and daddy makes ... four
By Diogenes (articles ) | Jan 04, 2007
The Ontario Court of Appeal makes onanist history by recognizing a marital troika:
"There is no doubt that the legislature did not foresee for the possibility of declarations of parentage for two women, but that is a product of the social conditions and medical knowledge at the time," the judges wrote. As such, "the act does not deal with, nor contemplate, the disadvantages that a child born into a relationship of two mothers, two fathers or, as in this case, two mothers and one father might suffer".
More and more it seems that appeals court judges are cut from the same cloth as that yob who claimed he killed JonBenet. The career aim is supremely juvenile: a brilliant half-hour of international celebrity. Every jurist wants to fire the Shot Heard Round the World, and, in a courtroom, any simpleton can pull it off. All he needs to do is give western civ the thumbs-down. Fame!
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our September expenses ($32,869 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Jan. 05, 2007 1:16 PM ET USA
Its a simple formula, isn't it? a) Declare that "x" could not have anticipated "z" b) Determine that "y" is; therefore; no longer valid. c) Create a new "y" to suit yourself. This formula works with any combination of the following: x - lawmakers, gospel writers, church hierarchy y - legislation, scriptures, theology z - scientific advances, modern society, global warming, a virus, any excuse whatsoever.
Posted by: -
Jan. 05, 2007 9:44 AM ET USA
Read Lawyer's Weekly, or read Canadian Lawyer Magazine, and you will see that the assumptions of those appeal judges are the norm in this profession. Call it metaphysical ignorance, legal positivism, or just plain relativism. This is what is expected of law students and lawyers, so its no surprise that appeal judges would be the same.
Posted by: Italiana -
Jan. 04, 2007 7:16 PM ET USA
"Where will the line be drawn?" Nowhere. It won't be. There is no line. It's all a great open field. People will race into time and space grasping for every "freedom" they can. Meanwhile their licentiousness will eat them up until, in their self-cannibization, they destroy themselves. The task is for society not to be eaten up or destroyed along with them. What to do... what to do...? The only answer is to fight back by being apostles of Jesus Christ and possibly martyrs.
Posted by: patriot6908 -
Jan. 04, 2007 1:13 PM ET USA
As a society, we get what we deserve--and if that is morally repulsive and socially dangerous jurists, it might be tied to the fact that our many of our religious leaders are cut from the same cloth, e.g., the many faces of Roger Cardinal Mahony, et al. If His Emience wants to be truly avant-garde, he may want to initiate ministries for families with three or more parents. He could refine the ministries by starting one for two or more mommies, two or more daddies and so forth.