Thursday evening, the College Republicans of Grand Rapids Community College were blessed and privileged to have Representative Kevin Green on campus to address and encourage us as an organization. It was a remarkable opportunity to get to know Representative Green in a one on one setting.
We spent the evening [obviously] conversing political affairs. The topical issue stressed was our dire economical issues stemming from the leadership in Lansing; and I am not referring to the Republicans.
Often portrayed by the prejudice media, the problems facing our state are often referred to as the “Legislator’s” fault. By employing the term “Legislator” they dumb down the focus of the legislators who are producing the horrific issues threatening our state: the dems.
One such concern confronting our state is one that should honestly frighten you. Green explained that the dems are pushing to change the traditional birth certificate from saying “Mother” and “Father” to “Parent A” and “Parent B.” What, I ask, is happening to the morals in this country? I am speechless. We are in a one state recession and the dems are proposing this? How brainless can they be? Before long, I am sure, that the designated terms of “Mother” and “Father” will be diluted and soon outlawed. The dems need to be stopped and put out of business.
Concluding our meeting, Representative Green left us encouraged and motivated to fight the good fight against the terrorism known as liberalism.
Furthermore, I could not help but be reminded of 2 Timothy 4:7, "I fought the good fight. I finished the race. I kept the faith." We must remember most of all that our focus, faith, and loyalty must be to Christ. By offering Him ourselves, He will direct our paths in ways of righteousness.
Chaz Oswald
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Thanks for the update, Chaz! Love the way you guys are getting things going on campus. And props to Rep. Green for delivering what sounds like one heck of a presentation!
--Nick
www.RightMichigan.com
If the media is prejudiced in terms of not fully-explaining the nuances of complex legislative issues, it's because they're a for-profit entity so for the sake of concision they strive to either ignore or boil down all political coverage to simple bullet points. It has nothing to do with liberalism.
What's wrong with allowing for the considerations of non-traditional families in government paperwork? Why shouldn't grandparents or other family members who are raising children be represented on birth certificates? I'll never understand the opposition to same-sex adoptions; no mental health or pediatric agency has ever found a problem with it, and you're finding a home for a child that would otherwise languish in the care of the state (as about a half a million do currently across the US).
If you want to get on someone for pursuing frivolous legislation, get on that dipstick Michael Sak for the stupid legislation he's introduced regarding "pressing" topics like text-messaging while driving and the custody of pets in divorces.
for one thing, the birth parents should always be recognized on a birth certificate. Would we give them no recognition? America has long devalued the position of the father, making the mother in some ways the only parent of children. Considering abortion, no one ever gives a second thought to whether or not a father wants his own child to die.
If the birth parent has nothing to do with raising the child, the only recognition they deserve is as the "biological" parent (for the purposes of the child's future medical care in the event he/she needs to know about genetic predisposals they may inherit).
If the position of the father has been devalued, it's because the men in this country have devalued it. Too frequently the full burden of a pregnancy falls on the woman - and our patriarchal society has long relegated women to a second-class citizen status (insisting that the burden of child-rearing also fall primarily on them). Only recently have things changed with respect to the rampant sexism in our country and we're still adjusting in that respect.
Given that the pregnancy falls on the woman to bear, it's fair to say that if a man doesn't make it clear prior to having sex with a woman what his intentions are for any resulting pregnancy - he voids his opportunity to have a say in the matter.
I see that we have a view in common. Indeed, men should be standing up and taking responsibility for the children they sire. I was thinking of addressing this point in my last comment but it would have been a lengthy discussion. That men tend to cower from responsibility of having children is a great evil, but also evil is the response to this that the government regocnizes few if any rights of fathers no matter how responsible they are. Even the most dedicated father has no legal say whatsoever on whether or not his child is slaughtered before it is born. It seems that we have responded to a great evil with an even greater one.
Related to the discussion about parental listings on birth certificates:
The Bioethics of a Three-Parent Embryo
By Brandon Keim | February 05, 2008 | 2:18:37
After news broke that British scientists had created an embryo with genetic material from three people, I talked with University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Jonathan Moreno about what it meant and how America would react." More ...
Post a Comment