(06-13-2023, 12:05 PM)quintessentone Wrote:(06-12-2023, 10:29 PM)Ninurta Wrote:(06-12-2023, 11:43 AM)quintessentone Wrote: How I interpret that Cali law is the parents will be charged with child abuse depending on the severity of the child's psychological state and whether or not it is severe enough to lead to suicide.
How I interpret it is that it's State political interference in personal matters, same as the states that outlaw any care at all. Both are the same to me - State interference in personal matters, where the State has no right to a say. In both of those cases, specifically, it is State interference and negation of parental rights. It is, effectively, the State "removing" children from parental care while still requiring the parents to foot the bills for that care and provide it.
That would constitute a "constructive taking", which is Constitutionally unsound, in both cases.
.
There are toxic parents out there that indoctrinate their children using their very narrow lens to navigate society and if their child shows any veering off of that view then the child's veering-off needs become secondary, so depending on the severity of the child's needs in relation to their mental or physical wellbeing, that would fall into one of the many reasons for interference.
And that is where our opinions differ. I don't recognize the power of the State to interfere in that situation any more than I recognize it's power to interfere in the opposite circumstance of interference in medical procedures to effect a transformation. If the State has no right to interfere in the one case, then they cannot logically have the right to interfere in the other. That child, either way, is the child of that parent to indoctrinate or teach as they see fit, and is not the State's child to interfere with. As a matter of fact, I think armed resistance is justified in either case when the State oversteps it's boundaries into personal affairs.
I feel the same way regarding same sex marriages. If the State issues licenses to heterosexuals, then it must logically also issue licenses to homosexuals. Fair is fair, and there are no second class citizens - you are either a full citizen with all the rights and privileges that entails, or you are not a citizen at all. I myself have never quite grasped the importance of asking a State for permission to marry whomever one will, but it seems to be an important thing to some people, and so must be permitted evenly and equally to avoid stratifying a state into a caste system of inequality. At the same time, the State has no right to compel any clergy to perform any such marriage against their conscience, because that too is a personal matter, and there are plenty of other officiants who can get the job done without the worry of violating a conscience. I've been married 4 times, and there are plenty of clergy around who would refuse to perform marriages 2 through 4 on grounds of conscience, and rather than requiring one of those to violate his own beliefs, it was a simple matter to find another who had no qualms.
Like charity, teaching or "indoctrination" begins at home. It is not the State's job to either indoctrinate or enforce such indoctrination in social matters. That's where Islam started going off course - mixing social matters with political ones, and confusing the two. It's what led to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire as well - they adopted Christianity, started confusing religious issues with political ones, and that eventually brought about it's collapse. That sort of thing is what confuses societies and leads to the collapse of empires, states, and entire societies. We are currently just watching that happen in real-time. It's just our turn, hence all the confusions being bandied about. It's to be expected at some point - no society or civilization lasts forever. Welcome to the New Dark Ages.
.