DOJ Argues That Children Have No "Right" to Mothers or Fathers

[Cheapdiesel]

The problem in the US is that we, as a typically religious people, cannot divorce ourselves of the religious implications, as many feel that allowing gays to "marry" would reduce or somehow inhibit their own marriage. Its an interesting dichotomy, considering that as a nation we believe in "freedom of religion."

Of principle importance to the homosexual community is NOT that they are "married" in the religious sense (although a majority would argue that they want to be "married" in that fashion anyways), they are arguing for equal LEGAL opportunities and protections (ie health care decisions, rearing of children, co-ownership of assets, etc).
I frame the argument this way:

Government is only in the business of creating and ensuring legality. As a Libertarian, I would argue that Government has no role in the sanctity (in whatever form) of marriage, but does have an interest in ensuring the legal framework for family units is certainly in place. After establishing this framework, I believe the government should have no place in defining "marriage" except for the legal term. What two (or more) people call this bond between them is their own business.

In relation to children, so long as the government has established the legal framework for the family unit and the protections and rights accorded to the family unit, then current law takes over on the taking of children from within the family unit.

I don't know how many gay people you have known. The ones I have known were looking for legitimization and affirmation that they were normal too. So, I have to disagree with the "legal" argument I don't think that is what they really want.

 

[Liberty1911]

How can one person have a "right" to another person?

I'm not saying anyone does. The point I took from the article, as I tried to convey in my OP, is that the government is saying children don't have a natural right to a mother or father, a precedent that I think paves the way for the state to take control of children away from parents. And, I was just pointing out the irony of that occurring as a result of support for homosexual marriage.

 

[CathyInBlue]

So, let me get this straight, single parents are violating their children's rights by not seeking out, forming, and maintaining for the life of the child a matrimonial relationship with heterosexual partners?

Are heterosexual parents violating their childrens' rights if they fall on hard times and have to give them up for adoption, because, after all, there is no guarantee that they will find adoptive parents (to whom you claim they have a right) right away, or indeed at all?

Are children in orphanages having their rights to parents violated by the charity or government agency which runs the orphanage?

I'm just trying to suss out the parameters of your claimed right to a mother and a father on the part of children.

It's a long way from saying that a child does not have the right to a mother or a father and saying that the government has the authority to strip the child from their parents.

 

[Liberty1911]

So, let me get this straight, single parents are violating their children's rights by not seeking out, forming, and maintaining for the life of the child a matrimonial relationship with heterosexual partners?

Are heterosexual parents violating their childrens' rights if they fall on hard times and have to give them up for adoption, because, after all, there is no guarantee that they will find adoptive parents (to whom you claim they have a right) right away, or indeed at all?

Are children in orphanages having their rights to parents violated by the charity or government agency which runs the orphanage?

I'm just trying to suss out the parameters of your claimed right to a mother and a father on the part of children.

It's a long way from saying that a child does not have the right to a mother or a father and saying that the government has the authority to strip the child from their parents.

Did you mean to address that to the DOJ?

And, it was a long way from abortion being illegal to having taxpayers pay for it. Nevertheless, we managed to travel that road in about 30 years.

 

[CathyInBlue]

The DoJ is claiming children have no rights to mother and father. You disputed that. Are you not taking the converse position in this debate and claiming that children do have a right to a mother and a father? If not, then I fail to see your purpose in this thread.

 

[Liberty1911]

The DoJ is claiming children have no rights to mother and father. You disputed that. Are you not taking the converse position in this debate and claiming that children do have a right to a mother and a father? If not, then I fail to see your purpose in this thread.

I explained it, again, in post 22. You're reading something into this that isn't there.

 

[LEaSH]

This is crazy!!

You have no idea.

And welcome to INGO.

 

[SERparacord]

The Government can properly "socialize" the kids, parents can't.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Being that the government already intercedes in the parent-child relationship on a regular basis (compulsory public schooling, child custody/support decisions of courts, termination of parental rights based on third party accusations), I hardly think this argument before the SCOTUS is hardly the start of a slippery slope.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I completely agree. However, a fellow libertarian made exactly that argument right here in this thread.

No. He said that gov't has no business in the marriage business. The fact is that at present, they are in it. Where is gov't given the power to choose with whom citizens (you know, their employers?) may associate? They have taken that power, and a libertarian belief, as I understand and practice it, is that that power needs to be removed from our employees.

I have no "bone to pick" with anyone outside the normal give and take of internet debates.

And yet you seem to seek out arguments and look for places to call out libertarians solely because their (our) belief in individusal liberty is somehow repugnant to you?

Honestly though, some of you libertarians (yes I'm generalizing), need to quit getting butthurt (as I believe you call it here on INGO).

INGO is inundated with generalizations about republicans, liberals, democrats, conservatives, christians, marxists, home schoolers, ad infinitum.

True. And often, I'm one of the people knocking down those presuppositions and generalizations.

Generalizations are just that - generalizations. Feel free to comment about how a particular generalization doesn't apply to you, but you and a couple of others need to get over it. Libertarian is just a label, like any other label that people use to self identify and libertarians don't get a free pass from generalizations about that label any more than anyone else does.

Nor do you get a free pass to state something that is patently incorrect, apply it to an entire group, and then claim impunity from being proven wrong by claiming it's a generalization. No less than three times, you've made statements to the effect of "None of the libertarians on INGO say this or do that." and I've challenged those three of which I'm thinking. Now... you have the right to choose not to answer me, of course, a right of which you've availed yourself, but you damage both your credibility and your position by doing so. Again, you have that right. At some point, however, you're going to take your generalizations to the point of trolling.

If you don't want to go there, and I believe you don't, your generalizations will need far more than just your interpretation of them and blanket application to all libertarians.

Here are a couple of examples:
It is a Libertarian belief that we should not try to control immigration. National borders are artificial constructs; who are we to say that someone may not live here or there because of an arbitrary line on a map? The parts of that that are unstated are that not all libertarians (small L) believe that and that, hand in glove along with it goes the thought that the incentives which seem to be drawing some people here need to stop being offered at the expense of the average taxpayer. That is, no more welfare, WIC, Obamaphones, free this, free that paid for with monies extorted at gunpoint from the average wage earner before s/he ever sees them.

And:
Libertarians only care about making it legal to use drugs.
(This was actually said in a conversation on here at least once.) While I may agree that people should be able to choose for themselves what they put in their bodies, I don't favor everyone using drugs and certainly won't use them myself, barring a medical need. What it comes down to is that if you want to drink, smoke, inject, or pill-pop, it's none of my concern until and unless you're putting me at risk. In your living room? Knock yourself out. Use whatever you like, and yes, I'll include meth, heroin, even PCP (which scares the hell out of me, personally,) etc. in that. Get behind the wheel while impaired and I'll be the first to want you stopped, by any means necessary. Reasoning: Someone needs to be in control of you. I believe it should be YOU.
I don't care about drug use. I care about someone knowingly putting others at risk by his/her lack of self-control.

All of that is much better stated by a quote from the Libertarian Party platform (www.lp.org/platform):

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

It has nothing to do with "more rights" for homosexuals. It has to do with equal rights for ALL, irrespective of labels and generalizations.


Blessings,
Bill

 

[Liberty1911]

No. He said that gov't has no business in the marriage business. The fact is that at present, they are in it. Where is gov't given the power to choose with whom citizens (you know, their employers?) may associate? They have taken that power, and a libertarian belief, as I understand and practice it, is that that power needs to be removed from our employees.

It has nothing to do with "more rights" for homosexuals. It has to do with equal rights for ALL, irrespective of labels and generalizations.

Blessings,
Bill

You keep saying that - "We are saying government should be out of the marriage business."

Then it's always a - but...."since they're in it, let's expand it!"

It's frustrating that you and other libertarians can't see how ridiculous that position is.

If you want government out of the marriage business, then advocate for that, not the expansion to other classes of people.

That's like saying in 1850 - "I'm against government sanction of slavery", and instead of advocating for abolition, you then say "Well, but since government is in that business, and as much as we'd like to see it go away, we should allow the people in the free states to own slaves as well. After all, it's about equal rights".

Your "libertarian" position isn't very libertarian.

 

[kiddchaos]

Dross, excellent job.

|
|
|
|
v

 

[dross]

Here is the logic:

Premise: The government has no legitimate power to regulate marriage
Premise: The government currently regulates marriage
Premise: The government's current form of marriage regulation is unjustly discriminatory
Premise: Preventing government from regulating marriage is not a practical possibility at this moment in time
Premise: Reducing the government's unjust marriage discrimination IS a practical possibilit at this time

Conclusion: While I would prefer no government marriage regulation at all, I will move in a more just direction by supporting expanding marriage to homosexuals.

There is no contradiction in that position.

I believe Liberty1911 has an unstated position that he won't articulate openly, which is that he WANTS government regulation of marriage, particularly where it concerns homosexuals. Rather than argue that point, he prefers to raise up and defeat the straw man of philosophical inconsistency where there is none.

My own argument of inconsistency against my fellow libertarians is only that some of them won't apply this same pragmatism in other arenas with other issues.

 

[CathyInBlue]

That's like saying in 1850 - "I'm against government sanction of slavery", and instead of advocating for abolition, you then say "Well, but since government is in that business, and as much as we'd like to see it go away, we should allow the people in the free states to own slaves as well. After all, it's about equal rights".

Yes, because marriage = slavery.

So, because people who want more of something (marriage freedom and equality) AND get the government out of it, their arguments are invalid because they don't use the same tactics as a different group of people in a different time in a different struggle used against something they wanted less of... and get the government out of it.

Do you even smell what you're shovelling?

 

[Liberty1911]

Here is the logic:

Premise: The government has no legitimate power to regulate marriage
Premise: The government currently regulates marriage
Premise: The government's current form of marriage regulation is unjustly discriminatory
Premise: Preventing government from regulating marriage is not a practical possibility at this moment in time
Premise: Reducing the government's unjust marriage discrimination IS a practical possibilit at this time

Conclusion: While I would prefer no government marriage regulation at all, I will move in a more just direction by supporting expanding marriage to homosexuals.

There is no contradiction in that position.

There's plenty of contradiction. That's a moral statement, and you advocate the use of government force to impose that morality on everyone else.

Here's the question though - What definition of marriage should the government use to avoid taking sides morally?

I believe Liberty1911 has an unstated position that he won't articulate openly, which is that he WANTS government regulation of marriage, particularly where it concerns homosexuals. Rather than argue that point, he prefers to raise up and defeat the straw man of philosophical inconsistency where there is none.

My own argument of inconsistency against my fellow libertarians is only that some of them won't apply this same pragmatism in other arenas with other issues.

The philosophical inconsistency is highlighted for you.

 

[Liberty1911]

Yes, because marriage = slavery.

So, because people who want more of something (marriage freedom and equality) AND get the government out of it, their arguments are invalid because they don't use the same tactics as a different group of people in a different time in a different struggle used against something they wanted less of... and get the government out of it.

Do you even smell what you're shovelling?

Sorry Cathy but you just aren't getting the point. I've made it several times now to no avail. The slavery issue was an illustration.

To help clarify, it's not about slavery and marriage being the same, it's about believing the government doesn't have the right to sanction either one.

Are you unable to grasp the inconsistency of homosexual supporters on one hand saying that government should not be involved in marriage, but on the other hand advocating that we expand the definition of it?

Hopefully you get it now. If not, there's not much else I can to to explain it.

I realize though that you, and others, probably have a vested interest in not getting the point. It allows you to advocate for government sanction for what you consider a moral issue, while at the same time claiming you're small government libertarians.

 

[CathyInBlue]

You realize that an all or nothing attitude to the degree you are demanding of others is pathological, right? I strongly urge you to seek the aid of a competent psychiatric professional. There is nothing philosophicly inconsistent with aiming low when the brass ring is out of reach for the moment with the expectation that one may reach it at a later time.

 

[dross]

There's plenty of contradiction. That's a moral statement, and you advocate the use of government force to impose that morality on everyone else.

Here's the question though - What definition of marriage should the government use to avoid taking sides morally?

.

Granting one citizen equality under the law with another citizen is not imposing a morality, it is ceasing to impose a morality.

To avoid taking sides morally, the government should not define marriage at all. But that question ignores my argument.

 

[ghuns]

It allows you to advocate for government sanction for what you consider a moral issue, while at the same time claiming you're small government libertarians.

Equal protection under the law is a moral issue. One we should all advocate for.

 

[Liberty1911]

You realize that an all or nothing attitude to the degree you are demanding of others is pathological, right? I strongly urge you to seek the aid of a competent psychiatric professional. There is nothing philosophicly inconsistent with aiming low when the brass ring is out of reach for the moment with the expectation that one may reach it at a later time.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

As to the all or nothing attitude - I'm not demanding that. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency of libertarians arguing against government intervention on one hand, then arguing for it on the other when it suits their moral sensibilities.