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

[Silhouette]

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?

 

[Ravi]

Cool. Let's also throw people in jail that spank their kids.

 

[J.E.D]

It isn't an "anti-gay" Amendment, though the usual crowd will scream foul that it is.

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.

So, it is anti-gay. Well, it's a Sil thread; so, of course it is.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

 

[Ravi]

Shall we kill people that get divorced?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

The gold standard is that the Cult of Sil has not been able to quality and quantify damage to children as a result of Marriage Equality.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

 

[TheOldSchool]

It isn't an "anti-gay" Amendment, though the usual crowd will scream foul that it is.

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.

So, it is anti-gay. Well, it's a Sil thread; so, of course it is.

To be fair, one time he made an anti-black thread. So he does have at least one other interest.

 

[Silhouette]

To be fair, one time he made an anti-black thread. So he does have at least one other interest.

Do you have a link to a thread where you accuse me of being a racist? If not, be prepared to be reported.

 

[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?

 

[Silhouette]

Here's something interesting about this thread....when there were only 4 replies, the view count said "20 views". Then, when I just read it and it showed 11 replies...the view count was still at 20....curious, that....

 

[blastoff]

Shall we kill people that get divorced?

I'd volunteer my ex-wife.

 

[mdk]

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

 

[mdk]

Here's something interesting about this thread....when there were only 4 replies, the view count said "20 views". Then, when I just read it and it showed 11 replies...the view count was still at 20....curious, that....

The only logical conclusion is that the forum software is in cahoots with the cult of the LGBT and is diminishing the count.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Here's something interesting about this thread....when there were only 4 replies, the view count said "20 views". Then, when I just read it and it showed 11 replies...the view count was still at 20....curious, that....

Teh gheys have hijacked your internet!!!

Hurry turn your computer off and don't reboot until Kagan and Ginsburg are forced to recuse themselves!!!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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?

Sorry, can't buy into this. Frankly, my kid didn't have any rights until he turned 18 and moved out.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Cool. Let's also throw people in jail that spank their kids.

It's a very bad idea. This is going along with the idea that children should have every right to seek an abortion, a sex change operation, whatever without the consent of their parents - they can do what they wish - they are in control - not the parent.

The adults are the ones in charge. We already have laws on the books for parents who abuse their children. Why amend the constitution? It's a bad idea. Very.