Showing posts with label Jeffrey John. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeffrey John. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Notes: Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Retraction

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"

http://www.smh.com.au/national/mothers-worse-off-in-settlements-20100706-zz49.html?skin=text-only

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.

"Bill Forcing Compliance with Gay Ceremonies Passes Irish Lower House"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32371

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.

See also "wrigleys"'s comment there for more information on the Irish Constitution.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, Bishops, Confessors, A.D. 2010

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Notes: Saturday-Tuesday, July 3-6, 2010

the chief executive of the anti-abortion group Right to Life NSW, Chiang Lim, said the fact that the survey was conducted online meant it had to be taken with ''a bucketful of salt''.

''If you don't do it face to face with proper control groups you are not doing a proper survey.''

Pretender Archbishop of Canterbury approves "openly gay cleric" for Anglican pseudobishopric

http://www.smh.com.au/world/anglican-battle-lines-drawn-over-gay-bishop-20100704-zvxe.html?skin=text-only
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/gay-bishop-to-divide-anglicans/story-e6frg6so-1225888211541

Mr. Carr on Communists in the A.L.P.

The Hon. Bob Carr had an interesting opinion piece in yesterday's edition of The Australian. Here are some excerpts:

The revelation of dual [C.P.A.-A.L.P.] membership is rich in implications. They recast the political history of Australia from the 1950s to the 70s.

First, they vindicate the decision of a large part of Catholic Australia to veto the election of federal Labor governments by voting for the breakaway Democratic Labor Party after the Labor split of 1955.

Still something of a Labor romantic, I find it painful to squeeze this out, but it strikes me the DLP indictment of the ramshackle Labor Party led by H. V. Evatt and Arthur Calwell was mostly right.

A "pro-communist left wing" - you can hear Bob Santamaria enunciating it as one word - secured an elevated role in the ALP once so many Catholics withdrew and this Labor Left was led (or largely led) by figures who kept a dual membership in the Communist Party in their bottom drawers or pasted in the end piece of an unread Das Kapital above the family fireplace.

[...] From Aarons's book not just Whitlam but the whole ALP Right is elevated, the party members who did not take Santamaria's advice and walk out but who opted to stay in the ALP and fight. Their names should be recorded on some kind of honour roll. They include Laurie Short and John Ducker, and the secretaries of unions of carpenters, electricians and rubber workers now dead and forgotten, united in a view that the party of Curtin and Chifley was not to be packaged up and handed over to Marxist-Leninists and outright Soviet agents.

[my square-bracketed interpolations,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/thankfully-whitlam-and-co-rescued-labor-from-the-reds/story-e6frg6zo-1225887763473]

And here are some interesting comments from that article's comments section:

Keiron J Long Posted at 10:49 AM Today

Bob Carr is a tad selective in his newfound historical narritive (Thankfully, Whitlam and Co, July 5). The Catholics were basically driven out of the Labor Party by Evatt and his Commie mates who Bob Carr only now discovers controlled the ALP. Someone should tell Bob about the number of Catholics that lost ALP endorsement as parliamentarians because of their opposition to communism within the Labor Party. Just for starters, why don't we mention the State seat of Hawthorn in Victoria, held by a Mr Murphy, for Labor. Once Mr Murphy was cut down by the ALP the seat became a Liberal stronghold.
Comment 11 of 25

corso cowboy Posted at 11:15 AM Today

So Bob Santamaria was right about the ALP after all? What comes out of this book is not to praise the "stay in an fighters" (as Carr does) but those who sacrificed their careers for principle and preferneced Menzies so ensuring that from 1954 - 1972 a Popular Front Government did not rule Australia.
Comment 15 of 25

G of Perth Posted at 11:24 AM Today

What is the difference between the policies of the 1960's Labor left described in this report and the policies of the current Greens Party of today?
Comment 16 of 25

See also these letters in today's edition of The Australian.

Blog comment by me:

At Mr. Hawkins's blog:

Cardinal Pole, on July 5, 2010 at 2:37 pm Said:

Clarify things? In those posts you don’t even define what rights, those posts’ very subject matter, are, let alone what marriage is.
[http://forthesakeofscience.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/gillard-is-against-gay-marriage/#comment-5930]

Reginaldvs Cantvar
6.VII.2010