Same-Sex Marriage Judge Finds That a Child Has Neither a Need Nor a Right to a Mother

Same-Sex Marriage Judge Finds That a Child Has Neither a Need Nor a Right to a Mother

www.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.

“Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted,

(visit the link for the full news article)

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled last week in federal court in San Francisco that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

Where in the constitution does it say that same-sex marriage is a right?

Judge Vaughn R. Walker has not read the Constitution correctly, has he?

Even worse, where in the Bible does it say that same-sex marriage is a right?

Surely America has long abandoned God and His moral precepts.

Surely this is the Sodom and Gomorrah of new.

If you were a judge, would you rule that every child has both a need and a right for a mother?

www.cnsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

You're bringing up America is now the new Sodom and Gomorrah while criticizing the legalization of same sex marriage. That is ridiculous! Last time I check this country wasn't ruled by any religious or non religious authority. Every American has a right to their own. If you deny that right then you are against the Constitution of the United States.

reply to post by ironfalcon

Where in the constitution does it say that same-sex marriage is a right?

You are confusing the purpose of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights doesn't give us our rights, so much as it prevents the government from taking our self evident rights away. For instance, our 1st Amendment doesn't give us the right to free speech, per se. Rather, it prevents the government from impeding our right to free speech.

--airspoon

[edit on 9-8-2010 by airspoon]

How about we aim for kids being raised by loving and attentive parents first before we begin worrying about what gender a parent should be. I'd much rather see responsible and invovled gay parents than the increasing plague of kids being raised by hetero parents who are disinvested and absentee.

*edited to make sure I don't come across as inferring that all gay parents would be good at the gig*

[edit on 8/10/10 by Hefficide]

Originally posted by Hefficide

How about we aim for kids being raised by loving and attentive parents first before we begin worrying about what gender a parent should be. I'd much rather see gay parents than the increasing plague of kids being raised by hetero parents who are disinvested and absentee.

Oh - come on now.

That is too logical and makes too much sense. Can't have that.

Am I surprised? Not really.
These democratic liberals find it OK to evoke capital punishment (murder), abortion (murder), free education and health care from our tax dollars to illegal immigrants or illegal entrants (fraud and theft), same sex marriages (an abomination to G_D), an elimination of our second amendments(need I say more), while turning their backs to massive police brutality, and taxation without representation( 1 example: people in Northern Cali have to pay for the aquifered water to the Southern part of Cali, while South Cali pays for the water as well!).
And this is all OK with the Obamanation!
And it will only get worse (the sheeple go Bhaaa baahh baaa).
Whether you agree with my conservative points of view or not, even the most left wing lib has to agree that our gobermnt is corrupt.
Come November, vote them all OUT

Originally posted by ironfalcon
Where in the constitution does it say that same-sex marriage is a right?

Judge Vaughn R. Walker has not read the Constitution correctly, has he?

Even worse, where in the Bible does it say that same-sex marriage is a right?

If you were a judge, would you rule that every child has both a need and a right for a mother?

Well the question could be asked where in the Constitution does it say that anyone has the right to marry? That case was decided in the Loving case, stating that the right to marry was a fundamental right to the orderly persuit of of happiness.
Ah, but that is the rub, we are nation of laws, and diversity, especially in religion. Not everyone in this country is a Christian. There has to be a happy medium between the religious and the body politic, or else it will lead the country down a danger path, far more than anything you could imagine. In the past, religion was used to justify discrimination and persecution of peoples, all in the name of God. Is that what we want to go back to? No group has the right to enforce its views of morality on others, no matter what.
The other aspect of the article, is that they failed to mentioned, that these days, with the high rate of divorce, many children are often raised with a non biological parent, or in a single parent home. So the judge is correct, that a child does not need his biological mother, or biological father. Many children are often put into foster care, or even into the states care, with no parents. That is the society that we live in, and it is all done within the perview of the law. So that too is correct. So where has the judge really erred in his judgement, save that some religious people are getting all bent out of shape, yet fail to remember history, where their own groups were at one time persecuted and discriminated against all on the basis of their beliefs.

Originally posted by Hefficide

How about we aim for kids being raised by loving and attentive parents first before we begin worrying about what gender a parent should be. I'd much rather see gay parents than the increasing plague of kids being raised by hetero parents who are disinvested and absentee.

That is what society should at least revert to.

Studies show that kids are better off under two straight parents.

www.clasp.org...

reply to post by ironfalcon

If you were a judge, would you rule that every
child has both a need and a right for a mother?

If I were a judge, I wouldn't touch the issue. I would assert that my position as a judge conveyed no authority to rule either way on such a matter, and refuse the case.

And I would do it loudly in hopes that it would set a precedent.

reply to post by ironfalcon


i think its the part where it says all men and women are created equal or did you not read that part? and where in the constitution dose it say gay marriage isnt allowed?

correction its the bill of rights that says that my bad

[edit on 10-8-2010 by KilrathiLG]

Originally posted by ironfalcon

Originally posted by Hefficide

How about we aim for kids being raised by loving and attentive parents first before we begin worrying about what gender a parent should be. I'd much rather see gay parents than the increasing plague of kids being raised by hetero parents who are disinvested and absentee.

That is what society should at least revert to.

Studies show that kids are better off under two straight parents.

www.clasp.org...

Two gay parents is better than one single parent.
Why do I have the feeling you're more worried about the gay people?

Originally posted by ironfalcon
Where in the constitution does it say that same-sex marriage is a right?

Where is opposite sex marriage granted as a right in the constitution?

Judge Vaughn R. Walker has not read the Constitution correctly, has he?

Even worse, where in the Bible does it say that same-sex marriage is a right?

Oh, you think you are in a Christian nation? Nevermind. I thought this was about America.

reply to post by hippomchippo


That's what I'm getting from OP's comments. Aren't we above childish issues against people who are different then us? First it was skin color; now it has to do with sexual ordinance.

reply to post by ironfalcon


As a man who was raised by a single mother and had an absentee father I can tell you that two loving parents, of any shape, form, or gender would have made my young life much more tolerable. I was a latchkey kid with a Mom who was always at work and our lives were never easy.

So given my own experiences... Would two moms have been better than one?

Yes!

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Hefficide

How about we aim for kids being raised by loving and attentive parents first before we begin worrying about what gender a parent should be. I'd much rather see gay parents than the increasing plague of kids being raised by hetero parents who are disinvested and absentee.

Oh - come on now.

That is too logical and makes too much sense. Can't have that.

Exactly, more than 50% of hetero marriages end in divorce anyway, so obviously it doesn't hold the same kind of power it once did. Even though it's "god given" "institutionalality" prevents people who love eachother from getting a symbolic piece of paper show that they are recognised as equals in what is supposedly the greatest democracy on the planet (not true I might add), people clinging to the past are squabbling over this instead of going after the real issues.

Peeps need to get with the 21st century.

Its just like illegal immigrants - the economy goes to bleep as a result of no-fault of mexicans, but rather a corrupt system, so instead of fixing it and putting fat cats heads on a pike - they stir up racial tension to distract and divide.

Same here.

Heteros are getting divorced left right and centre because they don't know themselves and rush into bad decisions because of cultural peer pressure and societal structure is changing. Instead of dealing with their own gaping flaws, people get swept up in homophobia because the sight of 2 men holding hands makes them feel uncomfortable with their own sexuality.

Originally posted by ironfalcon


Surely this is the Sodom and Gomorrah of new.

If you were a judge, would you rule that every child has both a need and a right for a mother?

So, according to you, I as a single father who lost his wife to illness many years ago is not only unfit to raise my children but I am equal to a city of sin that should be destroyed by God?

Furthermore, if their Uncle helps out from time to time that is even worse because although straight, he is also not a mother?

What is your solution? Should my children be taken from me or should I be forced to take a wife?

reply to post by ironfalcon

I question the source that you posted, as all of the staff and experts that are presented all have studies and degrees that are....Christian bias.
Thats right the staff of CLASP is following religious dogma, all with a degree in one form or another in divinity.
The reality is that there is no real study on the impact of a child who is raised by 2 people of the same gender that has ever been done, as this issue is fairly new and without tainting the results with religious bias, can not really be stated. I would think that if there were 2 adults with an active interest in raising a child, taking the time to make a decent home and actively participating in the childs life, what is the worse that could happen? Instead of the decline of society, maybe a society that starts to get back on the right track?

I'm disappointed that so many of my fellow conservatives have indulged in leftist-style ad hominem attacks on the judge. His ruling is quite refutable without them. He based his "fact findings" not on the common knowledge of centuries, nor on sound, peer-reviewed research, but on assertions in a pamphlet by an unnamed author - and so called 'experts'- assertions with caveats that there is little or no evidence to support them! There is no basis in the Constitution for this ruling.

Prop. 8 does not discriminate against people attracted to the same gender - they have the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender as anyone else! That they don't want to doesn't give them the right to impose their will.

The Constitution states that unless the law is unequally applied, this is a matter for the states, and the Federal court has no jurisdiction.

The law is equally applied. The Constitution has no law nor does it even address marriage...PERIOD. So i have no idea where this 'right to marriage' comes from. There is no fundamental right to marriage.

Yes the supreme court ruled in loving vs virginia that 'there is a fundamental right to marriage'. BUT THAT RULING WAS WRONG. Before any of you accuse me of being a bigot or wanting interracial marriage to be banned. Im talking STRICTLY legality here. The judges in virginia vs loving was wrong just as judge walker is wrong. I understand judges have to follow precident....BUT what if that precident was wrong?

There is no fundamental right to marriage granted by the bill of rights. NONE. This is the definition of judical activism. Judges who write laws and opinions of there own morality and ethics. Its never enough to just loom at the LEGALITY of things. You always have tp put your own personal twist and morality into it.

Jude walker was wrong,just as virginia vs loving supreme court was wrong. THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE. PERIIIIIOOOOOODDDDD!

Give me One sentance...one word in the constitution that mentions marriage! There is none. Following precident even when that precident is wrong and not 100% true to the consitution is wrong.

Where are all the libertarians in this? Or constitutional scholars or just plain constitutionalists? So many of you state we should follow the constitution to a tee. This is not following the constitution to a tee.

You cant pick and choose what to follow in the constitution. You cant say "he cant do this because the of the constitution" and then applaud another decision that craps on the constitution because your on one side of the issue!

Unless of course you believe in the whole 'living document' mentality with the constitution. Maybe it is just a outdated piece of paper that needs to be rewritten every few years everytime a new minority of the country pops up!

Its occured to me that most of you constitutionalists and libertarians are against the abuse of power and law(Which judicial activism is) only when it suites you. You want gay marriage and therefore the ruling was correct. No criticizing the ruling. No looking at it from another angle. You agree with gay marriage so...whatever.

Freakin hypocrits. You only care about people misrepresenting the constitution which this is,because there is no right to marriage) when it suits you and your morality. You people are no better then the fundies who want to put us in a theocracy!

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

The issue of gay marriage and children is quite a different issue than a childs right and need for their biological mother, and or father. Did you notice something here. How did they two issues get on the same ruling.

All children need their biological parents, or one of their biological parents, more than any other person on earth. This is not a gay issue, and while I support gay issues including their right to marry, I would defend to teh death against anyone coming near my children, and I am a single mother.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Unity_99]