By CAMILLE GIGLIO and WILLIAM MAYER
Preamble: The family, as an institution, is under attack by the left. It is a coordinated effort to destroy the key social structure holding society together. These ideologues understand that they can't succeed politically, i.e., are unable to fully implement its plan of a top down autocratic command economy, unless they markedly weaken the current culture or reduce it to rubble first. This is a central element in their strategic thinking. They also realize that this process can be greatly aided by linguistic manipulation, in this case expanding the meaning of "family," to the point where it becomes so vague that the word no longer has any meaning.
The historical record, as far as it exists, indicates that the family as a basic organizational unit - variously configured - was the central mechanism whereby humans became civilized. The family unit knows no boundaries, it is entirely cross cultural and was seen in every human society, from prehistoric times to the present - it's a constant. The family unit was always geared towards procreation, hence it is inherently a relationship between males and females, though the exact composition can and did vary according to sometimes very complex kinship rules.
There is a voluminous body of evidence to support this contention, developed primarily by cultural anthropologists. [see, George Peter Murdock, Social structure New York: Macmillan. 1949, "The family is a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation, and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults.", [additionally, please refer to, Pierre van den Berg, The Human Family Systems, an Evolutionary View, 1979, Elsevier.
July 24, 2012 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - Leftist attempts at re-engineering the entire concept of the traditional family is in the news again and under continued assault from Sacramento Democrats. The state's newspapers are littered with tactically placed articles extolling the virtues of "non-traditional," families, representing them as being normatively equivalent to male/female parentage.
One example of legislative efforts along these lines comes from California State Senator Mark Leno’s [D-SF] AB 1476 - dealing very broadly [and with intended vagueness in certain critical areas] with parentage. If this bill gets signed by the Governor, not only will California's children have the opportunity to have two mommies or two daddies, they could have three “natural” mommies or 4 natural daddies. They could end up with a whole slew of half brothers and sisters and quadrupled numbers of grandparents - a veritable forest of expanding family trees.
Though Leno claims this is all being done in the best interests of the children, one wonders if this isn’t an agenda inspired by the greeting card industry? Picture a future Mother’s Days littered with a blizzard of cardboard hearts and trite poetry offered to multiple moms.
This could well represent a potential gold mine for Hallmark and its ilk - not that we have a bone to pick with this respected American company.
Acerbic observations aside this phenomenon is part of a long-term trend which is designed for one end, to destroy another piece of the traditional social structure. This doesn't just pertain to the United States, as alluded to in this piece's preamble.
Troubling development: British scientists are seeking approval for experimenting with combining the DNA of three persons to create one child; one sperm donor and two egg donors, to weed out defective genes. Shades of eugenics, detached of course from its now fading Nazi associations.
What to do? Is this so important that we have no alternative but to fight it with every legal and morally sound tool at our disposal?
Or do we roll over like your daughter's dead goldfish?
The opponents of SB 1476 claim that there should be a limit placed on the number of, say, daddies that a child can have. Regardless of numbers, what will be the long run ramifications of such changes?
This manner of social engineering legislation is always craftily assembled, not in furtherance of clarity but exactly the opposite, the intent then is to make the statute so vague and overly broad that it will fall to the leftist CA court system, with the trusty 9th Circuit [the district whose decisions are most overturned upon appeal] standing in the wings, to - rather than interpret the vague prose - actually rewrite the legislation according to its anti-family bias.
To underline, this is by design.
Legislation like Leno's AB 1476, especially upon judicial review [such as it is in California] will open the door to mischief on an unprecedented scale.
1. Will there be a limit on how many children each male can be legally designated, "daddy?"
2. In CA and other "progressive" states [as these matters arise] could daddy actually be a female by birth?
3. Might this be a back door for the state’s right to limit the number of children brought into the world? We just can't have "stray" children out there with only one mommy and daddy. That’s just so provincial, so American.
4. What if this in vitro child - upon whom all these parent's time, money and hope has been invested doesn’t become the brilliant scientist/pianist, whatever, that was promised?
5. Will they be able to declare the child a lemon and force the manufacturer to take it back, or worse yet if the genetic markers are wrong, legally abort it in the 7th month of gestation? If there are three "parents," will this be voted on, with a 2-1 decision being recognized as legally binding? So, sorry daddy #1 you lose, here's a gift card. Now run along, there's nothing happening here of your concern.
6. Will tort law be expanded to allow these parents to become eligible for a portion of the child’s future earnings as a reward for their investment?
One imagines the sounds of knives being sharpened.
Thus the child, a thing of blood, bone and soul is reduced to a commodity, the worst possible form of human debasement.
This proposition is not just wrong, problematic or questionable.
It is morally evil - this can only end in a hellish Orwellian Brave New World.
Leno says that part of his bill’s purpose is to ensure that there will be a more secure financial backup support should one or more parent renege on the contract. What about when all these mommies or daddies become dependent, irascible senior citizens and need the child’s financial and emotional support? How warm and cozy is that relationship going to be?
If mommie #1 and mommie #3 go their separate ways, who gets the child? What if all three mommies break up? Will same-sex divorce decrees require each partly owned child to spend one week with each Mommy in consecutive order?
Supposedly each named parent will be financially responsible for the child’s upkeep. Will one or more parent be only a financial parent, sort of a behind the scenes investor?
Sacramento's Democrat elite are designing bleak futures for families, children, religion, education and jobs. Though one might think that there is no rhyme or reason to this process, that appearance is deceiving - these people know exactly what they want. They desire a society remodeled upon their own lofty conception of what is right, just, fair and moral.
This is evidence of what Hanna Arendt characterized as attributes of the totalitarian mindset.
" The trouble with totalitarian regimes is not that they play power politics in an especially ruthless way, but that behind their politics is hidden an entirely new and unprecedented concept of power, just as behind their Realpolitik lies an entirely new and unprecedented concept of reality. Supreme disregard for immediate consequences rather than ruthlessness; rootlessness and neglect of national interests rather than nationalism; contempt for utilitarian motives rather than unconsidered pursuit of self-interest; "idealism," i.e., their unwavering faith in an ideological fictitious world, rather than lust for power—these have all introduced into international politics a new and more disturbing factor than mere aggressiveness would have been able to do." [source, Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism]
No matter how much the legislators want to play house with everyone else's life, human nature will have its revenge at some point. The end product will not be the pretty planned ant-farm world the bureaucrats envision.
Unfortunately, SB 1476 is currently in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations with a huge stack of other, mostly controversial bills. It may be heard on or about August 6 when the legislators come back from recess. This will be the last stop before the Assembly floor vote after which it will go to the Governor’s desk.
Some specifics on this very bad piece of legislation:
AB 1476 [hereafter 1476] is apparently being driven, with Leno only being its carrier, primarily by hard core leftist social manipulators and radical sexual activists [note: we are not here in any way referring to non-heterosexuals who have no interest in politically advancing a particular sexual lifestyle]. The intent of this bill is to restructure the state’s marriage and parenting laws in order to destroy the traditional nuclear family.
Toward that end, Leno has partnered with the National Center For Lesbian Rights and the University of San Diego Law Center, to co-author 1476 - Family Law: Parentage. You are reading this correctly, non-legislators are actually assembling large parts of this bill.
1476 seeks to establish, within California’s version of the National Uniform Parentage Act, the right of a child to have more than two “natural” legal parents at the same time. Leno claims that this is in the best interests of the child. He also adds that It would help keep the child out of foster care and off the state’s welfare rolls.
Let's contemplate that for a moment, contrast a foster home where in the great majority of cases a child is actually wanted not for the purposes of being manipulated, against a "new age" home, with innumerable mothers, fathers, grandparents, half brothers, half sisters, three attorneys on retainer and a retired judge to advise this brood as to the legal ramification of each contemplated action.
The bad news for 1476 - representing an opportunity for the forces of traditionalism and sanity to prevail - the number of the bill’s official supporters keeps dropping while its opponents continue to rise.
Those opposing this bill such as the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists argue that there are unintended consequences [meaning unknown] which could be financially burdensome to the courts, let alone having the probability of destroying people's lives
This group suggests that it would require new regulations dividing and defining child support obligations; where the child would reside, who would have primary decision-making authority, the amount of time each parent could legally have with the child. They further argue that “the current statewide guidelines [Uniform Parentage Laws] does not now have the computer system applications available to handle more than two parents..."
Yes that is correct, the future of your family will be determined by the California version of the HAL 9000.
"Sorry Dave, I can't let you do that."
If this isn't insanity, it's indistinguishable from the real thing.
1476 might also affect, according to the Family Law Specialists, other areas of federal and state law, including citizenship, tax-deductions and social security. Most importantly this organization expresses the concern that “this bill does not provide for any limitation of these potential parents."
Again the vagueness of this legislation is there for a purpose, and it isn't altruistic.
In the penumbra of all this planning stands the forgotten child who will have to cope with the legal consequences of laws entirely beyond their control, the nature of which will be in constant flux according to the current state of judicial review.
A question for which Leno’s office could not provide and answer was, how many children will a legally defined natural parent be allowed to have? Will it be one child, two children, twelve children?
Leno’s office referred us to [you guessed it] an attorney to provide that answer. Yes, the courts will decide for you, now run along to your worker-bee job, you don't want to be late for mandatory calisthenics.
Thus is proven the assertion that these people are unwilling to state the real impact of this bill - they know what effect it will have, but they don't want the voter to know. You just have to trust them, after all they are looking out for you.
For the better part of a generation we have witnessed an all out attack on the traditional family unit and other social institutions always justified on the shaky ground of perceived social justice, fairness and equality. New coupling arrangements are only the latest aspect of this effort.
Predictably the legacy media weighs in, both barrels firing. Magically now, there appear on mainstream television, newspapers and in other forums, public polls [all the mechanisms whereby public perception is created and manipulated] over-the-top, calculatingly heart-warming and emotional/anecdotal fairy tales about how women and children are victimized by rigid, unbending, unfeeling patriarchal laws restricting their freedom of choice.
Of course Leno's 1476 and its brethren do their best to remove that choice and enforce a conformity in line with their moral relativism. They will decide, there is no appeal, unless of course you want a hearing before the 9th circuit's star chamber.
$100k up front please, these things cost money you know, filings, forms, depositions, discovery...
Leno claims this is all in the best interests of the children, but his office is already on the record as being unable to predict the legislation's full impact.
Will children be able to chose their own “natural” grandparents, cousins, uncles, not necessarily those with similar DNA?
Are we to believe that post 1476 each and every one of us will be able to construct a uniquely "relevant" pattern of kinship relationships.
1476 will yield one thing for certain - a complete societal disaster. This is nothing short of a soft totalitarianism and it's certainly not confined to California or other economically failed liberal states.
There is a movement in the UK, described in the California Healthline’s Report for July 16, 2012, in which British scientists are seeking approval for experimenting with combining the DNA of three persons to create one child; one sperm donor and two egg donors, to weed out defective genes.
Complexities stacked upon absurdities, there is literally no end to this until the entire scheme comes crashing down, or knowing that electoral redress will have rendered meaningless, active and violent resistance. It being a classic proposition in political theory that a citizenry denied representation is at a certain point forced to chose between servitude and rebellion.
Let us be clear, we are not by any means advocating such behavior, but a simply study of events in pre 1776 America should be enough to convince most that the human spirit, especially one forged within these continental boundaries, will not long be suppressed by faceless legislators operating on the public dime.
Again the question is posed, do we roll over?
The permutations of this sort of legislation are endless, they could fill a library and certainly if this measure is passed there will be entire wings of legal libraries devoted to case law revolving around 1476, you can take that to the sperm bank
This is serious stuff, folks. No one really knows the consequences of this invasive meddling.
Leno and his fellow "progressives," no let's put in correct ideological terms...Leno and his fellow neo-Marxists, are drunk with their own power and immune from the effective reach of the electorate.
These folks will NEVER tell voters what they actually think, nope, that would be a one way ticket to Podunkville. Worse yet, it would force them to get real jobs, not act as demi-gods. Consequently they spend the majority of their day lying their asses off.
This is all out moral warfare, conducted under cover of legalese too dense to penetrate and which is indecipherable even by its author - paraphrasing the words of Nancy Pelosi - "You have to pass 1476 to find out what's in it."
We don't think so, unfortunately California's spaghetti-spined [to use former Federal Prosecutor Andy McCarthy's witty coinage] GOP, there has and probably will be little resistance.. They seem content in the perennial losers corner, living off sops thrown to them by a benevolent Governor Brown.