Tuesday, July 3, 2012

What I'm thinking about today

A reader earlier sent me this link:

A bill under consideration by California lawmakers would allow children to have more than two parents.

The bill, SB 1476, introduced by Sen. Mark Leno (D) from San Francisco, amends California’s current two-parent-per-child law to allow for several of them to protect the best interests of the child.

The additional parents would have to meet a court-established definition of a parent, according to Leno.

“The bill brings California into the 21st century, recognizing that there are more than Ozzie and Harriet families today,” Leno told the Sacramento Bee.

Rod Dreher's writing about this too.

Does any of this even matter anymore? I mean it. If heterosexual parenthood, the idea that a child should have a mother and a father and just one of each, is nothing but an outdated notion that we've evolved beyond, why should it matter if six different people demand the right to be little Johnny's parents?

Come to think of it, why should birth parents be given any primacy of parenthood at all? Sure, a birth mother has to go through a nine-months' pregnancy, but she's really nothing but a biological incubator. Shouldn't more worthy, more deserving parents get to compete for the products of conception in the open market?

Okay, sarcasm off. But aren't we headed that way? If the biology of marriage and parenthood means absolutely nothing, and if all we are is slightly more intelligent primates, why should children be treated any differently than any other consumer product?

6 comments:

MacBeth Derham said...

I look forward to the day when the court declares that my children can have a dog as a legitimate parent. What will it take? Well, in California, some mutt will pull a kid out of a mudslide, and the video will go viral on YouTube, sparking a petition drive to have the dog declared the kid's third parent.

The Falange said...

how soon 'til Kennedy/Roberts strikes down Prop 8 under the all-encompassing Equal Protection Clause and later declares all preferences, no matter how minor, for married couples in adoption/IVF a form of discrimination? ahh i'm just being a cynic...nah, it's coming.

L. said...

"Sure, a birth mother has to go through a nine-months' pregnancy, but she's really nothing but a biological incubator."

This is true if she gives the baby up for adoption.

Our babysitter raised our youngest son when he was a baby, and he called her "Mama." So my thoughts when I read this news were, "Why not? Sounds great to me!"

The Falange said...

^top thinking here.

Barbara C. said...

I disagree, L., in the case of adoption the child has a mother who has chosen to give up her legal rights in what she believes to be the best interest of her child.

A woman who gives her baby up for adoption is like the mother before King Solomon who chooses to give up her child rather than see it cut in half...and I'm not just talking about abortion. It's hard enough on kids to be shuffled back and forth between two parents...this just opens the door for a poor kid to legally be pulled in even more directions.

L. said...

Barbara C, there are all sorts of stories of babies put up for adoption, and many do involve noble, selfless decisions by birth mothers. But some babies are abandoned for less than altruistic reasons.