Are you saying just because it is not in the Constitution children do not need and do not have the right to the love of a married father and father? It sure looks that way
Nobody is making the essential legal argument...
Reynolds v. United States (1878) defined marriage as one man and one woman.
Marriage is not the Government's business to encourage or enforce.
And no, children don't have a legal or human "right" to the love of a married mother/father or any other numerical multiple thereof. If so, children could sue their biological parents who never marry, divorce, or re-marry as a violation of their "right."
The Government is failing miserably to uphold and defend the actual Rights we do have. Let's not imply rights as part of a fictional "social contract" for Govt to waste scarce time and resources on.
I meant of course mother and father. I hope that this is clear
When Ken says “children have a right to ... “, I maintain he is talking about what is moral under Judeo-Christian values. It can also be argued from a common-sense, observational standpoint that societies that do not properly parent their own young bring down the worst results upon themselves. But although I see some elements of that observation in Ken’s article, I believe in that sentence he is speaking morally, not constitutionally or legally. No other interpretation makes sense of his statement there.
Our Founders deliberately left many moral underpinnings unstated in our Constitution. But if you doubt they understood the essentiality of Judeo-Christian principles, you wouldn’t be able to put two-and-two together to get four if your life depended on it. It is clear from history that they perfectly well understood it. They were setting up a governmental system that would - they hoped and prayed - avert despotism and unbridled use and abuse of centralized power, while adding a Bill of (individual) Rights.
But they understood that only a moral and religious people would be capable of maintaining that system, and a decent and workable society. And a foreigner, de Toqueville, stated upon observation, “America is great because America is good. If America ceases to be good, it will cease to be great”.
What happens to children in society is absolutely critical. I say the bedrock of THAT is morality. And that is what Ken is arguing. He is arguing that Beck, who bases many of his conclusions on a moral basis, errs and is inconsistent when he drops morality when it comes to this society’s view of marriage and children.
Personally I think Ken’s point is a no-brainer. We are reaping the bitter harvest now of leaving the Judeo-Christian moral system. It will also cause us to lose our freedoms. The people who are too dumbed-down and too self-absorbed to see or care what the Left is doing to this nation are primarily people who disavow this moral undperpinning.
Libertarians stand off to the side and take a more abstracted position on these matters. The rest of us are living the nightmare of a people who are ceding their American birthright to a big-daddy government and who think “the rich” can and should pay for THEM and want that “big daddy government” to get even bigger and more powerful in order to EFFECT that. This same force has destroyed the traditional family and family values. They act simultaneously and have become almost one and the same.
Except of course, for Libertarianism which abstracts itself out and goes “nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah” at us from off to the side...