Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
CHILDREN ARE IMPLIED PARTIES TO THE MARRIAGE LICENSE Which if you read below means that the new behavioral addition to "protected classes" of the 14th Amendment is in violation itself of federal law. Read on, you'll see why and which law would dominate in a challenge..
Well as I said over at this thread: States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum and will now add points about CAPTA and a state's legal solution:
********
Valid legal argument in a nutshell: Proaction to protect the psychological health of children; a state's future fledged citizens.
There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution. Just as there is no "right to drive" in the US Constitution. Both are priveleges extended to qualified persons by each state. And each state has the jurisdiction over who qualifies.
Blind people cannot drive. They lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for other people on the road. People who want to marry the same gender cannot operate a marriage. By that I mean they lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for children: who share the marriage contract by implication. "Gay marriage" cannot provide both a mother and father vital to children...which is the reason states are involved in incentivizing marriage at all. Otherwise it's a net loss for the states handing out what is now just random tax breaks for adult people.
Children, completely left out of the conversation illegally by the SCOTUS, grow up psychologically stunted and become burdens upon the state statistically when they lack either a mother or father in their home> Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum So, because of the findings of that very large and comprehensive survey (the largest ever of its kind to date that surveyed young adult men and women who grew up without their gender daily present as a role model in their lives) , states have a material and valid interest in regulating who may marry within their boundaries...
**************
So what if a conservative state like Alabama or Texas decided to put a measure on the ballot or in their legislature to reflect federal CAPTA guidelines and to protect their own fiscal wellbeing? You see, the Prince's Trust Survey found that an overwhelming number of young men without a father in their home or young women without a mother in their home grew up to be statistically on drugs, abusing alcohol, depressed, indigent and even suicidal, lacking a sense of belonging...
And of course we have this most extreme case of that, where a boy is willing to say goodbye to his male genitals just so he can fit into his only concept of "all that matters a functioning adult world". Boy Drugged By Lesbian "Parents" To Be A Girl | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum Imagine the deep psychological daily wounds implicitly delivered to an opposite gendered child in a gay "marriage"? No matter how many cookies, designers clothes and puppies the couple could provide him with: "Wow, my parents and even society says that my gender (*I*, that's how children internalize things because they know they are different) matters so little that my gender isn't even necessary at all to make up a family; which I learned at school is the most important part of society." States don't want children with deep psychological wounds. And, they can't afford them either.
What states are required to do by June 2015's Decision is to give cash incentives to homes that will raise stunted children who then will become burdens upon them statistically. Whereas homes with both a mother and a father statistically and reliably produce the most productive citizens who become an asset to the state. ie: June 2015 requires states to fiscally piss in the wind.
CAPTA "Child Abuse & Prevention Treatment Act" (P.L. 93-247), (P.L. 111-320). is an act that sets up funding for states from the fed so that states act proactively to head off child abuse where they see it looming, and for treating it after it happens. Long story short. In order to receive CAPTA funding, states must abide by the act and prevent child abuse, neglect and psychological harm.
GIVEN: a boy raised without a father or a girl without a mother statistically (not rare exceptions because a state can't bank on rare exceptions) comes to psychological harm and is stunted compared to his/her peers.
At this link, page 17, we find the following mandate to states in order to keep receiving funding:
To me that reads like a federal mandate to states (and since the wellbeing of children is involved, would be dominant in law to any other challenge) to insure a family physical structure that does not statistically predispose a significant preponderance of children within it to grow up indigent, depressed or suicidal, lacking a complete sense of belonging at all (read the Prince's Trust Survey, it's all there. Replies here will say I'm lying about it, which you can simply resolve by taking time to read it yourself).
So, states could sit down and decide if they want to continue to receive CAPTA funding and pass acts that they are required to do to make sure a child's family structure promotes their best psychological health compared to their peers. Or if they want to lose CAPTA funding and promote what was forced upon them this June to the predictable demise of children who are implied parties to the marriage contract.
Alabama? Texas? Mississippi? Oklahoma? Wyoming? Idaho? Are any of you interested in protecting children's family structure to promote their mental health?
Well as I said over at this thread: States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum and will now add points about CAPTA and a state's legal solution:
********
Valid legal argument in a nutshell: Proaction to protect the psychological health of children; a state's future fledged citizens.
There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution. Just as there is no "right to drive" in the US Constitution. Both are priveleges extended to qualified persons by each state. And each state has the jurisdiction over who qualifies.
Blind people cannot drive. They lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for other people on the road. People who want to marry the same gender cannot operate a marriage. By that I mean they lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for children: who share the marriage contract by implication. "Gay marriage" cannot provide both a mother and father vital to children...which is the reason states are involved in incentivizing marriage at all. Otherwise it's a net loss for the states handing out what is now just random tax breaks for adult people.
Children, completely left out of the conversation illegally by the SCOTUS, grow up psychologically stunted and become burdens upon the state statistically when they lack either a mother or father in their home> Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum So, because of the findings of that very large and comprehensive survey (the largest ever of its kind to date that surveyed young adult men and women who grew up without their gender daily present as a role model in their lives) , states have a material and valid interest in regulating who may marry within their boundaries...
**************
So what if a conservative state like Alabama or Texas decided to put a measure on the ballot or in their legislature to reflect federal CAPTA guidelines and to protect their own fiscal wellbeing? You see, the Prince's Trust Survey found that an overwhelming number of young men without a father in their home or young women without a mother in their home grew up to be statistically on drugs, abusing alcohol, depressed, indigent and even suicidal, lacking a sense of belonging...
And of course we have this most extreme case of that, where a boy is willing to say goodbye to his male genitals just so he can fit into his only concept of "all that matters a functioning adult world". Boy Drugged By Lesbian "Parents" To Be A Girl | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum Imagine the deep psychological daily wounds implicitly delivered to an opposite gendered child in a gay "marriage"? No matter how many cookies, designers clothes and puppies the couple could provide him with: "Wow, my parents and even society says that my gender (*I*, that's how children internalize things because they know they are different) matters so little that my gender isn't even necessary at all to make up a family; which I learned at school is the most important part of society." States don't want children with deep psychological wounds. And, they can't afford them either.
What states are required to do by June 2015's Decision is to give cash incentives to homes that will raise stunted children who then will become burdens upon them statistically. Whereas homes with both a mother and a father statistically and reliably produce the most productive citizens who become an asset to the state. ie: June 2015 requires states to fiscally piss in the wind.
CAPTA "Child Abuse & Prevention Treatment Act" (P.L. 93-247), (P.L. 111-320). is an act that sets up funding for states from the fed so that states act proactively to head off child abuse where they see it looming, and for treating it after it happens. Long story short. In order to receive CAPTA funding, states must abide by the act and prevent child abuse, neglect and psychological harm.
GIVEN: a boy raised without a father or a girl without a mother statistically (not rare exceptions because a state can't bank on rare exceptions) comes to psychological harm and is stunted compared to his/her peers.
At this link, page 17, we find the following mandate to states in order to keep receiving funding:
Prevention programs are necessary to strengthen families and reduce the likelihood of child abuse and neglect. Child maltreatment results from a combination of factors: psychological, social, situational, and societal. Factors that may contribute to an increased risk for child abuse and neglect include, for example, family structure, poverty, substance abuse, poor housing conditions, teenage pregnancy, domestic and community violence, mental illness, and lack of support from extended families and community members. To reduce the occurrence of maltreatment, communities should develop and implement prevention programs that support children and families. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/foundation.pdf#page=16&view=Chapter 2. What Are The Philosophical Tenets Of Child Protection?
To me that reads like a federal mandate to states (and since the wellbeing of children is involved, would be dominant in law to any other challenge) to insure a family physical structure that does not statistically predispose a significant preponderance of children within it to grow up indigent, depressed or suicidal, lacking a complete sense of belonging at all (read the Prince's Trust Survey, it's all there. Replies here will say I'm lying about it, which you can simply resolve by taking time to read it yourself).
So, states could sit down and decide if they want to continue to receive CAPTA funding and pass acts that they are required to do to make sure a child's family structure promotes their best psychological health compared to their peers. Or if they want to lose CAPTA funding and promote what was forced upon them this June to the predictable demise of children who are implied parties to the marriage contract.
Alabama? Texas? Mississippi? Oklahoma? Wyoming? Idaho? Are any of you interested in protecting children's family structure to promote their mental health?
Last edited: