DIANA writes:

In September 2012, Jerry Brown vetoed the bill (introduced by homosexual legislator Mark Leno) to legalize the status of more than two parents per child. Governor Brown didn’t do that because he was opposed to it. He vetoed the bill because its passage came in the middle of an especially fraught period, in which the Defense of Marriage Act was being considered. He didn’t want to rock the boat by saying to people, in effect, “Listen up, here are the consequences of same-sex “marriage.” This is the next step in the road to perdition.” Smart move on his part.

Prediction: in two years or less, the bill will come up, it will pass, and children in California will be able to enjoy the benefits of three, four and who knows how many “moms” and “dads.” And parts of the rest of the country will follow. Other parts will not, they will be demonized as “bigots,” and yadda yadda. It’s all so familiar by now.

Back when I used to read The New Republic, I came across a promise from an activist that homosexual “marriage” is only the beginning of a long process of educating the rest of us, 24/7, in our homes, on “gay equality.” He said there was no point in winning a formal right without an accompanying revolution in grass-roots attitudes.

At least he was being honest. I would look it up but there are so many articles on that subject in that awful magazine, I’d have to do a lot of reading, and the whole subject is one I find crushing.

 That’s really how the homosexual movement won. Arguing with them is soul-destroying, and the natural reaction of a normal human being is to give in and retreat to an illusory safe haven. But, as Joe Louis said, “You can run but you can’t hide.”  As the homosexual activist promised, “marriage equality” is only the beginning.

Laura writes:

Just to clarify for readers who may be confused as to why this is inevitable, two women or two men who become “parents” may want to involve the mother or father of the child in the arrangement or may want to involve a man or woman to be a substitute mother or father, whichever the case may be. It also seems probable that these will sometimes evolve into polygamous groups.

Once parenthood is no longer based almost exclusively in a natural, biological relationship, the sky’s the limit.

George writes:

“Just to clarify for readers who may be confused as to why this is inevitable, two women or two men who become “parents” may want to involve the mother or father of the child in the arrangement or may want to involve a man or woman to be a substitute mother or father, whichever the case may be.”

It is not just wanting a third parent. If two lesbians marry in California, and one gets pregnant, there is an ambiguity in the law about the legal parents. The pregnant woman is the mother, and the other lesbian cab claim to be the legal father by virtue of the same-sex marriage and the equality with an opposite-sex marriage where the husband is the presumed dad. The  biological father can also claim to be the legal father, if he makes the claim  promptly.

The legislature or the courts could decide that (1) the biological dad has the superior right, contrary to what the LGBT advocates say is marriage equality;  (2) the lesbian mate is the legal dad, contrary to precedents saying that the biological dad has a constitutional right; or (3) a family court dad can  declare all three to be parents, as being in the best interest of the child.

I am betting on (3) as being the most likely. Leno’s bill will be back. Then all sorts of worse scenarios will follow.

Alex writes:

The obvious solution to the problems George outlines (which of course are features rather than bugs) is that the terms “mother” and “father” will be abolished from birth certificates. There will be boxes for Parent 1 and Parent 2, and later boxes will be added for Parent 3 and so on. It’s already starting in Europe.

Please follow and like us: