well... they've been saying that about FATHERS for over 40 years!
Posted on 03/03/2013 4:58:50 PM PST by Sub-Driver
DOJ: Children Do Not Need—and Have No Right to--Mothers March 3, 2013 By Terence P. Jeffrey
Georgetown Law School. (AP Photo/Haraz Ghanbari) (CNSNews.com) - The Obama Justice Department is arguing in the United States Supreme Court that children do not need mothers.
The Justice Department’s argument on the superfluity of motherhood is presented in a brief the Obama administration filed in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended California’s Constitution to say that marriage involves only one man and one woman.
The Justice Department presented its conclusions about parenthood in rebutting an argument made by proponents of Proposition 8 that the traditional two-parent family, led by both a mother and a father, was the ideal place, determined even by nature itself, to raise a child.
The Obama administration argues this is not true. It argues that children need neither a father nor a mother and that having two fathers or two mothers is just as good as having one of each.
“The [California] Voter Guide arguably offered a distinct but related child-rearing justification for Proposition 8: 'the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father,’” said the administration’s brief submitted to the court by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.
“As an initial matter, no sound basis exists for concluding that same-sex couples who have committed to marriage are anything other than fully capable of responsible parenting and child-rearing,” the Department of Justice told the court. “To the contrary, many leading medical, psychological, and social-welfare organizations have issued policy statements opposing restrictions on gay and lesbian parenting based on their conclusion, supported by numerous scientific studies, that...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Welcome to the new Soviet Union, comrade. Children do not need mothers or fathers, they have the State. The almighty State; for all your needs, from cradle to grave. Long live the State.
Sickening.
All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. — Benito Mussolini
The hard left is doing their utmost to destroy the culture and bring on the Borg collective. These freaks have become totally unhinged.
Yeah, that’s why “Mommy!” is so often heard from the severely injured, well into adulthood.
the commie rules of 1963 stated to take children away from the influence of parents, ever since that is what the left has been doing and why fairy boy in the white house is upset if head start etc is cut in any way , shape or form.
What gets me is how our side fail all the time to understand whta the left is doing, . They have written it out over years, Cloward and Piven, Rules for radical Alinsky and 1963.
For some reason our side plays defense all the time instead of going after the left and be pro active.
How far we have fallen when our government argues this abomination.
the left know the backbone of this country is the family and they have always hated the family and thta is why we see them fight so hard to redefine family.
Our side has to grow a set of balls and go after them, mention that family is a mother and a father, and it is they who raise their children, it is they who are responsible for their children, whether feeding them to clothing them to educating them
They determined years ago that children do not need fathers. Now it’s mothers children also do not need. Right?
That door was opened with favored constituents of both political parties abolishing fatherhood and passing laws against fatherhood. If you want to know how they get away with it, BTW, look up some info on “parens patriae.”
the freaks really are running the asylum
those “on the right” that play dumb are really just progressive operatives in the republican party
remember, the best way to insure your political policies are enacted is to be on both sides of the ticket
This is sheer evil.
We are departing more and more from the family structure that God has ordained and which has been the backbone of civilization for millennia.
Dude, that has been the goal of compulsory schooling since the turn of last century. Alinsky is a latecomer.
Why is the Justice Department wasting my fugging money arguing this Bullshyt.
If it wasn’t for the fruit in the White House the Federal Government would not be sticking it’s Homo nose into a States business.
It doesn’t belong there.
If Obama wants to save money cut out all of this Justice Department interference in States business.
This Justice Department spends more time fighting Social issues than it does Criminal ones.
And an incubator and a state-run camp would be even better, eh comrade?
Maybe that’s the truth O has ben trying to hide all along
I read once, I forget where, of a Japanese soldier’s observation that they had this in common with the Americans.
well... they've been saying that about FATHERS for over 40 years!
Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.This is the kind of reasoning that is at the core of efforts like this. Even worse, Marx perverts the study of history in his treatise Origin Of The Family, which has been but one cause of the many perverted experiments of this day.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, et cetera? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor. …
— Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2
Dear Leader will care for the children. Where have we heard this before?
You’re talkin’ biology here. Doesn’t count. That’s the “biological mother”, where “biological” carries the meaning of “so-called”.
agree, the commie rules of 63 stated that they had to infiltrate one or noth parties but it also seems libertarians also want to take over the GOP, liberal socially but hate taxes.
Every time conservatives fight back we see attacks from the elitist and infiltrators, Sarah, Col Allen West, look at the way Newt was attacked, even the tea party was infiltrated by the left and the elitist.
Our local tea party was infiltrated, left wing nuts pretending to be conservatives and then raising issues at meetings to divide people on issues.
EXACTLY
This DOJ is infatuated on social issues and passing their feces sex , cross dressing agenda.
They are supposed to upheld the law and then they ignore DOMA which is law, they then sue states which enforce the law but ignore states which violate the law and now want DOMA overturned to force tens of millions of voters to accep their perversions and who have spoken on marriage
It is only the Communists who think they can refute hundreds of generations of hard-wiring with an edict--and that is why they are doomed to failure. Nature prevails.
Quality of life concerns aside, children can survive without parents. But that’s beside the point.
What CNSNews ignored in the referenced article is the following. The Founding States made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage, parenting and child-rearing means that government power to regulate such issues is automatically reserved uniquely to the states, or to the people. And since California majority voters have already officially defined marriage as a one man, one woman union, Obama might just as well be playing golf instead of arguing this issue.
So I’m adding CNSNews to my list of “conservative” Obama guard dogs which already includes Fx News, Townhall.com and others.
Wellllll.... let’s wait a minute here and think about how this can be twisted to our own ends.
We all know that there are lots of men who have been screwed over royally by women who have used no-fault divorce laws to leave their husbands, take the children and alienate them from their fathers, then stick the former husband/father with the bills for child support.
What if... men’s rights guys were to use this sort of thinking against women in divorce and family courts? The preponderance of jurisprudence has been to put the children with the mother, and usually the only way to forcibly remove the children from the mother has been to get her declared ‘unfit’, which usually involves proving drug abuse, turning tricks for profit or something similar.
If men started looking at case law and statutes like this as an opportunity to give the women “what they wanted, good and hard...” then at the very least, they can quit playing the role of victim of the courts, and maybe they awaken some long-missing common sense in the female sex in America. I see the latter as a very slim likelihood, so I’m all for this sort of thing as “just desserts.”
Quality of life concerns aside, children can survive without parents. But that’s beside the point.
What CNSNews ignored in the referenced article is the following. The Founding States made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage, parenting and child-rearing means that government power to regulate such issues is automatically reserved uniquely to the states, or to the people. And since California majority voters have already officially defined marriage as a one man, one woman union, Obama might just as well be playing golf instead of arguing this issue.
So I’m adding CNSNews to my list of “conservative” Obama guard dogs which already includes Fx News, Townhall.com and others.
Yeah, that’s why “Mommy!” is so often heard from the severely injured, well into adulthood.Exactly! I talk to my mother frequently even though she's been gone for five years.
It seems to me that you're in the pit, right there. I don't judge anybody. No, sir. But that's not it.
It’s a brave new world, comrade.
It would take war. That's what ALL-OUT mobilizes the society against an enemy. Congress won't even declare war against a foreign enemy.... how'z it ever going to declare war against a domestic one?
So sad....and how far from God we have gone. Mothers are very important in a child’s life
Like “Brave New World” Amazing...and scary!
Is this the same type of scientific literature that supposedly supports GoreBull Warming, the banning of DDT and other scientific theories of the moment?
A true family has a Father and a Mother, until the Homo's can self reproduce without outside help, it should remain so.
The Left has long since decided that children do not need fathers, and have created subcultures where there are none.
A careful reading of the studies show that apples to apples comparisons are rarely made. Typically what the studies show, if you can believe them at all, is that with all of the benefits of wealth and status the children of rich white lesbian couples do no better than those of minority single mothers.
Only in that sense are heterosexual and homosexual parents similarly beneficial...in that for the examples given, both are starting the children off in a deep hole.
For generations, we have given the State the power to create artificial persons, in the form of corporations, foundations, trusts and the like. Nobody is confused by this government-defined fiction. We know that a corporation is not a real human person.
Another government-defined fiction that we have allowed for generations is that the State can also define “marriage” and who is “married” and who is not. But marriage predates any State because it is God who defines not any State. Indeed, any “marriage” a State defines is just as much a legal fiction as when it tells us that a corporation is a “person” that has freedom of speech.
The State attempts to force us to recognize its power. One way is to presume the power to define who is married and who is not. We cede this power in part because we allow the State to tax incomes and estates. To administer such taxing power, the State must define who it considers to be “married” and who is not. Just as when it defines a corporation to be a “person”, as silly as this would be to God, the State does not hesitate to define anyone it pleases as being “married”, totally apart from how God would define them. Sadly, even ministers allow the State’s definition of marriage to be the controlling definition.
Jesus, who was recognized as a prophet by all three monotheistic religions, is quoted in Matthew chapter 19 that from the beginning of humanity, it was God’s intent that marriage would only be one man and one woman. Scripture in many ways and places also tells us that God defines sexual morality and that people who refuse to practice that His morality simply do not qualify for His freely given gift of eternal life. (for example, see Ephesians chapter 5). Of course, people are free to believe whatever they want, but that does not change what God clearly said to us.
If you review the arguments advanced by supporters of same-sex marriage (like at HRC.ORG), you will find that many of them are related to taxation, inheritance and medical issues, all issues controlled by the State. But existing law addresses those and any defects in the law can be easily repaired apart from the issue of “marriage”.
I don’t want a government that can tell me what I may or may not do in the privacy of my own home or relationships. In a secular Constitutional Republic with a provision that prohibits Congress from making any law respecting religion, I have to allow others to have their own beliefs and morality. I can only be an advocate for the morality and beliefs that I think are true. I take my understanding of sexual morality from Scripture and that is where I learn that God considers sodomy to be an abomination to Him.
If a State decides that two (or more) people can marry, if that is all that happened, I could live with that because I don’t have to approve, change my beliefs or what beliefs I pass on to my children.
However, once gays and their supporters have sufficient influence with a State to redefine marriage, they don’t stop there. They use the State to forbid me from acting on my morality and beliefs. In fact, the State in some cases forces me to accommodation in their practices.
If I have children in public school, the State will insist on teaching them that gay marriage is just as normal as God’s definition of marriage. You will be sanctioned as a parent if you attempt to remove your children from such indoctrination. As long as they are enrolled in government-controlled schools, they will be graded on how well they accept the State’s idea of normal, or refuse to reject God’s idea of normal.
If you run a business that could provide services to the public, you will be sanctioned if you decline to treat gays as non-gays. For example, if you run a wedding photography business, you will be sanctioned if you decline to photograph a gay wedding. This has already happened in California and New Mexico [1].
You may lose control of your own property. [2]
You might have to go out of business to stay true to your principles, so as to avoid being fined or sued into bankruptcy. [3,4]
From the article:
“Wedding vendors elsewhere who refused to accommodate same-sex couples have faced discrimination lawsuits — and lost. Legal experts said Discover Annapolis Tours sidesteps legal trouble by avoiding all weddings.
“If they’re providing services to the public, they can’t discriminate who they provide their services to,” said Glendora Hughes, general counsel for the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights. The commission enforces public accommodation laws that prohibit businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, sexual orientation and other characteristics.”
To advance the legal case that a marriage between two people of the same sex is no different than a marriage as God defines it, the US Justice Department will base arguments before the Supreme Court that a child does not need, nor have a right to a mother. [5]
In short, gays will demand that non-gays accept them as moral equals, which they are not and cannot be. When the State says they are equal it is forbidden for a private citizen to dissent from that status. In doing so, they seek to force me to give them approval for something that I will never approve of. It is that last point that galls gays the most.
Curiously, when advocates of gay marriage are asked if their policy also would allow polygamy or polyandry, they recoil in horror and insist that it does not. However, logic demands that it does. I would ask how same-sex parents are going to react in the future when, for example, Utah public schools officials require that teachers instruct the children that LDS-related polygamy is just as “normal” as same-sex “marriage”. The fact that this will be an issue will show yet again that gay “marriage” is not about marriage at all it is about forcing the rest of us to approve of repugnant sexual immorality, something that LDS polygamists never demanded.
[1] Refusing To Shoot Gay Marriage Is Discrimination, Says New Mexico Appeals Court
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/06/refusing-to-shoot-gay-marriage-discrimination-says-new-mexico-appeals-court
[2] Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on
[3] Opposed to same-sex marriage, company ends wedding business
Trolley owner says move made to avoid potential lawsuit
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-ar-annapolis-trolley-suspends-wedding-servic-20121225,0,7100399,full.story
[4] Baker refuses to make wedding cake for lesbian couple and ‘calls them abominations unto the Lord’
Aaron Klein, owner of Sweet Cakes in Gresham, Oregon is the subject of a state investigation after one of the brides-to-be filed a complaint
[5] DOJ: Children Do Not Need—and Have No Right to—Mothers March 3, 2013 By Terence P. Jeffrey
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/doj-children-do-not-need-and-have-no-right-mothers
Welcome to the Borg collective.
>> How far we have fallen when our government argues this abomination.
And it only took 4 short, lying years.
The Marxist scumbags didn’t run on this platform, and too many were too ignorant to notice the setup in the first term.
It’s my belief, however, that this evil is not sustainable, and Hell will turn on the dirtbags attempting to destroy this Country.
Yep, LBJ set up the great society to require families to divest the husband to get welfare. Now bh0 is declaring that mothers aren’t needed and that same sex families are his preferred group. On might think that he didn’t notice that it takes male and female to reproduce off spring when he and mooshell did their thing.
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.