Wednesday, March 06, 2013

DOJ: Children Do Not Need, Nor Have A Right To Mothers

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
As stunning as it sounds, the President of the United States and his administration is arguing to the Supreme Court that children do not need mothers.

President Obama, as I have reported earlier, has inserted himself into the California Proposition 8 matter that is soon to come before the Supreme Court.

Although the President had said he would not involve himself because it is a state issue, he evidently "evolved" and is fully immersed, and with the full force of the United States government, is asking the Court to strike down the will of the people and the Prop. 8 that they passed.

Those that support Prop. 8 and natural, traditional marriage, have argued that the traditional family led by a female mother and a male father is the ideal model, determined by nature itself, and is the best model for raising a child.

The Obama administration says that is not true.

They are contending that kids don't need a mother, nor do they have a legal "right" to a mother---having 2 fathers or 2 mothers is just as good as having one of each.

Here's their case:


The Obama administration says, "As an initial matter, no sound basis exists for concluding that same-sex couples who have committed to marriage are anything other than fully capable of responsible parenting and child-rearing."

"To the contrary," the administration says, "many leading medical, psychological, and social-welfare organizations have issued policy statements opposing restrictions on gay and lesbian parenting based on their conclusion, supported by numerous scientific studies, that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.”

They say, “The weight of the scientific literature strongly supports the view that same-sex parents are just as capable as opposite-sex parents."

Then Obama's people disingenuously cite a policy statement by the American Psychological Association that supports same-sex parents and suggests they might be "superior" to heterosexual parents----then concedes there is little actual data on the results of raising children in 2 father households.

The administration also argues that, "In light of California's conferral of full rights of parenting and child rearing on same-sex couples, Prop. 8 already admits there is no distinction."

Terence Jeffery says, "So far in the history of the human race, no child has ever been born without a biological father and mother. Now, in the Supreme Court of the United States, the Executive Branch of the federal government is arguing that, regardless of the biological facts of parenthood, states have no legitimate and defensible interest in ensuring that children conceived by a mother and a father are in fact raised by mothers and fathers."

The brief the administration presented to the Court casts children as items controlled by others, not as human beings who have God-given rights of their own.

This is consistent with the rationalization for abortion. It's all about the woman with the unwanted pregnancy. The unborn child has no right to life in this thinking.

Now, an extension of that thinking is telling the Supreme Court, children of any age have no inherent rights, including a right to a mother and a father and that the only rights in question are those of the homosexuals who want to "marry" each other.

Jeffery says, "To take this view and be consistent with the principles of the Declaration of Independence—which recognizes the ultimate authority of the 'Laws of Nature and Nature’s God' and says that 'all men are created equal' and 'endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights'—the Obama Justice Department must advance the assumption that natural law and Nature’s God give children no right to a mother and father and no right not to be legally handed over by the government to be raised by same-sex couples."

America is on a path of self destruction. I believe all of this is serving as a wake up call to many people of faith.

Many do not agree, but I believe God can--- and will, turn the heart of this nation through the prayers of His people.

God help us.

21 comments:

  1. I pray for America. I pray that there will be an awaking of His people. I pray for protection of our children. Keep on pressing on in the Lord Gary, thank you.

    Bonnie in Yelm

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's a classic Gary tactic: Distort the points of the other side and then argue against it. Avoid the real arguments at all costs.

    If the DOJ believes mothers are unnecessary, why on earth are they arguing in favor of allowing two mothers to raise a child?

    Furthermore, the law allows Jewish parents to raise children. Does that mean Christians are not "necessary"?

    This distortion of truth makes a great bumper sticker but a poor argument.

    Finally, pretending that the biology of the parents is the ONLY factor in successful child-rearing does a big disservice to all children. Not only that, but it's insulting to adoptive parents, widows and widowers, and moms left by dead-beat dads everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gary, you're a little behind your peers. While you are still arguing same-sex households are less ideal than opposite-sex ones making us not DESERVING of marriage, your lawyer in the Prop 8 case has taken a different tactic: an inherent trait of same-sex couples gives us a leg-up in creating for children a "stable structure that improves their chances of success in life," making it UNNECESSARY for us.

    In other words, we don't need marriage to create an ideal household for children, but straights do.

    Here's an excerpt from the brief:

    "The link between procreation and marriage itself reflects a unique social difficulty with opposite-sex couples that is not present with same-sex couples—namely, the undeniable and distinct tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unplanned and unintended pregnancies. Government from time immemorial has had an interest in having such unintended and unplanned offspring raised in a stable structure that improves their chances of success in life and avoids having them become a burden on society."

    The anti-gay side is throwing arguments at this from every direction. No wonder they are losing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it's unnecessary, why do you want it? I can answer that, affirmation of your relationships. They're not equal, nor will they ever be.

      Delete
    2. "Unnecessary" is your side's argument, not mine.

      Delete
  4. Gary is way off the mark on this one. In California Prop 8 was only about restricting the civil contract titled Marriage to just some citizens making the rest of the marrying folks use the Domestic Partnership contract.

    Prop 8 has nothing to do with the sexes of the parents raising children, it doesn't prevent same sex parents from marrying just says they can't do so with the contract titled Marriage

    All Prop 8 does is say the state must have two civil contracts for the same thing when it used to have one or all.

    And it's all probably pointless anyway. The Supreme Court set aside half the argument time for deciding if the people bringing the case have legal standing to do so in the first place. The conservative law blogs are saying the most likely result is going to be a decision that only the state can act as the defenders of a state measure and send the entire thing back to he lowest federal court involved and have them say 'if the state isn't defending Prop 8 then there is no case.'

    This will totally side step the Marriage issue.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Gary is on the mark on this. The federal government is in fact arguing that a mother and a father are un-necessary for raising children. They are taking a position contrary to nature and nature's God. Your comments are well taken Gary. Keep sharing the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 9:58 You are missing the point of this post. Intentionally? The point is not the merit of the case, but the fact that the federal government is taking a position against traditional marriage and child rearing. Are you denying that the yare taking that position?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gary, you are doing a good job, God Bless you. I would like the President as well as the people to know, if Gay marriages are good and every human being supports it, what will happen if all become Gays and there are no more traditional marriages in the US and in the world.I hope they would be concerned about the future human race and not for short term political reasons or other reasons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If "all become Gays", that solve the abortion issue now wouldn't it? There's always a silver lining!

      Delete
    2. Laws don't make people gay or straight.

      Delete
  8. Anonymous, you are missing the point. Read the title of the entry and realize that any Prop 8 argument has absolutely nothing to do with it.

    • Children will be being raised by opposite and same sex parents no matter what way Prop 8 is decided, what ever 'right' they have to a particular kind of parent won't change because of the ruling.

    • All Californian citizens still have the constitutional right, at this very moment, to marry a husband or a wife, all Prop 8 did was limit the name of the contract they get married with. Again, no matter how Prop 8 is decided all citizens will still be able to marry, its just that some may not be able to do so with the civil 'Marriage' contract.

    • At no time is the government saying that opposite sex parents can't marry so they are not 'against traditional marriage and child rearing'.

    So to the contrary I think you are, like Gary, reading things into what's happening that just aren't. Prop 8 is only about two things:

    1. Can the state make people entering a civil contract use two different ones with the same contractual promises?

    2. Can someone who isn't authorized to bring suit do so in a case that isn't theirs? This is the 'standing' issue the Supreme Court is very interested in and will likely be the way they decide it since it lets them sidestep the marriage issue altogether.

    Illustrative example: Your neighbor gets in a car wreck but doesn't sue the person who hit them - does that mean you could bring suit against that person instead?

    The state is not the one defending the Prop 8 challenge, a citizen's group is and if the Supreme Court says that anyone other than the state can defend Prop 8 that would open a very dangerous legal door. Conservative and liberal lawyers are saying they will not let that happen. You think the court system is crazy now just think what it will be like if anyone can sue for anything whether they have the 'traditional' right to or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they all have the same right to marry regardless of the contract name, then what's the problem?

      Delete
    2. I honestly don't know - why would anyone want married citizens to use anything other than the Marriage contract to register with the state?

      They asked the people defending Proposition 8 why should the state have two differently named contracts for the same thing and their response was basically 'cuz'. Absent a good reason the federal court said it was based on 'animus'; that some folks wanted some other married folks to change and now use a differently named contract more out of spite than anything else.

      As we know from our own experiences in Washington state that probably was the best simple answer.

      Delete
    3. I can answer that one, regardless of what the gov. does, marriage is still 1 man and 1 woman. What God has joined together let no one separate, the 2 shall become 1. Not possible for 2 guys or 2 gals, they can never become one in God's eyes.

      Delete
    4. This is about the 100% secular civil contract of marriage, has nothing directly to do with your religious sect's beliefs.

      Again, like it or not all citizens have a right to marry in California be the spouse a husband or wife. All legal proceedings in this regard start from there - the Feds can't override the California Supreme Courts ruling in that regard.

      Delete
    5. The feds overrule the states all the time, what are you talking about?

      Delete
    6. The only way the SCOTUS can overturn a state supreme court's ruling is if it violates the US Constitution and since there is nothing about being married in the Constitution it has no jurisdiction.

      Or if you think there is, please point it out to me how the feds could tell a state they have to treat their citizens unequally.

      Delete
  9. The homosexuals can't 'marry' anyway, contract or not. The argument that single- parenting proves that either spouse is capable of being both is proven wrong by the high incidence of poverty and crime in those situations. Is it a certainty that 1 mom and 1 dad will prevent this ever happening? Of course not, but time has proven that children do best with 1 mom and 1 dad. 6000 years of human history bear this out.

    A man is not "mom", nor is a woman "dad"

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank you Gary for the encouraging last line that God can and will change America to be truly one Nation Under Him, again. I pray for it!

    This homosexual issue is so lopsided. But when it comes to children, it is all of our dury to protect them. And the homosexual agrument and it's scientific basis has about as many holes in it as Swiss Cheese! May God save our children from same sex couples who want to play "house" -reminds me of a kindergarten classroom where there were not enough boys to be the "dad", so one of the girls played "dad".

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks Gary for your perspective, for your conscience in this matter. This reminds me of another Pastor who's currently Doing Time because of his Christian Conscience. Reminds me of another Fiery Furnace Experience, you too?

    God Bless those who change their direction, as is possible!

    Spokane WA

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.