Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why California’s Three-Parent Law Was Inevitable
Public Discourse ^ | September 10, 2012 | Jennifer Roback Morse

Posted on 09/10/2012 3:33:58 PM PDT by neverdem

A California bill allowing children to have three legal parents will not help children, but instead will unnecessarily complicate their lives. The supposed need for California’s SB 1476 flowed directly from the drive to normalize same sex parenting and recognize same sex unions.

Can a child have three parents? If California State Senator Mark Leno has his way, children in California will be able to have three legal parents. Before we dismiss SB 1476 as another example of California Weird, we had best look into it more closely. After all, the bill has passed both houses of the California Assembly and is awaiting Governor Brown’s signature or veto.

I believe this development was inevitable, more inevitable in fact than the much-vaunted inevitability of gay marriage. Once we started trying to normalize parenting by same-sex couples and redefine marriage to remove the dual-gender requirement, we had to end up with triple-parenting.

A deeper look at the whole picture surrounding SB 1476 reveals that not only should the three-parent law fail, same-sex “marriage” should fail as well. As we will see, embedded in this bill is an appalling power-grab by the state, and a grotesque misrepresentation of the facts by the bill’s authors.

Why Normalizing Same-Sex Parenting Inevitably Led to Triple-Parenting

Let us state an obvious fact: a same-sex couple cannot have a child unless someone gives them one, or part of one, namely either an egg or a sperm. If two women, for instance, decide they want to have a baby, they must still involve a man in the process. They can use some form of artificial reproductive technology with sperm from a man who is unknown to them. Or, they can find an accommodating friend to have sex with one of them, or to donate his sperm.

The question is...


(Excerpt) Read more at thepublicdiscourse.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: creepy; homosexualagenda; sb1476

1 posted on 09/10/2012 3:34:06 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Why stop at three?
Surely there can be situations where 4 or more adults can be parents./sarc


2 posted on 09/10/2012 3:37:36 PM PDT by Kozak (The means of defence again.t foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home JM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Why stop at three?
Surely there can be situations where 4 or more adults can be parents./sarc


3 posted on 09/10/2012 3:37:36 PM PDT by Kozak (The means of defence again.t foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home JM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

One of the many unintended [or intended] consequences of same sex marriage.


4 posted on 09/10/2012 3:39:15 PM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
A man named Jesus was the biological father. Melissa had a relationship with him during one of her separations from Irene.

A bit of irony there.

5 posted on 09/10/2012 3:41:12 PM PDT by palmer (Jim, please bill me 50 cents for this completely useless post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This would make me VERY nervous if I were a sperm donor, egg donor etc... If someone CAN be recognized as a third parent then eventually they WILL be recognized as a third parent.

It’s just a matter of time before these folks are being sued for child support, I suspect.


6 posted on 09/10/2012 3:42:36 PM PDT by JoeDetweiler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

What’s the kid call them? Mom, Dad and ????


7 posted on 09/10/2012 3:42:54 PM PDT by sanjuanbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Stop the world, I want to get off! I can’t stand what this country is becoming.


8 posted on 09/10/2012 3:43:29 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This is precisely why homosexuality was outlawed in the first place: Keep the perverts from perverting marriage, parenting, children, etc.


9 posted on 09/10/2012 3:44:26 PM PDT by CodeToad (Be Prepared...They Are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The long slide to social collapse is building up speed.


10 posted on 09/10/2012 3:45:22 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; goldstategop; CAluvdubya; CyberAnt; Syncro; Citizen James; BurbankKarl; ...

It’s a little long, but worth a gander, IMHO.

It reminds me of a great acronym, KISS, i.e. Keep It Simple Stupid.

No offense is intended. Maybe someone can stifle a moonbat with it.


11 posted on 09/10/2012 3:46:00 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

So, in California I can take on another wife now? What fun!.....


12 posted on 09/10/2012 3:50:20 PM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"Bestiality Rights" is coming soon, and if you think I am joking, you are wrong.

By the way, you can Google it - but be careful. Your search will turn up many factual articles that this next wave of perversion is in full swing, however, there are also doors into the depravity of this wickedness that you have to watch out for.

I fully expect the Democrats to embrace this group of hell bound spawn as well......why not? They embrace every other form of pure evil.

13 posted on 09/10/2012 3:50:20 PM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

many on here and other solid conservatives said this woudl happen and that there was a ling.
On one side 1man and 1 woman
on th eother side of the lne was anything as every arguemnt used for the homostapo could be used for anything.

This is why homosexual marriage and adoptions need to stop, now, they need to be told that they do have the same rights as us and children are better off.

Sadly we have also had the half baked trolls on here saying they had no problem with homosexual marriage or adoption or even serving openly.
Thankfully Jim got rid of most of them but I;m sure there are a couple still lurking


14 posted on 09/10/2012 3:51:05 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; little jeremiah

ping

something which we all know and would happen and how many tiems were we told to not be stupid


15 posted on 09/10/2012 3:53:34 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie
"So, in California I can take on another wife now?"

Of course, because multiple 'prospective' parents are just as valid as any other parents. Discrimination is forbidden.

Anyone who didn't see this coming must have been in a coma.

16 posted on 09/10/2012 3:56:58 PM PDT by Baynative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I think the development of reproductive endocrinology had more to do with it. The sheer number of people undergoing in-vitro fertilization and implantation technologies and the degree to which the cases themselves get so bizarre, so dysfunctional, is why this kind of "law" was a done deal a long time ago.

It just took a pervert like Leno to bring it up.

17 posted on 09/10/2012 3:57:04 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party Switcheroo: Economic crisis! Zero's eligibility Trumped!! Hillary 2012!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
Don't forget about NAMBLA, and I am not talking about the “National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes”.
18 posted on 09/10/2012 3:57:06 PM PDT by Dan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Oh man, if only we had seen this coming.


19 posted on 09/10/2012 4:00:42 PM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

After getting half way thru this article, I wanted to throw up. God surely is hurling because of this and all the other stupidity that we are causing. Just makes me want to cry.


20 posted on 09/10/2012 4:06:53 PM PDT by marygam (#Hurry November 2012, we might not make it#)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeDetweiler
It’s just a matter of time before these folks are being sued for child support, I suspect.

It's already happened numerous times, mostly (according to this) in male/female pregnancies. This seems to be a murky area of the law and like you, I suspect it won't be long until sperm donors are appearing before a judge.

DADDY?

21 posted on 09/10/2012 4:13:30 PM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

Of course. What if both lesbians want to be “moms” and get different sperm donors? To not include four parents in the law is denying them their most basic civil rights! We’re back to Jim Crow days!!!


22 posted on 09/10/2012 4:14:40 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JoeDetweiler

“It’s just a matter of time before these folks are being sued for child support, I suspect.”

Actually, it’s already happened, and in at least one case, in Holland I think, the judge ruled a sperm donor was liable! This was a few years ago, and since then there were problems meeting demand, because donations understandably fell off. I believe a lot of places have started passing laws to shield donors from child support suits and protect their anonymity, because otherwise the whole system will break down.


23 posted on 09/10/2012 4:18:21 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

It’s called MANAGE A TROIS parenting. It the latest from the gay mafia who the socialist democrats suck up to all the time.


24 posted on 09/10/2012 4:19:14 PM PDT by spawn44 (MOO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

You may be more correct than you think. I’ve read several times (can’t recall where offhand) that attorneys for pro-polygamy groups plan to introduce legislation making group marriage — both polygamy and polyandry — legal. With the precedent of legalized same-sex “marriage,” Katy bar the door!


25 posted on 09/10/2012 4:20:33 PM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Insanity


26 posted on 09/10/2012 4:21:25 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie

No, you can’t technically get another wife, but your kids could get another mom or another dad, without you getting divorced. I’m not sure how it would work, I guess they would have to adopt your kids without you giving up custody?

Maybe some capitalist can make money off this. Rent-A-Kid: for those folks who don’t want to give up their lives and be full-time parents, they could become “3rd” parents to a kid, and just take him one week a month. The real parents get a little vacation and some extra income to boot!


27 posted on 09/10/2012 4:22:37 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kozak
Why stop at three?

Surely there can be situations where 4 or more adults can be parents./sarc

Jeez, I thought it was the VILLAGE!! Now only 3 parents?

28 posted on 09/10/2012 4:23:57 PM PDT by ExCTCitizen (Yes, Obama, I had help with my business. MY CUSTOMERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx

After I posted #25 I came across this FR polygamy thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2929144/posts


29 posted on 09/10/2012 4:24:59 PM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

From the piece:

” We are replacing the natural pre-political concept of biological parenthood with an artificial, government-created concept of parenthood that is entirely socially constructed.”


30 posted on 09/10/2012 4:29:44 PM PDT by scottjewell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

Perhaps even an entire village.


31 posted on 09/10/2012 4:30:05 PM PDT by lymelady (A shield of lesser evil will only last for 4 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dan Zachary

>> “National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes”. <<

That would be the lesbian side of the Gay Nation.


32 posted on 09/10/2012 4:31:52 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (obozo could bring back literal slavery with chains and still he will get 97+% of the black vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Mark Leno is so light in the loafers he is flaming even in SF whuch he represents. The guy has been all gay rights all the time for I don’t know how long....


33 posted on 09/10/2012 4:33:11 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It’s only a matter of time before members of organized crime families all marry each other ... so they can’t be compelled to testify against their “associates” in criminal cases.


34 posted on 09/10/2012 4:44:33 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manc
This is why homosexual marriage and adoptions need to stop, now

And who do you suppose is going to do this? Obama? Romney? They are twins who believe in gay marriage, gay adoption and other perversions. We need Santorum, Bachmann or Cain in order to stop this slide. We need principled social conservatives. Not liberal Republicans.

35 posted on 09/10/2012 4:46:09 PM PDT by napscoordinator (Paul Ryan/Rick Santorum 2012....That would be the best scenario ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

agree on all points.


36 posted on 09/10/2012 5:48:46 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

One more step in preparing a willing pool of pleasure boys. Watch for the lowering of the age of consent. Young boys will be harvested!


37 posted on 09/10/2012 7:10:12 PM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; 185JHP; 230FMJ; AFA-Michigan; AKA Elena; APatientMan; Abathar; Absolutely Nobama; ...
Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

A companion piece to the polygamy article. Why only three, pray tell? Why any? Why not just make up junk as we go along? Why not just utterly renounce all truth and reason and give up human speech altogether and grunt and growl and howl?

38 posted on 09/10/2012 7:23:34 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I can see how, given the desire on the part of the Left to create same-sex “marriage” that becomes expedient.

However, the defenders of traditional marriage should realize that the need to provide a legitimate framework for three-parenthood has been with us since divorce and remarriage became the norm. It just wasn’t a priority for the elected sages back then.


39 posted on 09/10/2012 7:54:45 PM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Judges don’t normally have this much discretion. Biology, marriage, and adoption are usually pretty bright-line indicators of who counts as a parent. The only reason we are giving judges this much discretion is so we can accommodate the triple-parenting cases that are sure to arise when the law normalizes same-sex parenting.

Exactly. God's design for humanity is that a one man be married to one woman and a child have a mother and father. Homosexual relationships are the motivation behind this particular law, and the liberal social engineers are using them to break down the nuclear family and traditional Judeo-Christian values. When the family is destroyed, government inevitably has to step in. When a society abandons God, people tend to look to something for guidance, and that something is government. In communist North Korea, the leader and government is worshipped as opposed to God.

With this law specifically, I can see all sorts of problems. Why stop at 3 parents? Why not 4? For example, let's say the biological mother and biological father are each married to separate people. The step-father and step-mother each call themselves parents of the child as well. Why can't they be considered parents under this law? If so, what if they split with the bio parents? It gets messy and tricky.

40 posted on 09/11/2012 12:19:22 AM PDT by Pinkbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It takes a village! /s


41 posted on 09/11/2012 7:15:09 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson