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

[Book of Jeremiah]

Shall we kill people that get divorced?

No, if the divorce is for the best interest of the children...if the parents' hatred for each other affects the sanctity of the home, the divorce is granted.. The gold standard is not violated. This is simple stuff. The children's wellbeing always wins. Always. That's how you put anything, including divorce upon the scales.

What's the choice between a gay couple raising children vs. a childhood in foster care?

That is not the question. A child in foster care should be protected by the law from being handed over to a couple of sodomites. This is about Parents and their children and changing the constitution to transfer rights of the parent over to rights of the Child.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shall we kill people that get divorced?

No, if the divorce is for the best interest of the children...if the parents' hatred for each other affects the sanctity of the home, the divorce is granted.. The gold standard is not violated. This is simple stuff. The children's wellbeing always wins. Always. That's how you put anything, including divorce upon the scales.

What's the choice between a gay couple raising children vs. a childhood in foster care?

That is not the question. A child in foster care should be protected by the law from being handed over to a couple of sodomites. This is about Parents and their children and changing the constitution to transfer rights of the parent over to rights of the Child.

Heterosexual fascists prey on children in far great numbers than "sodomites".

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Shall we kill people that get divorced?

No, if the divorce is for the best interest of the children...if the parents' hatred for each other affects the sanctity of the home, the divorce is granted.. The gold standard is not violated. This is simple stuff. The children's wellbeing always wins. Always. That's how you put anything, including divorce upon the scales.

What's the choice between a gay couple raising children vs. a childhood in foster care?

That is not the question. A child in foster care should be protected by the law from being handed over to a couple of sodomites. This is about Parents and their children and changing the constitution to transfer rights of the parent over to rights of the Child.

Heterosexual fascists prey on children in far great numbers than "sodomites".

Statistics would prove you correct because Sodomites having access to children through adoption is relatively new. In the future? You'll find that reversed. You cannot go down the road of rebellion against God and His Word and expect it to bear good fruit. We are already hearing the testimonies of children who were raised by same sex parents and the harm it had done them, Jake. Consider the boy who was by two lesbians given drugs to set him up for a sex change operation later. What a horrific story! There should be no question as to why the judgment of God is falling upon this nation.

 

[Skylar]

SCOTUS was ruling on adults and not children.

Sil cannot attack homosexual marriages without attacking single parent households.

Those are a mere two of several dozen flaws in the Sil Cult.

Yes, the ruling in June was upon adults. Then, after the new Amendment, any lawyer may sue on behalf of any child who suffers deprivation of not having either a mother or father "in marriage" and the new Amendment will go head-to-head with June's Ruling. The Gold Standard would be argued and hopefully applied.

It would put children on equal footing with adults in this question of marriage which is how it always should've been to begin with.

There won't be an amendment. You're in the bargaining phase of grief.

You'll get over it.

 

[Silhouette]

This amendment isn't needed since Sil knows Congress is going to impeach Kagan/Ginsberg and then reverses itself on gay marriage. lol

Why would you be against an amendment that protected the last class of people who cannot vote against those who can ...needs vs wants? Surely you can see where that might lead for the oppressed class?

One of the cruelest things that used to happen to blacks back in the 19th Century was they would separate the children from either a mother or a father. They'd just sell off a father or sell off a mother (less often but still...) depriving those poor black kids of both vital parents.

 

[Skylar]

This amendment isn't needed since Sil knows Congress is going to impeach Kagan/Ginsberg and then reverses itself on gay marriage. lol

Why would you be against an amendment that protected the last class of people who cannot vote against those who can ...needs vs wants? Surely you can see where that might lead for the oppressed class?

Because the kids of gays and lesbians are fine. And all you want to do is hurt gay people. If you have to hurt kids to hurt gays, you'll gladly do it.

No thank you.

 

[paddymurphy]

The motherless/fatherless marriage question may very likely be returned to the People of the sovereign states to decide upon, on behalf of children that we all are guardians of collectively. You can't remove society's voice on something that affects the wellbeing of children. That can't be done. In fact, I'd have that written into the US Constitution as a new Amendment: "Any court decision on appeal that affects the potential wellbeing of children must be put back to voters of the separate states... There can be no ruling found that favors adult wants over a child's needs".

ie, in any question where an adult's wants can be predicted to deprive, set ill at ease, harm, torment, harass, disparage, suppress or any other tort against a child's wellbeing, that case must be decided within the boundaries of a state by a referendum or a mandate to all judges to weigh heavily upon the child's needs before the adult's wants. This application of law would be the gold standard.

It isn't an "anti-gay" Amendment, though the usual crowd will scream foul that it is. It is a pro-child amendment which is long long long overdue. Children cannot vote and as such their considerations and rights are more downtrodden than any other class of people in the US.

And if put to a vote in Congress today, or next year.. I would dare any democrat to come out against a pro-child Amendment. The protections aren't limited just to marriage and how it affects their formative years. It also would protect them from neglect, abuse and exploitation and save them from any slick lawyer arguing on behalf of adults at their expense. The Amendment could actually have wording that "every child is best served by having a mother and a father present in their life on a regular basis", while acknowledging that doesn't always happen.. the striving would be towards that goal in their best interest.

And if democrats reject the proposal on the grounds that "it would affect gay marriage"...then so be it. Advertise loud and clear that they preferred the "rights" to a deviant lifestyle over the wellbeing of children. They would also be "coming out" either anti-mother or anti-father. Not good on any front really if you think about it.. Name each and every democratic Congressperson who so rejected the bill. Any rejection of the bill will make them look machiavellian and into child abuse....and it would be a cake-walk to say it just like that.

Congresspeople?

"behalf of children that we all are guardians of collectively." So, now you are a communist. You want society to collectively raise children. Can you get any more fucking crazy?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Sodomites having access to children through adoption is relatively new. In the future? You'll find that reversed."

Not in the slightest. Heterosexuals groom children for prey in far, far greater numbers than homosexuals. Even with Marriage Equality, the % will shrink only slightly.

You are part of the group that thinks without solid evidence that homosexuals are greater threat to children than heterosexuals.

Newsflash, princess: all adult predators are threats to children, and we need to protect all children against all predator adults. This is the great error that the Cult of Sil makes, ignoring the overwhelming great majority for the few.

 

[Ravi]

Shall we kill people that get divorced?

No, if the divorce is for the best interest of the children...if the parents' hatred for each other affects the sanctity of the home, the divorce is granted.. The gold standard is not violated. This is simple stuff. The children's wellbeing always wins. Always. That's how you put anything, including divorce upon the scales.

What's the choice between a gay couple raising children vs. a childhood in foster care?

That is not the question. A child in foster care should be protected by the law from being handed over to a couple of sodomites. This is about Parents and their children and changing the constitution to transfer rights of the parent over to rights of the Child.

Obviously you don't know how Sil's mind works.

 

[paddymurphy]

The motherless/fatherless marriage question may very likely be returned to the People of the sovereign states to decide upon, on behalf of children that we all are guardians of collectively. You can't remove society's voice on something that affects the wellbeing of children. That can't be done. In fact, I'd have that written into the US Constitution as a new Amendment: "Any court decision on appeal that affects the potential wellbeing of children must be put back to voters of the separate states... There can be no ruling found that favors adult wants over a child's needs".

ie, in any question where an adult's wants can be predicted to deprive, set ill at ease, harm, torment, harass, disparage, suppress or any other tort against a child's wellbeing, that case must be decided within the boundaries of a state by a referendum or a mandate to all judges to weigh heavily upon the child's needs before the adult's wants. This application of law would be the gold standard.

It isn't an "anti-gay" Amendment, though the usual crowd will scream foul that it is. It is a pro-child amendment which is long long long overdue. Children cannot vote and as such their considerations and rights are more downtrodden than any other class of people in the US.

And if put to a vote in Congress today, or next year.. I would dare any democrat to come out against a pro-child Amendment. The protections aren't limited just to marriage and how it affects their formative years. It also would protect them from neglect, abuse and exploitation and save them from any slick lawyer arguing on behalf of adults at their expense. The Amendment could actually have wording that "every child is best served by having a mother and a father present in their life on a regular basis", while acknowledging that doesn't always happen.. the striving would be towards that goal in their best interest.

And if democrats reject the proposal on the grounds that "it would affect gay marriage"...then so be it. Advertise loud and clear that they preferred the "rights" to a deviant lifestyle over the wellbeing of children. They would also be "coming out" either anti-mother or anti-father. Not good on any front really if you think about it.. Name each and every democratic Congressperson who so rejected the bill. Any rejection of the bill will make them look machiavellian and into child abuse....and it would be a cake-walk to say it just like that.

Congresspeople?

The motherless/fatherless marriage question may very likely be returned to the People of the sovereign states to decide upon, on behalf of children that we all are guardians of collectively. You can't remove society's voice on something that affects the wellbeing of children. That can't be done. In fact, I'd have that written into the US Constitution as a new Amendment: "Any court decision on appeal that affects the potential wellbeing of children must be put back to voters of the separate states... There can be no ruling found that favors adult wants over a child's needs".

ie, in any question where an adult's wants can be predicted to deprive, set ill at ease, harm, torment, harass, disparage, suppress or any other tort against a child's wellbeing, that case must be decided within the boundaries of a state by a referendum or a mandate to all judges to weigh heavily upon the child's needs before the adult's wants. This application of law would be the gold standard.

It isn't an "anti-gay" Amendment, though the usual crowd will scream foul that it is. It is a pro-child amendment which is long long long overdue. Children cannot vote and as such their considerations and rights are more downtrodden than any other class of people in the US.

And if put to a vote in Congress today, or next year.. I would dare any democrat to come out against a pro-child Amendment. The protections aren't limited just to marriage and how it affects their formative years. It also would protect them from neglect, abuse and exploitation and save them from any slick lawyer arguing on behalf of adults at their expense. The Amendment could actually have wording that "every child is best served by having a mother and a father present in their life on a regular basis", while acknowledging that doesn't always happen.. the striving would be towards that goal in their best interest.

And if democrats reject the proposal on the grounds that "it would affect gay marriage"...then so be it. Advertise loud and clear that they preferred the "rights" to a deviant lifestyle over the wellbeing of children. They would also be "coming out" either anti-mother or anti-father. Not good on any front really if you think about it.. Name each and every democratic Congressperson who so rejected the bill. Any rejection of the bill will make them look machiavellian and into child abuse....and it would be a cake-walk to say it just like that.

Congresspeople?

Applying that standard, there would be a whole hell of a lot of children removed from straight parents and adopted by gay ones. The Duggars would be "19 and subtracting".

 

[JakeStarkey]

The need is that all children should be protected but the Cult of Si is only a few children should be protected while ignoring all of the rest. Her amendment will not remedy the problem.

 

[paddymurphy]

The motherless/fatherless marriage question may very likely be returned to the People of the sovereign states to decide upon, on behalf of children that we all are guardians of collectively. You can't remove society's voice on something that affects the wellbeing of children. That can't be done. In fact, I'd have that written into the US Constitution as a new Amendment: "Any court decision on appeal that affects the potential wellbeing of children must be put back to voters of the separate states... There can be no ruling found that favors adult wants over a child's needs".

ie, in any question where an adult's wants can be predicted to deprive, set ill at ease, harm, torment, harass, disparage, suppress or any other tort against a child's wellbeing, that case must be decided within the boundaries of a state by a referendum or a mandate to all judges to weigh heavily upon the child's needs before the adult's wants. This application of law would be the gold standard.

It isn't an "anti-gay" Amendment, though the usual crowd will scream foul that it is. It is a pro-child amendment which is long long long overdue. Children cannot vote and as such their considerations and rights are more downtrodden than any other class of people in the US.

And if put to a vote in Congress today, or next year.. I would dare any democrat to come out against a pro-child Amendment. The protections aren't limited just to marriage and how it affects their formative years. It also would protect them from neglect, abuse and exploitation and save them from any slick lawyer arguing on behalf of adults at their expense. The Amendment could actually have wording that "every child is best served by having a mother and a father present in their life on a regular basis", while acknowledging that doesn't always happen.. the striving would be towards that goal in their best interest.

And if democrats reject the proposal on the grounds that "it would affect gay marriage"...then so be it. Advertise loud and clear that they preferred the "rights" to a deviant lifestyle over the wellbeing of children. They would also be "coming out" either anti-mother or anti-father. Not good on any front really if you think about it.. Name each and every democratic Congressperson who so rejected the bill. Any rejection of the bill will make them look machiavellian and into child abuse....and it would be a cake-walk to say it just like that.

Congresspeople?

You do realize that your children would be the first ones removed from their home. Your influence is abusive, degrading, neglectful and harmful to any child you come around.

 

[paddymurphy]

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. The Fag Militia continues to argue that gay couples are merely taking in foster children from failed heterosexual parents, but this is a lie. They want babies because only a baby will complete the false image of family. And they are finding all sorts of creative ways to make that happen.

These immoral assholes never consider how their victim will look longingly at his friend's parents and wish he also had a dad....or a mom. This is the case when a father or mother is missing due to death or incarceration or other vicissitude. But to do this to a child by design is the equivalent of deliberately maiming them in contrast to them being born with a disability. One is unfortunate, the other is cruel and evil.

And your children look in your face and ask, "Why is this asshole my Mother?"

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

SCOTUS was ruling on adults and not children.

Sil cannot attack homosexual marriages without attacking single parent households.

Those are a mere two of several dozen flaws in the Sil Cult.

What's wrong with attacking contrived single parent households? It plays into the same logic that betrays the well being of children. That's what this is about. The priority of protecting those who need protection the most; children.

 

[paddymurphy]

The need is that all children should be protected but the Cult of Si is only a few children should be protected while ignoring all of the rest. Her amendment will not remedy the problem.

"Her". This hatemongering asshole is a woman? Perhaps even a mother? God that is awful. How could a woman be so hateful towards children; to want to take them from their parents because she objects to their orientation?

 

[Ravi]

The need is that all children should be protected but the Cult of Si is only a few children should be protected while ignoring all of the rest. Her amendment will not remedy the problem.

"Her". This hatemongering asshole is a woman? Perhaps even a mother? God that is awful. How could a woman be so hateful towards children; to want to take them from their parents because she objects to their orientation?

I think she's married to Josh Duggars.

 

[paddymurphy]

SCOTUS was ruling on adults and not children.

Sil cannot attack homosexual marriages without attacking single parent households.

Those are a mere two of several dozen flaws in the Sil Cult.

What's wrong with attacking contrived single parent households? It plays into the same logic that betrays the well being of children. That's what this is about. The priority of protecting those who need protection the most; children.

"contrived single parent households" What the fuck is that? Oh, never mind, it is where your children live after your wife took them away from the crazy, hateful SOB they had as a father.

 

[mdk]

This amendment isn't needed since Sil knows Congress is going to impeach Kagan/Ginsberg and then reverses itself on gay marriage. lol

Why would you be against an amendment that protected the last class of people who cannot vote against those who can ...needs vs wants? Surely you can see where that might lead for the oppressed class?

One of the cruelest things that used to happen to blacks back in the 19th Century was they would separate the children from either a mother or a father. They'd just sell off a father or sell off a mother (less often but still...) depriving those poor black kids of both vital parents.

Oh spare your me your false concern for children. Your amendment is a lame attempt to attack gays, their marriages, and, their children. Nothing more. Is this push going to happen before or after the impeachments of two sitting Justices?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The children argument has been the one most substantial argument against legal homo marriage. It is exactly why the homonazi agenda avoided it and focused on religion instead. Now it's time for the children argument to be made.

 

[Skylar]

The children argument has been the one most substantial argument against legal homo marriage. It is exactly why the homonazi agenda avoided it and focused on religion instead. Now it's time for the children argument to be made.

Read the Obergefell ruling. It addresses children head on.

You've already lost this argument too.