Fox News is reporting that the words “mother” and “father” will be removed from U.S. passport applications and replaced with gender neutral terminology, according to the State Department.
According to Brenda Sprague, deputy assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services, “the words in the old form were ‘mother’ and ‘father. they are now ‘parent one’ and ‘parent two.’”
Sprague said the decision to remove the traditional parenting names was not an act of political correctness, but due to “confronting situations now that we would not have anticipated 10 or 15 years ago.”
Homosexualist groups are tickled pink over the decision, hailing it as a victory.
According to Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of Family Equality Council, “Our government needs to recognize that the family structure is changing.”
Her organization lobbied the government for several years to remove the words from passport applications. Presumably, within the past 10-15 years.
“Changing the term mother and father to the more global term of parent allows many different types of families to be able to go and apply for a passport for their child without feeling like the government doesn’t recognize their family,” Chrisler said.
But not all as as thrilled as the homosexualist agenda-driven groups.
“Only in the topsy-turvy world of left-wing political correctness could it be considered an ‘improvement’ for a birth-related document to provide less information about the circumstances of that birth,” Family Research Council president Tony Perkins wrote in a statement to Fox News Radio.
“This is clearly designed to advance the causes of same-sex ‘marriage’ and homosexual parenting without statutory authority, and violates the spirit if not the letter of the Defense of Marriage Act,” Perkins went on to say.
The Catholic Take…
While assigned as the Prefect of the CDF, then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in the document entitled CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS; (emphasis mine)
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood.
Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.
This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle… that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
If you like this article, please click on the SUBSCRIBE button above (it’s free) to receive e-mail alerts when a new article is published by this Examiner, or click here to add Kevin’s News Portal Page to your favorites.
