AS predicted in a recent post, Gov. Jerry Brown has signed into law a bill that will allow children to have more than two legally recognized parents. Those who said homosexual “marriage” wouldn’t lead to more radical innovations have been quickly proven wrong. According to The Los Angeles Times:

Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation Friday that will allow children in California to have more than two legal parents, a measure opposed by some conservative groups as an attack on the traditional family.

Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) said he authored the measure to address the changes in family structure in California, including situations in which same-sex couples have a child with an opposite-sex biological parent.

Notice the idiotic wording above, suggesting it is possible for two women to have a child without someone from the opposite sex.

The law will allow the courts to recognize three or more legal parents so that custody and financial responsibility can be shared by all those involved in raising a child, Leno said.

[…]

“Courts need the ability to recognize these changes so children are supported by the adults that play a central role in loving and caring for them,” Leno said. “It is critical that judges have the ability to recognize the roles of all parents so that no child has to endure separation from one of the adults he or she has always known as a parent.”

The bill was partially a reaction to a 2011 court decision involving a lesbian couple that briefly ended their relationship, according to Leno’s office. One of the women was impregnated by a man before the women resumed their relationship. A fight broke out, putting one of the women in the hospital and the other in jail, but the daughter was sent to foster care because her biological father did not have parental rights.

“Everyone who places the interests of children first and realizes that judges shouldn’t be forced to rule in ways that hurt children should cheer this bill becoming law,” said Ed Howard, senior counsel for the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law.

The future custody disputes are dizzying to contemplate and include the inevitability that children will travel to multiple households, perhaps staying with a father and his homosexual friends one night, a lesbian mother another and a lesbian who now hates the lesbian mother a third night. But, it’s all done in the “interests of children.”

— Comments —

Alex writes:

Repeating the wording in the article, you write: “Gov. Jerry Brown has signed into law a bill that will allow children to have more than two legally recognized parents.”

This wording suggests that having more than two parents is something children need, require or have requested, or a right they have been denied until today. It is obvious that this wording was consciously, purposely chosen by the LAT to present the decision as being done in the interests of children. We should not repeat the wording that frames the matter the way they want to frame it, but the fact that even we do not always immediately see the propaganda in how news is presented to us shows just how subtle and effective the propaganda is. They put a lot of thought in how to present every important story to the people.

Laura writes:

Very good.

I entirely agree. I made a poor choice of words.

Diana writes:

I must admit that I was totally wrong. I thought that Brown would wait at least a year before doing this.

In a sense, I’m glad that Brown wasted no time, because now we have evidence, proof in hand, of what the future must portend if SSM becomes the law of the land. Not might, must.

It is worth taking a look at this 2012 NY Times article about the subject, because it involves not only “gay” parents but heterosexuals who have become involved in the divorce-n-remarriage merry-go-round. This law will affect them most of all, because there are more of them, many more.

They interviewed everyone but the divorced father of the children in the referenced article. No one asked him how he feels about his fatherly rights being usurped. I realize they don’t call it that, but that’s what it is.

Buck writes:

This is so stupid and sick that it’s hard to know where to begin. Pointing out one absurdity; like the mundane but common sense thinking often associated with the idiotic arguments for legislating ever higher and higher minimum wages – why stop there? Why not $20 an hour, why not $40 an hour? Why not raise it until all incomes are equal? Damn the natural order or common sense or the repeatedly demonstrated results. We should and must satisfy whichever desires that we’re legislatively able to. “Parenting” is another sphere of life that we can equalize by distributing the “right” to anyone who desires it.

Economic “law” establishes a natural resistance, an automatic constraint on wages, even among modern liberals who hate it. But, what is going to constrain modern liberals when it comes to legislating social policies that have such devastating long-term effects? The state is unconstrained in it’s almost casual ability to find new interests and to seize new authorities over the raising of all children; all assumed within its expanding legislative purview. What will our modern courts find in the Constitution to proscribe this? I think, nothing.

Why not a Daddy LLC or a Mommy LLC? Or, just Parents Inc. Each child could solicit any number of investors who could buy in at the typical $50k contract, with a limited kick-out clause. All authorities and responsibilities could be clearly enumerated and allotted. Face-time with each child would be apportioned and pro-rated by the “parents” buy-in amount and ongoing maintenance payments. They could each move in and out of the LLC as desired.

Hell, why not create a Time Share agreement? You could have a full-time management company doing all the “dirty” work. Seasons and holidays could be valued in an auction format.

Does the law proscribe that? It’s not clear. Legal Doom.com: Personalized, affordable legal solutions for families and businesses.

Perhaps I’m wandering a bit, but a common thread connects much of this. I didn’t read Hillary Clinton’s It Takes a Village, but I’m guessing that her “village” resembles a large “community” or the state? Everything that I have read suggests that her premise is a mind-numbingly simplistic revelation, by her, that there are other people in our world, who have varying degrees of authority over and responsibilities for our children when they are not with us in our homes. Wow. Does her book advocate that the “village” submit to the families’ authority and give the family all the necessary support? Lip service maybe, but I doubt it. Remember Bob Dole? He said “… with all due respect, I am here to tell you, it does not take a village to raise a child. It takes a family to raise a child.” There’s a squishy conservative that I can’t believe that I miss.

Remember the Village People, the part homosexual, fully “gay” and fully homosexualized disco group of the late 70s? They were professionally “gay” and thoroughly homosexualized, just like “parenting” is being homosexualized today, but with increasing urgency.

So, what is the senseless and arbitrary number of “parents” which exists between the increasingly discredited two-biological-parents-nuclear-family paradigm and the modern village-people-parenting LLC?

SB 274 provides a mechanism to legally include unspecified – in character or number – additional non-biological “parents”, and a mechanism enabling them to wave the exclusion of the actual biological parents, as long as they are deemed to enhance the stability, the child’s physical needs and the child’s psychological needs for care and affection.

Easy enough to write that up within a simple LLC.

Please follow and like us: