Act and consequence apply, even to homosexual parents

Robert Bork wrote about our society’s moral decay in a book titled Slouching Toward Gomorrah. That slouch has become a dead run.

Eric Mongerson is a divorced man who wasn’t allowed to share his children’s visitations with his new love. Eric’s “new love” is a man. Okay, big surprise, right? It goes farther. Eric dumped his 20-year marriage and his four children to pursue his homosexuality. And it wasn’t the first time he had engaged in such relationships.

During the divorce the wife argued--with apparent success--that Mongerson had engaged in adulterous homosexual affairs on several occasions. It was also argued that he and his partner had exposed the four children to inappropriate behavior during a trip across state lines. Thus the court prohibited him from sharing his visitations with his partner.

That has changed, thanks to a Georgia Supreme Court ruling. And the Associated Press account of the ruling sounds like it was written by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance. It was nothing short of an endorsement of the “gay rights” movement, which makes great use of false bigotry allegations to force society into accepting unnatural attractions.

The AP story lamented how Mongerson was unable to take his kids to his home while his boyfriend was there, even though the wife once brought her boyfriend to his daughter’s concert.

Friends, there’s quite a difference between a heterosexual couple taking children to a public area, such as a concert, and a homosexual couple taking them to a private area, such as a home. If you can’t make that distinction you might as well stop reading now. You’re too blinded by your heterophobic bigotry to see the big picture.

Also note the phrase, “his daughter’s concert.” It’s as if the wife doesn’t exist. Excuse me, but I believe the correct phrase is “their daughter’s concert.” It’s doubtful that the AP’s wording is accidental.

Fact is, Eric Mongerson made his bed. If he was so concerned with spending time with his kids why did he ditch his family? His visitation problems were the direct result of his choices. Yet moral issues are but a part of the equation. There are several interesting aspects of this tale that are worth examination.

Let’s concede--for sake of illustration only--that Eric Mongerson was born homosexual, as gay advocates regularly argue. He spent 20 years in a matrimonial, sexual, relationship with a woman--a woman to whom he had no attraction. He was, as activists claim, living the lie.

Under these circumstances it is logical to question why he wants to see his kids at all. Their presence resurrects his experiences within a heterosexual relationship. Each time he sees their faces he is confronted with the intimate moments he spent with their mother. Logically speaking, why wouldn’t he avoid those children and the constant reminder of heterosexual relations they represent?

Another question is why this matter is such big news? What if the shoe were on the other foot? If it were a straight man in a visitation dispute with an ex-wife concerning his activities with a girlfriend there would’ve been no bold headline and little media attention. But since it involves homosexuality it fits the approved news template. It fit’s the politically correct narrative. It advances the agenda-driven propaganda that much of today’s “free” press embodies.

Lastly, the Mongerson situation is indicative of how we’ve compromised both the natural law and common morality. It shows that we may not be slouching toward Gomorrah, as Bork wrote, but charging there full tilt.

This case shouldn’t have been debated much less adjudicated. Should Eric Mongerson have visitation rights? Sure he should. No government has authority to separate a parent from a child sans a criminal offense. Eric helped make those kids whether he enjoyed it or not.

However, that doesn’t necessarily grant him the right to include his homosexual friends. When moral lines are blurred to the extent they’ve been blurred in our society, situations like this are bound to arise.

Actions have consequences. It was Eric Mongerson who walked out on his family to be with another man. He made that choice knowing full well it would hinder his relationship with his children. It’s obvious from his actions that his homosexual interests meant more to him than anything else.

There’s no discrimination when someone makes a free choice. Unless his preference is now bisexual, Eric Mongerson can’t have it both ways.