A country can be destroyed in several ways. None of ways can be accomplished quickly except total defeat in war. One way to destroy a country is to destroy its culture. By culture, I mean the country’s founding values; its harmonizing and cohering principles, understandings, assumptions—spoken and unspoken—and its historical legacy. Destroying a country by destroying its culture is a long term process. The destruction may take generations. However, the destruction in any given generation can be accelerated, magnified, accelerated.
Generations do not have collective memories based on anything other than what each person in the collective generation has been taught. There is no genetic code or DNA that transmits values, generally, or cultural values, specifically. Each generation must be taught the values and culture of its country.
Significant historians have argued that countries decline more by what is referred to as suicide rather than by being conquered externally. It is the domestic rot, the loss of confidence and, ultimately, laziness, indifference and the rise of shrill self-styled victim groups who attain outsized leverage against an exhausted, insular and passive minority.
The following article on proposed California legislation to change the definition of ‘parent’ and allow a child to legally have more than two is illustrative of a force that destroys a culture. Rationalizations for such a change always exist. Indeed, rationalizations for destroying a culture can exist. Some cultures, perhaps, should be destroyed. Some changes in culture, perhaps, should be implemented. The arguments can go on for eternity, with some made prudently and with a noble purpose; others made deceitfully, in bad faith and maliciously.
To me, the change in the number of parents a child may legally have is radical. It represents a social transformation and raises the question: is the transformation good? What criteria shall we use to answer the question? I offer my criteria: is the change good for the child? All else is secondary or irrelevant. I see no benefit to the child and I see numerous detriments, some of a proportion that will destroy a child’s life.
Here are highlights from the article. In some instances, I critique some parts of the article. Here is the link to the full article: http://jewishworldreview.com/0712/multiple_parents_1_kid.php3
California bill would allow a child to have more than two parents
By Jim Sanders
alt=m border=0 v:shapes=”_x0000_s1026″>SACRAMENTO — (MCT) Beaver had June and Ward.
Ricky had Ozzie and Harriet.
Mom and Dad, same-sex couples or blended families, California law is clear: No more than two legal parents per child.
When adults fight over parenthood, a judge must decide which two have that right and responsibility — but that could end soon.
State Sen. Mark Leno is pushing legislation to allow a child to have multiple parents.
“The bill brings California into the 21st century, recognizing that there are more than Ozzie and Harriet families today,” the San Francisco Democrat said.
Surrogate births, same-sex parenthood and assisted reproduction are changing society by creating new possibilities for nontraditional households and relationships.
Benjamin Lopez, legislative analyst for the Traditional Values Coalition, blasted Leno’s bill as a new attempt to “revamp, redefine and muddy the waters” of family structure by a leader in the drive to legalize gay marriage.
“It comes as no surprise that he would try to say that a child has more than two parents — that’s absurd,” said Lopez, whose group calls itself a leading voice for Bible-based values.
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.
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.
The key factor is a child’s best interest: SB 1476 does not force judges to do anything, it only provides them with discretion to recognize multiple parents if doing so not only is beneficial, but is required for a child’s well-being, Leno said.
MGS: the pressures on a judge to appease aggressive interest groups will be enormous. Few judges will have the backbone to stand up to those pressures. Also, many judges, particularly in California, will be adherents to the ideology that legitimizes the discretion and which undermines the culture. The discretion component, thus, will be more illusory than real
Tax deductions, citizenship, probate, public assistance, school notifications and Social Security rights all can be affected by determinations of parenthood, notes the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists.
MGS: these points are vital: the impact of manipulating family composition on free or subsidized services will be considerable and will have substantial costs. Incentives will be made to structure families to maximize social benefits. The family becomes, thus, a scamming system.
“This bill, in our opinion, if passed, will cause significant unintended consequences,” said Diane Wasznicky, the group’s president and a family law attorney in Sacramento.
MGS: I am always skeptical of the argument about unintended consequences. My bet is that every consequence has been thoroughly analyzed and that the so-called unintended consequences are fully intended by some interest groups.
Assemblyman Donald Wagner, an Irvine Republican who opposes SB 1476, noted it could spark litigation, say, in a case of a wrongful death of a child with four potential parents and determining who has a claim.
MGS: excellent point. And is each parent rewarded for the loss? Litigation costs and social / private sector costs will soar. There are no limiting principles. Judges will be required to resolve innumerable vague areas in the legislation, giving judges unbridled power and burdening courts
Karen Anderson, of the California Protective Parents Association, said the legislation could result in a child being bounced among multiple adults in a bitter family breakup.
“It’s hard enough for children to be split up two ways, much less multiple ways,” she said.
Attorney Catherine Sakimura of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, a co-sponsor of SB 1476, said judges would be required under the bill to consider a child’s stability in awarding custody and visitation.
SB 1476 states that concerns about child stability “may mean that not all parents share legal or physical custody.”
MGS: this argument has no merit. It is pure sophistry and intended to deceive. Every aspect of a judge’s decision is subject to appeal. Litigation will be unending and expensive. Interest groups arguing ‘principle’ but with no vested interest in the interests of the child or children will be able to manipulate litigation.
Wasznicky counters that it makes no sense to declare someone a parent, essential to a youngster’s well-being, but then “cut that person out” of the kid’s life.
“Either someone is vital enough in a child’s life to be labeled a ‘parent’ and have certain rights and obligations to the child, or the person is not,” she contends.
Ellen Pontac, a Davis, Calif., gay-rights activist, said she and her wife, Shelly Bailes, each had two children when they began their relationship 38 years ago. She understands how someone can function as a child’s parent but accrue no legal rights. Government should accommodate changing times, she said.
“I just think that people should be able to create their own lives,” she said.
MGS: This argument is made in bad faith. What does ‘changing times’ mean? Here government is not accommodating changing times. Here government is changing the times. The assertion that ‘people should be able to create their own lives’ is disingenuous at best and malicious at worst. People should not be able to ‘create their own lives’ when that creation destroys children’s lives. And there is no creation of their own lives. Ms. Pontac is demanding that government—the executive branch—change the rules about the lives and then government—the judiciary—impose rules, mandates, accommodations, infused with judge’s own biases, prejudices, stupidity, at times, in order to favor some created lives at the expense or to the detriment of other’s created lives. The selfishness and superficiality of Ms. Pontac is stunning. Beyond stunning, there is a hint of viciousness inherent in her glib willingness to manipulate children to achieve political ends.
Children are hurt and a culture is destroyed.
Happy Fourth of July!