Multiple mommies vetoed

I complained on July 11 and July 12 about a new proposed California law for kids to have 3 or more mommies. The NY Times then wrote about it. A couple of other states already have such laws.

It is a horrible idea. I am pleasantly surprised that even our leftist governor agrees. An LGBT site reports:

California governor Jerry Brown has vetoed a bill that would have provided protections for children with more than two parents, explaining he was sympathetic to the families where this applies but needed more time to consider the issue.

This misstates the bill. There are no children with more than two parents. This bill would not have protected any children. The primary purpose was to let lesbians interfere with natural parents. I had to learn about this from the LGBT press because the LGBT lobby is obsessed with destroying normal families.

The bill, which was authored by state senator Mark Leno would have adjusted a recent California Court of Appeal decision, In re M.C., which ruled that courts can never determine that a child has more than two parents, regardless of the situation and even if it would protect the child from harm, according to the National Center for Lesbian Rights. The court did, however, call upon the legislature to address the issue.

Leno said the bill could have ensured that "children are not unnecessarily put in the foster care system by allowing judges to recognize the fact that some young people are raised by more than two parents." He added that he would continue to work with the governor to create a solution. ...

"Until this law gets changed, judges in California will be forced to issue rulings they know will hurt children by bluntly ordering an end to their real relationships with their real parents," Howard said. "This is wrong and it should not endure."

As I explained before, that case did not subject the child to harm. It said that the child should be returned to his dad, instead of the two lesbians who had blocked the dad's parental rights. The two lesbians were found to be unfit. This was a case where the child has one fit parent, not three.

No, the court case did not call upon the legislature to address the issue. The closest the decision comes to that is this:

But even if the extremely unusual factual circumstances of this unfortunate case made it an appropriate action in which to take on such complex practical, political and social matters, we would not be free to do so. Such important policy determinations, which will profoundly impact families, children and society, are best left to the Legislature. ... to date, the Supreme Court has rejected the concept of dual paternity or maternity where such recognition would result in three parents ...

But as the court explained, having three parents would not have helped this case. The root of the problem in this case is that a flaky drug-addicted unfit lesbian claimed paternity by virtue of being in a domestic partnership with the mom. If there is any legal change that this case begs for, it is that a lesbian should never be considered the father of a child.

Leno, the gay Jewish extreme leftist politician, is wrong to say that his law would save kids from foster care. It would not have even helped the kid in the case he cites.

This destructive law will surely be back, as it is a logical consequence of same-sex marriage. The LGBT lobby is desperate to destroy the natural meaning of the word "parent", and we will have proposals for polygamy, plural marriage, plural parenting, and anything else that serves to help destroy the traditional American family.