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

[Silhouette]

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?

 

[Silhouette]

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) provides minimum standards for defining physical child abuse, child neglect, and sexual abuse that States must incorporate in their statutory definitions to receive Federal funds. Under CAPTA, child abuse and neglect means:

• • An act or failure to act that presents an imminent risk of serious harm. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/foundation.pdf#page=16&view=Chapter 2. What Are The Philosophical Tenets Of Child Protection? (Page 20)

Predictable depression, suicidal thoughts, drug abuse or self-nihilism is serious harm to kids. Nobody disputes that. So why do we have the Prince's Trust Survey, the largest of its kind, telling us that boys without a father and girls without a mother come to this harm, and we went ahead an institutionalized "harmful marriage"?

Just look at this boy suffering, his body language screming out 'HELP ME!!" while he sits there clasping his hands over his gentials he is preparing to hack off in order to "finally matter to my family structure"....all while California does nothing to stop it, & still receives CAPTA funding. Boy Drugged By Lesbian "Parents" To Be A Girl | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Silhouette]

Spoken or unspoken, the message is still vibrant and clear to the children:

Lesbians, to any child in the home forming their mind and esteem, are a living daily announcement to them "Males do not matter". This is cumulatively damaging to both boys and girls in that home growing up; and eventually to society where they will bring that message forward.

Gay men, to any child in the home forming their mind and esteem, are a living daily announcement to them "Females do not matter". This is cumulatively damaging to both boys and girls in that home growing up; and eventually to society where they will bring that message forward.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have to get counseling because you are woefully damaged emotionally.

You keep posting ever more erratic nonsense like the OP.

 

[Silhouette]

You have to get counseling because you are woefully damaged emotionally.

You keep posting ever more erratic nonsense like the OP.

Protection of children as of today anyway, is not "woefully damaged" thinking. You may see it that way and so it speaks volumes about you. And it underscores my points in the OP.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your deflection does not shield you from the fact that you are obviously emotionally shattered.

The law is clear, the law is not going to change, thus you need to think about your own preservation and sanity.

 

[Silhouette]

Your deflection does not shield you from the fact that you are obviously emotionally shattered.

The law is clear, the law is not going to change, thus you need to think about your own preservation and sanity.

I may be a purple elephant with clown side car but that isn't the subject we are talking about. What you are doing is called "ad hominem" which is talking to the person delivering the message instead of the message itself.

Join the conversation when you're ready..

 

[mdk]

A whole thread built around the hallucinations and lies you've conjured about The Prince's Trust. This would be original if this wasn't the exact same thread premise you've started about 17 times already. I'll admit all this floundering of yours is comical to behold b/c you are as impotent as you are loud. Nothing more.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In studying your motivation in no way is ad hom or being nasty. You are only going to make yourself more ill walking that particular road on which you are moving. You are making your own dark comedy. In no way fashion or form am I mocking you, only truth telling: you are making yourself ill.

The issue has been decided. We are not going back.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution.'

Incorrect.

The right to marry can be found here in the Constitution:

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI; indeed, the Constitution itself is codification of the Court's authority to determine what the Constitution means, to review the constitutionality of various laws and measures, and invalidate those laws and measures repugnant to the Constitution, such as measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

 

[Silhouette]

In studying your motivation in no way is ad hom or being nasty. You are only going to make yourself more ill walking that particular road on which you are moving. You are making your own dark comedy. In no way fashion or form am I mocking you, only truth telling: you are making yourself ill.

The issue has been decided. We are not going back.

We will if children will come to harm as a direct and predictable result of June's Ruling..

 

[Silhouette]

The right to marry can be found here in the Constitution:

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Gays, lesbians, polygamists and incestuous people all have the right to marry. That has never been taken away from them. What they want to do is act in ways and demand based on those actions that the state's definition for the best welfare of children is DESTROYED so they can call their perversions normal and feel good about what they're doing in their bedrooms.

By embracing homosexual behaviors, polygamist behaviors and incestuous behaviors and hanging those on themselves like an "identity badge", they opted out of legal marriage. Children are implicitly bound to the marriage contract. Their voice was never heard in all this. Now that's going to change.. For their sake, marriage cannot be diluted into a deviant-sex free-for-all. Real harm comes to them when this happens. Check the OP for details..

Long story short: The June Ruling forces states to be in conflict with CAPTA mandates and funding. And last time I checked, in any civil litigation where a child's wellbeing is at stake vs adult whims and wants, the child always wins. This is why their voices were conspiratorily and criminally disallowed in the deliberations leading up to June's Ruling. You don't discuss rearranging the specific terms of a given contract as a "forever changed matter of law" without allowing one of the litigants and most important parties to that contract a voice at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In studying your motivation in no way is ad hom or being nasty. You are only going to make yourself more ill walking that particular road on which you are moving. You are making your own dark comedy. In no way fashion or form am I mocking you, only truth telling: you are making yourself ill.

The issue has been decided. We are not going back.

We will if children will come to harm as a direct and predictable result of June's Ruling..

You have never proven at all in any shape form or fashion that marriage equality is any more or less than hetero marriage is to child development.

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

 

[Silhouette]

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. You are welcome to stop inserting hyperbole and ad hominem any time. Come back when you're ready to debate like a grown up...

 

[JakeStarkey]

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. You are welcome to stop inserting hyperbole and ad hominem any time. Come back when you're ready to debate like a grown up...

Correcting your insidious grooming of haters is neither hyperbole nor ad hom but a full awareness and a continuing revelation of your actual agenda.

 

[Silhouette]

Was there a guardian ad litem at the Hearing discussing the children's input on whether or not children collectively might need both a mother and father in the marriage contract they are a part of? Who were "the attorneys for the children" present at the Hearing? I don't recall their names?

Here are the parties (named or implied) to the marriage contract, any marriage contract. 1. Spouse #1 2. Spouse #2 3. Children that statistically will arrive to the married home. Of the three, #3 is the most legally dominant when it comes to overcautious protections. Yet they were wholly unrepresented "at trial". That's grounds for overturning. Contract case law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Was there a guardian ad litem at the Hearing discussing the children's input on whether or not children collectively might need both a mother and father in the marriage contract they are a part of? Who were "the attorneys for the children" present at the Hearing? I don't recall their names?

Here are the parties (named or implied) to the marriage contract, any marriage contract. 1. Spouse #1 2. Spouse #2 3. Children that statistically will arrive to the married home. Of the three, #3 is the most legally dominant when it comes to overcautious protections. Yet they were wholly unrepresented "at trial". That's grounds for overturning. Contract case law.

Since your premise is false, your conclusion is ludicrous.

 

[Silhouette]

Since your premise is false, your conclusion is ludicrous.

You mean like "race = (just some of the Court's favorite, but not other) behaviors" when it comes to the 14th?

There is no false premise. The marriage contract is still a contract. That's why divorces have to be done legally to dissolve the contract. One of the parties to the contract, children, had no legal presence when the discussion of drastically undoing some of its vital terms were discussed in court. Ergo: court was improperly done.

At the very least the case must be reheard with attorneys present for the interests of children's part in the contract. If the result is the same after long and careful deliberation of their interest in what they get out of the contract, then fine. But I don't think the result will be the same when we start talking about the Prince's Trust Survey..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Race is not a behavior.

Marriage is not a behavior.

Your premise is ludicrous.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The right to marry can be found here in the Constitution:

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Gays, lesbians, polygamists and incestuous people all have the right to marry. That has never been taken away from them. What they want to do is act in ways and demand based on those actions that the state's definition for the best welfare of children is DESTROYED so they can call their perversions normal and feel good about what they're doing in their bedrooms.

By embracing homosexual behaviors, polygamist behaviors and incestuous behaviors and hanging those on themselves like an "identity badge", they opted out of legal marriage. Children are implicitly bound to the marriage contract. Their voice was never heard in all this. Now that's going to change.. For their sake, marriage cannot be diluted into a deviant-sex free-for-all. Real harm comes to them when this happens. Check the OP for details..

Long story short: The June Ruling forces states to be in conflict with CAPTA mandates and funding. And last time I checked, in any civil litigation where a child's wellbeing is at stake vs adult whims and wants, the child always wins. This is why their voices were conspiratorily and criminally disallowed in the deliberations leading up to June's Ruling. You don't discuss rearranging the specific terms of a given contract as a "forever changed matter of law" without allowing one of the litigants and most important parties to that contract a voice at all.

You failed to cite the case law overturning Zablocki v. Redhail and Turner v. Safley.

Absent those cases being overturned, or an amendment to the Constitution rendering them void, your 'argument' that there is no right to marry fails.

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.' Time and again in hearing after hearing, those hostile to the rights of gay Americans failed to produce any credible evidence of children being 'harmed' when their same-sex parents marry.

Consequently, your desire to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law is devoid of a rational basis, devoid of a compelling governmental interest, and devoid of a proper legislative end – you seek only to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law predicated solely on who they are, to disadvantage them because they are gay, in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. (See Obergefell v. Hodges (2015))