Posted on 01/03/2003 2:00:12 PM PST by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
Proud grandfather says child will have ‘traditional family’
The 5-pound 2-ounce baby girl born one minute after midnight on New Year’s Day in a Virginia hospital was greeted with the usual accolades and awe poured over newborns.
“She’s adorable. She’s perfect. She’s brilliant,” her mother, Helen Rubin, told reporters who gathered to see metropolitan Washington’s “First Baby of the Year.” But for this New Year’s baby, there’s a twist: She has two mommies.
“We eventually decided it was time to go ahead and have kids, like everyone else would,” Joanna Bare, Rubin’s partner of 12 years, said at a news conference.
Since a medical condition prohibited Bare from being the birth mother, Rubin carried the child. A longtime friend whom the women decline to identify impregnated her through artificial insemination. He has legally surrendered his parental rights for his child. The women said they welcomed the media attention as an opportunity to show that nontraditional families can function normally, The Washington Times reported.
The child’s grandfather asserts that will be the case.
“This child is going to have a traditional family,” Howard Rubin told reporters. “She’ll have traditional grandparents on both sides, traditional aunts and uncles. This is our family.”
“I feel sorry for this baby, because no child deserves to be born, or adopted, into a homosexual household [and deliberately denied a father],” said Peter LaBarbera, senior policy analyst for the Culture & Family Institute of Concerned Women for America.
The women recently moved from Virginia—a state their attorney said is not “very gay-friendly”—to Maryland, to take advantage of that state’s more liberal laws on adoptions by homosexuals. Virginia prohibits adoptions by non-marital partners; Bare could adopt the child only if Rubin surrendered her parental rights.
“We are not interested in legal battles,” Bare said of their decision to move rather than challenge Virginia’s law. “We are interested in having a family that works—with two parents.”
But LaBarbera said it is virtually impossible for such an arrangement to be in the child’s best interest.
“One of the lesbians said, ‘Hopefully we'll be like any family,’ but that cannot be. Households that are fatherless or motherless by design do not make healthy environments for children,” he said, adding that even pro-homosexual research shows that children raised in homosexual households are more likely to identify as “gay,” experiment with homosexuality, be promiscuous, and exhibit other unhealthy tendencies.
Miss Rubin said she and Bare consider themselves “married.” And Mr. Rubin said he considers his daughter’s relationship with Bare to be permanent.
“This baby girl already has lost a fair shot at life because she is growing up in an intentionally fatherless home,” LaBarbera sighed.
Sodomy should be a capital crime.
Our Nation's laws against homosexuality go back beyond it's founding. In every single civilized nation since the beginning of time, homosexuality was considered immoral, a crime against nature, and usually was a capital offense. Let's look at a few quotes:
"Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated. Such conduct violates both the criminal and civil laws of this State and is destructive to a basic building block of society -- the family." ---- Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court in a decision denying custody of children to a lesbian mother.
The Corpus Juris Civilis is the sixth-century encyclopedic collection of Roman laws made under the sponsorship of Emperor Justinian. "It is Justinian's collection which served as the basis of canon law (the law of the Christian Church) and civil law (both European and English)."
The following is a statement in Law French from Corpus Juris: "'Sodomie est crime de majeste vers le Roy Celestre,' and [is] translated in a footnote as 'Sodomy is high treason against the King of Heaven.' At common law 'sodomy' and the phrase 'infamous crime against nature' were often used interchangeably."
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination." (KJV) Leviticus 18:22
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."(KJV) Leviticus 20:13
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NASB)
"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." (KJV) Deuteronomy 23:17
No matter how much society appears to change, the law on this subject has remained steadfast from the earliest history of the law, and that law is and must be our law today. The common law designates homosexuality as an inherent evil... ---- Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court in a decision denying custody of children to a lesbian mother.
"The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. " The United States Supreme Court in BOWERS v. HARDWICK, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) 478 U.S. 186
Criminal sodomy laws in effect in 1791:
Connecticut: 1 Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, 1808, Title LXVI, ch. 1, 2 (rev. 1672). Delaware: 1 Laws of the State of Delaware, 1797, ch. 22, 5 (passed 1719). Georgia had no criminal sodomy statute until 1816, but sodomy was a crime at common law, and the General Assembly adopted the common law of England as the law of Georgia in 1784. The First Laws of the State of Georgia, pt. 1, p. 290 (1981). Maryland had no criminal sodomy statute in 1791. Maryland's Declaration of Rights, passed in 1776, however, stated that "the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England," and sodomy was a crime at common law. 4 W. Swindler, Sources and Documents of United States Constitutions 372 (1975). Massachusetts: Acts and Laws passed by the General Court of Massachusetts, ch. 14, Act of Mar. 3, 1785. New Hampshire passed its first sodomy statute in 1718. Acts and Laws of New Hampshire 1680-1726, p. 141 (1978). Sodomy was a crime at common law in New Jersey at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The State enacted its first criminal sodomy law five years later. Acts of the Twentieth General Assembly, Mar. 18, 1796, ch. DC, 7. New York: Laws of New York, ch. 21 (passed 1787). [478 U.S. 186, 193] At the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights, North Carolina had adopted the English statute of Henry VIII outlawing sodomy. See Collection of the Statutes of the Parliament of England in Force in the State of North-Carolina, ch. 17, p. 314 (Martin ed. 1792). Pennsylvania: Laws of the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ch. CLIV, 2 (passed 1790). Rhode Island passed its first sodomy law in 1662. The Earliest Acts and Laws of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 1647-1719, p. 142 (1977). South Carolina: Public Laws of the State of South Carolina, p. 49 (1790). At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, Virginia had no specific statute outlawing sodomy, but had adopted the English common law. 9 Hening's Laws of Virginia, ch. 5, 6, p. 127 (1821) (passed 1776).
Criminal sodomy statutes in effect in 1868:
Alabama: Ala. Rev. Code 3604 (1867). Arizona (Terr.): Howell Code, ch. 10, 48 (1865). Arkansas: Ark. Stat., ch. 51, Art. IV, 5 (1858). California: 1 Cal. Gen. Laws, 1450, 48 (1865). Colorado (Terr.): Colo. Rev. Stat., ch. 22, 45, 46 (1868). Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat., Tit. 122, ch. 7, 124 (1866). Delaware: Del. Rev. Stat., ch. 131, 7 (1893). Florida: Fla. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 2614 (passed 1868) (1892). Georgia: Ga. Code 4286, 4287, 4290 (1867). Kingdom of Hawaii: Haw. Penal Code, ch. 13, 11 (1869). Illinois: Ill. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 49, 50 (1845). Kansas (Terr.): Kan. Stat., ch. 53, 7 (1855). Kentucky: 1 Ky. Rev. Stat., ch. 28, Art. IV, 11 (1860). Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat., Crimes and Offences, 5 (1856). Maine: Me. Rev. Stat., Tit. XII, ch. 160, 4 (1840). Maryland: 1 Md. Code, Art. 30, 201 (1860). Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Stat., ch. 165, 18 (1860). Michigan: Mich. Rev. Stat., Tit. 30, ch. 158, 16 (1846). Minnesota: Minn. Stat., ch. 96, 13 (1859). Mississippi: Miss. Rev. Code, ch. 64, LII, Art. 238 (1857). Missouri: 1 Mo. Rev. Stat., ch. 50, Art. VIII, 7 (1856). Montana (Terr.): Mont. Acts, Resolutions, Memorials, Criminal Practice Acts, ch. IV, 44 (1866). Nebraska (Terr.): Neb. Rev. Stat., Crim. Code, ch. 4, 47 (1866). [478 U.S. 186, 194] Nevada (Terr.): Nev. Comp. Laws, 1861-1900, Crimes and Punishments, 45. New Hampshire: N. H. Laws, Act. of June 19, 1812, 5 (1815). New Jersey: N. J. Rev. Stat., Tit. 8, ch. 1, 9 (1847). New York: 3 N. Y. Rev. Stat., pt. 4, ch. 1, Tit. 5, 20 (5th ed. 1859). North Carolina: N.C. Rev. Code, ch. 34, 6 (1855). Oregon: Laws of Ore., Crimes - Against Morality, etc., ch. 7, 655 (1874). Pennsylvania: Act of Mar. 31, 1860, 32, Pub. L. 392, in 1 Digest of Statute Law of Pa. 1700-1903, p. 1011 (Purdon 1905). Rhode Island: R. I. Gen. Stat., ch. 232, 12 (1872). South Carolina: Act of 1712, in 2 Stat. at Large of S. C. 1682-1716, p. 493 (1837). Tennessee: Tenn. Code, ch. 8, Art. 1, 4843 (1858). Texas: Tex. Rev. Stat., Tit. 10, ch. 5, Art. 342 (1887) (passed 1860). Vermont: Acts and Laws of the State of Vt. (1779). Virginia: Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). West Virginia: W. Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). Wisconsin (Terr.): Wis. Stat. 14, p. 367 (1839).
"Forasmuch as there is not yet sufficient and condign punishment appointed and limited by the due course of the Laws of this Realm for the detestable and abominable Vice of Buggery committed with mankind of beast: It may therefore please the King's Highness with the assent of the Lords Spiritual and the Commons of this present parliament assembled, that it may be enacted by the authority of the same, that the same offence be from henceforth ajudged Felony and that such an order and form of process therein to be used against the offenders as in cases of felony at the Common law. And that the offenders being herof convict by verdict confession or outlawry shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their good chattels debts lands tenements and hereditaments as felons do according to the Common Laws of this Realme. And that no person offending in any such offence shall be admitted to his Clergy, And that Justices of the Peace shall have power and authority within the limits of their commissions and Jurisdictions to hear and determine the said offence, as they do in the cases of other felonies. This Act to endure till the last day. of the next Parliament" Buggery act of England 1553
Britton, i.10: "Let enquiry also be made of those who feloniously in time of peace have burnt other's corn or houses, and those who are attainted thereof shall be burnt, so that they might be punished in like manner as they have offended. The same sentence shall be passed upon sorcerers, sorceresses, renegades, sodomists, and heretics publicly convicted" English law forbidding sodomy dating back to 1300AD.
These quotes are just a few of the many that are avaliable.
Now, why did these laws exist? Libertarians and other assorted liberal folk don't like any laws that protect society and prevent the moral decline of a nation's people. They are immoral people and they want to be free to be immoral.
What did our founders say about this? Way back in 1815, The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided an important case, here are excerpts from that case:
This court is...invested with power to punish not only open violations of decency and morality, but also whatever secretly tends to undermine the principles of society... Whatever tends to the destruction of morality, in general, may be punishable criminally. Crimes are public offenses, not because they are perpetrated publically, but because their effect is to injure the public. Buglary, though done in secret, is a public offense; and secretly destroying fences is indictable.
Hence it follows, that an offense may be punishable, if in it's nature and by it's example, it tends to the corruption or morals; although it not be committed in public.
Although every immoral act, such as lying, ect... is not indictable, yet where the offense charged is destructive of morality in general...it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of government invalid...
No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people, secret poision cannot be thus desseminated.
Keep in mind now that the judges on this court had lived through the revolution and fought for the nation's survival. This was just a few years after the Constitution was Adopted. SO the libertarians who are going to scream that these judges didn't know what they were talking about are way off base. (They want you to think that your basic pot head knows more about the Constitution than the men who were actually there at the nation's founding.)
Now why did the court take that position? Simple, a Nation without morality cannot function. A nation that loses site on principle is doomed to go the way of the Roman Empire. Every single nation that has lost sight of basic moral principles has fallen. Homosexuality is anathema to morality. The two cannot exist together. Homosexuality is unnatural (no matter how much liberals will try to convince you otherwise.) And it is immoral. It cannot be tolerated period.
Homosexuality is immoral, Indecent, abhorant, and repugnant. It is a stain on our society, and must never ever be tolerated.
I can think of a whole boatload of things that should be capital crimes long before sodomy gets onto the list.
Like it or not, it took a man and a woman to make that little girl. She has a Daddy and will have a natural desire to know him. Telling her that she has two mommies is a lie, it will distort her perception of herself because kids always want to grow up to be like their parents, it will make her feel embarrassed when she is forced to repeat the lie at school and elsewhere, it will increase the likelihood that she will experiment sexually and thereby increase her risk of disease and death -- not to mention pregnancy (if it's with a boy of course). She will likely never have an accurate understanding of male and female relationships and differences. It will confuse and intimidate her potential girlfriends who might think being friends with her makes a statement about them. She will feel defensive among her peers, especially as a vulnerable teen, trying to prove she is NOT a lesbian.
Nature discriminates against gay unions. Nature gives no children to them. That's an evolutionary fact. The kid shouldn't have to live a lie.
Also, we are talking about two women here. They can't even have intercourse without fake body parts--which doesn't technically count.
Homosexuality is unhealthy, unatural, and even though we tolerate it in the same way we tolerate promisuity, adultery, etc...it is not a good example or appropriate for children. Certainly we should not teach kids that this is good, equal and ideal. That is both lying and abusive. It is a betrayal of the responsibility we all have to raise kids in a clean, healthy, and yes MORAL way.
When two women act like two men but relate to each other as members of the opposite sex I think it is fair to ask if there are some mental or at least emotional issues they are dealing with -- issues that make them unfit to raise a child. Perhaps that is what nature sees when it discriminates biologically against gays.
Without a absolute Moral Authority above mankind all freedoms, rights and assumptions of dignity are simply allowances of the most powerful of mankind.
You cannot expect any of the luxuries of a created being if you condone the elimination of the Creator, His Authority or His Morals.
The very concept of our Constitution is based on the fact that man is endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights, those rights are part of a moral code set in place by the Creator. If you deny absolute morals, you deny the bases of the Constitution.
If you deny absolute morality you forfeit any expectation of moral behavior from any other human.
Either morality is absolute or morality is relative. If you choose the first then society has the right to maintain certain codes to insure that morality without infringing on same. If you choose the second then you must concede the release of any killer who thought his deeds were moral.
As to who defines morals; would you have a man define morality for you? I would not, as man is corruptible so is his reason and judgment.
Perhaps you have a point there RAT. Straight married couples who run around and have affairs and participate in various acts of sodomy such as oral sex are just not fit to be parents since they have such low moral standards. Adultery is a sin and as a matter of fact, it is listed in the same bible quote that gets posted here so frequently regarding homosexuality....shouldn't we treat it the same? Children of ALDUTERERS grow up confused and uncertain of gender roles. They often find themselves in abusive relationships and those who come from divorced families are more likely to get a divorce themselves. Lets end this vicious cycle - people like that have no business raising children!
/sarcasm
1.Defined by the eye of the beholder.
2..Relative.The lack of a nail, the lack of a shoe, the the lost battle , the lost war.
Depends whether the moralist is using a .45 or a squirt gun.
3. Depends of the intent of the adoptors,and if the individual adoptee is subtly or overtly taught a life style contrary to the eyes of many beholders...and/or in order to proselyte others.
economics = cost of aids vs. cancer researh
rape=forced entry; front or rear.
dislike , disgust, no fear.
I'll beilieve it when the dna test come in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.