The Thinking 

When Children Have No Natural Rights

March 4, 2013


IN THE Supreme Court case over Proposition 8, the California law that prohibits same-sex “marriage,” the Justice Department has filed a brief arguing that children have no inherent interest in being raised by a mother and father. Thus the federal government defends the most radical social experiment ever conceived.

Terrence Jeffrey from CNS News reports:

So far in the history of the human race, no child has ever been born without a biological father and mother. Now, in the Supreme Court of the United States, the Executive Branch of the federal government is arguing that, regardless of the biological facts of parenthood, states have no legitimate and defensible interest in ensuring that children conceived by a mother and a father are in fact raised by mothers and fathers.

The brief that the Justice Department presented to the Supreme Court discussed children only as items controlled by others, not as individual human beings who have God-given rights of their own. It simply assumes that a child has no inherent right to a mother or father and that the only right truly in question is whether two people of the same-sex have a right to marry one another and that that right encompasses a right to adopt and foster-raise children.

To take this view and be consistent with the principles of the Declaration of Independence—which recognizes the ultimate authority of the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” and says that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”—the Obama Justice Department must advance the assumption that natural law and Nature’s God give children no right to a mother and father and no right not to be legally handed over by the government to be raised by same-sex couples.

—– Comments —–

Alan writes:

It is fascinating the knots the left must tie itself in to sustain its positions. “It’s all about the children.”

They believe at the same time that children have the following rights:

– access to free contraception and abortion without parental involvement
– freedom to choose their gender and force others to live by that
– protection from indoctrination by non-state approved sources
– guaranteed access to college no matter their abilities,

while denying them the rights to:

– be born
– be raised by a mother and a father, if not their mother and father
– protect themselves from state indoctrination
– an honest assessment of their skills and talents so they might best find a career where they might thrive

Of course, there is no contradiction. Children are objects to be used to satisfy the desires of those in power, whether those desires are physical, psychological, political, or sociological. Children are merely accessories for the battle. Only those rights necessary to make them better accessories are acceptable and may be acknowledged. Denying them those rights held important by traditionalists are doubly good because they serve the higher purpose of elevating, inflating, and protecting the ego as not like “those people.” If denying children those rights requires the ultimate sacrifice of those same children, so let it be. Moloch demands it.

Mr. Morris writes:

Scary stuff! The government is arguing that children are the property of the State, to be used of, by, and for the State at the State’s will and discretion. What this portends is unthinkable, homosexual “marriage” notwithstanding.

Diana writes:

If the Supreme Court strikes down Prop 8, do you think it would be evil to wish for the downfall of the United States? Not to wish for violence, but to wish for the eventual collapse of an insane society. That would not be a pretty thing, and many people would be hurt.

Laura writes:

No, I don’t.

Sam writes:

There is already ample evidence that children fair more poorly when raised by homosexual parents. Besides the obvious, commonsense reasons to suspect that gay parenting is inferior, the sociologist Mark Regenerus has produced a study that demonstrates that children raised by homosexuals do far worse in life than those with intact two-parent heterosexual households. But, of course, the study was immediately lambasted and labeled “unscientific” by the egalitarian Lysenkoists who currently control the academic world.

As I recall, one of the chief legal arguments that was used against Proposition 8 was that nobody could demonstrate a harm caused by gay “marriage.” Well, now that we’ve demonstrated the harm, it will still be to no avail, because they will simply dismiss the demonstration as “unscientific.” The liberals dishonesty is breathtaking. They stipulate up front that any study which contradicts egalitarianism must be “unscientific,” and then they turn around and appeal to “studies” that show how “science” supports egalitarianism. It is the intellectual equivalent of a three-card monty scam, and as an I academic I can assure you that this happens all the time.

Laura writes:

Defenders of marriage and of children’s interests will never win by appealing to studies, partly because of the breathtaking dishonesty you mention. See this previous post. We also cannot win in a court of law by simply appealing to common sense. The courts are actively hostile to common sense.

Sam responds:

The points you make in the other thread are cogent. Another basic point is that, by focusing the entire debate upon whether there is “harm” involved in permitting gay “marriages”, we implicitly cede the moral ground to the liberals. Most liberals have a truncated conception of morality which boils down to “do what you want as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody”. And thus, they think the whole question of whether gays should “marry” each other turns upon whether it causes some provable harm to society. That there is harm is demonstrable, but even if we could not demonstrate harm to societ,y there would still be reasons to reject gay “marriage.” Liberals arrive at their position because they start by asking the wrong question. They ask this wrong question because of their simple-minded egalitarianism, hence they ask: “Since straight sexual partners can marry, why can’t gay sexual partners?” And then they draw upon the emotional and tribal power of analogies to the civil-rights era, and analogize gay “marriage” to interracial marriage.

But the real question is: “Why should society recognize any relationship between two people, and why should the government give this relationship the protections afforded by contract law?” Why not recognize “best friends”, or “boyfriend-girlfriend”? Why not “first-cousins”, or “second-cousins” or “pet-owner and dog-catcher”?

The whole debate over harm to society obscures the basic and incontrovertible fact that heterosexuality is natural to humans and it naturally produces children. Because human children take a long time to develop and are dependent upon their parents for a long time, they need the stability of marriage and for the marital relationship to have special protections and special responsibilities attached to it. These are the only conceivable reasons why the state should institute special protections around that particular relationship between two people. That we have lost sight of something so basic to our humanity illustrates the utterly insanity of liberalism.

 Laura writes:


And it is precisely because a mother and father are so basic to our humanity that liberalism has disarmed the normal human reaction to the idea of redefining the institution of marriage. It’s as if we were suddenly told with absolute certainty that we do not really need food to survive, that feelings of hunger and starvation are illusory and if we only ignore them we can live without food.

Alissa writes:

Being “scientific” doesn’t work, common sense doesn’t work and I’m sure conversion of most liberals is not likely. The Muslims have it right in this regard. Ignore secular liberals, live your life openly/publicly and stand your ground.

Sam writes:

You write in your last comment: “It’s as if we were suddenly told with absolute certainty that we do not really need food to survive, that feelings of hunger and starvation are illusory and if we only ignore them we can live without food.”

These are the fruits that result from 30 years of postmodern influence in higher education. The complete takeover by postmodernists of departments such as English, anthropology, and, by way of extension, journalism and education, has obscured the ability of an entire generation to think. They, meaning the majority of those educated since 1990 or so, really do believe that social reality is completely disconnected from objective reality, and as such it within our power to arrange society any which way we choose. And since we can arrange society in any which way we choose, only the cruel and the wicked would impede extending marriage to homosexuals even when they want it badly, or would deprive anyone of what they perceive to be their highest good.

Now, most of these people may not have thought such things explicitly. But I can attest from nearly ten years teaching in an academic capacity, that this is the mindset of most people under 30 and indeed a sizable portion of those older.

It is interesting that postmodernism, as an intellectual movement, has been rejected by most philosophers and by most serious thinkers for its manifest incoherence. But it was permitted to do its worst during the 1980’s and 1990’s to those who now have the greatest influence over the intellectual formation of the young and society at large: the educators and the journalists. I can see it in my own students, who are so confused about basic matters of right and wrong, true and false, that it is appalling. And this is the society that the liberal baby-boomers engineered. A society in which up is down and 2 + 2 can equal 5 if you want it to. And they don’t see any reason why a society founded on this basis cannot thrive.

Lydia Sherman writes:

In some states, children in public school can issue a complaint about their parents if they in any way feel “uncomfortable” at home with the rules or the situation there. I’ve known of some cases where the children were allowed to go live with other people if they did not like their parents. I wonder if this would apply to the children with homosexual parents.

Laura writes:

Diana wrote above:

If the Supreme Court strikes down Prop 8, do you think it would be evil to wish for the downfall of the United States? Not to wish for violence, but to wish for the eventual collapse of an insane society. That would not be a pretty thing, and many people would be hurt.

And I answered that it would not be evil to wish for the downfall of the United States. Let me clarify my answer.

It would not be wrong to wish for the collapse of the American government, and its replacement with something better. But that is not the same thing as wishing for total societal collapse.  The one does not necessarily entail the other. As the federal government weakens and loses its ability to function, other entities could fulfill its functions and take its place.

Diana writes:

Returning to the main issue, legalizing same sex marriage will completely overturn 100 percent of all family case law, which is based upon the blood relationship of parent and child. Fact. The state presumes that the relationship of parent to child, based on blood, is fundamental, and must be maintained except in the event of severe abuse or neglect.

It is obvious that this revolution will affect the children of heterosexual unions, because they are the overwhelming majority of children. Please someone tell me why and on what logical basis can the child of a man and a woman be considered “their” child, when the child of two women or two men is “their” child? I know that this sounds ridiculous. That’s my point. All family law will be rendered completely illogical by the legal sanctification of same sex parents. Creating same sex parents will be compounding crazy on crazy.

I feel quite confident in saying that no society ever, in the history of humanity, will have undergone a more radical revolutionary change that that of the US, should this occur. It completely outstrips previous so-called “revolutions,” such as the Bolshevik revolution.

Like an earthquake, the effects will be felt years down the road.


Share:Email this to someoneShare on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest0Share on Google+0