Monday, February 14, 2011

HB 1267--- Redefining Parenthood

"My Daddy's Name is Donor"---"Family is the New Gay"---"My Mommies Rule"---"Got Moms," are just a few of the slogans being printed on children's clothes and distributed across the nation.

The family and parenthood is being redefined. Quietly, sometimes deceptively, but with great resolve on the part of those who seek to do so.

In the spirit of the new Washington State Domestic Partnership law, a group of state legislators are moving to "comply" with the new law and in doing so, are redefining not just the family, but parenthood itself.

The current attempt is
HB 1267. Click here to see the list of legislators who are sponsoring the bill.

You may click
here to read the text of the bill as it is being presented.

The hearing is tomorrow, February 15, at 8 AM in House Hearing Room C -- the John L. O'Brien Bldg.

If at all possible, please attend the hearing. Also, please
call your representative and tell them you strongly oppose the bill.

This bill will allow women to enter into a paid surrogacy contract, become pregnant through fertilization procedures and give up the child for financial profit.

It also changes the presumptions of parenthood. Presently, if a married woman gives birth to a child, her husband is legally presumed to be the father of the child.

HB 1267 extends that presumption to homosexual relationships, so the child can be legally presumed to have a second mother.

Parenthood is being re-defined in the laboratory of social experimentation. Generally, this process follows the legalization of homosexual marriage, but in the case of Washington State, the several homosexual activist legislators are so confident that they are near the gold ring of homosexual marriage, they are moving forward under the guise of "complying" with the DP law.

I think we should be concerned, very concerned, as to how this will further affect children.

In the brave new world of redefined family and parenthood, sperm donors might not be fathers, mother's girl friends and ex-girl friends can be mothers or fathers.

Egg donors and surrogates are usually not considered mothers, but can be---sometimes.

Absent fathers, when they anger their ex-girlfriends, can be reduced, at least rhetorically, to mere sperm donors---yet the state generally holds them accountable for child support.

What does "father" mean?

What does "mother" mean?

Who decides? Homosexual activists?

The common thread that runs through this great social experiment of redefining parenthood is the adult right to a child. But the rights and needs of an adult to have a child is not the whole story.

Even the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child recognized that back in 1989.

Parenthood is increasingly becoming an institution oriented primarily around the needs of the adult, which is consistent with the basic self centered philosophy driving the homosexual rights movement. The fact that children have both a need and a right to have a father and a mother is pushed to the shadows.

We should have serious concerns about the family diversity curriculum that is imposed in the public school classroom and beyond into the media and entertainment industry, all this along with the silencing in the culture about the importance of mothers and fathers.

Legal adoption was never intended to support a perverted argument to advance homosexual "rights," nor the argument that children don't care who their mothers and fathers are. Much less to re-engineer the family and marriage.

God help us. And God help the children. Outside the Christian and conservative community there is no outrage, there is no conviction, is there no thought as to what would be best for the child?

Be Vocal. Be Prayerful. Be Active.

______________
Gary Randall
President
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

19 comments:

  1. Sad commentary on the status of the 'family'. Even worse, I don't know my representatives or how to contact them, proposed legislation, or current spending. Without transparency, it means I can't trust my elected officials, nor their administration of the laws. Or perhaps I'm just too apathetic, and expect the inevitable. Happy Valentines Day.
    Rural conservative central WA.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Contrary to your claim, both sides are concerned about the children.

    It's just that you arrive at a different conclusion when you are free from superstition and prejudice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Again, tempest in a teapot.

    This rewrite of the legislation brings it into compliance with the current and potentially future levels of Assisted Reproductive Technologies that are being used. When the statutes were written, only sperm donation was considered, it was assumed the biological mother was always known. With anonymous egg and sperm donation now possible, surrogates and legal same gender parents (which Washington has had for years - nothing to do with R71 or domestic partnerships) the legislation needs a rewrite.

    Again, this will primarily impact plain old heterosexual couples who have used ART to be able to have their own genetic child and clarify both the legal rights AND responsibilities for the parents, the child and any surrogates that might be involved.

    The only part that involves domestic partnerships is in acknowledging the few 'assumptions' of rights that those with the civil contract marriage have had too. But if you read the legislation that is only a tiny part of what it does and will primarily prevent acrimonious lawsuits and state expense.

    Please bother to actually read the legislation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Vishanti. This is incrementalism in it's finest hour. I think you know that. It is only a tempest in a tea pot when it is isolated from the broader actions gay activists are taking to redefine marraige and the family. Jamie Pederson and Ed Murray have admitted ,in press interviews over the past several years, that their stratedgy is incrementalism. Put all the pieces together and if you care about marriage and the family, as Gary does, it is no tea pot tempest. He is right. It is bothersome to some that he is calling it what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was not aware that defending family and marriage was an expression of "superstitution" and "prejudice". Are you saying that unless a person agrees and supports the idea of redefining marriage and family they are superstitious and prejudice? I'm wondering what happened to the tolerance for others with different views.

    ReplyDelete
  6. YES, PLEASE DO READ THE LEGISLATION. I did and found it to be more alarming than even Gary was saying. If you look at the scope of what is being proposed in this and other legislation and are a biblical Christian, it is a real reason for concern.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If this is no big deal why are gay web sites selling T shirts, baby bibs and other children's clothing with those slogans on them. It's a tempest, but it isn't in a tea pot. Thanks Gary.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You believe that marriage was created by God and and is only as defined in the bible. Since religion cannot be verified scientifically, it is by definition a superstition.

    You claim to promote marriage, but only for some. Since you cannot provide any documented harm from marriage for an entire class, it must be based on prejudice against that class. Even if it comes from your religion, it's still prejudice since you cannot demonstrate actual harm (and there's been plenty of time).

    ReplyDelete
  9. pot when it is isolated from the broader actions gay activists are taking to redefine marraige and the family.

    No redefinition needed - families have always included those with same gender people in the parenting roles, marriage is a civil contract - if one citizen can have a male spouse then all citizens should be able to and can in many many locations. And regardless if they can get a civil contract or not they are still married - marriage is an individual decision that the state licenses a contract for, it doesn't come from the state.

    I was not aware that defending family and marriage

    Letting more citizens license their their marriages is not an attack, what's to defend? And again, same gender parented families have existed forever - why the pretense that they are under any sort of attack that needs defense.


    I did and found it to be more alarming than even Gary was saying.
    Yes, I'm chuckling. Please an example of this 'alarming' change? You aren't confusing the mere removal of gender from statutes that assumed only sperm was donated to the current reality that both eggs and sperm are donated now are you? I mean that' removes 'father' and 'him' and 'sperm' and replaces them with 'parent' 'his or her' and 'gamete' but that's hardly the phantom 'gay agenda', that's just how ART current technology is.

    ReplyDelete
  10. When will Gary and his legislative minions take the time to see to it that abortion clinics are regulated by the State? or are they too busy attacking families headed by same-sex couples to care about medical safety?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Maybe Gary and the pro-life legislators are busy fending off the pro-death activists who are trying to shut down pro-life organizations like Pregnancy Centers, while Planned Parenthood keeps expanding their reach of death---abortion. Planned Parenthood's ventures are state and federally funded---Gary is not. Hope that helps. I do not see him "attacking families headed by same- sex couples". I see him along with others standing for traditional marriage and family and oppossing those who are trying to revise it from its natural state. Also, remember Gary made most of us aware that abortion clinics are not regulated. What would cause you to think he doesn't care? Isn't that why he brought it to light?

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's interesting that Gary hasn't covered the events of the middle east They are protesting in Iran today. I wish them the best!

    Mark in Tigard

    ReplyDelete
  13. 11:04

    There is more scientific evidence for the existence of God than for Darwinian evolution. That would mean atheism is a superstition, right?

    Documented harm? How about teaching children that perversion is acceptable as long as it makes you happy? How about teaching them that there are no moral absolutes? That you can do whatever you want as long as it makes you feel good. You teach them there are no eternal conseqeunces for their behavior
    because of your own guilt and you lead them astray. How much more harm could you do?

    Jesus said "suffer the little children to come to me and do not prevent them; for the Kingdom of God is for such as these"

    "It would be better for you to have a millstone tied around your neck and thrown into the sea; than to harm one of these little ones".

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  14. Craig,

    Scientific evidence of God? Perhaps you could provide some. I'm not aware of any verifiable scientific evidence of god. That's why they call it 'faith'

    Regarding documented harm from gay marriage, you still haven't provided any of that either. Violating your superstitious beliefs doesn't qualify as demonstrable harm to society.

    As I said, until you can document actual harm to society from gay marriage, it's prejudice.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 6:04

    Perhaps you could provide some verifiable scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution. I'm not aware of any, that's why atheism is a blind faith.

    You are unaware of the evidence for a Creator because you refuse to see it, even though its before your very eyes. When you look at a house, a fence, a T.V or your car,you see evidence of intelligence, purpose, and design. You know that someone devoted time, thought, and ability to bring it into existece. So also with our natural world. Where did the information come from to tell one flower to be a rose and another to be something else,one animal to be a cat and another to be a dog. Where does The information in DNA come from? Evolutionary science has no answer, none.

    How did the earth come to be the right distance from the sun, so it could support life in all its diversity? The moon to control tides and weather? Who imagined the stars and gives source to their light? The evidence fairly screams
    "INTELLIGENCE", "PURPOSE", "DESIGN".

    You don't need a printout from a lab to tell you that someone built your house, car, or the computer you're reading this on, just your eyes! So too, the universe you live in! Seeing is believing, faith has to do with your response to the evidence.

    My faith is not blind; for I see. You refuse to see; so you remain blind. You don't have to be, God still pursues you and offers forgiveness and grace no matter what you've done.

    You must choose and you WILL be held accountable for that choice. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  16. Craig,

    I guessed I touched a nerve, huh? To get back to the original point, your views on gays are based on superstition.

    You have offered no proof of your god, only that your god could be one possible explanation among billions. Why does there have to be just one god. Might there be two? And what if they're gay? Two gay gods could have built this universe, couldn't they? Wow, did I just prove there are two gay gods????

    Superstition!

    BTW - don't get too focused on the universe that you think proves god - as we learn more of quantum mechanics, the universe looks increasingly different.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 4:41

    You didn't touch a nerve, you asked for proof and I gave it. Just because you remain blind, doesn't mean I need to become so. You have offered no proof of Darwinian evolution or shall I call it, "the fool says in his heart there is no God". There is one God and only one way to him, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    2 gay 'gods'? HAHAHAHAHAHA, that's hilarious! Who is going to procreate? I can't stop laughing, HAHAHAHAHA! Whew! That was a good one! The things people say to try and justify their behavior are beyond belief.

    BTW- Quantum physics only offers more proof of how awesome God really is. I'm praying for you right now, that He would open your eyes and your heart to the truth. His Word is truth. It takes a lot more faith to deny what your eyes see
    than to free your mind.

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  18. Craig,

    No, you didn't offer scientific proof. You simply looked around and jumped to a conclusion. I arrived at my conclusion that there are two gay gods using this same method of discovery.

    If you can't see that neither of these conclusions is scientific proof, there is really no point in continuing.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 9:56

    No you didn't, because you don't believe in God. You have no basis for a conclusion at all.

    "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is knowm about God is evident within them; for God has made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal pwer and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    PROFESSING TO BE WISE, THEY BECAME FOOLS,........ Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
    For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the women and burned in their desire toward one another, MEN WITH MEN COMMITTING INDECENT ACTS AND RECEIVING IN THEIR OWN PERSONS THE DUE PENALTY OF THEIR ERROR.
    And just as they did not see fit acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, ............. and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worty of death, THEY NOT ONLY DO THE SAME, BUT ALSO GIVE HEARTY APPROVAL TO THOSE WHO PRACTICE THEM." Romans 1:18-32

    Be sure of this, God is not mocked, you will reap what you sow. Open your heart to Him and He will heal you.

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.