church while Mass was being celebrated inside, accompanied by loud music and a "kiss-in".
From the UK Telegraph:
Outdated family laws have fueled an “alarming” rise in marital breakdown, causing “profound” damage to millions of children, a High Court judge has warned
Sir Paul Coleridge called for an independent commission to reform divorce law, arguing that family relationships are now “unrecognisable” from the 1950s, when the last review was conducted.
He condemned successive governments for “ducking” politically contentious reforms with the result that pre-nuptial agreements and cohabiting relationships were being legitimised by “stealth”.
... Sir Paul estimated that 320,000 children enter the family law system each year, suggesting that more than 3 million children are now caught up in the legal process
“The scale of the problem is genuinely alarming,” he said. “The incidence of family breakdown is so terribly high now that the way in which family law is shaped and managed has, I believe, a direct and profound impact on the private lives of huge numbers of the population.
Psychologist Hilary Towers, while discussing the opportunity provided by Newt Gingrich's presidential run to have a national debate on the reality of divorce, observes:
Data from the National Survey of Children (NSC) indicate that approximately 80% of divorce cases in this country are forced divorces. In other words, the vast majority of divorces are situations in which one person puts an end to the marriage through legal coercion, even while the other is fighting to save it. In a time when “self above all others” serves as the motto for our system of family law and our culture, one would be hard pressed to find a more relevant and pressing issue for the Catholic Church, which upholds the sanctity of lifelong marriage and does not acknowledge divorce. And yet to date, we seem content with viewing spousal abandonment as a mental health issue for the person left behind, rather than the danger to the institution of marriage it is. We refer the abandoned to a “divorce coping group” and encourage them to carry their cross. This is not enough.
Here is the background explaining the case that a Catholic adoption agency in the UK brought before the court:
After the passage of the Equality Act which prohibited sexual orientation discrimination in adoption services, Catholic Care sought to retain its policy of placing children with married couples without violating the law. In a series of proceedings, the government’s Charity Commission refused to allow the charity to continue placing children for adoption unless it was willing to place with same-sex couples. The charity appealed to the Charity Tribunal.
... The court concluded that while “religious conviction in the sphere of personal belief is protected in both domestic and European equality law, so that acts of devotion, worship, and prayer (including ceremonies) are exempt from equality obligations” there is an “essential distinction between private acts of worship such as blessings and the provision of a public service such as an adoption agency.”
A couple weeks ago, and the court ruled once again against the adoption agency:
The UK’s First-Tier Tribunal of the Charity Commission rejected an appeal last week by Catholic Care, the last Catholic adoption agency in the country, to change its constitution to exclude homosexuals from adopting children. [...] Eleven Catholic adoption agencies chose to fight that law, which prohibited “discrimination” based upon sexual orientation; however, all but Catholic Care have now either closed their doors or severed ties with the Catholic Church.
... In response to last week’s decision, Bishop Roche said, “Catholic Care is very disappointed with this ruling. The Trustees are considering their position and whether or not to appeal.
“It is unfortunate that those who will suffer as a consequence of this ruling will be the most vulnerable children for whom Catholic Care has provided an excellent service for many years. It is an important point of principle that the Charity should be able to prepare potential adoptive parents, a service recognised for its excellence by the local authorities who are responsible for placing children, according to the tenets of the Catholic faith.
This video via NY1 captures many of the highlights from this Sunday's rally for marriage in the Bronx, which was attended by thousands of supporters:
This report (PDF) asked citizens of various European countries to respond to statements about marriage and homosexuality. Here's what they said:
"It is a good thing to allow marriages between two men and two women"
Accept the statement as true - Poland: 11.8%, Hungary: 30.7%, Italy: 35.9%, Portugal: 37.6% France: 47.3%, Great Britain: 57.9%, Germany: 60.3%, The Netherlands: 83.0%
"There is nothing immoral about homosexuality"
Accept the statement as true - Poland: 24.2%, Hungary: 32.3%, Portugal: 56.0%, Italy: 57.5%, Germany: 62.0% Great Britain: 62.8%, France: 63.8%, The Netherlands: 83.5%
Here's the chart, which presents the same information as above, but asks if people reject (as opposed to accept) the statement as true:
Fred Lebrun advocates for redefining marriage but admits in the Albany Times Union that Gov. Cuomo's "bullying" of the legislature - while earning him high marks with the public - has backfired when it comes to pushing his agenda in the capital:
Governor Cuomo has maintained his high ratings by beating up on the Legislature, a tactic the public apparently loves. He's bullied legislators, goaded them to do his bidding and not theirs, and even all but demanded they pass his Big Three or suffer the public's wrath, which he will command on them. It's quite the imperial exercise, a sort of prosecutor as messiah.
... What the governor has managed to do is energize the opposition to a magnitude I have not seen in recent years. [...] If another vote was held today, the outcome would not be that dissimilar because the Senate votes just aren't there yet.
... In a year when a far more collegial approach was called for, aimed directly at the public and not at the Legislature, Governor Cuomo's efforts will go down as well meaning, but tactically flawed. Another missed opportunity.
Perhaps this will help end the red herring argument that there is "no threat of redefining marriage" in Minnesota:
Minnesota Democrats introduced a bill [last Friday] that would repeal the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits same-sex couples from benefiting from the rights and responsibilities of marriage.The bill, the Marriage and Family Protection Act, was offered just as heated debate at the Capitol continues over a proposed constitutional amendment that would write a ban on gay marriage into the state constitution. -- Minnesota Independent
The AP is reporting this as a major coup--however, unlike Mike Long, chairman of the Conservative Party, the Independence party chairman did not actually pledge to oppose any GOP candidate that votes to redefine marriage:
The chairman of New York's Independence Party says he's personally supporting the legalization of gay marriage.
... The party representing 425,000 members is taking no official position on the issue. But MacKay tells The Associated Press Monday he's reminding lawmakers that the influential party's guiding principle is protecting civil rights.
The gay website The Advocate reports:
Several prominent gay rights groups are urging travel site Orbitz to drop its advertising from Fox News because of the network's antigay content.
Leaders from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Courage Campaign, and Equality Matters have all signed a letter to Orbitz CEO Barney Harford asking that his company stop advertising on Fox News.
... Orbitz has been a longtime advertiser to gay media outlets, including The Advocate, and gay pride and other events. It also has a gay-specific travel site, offering trips to LGBT-friendly destinations.
... Media Matters, the parent organization to Equality Matters, has tracked Fox News' coverage of gay issues, showing a history of antigay opinions and content. It is also the force behind DropFox, the new initiative asking advertisers to stop purchasing spots on the news network. According to the site, the organizers say advertisers should abandon Fox News because it advances antigay bigotry, advances misinformation about climate science, and because it is a political operation masquerading as a news network.
"It must be rare, if not unprecedented, that a federal district judge has had his rulings in a case reversed three times before his final judgment is even presented for appellate review. But the occurrence of that rarity in this case barely begins to convey the breadth and depth of the judicial errors below. The purpose of this brief is to provide a survey of the district judge's remarkable course of misconduct in this case."
Donald Trump - who has been acting like he was going to run for President in 2012, and who stated his opposition to SSM frequently - has decided not to run:
Donald Trump said today he will not seek the Republican nomination for president, after stoking speculation with statements and speeches taking on pro-abortion President Barack Obama.
After months of speculation about his future plans, Trump released a statement today saying, “After considerable deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of the Presidency.” --LifeNews
Here's the abstract from a new study on the effects of parental divorce in causing depression among children, as well as increasing their risk of attempting suicide - especially girls:
In previous studies by our group, we found that female offspring of parental divorce and parental remarriage are more susceptible to suicide attempt than male offspring.
In this study, we examine whether these findings remain even after controlling for offspring depression. The sample consists of respondents from the 2001–2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Multivariable regressions controlled for offspring depression, parental depression, age, race/ethnicity, income, and marital status.
Our previous findings that female offspring of parental divorce and parental remarriage are more likely to report a lifetime suicide attempt than male offspring remained even after controlling for offspring depression.
Findings suggest that focusing on engaging female offspring who demonstrate symptoms of depression is not sufficient to reduce suicide attempt risk in this group as many at risk individuals will remain unrecognized.
It's very clear that the gay rights movement thinks they should. Here's the TV news story in Tennessee referenced by Queerty of a protest by a group called "FCK H8" (you may recall NOM's video on their use of small children shouting profanities to advance their cause, here).
The bill in question actually applied to children in grade and middle schools, but they chose to protest outside of public high school instead. Interesting.
