Right and I should have also said I realize your (Father’s and your) point WRT that. The problem is though that people are going to start calling Father’s proposed unions “marriages” also, AND/OR, those only in the “community property” unions (i.e., the homosexuals) will say, “Hey, we want to have kids too, why can’t we be in the ‘potential birth registry’ too? That’s discrimatory!”
The only counter argument to that could be “You can’t have kids by natural birth” to which they would reply “so what we can still adopt or have a surrogate etc...” Blah blah and the usual tripe we hear now about why they want to be recognized as “married” would continue just under a new name.
They aren’t going to stop until forced to admit that what they want is to be recognized as “married” in the eyes of every church. And even then they probably won’t stop but at least then it’ll be easier to point out their tyrannical evil.
Actually, that’s still a virtue to Fr. John’s proposal. The potential birth registry reminds everyone that nature (or God) is “discriminatory”: only actual biological women with more-or-less normally functioning wombs and ovaries can give birth, only actual biological men can father children, something that the lunatics on the left are trying very hard to deny, forget, make everyone deny and forget in an effort patterned on 2 + 2 = 5 because the Party says so, and you *will* love Big Brother.