Heather Has How Many Mommies?

A California bill could allow judges to recognize more than two parents. 

Stories like this about continuing to change the family gets me to thinking about the roots of the idea.  And the fundamental idea we need to keep defending. The reason people can propose such a bill – and all sorts of other things these days – is because the fundamental idea of family has changed.  And we've accepted the idea that sex is not intrinsically related to marriage and children.

I'm sure there are further antecedents, but it seems to me one of the fundamental disjunctions between sex and reproduction was birth control in the 60s, hailed by feminists because women no long risked the "burden" of children when having sex.  Birth control allowed people to think of sex without the consequence of reproduction.  With that risk managed, sex and marriage became detached. Also in the 60s, no-fault divorce became common.  Legally, marriage was no longer a lifelong contract that required sufficient reason to void.  If you didn't love someone anymore, divorce.  So marriage became about love, not commitment.

Of course, we end up with children born out of wedlock and the idea became accepted that two parents weren't necessary.  Feminism touted the idea that there were no differences between men and women, so why would a child need two parents – or parents of each sex?  They're interchangeable. 

When we've walked this far, marrying whomever we love and mix-and-match parents don't seem very outlandish. 

Ideas have consequences.  I think very often we're fighting skirmishes over ideas that fit in a bigger picture.  And we have to go back to the roots and talk about family and how sex, marriage, and children are best served in that natural and God-given unit.

Comments

[BillyHW]

You might be interested in this Melinda:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

[RonH]

Some of the situations where a judge might want to recognize more that 2 parents are not new.

The story mentions an example: "a man who married a woman while she was pregnant with another man's child, who also maintained his role a father." Did the OP read the story?

The law is overdue.

Whether the situation is new, old, planned, or unplanned, if the judge thinks 3 parents are best for the child, then she should be able to recognize 3 parents.

It's a SHAME that anyone would be against such a bill.

[Jojo]

It is a shame that anyone is against marriages with more than 2 people.

[Maria]

Didn't Jesus have two daddies?

[Sam]

It's a SHAME anybody would be FOR such a bill. Parental rights, ideally, are divided equally between parents. When you have sex with somebody, you are choosing who the other parent will be. But if that parent can marry whoever they want, and that person can become the legal parent of your kid, then you will be forced to divide your parental rights with somebody you did not choose to be the parent of your child. That's just wrong.

[RonH]

Sam,

You seem to anticipate only situations where "you will be forced to divide your parental rights".

What about situations where the parties and the judge all agree that it is in a child's best interest to allow a third person to consent to medical care or make other decisions for a child?

You would tie the judge's hand? To what end?

RonH

[Louis Kuhelj]

RonH

Thanks. I already have to deal with people behaving like jerks and you want more of them. Well, there is one good thing about it, I'm learning patience and coping skills that can make ME a better human being, but it is not good to have more of these folks shot because someone else will not put up with them. Yeah, let's just keep doing things started in the 60s in social experiments on the marriage. At least it will keep a good supply of what bleeds leading in the news so that everyone can keep saying how they knew the guy and never thought he would go on a rampage. I know that you won't make the connection Ron. Too bad for you and the victims of the next rampaging malcontent produced by a malfunctioning Frankenstein family experiment.

[Sam]

RonH, I wouldn't object so strongly in that case, but I haven't thought about it that much.

[squallybimbadine]

Maria,

Really? I needed a good example of inappropriate. Thanks for providing it.

[Maria]

I don't see what's inappropriate as pointing out that Jesus had two daddies. This is an important part of the historic Christian faith. There's nothing "inappropriate" about the about the historic Christian faith!

[Mo]

@ Maria -

I don't know if you are being serious, joking, or deliberately causing trouble.

There is no parallel to be had between God the Father and Joseph, and two people of the same sex raising children and living in a manner that God's Word says is an abomination. None whatsoever.

[Maria]

Why do fundamentalists always have to turn these discussions towards sex?! Parenting about so much more than just sex. It's way past time to bring your sinful and perverse natures under the Lordship of Christ. Let's be perfectly clear: God did not have "sex" with the Mary--whatever that would even mean. So get your minds out of the gutter.

[Bill]

Maria,

Did Jesus have two daddies?

[Maria]

Don't take my word for it; read the New Testament. Although one hesitates to say it these days--with everyones' mind in the gutter, and fundamentalists always turning this into a discussion about having sex--a strong case can also be made that Jesus had more than one mommy: Matthew 12:46-50.

[Mo]

@ Maria - What on earth point are you attempting to make?

[Maria]

That Jesus had two daddies and many mommies, that there is nothing perverse about that, and that fundamentalists have a perverted tendency to turn issues like this into discussions about sex acts.

[Bill]

And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. (Matthew 23:9 ESV).

[Maria]

Have you followed Christ in this teaching, Bill? How so?

[Bill]

Yep!

[Bill]

I was reborn and God is my father.

[Maria]

What of your other "father"? Did you thereafter entirely cease to call him your father?

[Bill]

No, but I am aware of the difference. Plus, he passed away about 12 years ago.

[Maria]

I guess I don't see your point then.

[Bill]

If you compare Jesus to man by saying He had two daddies then you are saying that His situation was just like a situation that occurs when people split up and have baby mama and baby daddy as a result. That is irreverent. At best, Joseph was a guardian and Mary's husband. Jesus was the Son of God. Yes He was all man and all God at the same time, but tell me of someone else who can make that claim. Obviously no one can, so it has to not be the same thing.

[Maria]

Obviously you've got some things to think though Bill. You apparently think that your earthly father wasn't your father, that you have more than one mommy, and that Joseph wasn't Jesus' father. Is it all that strange, then, for someone else to have two mommies?

[Bill]

Spiritual rebirth is at the heart of our debate not the original post (directly). You have to define the word father. I didn't say I had more than one mommy. You can't have more than one "mommy". Siamese twins? No, Siamese mommies. Really? If I have so much to think through then maybe you could help me since you understand it all. And finally Joseph did not "father" Jesus.

[Maria]

"You can't have more than one "mommy"."

Sorry Jesus, Bill thinks you're wrong.

[Bill]

?

[Maria]

A little memory lapse, eh? Let me assist:

Don't take my word for it; read the New Testament. Although one hesitates to say it these days--with everyones' mind in the gutter, and fundamentalists always turning this into a discussion about having sex--a strong case can also be made that Jesus had more than one mommy: Matthew 12:46-50.

[Bill]

That was obviously a reference to a spiritual family. Not the same reference as in the California bill. If you define what you mean by mommy and daddy then I can know what you are saying. That's what I was saying before. Spiritual rebirth is at the heart of our debate.

[Maria]

Bill, you're error is to engage in ad hoc stipulations on how family relations should be defined and qualified. If Jesus meant to say something only metaphorical about "spiritual" mommies, he presumably could have made that clear. Stop trivializing the Word of God.

[Bill]

No, the Bible is the standard I use to determine how family relations should be defined. Your error is to be misinformed about the teachings of the Bible and then assume you are arguing against my opinion. It wasn't metaphorical it was actually about the spiritual adoption into the family of God. The trivialization occurred in your reference to the family of Jesus being the result of a court case.

[Maria]

Bill, you are deeply confused. You only think that the Bible is your standard. You are actually reading into the Bible your own opinions, your own qualifications about what Jesus meant. But you should rather just respect what Jesus actually said-without trying to explain it away with metaphor. In so doing you trivialize the words of Jesus. Your argument is not with me but with the Holy Scriptures.

[Bill]

Expound the true meaning for us oh wise one.

[Maria]

Just read the Bible, Bill. Acknowledge what it straightforwardly says. Repent and follow its teachings. These are things that I cannot do for you.

[Bill]

This has been fun, but I'm all out of time. Take care.

[Carolyn]

Maria: Seriously? Scary.

[Maria]

What is it that's even controversial?

That Jesus had two daddies and many mommies, that there is nothing perverse about that, and that fundamentalists have a perverted tendency to turn issues like this into discussions about sex acts.

[Bill]

Maria

You're delusional.

[Carolyn]

Maria: In another thread you wrote, "Don't blame others when they dismiss what you write as the written equivalent of noise." So apt.