Idea For New Constitutional Amendment: "The Child Consideration Amendment"

[Skylar]

300,000,000 million "informed" voters???? In formed by whom? Far too many people don't even bother to vote. The electorate is anything but informed. How many people even watch political debates?...No, this is the tyranny of the majority you're proposing.

Since when is protecting children's best interest in an incentivized formative environment (marriage) "tyranny"?

When you reduce any right to a simple majority vote. Where you can strip anyone of any right....by calling it 'in the welfare of children'. When you're using children as a weapon to hurt people. Which of course, you are. As the rights you're focus on stripping away are the right of gays and lesbians to marry.

All to impose your narrow view of what you believe is in the best interest of children. No. We're not doing any of that.

Children are the dominant class to gays by definition of American law which says in multiple case examples that any class of people who cannot vote must receive the most rigorous Constitutional protections.

Stripping gays and lesbians of the right to marry has nothing to do with the constitutional protections of children. It has to do with your obsession with hurting gays. And you're willing to reduce ANY right to majority vote to do it. Despite the fact that such a radical erosion of constitutional guarantees would have widespread and potentially dire consequences well beyond the topic of your obsession.

Who determines if a particular ruling is about the 'wellbeing of children'? Your amendment doesn't say. As written it would put ALL custody rulings to a majority vote. Which is insane. It would mandate that any right that could possibly involve children be put up to a vote. Gun rights, free speech, the right to assembly, individual property rights, religion, all would be up for a majority vote. Which is antithetical to our entire system of constitutional guarantees.

If someone alleges that guns effect the wellbeing of children, does that mean the majority gets to vote on whether or not people get to have guns?

If someone alleges that Chistianity or Islam affects the well being of children, does that mean the majority gets to vote on whether or not people can practice either faith?

Your amendment doesn't even require that any ruling be against the best interest of the well being of children. Only that it involve the well being of a child. Its a horrible idea.

The time for this Amendment to protect children from the tyranny of the MINORITY is long overdue..

Gays and lesbians raising their own children isn't 'tyranny'. Nor is gays and lesbians being able to marry 'tyranny'. Stripping the people of fundamental constitutional guarantees by reducing all rights to a simple majority vote?

That's is tyranny. And its what you demand we do.

 

[Silhouette]

Gays and lesbians raising their own children isn't 'tyranny'. Nor is gays and lesbians being able to marry 'tyranny'. Stripping the people of fundamental constitutional guarantees by reducing all rights to a simple majority vote?

That's is tyranny. And its what you demand we do.

From your point of view, as a person who can vote and has power (quite a bit of it) I'm sure the complete dismissal of children having both a mother and father in an incentivized institution that used to be known as "marriage" (not sure what to call it now) is perfectly fine.

But we are talking in this topic about a class of people who cannot vote who are dependent 100% upon how society defines their formative environment, in order literally to mold their very spirits. THEY have had no voice in this discussion at all except to use them as "suicide-potentials" if gays don't get the "right" to deprive them of either a mother or a father (which statistically leads them then to actually commit suicide more often than their peers)..

From the most oppressed class of all comes the desire and the pressing need (more importantly) to have the best formative environment possible in marriage. And that was just stripped away from them this June. Gay "marriages" can N-E-V-E-R provide either a mother or father for children. And children, because they cannot vote WERE/ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT CLASS TO CONSIDER IN THIS DISCUSSION.. Because how a marriage is set up affects them more than any other class of people. And like I said, they are the only class left in America who cannot vote. Therefore, they are the class who is most in "immediate legal harm" to suffer should there not be a specific Amendment attached to our Constitution that forces any and all judges, juries and tribunals to weigh their needs first over adult wants.

It would be the Gold Standard of law. And so far 6 people voted that protecting children's vital needs would be a bad idea. tsk tsk. Not going to get a lot of votes that way in 2016..

 

[Skylar]

Gays and lesbians raising their own children isn't 'tyranny'. Nor is gays and lesbians being able to marry 'tyranny'. Stripping the people of fundamental constitutional guarantees by reducing all rights to a simple majority vote?

That's is tyranny. And its what you demand we do.

From your point of view, as a person who can vote and has power (quite a bit of it) I'm sure the complete dismissal of children having both a mother and father in an incentivized institution that used to be known as "marriage" (not sure what to call it now) is perfectly fine.

Rights aren't subject to a majority vote. You want them to be. You're wrong. You're demanding the tyranny of the majority. And we're not doing that.

This is one of the major reasons why you were so wildly wrong about the Windsor decision and its implications to Obergefell: you refuse to factor in individual rights, acknowleding only the power of the state. Despite the fact that the state laws are subject to constitutional guarantees and the Windsor decision said as much.

All you're doing now is doing the same exact thing again. Once again ignoring constitutional guarantees and only acknowledging the power of the State, with the threshold of stripping any right from any person being a simple majority vote in your estimate. But much like blunder with Windsor and Obergefell......constitutional guarantees still exist. And the state laws are still subject to them.

Your conception of the relationship between the individual and the state is fundamentally wrong. And your predictions of legal outcomes based on that fundamentally wrong conception is wildly inaccurate. Nor is there much support in the public to change that relationship on all rights...

......just so you strip gays and lesbians of their constitutionally protected right to marry.

But we are talking in this topic about a class of people who cannot vote who are dependent 100% upon how society defines their formative environment, in order literally to mold their very spirits. THEY have had no voice in this discussion at all except to use them as "suicide-potentials" if gays don't get the "right" to deprive them of either a mother or a father (which statistically leads them then to actually commit suicide more often than their peers)..

We have laws that protect children. We have court rulings that protect children. Your claim that unless we enact this batshit amendment that reduces any right to a simple majority vote that children 'have no voice' is specious nonsense. The Obergefell ruling itself specifically addresses the welfare of children, with the court finding it was a powerful argument in favor of same sex marriage.

We're not going to reduce all rights from religion to gun ownership to free speech to a simple majority vote because you don't like gay people.

Get used to the idea.

From the most oppressed class of all comes the desire and the pressing need (more importantly) to have the best formative environment possible in marriage. And that was just stripped away from them this June. Gay "marriages" can N-E-V-E-R provide either a mother or father for children. And children, because they cannot vote WERE/ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT CLASS TO CONSIDER IN THIS DISCUSSION..

We've been through this. Nothing you're proposing produces any of the results you're calling for. If you deny gays the right to marry, their children don't magically have opposite sex parents. But are only guaranteed never to have married parents. Which only hurts those children. And helps no child.

So why would we reduce ANY right, from religion to gun ownership to free speech to a simple majority vote.........in order to help NO child and harms 10s of thousands?

There is no reason. Your proposal is an awful idea. No thank you.

 

[Silhouette]

Rights aren't subject to a majority vote. You want them to be. You're wrong. .

Let me save that quote from you for the future OK? Because one thing that CAN happen is a Constitutional Amendment to put Children's considerations of needs over adult's of wants. At that point, their needs will become a civil right (as they always should have been). And children need both a mother and father for their best formative environment, the one that states must incentivize to produce the best/most productive citizens. Then "rights aren't subject to a tribunal's vote" will be the new gold standard for children and their need for both fathers AND mothers....among many other abuses and injustices heaped upon them by slick lawyers in court arguing 'what adults want!!"...

Right Skylar?

So if this Amendment were to happen, your LGBT cult would really have to shove their pistols deep in the backs of psychologists at the APA and elsewhere (that institution has been formally censured once already by Congress for promoting sick acts against children) to "make depriving kids of either a mother or father healthy, normal and OK for them"..

 

[Skylar]

Rights aren't subject to a majority vote. You want them to be. You're wrong. .

Let me save that quote from you for the future OK? Because one thing that CAN happen is a Constitutional Amendment to put Children's considerations of needs over adult's of wants.

A constitutional amendment isn't passed with a simple majority vote. But instead, a super majority of 3/4s. ANd not by the people, but by the State legislatures. And its not happening.

You're in the bargaining phase of loss, where you're trying to come up with a deal that will make your loss go away. There is no such deal. There is no such bargain. There is no such amendment. Nor will there be.

Gays and lesbians will continue to have their constitutionally protected right to marry. Get used to the idea. For all practical purposes, there is nothing you can do about it.

At that point, their needs will become a civil right (as they always should have been). And children need both a mother and father for their best formative environment, the one that states must incentivize to produce the best/most productive citizens. Then "rights aren't subject to a tribunal's vote" will be the new gold standard for children and their need for both fathers AND mothers....among many other abuses and injustices heaped upon them by slick lawyers in court arguing 'what adults want!!"...

We've been through this. Nothing you're proposing produces any of the results you're calling for. If you deny gays the right to marry, their children don't magically have opposite sex parents. But are only guaranteed never to have married parents. Which only hurts those children. And helps no child.

So why would we reduce ANY right, from religion to gun ownership to free speech to a simple majority vote.........in order to help NO child and harms 10s of thousands?

There is no reason. Your proposal is an awful idea. No thank you.

 

[AceRothstein]

It would be the Gold Standard of law. And so far 6 people voted that protecting children's vital needs would be a bad idea. tsk tsk. Not going to get a lot of votes that way in 2016..

Republicans aren't even batshit crazy enough to jump on your bandwagon. You lost. Get over it.

 

[AceRothstein]

Sil, I think you should use this as your avatar going forward.

 

[Silhouette]

Why do you two hate children? Don't you want what's best for them? More importantly, would you defend your position's publicly that "adults wants outweigh children's needs"? I thought you were all about elevating suppressed classes to new civil rights? Surely the last class of Americans who cannot vote would be the most susceptable of all? Why the sudden about face? The only answer could be that you are bigoted against children and their plight. You want them controlled, herded, muted, silent, downtrodden. ie: you hate them.

And the Prince's Trust survey tells us that many children forced into these motherless or fatherless marriages would be at risk of suicide compared to their peers. Do you want more kids to commit suicide because of fatherless or motherless "marriages"? Aren't the grim statistics bad enough with kids born out of wedlock, missing either a mother or a father? And you want a subsidized-institution guaranteeing a higher rate of child or young adult suicides???

WTF??! I thought child suicide rates were what you were all about doing away with. At least you were before June 26, 2015...

 

[Ravi]

Why do you two hate children? Don't you want what's best for them? More importantly, would you defend your position's publicly that "adults wants outweigh children's needs"? I thought you were all about elevating suppressed classes to new civil rights? Surely the last class of Americans who cannot vote would be the most susceptable of all? Why the sudden about face? The only answer could be that you are bigoted against children and their plight. You want them controlled, herded, muted, silent, downtrodden. ie: you hate them.

And the Prince's Trust survey tells us that many children forced into these motherless or fatherless marriages would be at risk of suicide compared to their peers. Do you want more kids to commit suicide because of fatherless or motherless "marriages"? Aren't the grim statistics bad enough with kids born out of wedlock, missing either a mother or a father? And you want a subsidized-institution guaranteeing a higher rate of child or young adult suicides???

WTF??! I thought child suicide rates were what you were all about doing away with. At least you were before June 26, 2015...

Will gay people get to vote on these family matters?

 

[Skylar]

Why do you two hate children? Don't you want what's best for them?

I don't use you as my arbiter of what is best for children. I don't know anyone who does As you're more than happy to hurt children if it hurts gays.

No thank you.

More importantly, would you defend your position's publicly that "adults wants outweigh children's needs"?

That's your position. Mine is that your proposal erodes rights, reducing them to nothing more than a majority vote. Institutes the tyranny of the majority. Hurts 10s of thousands of children. And helps none.

No thank you.

You're scrambling for some bargain to make your loss go away. You imagine that justices will be impeached. They won't. You imagine that the Obergefell ruling will be reheard. It won't. You imagine that an amendment allowing you to strip rights from gays will be passed.

It won't. There is no deal. There is no bargain. You lost. And you'll get over it.

And the Prince's Trust survey tells us that many children forced into these motherless or fatherless marriages would be at risk of suicide compared to their peers. Do you want more kids to commit suicide because of fatherless or motherless "marriages"? Aren't the grim statistics bad enough with kids born out of wedlock, missing either a mother or a father? And you want a subsidized-institution guaranteeing a higher rate of child or young adult suicides???

You're kinda recycling the classics today, aren't you? The prince trust study never even mentions same sex parents, same sex parenting, gays, gay marriage or anything you attribute to it. You've hallucinated all of it. Worse, every single specific example it gave of a child with no good same sex role model had a single parent.

Worse still, nothing in the Prince Trust study said that a good same sex role model had to be parent. It could be a brother, a grandmother, an aunt, a friend, a mentor, a coach, or any of a litany of other sources.

So why would we hurt 10s of thousands of children, cause them immediate legal harm and reduce all rights to a simple majority vote.........while helping no child?

There is no reason.

 

[Syriusly]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“The Fag Militia”

This is an example of the ignorance and hate common to most on the social right, illustrating the continued need of our Constitution and its case law to safeguard citizens’ civil rights from this sort of ignorance and hate.

That's a nice strawman. But what does it have to do with children and their rights? Do you believe that children fare better with two men or a father and a mother?)

Children fare better with good parents- usually better with 2 rather than 1, but even that is a generalization. Take any couple- and compare to another couple- and there is no 'test' that says which will be better parents or whose children will 'fare better'.

I have known children raised by amazing parents- who turned out really bad. Why? I don't know. I have known kids raised by a single gay man who turned out great. Why? I don't know- he is a great dad- but being a great dad is no guarantee.

Children need a mother and a father. Not two mothers or two fathers. Children need a mother and a father. That is the way God designed the family unit. Mother, father, children.

Yet millions and millions of children are missing one or both.

Where are your threads and angst for those children?

All you care about is ensuring that children who need parents- don't get parents if the parents are gay.

You are fine with kids rotting rather than having parents who love them- if the parents are gay.

 

[Syriusly]

Skylar, please try to stick to the subject.

The subject being "Silhouette's latest whacky attempt to foment hatred against homosexuals"

 

[Syriusly]

If spanking a child teaches him not to burn himself on a stove, the gold standard has not been violated. If spanking a child is to vent anger at a glass of spilled milk, then the gold standard is violated. It isn't rocket science.

Hitting a child teaches him or her nothing other than might makes right.

Depends on the circumstances. I wouldn't use spanking to discipline a child. But I'd paddle their ass if they put themselves in danger, played with fire, messed around with an electrical socket, or the like. It startles the shit out of them and cements the point, especially when you don't do it in any other circumstance.

Spanking teaches nothing. It doesn't cement any points. I was spanked as a child. Not often. I thought it dumb. I remember the spankings but not what I did that lead to my being spanked.

Because I thought spanking dumb, I never spanked any of my children. My oldest daughter has 4 boys. They have never been spanked either.

Children who are hit grow up to hit others.

Hot wood stove + child daring near with zero respect for verbal warnings + fingertip pain + face saved = child's best interest. Case dismissed..

If my sister had done that to my child- I would never leave my child alone with her again.

That is actual child abuse.

You are even scarier than I thought.

 

[Skylar]

Skylar, please try to stick to the subject.

The subject being "Silhouette's latest whacky attempt to foment hatred against homosexuals"

Its doing the opposite. The folks that agree with him already did. The folks that he might have convinced if he'd used a rational, consistent and honest argument are turned off by the wildly self contradictory nature of Sil's posts. I mean, the Prince Trust study doesn't even mention gays. Yet he insists that it condemns them. The Hall and Hall study explicitly contradicts him The Windsor decision contradicts him.

And now we're getting the 'if you don't strip rights from gay people, you champion child suicide' hysterics.

Sil is in meltdown mode. And it isn't a persuasive place to be.

 

[Syriusly]

To rob a child of a loving, father and mother home by deliberately constructing a domestic structure that omits one or the other is cruel and selfish. .

Millions of children are being raised by a single parent because one or both parents have deliberately constructed a domestic structure that omits one or the other.

I look forward to Silhouette's campaign to protect children by outlawing the divorce of parents.

I agree that it happens too often. I think that prisoners who have children are just as hideous, having made choices that will deprive their child of their presence growing up. Believe me, I'm not just pegging this on gay couples.

And it's not that gay couples are ill intentioned, the two that I know very well I trust with my own children as "aunts". But in the long run it's not enough. A child without a mother begins to long to have a mommy like his friends do, or a daddy. A wonderful mother is not a father even if you double them, and a wonderful father, even two of them, is not a mother. To do this to a child with intent is wrong regardless of sexual orientation.

And thank you that your responses to me are always civil. As I'm being exposed to the human element of this issue, I'm learning to appreciate other viewpoints.

Yes. And your two lesbian friends aren't alone in the LGBT community believing that children should have a mother and father in any marriage. After all, they almost all had access to both a mother and a father.

I guess some of them just don't want their own kids to have what they had.

I'm glad to know them. I can take in stride the Gaysteppo I see here knowing they don't represent real gay people.

And I know many fine and decent Christians who treat other human being decently.

That does make it easier to take the shrill demands of the Christo-Fascists, knowing they only represent a small portion of the stridently intollerent and hateful.

 

[Syriusly]

Rights aren't subject to a majority vote. You want them to be. You're wrong. .

Let me save that quote from you for the future OK? Because one thing that CAN happen is a Constitutional Amendment to put Children's considerations of needs over adult's of wants. ..

Ah but who gets decide what are the Children's best considerations? Ay and theres the rub.

Do we take children away from Native American homes- in their best interest? We used to.
Do we sterilize poor people - in their children's best interest? We used to.
Do we take children away from single parents- in their children's best interest?
Do we require parents to live with each other- in their children's best interests?
Do we start taking children away from homes- if 'we' decide they are the 'wrong' kind of homes- Mormon homes, Bahai homes, African American homes, North African homes.

Right now children can be taken away from their parents under only very, very limited circumstances.

What Silhouette is proposing opens the door for the majority to remove kids from any parents the majority cares to discriminate against.

 

[Skylar]

Rights aren't subject to a majority vote. You want them to be. You're wrong. .

Let me save that quote from you for the future OK? Because one thing that CAN happen is a Constitutional Amendment to put Children's considerations of needs over adult's of wants. ..

Ah but who gets decide what are the Children's best considerations? Ay and theres the rub.

Do we take children away from Native American homes- in their best interest? We used to.
Do we sterilize poor people - in their children's best interest? We used to.
Do we take children away from single parents- in their children's best interest?
Do we require parents to live with each other- in their children's best interests?
Do we start taking children away from homes- if 'we' decide they are the 'wrong' kind of homes- Mormon homes, Bahai homes, African American homes, North African homes.

Right now children can be taken away from their parents under only very, very limited circumstances.

What Silhouette is proposing opens the door for the majority to remove kids from any parents the majority cares to discriminate against.

What SIl is proposing is that every custody case in any divorce.....be decided by majority vote in an election.

That's insane.

 

[Silhouette]

What SIl is proposing is that every custody case in any divorce.....be decided by majority vote in an election.

That's insane.

Nope, stop misquoting, lying and then basing an argument on a fallicy.

I said that the new Amendment becomes THE GOLD STANDARD FOR ANY JUDGE, JURY OR TRIBUNAL to follow in any question where adults wants are pitted against a child's needs.

The example of divorce: A home is experiencing hostilties between parents at a point that a child is suffering daily in that atmosphere. Divorce is in the best interest at that point of the child. Divorce granted. Next case?

See how easy this Gold Standard is to apply?

 

[Montrovant]

What SIl is proposing is that every custody case in any divorce.....be decided by majority vote in an election.

That's insane.

Nope, stop misquoting, lying and then basing an argument on a fallicy.

I said that the new Amendment becomes THE GOLD STANDARD FOR ANY JUDGE, JURY OR TRIBUNAL to follow in any question where adults wants are pitted against a child's needs.

The example of divorce: A home is experiencing hostilties between parents at a point that a child is suffering daily in that atmosphere. Divorce is in the best interest at that point of the child. Divorce granted. Next case?

See how easy this Gold Standard is to apply?

So you are leaving the decision about what is in a child's best interest to a judge......isn't that what you've been railing against with the USSC ruling on SSM?

 

[Syriusly]

What SIl is proposing is that every custody case in any divorce.....be decided by majority vote in an election.

That's insane.

Nope, stop misquoting, lying and then basing an argument on a fallicy.

I said that the new Amendment becomes THE GOLD STANDARD FOR ANY JUDGE, JURY OR TRIBUNAL to follow in any question where adults wants are pitted against a child's needs.

The example of divorce: A home is experiencing hostilties between parents at a point that a child is suffering daily in that atmosphere. Divorce is in the best interest at that point of the child. Divorce granted. Next case?

See how easy this Gold Standard is to apply?

But wait......you have told us repeatedly that the best interest for a child is to have a mother and father that are married.

So according to you- no divorce.