UN Declarations on Family & Children.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Article 10.1 on family and marriage states that: "The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children." The expression "the natural and fundamental group unit" refers to the natural combination of a man and a woman required to create a child.
U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 16 declares the right to marry based on the traditional definition of marriage, and states that such a family is "the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
Article 16
1.Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2.Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3.The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
The Convention states in Article 7 that the child has "as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents". Article 3 states that "In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."
Article 7
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.
Article 8
1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.
2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity.
Article 9
1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.
2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.
3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests.
4. Where such separation results from any action initiated by a State Party, such as the detention, imprisonment, exile, deportation or death (including death arising from any cause while the person is in the custody of the State) of one or both parents or of the child, that State Party shall, upon request, provide the parents, the child or, if appropriate, another member of the family with the essential information concerning the whereabouts of the absent member(s) of the family unless the provision of the information would be detrimental to the well-being of the child. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall of itself entail no adverse consequences for the person(s) concerned.
posted by Fitz @ 10:26 AM
15 Comments:
Steven Nock, a sociologist at the University of Virginia who was asked to review several hundred studies as an expert witness for the Attorney General of Canada.
Nock concluded: Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was
conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.14 Design flaws researchers have found in these studies include very basic limitations:
a. No nationally representative sample.
Even scholars enthusiastic about unisex parenting, such as Stacey and Biblarz,
acknowledge that “there are no studies of child development based on random,
representative samples of [same-sex couple] families.”15
b. Limited outcome measures. Many of the outcomes measured by the research are
unrelated to standard measures of child well-being used by family sociologists
(perhaps because most of the researchers are developmental psychologists, not
sociologists).
c. Reliance on maternal reports. Many studies rely on a mother’s report of her
parenting skills and abilities, rather than objective measures of child outcomes.
d. No long-term studies. All of the studies conducted to date focus on static or short term
measures of child development. Few or none follow children of unisex parents
to adulthood.
14 Nock Aff. ¶ 3, Halpern v. Attorney General of Canada, No. 684/00 (Ont. Sup. Ct. of Justice) (copies available from
the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy; joshua@imapp.org). In 1995, prominent Berkeley sociologist Diana
Baumrind reviewed various parenting studies, including the work of Charlotte Patterson and David Flaks. Diana
Baumrind, 1995. “Commentary on Sexual Orientation: Research and Social Policy Implications,” Developmental
Psychology 31(1): 130. In her review, Professor Baumrind evaluated, among other things, the claim that children of
homosexual parents suffered no adverse outcomes, and were no more likely to develop a homosexual sexual orientation
than were children not raised in such homes. Problems Baumrind found with the research she reviewed included the
use of small, self-selected convenience samples, reliance on self-report instruments, and biased study populations
consisting of disproportionately privileged, educated, and well-off parents. Due to these flaws, Baumrind questioned
the conclusions on both “theoretical and empirical grounds.” Id. at 133-134. Another review, prepared by Robert
Lerner and Althea Nagai in 2001, looked at 49 separate parenting studies before concluding that “the methods used in
these studies are so flawed that the studies prove nothing.” Robert Lerner & Althea K. Nagai, 2001. No Basis: What the
Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting (Washington, D.C.: Marriage Law Project): 6.
15Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, 2001. “(How) Does The Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?”, American
Sociological Review 66:159, 166.
But perhaps the most serious methodological critique of these studies, at least with reference to the family structure debate, is this:
(further) FYI Regarding: Benn's 12:51 PM statistics (below) Concerning the research on "gay" parenting
The vast majority of these studies compare single lesbian mothers to single heterosexual mothers.
As sociologist Charlotte Patterson, a leading researcher on gay and lesbian parenting, recently summed up, “[M]ost studies have compared children in divorced lesbian mother-headed families with
children in divorced heterosexual motherheaded families.”16 Most of the gay parenting literature thus
compares children in some fatherless families to children in other fatherless family forms. The results may be relevant for some legal policy debates (such as custody disputes) but, in our opinion, they are not designed to shed light on family structure per se, and cannot credibly be used to contradict the current weight of social science: family structure matters, and the family structure that is most
protective a child well-being is the intact, married biological family. Children do best when raised by their own married mother and father.
16Charlotte J. Patterson et al., 2000. “Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents: Research, Law and Policy,” in Bette L.
Bottoms et al., eds., Children and the Law: Social Science and Policy 10-11 (available from lead author at cjp@virginia.edu); see also Charlotte J. Patterson, 2000. “Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men,” Journal of
Marriage and Family 62: 1052-1069.
14 Nock Aff. ¶ 3, Halpern v. Attorney General of Canada, No. 684/00 (Ont. Sup. Ct. of Justice) (copies available from
the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy; joshua@imapp.org). In 1995, prominent Berkeley sociologist Diana
Baumrind reviewed various parenting studies, including the work of Charlotte Patterson and David Flaks. Diana
Baumrind, 1995. “Commentary on Sexual Orientation: Research and Social Policy Implications,” Developmental
Psychology 31(1): 130. In her review, Professor Baumrind evaluated, among other things, the claim that children of
homosexual parents suffered no adverse outcomes, and were no more likely to develop a homosexual sexual orientation
than were children not raised in such homes. Problems Baumrind found with the research she reviewed included the
use of small, self-selected convenience samples, reliance on self-report instruments, and biased study populations
consisting of disproportionately privileged, educated, and well-off parents. Due to these flaws, Baumrind questioned
the conclusions on both “theoretical and empirical grounds.” Id. at 133-134. Another review, prepared by Robert
Lerner and Althea Nagai in 2001, looked at 49 separate parenting studies before concluding that “the methods used in
these studies are so flawed that the studies prove nothing.” Robert Lerner & Althea K. Nagai, 2001. No Basis: What the
Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting (Washington, D.C.: Marriage Law Project): 6.
15Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, 2001. “(How) Does The Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?”, American
Sociological Review 66:159, 166.
Regarding: Benn's 12:51 PM statistics (below) Concerning the research on "gay" parenting
Steven Nock, a sociologist at the University of Virginia who was asked to review several hundred studies as an expert witness for the Attorney General of Canada.
Nock concluded: Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that
1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and
2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.14
Design flaws researchers have found in these studies include very basic limitations:
a. No nationally representative sample.
Even scholars enthusiastic about unisex parenting, such as Stacey and Biblarz,
acknowledge that “there are no studies of child development based on random,
representative samples of [same-sex couple] families.”15
b. Limited outcome measures. Many of the outcomes measured by the research are
unrelated to standard measures of child well-being used by family sociologists
(perhaps because most of the researchers are developmental psychologists, not
sociologists).
c. Reliance on maternal reports. Many studies rely on a mother’s report of her parenting skills and abilities, rather than objective measures of child outcomes.
d. No long-term studies. All of the studies conducted to date focus on static or short term measures of child development. Few or none follow children of unisex parents
to adulthood.
14 Nock Aff. ¶ 3, Halpern v. Attorney General of Canada, No. 684/00 (Ont. Sup. Ct. of Justice) In 1995, prominent Berkeley sociologist Diana Baumrind reviewed various parenting studies, including the work of Charlotte Patterson and David Flaks. Diana Baumrind, 1995. “Commentary on Sexual Orientation: Research and Social Policy Implications,” Developmental Psychology 31(1): 130. In her review, Professor Baumrind evaluated, among other things, the claim that children of homosexual parents suffered no adverse outcomes, and were no more likely to develop a homosexual sexual orientation
than were children not raised in such homes. Problems Baumrind found with the research she reviewed included the use of small, self-selected convenience samples, reliance on self-report instruments, and biased study populations consisting of disproportionately privileged, educated, and well-off parents. Due to these flaws, Baumrind questioned
the conclusions on both “theoretical and empirical grounds.” Id. at 133-134. Another review, prepared by Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai in 2001, looked at 49 separate parenting studies before concluding that “the methods used in these studies are so flawed that the studies prove nothing.” Robert Lerner & Althea K. Nagai, 2001. No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting (Washington, D.C.: Marriage Law Project): 6.
15 Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, 2001. “(How) Does The Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?”, American
Sociological Review 66:159, 166.
Knights of Columbus same-sex marriage
Green Sweden Pulpit homosexuality
http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/article/333.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45538-2005Jan28.html
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=1603
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=1053
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5488
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/04/041607bosrc.htm
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid44407.asp
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=1603
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=1053
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5488
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/04/041607bosrc.htm
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid44407.asp
http://www.marriagedebate.com/2004/07/other-rights-at-stake-joshua-jasper.htm
http://www.marriagedebate.com/2004/03/ssm-and-religious-liberty-maggie.htm
http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases07/civil-union-clergy-letter.pdf
http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases07/pr20070111a-letter.html
http://www.marriagedebate.com/2004/07/gay-groups-urge-action-against-atlanta.htm
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid44407.asp
http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases07/pr20070111a-letter.html
http://www.marriagedebate.com/2004/07/gay-groups-urge-action-against-http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45538-2005Jan28.html
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051129/tribunal_lesbiancouple_051129/20051129?hub=Canada
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004735
http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases07/pr20070111a-letter.html atlanta.htm
With all the handwringing over Gonzales v. Carhart It is important to note that the United States has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world. This is the case even when compared to abortion laws in western Europe. This is demonstrated when one contrasts the differences between the American solution and the European style solution. The American version resulted from the Supreme Court deciding the issue while the European solutions were formed by their legislatures.
America > No regulation of abortion permitted for the interest of preserving the life of the fetus until viability at 18- 24 weeks (i.e. 6 months)
Europe > All of the western countries reviewed allowed regulation in the interest of the fetus beginning around 10-12 weeks. Sweden latest at 18 weeks
America >No waiting period permitted, even 24 hours is interference with women's freedom of choice.
Europe >Brief waiting period before request for for abortion and the procedure.
America >No alternatives to abortion will be given to women as part of abortion process.
Europe > Women will be informed about alternatives to abortion, including #1. adoption. #2. maternal assistance provided if the women chooses to bear the child.
Europe > Does not have a large private, profit- making abortion industry Abortion procedures are carefully regulated. One of the regulations is a limit to the percent of abortion procedures at any given site.
America > The courts speak about a "constitutional right" to abortion. The U.S. is the only country that states its a "right" to have an abortion. The values advocated are #1. individual privacy. #2. woman's sovereignty over her body
Europe > Statutes start by stating an affirmation of sanctity of human life, but state an abortion is freely available in "distress" (France), or "hardship" (German) in early pregnancy. The values advocated are #1. respect for human life #2. compassion for women in vulnerable circumstances
The current state of scientific findings was further illuminated by
intervenor’s expert, Dr. Jeffrey B. Satinover. See Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 531. For the purposes of scientific study, no simple dichotomy can be drawn between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples. Since same-sex pairing takes place along sexual lines rather than across sexual lines, and because of the nonfungible differences between men and women, serious scientific inquiry should take into account three distinct communities with “starkly unequal demographics, differential impact on children, and different multigenerational capacity.” See CP at 533.
Before redefining a social institution, the legislature should consider
ramifications flowing from all three of these couple communities and the resulting impact on the social fabric and on children. The first obvious and relevant fact is that female couple households are necessarily fatherless and male couple households are necessarily motherless. Each of these differences from the optimum mother/father setting for stable family life may offer distinctive disadvantages.
consisting of married mothers and fathers. See CP at 372 (Hearing on HB 1130 Before the House Law and Justice Comm., Feb. 4, 1998 Agenda at 36-37). Documentation provided to the committee, which also is in the legislative record, summarized studies establishing that children do not fare as well in households where there is an adult male who is not the married, biological father of the children. CP at 358.
Studies summarized in the record before one trial court demonstrated that an
absent father “is associated with quantifiable deficits in children at every stage of the lifecycle, persisting not only in the adulthood of the child, but even into the next generation.” CP at 539.43 A similar problem has been indicated of families without a mother, although the number of male unions with children is far smaller. CP at 539.44
42 Testimony to the legislature underscored the importance of marriage to civil society, citing several studies in support of the principle that children benefit from being raised in families
43 The assessment summarized: With respect to fatherlessness, quantifiable deficits occur in literally every area of development—social, psychological, intellectual, educational, emotional, relational, medical, even with respect to longevity, as well as with respect to
sexuality, likelihood of cigarette use, drug and alcohol abuse, age of onset of
sexual activity and likelihood of teen or earlier pregnancy. CP at 540 (Decl. of Satinover).
44 As Dr. Satinover observed:
only recently has it occurred to anyone to question whether children actually need
mothers, so that the research confirming they indeed do, convincing as it is, is smaller than that for fathers, whose necessity was first questioned some forty years ago.
CP at 539-40 (Decl. of Satinover).
45 Studies cited find that the average same-sex female union lasted an average of only 4.9 years, same-sex male couples 6.9 years, and the average heterosexual couple 20 years. See CP at 535 (Decl. of Satinover).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/22/ncareer22.xml
“The expected global upheaval is without parallel in human history”
Underlying these varied patterns of growth and changes in the age structure are distinct
trends in fertility and mortality. Below-replacement fertility prevails in the more developed
regions and is expected to continue to 2050.
Slow population growth brought about by reductions in fertility leads to population
ageing, that is, it produces populations where the proportion of older persons increases
while that of younger persons decreases. In the more developed regions, 20 per cent of
population is already aged 60 years or over and that proportion is projected to reach 33
per cent in 2050. In developed countries as a whole, the number of older persons has
already surpassed the number of children (persons under age 15) and by 2050 there will
be more than twice as many older persons in developed countries than children.
Fertility is also below-replacement level in all 45 developed countries or areas, which
account for 19 per cent of the world population. In 27 of them, including Japan and most
of the countries located in Southern and Eastern Europe, fertility remains below 1.5
children per woman. Since 1990-1995, fertility decline has been the rule among the vast
majority of developed countries and has resulted in rapid population ageing.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/wpp2006.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/22/ncareer22.xml
http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5488
In the fine phrase of David Hart, Europe is dying of “metaphysical boredom.” We were among the first to give a sympathetic hearing to the work of Bat Y’eor, who argues that Europe is, probably irreversibly, on the way to becoming “Eurabia.” Catastrophically low birth rates, combined with a burgeoning Muslim population, led the sage Bernard Lewis to comment in 2004: “Current trends show that Europe will have a Muslim majority by the end of the twenty-first century at the latest. . . . Europe will be part of the Arab West—the Maghreb.”
Then there was George Weigel’s “Europe’s Problem—and Ours” (February 2004), later expanded into his influential book The Cube and the Cathedral, in which he asks us to envision the prospect of a “Europe in which the muezzin summons the faithful to prayer from the central loggia of St. Peter’s in Rome, while Notre Dame has been transformed into Hagia Sophia on the Seine—a great Christian church become an Islamic museum.” Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum writes in National Interest that Europe is faced with three choices, two of them very stark: peaceful integration of its Muslim population; a reversal of immigration policy, joined to a brutal campaign to expel Muslims; or an Islamic takeover of Europe. And then there is Mark Steyn in America Alone, who says the takeover is already unstoppable. Bat Y’eor, Bernard Lewis, George Weigel, Daniel Pipes, Mark Steyn—with varying levels of scholarship and restraint—suggest little or nothing for Europe’s comfort. Other authors could be added to the list. Lawrence Wright in Looming Tower, Melanie Phillips in Londonistan, Bruce Bawer in While Europe Slept, Ian Buruma in Murder in Amsterdam, and, or so it seems, a grim new book-length diagnosis of Europe’s terminal illness almost every other week.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4340270/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/10/BAGJO73NMJ1.DTL
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=c76120f9bd844ba78ddab4e4f327992a
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/politics/8855412.htm
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1664241,00.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/29/opinion/edpfaff.php
philosopher Sylviane Agacinski, who happens to be Mr. Jospin's wife. Ms. Agacinski has argued that the human condition cannot be understood in any universal way without reference to both sexes.
http://www.betweentwoworlds.org/
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=943d8630-2304-42c8-812e-f427a60b59ab
http://courageman.blogspot.com/
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_5743727
Is it any Wonder?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070427-121505-3193r.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112001272.html
http://www.choosingsinglemotherhood.com/
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/may/07050402.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqQJgftmbYE
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112001272.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070427-121505-3193r.htm
http://www.choosingsinglemotherhood.com/
http://www.gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18352736&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=569342&rfi=6
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/29/AR2006102900548.html
"Policy #91, National ACLU Board Minutes, June 11-12, 1978:
Advocacy of plural marriage and the expression of a religious belief in plural marriage are protected by the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment even though polygamy has been declared to be criminal by states...
The ACLU of Utah has traditionally advocated that personal relationships between consenting adults are protected by the Constitution, and that freedom of religion and freedom of expression are fundamental rights. Criminal and civil laws prohibiting the advocacy or practice of plural marriage are constitutionally defective.
Policy #91, National ACLU Policy on Polygamy, April, 1991: (Current Policy)
The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=449221&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/06/15/benefits
http://www.advocate.com/currentstory1_w_ektid31132.asp
http://cfp.english.upenn.edu/archive/2002-09/0070.html
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070621/NEWS/70621003
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2007/06/edmonton-mayors.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062202015_pf.html
Post a Comment
<< Home