DOJ: Children Do Not Need OR Have Rights To Mothers

[Cruella]

DOJ: Children Do Not Need—and Have No Right to--Mothers

"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."

 

[dogtowner]

DOJ: Children Do Not Need—and Have No Right to--Mothers

"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."

interesting. a mother is the only certain thing every child has. but it can hardly be considered odd that people who think being homosexual is normal would also overlook this simple natural truth.

 

[TheJPRD]

The argument of the Obozo DOJ cuts both ways. The argument is that children don't need mothers, and that they don't need fathers either (as in lesbian marriages). When you get into the guts of most all leftwing positions, you'll find that the ONLY thing children and adults need is leftwing, Big-Brother Government.

God forbid that child rapists ever become a large voting block in the US. Should that happen, the Democrats would be at the forefront of arguing that child rape is a Constitutional right!

 

[cashmcall]

I will say it again... I have no problem with civil unions or gay people living together and being able to be on each others' insurance, being able to visit each other in the hospital, etc. The only place where I care is that they don't get to change the definition of marriage, and I don't think it's best for them to adopt, though it's still their choice "by a law I disagree with"... BECAUSE I think that the best way to raise children is with parents of both sexes who love each other and create a healthy environment in the home. A manly lesbian is not adequately masculine to exert the masculine influence in the home. An effeminate man is not adequately feminine to exert the feminine influence in the home. And both mothers and fathers are needed to optimally raise children. Raising kids is about doing what's best for the kids, and not about doing whatever you want to because of your desires, or because you want to prove to the world that it is possible and OK for a same-sex couple to raise kids without scarring them. Isn't it selfish that they are even willing to take that chance?? Selfishness makes terrible parents. Yes, I am saying that it is selfish to knowingly adopt kids when you know it's not going to be the best situation for them.

Generally speaking, I am more Libertarian about homosexual rights issues than many conservatives, but that absolutely crosses my line when it comes to marriage and children. Everything else should be the same as for the rest of us.

 

[Cruella]

So do you think it's okay for a man to marry his adult son? At least he could pass his legacy on and bypass that inheritance tax.
Do you think it's okay for two single hetero moms getting married? One has a good job with family benefits and the other wants to stay home and take care of the kids. They can also take turns having overnights at their boyfriend's apt.

Both of these are of course unconventional, but practical...don't you think?

Once gay marriage passes, there is no end to the "creativity" of civil rights lawyers.

 

[dogtowner]

So do you think it's okay for a man to marry his adult son? At least he could pass his legacy on and bypass that inheritance tax.
Do you think it's okay for two single hetero moms getting married? One has a good job with family benefits and the other wants to stay home and take care of the kids. They can also take turns having overnights at their boyfriend's apt.

Both of these are of course unconventional, but practical...don't you think?

Once gay marriage passes, there is no end to the "creativity" of civil rights lawyers.

spinsters (and whatever the male version of this is called Oscar and Felix the Odd Couple) would have loved this as an option. really opens up the 'two can live as cheaply as on' concept. and with no fault changing convenience partners is as easy as changing your shoes.

and all of the sudden, marriage is meaningless.

 

[cashmcall]

So do you think it's okay for a man to marry his adult son? At least he could pass his legacy on and bypass that inheritance tax.
Do you think it's okay for two single hetero moms getting married? One has a good job with family benefits and the other wants to stay home and take care of the kids. They can also take turns having overnights at their boyfriend's apt.

Both of these are of course unconventional, but practical...don't you think?

Once gay marriage passes, there is no end to the "creativity" of civil rights lawyers.

It is the law of the land and I said.."by a law I disagree with"... I think I was clear ..no one has the right to change the meaning of marriage..

 

[Cruella]

It is the law of the land and I said.."by a law I disagree with"... I think I was clear ..no one has the right to change the meaning of marriage..

Sorry, I did not mean to direct this at you. You were talking about your reasons against gay marriage and reading that prompted my response as to why I think changing the meaning of marriage is a bad idea. I only put it in the form of a question to try and get a response for others here.

Here's another thing, maybe not directly related to gay marriage, but probably could be construed as such legally.

California now has a bill in the works, which would make it illegal for anyone to try to change the behavior of a homosexual, even if that person wants it. Currently it is blocked by a judge, because the language in it is vague and could be expanded to that of pedophiles and even rapisits, as "they were born this way" and it is their sexual orientation, and they should be in a protected class. Once something like this gets into law and precidents have been set, there is no telling how far all this could go.

Remember Alcee Hastings? He has stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law, and accordingly decided that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that should be equally as embraced as homosexuality.

Hastings was a district judge for 10 years, before he became a Rep. from Florida.

 

[cashmcall]

So do you think it's okay for a man to marry his adult son? At least he could pass his legacy on and bypass that inheritance tax.
Do you think it's okay for two single hetero moms getting married? One has a good job with family benefits and the other wants to stay home and take care of the kids. They can also take turns having overnights at their boyfriend's apt.

Both of these are of course unconventional, but practical...don't you think?

Once gay marriage passes, there is no end to the "creativity" of civil rights lawyers.

I could say that will never happen, but 20 years ago I would have never dreamed we would be having this diccussion..

 

[Dr.Who]

I could say that will never happen, but 20 years ago I would have never dreamed we would be having this diccussion..

20 years ago people warned that we would be having this discussion and they were laughed at. Today there are warnings about what discussions we will be having in the future and they are being laughed at too.

 

[Cruella]

20 years ago people warned that we would be having this discussion and they were laughed at. Today there are warnings about what discussions we will be having in the future and they are being laughed at too.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

Goes back even further.


16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions. 21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Change the meaning of Marriage?
Yes because that has never happened!

Marriage was a bond of Tribes, with no input from the couple...
Marriage was prearranged by parents...no input from couple
Marriage was whites to whites and blacks to blacks only
Marriage was Catholics must marry Catholics...
Marriage was Christians to Christians only...
A Woman who is married, and widowed...if has no son...must marry her Brother and law and have sex with him ( Genisis 38:6-10)
IF you find a Virgin and Rape her, and get cought...you must pay a fine and marry her. Deuteronomy 22:28

http://www.religioustolerance.org/biblemarriage.jpg

Also lets just ignore All Churches and Faiths that don't agree with you...WE will go by only your version of what Marriage is.

According to my wifes ex church we where not allowed to get married....Because we are not of the same faith...But of course most Christians that we know thought the church was insane...But be careful when you think your church should set the rules for marriage...because you never know when someones elses church may not like yours.

 

[dogtowner]

Change the meaning of Marriage?
Yes because that has never happened!

Marriage was a bond of Tribes, with no input from the couple...
Marriage was prearranged by parents...no input from couple
Marriage was whites to whites and blacks to blacks only
Marriage was Catholics must marry Catholics...
Marriage was Christians to Christians only...
A Woman who is married, and widowed...if has no son...must marry her Brother and law and have sex with him ( Genisis 38:6-10)
IF you find a Virgin and Rape her, and get cought...you must pay a fine and marry her. Deuteronomy 22:28

http://www.religioustolerance.org/biblemarriage.jpg

Also lets just ignore All Churches and Faiths that don't agree with you...WE will go by only your version of what Marriage is.

According to my wifes ex church we where not allowed to get married....Because we are not of the same faith...But of course most Christians that we know thought the church was insane...But be careful when you think your church should set the rules for marriage...because you never know when someones elses church may not like yours.

and amazingly enough all your examples involve opposite sexes. of course that is the definition after all.

 

[Gipper]

Who cares? Not me. An issue that affects something like 2% of Americans...

Just another issue pushed by the guys in charge, to divide us.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

and amazingly enough all your examples involve opposite sexes. of course that is the definition after all.

So your fine with the Rapist having to marry the guy who raped her is true marriage...but 2 guys...thats just to far? Its a nice line you guys have. I guess your fine with any marriage so long as its a guy and a girl..if its a guy and 9 girls, a slave, some Military guy, some concubines, And there brother in law....Well thats fine.