Tuesday, March 5, 2013

DOJ: Children Do Not Need—and Have No Right to--Mothers

 Donald Verrilli

The Obama Justice Department is arguing in the United States Supreme Court that children do not need mothers.

The Justice Department’s argument on the superfluity of motherhood is presented in a brief the Obama administration filed in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended California’s Constitution to say that marriage involves only one man and one woman.

The Justice Department presented its conclusions about parenthood in rebutting an argument made by proponents of Proposition 8 that the traditional two-parent family, led by both a mother and a father, was the ideal place, determined even by nature itself, to raise a child.

The Obama administration argues this is not true. It argues that children need neither a father nor a mother and that having two fathers or two mothers is just as good as having one of each.

The Obama administration argues this is not true. It argues that children need neither a father nor a mother and that having two fathers or two mothers is just as good as having one of each.

“The [California] Voter Guide arguably offered a distinct but related child-rearing justification for Proposition 8: 'the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father,’” said the administration’s brief submitted to the court by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.

More @ CNS News

6 comments:

  1. The Voter Guide is correct: The best situation for a child is a married mother and father. Now, here comes the butt-hurt: the kids of committed same-sex couples do about as well overall. Thus says the (honest) data.

    The WORST situation for a kid is to be raised by a single mother. Period. Especially if there are multiple kids with multiple sperm donors ("fathers") involved.

    Given the hideous statistics of heterosexual marriage these days and how shabbily the breeders have treated the institution, you'd think that there'd be more CONSERVATIVE support for ANYTHING that supports the idea of two people making public commitment to live and love together forever. If you really wanted to support marriage, make divorce illegal...and compel people like Newt Gingrich to go back to their ORIGINAL wives. While you're at it, kill the 1100+ benefits that automatically snap into place when the ceremony ends.

    Oh, wait...that'd kill it deader'n a hammer. Never mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, wait...that'd kill it deader'n a hammer. Never mind.

      :)!

      Delete
  2. Nothing surprising here. This is just the next logical step for the destruction of the family. They've made fathers into demons and booted them out of the home, next up is mothers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. indyjonesouthereMarch 6, 2013 at 4:33 PM

    In divorces nearly all judges award physical custody of children to the mother. I suppose the DOJ is now preferring a coin toss?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I imagine they would prefer that the child be given to the state at one year, so they can be properly indoctrinated.:)

      Delete