Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Same-Sex Marriage Judge Finds That a Child Has Neither a Need Nor a *Right* to a Mom and Dad.
CNS News ^ | August 9th, 2010

Posted on 08/09/2010 2:37:52 PM PDT by TaraP

(CNSNews.com) - U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who ruled last week that a voter-approved amendment to California’s constitution that limited marriage to the union of one man and one woman violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, based that ruling in part on his finding that a child does not need and has no right to a mother.

Nor, he found, does a child have a need or a right to a father...

To further his case that the well-being of children is no bar to declaring same-sex marriage a right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, Judge Walker makes a finding of fact that the state of California already legally recognizes that the gender of parents is irrelevant. As Walker reports it, California laws goes so far as to “encourage” homosexuals to acquire children whether through adoption, foster care, or artificially conceiving a child and, presumably, in the case of a male-male couple, securing a female to gestate the child until the male-male couple can take custody of it.

“California law permits and encourages gays and lesbians to become parents through adoption, foster parenting or assistive reproductive technology,” writes Walker in finding of fact No. 49. “Approximately 18 percent of same-sex couples in California are raising children.”

To support this finding, Walker notes that California’s attorney general, who is Jerry Brown, “admits that the laws of California recognize no relationship between a person’s sexual orientation and his or her ability to raise children.”

“Attorney General admits,” writes Walker, “that California law protects the right of gay men and lesbians in same-sex relationships to be foster parents and to adopt children by forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

Walker’s ruling declaring same-sex marriage protected under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, if upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, would have ramifications far beyond California, requiring states across the union to recognize same-sex marriages while wiping out any legal protection a child might have from being handed over by state governments to same-sex couples either through adoption or foster parenthood.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied by Walker would require states to grant a marriage license to same-sex couples and would-be parents, while implicitly annihilating the notion that each American child has an equal right to a mother and a father.

A child put out for adoption or foster parenting by the state, or a child conceived through technological means and gestated in a hired womb, would have no right not to be assigned to a homosexual couple who would act as his or her father and father or mother and mother.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bostonglobe; margaretmarshall; newyorktimes; nytmanipulation; romney; romneyvsclerks

1 posted on 08/09/2010 2:37:53 PM PDT by TaraP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TaraP

The truth of this article is either ignored, dismissed or derided by the homo-fascists. But the truth remains, nevertheless.


2 posted on 08/09/2010 2:45:55 PM PDT by fwdude (Anita Bryant was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaraP

We’ve already known that a large portion of our society has given up on the concept of a child being raised by a mother and a father. Look at the situation with single mothers.


3 posted on 08/09/2010 2:47:25 PM PDT by OldGuard1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaraP

If a child has neither the need for nor the right to a mother...have at it, child abductors.


4 posted on 08/09/2010 2:49:44 PM PDT by Julia H. (Freedom of speech and freedom from criticism are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaraP

“his finding that a child does not need and has no right to a mother. “

These kind of people probably also don’t recognize that putting your hand on a hot burner is a bad thing.
Fools.


5 posted on 08/09/2010 2:49:47 PM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (I aspire to a large carbon footprint; just like Al Gore's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaraP

No, but the self-same child has a compelling need of and an absolute right to an all-powerful government.


6 posted on 08/09/2010 2:50:23 PM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 562 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaraP

This is where it goes folks. Tolerate perverts, and perversion becomes the norm.


7 posted on 08/09/2010 2:52:51 PM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaraP
a child does not need and has no right to a mother. I must have missed something. When did men become the more biologically inclined of the sexes to nurture children?
8 posted on 08/09/2010 2:56:26 PM PDT by Julia H. (Freedom of speech and freedom from criticism are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaraP

Gee this all has a familiar ring.
“the beginning, the Lebensborn were taken to SS nurseries. But in order to create a “super-race,” the SS transformed these nurseries into “meeting places” for “racially pure” German women who wanted to meet and have children with SS officers. The children born in the Lebensborn nurseries were then taken by the SS. Lebensborn provided support for expectant mothers, we or unwed, by providing a home and the means to have their children in safety and comfort.”

If people fought this policy today, this judge would rule against them.

FYI Freida from ABBA was a victim of this horror.


9 posted on 08/09/2010 2:57:42 PM PDT by Marty62 (marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaraP

We need to impeach judges that certified lunatics.


10 posted on 08/09/2010 3:01:05 PM PDT by Rodm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaraP
each American child has a right to a mother and a father

Children's rights are the perceived human rights of children with particular attention to the rights of special protection and care afforded to the young,[1] including their right to association with both biological parents                                                                 

11 posted on 08/09/2010 3:02:37 PM PDT by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaraP

this is really sad.


12 posted on 08/09/2010 3:02:47 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaraP

By that reasoning, throwing a baby in a dumpster wouldn’t be a crime.


13 posted on 08/09/2010 3:03:50 PM PDT by bgill (K Parliament- how could a young man born in Kenya who is not even a native American become the POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaraP

We are long overdue to run these people out of their positions of authority ! All I can say, WTF ! Morally corrupt and bankrupt !


14 posted on 08/09/2010 3:04:04 PM PDT by CORedneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaraP

There is no person alive in the entire world who can tell me what my rights are.


15 posted on 08/09/2010 3:04:06 PM PDT by Frenchtown Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaraP

“California law permits and encourages gays and lesbians to become parents through adoption, foster parenting or assistive reproductive technology,” writes Walker in finding of fact No. 49. “Approximately 18 percent of same-sex couples in California are raising children.”

So when the law is quoted in defense of your argument Judgey then it is inviolable. But when a law is used to destroy your argument, suddenly it no defense?


16 posted on 08/09/2010 3:06:15 PM PDT by Cyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaraP

The man is an idiot.

He conflates exceptions that are permitted in certain cases to be equal to a basic definition that exists, and can exist, and would exist were none of those exceptions permitted.

The “normal” path in the development and parenting of a child is found in that path that nature provides, and it is from that basic fact that we have derived the meaning of marriage as well as the meaning of father and mother.

Was adoption an exception to that path, often permitted and when needed even encouraged? Yes, an exception, a defined exception.

As are all the modern exceptions, both technical and social that societies have permitted.

But, the exceptions cannot supply the root basic definition, for by their very nature they are exceptions to what nature can and does provide without them.

The error that Conservatives need to focus on is two fold.

The issues are not “equality” or “eligibility”.

Eligibility is always something that weighs variables and makes distinctions between the different values that could exist for those variables (like age) among all those possible, BY DEFINITION, to otherwise be in an eligible class.

But, the issue of “same sex” marriage is not a mere matter of “eligibility” among all those who might otherwise be eligible - single men and women - it is an issue seeking a complete redefinition of the term “marriage” at it’s core - between a man and woman - not mere eligibility.

The issue is not about “equality”. Two things may be “equal” - in some qualifying sense (as in equal under the law), but not be “the same” in some other sense (as in the title or name of their state of being - as in man or woman). Just as two things could be the same (two people) while not being equal in many attributes of their person. Just as to be “the same” does not imply, or need to imply, some specific “equality”, “equality” does not require that two things (two types of relationship) be “the same”.

The legal agenda has morphed “equal” and “same” into synonyms, which they are not, just as they have denied it is not an issue of “eligibility” (or exceptions) it is an issue of basic definitions.

From these understandings many “gay” Conservatives have long supported “civil unions” and “civil partnerships” and seen no need to redefine “marriage” to obtain “equal rights”.


17 posted on 08/09/2010 3:11:31 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pallis

The Stargate Conspiracy 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD25S5lWCzo


18 posted on 08/09/2010 3:12:10 PM PDT by nolongerademocrat ("Before you ask G-d for something, first thank G-d for what you already have." B'rachot 30b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TaraP

Doesn’t this sound like the sort of argument slave owners had regarding slaves?


19 posted on 08/09/2010 3:19:29 PM PDT by Beowulf9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CORedneck

They are in the middle of trying to create a newv religion. See the link I provided on the Stargate Conspiracy.


20 posted on 08/09/2010 3:19:49 PM PDT by nolongerademocrat ("Before you ask G-d for something, first thank G-d for what you already have." B'rachot 30b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TaraP

Just plain evil.


21 posted on 08/09/2010 3:28:32 PM PDT by dasboot (Down: up. Up: down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaraP

When will U.S. citizens find they have no need for Godless judges who are destroying families? Shame on these empty souls who think they can replace God’s Word with their shallow maundering.


22 posted on 08/09/2010 3:40:06 PM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib

And still I ask, where are the needed guillotines?


23 posted on 08/09/2010 3:40:57 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Dem voters, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Beowulf9

You know...it does have similarities.

I suppose, however, that if children don’t even have the right to be born and see the light of day, the findings of this judge aren’t exactly a leap from the settled law. If children can be killed as a matter of convenience, it is no deviation to declare they have no other rights.


24 posted on 08/09/2010 4:25:24 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TaraP
That this garbage continues without protest, much less uprising, is solid evidence that the frog is indeed boiled.

America -- a great idea, didn't last.

25 posted on 08/09/2010 4:39:00 PM PDT by Clint Williams ( America -- a great idea, didn't last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

“If children can be killed as a matter of convenience, it is no deviation to declare they have no other rights.”

Chilling. Great point.


26 posted on 08/09/2010 4:46:23 PM PDT by Beowulf9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson