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 ...
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.
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.