Letting A Child Legally Have Three Or More Parents
I'm sure it at first sounds a little wacky, this proposed California bill to allow children to have three or more parents, but it actually makes sense -- and protects children and those who are important in their lives. Aaron Sankin writes at the HuffPo:
"We live in a world today where courts face the diverse circumstances that have reshaped California families," said Leno in a statement. "This legislation gives courts the flexibility to protect the best interests of a child who is being supported financially and emotionally by those parents. It is critical that judges have the ability to recognize the roles of all parents, especially when a family is in distress and a child's security is a concern."Leno argues that the bill is intended to give judges more flexibility when dealing with parent-child relationships and the custody, visitation and child support issues that often arise when there are more than two parental figures involved.
The measure doesn't expand the current definition of what qualities as a "parent." It simply allows for that definition to apply to three or more people--something that could easily become an issue in cases of surrogate parents or if a non-blood relative voluntarily signs a legal statement of parenthood.
...LGBT and children's advocates, on the other hand, have cheered Leno's proposal. "A child who has been raised since birth by a mother and a non-biological father may also have a parental bond and relationship with her biological father," said Ed Howard, senior counsel for the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law. "The child knows all three of these people as parents, and the law should not arbitrarily extinguish those relationships when doing so would hurt the child."
The bill passed out of the Judiciary Committee earlier this week and will soon be headed for vote for the full Assembly.
It's also important to remember that the nuclear family, as a unit for rearing children, is a rather recent invention in human history, those of you who will scream about how "unnatural" this is.
More on this here, in the Sac Bee, by Jim Sanders.
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.Under current law, a parent can be a man who signs a voluntary declaration of paternity, for example. It also can be a man who was married and living with a child's mother, or who took a baby into his home and represented the infant as his own.
...Leno's bill, which has passed the Senate and is now in the Assembly, would apply equally to men or women, and to straight or gay couples.
Examples of three-parent relationships that could be affected by SB 1476 include:
• A family in which a man began dating a woman while she was pregnant, then raised that child with her for seven years. The youth also had a parental relationship with the biological father.
• A same-sex couple who asked a close male friend to help them conceive, then decided that all three would raise the child.
• A divorce in which a woman and her second husband were the legal parents of a child, but the biological father maintained close ties as well.
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.
Designating multiple parents in such cases could enhance the child's prospects for financial support, health insurance or Social Security benefits, thus reducing the state's potential financial responsibility, supporters say.
In bitter breakups involving two unfit or incapacitated parents, a judge might have more flexibility to keep a child out of foster care by recognizing the existence of another parent, Leno contends.
If judges actually had brains, I would support such measures, but their track record leaves a lot to be desired. And in a lot of cases, people behave like spoilt kids expecting more and more. In some cases, just telling that that things work only 1 way and no other way and it is their damn problem to deal with anything that goes wrong because they deviated from the norm is probably the best thing to do rather than spend money and resources from our side to help them handle the consequences of their actions.
Redrajesh at July 2, 2012 11:19 PM
It's also important to remember that the nuclear family, as a unit for rearing children, is a rather recent invention in human history, those of you who will scream about how "unnatural" this is.
This is key. The "norm" was the norm for a very brief period of time. Now it's not the norm, and we need to adjust.
MonicaP at July 3, 2012 5:50 AM
It makes sense to me. Anything that will keep kids in a good home with people who love them.
nonegiven at July 3, 2012 5:55 AM
Well actually the nuclear family has been the standard for most of modern history.
ParatrooperJJ at July 3, 2012 6:01 AM
Until fairly recently in human history, it was common for extended families to live together and take shared responsibility for the raising of children. Increased wages for the working class in the 20th century allowed more people to live independently.
MonicaP at July 3, 2012 6:11 AM
I have to admit I'm leery of this. It sounds like another measure that family courts can use to stick men, and high-income women, with financial responsibility for children that are not theirs. And does a third parent have visitation rights?
Also, how does it work for tax purposes? Or inheritance? The bill seems to leave a lot of questions unanswered.
Cousin Dave at July 3, 2012 6:17 AM
Cocksuckingly ludicrous.
Sure!
"We live in" such "a world today"! TOTALLY unprecedented! We're the latest and the greatest and it's a terrible burden for us, a challenge our great-great-grandparents couldn't have dreamt of answering. But because our hearts are pure, we're not afraid to think in new dimensions, to explore these completely uncharted territories of the human experience.
Right? Amirite?
Or maybe— The most coddled, cowardly generations in human history have spent their lives developing new ways to steal resources from those who are unable to defend their own interests.
One or the other.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 3, 2012 6:27 AM
It's so pathetic....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 3, 2012 6:27 AM
The most coddled, cowardly generations in human history have spent their lives developing new ways to steal resources from those who are unable to defend their own interests.
This. I tend to agree with this. Because when I was going through my divorce, my mom actually hired a lawyer so that if the ex tried to mess with me via DCF, she would be given custody of my girls in lieu of them going into foster care until he could get them. There was no way in hell she was going to allow them to be kept from our family in any way, shape or form. Gotta love her for that.
Flynne at July 3, 2012 6:32 AM
In an ideal world every child would live in a home with two parents who love that child. We don't live in that world. No matter how much you gripe about it or hate it, the reality is that we don't live in that world. (Crid? Are you listening?)
My own problem with this is that the legal system does not always work to protect the kids no matter what they all tell you. I watched a kid go to court to emancipate himself from him mother who was brought into the courtroom in shackles because she had violated her probation for the 4 time and a judge told the 17 year old very responsible kid with a place to live that she took parental rights very seriously and was going to give mom a chance. As an afterthought she ordered some kind of backround check on mom and discovered that she used to regularly stab herself and attempt suicide in child's presence.
Somehow she managed to retain custody of that kid despite CPS, the police, social workers, and the school all visiting her home where she sat on a couch in her own waste while hopped up on pills.
I could tell you many similar stories where the courts failed the kids but I hate to beat a dead horse. And btw, I live in a pretty affluent area.
Kristen at July 3, 2012 6:37 AM
PS
That kid I told you about should have been collecting social security from his father who had been in a vegetative state for ten years but mom had collected and cashed all the checks. She retained custody as well as SS while the kid lived elsewhere since he was 16, a direct violation of SS laws. She beat that one two.
Sorry, I don't trust the courts no matter how well intentioned the laws sound.
Kristen at July 3, 2012 6:44 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/07/03/letting_a_child.html#comment-3251763">comment from ParatrooperJJWell actually the nuclear family has been the standard for most of modern history.
Um, do you also believe that the world started 5,000 years ago and Job rode a dinosaur to the office?
Amy Alkon at July 3, 2012 6:52 AM
> Are you listening?
You make it very difficult.
> the reality is that we don't live in that world.
Americans love love to feign world-weary insight (on the basis of nothing at all), especially when they hold a pistol to the temple of a child.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 3, 2012 6:54 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/07/03/letting_a_child.html#comment-3251766">comment from Amy Alkon"Throughout human evolutionary history, the nuclear family has been the exception, not the norm."
http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/jep2009.pdf
Amy Alkon at July 3, 2012 6:54 AM
I keep a "reality" in my pants.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 3, 2012 6:55 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/07/03/letting_a_child.html#comment-3251775">comment from KristenIn an ideal world every child would live in a home with two parents who love that child. We don't live in that world. No matter how much you gripe about it or hate it, the reality is that we don't live in that world.
Kristen is correct.
Also, there are sure to be abuses in the courts, just as some people are sure to drive drunk despite drunk driving laws against it, but this legislation is needed. It's rare, in that it grants more, not fewer, rights.
Amy Alkon at July 3, 2012 7:02 AM
> It's rare, in that it grants more, not fewer, rights.
Despicable sophistry. As if rights are ever "granted"; as if you weren't giving the most defenseless people an ever-greater number of less-reliable settings in which their grown parents could find fulfillment in social incompetence.
I really think you guys should be ashamed. (Not a metaphor; not kidding.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 3, 2012 7:18 AM
Sorry, this requires more responsibility, but doesn't grant more rights IN PRACTICE. In that way you have more people on the hook to pay child support, but not to parent the kid.
When you show up at the custodial parents house, and they don't wish to release the kid to you? Whatcha gonna do? Call the cops. That's a nuke option, and the parent knows it. You have to alledge danger, and then DCFS steps in... It isn't going to get you parenting time.
Custodial parent says: so sue me. You set a date in family court... The closest date is 6mo. away.
Practically this is not going to help, in any way.
But it IS going to allow them to go after more people for child support money.
People have relationships w/ kids when all parties AGREE on it. Forcing this by legislative fiat doesn't work because of the timespan and expense of going to court.
As with many similar laws the negatively effected are the conscientious... and the children, of course.
An aweful lot of law purports to be a positive aspect, but is only EVER used in a negative way.
SwissArmyD at July 3, 2012 7:39 AM
Ya know, when Crid is on, he is on.
What Crid said.
Dave B at July 3, 2012 8:36 AM
"As with many similar laws the negatively effected are the conscientious... and the children, of course."
I agree with Swiss on this. It isn't that I think they shouldn't make the law just that I don't see it really helping much. The people who want to be assholes will still be assholes and the court will give them a zillion chances.
Kristen at July 3, 2012 8:39 AM
In theory, this seems inoffensive. But the scent of utopian, intent-laden thinking behind it smells a bit of "for the chilllldren" sort of thinking, though. It will be interesting to see the unintended consequences that arise.
On that note, in practice, I expect the law to be unhelpful to men in custody battles during divorce. Not to be all men's rights or anything, but that is just what I expect.
I expect grandparents, in particular, are likely going to seek all sorts of new status in anticipation of their children's custody battles.
Spartee at July 3, 2012 8:53 AM
I see this helping a few and making a lot more messy.
Looking at my brother's situation...there was a point where his kids could have been considered to have 5 parents...bio-mom & dad, their new spouses and Grandma. Lets say their is some nasty splits...you could end up with a child with 5 people demanding parental rights - the main problem being visitation time unless the court found a parent dangerous to the child.
And in some places, a person can be designated a parent for legal finical responsibilities just by "acting like parent" to the child.
The Former Banker at July 3, 2012 9:17 AM
I don't care how many parents a kid has, as long as they have a supportive environment. That said, my personal observations of Family Court and battling parents over the years has left me with very little respect for either. I don't foresee this bill doing much more than putting more people on the hook for child-support. Win for bio-moms, who are often favored despite their atrocious tactics, and win for the state, cause they make money off of child support as well (here in my state; I suspect but don't know if other states operate similarly).
Meloni at July 3, 2012 9:25 AM
In thousands of years not much about adequate child rearing has changed - and that started with PAIR BONDING, not revisionist history and science - and certainly not California jurisprudence (Didn't another city of theirs, was it Mammoth just bite the financial dust??).
Someone is either going to feel compelled to raise their child properly and by any means necessary or they aren't. Laws do not make these people any more or less moral/responsible.
And the gubbment gots nothin' to do wit it, unless it's for an opportunity to redistribute more resources by intimdating the rest of us "knuckle-draggers" into buying into this horseshit...
I'm with Cridster.
Feebie at July 3, 2012 9:32 AM
> as long as they have a supportive environment.
"Supportive environment" is soooooooo much more sophistimicated than "Mother" or "Father", which have grown, y'know, tiresome and passé.
Wanna get to know sumbuddy over drinks? Don't ask whether their Mom loved 'em... Ask if their "environment" was "supportive".
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 3, 2012 9:34 AM
I am so going to unload on this tonight.... The comment will follow a visit to the periodontist, so the concentration will be intense and the mood will be keen.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 3, 2012 9:35 AM
> that started with PAIR BONDING, not revisionist
> history and science - and certainly not California
> jurisprudence
Sing it, sister!
> And the gubbment gots nothin' to do wit it
You still married?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 3, 2012 9:37 AM
I can't abide by this one bit.
If this becomes the trend, the whole concept of the "wicked stepmother" will be lost. How will the children understand Cinderella?
But, in all seriousness, this creates a perfect environment for manipulative step-parents and vindictive ex-spouses to attempt to replace a discarded parent in the mind of the child. Parental Alienation can now be accomplished with additional help from the State.
Joking again! I don't see how this law could have ANY negative consequences.
-Jut
JutGory at July 3, 2012 11:00 AM
> Joking again!
Let me affirm that I sympathize with Jut's dumbfounded response to the absence of satirical boundaries for this topic. Because, specifically...
This shit is insane.
More later.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 3, 2012 11:05 AM
Crid: Seriously? You were offended by the words "supportive environment"? I thought the choice was pretty boring and generic, but it's kind of fun to watch your panties get all wet and wadded over such trite details.
Contrary to your argument, I'm not adverse to the nuclear family, or mother/father roles. What I am adverse to is the soaring number of fucktards who are so willing to breed with one another, but so unwilling to raise their spawn or get along with each other without significant court intervention. And don't get me started on those who expect their family to do all the parental legwork while they live as though they were still child-free.
As I wrote earlier, I don't have confidence that this bill is going to do much good, except maybe secure more child-support checks. My admittedly limited experiences in Family Court just haven't left me with much confidence in it.
Meloni at July 3, 2012 11:31 AM
I dunno... seems to me that having TOO many parents will lessen the child's chance of protection, as everyone else figures everyone else is doing what needs to be done.
Didn't they do some study where someone pretended to be having a heart attack, and when one person was around they called 911, but when a lot of people were around, no one did because everyone else thought everyone else was calling?
Seems like that could happen.
NicoleK at July 3, 2012 11:59 AM
I've said it before, I know. But people are always going on about how the nuclear family is this new thing. However, whenever I read books from other eras, the people are generally living in families structured around a husband, wife, and their kids.
some examples:
... the Ingalls of the "Little House" books (late 1800s)
... the March family of "Little Women" (mid 1800s)
... The Bennetts and various other families from Austen's books (early 1800s)
... Most non-nobles in the Grimm fairy tales (1700s)
... The bourgeois families of Moliere's plays (Les femmes savantes, Tartuffe, etc) late 1600s
Now, these families might have elderly relatives or orphaned ones living with them, but they're still centered around a mom, a dad, and their kids. Some would also have servants indentured or otherwise, or apprentices. Sure you'd have steps, if a widowed parent remarried, but the basic structure is of a couple. Of course people died and such, but that isn't the basic structure.
It's not that people didn't abandon spouses, commit bigamy, die, etc. It's just that this has not been considered the standard foundation in the past thousand or so years.
NicoleK at July 3, 2012 12:12 PM
I keep a "reality" in my pants.
Posted by: Crid
Well that explains so much, only a person with a very small reality could be so naive, and angry.
Well this shuld make you feel better Crid, the TMI scale has been updated. You can even download an iPhone or android app to stay abreast of updates as they occur
http://www.google.com/search?q=T.M.I+scale&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=
lujlp at July 3, 2012 1:39 PM
I think part of the problem is that people latch onto adjectives like "new" and "old", and either intentionally or unintentionally argue the point from different relativities, using said adjectives as their launching point.
Meloni at July 3, 2012 1:57 PM
"Designating multiple parents in such cases could enhance the child's prospects for financial support,"
I think that pretty much sums up the real purpose of the bill: More people who can pay child support. So if Mom while married to guy 1 gets pregnant from guy 2, when she divorces guy 1, both 1 and 2 can be made to pay child support.
Sorry, but for it to have any real meaning legally calling someone a parent, then they must have an equal chance of gaining custody incase of breakup, otherwise it is meaningless.
Joe J at July 3, 2012 3:02 PM
Under this law, if you're a non-custodial parent and your child has three legally-recognized parents, does your child support obligation get cut?
Or are you little more than an ATM for the "non-traditional" couple raising your kid?
Conan the Grammarian at July 3, 2012 4:16 PM
"does your child support obligation get cut?"
why would it, child support orders are not based upon what the child needs but upon what you can supposidly pay.
Joe J at July 3, 2012 4:20 PM
For thousands of years, the Mom-and-Dad-couple has been the recognized basis of the family unit in Western civilization.
Families may have been apart for extended periods. Dad may have gone off on the Crusades, one or more of the Gold Rushes, or to participate in an exploratory expedition halfway around the world.
But, Dad's return was not celebrated with a group hug that included Mom's new beau, Dad's new non-biological children, and the random villagers with whom Mom would leave the children when she needed some "me" time.
====================
The California State Assembly doesn't have time for things like financial solvency, a rapidly-declining tax base, a crumbling infrastructure, high unemployment, and an education system that ranks at or near dead last in the country.
Damn it!
We've got non-traditional families struggling for legal recognition and a few thousand years of Western civilization to undo.
Oh, and a high-speed train to nowhere that needs to be built.
Conan the Grammarian at July 3, 2012 4:45 PM
It would have been nice if I could have been declared parent to my little sisters when my dad split with their mother and I was the one primarily raising them. But instead I had to live in fear that a vindictive ex might not let me see them. It didn't turn out that way, but given the acrimony of the divorce it hung over our heads. We sought legal advice but were told that unless both my dad and their mom were declared incompetent parents, I couldn't have any legal rights to them.
Just all the responsibility for them, and the fear that they could be taken from me at any moment.
It's about time the law caught up with reality.
Jennifer at July 3, 2012 4:46 PM
The law has a good idea, but I'm afraid I agree with most other posters in that I think it will be used mostly for child support issues and abuses by vindictive spouses and grandparents. I see enough "Dear Abby: my daughter won't let me see my grandkids" letters each week to believe that there are many grandparents who'd love to sue to be granted not only grandparent rights but parental rights.
In cases like Jennifer's and those increasingly numerous cases of "I've been raising my daughter's kids since Day One", this would be wonderful. But I think it'll be more abused than used to support true nontraditional families.
I'd also be curious to see Cousin Dave's question of "how will it affect taxes" answered.
cornerdemon at July 3, 2012 5:24 PM
"it was common for extended families to live together and take shared responsibility for the raising of children."
Sorry but this seems like a really BAD idea. First off the family court system is already a mess, and you want to make it more of a mess by letting other people be the "third" parent. Yeah we used to do it in ancient times and the extended family system was a fucking nightmare.
I have rarely heard of anyone saying their extended family is much better than their current family. If anything the treatment you get from them is WORSE.
As for more people getting rights to children? Do we REALLY need that. It might make you feel nice and good inside but the real world dont work that way honey.
P.S. Crid! WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK IS THIS SHIT:
A same-sex couple who asked a close male friend to help them conceive, then decided that all three would raise the child.
Purplepen at July 3, 2012 5:47 PM
"Someone is either going to feel compelled to raise their child properly and by any means necessary or they aren't. Laws do not make these people any more or less moral/responsible."
Exactly and think of it like this: screwed up parents tend to surround themselves with screwed up family/friends/partners. So you are just adding more to the mix? Oh why?
Purplepen at July 3, 2012 5:56 PM
"oh, and a high-speed train to nowhere that needs to be built.".
Right. And all before breakfast (ten years later) for five times the original bid - bitches!
;-)
Feebie at July 3, 2012 6:18 PM
I could see a law that you could legally register primary custodians, or adoptive parents in case of incapacitation or death, before the will is read.
My sis is in the process of divorce, so the odds of both of them dying at the same time. (Both are relatively good parents.)
But both my mother and sis's MIL are essentially batshit nuts on some subjects and should not be responsible for children on any long term basis. A day or two isn't bad, but beyond that, a hearty "No more!"
Use it as a "god parent" registry, yes.
Beyond that I question how good this law could be.
Jim P. at July 3, 2012 7:18 PM
By that line of reasoning (ignoring for the moment it's ahistorical nonsense), it is time to dump the Enlightenment.
Wait ... what? You think that is a crappy argument?
You're right. So stop using it.
Jeff Guinn at July 3, 2012 7:48 PM
My classic question to any legislation is "how can this be mis-used, mis-interpreted and mis-applied? Basically, what is the worst that can happen because of the law? By an overzealous prosecutor or whatever.
In my mind, this all too easily slips from "allows the judge to recognize" to "allows the judge to force financial responsibility".
Could it be a useful tool if applied carefully? Sure.
LauraGr at July 3, 2012 8:11 PM
It says: Designating multiple parents in such cases could enhance the child's prospects for financial support, health insurance or Social Security benefits, thus reducing the state's potential financial responsibility, supporters say.
Where do you think Social Security benefits come from? That state. So the child would be entitled to survivorship and other benefits if ANY of the three or more parents died or was disabled.
elementary at July 3, 2012 8:48 PM
As long as I'm not one of them, I couldn't care less how many parents a kid has.
Patrick at July 4, 2012 12:18 AM
Howzabout "legally letting a child" have zero parents or guardians and no one responsible for her in any context? That'd be fuckin' ducky! Because nothing means more to a child's development than how they're "legally" permitted to live, right? So let's give her the kind of liberty that was inconceivable to our sniveling, small-minded, bigoted forebears... Because they didn't have a clue. They hadn't even heard about human feelings! Those were discovered by us, in 1987... About seventeen minutes before we created oral sex... The day before we cured cancer and a week after we cleansed the oceans.
______________
You people understand this, right? It's time to recompose the American family! To make it better. It's about policy. For people. That's our mission! More than anything else, more than milk or warmth or stability or connections, babies need options when selecting the parties who will introduce them to the meatspace to which they've been so violently summoned.
______________
Y'ever go to an impromptu afternoon tea party hosted by a pre-schooler and her toy collection?
The hostess knows EXACTLY where you're going to sit... You're going to sit cross-legged on the far (Southeast) corner of the six-inch-high plastic dinette. Perhaps, if the hostess is resourceful, a long-eyed spud will have been retrieved from that bag of last summer's potatos sitting in darkness by the sink trap in the kitchen. As a measure of your special status at the gathering, you are the sole recipient of this desiccated refreshment.
At your left is Mister Bojimbles, the stuffed giraffe with fluffy pink footpads and one plastic eye missing (lost during a road trip to Grandma's over spring break and probably still rattling gently under the front passenger's seat, next to that greasy-dusty steel rail that attaches through the carpeting to the chassis of the car). You're expected to converse with Big Bo, but you've been reassured that he's a real chatterbox, so it will be easy. "Just say something about the zoo!," you are instructed.
To your right sits Malibu Barbie, and let's face it, Sister has seen better days. She's a hand-me-down, only a distant cousin to the playthings your hostess adores most deeply. Bar' still socializes in some of her original eveningwear, but the convertible car is gone, and the hair hasn't been brushed in several years... She's like a Hollywood starlet of two decades past, now a diplomate of both the undergrad- and graduate programs at the Betty Ford clinic. But she's out of the toy box, she's grinning gamely, she's a classic, and no one resents her for taking a chair next to the guest of honor.
But among the rest of the seats of the table, the status of the toys is indeterminate. Figurines with bright eyes but fading paint and motionless arms get no attention at all; a few other toys experience the hostess' active disregard. One guest in particular, a furry bear called Teddibles, seems to have earned quite a bit of scorn and mockery, and he's being punished for some sin you can't discern, even as you notice that the toy has recently lost some stuffing. If there are other adults at the table, you will interrogate them with your gaze to no avail. But your hostess is on a roll. She's adorable, and she's your niece (or something), and you wouldn't interrupt this for all the tea in China.
(Later, over drinks with the grownups, you hear sketchy narratives of an incident at a neighbor's house earlier in the week during which a birdbath was broken, for which a certain young lady might have been punished. [Click.])
And THAT'S the sophistication in human relationships that's being expressed here. The people behind this bill are grinding through their own petty resentments at the slights and discomforts of family life by pretending that there are no standards, only policies. They think the other people in the culture are their toy menagerie.
Many, many women think it would be great to have a family without having to be married. (Men are mean and smelly and no fun to stay married to, after all.) So if they can turn all those masculine responsibilities into a paperwork problem for the government, they'll do that. The fact that children's souls are being crippled is irrelevant... The women haven't been flattered by men, so they don't care if their daughters know they intimate love of a father or not.
Meloni is not kidding:
> You were offended by the words "supportive
> environment"?
Not the terms so much as the mentality. Words and ideas are intimate... Knowudimean, Jellybean? Your selection wasn't some casual happenstance... You meant it. You sincerely regard parents as "trite details."
And the desert-dry language continues, crackling underfoot with contemporary crispness, like the spent leaves on the floor of a deciduous forest.
> I'm not adverse to the nuclear family,
> or mother/father roles.
That's two instances of dehydrated language for the setting that forges human souls; "nuclear" and "role models". But golly, it sure sounds bookish and modern, right?
Don't mean to pick on jus' the sisters, though... A provident God in Heaven has paired them with a generation of men who are, like, totally cool with this kind of thinking. Consider Joe's comment of July 3, 2012 3:02 PM, which is all about the fulfillment of the parents, both financial and emotional.
People who can't marry well shouldn't have kids. The rest of us certainly shouldn't warp civilization's marvels to accommodate their incompetence.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 4, 2012 12:03 PM
"I'm sure it at first sounds a little wacky, this proposed California bill to allow children to have three or more parents, but it actually makes sense -- and protects children and those who are important in their lives."
Okay, I'll bite: what's a "parent", according to a court?
Is this an end-around to skirt "gay marriage" laws?
And hasn't this column repeatedly said that government should butt out, despite the clear evidence that the tribe has a vested interest in marriage?
Gee. You want to explain what changes to emergency contact forms this means?
Radwaste at July 4, 2012 11:37 PM
More on the couple dynamic and its socio-economic effects on the family.
http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_family-breakdown.html
Conan the Grammarian at July 5, 2012 1:14 PM
Instead of repeating my blog post on marriage, you can just read it here.
Crid -- you didn't win, it was just OBE (Overcome By Events, i.e. subsequent Goddess posts).
Jim P. at July 5, 2012 8:22 PM
Naw, they they got spanked and scampered.
Trying to do better by lowering standards rather than increasing performance is an ancient human weakness, seen in marriage as in everything else.
The people behind this bill think marriage will work better if it's done by a committee rather than a loving mother and a loving father. I don't think they're asking for more players because it will require them to put in more effort, make more sacrifices, or demonstrate greater dedication. Indeed, some of the strongest defenders of this scheme admire it because it will somehow be less troubling to the child if signatories start dropping out...
As if such a time-share party would ever be regarded as a "parent."
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 5, 2012 8:53 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/304818/sexual-revolution-depends-big-government-david-french
We want to pretend these things are "fluid" but really, I don't think they are...and government only serves to EXAHSTERBATE this problem.
So when you want to petition the government to create laws to "fuck with" the natural order of how things work to benefit a small percentage of the population, you'd better be ready to show us you are willing to become the Paula Jane Radcliffe of Endurance Parenting, otherwise, I see no reason to reorder society unless you are in it for the long haul.
Feebie at July 6, 2012 8:42 AM
That is a great piece.
I once worked on a piece of television where the the producer wanted to describe the sexual revolution of the 1960's as "bloodless". I wouldn't let her.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 6, 2012 11:24 AM
Leave a comment