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

[Syriusly]

Well thanks for confirming that the intention of this 'proposed amendment' is nothing other than preventing gay persons from being allowed to raise their children......

On the contrary...the Amendment would address any and all questions of law before a judge, jury or tribunal on any type of issue that pitted an adult's wants and whims against a child's needs. .

Actually you had previously already confirmed that the point of your amendment was to deny children parents who are gay

When you said:
Yes, and this proposed Amendment would go a long way towards remedying that.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Well thanks for confirming that the intention of this 'proposed amendment' is nothing other than preventing gay persons from being allowed to raise their children......

On the contrary...the Amendment would address any and all questions of law before a judge, jury or tribunal on any type of issue that pitted an adult's wants and whims against a child's needs. .

Actually you had previously already confirmed that the point of your amendment was to deny children parents who are gay

When you said:
Yes, and this proposed Amendment would go a long way towards remedying that.

It should be remedied along with every other infringement on children's rights....chief of which is to be born; you got gay on the brain so badly you didn't even notice that this amendment would do away with abortion on demand. And isn't that more important to you, being able to snuff out helpless living babies?

In my opinion children have the following rights:

1. To be born


2. To have a mother and father

3. To be nurtured, protected, fed, clothed, housed, and educated

4. To have a mother at home and not be institutionalized or abandoned to day care.

5. To be free from sick social experiments such as the sick lesbians who are trying to turn their little boy into a little girl while he clutches his genitals in terror to protect them from the operation they have planned to excise them.

And laws need to start reflecting the fact that the rights of the child outweigh the selfish whims of the adults.

 

[Silhouette]

Actually you had previously already confirmed that the point of your amendment was to deny children parents who are gay

When you said:
Yes, and this proposed Amendment would go a long way towards remedying that.

You're right. But you know how I feel about that so does it come as a surprise to you that I'd want a child to have both a mother and father in marriage?

 

[Montrovant]

Well thanks for confirming that the intention of this 'proposed amendment' is nothing other than preventing gay persons from being allowed to raise their children......

On the contrary...the Amendment would address any and all questions of law before a judge, jury or tribunal on any type of issue that pitted an adult's wants and whims against a child's needs. .

Actually you had previously already confirmed that the point of your amendment was to deny children parents who are gay

When you said:
Yes, and this proposed Amendment would go a long way towards remedying that.

It should be remedied along with every other infringement on children's rights....chief of which is to be born; you got gay on the brain so badly you didn't even notice that this amendment would do away with abortion on demand. And isn't that more important to you, being able to snuff out helpless living babies?

In my opinion children have the following rights:

1. To be born


2. To have a mother and father

3. To be nurtured, protected, fed, clothed, housed, and educated

4. To have a mother at home and not be institutionalized or abandoned to day care.

5. To be free from sick social experiments such as the sick lesbians who are trying to turn their little boy into a little girl while he clutches his genitals in terror to protect them from the operation they have planned to excise them.

And laws need to start reflecting the fact that the rights of the child outweigh the selfish whims of the adults.

To have a mother at home? Really? So if a father is a stay at home dad, that's not good enough for you, it's a violation of a child's rights? If both parents work to pay the bills and need to send a child to daycare, that is a violation of the child's rights?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Well thanks for confirming that the intention of this 'proposed amendment' is nothing other than preventing gay persons from being allowed to raise their children......

On the contrary...the Amendment would address any and all questions of law before a judge, jury or tribunal on any type of issue that pitted an adult's wants and whims against a child's needs. .

Actually you had previously already confirmed that the point of your amendment was to deny children parents who are gay

When you said:
Yes, and this proposed Amendment would go a long way towards remedying that.

It should be remedied along with every other infringement on children's rights....chief of which is to be born; you got gay on the brain so badly you didn't even notice that this amendment would do away with abortion on demand. And isn't that more important to you, being able to snuff out helpless living babies?

In my opinion children have the following rights:

1. To be born


2. To have a mother and father

3. To be nurtured, protected, fed, clothed, housed, and educated

4. To have a mother at home and not be institutionalized or abandoned to day care.

5. To be free from sick social experiments such as the sick lesbians who are trying to turn their little boy into a little girl while he clutches his genitals in terror to protect them from the operation they have planned to excise them.

And laws need to start reflecting the fact that the rights of the child outweigh the selfish whims of the adults.

To have a mother at home? Really? So if a father is a stay at home dad, that's not good enough for you, it's a violation of a child's rights? If both parents work to pay the bills and need to send a child to daycare, that is a violation of the child's rights?

If both parents work to pay the bills then they need to get rid of a few of them. Those who are committed to raising children right will find a way. Those that aren't should not have children.

 

[Skylar]

Whereas I think every child deserves more. Children long for a mother and a father and they are hurt when deprived of either.....even if they have two really cool moms...women cannot fill the psychological need for a father nor men for a mother.

When this happens by vicissitude it's tragic. When it happens by design, it's a hideous moral transgression.

Yes, and this proposed Amendment would go a long way towards remedying that. The Gold Standard of children's needs dominant to adult's wants would set that right again.

Your amendment is unworkable. As it would put any child custody hearing to a vote. Any divorce to a vote. You could strip any one of any right with a vote.

For example.....if a judge was asked to determine if having a gun in the home endangered a child and should thus be removed......it would have to go to a vote. Your 2nd amendment rights could be stripped away with a 50 + 1 vote. Any right could. All you'd need to do is put the word 'child' in your question, and your right is now a matter of popular vote.

If I were merely to ask a judge to rule if Christianity or Islam should be allowed as it may hurt children.....then the question is put up to a vote. And if folks vote no, then both CHristianity and Islam are outlawed.

Its a horrible idea. Children already have protections. There are already laws that protect them. And judges implementing those laws. Your insistence that we completely change the nature of all rights and put everything from child custody hearings to divorces up to majority votes is a ridiculous overreaction to the Obergefell decision.

We're not doing any of that. Your 'amendment' is just you in the bargaining phase of loss where you're trying to imagine a deal that will somehow make your loss go away. There is no deal. You just lost.

And you'll get over it.

 

[Skylar]

Well thanks for confirming that the intention of this 'proposed amendment' is nothing other than preventing gay persons from being allowed to raise their children......

On the contrary...the Amendment would address any and all questions of law before a judge, jury or tribunal on any type of issue that pitted an adult's wants and whims against a child's needs. .

Actually you had previously already confirmed that the point of your amendment was to deny children parents who are gay

When you said:
Yes, and this proposed Amendment would go a long way towards remedying that.

It should be remedied along with every other infringement on children's rights....chief of which is to be born; you got gay on the brain so badly you didn't even notice that this amendment would do away with abortion on demand. And isn't that more important to you, being able to snuff out helpless living babies?

In my opinion children have the following rights:

1. To be born


2. To have a mother and father

3. To be nurtured, protected, fed, clothed, housed, and educated

4. To have a mother at home and not be institutionalized or abandoned to day care.

5. To be free from sick social experiments such as the sick lesbians who are trying to turn their little boy into a little girl while he clutches his genitals in terror to protect them from the operation they have planned to excise them.

And laws need to start reflecting the fact that the rights of the child outweigh the selfish whims of the adults.

To have a mother at home? Really? So if a father is a stay at home dad, that's not good enough for you, it's a violation of a child's rights? If both parents work to pay the bills and need to send a child to daycare, that is a violation of the child's rights?

If both parents work to pay the bills then they need to get rid of a few of them. Those who are committed to raising children right will find a way. Those that aren't should not have children.

And we should use the law to make this happen?

 

[AveryJarhman]

*IS THIS HORRIFIC CHILD ABUSE, MINIMAL CHILD ABUSE, OR ACCEPTABLE CHILD ABUSE?*

This question *has nothing to do with music.*

This IS a question about *Emotional Child Abuse and Neglect.*

In his 2015 Grammy award winning rap performance, "I", American Rap Performance Artist Kendrick Lamar reveals, *"I've been dealing with depression ever since an adolescent."*

In a January 20, 2011 LAWeekly interview (Google search), American rapper and 2015 Grammy winner Kendrick Lamar, born in 1987, the same year songwriter Suzanne Vega wrote a song about child abuse and *VICTIM DENIAL* that was nominated for a Grammy award, he told the interviewer:

*"Lamar's parents moved from Chicago to Compton in 1984 with all of $500 in their pockets. "My mom's one of 13 *[THIRTEEN]* siblings, and they all got SIX kids, and till I was 13 everybody was in Compton," he says."*

*"I'm 6 years old, seein' my uncles playing with shotguns, sellin' dope in front of the apartment. My moms and pops never said nothing, 'cause they were young and living wild, too. I got about 15 stories like 'Average Joe.'"*

https://knutesniche.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/laweekly-lamar-abuse.png

In your opinion, is it possible a child raised and nurtured by *"living wild"* parents could develop into a emotionally damaged, troubled teen/adult who resents his or her parents for introducing them to a life that is/was NOT safe for them or their developing brothers and sisters?

Could a developing child raised and nurtured like Kendrick, develop into a depressed, angry teen who believes he has been deprived of an Average Joe childhood, resulting with the teen venting his anger and frustrations on his peaceful neighbors?

Is it possible some or many kids raised in the *"living wild"* environment Kendrick describes might cause some police to fear for their safety, resulting with some cops using excessive force because they fear being physically injured or worse by depressed, angry, unsupervised children raised and nurtured by "living wild" caretakers?

Especially officers *(humans)* who on a daily basis witness the fear, sadness, emotional trauma and physical pain caused to peaceful people *(humans)* in Kendrick's community by *PARENTS* who slowly condition their children to embrace and accept the "living wild" *(human)* lifestyle Kendrick writes about being victimized by?

Is Kendrick wrong for believing his brothers and sisters, cousins, neighborhood friends, elementary and JHS classmates (developing humans) were deprived of experiencing a safe, fairly happy Average Joe or Josie American kid life by the "living wild" lifestyle that he speaks about being raised and nurtured in?

Do you believe as I, that SYSTEMIC CHILD ABUSE/NEGLECT is the primary cause for most all the pain, struggle, hardships, anger and frustrations some or many of our American neighbors experience from childhood through adulthood?

If you do believe Child Abuse and Emotional Neglect are responsible for Kendrick and many American kids being deprived of experiencing a safe, fairly happy childhood, should the two most powerful voices in the United States of America, (POTUS/FLOTUS) aka "The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave", bravely and freely address the issue of children being deprived of their inalienable right to experience a safe, fairly happy American kid life?

In the 20th century American Society addressed the human ignorance of racism by creating laws to educate and eliminate this ignorance.

In the 21st century, should society strengthen child abuse laws to educate and help kids like Kendrick, Tupac Shakur and many others experience a safe American kid life?

#RestorePrideInParenting
#EndChildAbuseNeglect
#ProtectKidsFromIrresponsibleCaregivers

 

[Montrovant]

Well thanks for confirming that the intention of this 'proposed amendment' is nothing other than preventing gay persons from being allowed to raise their children......

On the contrary...the Amendment would address any and all questions of law before a judge, jury or tribunal on any type of issue that pitted an adult's wants and whims against a child's needs. .

Actually you had previously already confirmed that the point of your amendment was to deny children parents who are gay

When you said:
Yes, and this proposed Amendment would go a long way towards remedying that.

It should be remedied along with every other infringement on children's rights....chief of which is to be born; you got gay on the brain so badly you didn't even notice that this amendment would do away with abortion on demand. And isn't that more important to you, being able to snuff out helpless living babies?

In my opinion children have the following rights:

1. To be born


2. To have a mother and father

3. To be nurtured, protected, fed, clothed, housed, and educated

4. To have a mother at home and not be institutionalized or abandoned to day care.

5. To be free from sick social experiments such as the sick lesbians who are trying to turn their little boy into a little girl while he clutches his genitals in terror to protect them from the operation they have planned to excise them.

And laws need to start reflecting the fact that the rights of the child outweigh the selfish whims of the adults.

To have a mother at home? Really? So if a father is a stay at home dad, that's not good enough for you, it's a violation of a child's rights? If both parents work to pay the bills and need to send a child to daycare, that is a violation of the child's rights?

If both parents work to pay the bills then they need to get rid of a few of them. Those who are committed to raising children right will find a way. Those that aren't should not have children.

That didn't actually answer the question. Are children's rights violated by having a stay at home father? Are children's rights violated by having two parents who work and spending time in daycare?

It seems to me you are talking more about what you consider the optimal situation for children rather than rights they have.

I also think you have a pretty cavalier attitude about how difficult it may be for someone to live up to your ideal. Both parents work to make ends meet? Well, they just aren't trying hard enough, are they? They should be able to provide a safe, healthy environment on the salary of one parent, no matter the circumstances of the family, right?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

On the contrary...the Amendment would address any and all questions of law before a judge, jury or tribunal on any type of issue that pitted an adult's wants and whims against a child's needs. .

Actually you had previously already confirmed that the point of your amendment was to deny children parents who are gay

When you said:
Yes, and this proposed Amendment would go a long way towards remedying that.

It should be remedied along with every other infringement on children's rights....chief of which is to be born; you got gay on the brain so badly you didn't even notice that this amendment would do away with abortion on demand. And isn't that more important to you, being able to snuff out helpless living babies?

In my opinion children have the following rights:

1. To be born


2. To have a mother and father

3. To be nurtured, protected, fed, clothed, housed, and educated

4. To have a mother at home and not be institutionalized or abandoned to day care.

5. To be free from sick social experiments such as the sick lesbians who are trying to turn their little boy into a little girl while he clutches his genitals in terror to protect them from the operation they have planned to excise them.

And laws need to start reflecting the fact that the rights of the child outweigh the selfish whims of the adults.

To have a mother at home? Really? So if a father is a stay at home dad, that's not good enough for you, it's a violation of a child's rights? If both parents work to pay the bills and need to send a child to daycare, that is a violation of the child's rights?

If both parents work to pay the bills then they need to get rid of a few of them. Those who are committed to raising children right will find a way. Those that aren't should not have children.

And we should use the law to make this happen?

No, we should wait for the Supreme Court to make it law.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

On the contrary...the Amendment would address any and all questions of law before a judge, jury or tribunal on any type of issue that pitted an adult's wants and whims against a child's needs. .

Actually you had previously already confirmed that the point of your amendment was to deny children parents who are gay

When you said:
Yes, and this proposed Amendment would go a long way towards remedying that.

It should be remedied along with every other infringement on children's rights....chief of which is to be born; you got gay on the brain so badly you didn't even notice that this amendment would do away with abortion on demand. And isn't that more important to you, being able to snuff out helpless living babies?

In my opinion children have the following rights:

1. To be born


2. To have a mother and father

3. To be nurtured, protected, fed, clothed, housed, and educated

4. To have a mother at home and not be institutionalized or abandoned to day care.

5. To be free from sick social experiments such as the sick lesbians who are trying to turn their little boy into a little girl while he clutches his genitals in terror to protect them from the operation they have planned to excise them.

And laws need to start reflecting the fact that the rights of the child outweigh the selfish whims of the adults.

To have a mother at home? Really? So if a father is a stay at home dad, that's not good enough for you, it's a violation of a child's rights? If both parents work to pay the bills and need to send a child to daycare, that is a violation of the child's rights?

If both parents work to pay the bills then they need to get rid of a few of them. Those who are committed to raising children right will find a way. Those that aren't should not have children.

That didn't actually answer the question. Are children's rights violated by having a stay at home father? Are children's rights violated by having two parents who work and spending time in daycare?

It seems to me you are talking more about what you consider the optimal situation for children rather than rights they have.

I also think you have a pretty cavalier attitude about how difficult it may be for someone to live up to your ideal. Both parents work to make ends meet? Well, they just aren't trying hard enough, are they? They should be able to provide a safe, healthy environment on the salary of one parent, no matter the circumstances of the family, right?

Stay at home dads are just fine if absolutely necessary, but usually men are better bread winners than women, and more importantly are wired to be so. Optimally it should be Mom that stays home because in a child's primary years, she needs the close and constant nurture Mom provides. Dads staying home often produces bad results because men need to feel they are providing. Gender roles have been vehemently denied by the deluded Left, but there's no getting around it. Men need to be out working and women need to actually raise their children instead of abandoning them to day care where they are deprived of their emotional and developmental needs.

 

[Skylar]

Actually you had previously already confirmed that the point of your amendment was to deny children parents who are gay

When you said:
Yes, and this proposed Amendment would go a long way towards remedying that.

It should be remedied along with every other infringement on children's rights....chief of which is to be born; you got gay on the brain so badly you didn't even notice that this amendment would do away with abortion on demand. And isn't that more important to you, being able to snuff out helpless living babies?

In my opinion children have the following rights:

1. To be born


2. To have a mother and father

3. To be nurtured, protected, fed, clothed, housed, and educated

4. To have a mother at home and not be institutionalized or abandoned to day care.

5. To be free from sick social experiments such as the sick lesbians who are trying to turn their little boy into a little girl while he clutches his genitals in terror to protect them from the operation they have planned to excise them.

And laws need to start reflecting the fact that the rights of the child outweigh the selfish whims of the adults.

To have a mother at home? Really? So if a father is a stay at home dad, that's not good enough for you, it's a violation of a child's rights? If both parents work to pay the bills and need to send a child to daycare, that is a violation of the child's rights?

If both parents work to pay the bills then they need to get rid of a few of them. Those who are committed to raising children right will find a way. Those that aren't should not have children.

And we should use the law to make this happen?

No, we should wait for the Supreme Court to make it law.

So the Supreme Court making your list law? Would that outlaw, say....divorce?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It should be remedied along with every other infringement on children's rights....chief of which is to be born; you got gay on the brain so badly you didn't even notice that this amendment would do away with abortion on demand. And isn't that more important to you, being able to snuff out helpless living babies?

In my opinion children have the following rights:

1. To be born


2. To have a mother and father

3. To be nurtured, protected, fed, clothed, housed, and educated

4. To have a mother at home and not be institutionalized or abandoned to day care.

5. To be free from sick social experiments such as the sick lesbians who are trying to turn their little boy into a little girl while he clutches his genitals in terror to protect them from the operation they have planned to excise them.

And laws need to start reflecting the fact that the rights of the child outweigh the selfish whims of the adults.

To have a mother at home? Really? So if a father is a stay at home dad, that's not good enough for you, it's a violation of a child's rights? If both parents work to pay the bills and need to send a child to daycare, that is a violation of the child's rights?

If both parents work to pay the bills then they need to get rid of a few of them. Those who are committed to raising children right will find a way. Those that aren't should not have children.

And we should use the law to make this happen?

No, we should wait for the Supreme Court to make it law.

So the Supreme Court making your list law? Would that outlaw, say....divorce?

I was being sarcastic. You missed it.

 

[Skylar]

To have a mother at home? Really? So if a father is a stay at home dad, that's not good enough for you, it's a violation of a child's rights? If both parents work to pay the bills and need to send a child to daycare, that is a violation of the child's rights?

If both parents work to pay the bills then they need to get rid of a few of them. Those who are committed to raising children right will find a way. Those that aren't should not have children.

And we should use the law to make this happen?

No, we should wait for the Supreme Court to make it law.

So the Supreme Court making your list law? Would that outlaw, say....divorce?

I was being sarcastic. You missed it.

Oh, I caught it. I just don't care. Would your law include the criminalization of divorce? Or at the very least, the prohibition?

 

[Dragonlady]

So Sil, you say that people who don't agree to abide by the Children's Code should not be allowed to have children. What if they get pregnant?

 

[Silhouette]

So the Supreme Court making your list law? Would that outlaw, say....divorce?

If divorce is for the best interest of the children, the Gold Standard Amendment wouldn't interfere with it at all. This is simple stuff. There are all manner of laws on the books promoting the wellbeing of children. But slick lawyers are good at convincing judges and juries that they should focus on adults. This Amendment would simply take the focus or weight of any argument in court off of adult whims and wants and place an extra weight on the side of children's needs as an official unchallengeable right they have. After all, they're the last class who cannot vote and are at risk of "immediate legal harm" thereby. Kennedy would be impressed with an Amendment like this I'd think...

 

[Skylar]

So the Supreme Court making your list law? Would that outlaw, say....divorce?

If divorce is for the best interest of the children, the Gold Standard Amendment wouldn't interfere with it at all. This is simple stuff.

And who determines if its in the best interest of the child? It can't be the judge. Per your amendment, it can only be the public. So *every* divorce would require a vote of the people.

How about child custody? It too would require a vote of the people.

How about a change to custody or child support payments? Vote of the people.

How about a court petitions to change school or move out of state? Vote of the people.

How about a question of if Christianity or Islam was harmful to the child and should be allowed? Vote of the people.

How about a question of if a gun in the home endangers a child? Vote of the people.

Free speech, religion, gun ownership rights, the right to assemble, divorce, anything......is now matter of the majority. The majority can strip any right, any constitutional guarantee by just slapping the word 'child' in the question.

That doesn't sound like 'simple stuff'. As the people would be voting on thousands of cases each year. And there's no way they could possibly be informed on them. So people voting in ignorance to strip away fundamental rights.

All so you can hurt gay people.

Um, no.

 

[Syriusly]

Actually you had previously already confirmed that the point of your amendment was to deny children parents who are gay

When you said:
Yes, and this proposed Amendment would go a long way towards remedying that.

It should be remedied along with every other infringement on children's rights....chief of which is to be born; you got gay on the brain so badly you didn't even notice that this amendment would do away with abortion on demand. And isn't that more important to you, being able to snuff out helpless living babies?

In my opinion children have the following rights:

1. To be born


2. To have a mother and father

3. To be nurtured, protected, fed, clothed, housed, and educated

4. To have a mother at home and not be institutionalized or abandoned to day care.

5. To be free from sick social experiments such as the sick lesbians who are trying to turn their little boy into a little girl while he clutches his genitals in terror to protect them from the operation they have planned to excise them.

And laws need to start reflecting the fact that the rights of the child outweigh the selfish whims of the adults.

To have a mother at home? Really? So if a father is a stay at home dad, that's not good enough for you, it's a violation of a child's rights? If both parents work to pay the bills and need to send a child to daycare, that is a violation of the child's rights?

If both parents work to pay the bills then they need to get rid of a few of them. Those who are committed to raising children right will find a way. Those that aren't should not have children.

That didn't actually answer the question. Are children's rights violated by having a stay at home father? Are children's rights violated by having two parents who work and spending time in daycare?

It seems to me you are talking more about what you consider the optimal situation for children rather than rights they have.

I also think you have a pretty cavalier attitude about how difficult it may be for someone to live up to your ideal. Both parents work to make ends meet? Well, they just aren't trying hard enough, are they? They should be able to provide a safe, healthy environment on the salary of one parent, no matter the circumstances of the family, right?

. Dads staying home often produces bad results because men need to feel they are providing. Gender roles have been vehemently denied by the deluded Left, but there's no getting around it. Men need to be out working and women need to actually raise their children instead of abandoning them to day care where they are deprived of their emotional and developmental needs.

Having observed families where Dad is the stay at home parent, the only problem they encounter is people who have issues with the Dad being the stay at home parent.

Kids are doing just fine. Mom and Dad are doing just fine.

You are of course welcome to your opinion. But I think you are doing a diservice to millions of families that find out that this situation works best for them.

 

[Syriusly]

So the Supreme Court making your list law? Would that outlaw, say....divorce?

If divorce is for the best interest of the children, the Gold Standard Amendment wouldn't interfere with it at all. This is simple stuff. ..

And who decides whether divorce is in the best interest of the children?

Especially since you have told us that children have a Constitutional right to having a married mother and father.

 

[Syriusly]

Actually you had previously already confirmed that the point of your amendment was to deny children parents who are gay

When you said:
Yes, and this proposed Amendment would go a long way towards remedying that.

You're right. But you know how I feel about that so does it come as a surprise to you that I'd want a child to have both a mother and father in marriage?

Great- just pointing out that as usual- the point of this proposed 'amendment' is just to deny children parents who are gay.

Now- how are you going to have the government take children away from gay parents?

How will you prevent gay parents from having children?