Posted on 07/09/2012 5:10:10 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
From the moment the push to redefine marriage began, the most militant of the would-be redefiners deployed a “scorched earth policy” toward marriage to achieve their goals. In other words, they proved willing not just to alter, but also to destroy marriage and the family in order to establish conditions where they could reconstruct marriage – and all of society – according to their own designs.
And part of this scorched earth policy, as we’re now seeing it in California, is the effort to recognize more than two parents for children.
That’s right—SB 1476, a bill that gives judges the power to pretend that a child could have “three or more” parents—has made it through the state Senate and is now with the Assembly. And once a child has two mothers and a dad or two dads and mother, how small is the step to allowing the two moms to “marry” or the two dads to “marry”?
According to the The Sacramento Bee, three parent relationships that would be protected under 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.
In looking at these various scenarios, it doesn’t take long to see that there are numerous ways for a child to end up with three parents. (But why stop at three?)
Seriously, by the time you add up all the same-sex options, together with divorces and remarries and boyfriends and girlfriends in between, children raised in an SB 1476 world would not even know what “mom” or “dad” means.
And once it goes that far, it will have reached the point of critical mass for which same-sex “marriage” advocates are hoping. There will be such chaos that they can just step in and say, “Jane and Sally are already both mothers to little Johnny in this house. If we’re going to recognize them as mothers, why not allow them to ‘marry’ so little Johnny can have parents who are ‘married’ like everyone else’s?” And if the “two moms” must be “married,” how can we stop there and deny “marriage” to every other conceivable confederation of enumerable adults who have some connection to a child?
Where slopes were once slippery, we now have the steepest of cliffs.
In California, pro-chaos legislators are using a scorched earth policy to set up the opportunity for reconstructing marriage after their own image. And if they prove successful in getting SB 1476 signed into law, the reconstruction they seek won’t be far behind.
# statism.
Marriage is a function of Faith, not the domain of the scumbags occupying State government.
It was always a danger, at least in the modern era. The definition the state uses is simply whatever judges, pols or the majority think it is at any one time. Pope Leo XIII saw this coming 130 years ago.
Freegards
“Where slopes were once slippery, we now have the steepest of cliffs.”
Just what they planned for and wanted: Throw the nuclear family unit right off a cliff.
They want to enslave everyone to the state through these various schemes of “marriage” that tie people to obligations the city can impose on them for whatever reason.
This is because they sided with criminals in courts and want the working people to pay for it.
EXACTLY !!!
A vicarious liability generator .
Part of this has to do with pushing government entitlements and buying future Democratic votes. For example, imagine one anchor baby being adopted by multiple illegal alien parents. Those parents would be able to share the child’s welfare payments and move into large(er) public housing.
If you think chain immigration is bad now, wait until an anchor baby starts trying to get green cards for an unlimited number of parents.
Even if having multiple parents does not mean polygamy, it will not be long before the first lawsuit is filed against an employer demanding the right to medical insurance and pension benefits for co-parents.
If the newly proposed legislation to ban therapy for children suffering from unwanted same-sex attraction goes through, expect this to be a gargantuan inroad to access and control the children of California conservatives by the state. Expect the state to have moles in every nook and cranny of the psychological and medical profession, and any offense against this law will result in the CONFISCATION of these children (for their "own good," of course) from their parents to be "conditioned" by upbringing in a homosexual household.
You think I'm kidding?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.