WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD?

On May 10, in Guam Daily Post, Attorney Bill Pesch accused Department of Public Health Director, James Gillan, of making “bogus” statements and of perpetrating “absolute nonsense.” 

The “absolute nonsense,” according to Pesch, is Gillan’s claim that Guam law prevents the Director of Public Health from modifying a birth certificate to include the name of a lesbian parent as “father.” 

Pesch states that he is “not familiar with any law that says the legislature is responsible for designing birth certificates,” and claims that Gillan has the authority to modify the certificate.

However, the next day, in another publication, Pesch is quoted as saying: “

“Other states have laws which consider family dynamics of similarly situated same-sex parents, but Guam doesn’t. And that’s what Guam needs to do…When it comes to surrogacy, we’re definitely behind other jurisdictions in the United States.”

What a difference a day makes. One day Pesch is claiming that there is no such law, and the next day he is demanding that Guam law catch up with the rest of the country. 

But beyond this absurdity is the even more absurd: A lawyer demanding that a public official not comply with the law on the puerile basis that said lawyer is “sick and tired” of something he doesn’t like.

The fact is that Guam law clearly requires the full birth name of the father of the child on the birth certificate. 

That the law assumes the term “father” to be the natural father is not in question since in the absence of the natural father, the mother has the right to name him, whereupon he may be required to submit to a blood test to determine whether he is in fact “the natural father of the child.” (Other provisions are made for when the father is not known or named.)

What Pesch really wants (in addition to the forcing of public officials to break the law) is a complete overhaul of a definition of terms in the name of “gender neutrality.” 

Fine, but then we must also get rid of the words like “mother” as well as the sex of the child, since - following Pesch’s logic - defining a child as male or female at birth is apparently “prejudice,” and he’s “sick and tired” of that. 

What is lost in all this “rights” talk is the rights of the child. Does a child have a right to know its biological parents? Does a child have a right to a mother and a father (assuming the natural definitions)? 

As recently as 1989, the United Nations said “Yes.” The child has “the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.” (Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 7.) 

Reading the rest of the document there is no question that the UN’s definition of “parent” is “natural parent,” noting that sometimes adoption and foster care are necessary when a “child temporarily or permanently is deprived of his or her family.” 

Further, many diseases and their cures are now traced to genetics. Does a child have a right at some point in his or her life to know the roots of his or her genetic makeup? i.e. his or her natural parents? Where would that be recorded? 

In the mad embrace of adult rights there is no room for the rights of the child. How sad. How sadder still that many may suffer illness or disease needlessly because people like Bill Pesch helped to make it impossible for them to know where they came from. 

WHERE ARE THE WOMEN'S RIGHTS ACTIVISTS?

Response to: Jason Collins' girlfriend: I never suspected NBA player was gay 

But what I want to know is where are all the women's rights activists when you need them? 

Collins' girl-friend was apparently lied to and used for eight years. No love for the girl in the story? The guy uses a girl for eight years, leads her on to think they will get married and have children, even gets engaged to her...and then dumps her. And he gets a call from the President congratulating him for his courage???? 

Really? If women rights groups don't come to the support of Carolyn Moos then they have fully discredited themselves. In the end it's all about liberalism not people.

Debate on Bill 185 - Rotary Club of Guam 8/6/09

When Mr. McCully called and asked me to do this, the first thing I did was congratulate him and your organization for being the first to provide an appropriate forum for an issue of such gravity. Mr. McCully also asked me to frame the debate in terms of policy. I’m not sure I have done that to his satisfaction but we’ll give it a go.  

As some of you may know, I am not an attorney, a politician, or in the employ of a church. I am a former music teacher that was forced into selling real estate and sales to feed a growing family. And while I may own a bookstore, all that means is that I’m too busy running the store to read the books.  

Also, for the record, I am not personally opposed to people who choose to live an alternative lifestyle. I only got involved with this issue because I was alarmed that the media was relying on the easy story of Church vs the Gay Community instead of examining  

the central civil issue which is the claim to equal rights.

####  

The Legislative Findings and Intent of Bill 138, the Same-Sex Civil Unions Bill, began with these words:

"...there exists on Guam a large group of disaffected persons who have been denied one of the most basic rights ever given to law abiding citizens; the right to enter into a marriage"

The section then proceeds to make a claim for civil unions to "all the benefits, rights, and

Thus for the purposes of this brief presentation, I would like to address same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, and same-sex domestic partnerships as a single issue. I have 2 points and a proposition.

Point 1: The current legislation is reckless

First I'd like to call your attention to a practical concern that shows just how thoughtless, hodge-podge, and reckless this legislation is in the hopes that responsible citizens will at least demand a clear-eyed, methodical, and deliberate examination of the issue before us.

If you take the time to read Bill 185 you will see much about the application of the law to domestic partnerships but you will find nothing in the bill that would actually create that partnership. Section 16105 is only about the application for and the requisition of a license.

However, it is just a license to form the partnership, just as a marriage license does not mean you are married but that you have a license to get married. There is nothing that follows that would in fact create the partnership for which the license is issued. The omission is astounding.

I don't point this out for the purpose of identifying a technicality because the bill can be amended. But I point this out to demonstrate that the proponents of this legislation, in their rush to impose on our community a wholly new societal form that is sure to have far reaching and unintended (ormaybe even intended consequences), have, in the midst of highly charged emotional bluster, grabbed the frosting and left the cake.

The excited new domestic partnership applicant will walk away with a piece of paper, $30 poorer, and nothing more. … Read the bill. Point 2: The civil right to marital status is conditional. Gay Marriage would not meet those conditions.

It would seem that the proposed legislation, which would introduce the biggest societal change on Guam since the Christianization of the Chamorros, should demonstrate a bit more evidence of deliberation and thought.

First it must be understood that civil rights are granted to persons, not to corporate entities. In the eyes of the law, the minute two or more people form a legal entity, be it a business or a marriage, that entity is subject to a different set of rules than those that apply to individual persons.

Rules governing corporate bodies are determined by the relationship of that entity to the community and its relative contribution to the common good. Thus businesses are granted certain protections and incentives that are not available to individual persons. The reason is obvious.

The same is true in the case of marriage. The state has learned through millenia of societal evolution that the traditional marital unit is the most cost effective way of producing, socializing, and educating the next generation upon which the survival of the state depends.

Thus the state, because it has a vested interest in its own survival and flourishing, has chosen to protect and incentivize the societal engine we call the family, understanding that the cost to protect and incentivize the family is far less than the cost the state would incur should the family fail and the burden fall to the state, us, the tax payers.

It's just simple economics. And while proponents of alternative familial forms will point to the failure of many marriages to live up to their commitments, the question that must be asked is: do we as a society find a way to shore up and revitalize the most fundamental of all societal institutions or do we simply discard it, which Bills 138 and 185 would have us do.

The proponents of Bills 138 & 185 claim that because they too are capable of committed loving relationships they too should be accorded the same status as married persons. However, as we just saw, the state does not grant a special status to married persons because two people love each other, but because of the function the marital unit is expected to provide for the state.

Whether domestic partnerships, same-sex, or otherwise, can fulfill the same expectations the state expects of married couples is cause for study. But one thing we know for sure is that Bill 185 will not require the same public commitment as it does of married couples.

Thus on that note alone, however trivial that may seem to you, domestic partnerships as defined by Bill 185, would be asking for more than they are willing to give. In short, for a bill that makes a claim on equality, we should be able to at least expect equal commitment for equal privilege. But that's not what we get.

Next, it must be understood that while there may be a right to marriage, marriage itself, in the eyes of the state is not an automatic right.

1. The state already controls many aspects of marriage:Laws regarding consanguinity,affinity,and minimum age determine who you can marry.

• 
  
  Laws governing residency determine where you can marry and when.Laws concerning the contract of marriage govern the proper legal form.
• 
  
  The state can also determine the capacity or mental fitness for marriage
• 
  
  Then there is the whole list of things that can determine whether or not a
• marriage is valid or invalid.
Laws (in some states) may require a blood test, proof of immunity or vaccinations for certain diseases, and a physical exam before a license can be issuedLaws concerning your current marriage status determine if you can marry,

 In fact marriage is a naturally occurring societal institution that pre-exists the political order. The state did not create marriage. It only recognized and codified it.  

Thus, since the state did not create marriage, it cannot create gay marriage either.

Proponents are asking for equality for an entirely artificial construct with an organic institution that not only pre-exists our society, but is the basis for it. There's something very unequal about that.

However, having said all that. I am not opposed to same-sex couples forming their own version of marriage and even according themselves all the same benefits (whatever those are). Why do you even want to call it a marriage when at best it will only be seen as a modern appendage, an artificial construct of the state grafted onto the code like an afterthought, aDon’t just add a chapter and leach off marriage. Create your own brand new institution with its own rights and responsibilities. But leave marriage alone. Anything less than that would be a parasite, a fraud, a counterfeit, and hardly worth the dignity the gay community claims to seek.

What I am opposed to, and the gay community should be opposed as well, is the

parasitic leaching on to Title 19, Chapter 3 of the GCA, that defines both Bill 138 & 185. I urge the gay community to do the hard work of fashioning a wholly new societal institution.  

Why are you willing to settle for some second rate deal called a domestic partnership that would create a separate but equal status that could be proven unconstitutional anyway? 

mere asterisk.

No. Come up with your own legislation that gives you everything you seek in terms of incentives, protection, and legal recognition, but don’t touch Title 19 GCA, Ch 3. 

  

I have lived on Guam for 22 years. And as of now, have no plans to leave. But this is not my home, not in the way that it is a home for Chamorros, all Chamorros. The blood of my ancestors is not mixed with this soil as is the blood and sweat of your ancestor's. This is your home.

To the Chamorros. Search your ancestral memory. Ask yourself if what these bills propose is something your ancestors would be proud of. Ask yourself if this is the Chamorro way. Or did these ideas, like so many other things alien to the Chamorro way, come from other shores?

Legislate the teaching of the Chamorro language, build and sail the ancient flying proas. But in the end, the law, this law, will shape your culture and determine what sort of island your children, for those who will still have children, will grow up in.

This debate is not between two men who are not native to this place. This debate is between your past and your future. And the question before you is whether by embracing this legislation your ancestors would be just as proud of your future as you are of their past.

 The essential premise of both bills is that same-sex couples have a civil right to be married or at least to the status of marriage. However, we first need to ask why the state grants a privileged status to marriage in the first place.

responsibilities given to married couples."

In the 2 months that followed the introduction of Bill 138 and its replacement, Bill 185, there was much chatter about these so called "rights and benefits of marriage". While the language of Bills 138 and 185 hide behind the terminology of civil unions and domestic partnerships, in essence both bills advocate for and imitate marriage in every way except for Bill 185's omission of the requirement for solemnization.

Response to Senator B.J. Cruz on "Good Question" with Ray Gibson (PNC)

Senator B.J. Cruz appeared with Ray Gibson last Monday night, October 26 (2009), on "Good Question", Ray's interview show on Channel 7. Mr. Cruz made several statements about Church teaching that I thought needed addressing. Ray Gibson was kind enough to give me equal time to respond to several mis-statements by Mr. Cruz.

I was not able to address all of the items that I took issue with on the show, but feel that the problem statements by Mr. Cruz are important for us to know since he is promulgating error in the media in the name of the Church on a regular basis. We Catholics need to know truly what our Church teaches. My responses are from the Catechism of the Catholic Church with personal commentary.

Here are Mr. Cruz's comments and my responses according to the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church:

Senator Cruz: “…even Bill 212 is unacceptable because as far as the Church is concerned, anything that condones, gives any kind of safe harbor, give any rights to homosexuals...they have to oppose."

For your information, Bill 212, introduced by Senator Espaldon, would give some of the rights and benefits normally accorded to married couples to non-married couples. The bill is not sex specific and thus, the Church would not enter an opinion on this since there is nothing in the bill that would be offensive to the Church's moral teaching. However, Mr. Cruz frames the statement as the Church being opposed to the rights of homosexuals in general. This is not true. The Church does not oppose the individual rights of homosexuals. Thus the Catechism says: "Person with homosexual tendencies…must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (CCC 2358)

Senator Cruz:“Sex is just for the purpose of procreation”.

This is Mr. Cruz's understanding of Church teaching. It is an incorrect understanding. The Catechism says: "The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses and the transmission of life. (CCC 2363)" This is also known as the "unitive" and procreative", "fidelity and fruitulness". In any event, the ends or purpose of marriage is ALWAYS two-fold and NEVER just for procreation.

Senator Cruz: “Sex is not for pleasure”

The Catechism says: "Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:  The Creator himself…established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. (Pius XII, Discourse, October 29, 1951) (CCC 2362)"

Senator Cruz: "Why do you allow people in their 50’s, 60’s, 70’s…to get married. Why do you allow that if you know there’s no chance of them having children?

Of course this statement is based on the mistaken notion that sex must only be for procreation which we have shown is not the case. However, more can be said about this in light of Catholic teaching.  The fact is that while we as married couples, whether we be 20 or 80 years of age ONLY have control over the generative act ("having sex"). We do not have control over whether that act produces a child. Though it is a matter of science that a woman is more capable of conceiving at a certain point in her cycle, and that coitus can be timed to that point so that a couple may have the best chance of conceiving, ultimately conception is not a matter in their control. Thus an elderly couple, presumably incapable of procreation, are not prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse 1) because sterility is not an impediment to marriage in the first place, and 2) sexual intercourse between married persons is essentially what is called the "marital act". It is an act proper to married persons and expresses the unitive aspect of marriage which essentially is all that is in their control.

Mr. Cruz at this point made a reference to "impotency" and seemed to confuse it with "sterility". Let's take a look at that.

Impotency is the inability of a man to have an erection and thus make him incapable of sexual intercourse. Sterility or infertility is the biological inability to contribute to conception or, in the woman's case, perhaps to carry a child to term. It is instructive to note that while sterility may not be an impediment to marriage in the eyes of the Church, Impotency could be an impediment to marriage. Let me explain.

The Church assumes that the married couple has not engaged in sexual relations prior to their marriage and thus would not be aware of an infertility problem (unless it was otherwise medically determined). Thus, it is not the fault of the couple that after marriage and attempts at intercourse they do not conceive. The couple still fulfills the meaning of marriage because their marital acts are unitive and procreative (open to life). Again, no one, not even fertile couples are in control of conception.

Impotency on the other hand can be an impediment to marriage and even grounds for annulment. This presents us with a curious meditation. While the Church does not demand that a married couple produce a child, it does demand that a married couple engage in sexual intercourse. The Church does not consider a marriage valid until it has been consummated - that is until the couple engages in sexual intercourse that is open to life regardless of the fertility or infertility of the couple.

In a sense, since the Church makes sexual intercourse mandatory, not just to validate the marriage, but to be the constant "language of married love", and does not demand that the act produce a child,  we can speculate that the Church even values the unitive over the procreative, not actually, but perhaps symbolically.

Coaltion to Oppose Bill 185 Press Release 091109

RESPONSE TO THE REVISION OF BILL 185

The need to clarify the Church’s position

While the Coalition to Oppose Bill 185 does not speak for the Catholic Church, the founder of the opposition group, Tim Rohr, wants to make it very clear that Archbishop Apuron's position on Bill 185 is NOT the Archbishop’s personal position.

Rohr says that the Archbishop Apuron’s opposition to the bill is simply the local application of an instruction contained in the Vatican document CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS, which states "...all Catholics must oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions..."

This document was authored by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Church's highest office in such matters, and promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 2003.

Rohr emphasized that the Catholic Church does NOT just oppose "homosexual marriages", but universally opposes the “legal recognition of homosexual unions" regardless of what they are called.

“Not only does the Archbishop NOT have the authority to change this teaching, the Pope doesn't either,” said Rohr. “Thus no amount of revisions, vigils, petitions, or branches filled with olives, will appease the Church. It's a dead discussion.”

Rohr challenged the proponents of the bill to leave the Church and the Archbishop out of the discussion and move on to confronting the real civil issues that Bill 185 raises such as the economic impact of creating a whole new class of dependents on an already burdened GovGuam retirement system.

The Vatican document can be found at http://www.vatican.va/

# # #

If you would like more information or to schedule an interview with Tim Rohr please call him at 477-7647, or email at tim@ibosc.com

PDN quote prompting the press release: But Vice Speaker Benjamin Cruz, sponsor of Bill 185, said he's still unsure whether the Catholic church, the biggest opponent of the bill, will be happy about it. In the bill, the term "domestic partnership" was changed to "civil partnership," to emphasize that the measure deals only with civil matters and erase any religious connotations. A provision that would have applied every legal reference to "married" equally to partners in a domestic partnership was scrapped. Instead, the measure clearly states that a civil partnership is not a marriage and concedes that marriage is between a man and a woman."We wanted to make sure that the church realized that we were not trying to trick them into having civil partnerships eventually lead into marriage," Cruz said.

Response to PDN Editorial Feb242009 n Support of Same-Sex Legal Unions

In response to the Feb. 24, 2010 editorial entitled "Fight: Guam gay and lesbian community must stand up for equality", I will address two items: 1) the  Government Accountability Office data regarding the "rights and privileges" of marriage, and 2) the PDN's call for the "same rights and privileges" for "every citizen of this country".

The much-referenced GAO data can be found in a letter dated Jan. 31, 1997 and addressed to then Senator Henry Hyde in response to Hyde's inquiry on how the Defense of Marriage Act, which had become law the previous September, would affect the interpretation of federal laws applicable to marriage.

In its response to Hyde, the GAO identified 1049 instances where marital status was a factor in federal law. The GAO derived the number by doing an electronic global search of the federal code using words and parts of words that might possibly be linked to marriage (e.g. spouse, husband, widow, marr., etc.)

The GAO goes on to admit the limitations of the search and states that the 1049 figure only applies to the number of times the key words occurred in the search and that "no conclusions can be drawn" from the number since there was no way to tell from the search whether the occurrence of the search term applied positively or negatively to marital status. The so-called "marriage penalty" was used as an example. Proponents of gay rights may want to find something more credible upon which to base their major argument.

Next, if we are to take the PDN at its word: "Champions of this cause must...ensure that each and every citizen of this country is entitled to the same rights and privileges", then, in the name of equality, the PDN must also attack all forms of discrimination regarding marriage in the Guam code, so that "each and every citizen" will be "entitled to the same rights and privileges".

Title 19, Chapter 3 of the Guam Code, the Contract of Marriage, is nine pages of restrictions, regulations, and requirements regarding who can marry, who can marry who, when you can marry, etc. Here's a sampling:

§3101 requires that parties wishing to contract marriage must be “capable” of “consent” and denies marriage to any one the government deems to be mentally impaired (3202).

§3102 denies marriage to minors without the written permission of a parent or guardian, and in some cases, the Superior Court, and even requires that the couple be capable of "consummating the marriage". (Lacking a definition of the term in the law, one may assume the traditional sense is at least implied.)

§3104 forbids marriage “between parents and children, ancestors and descendants of every degree, and between brothers and sisters of the half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews…”

§3105 forbids marriage to those who are currently married.

§3106 forbids or retroactively annuls a marriage if one party does not consent to sexual intercourse, at least initially.

§3202 forbids marriage between first cousins, between an adoptive parent and an adoptive child, between a step-parent and a step-child or between a guardian and a ward without court approval.

The list goes on, but, by the way, in all those 9 pages, there is nothing prohibiting two people of the same sex from marrying. (So why do we need a bill that will give gays and lesbians something less than marriage?)

 This is not pushing an "illogical extreme". This is taking the PDN at its word in its call for the "same rights and privileges"..."for every citizen". Of course, complete deregulation of marriage is a ridiculous proposal. But either we admit that the government can and should control who marries who, and in so doing admit that it has a reason for doing so, or we must let everyone marry whom they wish. To not engage this central dichotomy (i.e. rights only for some) is intellectually dishonest and a limp pretension to equality.

Coalition to Oppose Bill 185 Letter3/1/10

Dear Senators,

While the news has been that Bill 185 will not go to the floor for a vote due to lack of support, the bill is, nevertheless, a “live bill”, and thus still demands attention. And even if Bill 185 is withdrawn, the issue, the creation of a legal equivalent to marriage between one man and one woman, is not going to go away, and will continue to follow us into the future. Thus, it is hoped that responsible legislators will continue to educate themselves on the aspects and consequences of such legislation.

Fortunately for us, other states are “field testing” the consequences of such legislation for us. We have only to look and learn. One of the consequences of creating a legal equivalent to marriage is the right of same-sex couples to adopt children. Recently (2/22/10), in the wake of a new law in Washington D.C. allowing same-sex marriages, Catholic Charities of Washington D.C. announced that it will close its 80 year-old foster care and adoption program.

The new law would require the Catholic adoption program to treat opposite sex and same-sex couples equally in considering foster and adoptive parents for children, something the Catholic Church or its agencies cannot do. Obviously, the burden of caring for these children will probably now fall to a government agency at an increased cost to taxpayers.

Time and again we are seeing where the inversion of the most fundamental of all societal institutions, (i.e. marriage between one man and one woman) creates ethical dilemmas heretofore never imagined.

This current story poses one of the most glaring dilemmas. It's one thing for same-sex couples to want to share their life together. It's another thing to insert a child into that life. It's not a question as to whether same-sex couples can provide for the child. It's a question of whether or not forcing the child into a parent-child relationship with a same-sex couple is good for the child. In short, will it be good for the child to see daddy and daddy in bed together? (What child hasn't stumbled upon an intimate moment between parents?)

The fact is that, on Guam, gays and lesbians can adopt children now, since single adults are allowed to adopt and there is no criteria governing gender identity. While one can question whether the adoption of a child by a gay or lesbian is healthy and good for the child, by law, such an adoption cannot be challenged.  However, the passage of Bill 185 would give legal sanction to the adoption of children by same-sex couples.

Senators, the passage of Bill 185 into law is not just a matter of granting rights to a particular segment of our society, it is a matter that will affect an untold number of aspects of our society such as that just mentioned.

Senators, we encourage you to continue to be vigilant on this matter and do all you can to not only preserve the traditional family but to advance it. Please take the leadership in looking at all aspects of the law in which the family, the fundamental societal unit, is affected and do all you can to assist the family and help it prosper.

“Law shapes the culture”,


Tim Rohr
Coalition to Oppose Bill 185

Who to Vote For...Continued

This is a post regarding the upcoming special election on Guam on March 20, 2010. The post was sent as an email. It can be read here.

Four Points on Bill 185

Go here

Posing a Roadblock to Gay Adoption

As documented in a CNS story dated 2/22/10, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington D.C. will close its 80 year-old foster care and adoption program. The recent passage of a new law allowing same-sex marriage would have required the adoption program to treat different sex and opposite sex married couples equally in considering foster and adoptive parents for children, something the Catholic Church cannot do.

Proponents of same-sex marriage or its legal equivalent are constantly challenging opponents with the question "How does this affect you?" Those who are neutral about it are inclined to the "let them have their rights" attitude.

But time and again we see where this inversion of the most fundamental of all societal institutions, an institution upon which society itself is built and therefore precedes and pre-dates all societies and political orders, creates ethical dilemmas heretofore never imagined.

The current story poses one of the most glaring dilemmas. It's one thing for same-sex couples to want to share their life together. It's another thing to insert a child into that life. It's not a question as to whether same-sex couples can provide for the child. It's a question of whether or not forcing the child into a parent-child relationship with a same-sex couple is good for the child.

In short, will it be good for the child to see daddy and daddy in bed together. (What child hasn't stumbled upon an intimate moment between parents?)

Gays and lesbians make the claim that they are genetically wired towards same-sex attraction. Barring all the evidence to the contrary, let us grant them this point and ask "what about the child?" What if the child that they adopted is NOT "genetically wired" that way? How healthy is it for that child to be subjected 24-7 to a parental model that is the very antithesis of his or her physical and psychological being?

Gays will want to make the same point, that subjecting a child who may be "genetically wired" towards the same-sex, to an opposite-sex parental model, is just as unfair and unhealthy.

But in this argument, the gays and lesbians have laid their own trap. Since the entirety of their argument for gay rights as civil rights is based on something they consider to be an immutable characteristic, a gay gene, then before gays and lesbians are allowed to adopt a child, the child, out of respect for the civil rights of the child, must be first genetically tested and his or her gender identity genetic predisposition determined.

Of course, this cannot be done. There is no test because there is no gene. Gays will argue otherwise, but science has no test for a gay gene that could be used to determine the gender identity of a child.

And since the child to be adopted is the product of a man-woman relationship, whatever the defects of that relationship, the child then has a civil right to be placed in a child-parent relationship that most resembles his or her own biological origins. It is on this basis, on the rights of the child, that gay adoption, under any circumstances, must be denied.

Some may question if this affects adoption by singles. This too poses a dilemma, but again, one which is easily answered if the rights of the child are considered to be primary.

While some may not subscribe to the document, few intelligent people would argue with the basic demands of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 7 states that the "child has a right to know and be cared for by his or her parents."

In the case of an abandoned or orphaned child, the law of "being cared for by his or her parents" guides us to the next best possible solution where the child is cared for by the next of kin, something that has happened naturally for millenia.

Barring that possibility the next best situation for the child would be adoption or at least foster care by a married man and woman, again, the decision being guided by the rights of the child "to know and be cared for by his or her parents". The (married) man/woman/child model best approximates the natural family and best serves the rights of the child.

Guam Adoption Law: 19GCA Ch. 4, Article 2

Why Only Two

Bill 158 (Guam) will require that the words "between one man and one woman" be added to The Contract of Marriage in the Guam Code. While the introduction of this bill has set off a predictable battle between those who would defend this definition and those who would oppose it, the next level of argument will be "why only two?"

Polygamy has a much wider and deeper pedigree than does same-sex marriage. For most Americans polygamy is a thing of the biblical past or perhaps an oddity of Mormonism. However, according to some studies, polygamy today is accepted and practiced by as much 78% of the world's societies.

In fact, polygamy has always been the norm, which is why Christ's teaching on the matter was so radical and remains radical today. Essentially, marital monogamy as a key societal institution, is a Christian legacy. Even the Supreme Court has said so.

In an 1890 Supreme Court decision against plural marriage, Justice William O. Douglas wrote that polygamy was "contrary to Christianity and to the civilization that Christianity has produced in the western world". (Obviously he didn't know about the separation of church and state.)

If our laws are no longer to be informed by Christian moral teaching, as we are consistently reminded by the proponents of same-sex legislation, then we must ask "Why only two?". If marriage is simply reduced to a legal contract between two people who care about each other then why not three people who care about each other?

This is not an "illogical extreme". The U.S. Supreme Court recently (2007) declined to hear a case involving a Utah man's claim that laws banning polygamy are a violation of his First Amendment religious rights and unequal treatment under the law.

While the Court may have declined to hear the case, the fact that it made it to the Supreme Court is telling of what is to come and validates Justice Scalia's warning that the Court's previous "signing on to the homosexual agenda" would pave the way for challenges to laws against polygamy, incest, and in fact all laws governing sexual conduct. (Lawrence vs Texas, 2003 - dissenting opinion)

Get ready Guam.

4 Reasons Not To Pass Bill 185

Published in the PDN on 2/1/2010

The Pacific Daily News lead editorial on January 25 called for the passage of Bill 185 into law. The editorial contends that same-sex couples deserve the same marital rights and privileges as different-sex couples. In response, I would like to make four points.

First, the government is not in the business of arbitrarily handing out rights and privileges. If privileges are granted, then something is expected. In the case of different-sex married couples, the state expects the marital unit to produce, educate, and socialize the next generation (sterile couples notwithstanding). The state is willing to grant certain protections and incentives to the marital unit because the state understands that should the marital unit fail, the burden of of producing, socializing, and educating that next generation would fall to the state.

In fact, producing the next generation is what was emphasized in the oft-cited Loving vs. Virginia and its precedent case Skinner vs. Oklahoma. In these cases, the courts acknowledged marriage as a "civil right" but only in connection with "procreation" (Skinner) and the "survival of society" (Loving). The courts said nothing about the right to marry because two people love each other.

Second, civil rights apply to individuals, not to corporate entities - which a marriage is.The fact that married people can see to the affairs of each other is not a matter of civil rights, but a matter of corporate and legal agreement. There is nothing keeping a same-sex couple, or any arrangement of persons, from doing the same. The fact that an alternative entity must employ an alternative form is no more discrimination than the legal distinction between a sole-proprietorship and a corporation.

Third, if marriage, or its legal equivalent, cannot be limited to one man and one woman, then it cannot be limited to one man and one man, or one woman and one woman. The legal definition of marriage mentions nothing about a caring or loving relationship. Bill 185 would have us believe that same-sex couples should have the same legal status as married couples because the two parties commit to a relationship of "mutual caring".

If "mutual caring" is what qualifies a relationship for marital status or its legal equivalent, then there is nothing to prevent three or more people from "mutual caring". To allow the legal status of marriage to same-sex partners and not allow the same status to those desirous of a polygamous or polyandrous arrangement is an exercise in the same discrimination that same-sex couples now decry.

Fourth, regardless of what it is called, Bill 185 will make same-sex unions the legal equivalent of marriage. Once that happens, any refusal to accept the representation of same-sex unions as the equivalent of marriage will be considered discrimination. School curricula will be made to include representations of same-sex parented families. Sex education will need to include descriptions, illustrations, instructions (and hopefully, precautions) on engaging in same-sex sexual acts. Public Health departments will be required to produce media that equally represent same-sex options along with what is normally produced.

Think this is far fetched? Research the states where same-sex unions are already legal. Look up the California state law (SB777) requiring same-sex sensitivity education in public schools beginning in Kindergarten. Look up the "safe sex" literature that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is now publishing. See for yourself what the future holds for Guam should this bill pass into law.

The number one question I heard during this long debate is "How will this affect you?" Well, that's how it will affect us. Are you willing to present your children with both the "skinny" on homosexual sex and heterosexual sex when you get around to the "birds and the bees"? No? If not, don't worry, the schools will do it for you. They will have to.

How Obama Just Nailed Ted Olson and Gay Rights to the Wall

In his State of the Union speech, President Obama openly criticized the Supreme Court for its recent First Amendment decision regarding corporate advertising. Such public bullying of the Court by the President is unthinkably crass, petulant, and small, especially given the venue and the event and given that the Court cannot publicly respond. It was also incredibly stupid given Obama's stated support of Gay Rights.

There is no doubt that several cases will reach the Court during the Obama administration that might have been on hold during a more conservative administration. One of those cases is the current Gay Marriage case being championed by big name attorney Theodore Olson in California. Olson is contending that Gay Marriage is a civil right and the case is sure to reach the Supreme Court.

It is fairly certain that there are four no votes on the Court: Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. The yes votes are not as certain but probable: Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Beyer, & Stevens. The swing vote, the unknown, is Anthony Kennedy. If gay marriage is to have any chance before the nation's highest court, Kennedy's sympathies will need to be courted.

Obama's unthinkable, low class swipe at the Court in front of the whole nation and the world will not soon be forgotten by the Court. One Justice that will particularly remember Obama's insult is the author of the majority opinion in the case that Obama criticized: Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Regardless of Obama's personal opinion about the Court's ruling, the State of the Union speech was not the place to express it. The Court was officially present at the speech as a "guest" of Congress. It's like inviting friends to your party and then openly insulting them. This was a very bad move simply as a matter of professional manners. But it was a disastrous move for Olson and Gay Rights.

By the way, I'm going to anticipate that some who read this will focus more on the Court's opinion that they disagree with than the point of this post. The primary criticism of the ruling is that the Court has made corporations citizens. At least that's the talking point for the liberal press. What they fail to mention is that the Court has simply made businesses equal to Unions, since they already can do what businesses have been denied.

In any event, Obama's public claim that the ruling allows for foreign corporations to intrude on national politics is false. Right now it looks like the best thing going for Conservatives is Obama himself.