One of the items in yesterday's edition of Notes was headlined "Pretender Archbishop of Canterbury approves sodomite for Anglican pseudobishopric". But it is not clear whether Dr. John is or has been a sodomite (or catamite; whatever), that is, a practising homosexual, so I have revised that headline to read "Pretender Archbishop of Canterbury approves "openly gay cleric" for Anglican pseudobishopric".
"Mothers worse off in settlements"
Body of the article:
Mothers fare worse than fathers in property settlements after separation compared with the amount of time children spend with them, a study shows.
About two-thirds of the mothers received a smaller percentage of the property than the percentage of time with the children.
Some had the children for 80 per cent of the time but received less than 50 per cent of the settlement. The study by Belinda Fehlberg, professor of law at the University of Melbourne, involved 60 separated parents.
The starting position might be a 50-50 split and women would often get an extra 10-15 per cent if the children lived with them.
The study suggests the connection between settlements and parenting arrangements is no longer clear. ''The mothers were more financially disadvantaged,'' she said.
Excerpts from the AQ post (originally from LifeSiteNews):
On July 1st, Ireland’s Civil Partnership Bill completed its passage through the Dail (Lower House) without a vote.
Under the bill, civil registrars could face a fine of €2,000 (U.S. $2500) and up to six months in prison for conscientiously refusing to carry out a ceremony for a homosexual couple. Similar penalties are outlined for anyone refusing for reasons of conscience to rent meeting facilities for homosexual partnership ceremonies.
The bill would create a near-equivalent situation to marriage for same-sex partners in terms of property, social welfare, succession, maintenance, pensions and taxes.
In March, the Catholic bishops said in a statement that these provisions are a violation of the Irish constitution’s protections of religious freedom and the family based on marriage. It creates “a new and dangerous expansion of State power. Conscientious Catholics, Protestants, Muslims or Jews are effectively being told by the Irish State that they need not apply for a position as a Civil Registrar,” the bishops’ statement said.
[...] Homosexualist activists complained that the bill does not go far enough, saying it needs a clause allowing same-sex partners with custody of children to be legally recognized as “joint parents.”
Critics have said that the bill is contrary to the intention of the Irish constitution, which specifically protects marriage as the foundation of the family. Article 41 states, “The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the Family is founded.” The constitution also recognizes “the family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.”
“The state, therefore, guarantees to protect the family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the nation and the state.”
[...] The homosexualist lobby has made huge strides very quickly in Ireland, where ten years ago “gay rights” were a non-issue in politics. Despite lack of interest in the issue among the general public, since 2001 the Irish media began to give increasingly favorable attention to the movement. By the 2007 general election, all parties had included support for homosexual civil unions, with Sinn Féin and the Green Party supporting full civil “marriage.”
With more sympathetic media exposure, the homosexualist cause has also started receiving greater public support. In 2008 a poll showed that 84% of Irish people supported civil marriage or civil partnerships for homosexuals, with 58% supporting gay “marriage” in registry offices.