Conservative State Challenge: "The Child-Protective/Fiscal-Future Marriage Act"

[Silhouette]

Not one state. You know it, I know it. And if one did, the courts would end it as you well know.

The 6th circuit might not stop it. But can you imagine the judges writing their opinions? How would they word that? We deny the rights of children's wellbeing as to the contract of marriage because "___________". Can you imagine the way our legal system is set up to favor children's wellbeing, arguing that that legal system isn't valid anymore because "some adults want to do some stuff and the kids just have to suffer through it".

I mean really, that would have to be the ending statement.

Just wanted to add that I think if nothing else this would be an excellent litmus test for federal circuit judges to see where their allegiance lies: with children's wellbeing or with adult whims. Then some new appointments could be made in 2017..

 

[Silhouette]

The OP sure bit off a rather complex argument.

There is a lot there.

I'd like to hear more of your thoughts about the complexity and what of "a lot there" you think there is? It was in rough form and the thread was meant to polish it up a bit.

 

[Silhouette]

Moreover, the entire premise of your thread fails, as there is no objective, documented evidence whatsoever that children with same-sex parents – married or not – are in anyway 'disadvantaged.'

Can you point me to the pages of transcripts from last Spring's Hearing where all attorneys, including the ones of record for the welfare of children and their guardians ad litem argued those points and found that depriving children of either a father or mother as a new institution would not harm or disadvantage them? Thanks.

Oh, and if you can find discussion of the amicus briefs filed on that case (that do exist) from adult children raised by gays who said it was a bad idea after all and they feel cheated or stunted, point me to those pages in the trial transcripts. Thanks!

 

[JakeStarkey]

That dog won't hunt, Sil. Those are non-starters. We were both abused. You need to get over it, because abuse has been shown to occur at about the same incident rate by heteros and homos. Devote your energy and passion into good parenting causes for all children.

 

[Silhouette]

That dog won't hunt, Sil. Those are non-starters. We were both abused. You need to get over it, because abuse has been shown to occur at about the same incident rate by heteros and homos. Devote your energy and passion into good parenting causes for all children.

That's exactly what I am doing. There is no pain of child abuse worse than psychological. Bruises heal. Internal pain does not. The kids writing the amicus briefs who were raised in gay homes said "we experience psychological pain of deprivation as a result". Nobody listened to them. Will you advocate duct taping the mouths of children who are in psychological pain?

 

[Skylar]

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:

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?

So you're just pimping your old threads in another thumb sucker thread? There is no ''child protective-fiscal future Act. You're offering us your imagination, based on more pseudo-legal gibberish.

As no one who is married has to have kids or be able to have them. Nixing the entire basis of your argument.

Unless you're arguing that gays and lesbians shouldn't be able to raise their own children. Are you?

 

[Skylar]

That dog won't hunt, Sil. Those are non-starters. We were both abused. You need to get over it, because abuse has been shown to occur at about the same incident rate by heteros and homos. Devote your energy and passion into good parenting causes for all children.

That's exactly what I am doing. There is no pain of child abuse worse than psychological. Bruises heal. Internal pain does not. The kids writing the amicus briefs who were raised in gay homes said "we experience psychological pain of deprivation as a result". Nobody listened to them. Will you advocate duct taping the mouths of children who are in psychological pain?

Sil, you don't give a shit about chidlren. You care only about hurting gays and lesbians. As denying marriage to same sex parents doensn't mean that their children have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that they never have marri3ed parents.

Which hurts those children and helps no child. Your proposal does nothing you're demanding be done.

I ask again, are you insisting that gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to raise their own children? Because that seems to be what you're arguing.

 

[Silhouette]

1. Sil, you don't give a shit about chidlren. You care only about hurting gays and lesbians....
2. I ask again, are you insisting that gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to raise their own children? Because that seems to be what you're arguing.

1. Even if that was true, it still wouldn't change the fact that A. Kids need a mother and father or they grow up stunted and deficient and B. Their interests were not represented at the Hearing as parties to the contract. And..

2. No, what I'm asking is that single parenthood or homes without a mother or a father should not be receiving tax breaks a la the marriage contract (which remember, children are a party to). Another way of saying that is, states should not be forced to incentivize homes for children that are institutions known to cause deficiencies in them as adults who would statistically wind up becoming fiscal burdens to the state.

This is America so kids will be raised in homes without either a mother or father all the time. It's just that for children's best interests, states shouldn't be forced to incentivize that deficient situation as an institution that gets tax breaks from the state.

 

[Skylar]

1. Sil, you don't give a shit about chidlren. You care only about hurting gays and lesbians....
2. I ask again, are you insisting that gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to raise their own children? Because that seems to be what you're arguing.

1. Even if that was true, it still wouldn't change the fact that A. Kids need a mother and father or they grow up stunted and deficient and B. Their interests were not represented at the Hearing as parties to the contract. And..

Utterly irrelevant. As your opposition to gay marriage doesn't effect the gender of same sex parents in the slightest. Same sex parents still raise kid with or without marriage. Nor does denying marriage make same sex parents magically transform into opposite sex parents.

Denying marriage to same sex parents merely guarantees that these children will never have married parents. Which hurts these children by the 10s of thousands and helps no one.

And of course, no marriage requires children. Making what you think a 'child needs' irrelevant to anyone's marriage. As no one is held to the standard you've pulled out of your ass and awkwardly tried to apply to gays.

2. No, what I'm asking is that single parenthood or homes without a mother or a father should not be receiving tax breaks a la the marriage contract (which remember, children are a party to). Another way of saying that is, states should not be forced to incentivize homes for children that are institutions known to cause deficiencies in them as adults who would statistically wind up becoming fiscal burdens to the state.

Nothing you've demanded in any way effects the 'problem' you believe exists. Making your 'solution' irrelevant to the problem. It would be like smearing a car with vicks vapor rub to fix a flat tire. Nothing you've proposed solves any 'problem' you've alleged.

The only way your reasoning works...is if you're demanding that same sex parents have their children taken from them. Which you seem to strongly insinuating is in the best interest of the child, as being raised in a same sex household is 'child abuse' per you.

Is forbidding same sex couples from raising their own children what you're demanding?

 

[Silhouette]

False equivalency alert!

 

[Silhouette]

Nothing you've demanded in any way effects the 'problem' you believe exists. Making your 'solution' irrelevant to the problem. It would be like smearing a car with vicks vapor rub to fix a flat tire. Nothing you've proposed solves any 'problem' you've alleged.

The only way your reasoning works...is if you're demanding that same sex parents have their children taken from them.

Nope. The problem of kids not having a mother and father in their home IS SOLVED BY WHO THE STATE INCENTIVIZES TO BE IN THAT HOME. When money is dangled in front of people, they tend to do the things required in order to get to it. No mother and father for kids in the home as married? No tax breaks. See how solving that problem works?

When we talk about incentives instead of mandates, nobody loses their kids. I understand you being the King of hyperbole and drawing false conclusions helps you milk sympathy. But that buck stops here.

What the Court did in Spring and in June this year was to hold a hearing that resulted in the fed forcing states to incentivize homes without a mother or father to kids...ie: they forced states to incentivize their own financial doom, since the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, found that young adult men who grew up without a father and young adult women who grew up without a mother are statistically depressed, suicidal, addicted to drugs and indigent. And all that was decided without any legal representation for children or guardians ad litem to the Hearing upon which the complete revision of the marriage contract was Heard and argued. You can't leave one vital party to a contract out of the discussion and ratification of its complete overhaul.

Suppose there's case law about that Skylar?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil can't face up to the fact that her personal answer for healing is with her not all this bogus nonsense.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil can't face up to the fact that her personal answer for healing is with her not all this bogus nonsense.

I can face up to the fact that this topic is making you nervous and so you're resorting to ad hominems again as a diversion...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil can't face up to the fact that her personal answer for healing is with her not all this bogus nonsense.

I can face up to the fact that this topic is making you nervous and so you're resorting to ad hominems again as a diversion...

I am not nervous, telling you that your approach is only reinforcing the damage is not ad hom, and my concern for you is not a diversion.

You are doing yourself great emotional damage.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil can't face up to the fact that her personal answer for healing is with her not all this bogus nonsense.

I can face up to the fact that this topic is making you nervous and so you're resorting to ad hominems again as a diversion...

I am not nervous, telling you that your approach is only reinforcing the damage is not ad hom, and my concern for you is not a diversion.

You are doing yourself great emotional damage.

Your concern for me? When did that suddenly change? Oh, wait, let me guess...about the time I posted this thread.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil can't face up to the fact that her personal answer for healing is with her not all this bogus nonsense.

I can face up to the fact that this topic is making you nervous and so you're resorting to ad hominems again as a diversion...

I am not nervous, telling you that your approach is only reinforcing the damage is not ad hom, and my concern for you is not a diversion.

You are doing yourself great emotional damage.

Your concern for me? When did that suddenly change? Oh, wait, let me guess...about the time I posted this thread.

There never will be a The Child-Protective/Fiscal-Future Marriage Act

Do you deny that you are emotionally ill?

One, marriage equality will not resolve itself to your satisfaction.

Two, if it did, you would still be suffering for all of your days.

This is not the way to take care of yourself.

 

[Silhouette]

There never will be a The Child-Protective/Fiscal-Future Marriage Act

.

We'll see. Isn't it your group's philosophy that when one finds oneself behind "a cause worth fighting for" that one should never give up?

I'd say children being left out of the revision of the marriage contract to institutionalize them lacking a mother or father is a cause worth never giving up on if there ever was one...

 

[Syriusly]

You must stop your insidious grooming of potential haters with your false assertions and tainted "evidences."

I will continue to discuss the welfare of children as I please.

'
Meaning you will continue to use the 'welfare of children' as a tool to attack homosexuals.

Denying marriage to homosexual couples helps not one child.

However denying marriage to homosexual couples harms the children of homosexual parents.

Why do you want to harm children?

 

[Syriusly]

Only the Constitution itself is a valid source for what is in the Constitution itself. It doesn't matter what anyone, no matter what authority you attribute thereto, claims is in the Constitution, if you cannot quote the exact text from the Constitution itself that says what it is claimed it says.

Where does it say anything about marriage, in the Constitution?

The church of LGBT claims.

You are just making crap up.

Pure bullshit.

 

[Syriusly]

Nothing you've demanded in any way effects the 'problem' you believe exists. Making your 'solution' irrelevant to the problem. It would be like smearing a car with vicks vapor rub to fix a flat tire. Nothing you've proposed solves any 'problem' you've alleged.

The only way your reasoning works...is if you're demanding that same sex parents have their children taken from them.

Nope. The problem of kids not having a mother and father in their home IS SOLVED BY WHO THE STATE INCENTIVIZES

Clearly it isn't being solved.

The majority of children not having a mother or a father are:
a) children being raised by single parents, whose mother or father has abandoned them and
b) children abandoned by both parents.

The so-called incentives you keep claiming are for some purpose do not work- since there are more single parent households than ever.

Denying a gay couple marriage gives no child two opposite gender parents.
Denying a gay couple marriage benefits no child.
Denying a gay couple who are parents marriage harms their children- by denying them married parents.

Why do you insist on calling for children to be harmed?