ACLU And The Government vs. Parents

An idea of natural law that our country was founded on is expressed in this excerpt from The Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter VI by John Locke

Sec. 55. Children, I confess, are not born in this full state of equality, though they are born to it. Their parents have a sort of rule and jurisdiction over them, when they come into the world, and for some time after; but it is but a temporary one. The bonds of this subjection are like the swaddling clothes they art wrapt up in, and supported by, in the weakness of their infancy: age and reason as they grow up, loosen them, till at length they drop quite off, and leave a man at his own free disposal.

Sec. 56. Adam was created a perfect man, his body and mind in full possession of their strength and reason, and so was capable, from the first instant of his being to provide for his own support and preservation, and govern his actions according to the dictates of the law of reason which God had implanted in him. From him the world is peopled with his descendants, who are all born infants, weak and helpless, without knowledge or understanding: but to supply the defects of this imperfect state, till the improvement of growth and age hath removed them, Adam and Eve, and after them all parents were, by the law of nature, under an obligation to preserve, nourish, and educate the children they had begotten; not as their own workmanship, but the workmanship of their own maker, the Almighty, to whom they were to be accountable for them.

Now compare the above idea with what the ACLU has claimed about their Lesbian and Gay Rights Project in Kentucky.

In today’s motion for summary judgment, the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project and the ACLU of Kentucky asked the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky to rule that schools can require all students to attend anti-harassment training regardless of their personal beliefs about gay people

But look at their claims. They seem to believe it is alright to harass individuals that are not gay or lesbians.

“We agreed that portions of Boyd County’s anti-harassment policy went too far, and we’ve worked with ADF and the school board to create a new policy that protects students’ speech while still allowing the school to protect lesbian and gay students from harassment,” said James Esseks, Litigation Director with the ACLU’s national Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. “Preventing harassment doesn’t need to interfere with free speech. In fact, harassment is less likely to occur in schools where everyone’s ideas can be freely and respectfully discussed.”

Sadly their plan seems to have worked and they have warped the thinking of some students as a gay-straight club was formed at the school.

A new lawsuit was brought by an anti-gay legal organization, which claims that the training and policy violate the religious freedom and free speech rights of students who are opposed to it. The ACLU, representing some of the former students who had formed a gay-straight alliance (GSA) club at Boyd County High School, joined the lawsuit to help defend the school’s ability to conduct the training and to support all students’ free speech rights.

The only reason the ACLU can do this is because the government allows them to. I also suggest you read several eye opening articles by Steven Voigt, a lawyer, which go into natural law and its importance to the independence of America.

Using Roe V WadeTo Overturn Roe V Wade Part I

Here is part of my attempt to but a argument together to overthrow the Conclusion of Roe v. Wade by using Roe v. Wade as a precedent.

Argument 1: (This Section Proves The Constitution Protects The Right To Life Of Our Children Because They Are Our Posterity)

In 1989 case of MICHAEL H. ET AL. v. GERALD D. the Supreme court determined that a child by the name of Victoria D existed at the point of conception. That point occurred in September of 1980 and she was born several months later on May 11, 1981.

In the 1977 case Reyna v. City and County of San Francisco held Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, Division Three the court acknowledged that a child existed a conception

In the 1958 case Galper v. Galper Second District, Division One
the California courts once again acknowledged that a child existed at conception.

In other cases throughout the United States court after court acknowledges that a child exist at conception.

In the 1905 Supreme Court case JACOBSON v. COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS the court found that the preamble declares the purposes of the U.S. Constitution

In the 1793 Supreme Court case CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GEORGIA the court declared the preamble to be the peoples design in establishing the Constitution and it comprehened 6 objects for doing so.

The people of the United hold the Constitution in so much awe that in Article VI they insist that every legislative, executive, and judicial officer of both state and federal government take an oath to uphold the Constitution so that if they forsook the oath and violated the purpose for which it was established then they would be guilty of the crime of perjury.

It is the 6th object of the preamble that we concern ourselves with. It clearly states that the 6th purpose for the establishment of the Constitution is to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. Obviously a child is the posterity of his or her natural parents as determined by heredity and it is clear that you can not secure the blessings of a child or adult that you deliberately and arbitrarily kill. The Constitution insists that the people of the United States require the state to act in order to protect the life and liberties of a their posterity from conception on.