
Correct. Or if little Johnny or Suzie look sad in school and the Teacher asks them what's wrong...So if little Johnny or little Suzie wants this and their parents say no then the kids can turn their parents in if they so choose.
Is this correct?
It's no better anywhere on the West Coast, brother. But the changes and challenges are speeding up.And I live in this godless state . I’m glad my kids are grown and my daughter is homeschooling our grandchildren
Yes, we have granddaughters out there, but they are solid and in church.And I live in this godless state .
I’m glad my kids are grown and my daughter is homeschooling our grandchildren
Who knows when I retire I may end up near Nashville with my sons . My daughter and her husband that’s a pastor may move to Ecuador as missionaries . They have our only 5 grandchildren. So there will be nothing keeping us in California besides our church. Well I have all my siblings in the Bay Area .@civic two of my friends from Bay Pointe area have moved to Missouri. One was able to sell his home there, pocketed half a million, and got a walk-out basement home, probably 4000 square feet at least, 41 acres, and three out buildings with the other half he got in the sale.
The link in the OP says that the bill "would penalize parents for refusing to 'affirm' their child’s gender identity." The only effect I see the bill would have is the following (from the legislative counsel's digest of the bill):
Is that what is meant by some penalty to a parent, or is there something else?This bill would require the court to strongly consider that affirming the minor’s gender identity is in the best interest of the child if a nonconsenting parent objects to a name change to conform to the minor’s gender identity.
. . . .
This bill would require a court, when determining the best interests of a child, to also consider a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity.
The link in the OP says that the bill "would penalize parents for refusing to 'affirm' their child’s gender identity." The only effect I see the bill would have is the following (from the legislative counsel's digest of the bill):
Is that what is meant by some penalty to a parent, or is there something else?
How does a bill that suggests to a judge to strongly consider something against a parent's wishes create a precedent that means the parent has no rights when there are plenty of other laws already that go far beyond merely suggesting to a judge to strongly consider something, even to the extent of removing the child from the parent's custody? That precedent has left the barn a long time ago.Firstly I would imagine precedent established which means the parent has no rights over own their child but the state does.
1. What type of court case are you talking about? Who is suing who, for what?Secondly if this is brought into court the offender ( parent ) would have to pay the legal fees.
See 1. above.Thirdly the court appearance itself is punishment as I can't think of a single parent now-a-days that can afford the time to do this.
That *is* an example of encouraging the state, through the judge, to side with the child against a non consenting parent.Lastly this is just another step in breaking up the family by pitting child against parent.
Which one is which? One is a homosexual? Rogan?That it takes popular homosexual and jewish talkshow hosts to make this clear...
Rubin Report that is talking about Rogan and Ben. As far as I know both Rogan and Ben are decidedly hetero.Which one is which? One is a homosexual? Rogan?