Beliefnet News

Beliefnet News


Bill Would Codify ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ on Documents

posted by editor

WASHINGTON (RNS) A proposed House bill will require the use of “mother” and “father” by all federal agencies and contractors when describing parents, pushing back on a move by the State Department to use “parent” instead.
The Parental Title Protection Act of 2011, sponsored by Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., would mandate the use of these words instead of the terms “Parent 1″ and “Parent 2.”
“These subtle, but nonetheless significant, changes undermine the traditional American family relationships that have served as the bedrock of our nation since its inception,” Forbes said in a statement.
Forbes introduced the bill just weeks after the State Department tried to remove the terms “mother” and “father” from records of oversea births. The use of “Parent 1″ and “Parent 2″ was intended to “provide a gender-neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families,” the department said at the time.
After criticism from religious and conservative groups, led in part by the Family Research Council, the Department of State backpedaled slightly and agreed to use the terms “Mother or Parent 1″ and “Father or Parent 2.”
Forbes, a long-time Sunday school teacher and member at Great Bridge Baptist Church in Chesapeake, Va., has been a reliable conservative vote on social issues.
The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- RICHARD YEAKLEY, Religion News Service



Advertisement
Comments read comments(29)
post a comment
pagansister

posted February 16, 2011 at 3:52 pm


Give me a break! The “church” is once again inserting it’s *&$@ Head! What differnce does it make if official forms say Parent 1 and Parent 2 instead of Mother & Father? What does this do for those children now being raised by 2 men or 2 women? The proposal of Parent 1 and Parent 2 doesn’t impose gender —just who raised the person, the parents! “Underminds the bedrock of our nation since it’s inception”. Forbes What a bunch of BS!!!



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted February 16, 2011 at 4:00 pm


These subtle, but nonetheless significant, changes undermine the traditional American family relationships that have served as the bedrock of our nation since its inception,” Forbes said in a statement.”
Rubbish.
“Traditional families” will still be allowed to exist after society (i.e. the government and all its departments) accept the reality that not ALL families are “traditional” (whatever the heck THAT means nowadays). Some do not have BOTH a mother and a father. And, in many states, there can be two same-gender parents. Mr. Forbes doesn’t have to like reality, but he has to admit it exists.
Just another example of the delusional spouting off their anti-equality, anti-justice, self-serving rhetoric as usual. His exclusionary POV simply puts other people’s families at risk. Hateful, small-minded man.



report abuse
 

Heretic_for_Christ

posted February 16, 2011 at 4:39 pm


We should by now have learned to expect nothing less from grandstanding Christian politicians than an endless stream of proposals all aimed at delegitimizing anything and everything outside the narrow confines of their pseudo-morality.
All while preaching God’s love, of course…



report abuse
 

LutheranChik

posted February 16, 2011 at 7:03 pm


Our tax dollars at work — being spent by those supposedly fiscally responsible Republicans. Apparently they don’t see more pressing issues facing the country.



report abuse
 

not as good as YOU apparently

posted February 16, 2011 at 9:10 pm


How does this “bill” create jobs? I mean, they ran and they WON on the ‘promise’ of JOBS! JOBS! and more JOBS! and all they can come up with is save-the-fetus and dump-on-the-homos “bills”.
GET. TO. WORK. REPUBLICANS!



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted February 16, 2011 at 10:03 pm


how is it inappropriate, it is the truth, one of God’s truths a child’s parents are mother and father. No matter how hard homosexual agenda inspired folk try there is no way to get past the fact that homosexuality is not parenting.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted February 16, 2011 at 10:09 pm


No matter how sophisticated people think they have become, you just can’t get past mother and father, although I am sure some so-called transgendered thinking may try to persuade kids to call a man mother or a woman father. If that’s not bad enough there are crazy folk who would love to force that the people through some legal trickery.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted February 16, 2011 at 10:38 pm


“The use of ‘Parent 1′ and ‘Parent 2′ was intended to ‘provide a gender-neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families,’ the department said at the time.”
Well that’s just absurd. America was founded on our God-given right to be as rude and obnoxious and offensive as we darn well please. Except when Christians are the ones being offended. That makes baby Jesus cry.
“The Parental Title Protection Act of 2011, sponsored by Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va.”
A conservative from the Deep South? I never would have expected one of them was behind this.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted February 16, 2011 at 11:07 pm


not as good as YOU apparently: “How does this ‘bill’ create jobs? I mean, they ran and they WON on the ‘promise’ of JOBS! JOBS! and more JOBS! and all they can come up with is save-the-fetus and dump-on-the-homos ‘bills’.”
Well, it’s hard to explain, but hear me out. You see, God, who is responsible for all the prosperity we Americans enjoy, is very angry about us allowing the homos to adopt, thus creating a perceived need for PC terms in our legal documents. (PC, by the way stands for Politically Correct AKA the Devil’s middle name.) Therefore, He has saw fit to punish us for our wickedness by taking away our jobs. Yes, He realizes that this hurts a lot of the people who do worship Him and follow His big book of rules to the letter, but “spare the rod, spoil the child” and all that. This bill, when it passes (because anyone who wouldn’t vote for it hates America) will show the Lord that we are serious about our commitment to Him. And He will reward us greatly for our obedience. Make sense?



report abuse
 

Heretic_for_Christ

posted February 17, 2011 at 7:05 am


Mordred,
What you propose as satire is taken seriously by large numbers of people. The surest sign of lunacy in a society is when it becomes impossible to distinguish between reality and a satire of reality.



report abuse
 

jestrfyl

posted February 17, 2011 at 10:14 am


This is a thinly veiled attempt to legislate everyone into thinking and acting the way this character believes is the only viable way. He has no sense of working with a population that is diverse and different than him. His legislation is an excellent example of the nuisance and meddlsome law-forging that simply bangs out another reason for suspicion and hatred. Will this change have any real effect on the legal code into which all of the language would be inserted? Not really – it is simply a cosmetic alteration that appeases one group, pandering to people who are already afraid of their own shadows, and alienates another. Do we need to do that more these days? No, we need to discover ways to work together and not ways to compell obediance and uniformity. What is sad is that even when this plummets in defeat he can say proudly that he championed The Cause – and he will be a tin-foil hero to some.



report abuse
 

Blan Minton

posted February 17, 2011 at 4:33 pm


This is another example of the evangelical right’s attempting to muddy the intent of the First Amendment to keep a clear separation between church and state. The evangelical right would impose a theocracy on the greatest Democracy ever.
T



report abuse
 

Blan Minton

posted February 17, 2011 at 4:37 pm


This is another example of the evangelical right’s attempting to muddy the intent of the First Amendment to keep a clear separation between church and state. The evangelical right would impose a theocracy on the greatest Democracy ever.
T



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted February 18, 2011 at 12:31 am


The first amendment has nothing to do with parent # 1 or 2 the attempt to eliminate mother and father man and wife is the attempt to muddy the water and to legislate homosexuality in confusing kids into thinking it is normal.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 18, 2011 at 9:24 am


Jesus had two daddies.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted February 18, 2011 at 6:16 pm


YN neither were sexually attached to the other.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted February 18, 2011 at 8:50 pm


Are you sure about that attraction statement, cknuck?
Why is it so hard for some to understand that Jesus and company doesn’t set the rules for everyone, only those who choose to follow them. This country isn’t obligated to follow any religions rules—the rules on “marriage” (not a term owned by any religion, as it can be done without any religion at all, and still be marriage) should apply to any 2 consenting adults no matter what gender combination! And just what is normal? For some it is 1 male and 1 female, for others it is 2 males or 2 females. The combinations are not anyone’s business but the 2 people involved. So as to the parent 1 and parent 2 being on government forms—-no problem. BTW, what happens if the person filling out the form has no clue who “daddy” is or in some cases who “mommy” is, as they were raised by a single person, either the single mom or single dad or a grandparent etc. They would have the same problem with “parent 1″ or “parent 2″—so who cares if the wording says that instead of Mom and Dad?



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted February 19, 2011 at 1:56 am


pagan this is a new low for you that you would insinuate God the Father would be attracted to Joseph. pagan you don’t get to speak for this country or it’s rules for marriage as long as it is a free country, neither should judges but the people should be allowed to vote.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 19, 2011 at 12:22 pm


It’s telling that ck reads “two daddies” and assumes sexual attraction between the two men. Is this jump to conclusions a simple conditioned response or the product of some deep-seated, fevered fantasy? Either way, the “Holy Family’s” situation is an all too common one: A young girl is impregnated by a guy who then leaves her and she has to find another man to care for her and raise her child. There’s nothing gay about the situation – save for what’s in ck’s mind.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted February 19, 2011 at 2:51 pm


cknuck, if indeed there was an “attraction” between your God the Father, towards Joseph, it would be that God figured Joseph would be a good earthy dad for JC. If he hadn’t liked (as in trusted) Joe, then he might have picked Michael, or Simon or Peter or any other dude about at the time (who would agree to marry an already pregnant woman. Let’s face it, Mary was mortal, and got pregnant the old fashioned way—then needed to convince Joe they needed to get married because an angle told her she was pregnant—and not only with a boy child but THE boy child. No disrespect to the Heavenly dude, BTW.
As to voting for folks to have equal rights to marry the person they choose, it should be legislated just like the Civil Rights legislation was. Do you honestly think that all folks in the 1960′s would have given people of color their civil rights if put to a vote? I don’t. Living in Alabama at that time, I can assure you it wouldn’t have happened. BTW, I can speak just like anyone else, BECAUSE we are a free country. Religion needs to just stay out of it.
At the moment, RI is hopefully going to be another state that allows gay marriage. Our new govenor (Chafee) is for legalizing it and has proposed it. The former govenor didn’t like the idea. I didn’t vote for Chafee, but am glad he is doing what he is doing .



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted February 20, 2011 at 1:06 am


YN if you read more then your statements wouldn’t appear so silly. pagan once again you seek to compare homosexuality with African American heritage, one is a race of people one is a sexual preference. African Americans birth African Americans homosexuality can do no such thing. Our heritage as African Americans is rich and extensive not a sexual persuasion. homosexuality should not try to ride on the backs of African American nor should it want to if it had its own merit.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 20, 2011 at 11:30 am


Why do so many African-American families only have one parent present?



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted February 20, 2011 at 5:54 pm


for reasons beyond your abilities to understand I would have to consider your concern genuine before I would even think about discussing it with you. I guess I could – but I know you.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted February 21, 2011 at 11:54 am


Yes, cknuck, I do continue to compare the civil rights movement with those CIVIL rights of another group of people—those who happen to be homosexual. It is a CIVIL RIGHTS issure and absolutely nothing else. As to Black heritage—-I agree—lots to be proud of. Have you considered that many inventors,artists,painters, sculptures, etc. happened to have been gay? Proud history there too. Part of life.



report abuse
 

not as good asYOU apparently

posted February 21, 2011 at 3:43 pm


I, too, would like to know why so many African-American families have only one parent present. Sounds like a genuine (i.e. sincere) question to me.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted February 21, 2011 at 7:44 pm


pagan tell me more about the proud homosexual race. Homosexuality is a practice something a group of people do that other’s don’t. Homosexuals are not a heritage, race they are a group connected by sexual practices so as a collective they have no heritage.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted February 21, 2011 at 7:47 pm


not as good, outside of homosexuality you have never sounded sincere.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted February 26, 2011 at 8:19 pm


So folks have to be a “race” to have a heritage? Not true, cknuck. Heritage is “What may be or is inherited; anything from the past, especially owned or handed down by tradition.” according to Collins Webster’s dictionary. So I didn’t see anything about “race” there, cknuck—did you? Hope you have enjoyed the art, writings, music etc. of those who happen to be homosexual and you were probably unaware that they were. (as if it makes any differnce anyhow). Oh, did you happen to know that there are many gay football players, and other sports heros too that are gay. Oh wait—that can’t be!!!OMG, how can anyone who is gay play a sport!!!??? :o)
The sincere comment works both ways, ck.



report abuse
 

cknuck

posted March 14, 2011 at 11:10 am


pagan if you think you have revealed some information I do not know and feel good about yourself for that I won’t burst your bubble.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Hispanics turning evangelical, Jews secular
Worship service attendance is up in New York City, but down among young adult Jews, according to recent studies. On the other hand, fewer Spanish-speaking teens are attending Catholic mass, but more are showing up at Evangelical churches. [caption id="attachment_12343" align="alignleft" width="48

posted 3:10:30pm Nov. 05, 2013 | read full post »

Billy Graham: I know where I'm going
“Daddy thinks the Lord will allow him to live to 95,” said Franklin Graham recently. It was not a prophecy but a hope, Franklin explained, that he would live to see the beginning of a Christian re

posted 10:02:01am Oct. 24, 2013 | read full post »

Are All These Christians' Complaints of Persecution Just So Much Empty Whining?
The headlines are alarming: “Catholic-Owned Company Wins Religious Freedom Court Decision,” “Death Toll Rises to 65 in Boko Haram Attack on Students,” “Little Sisters Catholic Charity Victimized By Obamacare,” “Christians Sought Out, Murdered in the Kenyan Mall Massacre,” “Judicial

posted 2:41:26am Oct. 07, 2013 | read full post »

How can Christians defend themselves against today's random violence?
So, a crazed gunman opens fire and you’re caught in the middle. How can you survive? Heroes come in all sorts of packages. And they wield all sorts of defensive weapons. Such as guns and Jesus. Sometimes both at the same time. [caption id="attachment_12246" align="alignleft" width="480"] Ant

posted 2:53:48pm Sep. 27, 2013 | read full post »

Does Sunday Morning Church Really Need All This Glitter, Showmanship and Gimmickry?
What’s wrong with church today? Are we in danger of turning worship into a flashy concert? Of watering down the message so nobody is offended? Of forgetting the simplicity of the Gospel? I grew up with a preacher’s kid. He was a fake following in the footsteps of his flimflamming father who d

posted 11:26:20am Sep. 20, 2013 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.