published Thursday, July 5th, 2012

Tina has four mommies?

With the nurturing of children having become an afterthought to many parents' pursuit of their own fulfillment through divorce, affairs or what have you, it is painfully unsurprising that California lawmakers are considering legislation to let more than two adults be the recognized, legal parents of a child.

"The bill brings California into the 21st century, recognizing that there are more than Ozzie-and-Harriet families today," said state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco -- as if the burden of proving they are good for children were on traditional families rather than on broken or bizarrely "blended" ones.

"Under Leno's bill, if three or more people who acted as parents could not agree on custody, visitation and child support, a judge could split those things up among them," The Sacramento Bee reported.

Contemplate that for a moment, if you can stomach it. It can be exceedingly unstable if not disastrous when a child is torn between two feuding parents and shuttled back and forth between them. Under what scenario is it to a child's benefit to be a pawn in a selfish game among, say, four "parents"? Even in the unlikely event that all four people had the child's best interests at heart, such a dilution of parental responsibility is a recipe for an insecure, unhappy childhood.

Oh, but then this is not really about what's best for the child. Look at the genesis of the proposed law, which already has passed in the California Senate: "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."

Do the actions of those individuals make them sound like people who understand the self-sacrifice -- the putting aside of their own desires and their own demands for fulfillment -- that is involved in raising children? Scarcely.

We can keep pushing various envelopes in this craven new world we seem to want to move toward. But it is inviting social catastrophe. And we don't seem to give a rip.

15
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Easy123 said...

Social catastrophe?

You folks at the Free Press need to lighten up. How does this affect anyone other than the parties involved? Oh wait, IT DOESN'T!

The social catastrophe occurs when people think they have the right to tell others what to do or how to act.

July 5, 2012 at 12:07 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Certainly almost any number of parents should be better than one. Single parents have an almost impossible task...and after all it takes a village to raise a child.

July 5, 2012 at 12:45 a.m.
conservative said...

Only the most despicable would condone and encourage the shuffling of an impressionable and helpless child from one decadent "parent" to another!

July 5, 2012 at 7:58 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

Only the most despicable would condone and encourage the religious indoctrination of an impressionable and helpless child by its' "parents".

July 5, 2012 at 8:29 a.m.

Easy123 said: "The social catastrophe occurs when people think they have the right to tell others what to do or how to act."

I agree completely. Down with Obamacare. It is a social catastrophe. They shouldn't be allowed to force us to do anything.

Am I right. or does your belief in freedom only extend to what you approve of?

July 5, 2012 at 12:51 p.m.
Easy123 said...

FPSE,

You aren't forced to do anything. Don't buy insurance. You'll just pay a penalty.

Why aren't you applying the same logic to state and federal taxes? They make you pay for food at the grocery store too! OMG!

Obamacare will help millions. If you have insurance, you have nothing to worry about. Even if you don't, you still have nothing to worry about. Buy it or don't. Your choice.

July 5, 2012 at 1:44 p.m.

I pay for food at the grocery store because I want that food. I am not forced to buy it, I choose to buy it.

I am forced to pay a penalty.. Isn't that being forced to do something? You don't make sense.

July 5, 2012 at 1:52 p.m.
dao1980 said...

Don't buy food..

July 5, 2012 at 1:58 p.m.
Easy123 said...

You're forced to pay taxes too.

It seems like all you are doing is whining.

And, as dao is implying, there is a penalty for not buying food. You starve and die. Strange concept! Your own body is forcing you to do something! Are you against that too?

July 5, 2012 at 1:59 p.m.

I could grow my own food or trap it or just steal from you. There is always another choice.

July 5, 2012 at 2:09 p.m.

Sounds like all you are doing easy is trying to cover how you screwed up by saying this: "The social catastrophe occurs when people think they have the right to tell others what to do or how to act." So do you support that statement or not? All of the arguments you have been making don't seem to be supportive of it.

July 5, 2012 at 2:14 p.m.
Easy123 said...

I didn't screw up. I have insurance. I haven't been told what to do. I've given several explanations for how I do not believe that Obamacare is making anyone do anything. You still have a choice.

I haven't made any contrary arguments. I know you would like to make it look like I have but you would be wrong. If you cannot grasp or do not accept my reasoning then that is your problem. I have been very clear.

July 5, 2012 at 2:44 p.m.
dao1980 said...

How ya gonna have time to go to work and earn that dollah in order to afford the nicer things that technology and human developments have to offer, as well as affording already grown or trapped, then prepared-for-you food?.. if you are spending all of your time with the growing, trapping, and stealing of.. food.

Though I must admit, I do often fantasize about leaving it all behind and getting back to the basics of survival.

Ahh, wouldn't it be nice to spend a days work just getting by, living off the land, and not dealing with all of the monotonous nonsense of modern life.. and taxes.

July 5, 2012 at 2:51 p.m.

Not for me. I choose to go to the grocery store. They have everything I want there. I would rather someone else grow the food in exchange for the money I earn doing something else. That is the point. I choose to buy my food from someone else. It is a choice. Noone is dictating which way I get my food. There is no "social catastrophe" involved.

July 5, 2012 at 3:29 p.m.
dao1980 said...

Well, I guess we could whittle the idea of a "choice" down to the bare bone, and say that next breath isn't really necessary.

Of course, no social catastrophe pending there.

July 5, 2012 at 3:40 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.