What are these people thinking?

[Chuck S]

Oklahoma Baptists: Unwed Couples Shouldn't Get Family Benefits



OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- Southern Baptists at their annual meeting in Oklahoma say family benefits should not be extended to same-sex or unmarried couples.

The resolution passed by the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma says businesses, government and organizations should offer family benefits only to traditional families: defined as a husband, wife and children or a single parent and children. The resolution says, "Doing otherwise defies Biblical principles and moral standards for the family."

That drew a heated response from the Reverend Mark Christian, pastor of the First Unitarian Church of Oklahoma City. He called the resolution an attempt not just to withhold benefits but "to strip humanity from a group of people."

So, umm, it is better to be a single, unwed mother than be in an unmarried two-parent relationship? Single unwed parent households don't "defy Biblical principles and moral standards for the family", yet two full time parents in an unmarried relationship do?
Wow, talk about family values.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Here's a ruling from this year,
but they (Baptists) ain't gettin' it.

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/05/051906oklahoma.htm

Oklahoma Anti-Gay Adoption Law Struck Down
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

May 19, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET

(Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) A federal court Friday struck down an Oklahoma law described as being so extreme it had the potential to make children adopted by same-sex couples in other states legal orphans when the families are in Oklahoma.

Although single gays may become the parent of adoptive children same-sex couples are barred from adopting and law allowed the state to invalidate adoptions where couples have been awarded joint parenting rights in states where co-adoption is legal.

In a 31 page ruling the court was highly critical of the state legislature for passing the law.

"The very fact that the adoptions have occurred is evidence that a court of law has found the adoptions to be in the best interests of the children," wrote U. S. District Judge Robin Cauthron.

"To now attempt to strip a child of one of his or her parents seems far removed from the statute's purpose and therefore from [the state's] asserted important government objective."

The Adoption Invalidation Law, hastily passed at the end of the 2004 Oklahoma legislative session, had said that Oklahoma "shall not recognize an adoption by more than one individual of the same sex from any other state or foreign jurisdiction."

Lambda Legal, representing same-sex couples took the state to court. Lambda represented two same-sex couples and their families who adopted children while living in other states and later moved to Oklahoma or want to visit the state with their family

Lambda Legal argued that the law was unconstitutional based on the United States Constitution's guarantees of equal protection, due process and right to travel, as well as the mandates of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

The Court agreed, finding that the statute violated the United States Constitution by singling out a specific group for discrimination.

"Gay and lesbian parents in Oklahoma can now breathe a collective sigh of relief because their relationships with their children are no longer threatened by the state of Oklahoma," said Lambda attorney Ken Upton. "We're gratified that justice has been handed down in our case and that the court saw to it that Oklahoma has to treat the children of gay and lesbian parents the same as all other kids."

 

[LukenDC]

And many of these people are the same ones who will rant and complain about uninsured people receiving care at the expense of the taxpayers.

The Southern Baptist Convention is a truly evil organization.

 

[Uncle Remus]

And many of these people are the same ones who will rant and complain about uninsured people receiving care at the expense of the taxpayers.

The Southern Baptist Convention is a truly evil organization.

Amen Brother

 

[Rence]

Bigots don't think, hence "what are they thinking?" doesn't really apply here.

 

[mickeyfan1]

The single parent with Children must be from death of a spouse, certainly they are not condoneing premaritail sex?

I know that this will all go away someday. I wish for it to happen in my lifetime, but I am getting old by the day and those with so much ignorance and hate get more vocal and thus garner more attention.

 

[Chuck S]

The single parent with Children must be from death of a spouse, certainly they are not condoneing premaritail sex?

Then wouldn't they have said "surviving single parent" or "surviving spouse with children"? Otherwise "single parent" applies to survivors, divorcees and (gasp!) never married people with children.