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

[Ravi]

Skylar, please try to stick to the subject.

What do you think about nudists? Will they meet your gold standard and be allowed to raise children?

That would be up to a society to define for themselves....Remember, the OP suggest either a referendum or a judge having to meet that gold standard. That might be up to a referendum. Ballot measure 14 "The parent nudist initiative" "Do you approve of parents running around naked rasing their kids that way in a nudist colony?" The majority says "yes" or "no". Case closed. THAT is how democracy will work in conjunction with this Amendment. The Amendment's main focus would be to destroy any lawyer or judicial activism that fails to take into account that the majority sets standards for children's needs, not some activist judge or panel of 5 on the US Supreme Court...even to excluding children's needs ENTIRELY from the conversation about an institution that was started FOR THE BENEFIT OF CHILDREN! Like they did this year..

That BS will stop as of the date of ratification of "The Children's Consideration Amendment".

We aren't a democracy. We don't decide by majority vote. What country do you live in?

We most certainly do decide questions of behaviors and all manner of nuances of law by a majority vote. Gay behaviors do not have dominant rights to children's needs. And if they do, a New Amendment is called for. Children must not have their needs subjegated to adult wants. A new Amendment would force judges everywhere to have a new filter before them when deciding any question of law.

Can I sue my parents for never buying me a pony? It ruined my life.

Sure can. Your 'needs' far outweigh the 'wants' of your parents. Of course the people of the state will have to vote on that matte first.. The people must have a voice in this pressing pony issue!

I hope they pick a palomino. May as well do this right, praise Jesus!

 

[mdk]

Skylar, please try to stick to the subject.

What do you think about nudists? Will they meet your gold standard and be allowed to raise children?

That would be up to a society to define for themselves....Remember, the OP suggest either a referendum or a judge having to meet that gold standard. That might be up to a referendum. Ballot measure 14 "The parent nudist initiative" "Do you approve of parents running around naked rasing their kids that way in a nudist colony?" The majority says "yes" or "no". Case closed. THAT is how democracy will work in conjunction with this Amendment. The Amendment's main focus would be to destroy any lawyer or judicial activism that fails to take into account that the majority sets standards for children's needs, not some activist judge or panel of 5 on the US Supreme Court...even to excluding children's needs ENTIRELY from the conversation about an institution that was started FOR THE BENEFIT OF CHILDREN! Like they did this year..

That BS will stop as of the date of ratification of "The Children's Consideration Amendment".

We aren't a democracy. We don't decide by majority vote. What country do you live in?

We most certainly do decide questions of behaviors and all manner of nuances of law by a majority vote. Gay behaviors do not have dominant rights to children's needs. And if they do, a New Amendment is called for. Children must not have their needs subjegated to adult wants. A new Amendment would force judges everywhere to have a new filter before them when deciding any question of law.

Can I sue my parents for never buying me a pony? It ruined my life.

Sure can. Your 'needs' far outweigh the 'wants' of your parents. Of course the people of the state will have to vote on that matte first.. The people must have a voice in this pressing pony issue!

I hope they pick a palomino. May as well do this right, praise Jesus!

A lovely choice but the voters of the state have decided you can't have one. You're only allowed to have an Araappaloosa.

 

[Skylar]

>

Sil, is this amendment going to be done before or after the 1st priority of the GOP after swearing in the new Congress in January 2015 of impeaching the appeals court Judges that ruled on same-sex marriage.

How did those impeachment proceedings that you predicted go by the way?


>>>>

Now that's unfair. You know that those are Sil's old batshit predictions based on nothing. You can hardly hold him accountable for those. These are Sil's NEW batshit predictions based on nothing. And surely they'll have a better track record.

 

[Silhouette]

Can I sue my parents for never buying me a pony? It ruined my life.

You could try, but if buying you a pony meant you would starve then caso cerrado.

See how easy this is? The gold standard, versitile, flawless..

I notice 5 posters voted that children's needs shouldn't get legal priority over adult wants. Wonder if those 5 were democrats and how that will wash out in votes after those official positions are exposed on the evening news next year?

 

[Silhouette]

Go ahead...throw me some more examples. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. I'll tell you why later. It's something I read about in law awhile back. But for now it's fun just hitting back what you thought were curve balls.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Skylar, please try to stick to the subject.

What do you think about nudists? Will they meet your gold standard and be allowed to raise children?

You found my sacred cow. Our family is clothing optional at home and we go to naturist events and the like. The kids just love it and couldn't imagine being in a family where everyone was clothed all the time and dreads nakedness. How are their rights violated?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

>

Every case from divorce and family courts that is appealed has to go to a voter referendum.

Thousands and thousands of cases every year determined by referendums on a state ballot?

WTF?


>>>>

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.

If children were genuinely your concern, single parenthood would be you focus. It often produces poorer outcomes for children than 2 parent households. It denies a child of a 'mother and a father',which you two have elevated to constitutional right. And its quite common.

But you don't. Its a passing mention. A 'too'.

Instead, you focus myopically on gays and lesbians. Despite the children of gays and lesbians being fine. Despite households of gays and lesbians producing comparable outcomes of hetero 2 parent families. Despite their situation being comparatively rare.

Focusing Myopically on gays and lesbians? It's like you didn't even read my post.

I saw passing mention. And post after post after post about gays and lesbians.

Given how single parenting actually is correlated to poorer outcomes for children, single parenthood does often deny a child a mother and a father, and single parenthood effects orders or magnitude more children, single parenthood would represent the overwhelming majority of your posts if children were your focus.

If attacking gays and lesbians were your focus.....most of your posts on the topic of children would be about gays and lesbians. I'd be happy to take a few minutes to count your recent posts on the topic and tell you how often you've cited gays and lesbians compared to single parents.

Shall we? Lets let the numbers tell us what your priority is: helping children or attacking gays.

Shall we count your posts on gays? Why do you think your obsession is sacrosanct and nobody else's is? You dare to cite my focus on gays when your own focus borders on OCD?

I discuss several issues on USMB. You only discuss this, gay on the brain.

So you don't want me to count your posts on gays in comparison to your posts on single parents in regards to the welfare of children?

I didn't think so. If children were your focus, you'd have posted far, far more about single parenting. As its correlated to poorer outcomes for children and is quite common. Instead, you focus on gays and lesbians, despite 2 parent gay and lesbian households producing outcomes that are comparable to 2 parent hetero households....and same sex parenting being comparably rare.

Give a choice between attacking gays and protecting children......your priority is attacking gays.

No thank you.

If protecting children, which is what I'm doing, is "attacking gays", absurd as that is, then you have just staged gays as adversarial to the best interests of children, validating the OP. Did you mean to do that or was it a happy accident?

 

[Montrovant]

Skylar, please try to stick to the subject.

What do you think about nudists? Will they meet your gold standard and be allowed to raise children?

That would be up to a society to define for themselves....Remember, the OP suggest either a referendum or a judge having to meet that gold standard. That might be up to a referendum. Ballot measure 14 "The parent nudist initiative" "Do you approve of parents running around naked rasing their kids that way in a nudist colony?" The majority says "yes" or "no". Case closed. THAT is how democracy will work in conjunction with this Amendment. The Amendment's main focus would be to destroy any lawyer or judicial activism that fails to take into account that the majority sets standards for children's needs, not some activist judge or panel of 5 on the US Supreme Court...even to excluding children's needs ENTIRELY from the conversation about an institution that was started FOR THE BENEFIT OF CHILDREN! Like they did this year..

That BS will stop as of the date of ratification of "The Children's Consideration Amendment".

We aren't a democracy. We don't decide by majority vote. What country do you live in?

We most certainly do decide questions of behaviors and all manner of nuances of law by a majority vote. Gay behaviors do not have dominant rights to children's needs. And if they do, a New Amendment is called for. Children must not have their needs subjegated to adult wants. A new Amendment would force judges everywhere to have a new filter before them when deciding any question of law.

We most certainly do vote on people's behaviors (that you erroneously call "rights") I think what you need is a dictionary and a lesson on the difference between verbs and nouns. One is an action and the other is a state of being.

1. And what of guns in the home?

Do we have a referrendum " Do you approve of parents being allowed to keep guns in their home? The majority says yes or no.....case closed?

2. "Do you approve of parents being allowed to practice Islam?" The majority says 'yes or no' and 'case closed'?

If not, why not? What right couldn't be stripped from entire societies with a simple majority vote?

1. Yes, in a gun safe, locked and out of reach of a child.

2. Yes, as long as it does not result in physical harm to a child. That's the gold standard. Before you get started, passively refusing to participate in gay marriage does nobody any harm.

See how easy this is? Judges will have such an easy job once children's needs become clearly dominant in law to adult's wants. In fact, I dare say their lives will be easier all around. Imagine just one filter before you where children are involved and always being able to ask just one question "does this activity proposed before me benefit the child's needs ultimately?". If the answer is "yes", it's case closed. If the answer is questionable, then a trial is held for a jury to decide. Maybe that's also something to include: any case involving children's interest must ALWAYS be held by a jury panel.

Having you call for someone else to use a dictionary to determine the difference between verbs and nouns when you're sporting a signature which claims homosexuality is a verb is hilarious.

 

[Skylar]

Can I sue my parents for never buying me a pony? It ruined my life.

You could try, but if buying you a pony meant you would starve then caso cerrado.

See how easy this is? The gold standard, versitile, flawless..

Save of course that your proposed 'amendment' makes no reference to your 'gold standard'. But instead the 'well being of a child'. A given outcome doesn't even have to effect the child negatively. It merely need involve 'well being'. And suddenly, the people have to vote.

And you never did answer my question: who decides which cases involve a child's well being? Your amendment never says. And if a case about say, fire arms, involves a child's well being, does that mean that a person's right to keep firearms is now up to a vote?

IF being raised in a Christian household involves a child's well being, does that mean Christianity is put up to a vote?

What rights couldn't be stripped from the individual based on your amendment? You have no particular consideration for individual rights. But the constitution does.

 

[Skylar]

Skylar, please try to stick to the subject.

What do you think about nudists? Will they meet your gold standard and be allowed to raise children?

You found my sacred cow. Our family is clothing optional at home and we go to naturist events and the like. The kids just love it and couldn't imagine being in a family where everyone was clothed all the time and dreads nakedness. How are their rights violated?

Per Sil's standard, wouldn't that be for the public to decide via a vote? If the practice makes them uncomfortable, they could prevent it. There is no requirement that anyone's rights be violated before we can start violating yours. At least per the amendment.

Ah, the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Skylar]

If children were genuinely your concern, single parenthood would be you focus. It often produces poorer outcomes for children than 2 parent households. It denies a child of a 'mother and a father',which you two have elevated to constitutional right. And its quite common.

But you don't. Its a passing mention. A 'too'.

Instead, you focus myopically on gays and lesbians. Despite the children of gays and lesbians being fine. Despite households of gays and lesbians producing comparable outcomes of hetero 2 parent families. Despite their situation being comparatively rare.

Focusing Myopically on gays and lesbians? It's like you didn't even read my post.

I saw passing mention. And post after post after post about gays and lesbians.

Given how single parenting actually is correlated to poorer outcomes for children, single parenthood does often deny a child a mother and a father, and single parenthood effects orders or magnitude more children, single parenthood would represent the overwhelming majority of your posts if children were your focus.

If attacking gays and lesbians were your focus.....most of your posts on the topic of children would be about gays and lesbians. I'd be happy to take a few minutes to count your recent posts on the topic and tell you how often you've cited gays and lesbians compared to single parents.

Shall we? Lets let the numbers tell us what your priority is: helping children or attacking gays.

Shall we count your posts on gays? Why do you think your obsession is sacrosanct and nobody else's is? You dare to cite my focus on gays when your own focus borders on OCD?

I discuss several issues on USMB. You only discuss this, gay on the brain.

So you don't want me to count your posts on gays in comparison to your posts on single parents in regards to the welfare of children?

I didn't think so. If children were your focus, you'd have posted far, far more about single parenting. As its correlated to poorer outcomes for children and is quite common. Instead, you focus on gays and lesbians, despite 2 parent gay and lesbian households producing outcomes that are comparable to 2 parent hetero households....and same sex parenting being comparably rare.

Give a choice between attacking gays and protecting children......your priority is attacking gays.

No thank you.

If protecting children, which is what I'm doing, is "attacking gays", absurd as that is, then you have just staged gays as adversarial to the best interests of children, validating the OP. Did you mean to do that or was it a happy accident?

Nope. I've demonstrated that children aren't your focus. As you're rather attack gays than focus on the welfare of children.

Attacking gays is your focus. If children were your focus, you'd be far more concerned about single parenting than same sex parenting. But you could care less, barely giving it a mention. Despite single parenting shown to be connected to poorer outcomes. And single parenting being orders of magnitude more common.

But those millions and millions of children are barely a factor to you. While you post again and again about gay and lesbians parenting. Despite no such negative outcomes associated with same sex parenting. And it being comparatively rare.

Your actions demonstrate what your priorties are. And its not the welfare of children.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Skylar, please try to stick to the subject.

What do you think about nudists? Will they meet your gold standard and be allowed to raise children?

You found my sacred cow. Our family is clothing optional at home and we go to naturist events and the like. The kids just love it and couldn't imagine being in a family where everyone was clothed all the time and dreads nakedness. How are their rights violated?

Per Sil's standard, wouldn't that be for the public to decide via a vote? If the practice makes them uncomfortable, they could prevent it. There is no requirement that anyone's rights be violated before we can start violating yours. At least per the amendment.

Ah, the tyranny of the majority.

Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, yep.

 

[Silhouette]

Attacking gays is your focus. If children were your focus, you'd be far more concerned about single parenting than same sex parenting. But you could care less, barely giving it a mention. Despite single parenting shown to be connected to poorer outcomes. And single parenting being orders of magnitude more common.

But those millions and millions of children are barely a factor to you. While you post again and again about gay and lesbians parenting. Despite no such negative outcomes associated with same sex parenting. And it being comparatively rare.

Your actions demonstrate what your priorties are. And its not the welfare of children.

You define the word "attacking" to mean opposing with vigor the agenda thereof. But I have never beat up a gay person. In fact one was a close family friend who died of AIDS. I've only attacked the gay CULTURE which is different from individual gays. Just ask Dolce & Gabbana of Italy.

I will not cloak or disguise why I propose this Amendment. Yes, it's to return the question of motherless/fatherless marriages back to the states. The guardians of child welfare in this country are not just 5 Justices leaning hard left on the Court. It is we the 300 million. The equation is simple. If you leave the welfare of children up to just 5 people in DC, they are more prone to make mistakes than the 300 million informed voters. They are more susceptible to external pressures.. How much more easy for a cult to manipulate just 5 key people than to try to sway the 300 million with all manner of varying outlooks.

And this is precisely why the LGBT cult took their case to just their 5 pocket-Justices (2 of which were performing gay weddings as the question was pending) and fought like wildcats to keep the 300 million from weighing in on this institutionalized child abuse (deprivation of mother or father as subsidized by governments). So the Amendment I propose would even the playing field and put the decisions of child welfare back in the hands of those who are not so easily controlled or manipulated. The protective instincts of the 300 million are vastly the better custodian than the PC-handshaking of just 5 people who have a cool little club going in DC.

 

[Silhouette]

If a person never lays a hand on a gay person but merely vocally disagrees with their politics, how is that "an attack"? Exactly? And isn't it an attack on children to systematically encourage adults with tax-breaks to create homes that are motherless/fatherless? I thought we encouraged marriage to keep those two vital people together for a child's best interest? Suddenly children don't matter to you Skyar?

Why do you hate and attack children all the time?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If a person never lays a hand on a gay person but merely vocally disagrees with their politics, how is that "an attack"? Exactly? And isn't it an attack on children to systematically encourage adults with tax-breaks to create homes that are motherless/fatherless? I thought we encouraged marriage to keep those two vital people together for a child's best interest? Suddenly children don't matter to you Skyar?

Why do you hate and attack children all the time?

Marriage is not about children. They are, often enough, a byproduct of married sexual intercourse. How many times do you have to be told that?

 

[Dragonlady]

Attacking gays is your focus. If children were your focus, you'd be far more concerned about single parenting than same sex parenting. But you could care less, barely giving it a mention. Despite single parenting shown to be connected to poorer outcomes. And single parenting being orders of magnitude more common.

But those millions and millions of children are barely a factor to you. While you post again and again about gay and lesbians parenting. Despite no such negative outcomes associated with same sex parenting. And it being comparatively rare.

Your actions demonstrate what your priorties are. And its not the welfare of children.

You define the word "attacking" to mean opposing with vigor the agenda thereof. But I have never beat up a gay person. In fact one was a close family friend who died of AIDS. I've only attacked the gay CULTURE which is different from individual gays. Just ask Dolce & Gabbana of Italy.

I will not cloak or disguise why I propose this Amendment. Yes, it's to return the question of motherless/fatherless marriages back to the states. The guardians of child welfare in this country are not just 5 Justices leaning hard left on the Court. It is we the 300 million. The equation is simple. If you leave the welfare of children up to just 5 people in DC, they are more prone to make mistakes than the 300 million informed voters. They are more susceptible to external pressures.. How much more easy for a cult to manipulate just 5 key people than to try to sway the 300 million with all manner of varying outlooks.

And this is precisely why the LGBT cult took their case to just their 5 pocket-Justices (2 of which were performing gay weddings as the question was pending) and fought like wildcats to keep the 300 million from weighing in on this institutionalized child abuse (deprivation of mother or father as subsidized by governments). So the Amendment I propose would even the playing field and put the decisions of child welfare back in the hands of those who are not so easily controlled or manipulated. The protective instincts of the 300 million are vastly the better custodian than the PC-handshaking of just 5 people who have a cool little club going in DC.

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.

I'm all for a more family oriented country, but leaving it up to s popularity contest with as much mudslinging as possible on both sides, hardly seems likely to produce the outcome you're hoping for, which is children first.

 

[Silhouette]

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"? 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.

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

 

[Montrovant]

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"? 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.

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

You have no idea about the law in this country. Nor, clearly, do you have any idea what the phrase tyranny of the majority means. And can you cite some of the multiple case examples showing that 'any class of people who cannot vote must receive the most rigorous Constitutional protections.'?

 

[Skylar]

Attacking gays is your focus. If children were your focus, you'd be far more concerned about single parenting than same sex parenting. But you could care less, barely giving it a mention. Despite single parenting shown to be connected to poorer outcomes. And single parenting being orders of magnitude more common.

But those millions and millions of children are barely a factor to you. While you post again and again about gay and lesbians parenting. Despite no such negative outcomes associated with same sex parenting. And it being comparatively rare.

Your actions demonstrate what your priorties are. And its not the welfare of children.

You define the word "attacking" to mean opposing with vigor the agenda thereof. But I have never beat up a gay person. In fact one was a close family friend who died of AIDS. I've only attacked the gay CULTURE which is different from individual gays. Just ask Dolce & Gabbana of Italy.

I will not cloak or disguise why I propose this Amendment. Yes, it's to return the question of motherless/fatherless marriages back to the states. The guardians of child welfare in this country are not just 5 Justices leaning hard left on the Court. It is we the 300 million. The equation is simple. If you leave the welfare of children up to just 5 people in DC, they are more prone to make mistakes than the 300 million informed voters. They are more susceptible to external pressures.. How much more easy for a cult to manipulate just 5 key people than to try to sway the 300 million with all manner of varying outlooks.

And this is precisely why the LGBT cult took their case to just their 5 pocket-Justices (2 of which were performing gay weddings as the question was pending) and fought like wildcats to keep the 300 million from weighing in on this institutionalized child abuse (deprivation of mother or father as subsidized by governments). So the Amendment I propose would even the playing field and put the decisions of child welfare back in the hands of those who are not so easily controlled or manipulated. The protective instincts of the 300 million are vastly the better custodian than the PC-handshaking of just 5 people who have a cool little club going in DC.

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.

Exactly. Go back and read all of Sil's citations of the Windsor decision before the recent Obergefell ruling came down. Every time he cited Windsor....he'd only acknowledge State power. Sil always, always omitted any mention of constitutional guarantees and individual rights.

As what Sil wants is the tyrany of the majority. Where any right can be stripped from any person with a simple majority vote. Why? Because he's willing to throw all rights, our entire legal system, and the constitution on the pyre in order to hurt gay people. As he hopes that by reducing rights to a simple majority vote, he can strip gays of their rights, their children, and their freedom.

We're not doing any of that.

 

[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"? 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.

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

You have no idea about the law in this country. No, clearly, do you have any idea what the phrase tyranny of the majority means. And can you cite some of the multiple case examples showing that 'any class of people who cannot vote must receive the most rigorous Constitutional protections.'?

And by 'tyranny of the minority', Sil means gay people.

All of this, all the abrogation of rights, all the reduction of rights to a vote, the entire amendment, the upending of our entire legal system.....would be to hurt gay folks.

That's how insanely obsessed Sil is with them.