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

It is never a pretty thing when blind idealism overrides all considerations, including compassion, love, and common sense.

I reiterate that I just cannot see many human beings being so cold about their beliefs, on this matter, that they would, themselves, look an orphan or foster child in the eye and say "This nice, stable, financially well off couple came today to get you out of here. But don't fear, I made sure it was all stopped. I know that you'd prefer living here than to have to be exposed to gay people."

Having strong opinions about something is healthy and debate is always a great thing. But when your ideas are so blind as to not even take into account how they would effect others, then I think that those ideas basically lose their merit to some degree.

The Bible I read said that we are supposed to love each other as we, ourselves, would be loved. Hate against any group of people, period, doesn't seem to follow any tenet of love.

A child has no right to a mother?

Wow.

Originally posted by Darkrunner
A child has no right to a mother?

Wow.

Why don't you go read what he actually said and the explanation that goes with it.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Darkrunner
A child has no right to a mother?

Wow.

Why don't you go read what he actually said and the explanation that goes with it.

I did.

The premise is a child does not need to be raised by both a mother and father to be well adjusted.

I would submit that being raised by a homosexual couple does not make your childhood years any easier. I know, as I went to high school with a kid who had Jim and Gary as his parents.

Now we all know how widespread childhood bullying is. I didn't give him # because I got it for growing up fairly poor and did not have the latest fashionable clothes or shoes.

But I know I wouldn't want the # he went through. School years are hard enough without that to live down every day of the school year.

Originally posted by Darkrunner

I did.

The premise is a child does not need to be raised by both a mother and father to be well adjusted.

That is a completely different meaning then: "A child has no right to a mother?.

I would submit that being raised by a homosexual couple does not make your childhood years any easier. I know, as I went to high school with a kid who had Jim and Gary as his parents.

I was raised by a disabled mother and grandmother back in the 50s. I know about family prejudices outside the "norm".

High School? Who doesn't have something to complain about during teenage years. I bet the kid with 2 dads is thankful for his parents love as he matures.

Bullies will always find something.

What becomes Accepted - - becomes Acceptable.


[edit on 11-8-2010 by Annee]

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Nofoolishness

Making up a right that does not exist such as right to marriage IS making up a right annee. There is no other definition.

There are some people that actually see "humans as humans".

Then there are people like you who are stuck in a antiquainted mindset - - manufactured by primitive man. With all his - fears - insecurities - prejudices - judgements - and ideologies.

It has been explained to you why gay marriage is constitutional. Equal is Equal.

Your useless repetition why it is not - - does not change the fact it is.

No. No one has in fact explained to me why gay marriage or marriage period is constitutional. Quit running from the question annee. show me where marriage is a right. quit being a fool.

Marriage = union of a man and woman recognized and approved by the state to bring biological children into the community and raise them to adulthood.

Civil Union = other union recognized by the state and community and granted all tax, insurance, medical decision making, and inheritance rights.

However, Children do have a right to be born into a family with both a mother and a father.

That said, I am willing to consider Same-Sex couples doing foster care or adopting. Some very poor low quality Research does show that same-sex couples can do as well as divorced couples at raising children according to the National Academy of Pediatrics.

However,, when it comes to same-sex doing IBF, surrogate mothers, sperm donors, advanced fertility stuff to create a child into a same-sex family, which knowingly denies a child the psychosocial exposure and modeling of both genders, then that violates the rights of the child.

And that is what makes Civil Union different than Marriage, and that should be the only difference.

It's about children's rights.

Originally posted by Nofoolishness

No. No one has in fact explained to me why gay marriage or marriage period is constitutional. Quit running from the question annee. show me where marriage is a right. quit being a fool.

Where in the Constitution does it say Man & Woman.

Marriage License - - a legal contractual government agreement. It better be covered by the constitution.

Do not call me a fool.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Annee]

reply to post by Annee


I agree. Childhood brings bullying. And I don't feel that children need anymore sources of it.

I tell you what, I would rather stay in an orphanage than put up with that kind of abuse because your moms or dads couldn't have kids, they picked you.

No thank you, Life is hard enough as an adopted kid in a new school with out having to deal with that #.

No thanks, dads.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Darkrunner]

The debate here should not be about foster care or no foster care.

The debate should be about if same-sex should be doing advanced fertillity, sperm donors, and surrogate mothers, test tube baby stuff, to create a baby that will knowingly be born into a same-sex family.

I am okay with foster care rights. if there is a need, then research shows same-sex couples can do about as well as divorced married couples at the psychosocial development of their children. And even that data is very suspect.

marriage is not specified in the constitution and therefore is a power reserved to the states.

multi talented judge
Judge
And
Licened Mental Health Professional
Unless licensed and schooled on the subject this judge cannot Find Anything concerning a child and parents ...

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Nofoolishness

No. No one has in fact explained to me why gay marriage or marriage period is constitutional. Quit running from the question annee. show me where marriage is a right. quit being a fool.

Where in the Constitution does it say Man & Woman.

Marriage License - - a legal contractual government agreement. It better be covered by the constitution.

Do not call me a fool.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Annee]

The constitution does not mention marriage PERIOD.

Marriage liscense is not covered by the constitution either because marriage is not covered. Because marriage is never mentioned.

Im calling you FOOLISH. because you are acting like a child. You wont give me what i want. You wont tell me how gay marriage or even marriage is constitutional period.

The right to marriage does not exist because its never mentioned. There is no right to marriage period. Be it gay straight,man or woman.

Originally posted by Nofoolishness


Im calling you FOOLISH. because you are acting like a child. You wont give me what i want. You wont tell me how gay marriage or even marriage is constitutional period.

The right to marriage does not exist because its never mentioned. There is no right to marriage period. Be it gay straight,man or woman.

You won't give me what I want!!!!!

You are acting like a child!!!!!!

reply to post by centurion1211

And with your kind of attitudes, perhaps you'd be in favor of doing away with children being raised by their biological parents altogether.

Yes, perhaps you also believe we've "evolved" way past the need for that sort of silliness. All it takes is a village, right?

If you read the book "Brave New World", would you prefer their methods?

I've read this response several times now, but I'm still unsure both of what your position is, as well as what you think mine is.

I have read A Brave New World. No, I wouldn't particularly want to live in that society. But I don't see how you connect my assertion that government has no business making decisions for people with the idea that government should control everything.

Would you like to explain?

Marriage is a constitutional right - by equal protection and due process of law.

I suppose you can call any arrangement a Marriage.

However - to receive protection by law - a legal government contract is required. That contract is called a Marriage License

This License has nothing to do with religion or ideology - - it is strictly for legal protection and specific rights not obtainable by any other contract.

Voters attempted to add an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage by specific genders. This attempt violated the Equal Rights of a minority group.

It is not acceptable to deny the specific protections and rights only obtainable by the legal government contract Marriage License - - - to any and all partners wanting to join together as a union of one family.

@Nofoolishness

Im calling you FOOLISH. because you are acting like a child. You wont give me what i want. You wont tell me how gay marriage or even marriage is constitutional period.

The right to marriage does not exist because its never mentioned. There is no right to marriage period. Be it gay straight,man or woman.

Marriage existed before the constitution and is a given. The constitution does not give you your rights, all rights are yours already including the right to marry. The constitution names specifically circumstances that are needed for key areas, so they are not abused by governments. The part that pertains to marriage would be in the equal right to pursue happiness that all citizens have, which includes marriage which is already your choice and right.

Originally posted by Annee
Marriage is a constitutional right - by equal protection and due process of law.

I suppose you can call any arrangement a Marriage.

However - to receive protection by law - a legal government contract is required. That contract is called a Marriage License

This License has nothing to do with religion or ideology - - it is strictly for legal protection and specific rights not obtainable by any other contract.

Voters attempted to add an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage by specific genders. This attempt violated the Equal Rights of a minority group.

It is not acceptable to deny the specific protections and rights only obtainable by the legal government contract Marriage License - - - to any and all partners wanting to join together as a union of one family.

Finally we get to the crux of the matter annee. FINALLY. Now allow me to rebuke you.


Yes marriage is a contract. A legal one at that. But your whole argument banks on that gays are being denied rights specifically the right to marriage liscense. Gays are not being denied any rights...they are not being denied the right to marriage or having a marriage liscense. They can marry the opposite sex. There is no discrimination involved.
The right to marry 'whoever or whatever' you want does not exist.

You are arguing that everyone has the right to marry who ever they want. Such a right does not exist. Because like before i have stated THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE.

You argued under due process and equal protections. Neither of these are being violated. Under equal protection gays are being offered the same benifits as everyone else. All they have to do is sign a piece of paper and get into the agreement with the opposite gender.There does not need to be love. There does not need to be sex.There does not need to be attraction. Therefore its not even 'unrealistic' to expect this. One can live seperated and be married.

Judge Walker ruled that there is a 'fundamental right to marriage'. which does not exist. No where in the constitution does the word 'marriage' appear.

Government should be out of marriage period.

Once more. The rights of gays are not being violated. They are offered due process. They Have equal protections.

What you are saying is "people have the right to marry whoever they want regardless of gender" which does not exist. Because the right to marriage does not exist at all.Because no where is it mentioned in the bill of rights or even the constitution.

Originally posted by Unity_99
@Nofoolishness

Im calling you FOOLISH. because you are acting like a child. You wont give me what i want. You wont tell me how gay marriage or even marriage is constitutional period.

The right to marriage does not exist because its never mentioned. There is no right to marriage period. Be it gay straight,man or woman.

Marriage existed before the constitution and is a given. The constitution does not give you your rights, all rights are yours already including the right to marry. The constitution names specifically circumstances that are needed for key areas, so they are not abused by governments. The part that pertains to marriage would be in the equal right to pursue happiness that all citizens have, which includes marriage which is already your choice and right.

No you just quoted the declaration of independence. Not the constitution. People quit bring up the declaration. The declaration is NOT LAW. The constitution is the law of the land.

The constitution DOES give you your rights. If they did not people would not be upset or pissed off if the government just came up and said the '1st ammendment is being repealed'.

Once again QUIT QUOTING THE DECLARATION. That is not the law of the land. All your rights are given to you by the constitution. You can believe that your rights are given to you by birth but REALISTS know that the constitution is what keeps you free. If not why even have a constitution? Why even have a bill of rights? I mean just burn the bill of rights if all it is doing is gathering dust and not giving us any rights. Why have it lieing around?

Give me a break.

reply to post by Nofoolishness


But isn't the guarantee of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" section of the Declaration directly linkable to this issue, thus making marriage - which is a keystone of happiness - an inalienable right?

I'm not a lawyer but this seems to make perfect sense to me.

*edited to say day late and a dollar short - oh well*

[edit on 8/11/10 by Hefficide]