A California bill allowing children to have three legal parents will not help children, but instead will unnecessarily complicate their lives. The supposed need for California’s SB 1476 flowed directly from the drive to normalize same sex parenting and recognize same sex unions. ...She is right. Brown is likely to sign this disaster.
It all sounds very nice and agreeable to allow people to make any parenting agreements they want on the front end of their relationships. But when a relationship breaks down, the long arm of the law will end up involved in the life of the family, on the back end, to resolve disputes. We are replacing the natural pre-political concept of biological parenthood with an artificial, government-created concept of parenthood that is entirely socially constructed. Instead of the government simply recognizing and recording the pre-political reality of biological parenthood, we are giving agents of the state the authority to construct parenthood, all in the best interests of the child, of course. ...
Triple-parenting and genderless marriage are destructive policies. They must be stopped. SB 1476 has passed both houses of the California Assembly. Governor Brown has the power to veto or to sign this ill-conceived law. He must decide, one way or the other, by September 30.
A lot of people are under the mistaken impression that the gay lobby is pushing for some sort of libertarian movement to keep govt busybodies out of the bedroom. If that were true, they would not get any opposition from me. It is not.
They gay lobby is bringing us one of the most anti-libertarian anti-family laws California has ever passed. This law gives judges the power to redefine families as they see fit. Not even the Commies attempted anything like this.
26 comments:
Think about this: what if your ex wife went and got a DNA test on your child and it turns out that they were a product of an affair she'd had while you were married. Would you walk away from your child? Would you still consider her your child? Most importantly, would the child still see you as her parent?
Now, what if she used this against you by contacting the biological father and claiming that he is the "real parent" and you have no legal rights to your child that you raised because a child can only have two parents.
Would you feel differently? Situations similar to this are more common than you'd think. This law protects fathers as much as it protects the children.
This new law has nothing to do with paternity testing. We do need better paternity laws, but I fail to see how some judge declaring multiple mommies is going to help.
The paternity testing is not the point. If the above happend to you, how would you feel. How would you feel about not being legally able to be named a parent although you were the parent?
You are asking what I would do if I had impregnated a married women who then committed paternity fraud against her husband?
instead of worrying about Jews, commies and other long-standing cold war bogey-men that are irrelevant to what's happening in family law, you should be delving into today's NYT review of a book called "The End Of Man".
You also missed a couple weeks ago an op-ed piece in there written by a male (non-Jewish as far as I can tell, like that really matters) from Boise State's Dept of Criminology saying the same damned thing as the above ref'd book. It's the same reasoning Nazi's and white supremists have used to justify their so-called superiority over their targets: biology as destiny. False science twisted into a hateful zero sum ideology.
THIS is the kind of thing to be looking at because it fuels the anti-male zeitgeist that's so pervasive today.
Oh, there was another recent article in NYT about women surviving better in this economy than men, worth reporting on. Not your so-called old school right wing nut conspiracy theories. You are missing the bigger picture, George.
I was just reading that NYT review, and was preparing some comments for tomorrow. The author of that book is Jewish. I did miss the criminology article, so I will look for it.
No, that's not the question being asked of you at all.
What would you do, or want to be done if your ex wife went and got a DNA test on what you always assumed was your child and it turns out that they were a product of an affair she'd had while you were married. Would you walk away from your child? Would you still consider her your child? Most importantly, would the child still see you as her parent?
The question has nothing to do with you impregnating anyone, and anyone committing paternity fraud.
I think you understand the question.
As far as the N Y Times, Jewish rsearchers, Jewish authors etc..
I think that George figures that if a Jew agrees with his views, he says, 'See even a Jew agrees with what I'm saying". And if a Jew disagrees with George, then he says, "See, more Jewish conspiracy propaganda from yet, another Jew, and this proves up my assertion that Jews are responsible for all the evil going on.
Anonymous, I am nor sure about my answers to your questions, but what do your questions have to do with giving some judge the discretion to name extra parents as he sees fit? No, I do not understand the question.
Which part of the question do you ot understnd ?
What would you do, or want to be done if your ex wife went and got a DNA test on what you always assumed was your child and it turns out that they were a product of an affair she'd had while you were married ?
I would not be running to a judge to ask him to use his discretion to name 3 or more parents. This new law makes things worse in all the scenarios that I can think of.
Would you walk away from your child? Would you still consider her your child? Most importantly, would the child still see you as her parent?
The answers to those questions would depend on my relationship to the child. But what does any of this have to do with a new California law on multiple mommies? Is there any scenario in which this law will do any good?
Yes, in this situation, it would allow for 3 parents, so if you had raised a child that you had always thought was your's you could then legally maintain the relationship with the child. Or would you want to just give up on this child ?
You are suggesting that, if I were the legal father, I would want a law that declares some other man an additional legal father? Who would ever want that? That seems crazy to me. But if you think that there is some scenario in which this law might do some good, please explain it, because I do not see any good from this law.
No, of course that's not what I'm suggesting.
Let's try it again, OK ?
If your ex wife went and got a DNA test on your child and it turns out that they were a product of an affair she'd had while you were married. Would you walk away from your child? Would you still consider her your child? Most importantly, would the child still see you as her parent? I
If you had raised a child that you had always thought was your's you could then legally maintain the relationship with the child. Or would you want to just give up on this child ?
If you want to understand it, it won't seem crazy. If you don't want to understand it, you won't understand it.
I will say it again -- if you think that there is some scenario in which this law might do some good, please explain it, because I do not see any good from this law.
You ask some difficult questions about whether I would want to maintain a relationship. What do any of those questions have to do with this new law?
If you had raised a child that you had always thought was your's you could then legally maintain the relationship with the child.
In this scenario, it would do some good. Agreed ?
What is so difficult about the question of whether you'd want to maintain a relationship with a child you'd raised and had always thought was your's ? Either you'd want to or not, right ? Would you want to ? Would you not want to ?
With the new law you'd have a right to if you wanted to. Without the new law, you would not have the right to do so ? that is what it has to do with the new law.
No, I do not agree that this law helps in your scenario. In it, I would be the legal father, and my wife would be the legal mother. This law has no effect on that. What it does do is to give a judge the discretion to name a third parent. I would not want that, whether I wanted to continue my relationship with the child or not.
No, you wouldn't be the legal father in this scenario. You wouldn't be able to continue to maintain a relationship with a child you had been raising. You'd have to give up on your child.
Before your scenario was that I was the legal father. Now you want to propose a scenario in which I was never the legal father nor the biological father? You want to say that I was some sort of step-father to the child, and I wanted to be legally recognized as a second father? Why would that be a good thing?
I will say it again -- if you think that there is some scenario in which this law might do some good, please explain it, because I do not see any good from this law.
The scenario never changed. I just kept copying the same statements and questions from above to be consistent and clear. If you see no benefit to continuing a relationship to a child you'd raised, I understand.
I do see benefit in continuing a legal parent-child relationship. I do not see benefit in the law, and I see a lot of harm in it.
Yes, there's a benefit in continuing a legal relationship with a child that you didn't raise, or did raise. What a bout creating a law that create a way to protect a continuing relationship with a child that you had raised and assumed was your's legally and then couldn't ?
You said, "What it does do is to give a judge the discretion to name a third parent. I would not want that, whether I wanted to continue my relationship with the child or not." So are you saying it's unimportant to you what is best for the child as far as your continuing relationship with him ? And what's only important to you is what you want and what laws exists or not ?
If you want to propose some other new law, then go ahead. I was commenting on the new multiple mommy law.
No, I did not say what was important or unimportant to me. Please read what I wrote. I will say it again -- if you think that there is some scenario in which this law might do some good, please explain it, because I do not see any good from this law.
It would benefit the child to know who the biological parents and siblings are. It is important to know about possible genetic defects and possible need for organ transplant.
Post a Comment