Social conservatives have long predicted that the drive to redefine the family unit would inevitably lead to the normalization of ever more extreme permutations of the nuclear family. First it was the 1992 pushback against the TV character Murphy Brown consciously deciding to have and raise a child as a single parent. Then it was dismay over the spate of “two mommies” and “two daddies” books and shows in the 2000s.
Progressives mocked the social conservative fear that once society discards the mommy-daddy-child archetype, we are opening a Pandora’s Box. Ha ha ha, you Neanderthal rubes, mocked the liberals. Stop with your fear-mongering; you’re just terrified of progress!
But today we found out: The social conservatives were right all along:
California bill would allow a child to have more than two parents
Mom and Dad, same-sex couples or blended families, California law is clear: No more than two legal parents per child.
When adults fight over parenthood, a judge must decide which two have that right and responsibility – but that could end soon.
State Sen. Mark Leno is pushing legislation to allow a child to have multiple parents.
“The bill brings California into the 21st century, recognizing that there are more than Ozzie and Harriet families today,” the San Francisco Democrat said.
Surrogate births, same-sex parenthood and assisted reproduction are changing society by creating new possibilities for nontraditional households and relationships.
Benjamin Lopez, legislative analyst for the Traditional Values Coalition, blasted Leno’s bill as a new attempt to “revamp, redefine and muddy the waters” of family structure by a leader in the drive to legalize gay marriage.
“It comes as no surprise that he would try to say that a child has more than two parents – that’s absurd,” said Lopez, whose group calls itself a leading voice for Bible-based values.
Under Leno’s bill, if three or more people who acted as parents could not agree on custody, visitation and child support, a judge could split those things up among them.
SB 1476 is not meant to expand the definition of who can qualify as a parent, only to eliminate the limit of two per child.
…SB 1476 stemmed from an appellate court case last year involving a child’s biological mother, her same-sex partner, and a man who had an affair with the biological mother and impregnated her while she was separated temporarily from her female lover.
…
Opponents counter that the issue is complex and that allowing multiple parents in one section of law inevitably raises questions that could spark litigation in other sections.
Tax deductions, citizenship, probate, public assistance, school notifications and Social Security rights all can be affected by determinations of parenthood, notes the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists.
“This bill, in our opinion, if passed, will cause significant unintended consequences,” said Diane Wasznicky, the group’s president and a family law attorney in Sacramento.
Assemblyman Donald Wagner, an Irvine Republican who opposes SB 1476, noted it could spark litigation, say, in a case of a wrongful death of a child with four potential parents and determining who has a claim.
Karen Anderson, of the California Protective Parents Association, said the legislation could result in a child being bounced among multiple adults in a bitter family breakup.
“It’s hard enough for children to be split up two ways, much less multiple ways,” she said.
Next up: Group marriages and group parenting.
Then: “It takes a village.”
End game: Brave New World.
We social conservative warned about this sort of thing. The libertarians mocked us, mostly.
– marry anything as many times as desired.
Progressivism…
Sophisticatedly evolving from Pollyanna to polyamory.
Yee-hah! Grease that slippery slope; it’s gonna a fun ride!
(Just look out for those jagged rocks at the bottom…)
13-year-old daughter: “Can I go to the junior-high dance?”
Daddy #1: “No!”
Daddy #2: “Only if you bring a condom!”
Mommy #7: “No dirty dancing!”
Mommy #4: “Only if your date is another girl!”
Daddy #5: “There’s only one way to resolve this: I call for a Family Committee Meeting!”
The decisions of the Supreme Soviet of the Family is final!
The decisions of the Supreme Soviet of the Family is final!
Not until approved by the Politburo, and it lives in a white house in Washington DC.
It takes a village.
Literally.
Mark Leno.
Put this name down in your book of mutts to watch.
This is the guy who single-handedly has blocked implementation of Jessica’s Law in California (hard time for pedophiles). He’s from San Francisco. Basically, he is Satan’s minion in loafers.
If it cost us Californians more money, strike it down.
What I want to know is how this is going to help us with High Speed Rail to take us from Modesto to Bakersfield. I am really tired of our government not working on the true priorities in this State.
so a lesbian couple, their 3 sometime male lovers, their 2 dogs and the neighbor’s parakeet all claim parentage of twin boys. the parakeet in particular is adamant they should be raised without chauvinism, racism, animalism or any other kind of ism, up to and including rationalism.
It’ll never stop. People don’t listen but with crazy libs give an inch and they will take a mile. Before long kids will be marring mailboxes and adopting a roll of Saran-Wrap™ and pimps will seek protection for their “associates” in the name of “survival sex.” Libs are nothing more than race-based Marxist libertine buffoons. I actually have no problem with people acting goofy as individuals – but institutionalize it, and you will destroy this country. PC fear of racism is already guaranteeing we’ll be half ex-minority in 40 years. Thanks to Obama and the Dems, it’s green light for illegals.
Only in California, do they come up with nonsense like this.
Once upon a time, Utah was not part of the US, and was let in after they criminalized polygamy.
Should California be kicked out of the union?
Now, all good people must keep these two ideas in their heads:
1: Romney is probably some nut whose greatgreatgreat … greatgrandparents were polygamists, so obviously he is not fit for presidency.
2: We should embrace these new families, and disapproval of this progess means that you’re some kind of a bigot. We don’t have a good name for it yet, but we’ll make something up.
We have two camps in this marriage debate:
1) Society and its norms are only social contracts, and can be changed at will (social liberalism). This camp is consistent with atheism.
2) Some norms in the society are not mere social contracts, but are features of objective (mind indepent) moral reality (classical liberalism). This camp is consistent with theism.
Please, please, please, give God a chance.
This is the inevitable (and intended) result of redefining marriage.
Yes, the “slippery slope” people were right – they usually are.
How many females does it take to make a baby
1, The egg donor
2, The rent-a-womb
3, The Nominal Mommie
4, The Nominal Other Mommie
5, The Nanny who will raise it
6, The Specialist Shrink who must un-do what the other five started
Question: How does one work within a family tree that mostly resembles a spiderweb?
Pay close attention to your aunties.
If people can make a 96 member marriage work, what business is it of yours?