Unbelievable.
Same-Sex Marriage Judge Finds That a Child Has Neither a Need Nor a Right to a Mother
Monday, August 09, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
(CNSNews.com) - U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who ruled last week that a voter-approved amendment to California’s 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.
“Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted,” the judge wrote in finding of fact No. 71 in his opinion.
“The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment,” the judge stated in finding of fact No. 70. “The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.”
Despite Walker’s claim that this “fact” is “beyond serious debate,” one of the sources he cited for it was a brochure published by the American Psychological Association (APA) that was entered into evidence in the case, which specifically stated twice: “Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.” Walker did not quote this part of the brochure in his opinion.
However, Walker did quote this same brochure as saying: “[S]ocial science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents--concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people--are unfounded.”
This quote comes from a side-bar box on page five of the six-page APA brochure. The box purports to answer the “most common questions” about homosexual parents, posing four such questions and giving the APA’s answer to them.
The first is: “Do children of lesbian and gay parents have more problems with sexual identity than do children of heterosexual parents?”
The full answer in the brochure is as follows: “For instance, do these children develop problems in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior? The answer from research is clear: sexual and gender identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same way among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.”
The brochure does not explain why the APA concludes that the “answer from research is clear” that children of homosexual parents do not have more problems with sexual identity than children with mothers and fathers when in fact, as the brochure itself states, “[f]ew studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.” Nor does Judge Walker explain how his finding of “fact” that the gender of parents does not matter to children is “beyond serious debate” when in fact his own source stipulates that “[f]ew studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.”
The second question answered in the brochure is: “Do children raised by lesbian or gay parents have problems in personal development in areas other than sexual identity?”
The entirety of the answer provided in the brochure states: “For example, are the children of lesbian or gay parents more vulnerable to mental breakdown, do they have more behavior problems, or are they less psychologically healthy than other children? Again, studies of personality, self-concept, and behavior problems show few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.”
Judge Walker does not quote this part of the brochure in his finding that the gender of parents does not matter, nor does he explain how his finding can be “beyond serious debate” when in fact the very evidence he uses to establish this point states that “[f]ew studies are available regarding gay fathers.”
To further his case that the well-being of children is no bar to declaring same-sex marriage a right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, Judge Walker makes a finding of fact that the state of California already legally recognizes that the gender of parents is irrelevant. As Walker reports it, California laws goes so far as to “encourage” homosexuals to acquire children whether through adoption, foster care, or artificially conceiving a child and, presumably, in the case of a male-male couple, securing a female to gestate the child until the male-male couple can take custody of it.
“California law permits and encourages gays and lesbians to become parents through adoption, foster parenting or assistive reproductive technology,” writes Walker in finding of fact No. 49. “Approximately 18 percent of same-sex couples in California are raising children.”
To support this finding, Walker notes that California’s attorney general, who is Jerry Brown, “admits that the laws of California recognize no relationship between a person’s sexual orientation and his or her ability to raise children.”
“Attorney General admits,” writes Walker, “that California law protects the right of gay men and lesbians in same-sex relationships to be foster parents and to adopt children by forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
Walker’s ruling declaring same-sex marriage protected under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, if upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, would have ramifications far beyond California, requiring states across the union to recognize same-sex marriages while wiping out any legal protection a child might have from being handed over by state governments to same-sex couples either through adoption or foster parenthood.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied by Walker would require states to grant a marriage license to same-sex couples and would-be parents, while implicitly annihilating the notion that each American child has an equal right to a mother and a father.
A child put out for adoption or foster parenting by the state, or a child conceived through technological means and gestated in a hired womb, would have no right not to be assigned to a homosexual couple who would act as his or her father and father or mother and mother.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/70722
VIRAL NOTES: Absolute horse crap.
Now let me see:
We have a homo for a judge (http://www.newser.com/story/97605/foe-homosexual-judge-had-no-right-to-block-prop-8-ruling.html).
We have ol' jocko homo having the audacity to use his non-existent power to overrule the will of the people, in order to enforce his will over that of the people.
Then we have a judicial system that refuses to recuse this guy for having a seriousl conflict of interest in this case, being completely biased. I'm not saying he can't be neutral, but I know he wasn't in this case.
This is worse than a bad episode of Law and Order.
First we have a legal vote against allowing and recognizing gay "marriage" being illegally nullified by a gay activist judge, now we have the courts telling us that our kids have neither right, nor real use, for a mother-father parenting relationship?!
Back in the 60s, weren't they killing judges that were this stupid?
Liberals will use the argument that the Will of the People isn't always correct or good, claiming the majority wanted slavery. They also extend this argument against States' Rights. However, their arguments always leave out the parts that say that some of the worst rulings against Human Rights in the United States came from the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT and it's SUPREME COURT.
Want an example?
How about the Dread Scott Decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
OK, how about In Loco Parentis: http://sari0009.xanga.com/436589696/overstepping-the-bounds-of-in-loco-parentis/
How about the clear and blatant violation of the Constitution of the United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/) in eminent domain cases?: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783.html
It is an all-too-common misconception (i.e.: LIE) that Supreme Court justices have a lifetime position.
They do not.
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec1.html
Do you think they've been exhibiting "good behaviour"?
It's time for a "historic" bout of mass-impeachments.
The Founding Fathers intended for the Supreme Court to be the weakest of the 3 branches of American government, and for good reason: they saw all too many times the result of an out-of-control court (like ours) overstepping the bounds of it's authority, and transforming any government it contaminates into a judicial tyranny.
And make no mistake: judicial tyranny is exactly what we're heading for.
The Dalai Obama...
...is busily trying to stack the Supreme Court, just like his prececessor tried (http://www.americanprogress.org/events/2010/04/supreme.html). Like the Dalai Obama, Roosevelt was an Americana-hating, leftist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal), racist (http://stoprepublicans.blogspot.com/2008/06/franklin-delano-roosevelt-liberal-hero.html), socialist (http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/cliches/depression.html) and I wouldn't be surprised to find out he was a communist sympathizer (http://www.tldm.org/news7/communismroosevelt.htm). A lot of the debt burden the country is facing, now, folks, comes directly from this assclown, Frankie. And being a loyal statist, he thought his ultimate weapon would be stacking the Supreme Court with leftist, America-hating jackasses, just like himself, forcing his every fiat against the serfs and peons (i.e.: us) through with the force of (bench made) law. Even his leftist statists in Congress were afraid of that one, and pissed on that camp fire real fast. Today, we're faced with another just like him that's stacking the court with people that openly admit to being illegal, unethical judicial activists:
...and to make things worse, this is a court that is intent on invading and destroying our private lives, right down to our right to worship God Almighty:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/28/supreme-court-public-schools-can-deny-funding-to-christian-student-group-that-bars-gays/
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/69648
...and how we raise our children. Clearly, the Constitution of the United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/) means nothing to these people.
Faced with judicial tyrants, we have to strike back and get rid of these people who are doggedly determined to put us away and under their boot-heel, along with the boots of the democratic party. It's time we start protesting more, and even start contacting Congressmen that are willing to actually listen to constituents, and ask about the possibility of Congress being harsher with the Supreme Court, and being more free with impeachments. Travesties such as this one:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/05/inevitable-kagan-confirmed-63-37/
...cannot be allowed to continue to transpire against us. RINOs that vote for such an obviously uneducated tyrant (who, in the words of Mark Levin, will be making preparations to push us around for the rest of her life) need to be removed (or even impeached) just as much as these so-called 'justices' do.
The courts conspire against us, and even quite possibly conspire to see us injured, or worse:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/421643_supco14.html
It's them or us, people. The choice should be simple. You fight fire with fire, you fight activism with activism. Get them, before they get you.
Monday, August 09, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
(CNSNews.com) - U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who ruled last week that a voter-approved amendment to California’s 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.
“Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted,” the judge wrote in finding of fact No. 71 in his opinion.
“The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment,” the judge stated in finding of fact No. 70. “The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.”
Despite Walker’s claim that this “fact” is “beyond serious debate,” one of the sources he cited for it was a brochure published by the American Psychological Association (APA) that was entered into evidence in the case, which specifically stated twice: “Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.” Walker did not quote this part of the brochure in his opinion.
However, Walker did quote this same brochure as saying: “[S]ocial science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents--concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people--are unfounded.”
This quote comes from a side-bar box on page five of the six-page APA brochure. The box purports to answer the “most common questions” about homosexual parents, posing four such questions and giving the APA’s answer to them.
The first is: “Do children of lesbian and gay parents have more problems with sexual identity than do children of heterosexual parents?”
The full answer in the brochure is as follows: “For instance, do these children develop problems in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior? The answer from research is clear: sexual and gender identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same way among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.”
The brochure does not explain why the APA concludes that the “answer from research is clear” that children of homosexual parents do not have more problems with sexual identity than children with mothers and fathers when in fact, as the brochure itself states, “[f]ew studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.” Nor does Judge Walker explain how his finding of “fact” that the gender of parents does not matter to children is “beyond serious debate” when in fact his own source stipulates that “[f]ew studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.”
The second question answered in the brochure is: “Do children raised by lesbian or gay parents have problems in personal development in areas other than sexual identity?”
The entirety of the answer provided in the brochure states: “For example, are the children of lesbian or gay parents more vulnerable to mental breakdown, do they have more behavior problems, or are they less psychologically healthy than other children? Again, studies of personality, self-concept, and behavior problems show few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.”
Judge Walker does not quote this part of the brochure in his finding that the gender of parents does not matter, nor does he explain how his finding can be “beyond serious debate” when in fact the very evidence he uses to establish this point states that “[f]ew studies are available regarding gay fathers.”
To further his case that the well-being of children is no bar to declaring same-sex marriage a right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, Judge Walker makes a finding of fact that the state of California already legally recognizes that the gender of parents is irrelevant. As Walker reports it, California laws goes so far as to “encourage” homosexuals to acquire children whether through adoption, foster care, or artificially conceiving a child and, presumably, in the case of a male-male couple, securing a female to gestate the child until the male-male couple can take custody of it.
“California law permits and encourages gays and lesbians to become parents through adoption, foster parenting or assistive reproductive technology,” writes Walker in finding of fact No. 49. “Approximately 18 percent of same-sex couples in California are raising children.”
To support this finding, Walker notes that California’s attorney general, who is Jerry Brown, “admits that the laws of California recognize no relationship between a person’s sexual orientation and his or her ability to raise children.”
“Attorney General admits,” writes Walker, “that California law protects the right of gay men and lesbians in same-sex relationships to be foster parents and to adopt children by forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
Walker’s ruling declaring same-sex marriage protected under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, if upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, would have ramifications far beyond California, requiring states across the union to recognize same-sex marriages while wiping out any legal protection a child might have from being handed over by state governments to same-sex couples either through adoption or foster parenthood.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied by Walker would require states to grant a marriage license to same-sex couples and would-be parents, while implicitly annihilating the notion that each American child has an equal right to a mother and a father.
A child put out for adoption or foster parenting by the state, or a child conceived through technological means and gestated in a hired womb, would have no right not to be assigned to a homosexual couple who would act as his or her father and father or mother and mother.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/70722
VIRAL NOTES: Absolute horse crap.
Now let me see:
We have a homo for a judge (http://www.newser.com/story/97605/foe-homosexual-judge-had-no-right-to-block-prop-8-ruling.html).
We have ol' jocko homo having the audacity to use his non-existent power to overrule the will of the people, in order to enforce his will over that of the people.
Then we have a judicial system that refuses to recuse this guy for having a seriousl conflict of interest in this case, being completely biased. I'm not saying he can't be neutral, but I know he wasn't in this case.
This is worse than a bad episode of Law and Order.
First we have a legal vote against allowing and recognizing gay "marriage" being illegally nullified by a gay activist judge, now we have the courts telling us that our kids have neither right, nor real use, for a mother-father parenting relationship?!
Back in the 60s, weren't they killing judges that were this stupid?
Liberals will use the argument that the Will of the People isn't always correct or good, claiming the majority wanted slavery. They also extend this argument against States' Rights. However, their arguments always leave out the parts that say that some of the worst rulings against Human Rights in the United States came from the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT and it's SUPREME COURT.
Want an example?
How about the Dread Scott Decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
OK, how about In Loco Parentis: http://sari0009.xanga.com/436589696/overstepping-the-bounds-of-in-loco-parentis/
How about the clear and blatant violation of the Constitution of the United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/) in eminent domain cases?: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783.html
It is an all-too-common misconception (i.e.: LIE) that Supreme Court justices have a lifetime position.
They do not.
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec1.html
Do you think they've been exhibiting "good behaviour"?
It's time for a "historic" bout of mass-impeachments.
The Founding Fathers intended for the Supreme Court to be the weakest of the 3 branches of American government, and for good reason: they saw all too many times the result of an out-of-control court (like ours) overstepping the bounds of it's authority, and transforming any government it contaminates into a judicial tyranny.
And make no mistake: judicial tyranny is exactly what we're heading for.
The Dalai Obama...
...is busily trying to stack the Supreme Court, just like his prececessor tried (http://www.americanprogress.org/events/2010/04/supreme.html). Like the Dalai Obama, Roosevelt was an Americana-hating, leftist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal), racist (http://stoprepublicans.blogspot.com/2008/06/franklin-delano-roosevelt-liberal-hero.html), socialist (http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/cliches/depression.html) and I wouldn't be surprised to find out he was a communist sympathizer (http://www.tldm.org/news7/communismroosevelt.htm). A lot of the debt burden the country is facing, now, folks, comes directly from this assclown, Frankie. And being a loyal statist, he thought his ultimate weapon would be stacking the Supreme Court with leftist, America-hating jackasses, just like himself, forcing his every fiat against the serfs and peons (i.e.: us) through with the force of (bench made) law. Even his leftist statists in Congress were afraid of that one, and pissed on that camp fire real fast. Today, we're faced with another just like him that's stacking the court with people that openly admit to being illegal, unethical judicial activists:
Click to view...and to make things worse, this is a court that is intent on invading and destroying our private lives, right down to our right to worship God Almighty:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/28/supreme-court-public-schools-can-deny-funding-to-christian-student-group-that-bars-gays/
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/69648
...and how we raise our children. Clearly, the Constitution of the United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/) means nothing to these people.
Faced with judicial tyrants, we have to strike back and get rid of these people who are doggedly determined to put us away and under their boot-heel, along with the boots of the democratic party. It's time we start protesting more, and even start contacting Congressmen that are willing to actually listen to constituents, and ask about the possibility of Congress being harsher with the Supreme Court, and being more free with impeachments. Travesties such as this one:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/05/inevitable-kagan-confirmed-63-37/
...cannot be allowed to continue to transpire against us. RINOs that vote for such an obviously uneducated tyrant (who, in the words of Mark Levin, will be making preparations to push us around for the rest of her life) need to be removed (or even impeached) just as much as these so-called 'justices' do.
The courts conspire against us, and even quite possibly conspire to see us injured, or worse:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/421643_supco14.html
It's them or us, people. The choice should be simple. You fight fire with fire, you fight activism with activism. Get them, before they get you.