Same-Sex Marriage Judge Finds That a Child Has Neither a Need Nor a Right to a Mother
U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who ruled last week that a voter-approved amendment to California‚Äôs 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.
Am I missing something regarding the words of this judge, surely a child cannot enter this world without a mother. To me that would constitute a 'need'. We NEED oxygen to exist, we NEED blood to keep us alive, withour these things we would not exist.- a Child needs a mother and a Father otherwise it cannot be concieved! Not only do we see this 'need' in a bilogical sense but the Divine plan of Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel teaches that this is God's plan for the good of the human race. God did not institute these things for our hardship but for our benefit.
The US constitution defends ‚ÄúGod given‚ÄĚ inalienable rights. The right for homosexuals to raise children is not God given. If it were, artificial means of getting children by homosexuals would not be needed. As it is, only heterosexual couples can conceive children naturally. In fact, the getting of children is a natural bi-product of heterosexual marriage unless artificial means are used to stop it.
So if it is natural for a child to have both a mother and a father, how can an unnatural family not cause harm to children?
Something doesn't seem right here and it doesn't take a law degree to figure that out. Come on your honour, give your head a shake!
Saying to a tree, ‚ÄėYou are my father,‚Äô And to a stone, ‚ÄėYou gave birth to me.‚Äô For they have turned their back to Me, and not their face. But in the time of their trouble They will say, ‚ÄėArise and save us.‚Äô 28 But where are your gods that you have made for yourselves? Let them arise, If they can save you in the time of your trouble;
The New King James Version. (Jeremiah 2:27-28).
These sodomites and lesbians have no other way to propagate their beliefs than to indoctrinate children into their "faith". God,by nature,will not allow them to reproduce themselves otherwise.
Dr Roger Clark wrote: Judges have never been noted for the possession of "Common Sense" - but this one is apparently living in "Never-Never- Land" where children grow on trees.
You're exactly right! As far as we know, to this day, we know of no other way of a child coming into existence other then this one way. It NEEDS a father and a mother for a child to come into existence in the first place. No judicial proclamation can change that
The judge needs a lesson in commen sense. It takes a man and a women to create a child. THe origin should reflect the future,,,husband and wife, father and mother. The judge denies his very own identity. Ya can't get offspring from adding + and + together. You must has + and _ together. Natural! Normal!
RE:Judge Finds That a Child Has Neither a Need Nor a Right to a Mother
How can a judge make this determintion. This is clearly outside the perview of a judge. A judge can interpret the law to say whether the law allows for homosexual union and adoption. But to go beyond and make legal determination on human psych and emotions and say that someone will be "well-adjusted" and "healthy", etc, is well outside of this judges right to determine. This old geeza blew it. His judgement precedes the law. He has no right to MAKE laws to suite his personal pre-conceptions. The lawmakers can MAKE laws. Let the citizens and lawmakers hash this out. Then, and only then, can a judge say what the law allows, not wether in his opnion someone will grow up emotionally healthy.
No, Alien, but certain judges are. I wonder if there are any legal means to get fools removed from the bench? I would suppose we will be able to identify incompetents as the appeals move up the legal daisy-chain. Ah, I mean the definition similar to the one of the Webster dictionary on the Internet, now there is also a porn definition apparently, who knows perhaps that applies to this judge's decisions as well?
"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."
No parents required eh???
I've heard the saying that "The law is an ass"
I suppose in these Liberal days the Liberalonians are out to prove that every tradition, authority, institution, relationship, gender, society, marriage, fatherhood, motherhood, masculinity, femininity, ........... "Difference" - "Variation" - "chromosomal alteration" whether natural or social..........