Posted on 05/16/2008 4:04:13 AM PDT by Man50D
In Thursday's 4-3 decision legalizing same-sex marriage, the California Supreme Court stripped children of the right to be raised by a mother and a father.
Most of the media coverage of the California Supreme Court's decision has focused on the court's declaration that there is a right to same-sex marriage. The ruling invalidated California's Proposition 22, a state ballot initiative that passed with 61 percent of the vote in 2000, and which banned same-sex marriage in the state.
But the California Supreme Court decision goes beyond simply giving same-sex couples the right to call their unions a "marriage." It also strips children of the right not to be artificially conceived or adopted by people other than a mother and a father.
Indeed, the court does not recognize that children have any right whatsoever to a mother and a father.
In the decision, the California court sees children primarily through the eyes of same-sex couples who want to secure custody and control of children. The court makes emphatically clear that it deems this to be a right of same-sex couples that is equal to--and identical to--the right of married mothers and fathers to adopt or conceive and raise their own children.
In making this argument, the court addresses biological parenthood as an accident of nature that can be swept aside by the court in its pursuit of what the court understands to be justice. To explain this vision of justice--and where children fit into this vision--the court equates same-sex couples to infertile heterosexual married couples.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Not saying that I agree with the court's ruling, but I wasn't aware that children had any such right. I've taught a number of children who had no father listed on their birth certificates, and children are already being artificially (and naturally) conceived without a father who will be around when they are born.
Children are also being adopted by "people other than a mother and a father"...I personally know a single woman who has adopted 2 children to date.
In other words, children don't seem to have a right to a mother and a father now. I don't know that the court ruling will change that, although it might give some children who now only have one parent two parents.
Only polar bears and asparagus have ‘rights’.
McLame where are you now?
The black robed tyrants have decided to pass their own law in direct violation of the US Constitution, and tell the people who are suppose to have the power to go to hell. According to the Constitution they have NO power to pass or make law but then they are dictators so who can do anything about it as they have the power and the weapons to do anything they want to do just like the Nazi and Communist. They will put out their SS or KGB and put you in jail, or other methods, again in direct violation of the US Constitution
So two gay male pedophiles can now marry in CA and then adopt several young boys to play with and.......................
Children do not have a right to a mother and father. This is unfortunate, but, if they did, the state would be obligated to protect this right by providing a mother and a father to those who do not have them.
I am opposed to same-sex marriage, and I have been happily married to the same wonderful woman for many years. We have fabulous children.
I have known homosexual couples who have children, naturally or by adoption. One lesbian couple comes to mind. They live in California, as a matter of fact. They have adopted an orphaned child from a war-torn Third World country. Her life there would have been hell. They have given her love and a happy life, in safety, peace, freedom, and prosperity.
"In Thursday's 4-3 decision legalizing same-sex marriage..."
Why does California spend good taxpayer dollars on phony "elections" when they could just refer the question IMMEDIATELY to the real rulers of the State of California, and get their 7-0, 6-1, 5-4, 4-3 rulings right up front?
The Left loves tyrants and tyrranies. Only through tyranny, and as brutal as necessary, can the Left achieve its agenda. Karl Marx acknowledged this in his Communist Manifesto. The Left is Marxist. California is dominated by the Left.
Leftists love the idea of a tyrant and/or oligarchy (one of themselves or controlled by themselves, of course) dictating laws and controlling the masses (that's you and me).
They would love to abolish freedom of speech, the press, and thought and the pursuit of happiness as it conflicts with the Leftists' agenda.
Leftists want to control law, action, speech, the press, thought--everything. They hate the uncontrolled chaos of liberty, and they are determined to extinguish it.
Imagine what would happen if these people managed to seize control of the U.S. Presidency, Congress, and Supreme Court.
That is exactly the threat that faces us now.
If either potential Democrat nominee should be elected to the Presidency--and especially with a Democrat majority in Congress--Leftists will seize control of the Supreme Court too.
They will change our nation beyond recognition and beyond recovery. This is what these people mean when they talk of change!
This is why we must elect a Republican to the Presidency and do everything possible to elect Republicans to Congress.
If the Republican nominee is John McCain--so be it. It is still far better than either Democrat.
Do not let a third party candidate put a Democrat in the White House. This (Perot) is how Bill Clinton got himself elected.
This time is critical. We must think very carefully. Intellect must rule passion. We must devise the soundest strategy for preserving the United States and the American Dream, and we must execute it well.
The future of our children and of the world depends upon what we do.
“McLame where are you now?”
Nice. Original, too. Think of that all by yourself? No, I didn’t think so.
There is nothing “conservative” about using the Constitution to define words.
This goes deeper than these two issues. The family (one male and one female) is the core of the country and God’s blessing. In general I am against anything other than that for adoption. Are there other situations that seem good and work? Of course, but it should not be the norm. We have people who pin point an exception and say it is the rule. Now we have proven ourselves to be even more of a dictatorship by having one judge decide our moral compass. Looks like Rev. Wright’s prayers are being answered.
“They would love to abolish freedom of speech...”
THIS is exactly what homosexual “marriage” will bring about. Hate speech law is their goal.....and a legal “marriage” provides the foundation to successfully accomplish that goal.
Good Californians need to work very hard to overcome its agendized (my new word) judiciary somehow.
The term conservative derives from "conserve", that is to protect our culture from the steady erosion of libertine relativism.
If the constitution is being distorted for political purposes then the only solution is a constitutional solution. As we have seen a couple liberal judges in one liberal state can dictate law to everyone else, regardles of how the people have voted.
But then perhaps you consider that conservative.
I thought the human race came to the conclusion long, long ago that the best way to raise children was by the committed relationship between one man and one woman. Certainly if there was a better way we would have already gone down that road, perhaps conceiving children and then turning them over to their "parenting unit" consisting of one gay man, one bisexual male and a hetrosexual female, for example.
I'm ashamed for living on this planet.
I have known homosexual couples who have children, naturally or by adoption. One lesbian couple comes to mind. They live in California, as a matter of fact. They have adopted an orphaned child from a war-torn Third World country. Her life there would have been hell. They have given her love and a happy life, in safety, peace, freedom, and prosperity.I know two (white) gay men who have a young african american daughter. They love her dearly. She's bright happy, and good at her studies. I don't see all the fuss. It's actually kind of amusing. They live in a predominantly black city and the black grandmas are always following them in Toys R' Us. They think the two daddies are kidnappers.
I think that there needs to be a great deal more organization of people and groups who understand the end result of the leftist philosophy. Such organization is key and can provide a powerful voting bloc. Unfortunately, I don’t see any political party that presently offers the necessary organizational base, so it will have to be done in some other way.
Wait until California starts rounding up children from homes where parents are polluting their children with messages of anti-tolerance to sexual minorities. If you think Texas CPS is a-ok in persecuting the FLDS just wait until traditionalist parents become the target of Big Brother.
I thought the human race came to the conclusion long, long ago that the best way to raise children was by the committed relationship between one man and one woman. Certainly if there was a better way we would have already gone down that road, perhaps conceiving children and then turning them over to their "parenting unit" consisting of one gay man, one bisexual male and a hetrosexual female, for example.Not true. The nuclear family is pretty new. Huge extended families have been the norm throughout history. Child rearing used to be a collective exercise. IMO large communal organizations are the best places to raise kids. Israeli Kibbutzim come to mind.
If people still had the family structures of yesteryear homo adoption wouldn't even be an issue. Neither would all the other ills of a nanny state, foster and group homes for example.
I have a relative who is severely handicapped (multiple catastrophic birth defects). He adopted a son.
I have a relative who is severely handicapped (multiple catastrophic birth defects). He adopted a son.Can he care for the child? Provide for his son financially and physically?
Not being allowed to continue raping kids is "being persecuted by Big Brother"?
You have lost the plot. Big time.
“and what’s conservative about using the courts to overturn the will of the people?”
Nice strawman there.
“The term conservative derives from “conserve”, that is to protect our culture from the steady erosion of libertine relativism.”
No, it doesn’t. It means a “conservative approach to the use of government”. The lack of basic understanding of conservatism is one of the major problems here.
Many on tis site define “conservatism” as adherence to a long, strict list of social and economic talking points. Diverting from even ONE item on this massive list gets one labeled a RINO or liberal. They are called this by people who adhere strictly to the FR-established causes-du-jour and advocate as much government involvement, if not more as liberals. It’s intellectually dishonest and the root of the problem with the Republican Party. A candidate knows that if he strays one step off the hard-liners list, he is written off a RINO by the tantrum-loving brats of the internet. I don’t much blame the candidates for showing you guys the middle finger. You have no clue.
“If the constitution is being distorted for political purposes then the only solution is a constitutional solution.”
Nonsense. That is the very reason we have a Supreme Court and a separation of powers.
“As we have seen a couple liberal judges in one liberal state can dictate law to everyone else, regardles of how the people have voted.”
No, they can’t. Oh, they may try but they do not have the last word.
“But then perhaps you consider that conservative.”
No less conservative that what you propose. You need to read up on the way our government was designed to work.
And some of it will be cheered by so-called conservatives right here on this website. Just look at the cheering going on about seizing the children, records and assets of that group. Somebody recognized the value of the property and alas big brother comes in circumvents the constitution.
Whats-her-name is not here to say it so I will say it for her!!!
“Filthy disease ridden queers win again”
There...tell her I said it for her!
How about a renegade Mormon, or a Muslim, with four wives? Will gay activists man the barricades for their "human rights"? Somehow I doubt it.
God had to send angels after Lot and his family before the fire and brimstone started, wonder how many angels are already being called up from the ‘reserves’ for this sort of task in our own west-left coastal Sodom & Gomorrah?
I’m also a bit puzzled by this “right to a mother and father.” A “right” implies that someone - “society”? - has a duty to guarantee that every child is born and reared with his mother and father in the home, and that is simply impossible. Even in absence of intentional single parenting, a mother or father can die.
A strong disposition in favor of children’s being reared by a mother and father, particularly their natural mother and father, should be clear enough, but I think we need to be careful about nebulous “rights.”
And some of it will be cheered by so-called conservatives right here on this website. Just look at the cheering going on about seizing the children, records and assets of that group. Somebody recognized the value of the property and alas big brother comes in circumvents the constitution.Okay, here's a question. Who has more rights? The FLDS parents? Or their children? Everybody knew the FLDS was a bunch of polygamist welfare cheats. If you believe the laws against polygamy, incest and statutory rape are more important than getting evidence(i.e. the kids have more rights) then the feds were right. If you believe that the parents have the right against illegal search and seizure then the feds are wrong. Which is it?
But, frankly, I consider homosexuality to be a handicap, in most cases probably congenital.
Some homosexual adoptions won't work out either, and some will probably involve pedophiles. The ones I know of, however, seem to be working very well, and, certainly, to rescue a child from a life of violence, starvation, disease, and hell, it seems to me, is worth the risk. Heterosexual pedophiles also prey on children--adopted, step-children, and their own biological children. So it's a risk either way.
There is no way in hell that this evil ruling helps kids.
We might be defeated, but I say we go down fighting like mad for our children, our liberties, our beloved country, and the American Dream! It’s well worth the fight.
Your story makes me wanna puke.
Financially, yes. But not physically. The boy became rebellious and left him. It didn't work out.I'm definitely in the "believes homosexuality is cogenital" camp.But, frankly, I consider homosexuality to be a handicap, in most cases probably congenital.
Some homosexual adoptions won't work out either, and some will probably involve pedophiles. The ones I know of, however, seem to be working very well, and, certainly, to rescue a child from a life of violence, starvation, disease, and hell, it seems to me, is worth the risk. Heterosexual pedophiles also prey on children--adopted, step-children, and their own biological children. So it's a risk either way.
I agree 100% that parenting is a risk. Children are too important to be left at the mercy of bad parents. That's one of the reasons America needs stronger social structures. Good luck with that though.
Your story makes me wanna puke.Not my problem. This is in Cuyahoga county BTW.
Yes. Though it seems to me the safeguards have always been in place to prevent the conversion of our Constitutional Republic. If we are a nation of laws instead of men, then we must consider what the law says.
Article VI, para 2 (the supreme law clause in the U.S Constitution) prevents the courts, judges, the U.S. Senate, State lawmakers, or anyone from passing any law that is not in pursuance to the supremacy of the laws already written in the Constitution/Bill of Rights.
That's because our Consitution has been bequeathed to us as an instrument and we are obligated to pass it on to our heritage in the same condition that we received it in.
For this, the people will rise up. Believe it.
I know some of you look to the government for everything, and regard the constitution as a rag worthy of viewing in a museum of a failed experiment. I understand the progressiveness of many here.
Just look at the number of Illinois parents labeled child abusers erroneously reported today, but go ahead believe the government makes no mistakes and truly cares about “the children”
I believe we punish lawbreakers, in accordance with due process and the right to a hearing while being presumed innocent. We don’t automatically assume guilt of everyone, their neighbors, relatives, and everyone in a church then seize all their children under hints or bogus phone calls, seize children born in captivity, and then seize their assets in the process.
Which way would the government lovers have it? Continue letting inner city kids have babies with God knows who the father is, grow up while required to be in a gang and dead at 19, or become a welfare recipient with three children at 18 with the baby daddies having no responsiblity. The government already endorses polygamy or don’t you get that? Or are just people of faith required to follow the laws of this country and if so, where are the charges against anyone - yet they have seized all the children including those born in captivity to monogamous parents? The hypocrisy is staggering to me on the face of things.
Love the government all you want and think they do no wrong. I will continue to be suspicious of 20.5 million dollar asset seizures, guilt by association, children being put in captivity, and assaults on religion (who is next) without due process during an election year.
As stated above the Judges ignored the the law and legislated from the bench proposition 22 speaks to the will of the people of California on this matter.
When to the impeachment hearings begin?
We must not have judge who Deliberately Flaunt the Law or we will be their SLAVES!
Can you believe three were appointed by Republicans?
I know some of you look to the government for everything, and regard the constitution as a rag worthy of viewing in a museum of a failed experiment. I understand the progressiveness of many here.It's not progressiveness. Do you really want a society where pedophiles and welfare cheats are allowed to run roughshod over everything?Just look at the number of Illinois parents labeled child abusers erroneously reported today, but go ahead believe the government makes no mistakes and truly cares about “the children”
I believe we punish lawbreakers, in accordance with due process and the right to a hearing while being presumed innocent. We don’t automatically assume guilt of everyone, their neighbors, relatives, and everyone in a church then seize all their children under hints or bogus phone calls, seize children born in captivity, and then seize their assets in the process.
Which way would the government lovers have it? Continue letting inner city kids have babies with God knows who the father is, grow up while required to be in a gang and dead at 19, or become a welfare recipient with three children at 18 with the baby daddies having no responsiblity. The government already endorses polygamy or don’t you get that? Or are just people of faith required to follow the laws of this country and if so, where are the charges against anyone - yet they have seized all the children including those born in captivity to monogamous parents? The hypocrisy is staggering to me on the face of things.
Love the government all you want and think they do no wrong. I will continue to be suspicious of 20.5 million dollar asset seizures, guilt by association, children being put in captivity, and assaults on religion (who is next) without due process during an election year.
I agree 100% on the inner-city. However, to fix the ghetto all we need is *to enforce the laws already in place*. The problem is that ghetto people aren't economically valuable enough to police well. This means that gangs become the de facto government, settling debts, maintaining a semblance of "order" etc...
You’re right, of course. But the agenda of the Left is to subvert the safeguards of our Constitutional Republic. Judges actually making law, rather than interpreting it, is an example. Furthermore, there is indisputable evidence of election fraud on the part of Democrat operatives in the past. Such people do not respect our Republic or its laws. In fact, their objective is to replace our Constitutional Republic with a Leftist Oligarchy. This is why the Left must be defeated.
Do I want a society that condemns me, imprisons me, and convicts me before a trial because my neighbors or members of the church I attend don’t quite fit the conventional progressive government line even though I follow the laws? It is tantamount to members of Jim Bakker’s church being indicted on charges of tax fraud and prostitution, thus having all my assets seized in the process. Guilt by association. Where is individual liberty?
Getting back to this decision, what this tells me is that potentially heterosexual parenthood will be under assault and raising children in the future and schooling them in the public schools will mean they have to learn the virtues of homosexuality. The will of the people has been overridden. The gay mafia will not stop with this. Ever.
It doesn't deprive kids of a "right" that they don't have anyway.
“Not being allowed to continue raping kids is “being persecuted by Big Brother”?”
Raped? So who was doing the rapes, the mothers? They aren’t allowed to be with their kids.
As for rape, why not be clear on your definitions?
If we must, we must. I was really hoping it wouldn't be necessary. But, alas . . .
The mothers were accomplices before the fact.
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.