Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Cynthia Davis: They're here, they're queer, so stay clear

In her latest capital report, term-limited Rep. Cynthia Davis, R-O'Fallon, offers educational information, backing her strong views against gay marriage and gay adoption.

At one point, Mrs. Davis confides, "Homosexuals can't reproduce."

How in the world could anyone have voted for Scott Rupp when Cynthia Davis' name was on the ballot? At least now we know who Mrs. Davis might take aim at when she brings her gun into the church:

What is the public purpose of marriage? There are many personal reasons why people want the emotional satisfaction that comes from security of a lifelong relationship, but the process of recording a marriage must be for some public purpose if it is going to involve government.

The public purpose of marriage is to define legal responsibility. When men and women trust their lives and fortunes to one another, the law confers certain privileges and obligations. And then if the couple has children the government assigns additional parental privileges and obligations. Were it not for these legal rights and liabilities, the marriage certificate process is reduced to a “governmental registry of friendships”. Clearly, there is no public purpose for recording friendships.

Biology determines parenthood. The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach children to their mothers and fathers and to attach their parents to each other. Every child deserves to be raised by a mother and a father. If not, it is because a personal tragedy occurred and the members of our communities will be called upon to work harder to make up for the loss, whether that community is the family, church, neighbors or taxpayers.

Sometimes children cannot be raised by their parents and adoption is designed to deal with exceptions. Every child has parents and deserves a relationship with both of them. Even children who were conceived through artificial gamete donations frequently desire to know who their fathers are and some have gone to great lengths to try to find them. We as a society ought to understand the desire to know from where we came and many parents as well as children receive a special feeling of completeness in their lives when they have the satisfaction of meeting those who are responsible for bringing them into the world. This is about justice for the child. Deep down inside we all have a sense of what is right and wrong.

Just because two people are living together does not mean the non-biological “live-in” is entitled to be the other parent of the child. When a person is not related to the child by adoption or by birth, they may be very good friends, but they are not parents. We cannot allow custody rights for non-parents. This is an effort to redefine parenthood.

For additional insight about the public purpose of marriage and parenting, click here to hear a podcast about the rights of children: Redefining Parenthood

Because of biological facts, homosexuals cannot reproduce. There is a growing trend to create a baby through artificial methods, however this still only allows for the woman who actually gave birth to be listed on the birth certificate. I agree with only allowing the child to have one parent listed because the break up rate between homosexuals is very high. Some of the states trying to create a legal bond between homosexuals discovered it makes things more complex than ever when they break up---and that break up rate is about 87%.

A constituent contacted me with a tragic story. Her daughter was in a homosexual relationship. The couple planned for each one to bring a baby into the world through artificial methods with the intent of adopting each other’s babies. Some judges are granting “step parent” adoptions to people who are not legally married. Even though they found a judge who would participate in this, our laws do not provide for this type of legal status.

The department of vital statistics has a standard birth certificate with a space for the “Mother” and another space for the “Father”. Because of these court orders, the department of vital statistics has found it necessary to make up a “special birth certificate” to accommodate two mothers, two fathers, or even more than two parents. The legislature passed laws to assure that children would only have one mother and one father. Even if a judge supports homosexual activism personally, he has no statutory authority to rule contrary to our state laws.

Unfortunately, their relationship broke up and the distraught daughter took her life. Now the former girlfriend took the child and is fighting for the legal right to prevent the grandparents and all relatives be a part of the child’s life and is fighting to claim the estate, 401K investments, life insurance and equity in the house. Additionally, she is now collecting social security benefits for both the orphaned child as well as her own child. How’s that for asking the taxpayers to pay for your own personal choices?

When I was sworn into this office, I took an oath to uphold the constitution and all state laws. When a law appears to be distorted or ignored, it is appropriate for those who took the oath to craft new laws that will clarify the intent of the legislature for the benefit of the judges who may be confused by the lack of specificity.

If a person were manufacturing and distributing counterfeit money, we would have an obligation to take the bills out of circulation. If a person robs a bank, he has to give the money back. This kind of adoption is a fraud and has no legal merit because of the false premise on which it was granted. This story is a sham, a mockery of our laws and a national embarrassment to our state.

We dare not allow people who play games with activist judges and who are merely “friends” to trump our existing biological-preference structure to determine who should raise the child when the only known parent dies. Our families are the bedrock of our society. Our children are too important to give them to any non-related adult.

These adoptions should not be recognized because it obviously was a political charade for the purpose of accomplishing a strategic homosexual agenda in blatant defiance of our state statutes. Our public policy is not based upon what people do in their bedrooms; it is based upon the state laws. Judges, who wish to change our laws, must first get elected to the legislature and then get a majority of legislators to vote with them---highly unlikely, but the only legitimate way to change our laws.

The best way to establish public policy is to preserve the foundation and bedrock of our civilization. Government does not exist to make people “feel good”. It exists to administrate justice for all. When we have justice, we will have stability and people will feel positive about our society.


Anonymous said...

Good grief Dolly Parton Davis. You are term limited out.

Take a hint from Nodler and suspend the weekly reports. You just keep diggin' a deeper into the stupidity pit.

Anonymous said...