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.
The truth of this article is either ignored, dismissed or derided by the homo-fascists. But the truth remains, nevertheless.
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.
If a child has neither the need for nor the right to a mother...have at it, child abductors.
“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.
No, but the self-same child has a compelling need of and an absolute right to an all-powerful government.
This is where it goes folks. Tolerate perverts, and perversion becomes the norm.
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.
We need to impeach judges that certified lunatics.
this is really sad.
By that reasoning, throwing a baby in a dumpster wouldn’t be a crime.
We are long overdue to run these people out of their positions of authority ! All I can say, WTF ! Morally corrupt and bankrupt !
There is no person alive in the entire world who can tell me what my rights are.
“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?
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”.
The Stargate Conspiracy 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD25S5lWCzo
Doesn’t this sound like the sort of argument slave owners had regarding slaves?
They are in the middle of trying to create a newv religion. See the link I provided on the Stargate Conspiracy.
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.