Why Gay Marriage Activists are so Dangerous

In response to MK’s terrific recent post, addressing this insane ruling by a Canadian court, the champions of gay marriage rights completely ignore the reality of what this ruling implies. The core issue, of course, has nothing to do with gay rights, or gay marriage rights, for that matter. The core issue is what the pea-brained left is prepared to do to elevate their pet causes: anything it takes. . .

In Canada, with this ruling, gay partners (and on that basis alone) now have the same parental rights over the children of their biological parent partners. The key, of course, is ‘on that basis alone’.

The question is a simple one, though, when framed slightly differently (removing the ‘gay rights’ issue from the equation): should a partner (defacto, married, or otherwise, and for however long) be automatically granted the same parental rights (including custodial rights) over their partner’s child, merely because they are the partner?

The answer is obvious, and is precisely why the laws governing the granting of guardianship (in all its forms) are so stringent, and why would-be guardians are so closely scrutinised by same.

In Canada, though, this just went out the window. Here’s an excerpt from the article that illustrates the issue:

. . .The ruling will have "strong precedential value" for existing or future families in similar circumstances – although. . .for the moment they will have to go to court to obtain such legal status.
As it always should be - but potentially no longer in Canada (and certainly not, if you happen to be gay). Here’s the rub:

From allowing non-biological parents to travel internationally with their children, authorize medical care or remain the guardian should the birth parents die, he said it has myriad practical applications from emergency to mundane.
And all of this without so much as a court directed question regarding the fitness of that guardian, and merely because the partner is the partner. This is a potentially deadly precedent, set by an activist court, and purely for the purposes of furthering a political cause; stuff the consequences (assuming they even thought that far).

The danger these activists present, as so starkly illustrated by this lunatic ruling, is manifest.

Update: of course, our resident leftist champion of many things pea-brained has this to say: 'Ozark - you haven't given any good reason why there's a problem with the Canadian ruling.'

In case he still doesn't get it, feel free to help him out in comments, either here, or in Mat's thread.

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them