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

reply to post by Unity_99


Thank you Unity_99. I may not have been clear enough earlier, but my issue here is making sure that children have loving and engaged parents, regardless of their sexuality, gender, or any other such factor. Obviously you care for your children enough to protect them and that is very admirable.

All children deserve love, attention, structure, support, and protection. If gay couples can provide this for children who are lacking, then I think it's a positive option.

quote]Originally posted by ghostsoldier

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.

Divorce statistics are misleading. They mislead you into thinking the divorce rate is like "you get married and then divorce real quick".

What really happens is the older you get there is a higher chance of divorce. The older you get and the longer your marriage lasts the higher change of divorce there is.

Divorce rates say how many divorces there are for every marriage. Like in one state there are 6 divorces for every 1,000.

That does not seem like that many or as bad right?

Furthermore what is not widely known about the divorce statistics that you tout against heterosexuals is they go like this.

Current divorce statistics in America is estimated at 50%. This data is not accurately correct, however, it is reasonably close to actual. The Americans for Divorce Reform estimates that "Probably, 40 or possibly even 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce if current trends continue.", which is actually a projection. Commanly said, 50% of all marriages in the America end in divorce. But this statement about the divorce statistics in America hides all the details about distribution, however.

www.divorcestatistics.org...

Notice anything about those statistics? It never tells you how long that marriaqge LASTED before divorce. So you have a 50% chance of divorcing ONCE in your entire life! yes after the first divorce you seem to be doomed to many divorces. But like i said before...the entire 50% of marriages end in divorce' thing is misleading. So 50% of marriages end in divorce, and some of those marriages can last DECADES.Which all of you guys who bash us heteros seem to forget. Furthermore you still have a 50% chance of finding happiness. Its like the rest of life. You can either fail or flourish.

But dont you wave divorce statistics around and misrepresent those statistics.

If you want to throw out divorce statistics to promote gay marriage its only fair if i throw out same sex marriage statistics to do the opposite.

In Norway and sweden it was found that same sex marriage has a higher divorce rate then heterosexual marriage. It was found that lesbian relationships in particular are considerably less stable then all other relationships.










[edit on 10-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

I find it is always interesting to know the source of the news site - to see where the slant comes from. No surprise here.

Here is the founder of CNS news: Leo Brent Bozell III (born July 14, 1955) is the American founder and president of the Media Research Center, the Conservative Communications Center, and the Cybercast News Service. Bozell served as president of the Parents Television Council from 1995 to 2006, after which he was succeeded by Timothy F. Winter.[1] In addition, currently, Bozell serves on the board for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and has served on the board of directors in the American Conservative Union.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Annee
I find it is always interesting to know the source of the news site - to see where the slant comes from. No surprise here.

Here is the founder of CNS news: Leo Brent Bozell III (born July 14, 1955) is the American founder and president of the Media Research Center, the Conservative Communications Center, and the Cybercast News Service. Bozell served as president of the Parents Television Council from 1995 to 2006, after which he was succeeded by Timothy F. Winter.[1] In addition, currently, Bozell serves on the board for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and has served on the board of directors in the American Conservative Union.

en.wikipedia.org...

So? your point is? everything that they stated was true. There is no right to same sex marriage. There is no right to marriage...PERIOD.

Im tired of this myth being said. Just because some judicial activists in the 1960s said you have a 'fundamental right to marriage' does not make it so. Constitutionally there is no right to marriage. what is more important...follow precident or following the constitution?

Judge walker based his entire ruling on the 'fundamental right to marriage' which does not exist. furthermore even if it did exist gays are not being denied the right to marriage. everyone is equally protected under th law. i cant marry another man and a women cant marry another woman. None of that matters though because there is no right to marriage and should make walkers entire ruling moot. Because he is a idiot and needs to study his constitution phamplet again.

I have one. I must have got one that is flawed and must be sent back....because im obviously under the impression that there is no right to marriage. One could make the argument that since there is no right to marriage the government should not be giving out benifits. Which i would agree with you whole heartedly. That is the real constitutional position. No involvment in marriage AT ALL!

It would end this debate once and for all and put to bed a issue that TPTB are using to divide us against each other.



[edit on 10-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

What this boils down to is the inflammatory question often asked by opponents
of same-sex marriage...

If we allow same-sex marriage, what's next, marriage to goats and sheep?!

The answer to that question is obviously NO. But among some of the
reasonable questions to ask and debate on the subject are what about
children, and their rights.

Gay couples who have biological children from a heterosexual encounter.
Gay couples who seek to adopt.
Gay couples who seek artificial insemination or surrogate mothers.

Those are the kinds of questions that cause me to rub my chin
and go, hmmm.

While I think most gay men would make excellent doting parents
and should have the same right to sire a child, or adopt, as any of
us. It is only my opinion--and I've been wrong two or three times
in my life.

But what about the rights of the child. Children, and protection of the
children, are often cited and used as inflammatory points in many
discussions, but in this discussion it is quite relevant.

Does an orphan have a right to say I want (or don't want) gay
parents, and at what age can they make this decision.

I'm just voicing an opinion here, but a little girl raised by gay men
seems quite charming. And likewise for a boy raised by gay women.
But there is something distasteful about the opposite.
I think it's my gut reaction to be suspicious of motive. That's not a very
sympathetic response by me...but it IS honest.

So the answer to the question (of) where same-sex married will end?

In courts of law, protecting children's rights, and insurance company's
rights, and employer rights, and IRS tax status rulings.





[edit on 10-8-2010 by rival]

Originally posted by rival
What this boils down to is the inflammatory question often asked by opponents
of same-sex marriage...

If we allow same-sex marriage, what's next, marriage to goats and sheep?!

The answer to that question is obviously NO. But among some of the
reasonable questions to ask and debate on the subject are what about
children, and their rights.

Gay couples who have biological children from a heterosexual encounter.
Gay couples who seek to adopt.
Gay couples who seek artificial insemination or surrogate mothers.

Those are the kinds of questions that cause me to rub my chin
and go, hmmm.

While I think most gay men would make excellent doting parents
and should have the same right to sire a child, or adopt, as any of
us. It is only my opinion--and I've been wrong two or three times
in my life.

But what about the rights of the child. Children, and protection of the
children, are often cited and used as inflammatory points in many
discussions, but in this discussion it is quite relevant.

Does an orphan have a right to say I want (or don't want) gay
parents, and at what age can they make this decision.

I'm just voicing an opinion here, but a little girl raised by gay men
seems quite charming. And likewise for a boy raised by gay women.
But there is something distasteful about the opposite.
I think it's my gut reaction to be suspicious of motive. That's not a very
sympathetic response by me...but it IS honest.

So the answer to the question (of) where same-sex married will end?

In courts of law, protecting children's rights, and insurance company's
rights, and employer rights, and IRS tax status rulings.





[edit on 10-8-2010 by rival]

It will never end. Gays will get there marriage and still want more. Just like any minority group they will get what they want and never be satisfied. Today it will be gay marriage. Tomorrow it will be some other 'right' that is being 'denied' to them.

Just like blacks after the civil rights era.The majority SEEM to still have a victim complex. Its always whiteys fault.

It will be the same with the gays. They will get there marriage but somehow some way something will always be blamed on us 'homophobes'. Like i said. Today its marriage. Tomorrow it will be them asking for homosexuality to be taught in schools at a young age. to essentially 'normalize' it. Then after that happens it will be them seeking to be married in churches. Never mind forcing people to marry people if they dont want to if it goes against there faith is unconstitutional....they will do so just to spite christians and to strike iout against 'christian oppression'.

Its already happening in canada. Churches are being forced to marry gays and they have asked the government to step in and stand up for there freedom of religion but they hear nothing but crickets. why? its already 'normalized' up there.

Today its gays tomorrow it will be polygamists/polyamorists. After that who knows who will be the minority wanting 'equal rights'.

Pretty soon everything will be accepted in society.

Originally posted by Nofoolishness

Originally posted by Annee
I find it is always interesting to know the source of the news site - to see where the slant comes from. No surprise here.

Here is the founder of CNS news: Leo Brent Bozell III (born July 14, 1955) is the American founder and president of the Media Research Center, the Conservative Communications Center, and the Cybercast News Service. Bozell served as president of the Parents Television Council from 1995 to 2006, after which he was succeeded by Timothy F. Winter.[1] In addition, currently, Bozell serves on the board for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and has served on the board of directors in the American Conservative Union.

en.wikipedia.org...

So? your point is? everything that they stated was true.

My point is - - its just more Right Wing Christian Conservative Fear Mongering. As per usual - - - making a self-righteous mountain out of a molehill.

All the judge is saying is - - the combination of parents - - is inconsequential.

Parents are Parents.

Originally posted by Nofoolishness

Divorce statistics are misleading. They mislead you into thinking the divorce rate is like "you get married and then divorce real quick".

Accurate divorce statistics are really not necessary to this discussion.

Everyone knows there are a lot of divorced parents.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Nofoolishness

Originally posted by Annee
I find it is always interesting to know the source of the news site - to see where the slant comes from. No surprise here.

Here is the founder of CNS news: Leo Brent Bozell III (born July 14, 1955) is the American founder and president of the Media Research Center, the Conservative Communications Center, and the Cybercast News Service. Bozell served as president of the Parents Television Council from 1995 to 2006, after which he was succeeded by Timothy F. Winter.[1] In addition, currently, Bozell serves on the board for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and has served on the board of directors in the American Conservative Union.

en.wikipedia.org...

So? your point is? everything that they stated was true.

My point is - - its just more Right Wing Christian Conservative Fear Mongering. As per usual - - - making a self-righteous mountain out of a molehill.

All the judge is saying is - - the combination of parents - - is inconsequential.

Parents are Parents.

No they quoted him verbatum. The judge said you dont have the right to a parent. Thats what he said.

Originally posted by rival
I'm just voicing an opinion here, but a little girl raised by gay men
seems quite charming. And likewise for a boy raised by gay women.
But there is something distasteful about the opposite.
I think it's my gut reaction to be suspicious of motive. That's not a very
sympathetic response by me...but it IS honest.

I disagree with your opinion here, what is wrong with two gay men having a boy or two gay women having a girl? It's an identical situation to a straight man having a daughter and a straight woman having a son. Just because they prefer the same sex it doesn't mean they're going to be fantasising about their child!

It's just a gut reaction, and it is hard to ~reason~ it away. I can tell myself
there is no basis, no correlation, I can see why a gay parent would
be very offended by it, and can even advocate for their side while
still having the same gut reaction.

I think in general society does make a correlation. We have NAMBLA
and pedophile priests in the news, and it scares us.

In the same way Iraqis weren't responsible for 9/11, we still, rather lazily,
associate them together in a broad social way.

I try to be as reasonable as possible. I think gay people are born, not
created--and I empathize with them. It must be tough to realize your
urges fall outside of the norm. I don't think we get to choose what we
find sexually attractive; be it shoes, butts, men, women, or children.
And I realize that last bit is VERY provocative. But I can imagine that
there are many potential pedophiles who never take action on their
urges, because they know how wrong it is, and still lead normal
productive lives, but yet struggle with self-loathing everyday because
of it.

I'm getting off-topic. Whether you agree or disagree my opinion is
reasonable or not, trust that there are those who disagree completely and
believe gays should NOT able to adopt. They have a completely different
platform (usually provided by religion) from whence they derive
their opinions If you are gay and want to parent, I feel for you.
I understand...and I'll put my gut reaction aside and advocate on your
behalf...but you are going to be held to a higher standard. That is
the reality...

i think it only matters that ADULTS raise children, regardless of whether they are gay or straight couples.

in the town where i live, there are whole council estates where most of them are occupied by teenage single mothers.
i regularly see groups of them wheeling their babies in their strollers at 10pm at night and later, and hanging around each others streets for hours with their babies, like they're the latest fashion accessory. Come the weekend they are all scrambling to find a babysitter so they can all get together and spend their benefits in the off-licence and have a weekend on the lash. And a different boyfriend moving in every week isnt what i call being a responsible parent.

a little life experience is what's important in raising children, and adults have this whether they be gay or straight.

children having children is where it's all going wrong.

Let me reiterate my point once more. There is no right to marriage at all.The judge can use loving vs virginia all they want but all they were was a bunch of lawyers who could never live up to the framers. They essentially abused there power for judical activism.

That is the case with the supposed “right” to same-sex marriage. The framers of our constitution would not have recognized such a right. This is not because they would have opposed the idea of two people of the same sex marrying. It is because they defined rights as negations of governmental power.

Work your way through the Bill of Rights and you will see one restriction after another on what the government can do to citizens: Tell them what religion to follow, what they can print, whether they can have guns and so on.

Over the centuries, though, the members of the legal profession, both liberal and conservative, have found it convenient to expand the definition of the word “rights” to encompass all sorts of things the framers could not have imagined. The left has tried to create rights to housing, welfare, etc.

As for marriage, it cannot be a “right” in strict constitutional terms. It is simply governmental recognition of a traditional social arrangement, a contractual agreement between a man and a woman. All citizens – gay, straight or bisexual - have the same access to that social arrangement. Therefore the equal protection argument based on the 14th Amendment made by Walker is misguided. Everyone is already treated equally under the current law in California. Every resident can marry someone of the opposite sex.

The issue here is whether to create a new social arrangement altogether, one that would permit residents to marry someone of the same sex. Whatever you think of this concept, it has nothing to do with a restriction on the power of government and therefore it has nothing to do with rights. It is simply a new social arrangement. Society could sanction any number of social arrangements between and among people of both sexes. Those desiring such arrangements are free to elect officials who promise to recognize them. Once elected, those officials could remove legal recognition of marriage altogether or create new forms of marriage involving both genders in an almost infinite number of combinations. But there is no more "right" to have any one such arrangement than any other such arrangement.

Wasn’t that simple? Someone tell that poor confused judge who wasted all those words trying to express what I just expressed in a few paragraphs. I’m sure the man is doing his best, but I suspect he lost the ability to make such simple and obvious distinctions back in law school.

He ruled under the due process clause and equal protections clause. He is a fool.

One difficulty with the Due Process route is that it requires treating marriage as a fundamental right. Walker writes, “[t]o determine whether a right is fundamental under the Due Process Clause, the court inquiries into whether the right is rooted ‘in our Nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices.’”

And here lies a problem: Being able to freely choose one’s marriage partner has never been viewed as rooted in the Nation’s history or “legal traditions, and practices.” Marriage qualifications have long restricted who can marry who and under what terms. This isn’t a Due Process argument because there is no denial of a fundamental right due.

Additionally, could even argue Prop 8 is in fact “Due Process” in itself. The Fourteenth Amendment’s primary author, John Bingham, in 1872 argued a law that permits land to be seized and sold without a jury is in fact Due Process of law, or more specifically, “law of the land.”

Incidentally, Bingham always pointed out the fact Due Process Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was the words of the 39th Chapter of the Magna Charta.

Furthermore how can marriage be a fundamental right when the state is required to disolve it?

If marriage is a fundamental right say goodbye to divorce.

reply to post by Nofoolishness

Could you cite sources that are not religious bias?
Based off of what I could find, the divorce rate, it is 4.95 out of 1000 will end in divorce. The number of children being born out of wedlock is about 4 out 10.
On September 30, 2006, there were an estimated 510,000 children in foster care, of which only 49% were reunited with their families.
And when you combine all of that with the number of children who get into trouble with the law, the numbers start to get staggering. ( I could not get those statistics as they are not released, except by the bar association, as it did not give the actual percentage of juvenile offenders to non offenders.)
Ultimately the point has to be what is good for the child, and not from a religious point of view, has to be the ultimate concern.
When you take religion out of the mix and sexual orientation, the question must be asked is the home stable? Do the prospective parents want the child? Will the child be raised in a safe home, and be well cared for?
If a home is found to be stable and financially sound, and the means to raise and support a child, then it is an adequate home.
This means that it should not matter if a family is Religious, or not, the concern should not be if the couple is a same sex couple or not.
Until real impact studies are done, all that you have is speculation, and most coming from a religious bias, from a groups that use religion as a means to justify hatred for one thing or another.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by sdcigarpig]

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.

Even worse, laws based on the Bible.

Surely you have heard of separation of church and state?

That is something Americans need to get through their thick skulls before we all go up in a mushroom cloud.

Children need lovong adults to raise them. The judge is correct in that it matter not whom is doing the loving raising.

Most child abuse happens to a kid from their own parent. Maybe more kids NEED to be raised by adoptive gay parents.

Under the laws of most common-law type nations, the "true parent" of a child is the government and the parent-in-location acting on its behalf is the people you and I consider a parent.

Just adding a bit of knowledge to your pool.

My question is "what do the marriage laws" have to do with children?

I see this as two separate issues.

You don't have to be married to have children, so why are children even brought into this debate?

This is the issue of two human beings wishing to be recognized as a union and afforded all the rights and benefits given to a "marital union."

Isn't that the crux of the issue?

I guess I better read the Constitution and get up to speed on this.

reply to post by ironfalcon


The only thing related to same sex marriage that can crudely be linked in the constitution is not there. It is in the declaration of independence which claims people have a right to freedom, prosperity, and the pursuit of happiness. Meaning that people have a right to be happy how they please if it does not violate freedom or prosperity.

So pretty much there's nothing in the constitution about it. You have a choice to how you want to live, and people have to change that by their talking, not law. You can't force a life style onto anybody if it violates those three things in the Dec of Ind.

reply to post by ironfalcon


I have only read the opening post...
This ruling will make it easier for the 'state'
to raise our children!