There were early warning signs that homosexual “marriage” should be taken seriously. On May 27, 1993, the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to three same-sex couples. A voter initiative eventually trumped this decision, but at least by this date the battle was fully engaged.
What does homosexual "marriage" have to do with homeschooling? And why is H$LDA in an uproar about it? While I don't like the idea of homosexual's marrying I do think they should be able to enter into civil unions, and if I am perfectly honest I have to admit that allowing them to marry doesn't hurt me or my family one iota.
At Exploring Constitutional Conflicts read the Family and the Constitution
The Supreme Court said in the 1977 case of Moore v. East Cleveland that "the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition." Moore found protection for an extended family's choice of living arrangements just three years after rejecting a claim that the choice of living arrangements outside of the family context were protected (See Belle Terre v Boraas). The Court's solicitude for the family is also evident in the 1972 case of Yoder v Wisconsin, holding that a state compulsory education law could not be applied against the parents of 14- and 15-year-old Amish children against the wishes of the parents. The Court's decision in Yoder rested primarily on Free Exercise Clause, but the Court subsequently interpreted Yoder as resting in part on the substantive due process rights of parents to make fundamental decisions affecting the lives of their children. Interestingly, the lone dissent in Yoder came from Justice Douglas, who objected to the Court's unwillingness to inquire whether the Amish children agreed with their parent's preference for a return to their agrarian community before the distractions of sock hops, football games, and high school social life make that choice less appealing.
It seems "parental rights" are already protected by the Constitution, so we don't need H$LDA's legislation. Why does H$LDA want to write parental rights legislation? Could it be because they want to be the ones to define what a family is? Could it be because they want to be the ones to determine which parents have the right to raise their children without government interference? They very well could legislate is so the only valid reason to homeschool would be for "religious" reasons. And you would have to meet H$LDA definition of religious. One cynic suggested that H$LDA's cry for an amendment to "protect" parental rights is nothing more then an attempt to boost their membership? Which is a possibility, I just hope the sheeple don't fall for it.
For those of you interested in the "Parental Rights" issue I strongly recommend you visit Parental Rights hosted by Brianbelle.
Brianbelle's blog
has been set up to address the topic of Parental Rights legislation and the far reaching affects on the American family. Recent announcements of another attempt to legislate parental rights has prompted me to set this up so parents will have a place to learn about Parental Rights legislation and how it will affect them. I have no political agenda other than the truth.
From what I have seen the blog is informative and objective.
2 comments:
There are a lot of problems with the idea that parents rights are secured by our current Constitution.
The cases being referenced only protect the parents rights as it relates to parents ability to execute their decisions. It does not protect a parent's right to make those decisions and ignores the dozens of cases that are anti-parents rights. (i.e. Fields v. Palmdale, Prince v. Massachusettes, Brown v. Hot, Sexy & Safer Products, etc.) or that give parents of faith more rights then parents who are not religious (i.e. Ohio Association of Independent Schools v. Goff, People v. Bennett, Michigan v. DeJonge and Immediato v. Rye Neck School District).
Even cases like Pierce reserve the state's right to interfere in a parental decision, and Yoder is often mentioned in cases decided both for AND against parents.
Troxel v. Granville is another good example of a more recent case often mentioned to "prove" that parents rights are "safe". But, even though the mother "won", it was not a slam dunk. When announcing the court's opinion, Justice O'Connor said "Unfortunately, the members of this Court were no more able to reach a resolution then were the parties to the case."
There are just too many loose ends, too many exceptions, loopholes, and narrow interpretations in the existing case law to say that parents rights are already protected by the Constitution.
OMG!!!!! I love this! I was recently bashed (well had my "case" jumped because I said I didn't like HSLDA) on the homesteading forum. This is a good example of showing HSLDA's true colors that they are money hungry monsters. I like how you refered to some people as "sheeple". Awesome!!!!! I like the way you think!
Kelli
Post a Comment