So how is this fair to the ones with just two or one or none? Won't there be some one-upping in the schoolyard? ("I've got a daddy and two mommies! Nah, nah, nah-nah-hah! How many do you have?")
Aren't these kids going to get more birthday and Christmas presents than all the other kids? Won't they get more attention and love? Somehow it doesn't seem fair to the others.
I recommend that we form some kind of bureaucratic body to ensure the rights of the parentally-disadvantaged. We need to ensure that these children do not feel socially marginalized.
Perhaps a Foster Extra-Parent Foundation. Something along the line of Big Brothers and Big Sisters, but with a lot more money thrown at it by the taxpayer. I'm sure there's a government boondoggle out there somewhere ready to take up the cause.
Maybe it would give the Court Challenges Program folks something to do.
* * * *
Update: Call for Federal Marriage Commission. (This is all beginning to sound oddly familiar. Ontario courts legislate social changes; government puts the seal of approval on it.)
14 comments:
Panic?
I think not.
Put it this way.
Welcome to Dalton's two tier Ontario, where the natural is illegal and the unnatural is legal.
Can't wait for that provincial election.
Can't wait for that provincial election.
Who would you vote for? The Anyone-But-Dalton party?
Hey, as long as they all love each other, right?
Well, on the plus side, the father is involved in the child's life, which is better than in the situation of an anonymous sperm donor.
I'm just not sure what the implications would be in the event of a divorce.
im trying to wrap my brain around this and please forgive me as I'm thinking outloud.
I'm a conservative, yet SSM is not an issue for me. I'm not gay, don't get that at all, but who am I to stop a couple who want to marry and have the same rights as I?
but i dont get the idea of multiple parents. Adoption, for instance. In order for someone to adopt a child, the biological parent has to give up their rights. You can say you have biological parents and adoptive parents, but under the law, the the two parents you have are listed on the adoption certificate- the adoptive parents.
In the case of divorce and re-marriage, the child has a step-parent, but unless the biological parent gives up their parental rights, the step-parent has no legal rights to the child (am I correct on this? Not sure...)
Anyway, with this ruling what happens with these two scenarios? Would people be able to adopt a child, while the biological parent still having legal rights to it? Does a step parent now legally become the third parent?
Does this ruling now make it possible for these things to happen?
I get that a child can never have enough love- but how does this ruling change the love he gets right now from his biological parents and the additional woman?
Or from his mothers and the additional man?
Anon- Thanks for voicing all your thoughts. First of all, to those who said that gay marriage has happened and the sky didn't fall yet, I say it is falling - but in very incremental steps.
There are a variety of levels to this issue and one is the fact that these types of decisions are being made by courts; not by our elected government.
Also, just has you have mentioned, there is a myriad of various scenarios that could arise from this judgement. It doesn't seem very well thought out at all.
BTW, at least one of the legal groups that fought for this is closely backed by the gay rights activists, which is not at all surprising.
The present 'convoluted legalise' of the courts insisting on "driving the square peg into the round hole" will ever make it out the other side. Repercussions going forward would naturally point to burgeoning "gender confusion" in the rising generation. The child's/children's rights for all intents and purposes have not been considered in this judgment despite the affidavit presented by the 12 year old. Only the legal status of the "concerned parents" have been established, and no consideration of any inappropriate influences (lesbian parents present as norm for sexual model for this child) has been taken into account in this decision.
And these circumstances are multiplying in the population since SSM came into law.
And slowly Joanne reveals her bigotry....
There we have it. Typical Liberal thinking in all it's glory. Anyone who believes that the institution of marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman must by definition be a bigot. The morals and social values that have served this country well since it's inception mean for naught. We truely are losing our way in this mess of political correctness.
My head hurts from trying to make sense of this crazy world sometimes.
Time for a bath.
By the way, as much as I loved my parents, one of each was enough for me. :-)
By the way, as much as I loved my parents, one of each was enough for me. :-)
Oh man. There's the other side of the story! When this poor kid is in the "sandwich generation", he's going to have three elderly parents to worry about! He's better start saving now.
There's also a new business for someone in the therapy business. :-) There's a whole new branch of study that will evolve in the liberal universities. You will be able to get your Bachelors, Masters and Doctorate in the specialty of multi-parented children.
There will be studies that will show how these children are much brighter than the traditional two-parent family, how more open-minded and worldly.
Even if a person voices their reservations about said changes in the laws, who listens???
Joanne writes: BTW, at least one of the legal groups that fought for this is closely backed by the gay rights activists, which is not at all surprising.
And another of the intervenors who fought against this judgment was the Alliance for Marriage and Family, which is not at all surprising either.
Anonymous (03:45:24 PM) writes: Anyway, with this ruling what happens with these two scenarios? Would people be able to adopt a child, while the biological parent still having legal rights to it? Does a step parent now legally become the third parent?Does this ruling now make it possible for these things to happen?
No, this ruling was specific to the appellants and respondents' lives. In the end, all the happened was that the appellant was granted her order stating that, in the eyes of the law, she has the legal rights with respect to the child (identified as "D.D.") as any other parent with respect to their own kid(s).
The judgment hasn't overruled or rewritten any existing legislation, though it has pointed out a gap in the CLRA that may lead the Ontario Government to amend it (and/or other family law statutes). Contrary to claims, it has not "rewritten the definition of family in Canada" nor has it enabled absurd scenarios like 17 dads and 25 moms. It has established a precedent in Ontario case law, which may or may not impact rulings in other jurisdictions (or even in subsequent applications for similar orders in Ontario, for that matter) but it hasn't bound the government to act in any way.
Anonymous (06:10:45 PM): Repercussions going forward would naturally point to burgeoning "gender confusion" in the rising generation.
Studies on the development of children raised by same-sex parents (a reality that predates same-sex marriage by some years, allowing sufficient time for such studies to be conducted) have discerned no developmental anomalies. Larger studies still need to be conducted, but early data suggest this particular fear is overblown.
The child's/children's rights for all intents and purposes have not been considered in this judgment despite the affidavit presented by the 12 year old. Only the legal status of the "concerned parents" have been established...
I disagree. In rendering his judgment, Justice Rosenberg cited several real and practical reasons for granting the order, all focused on the best interests of the child. These included:
- giving the child stability ("the declaration of parentage is a lifelong immutable declaration of status; it allows the parent to fully participate in the child’s life");
- protecting the child's property rigths ("the declaration ensures that the child will inherit on intestacy"); and
- legally enabling the day-to-day functions of a parent ("the declared parent may obtain an OHIP card, a social insurance number, airline tickets and passports for the child; the declared parent may register the child in school; and, the declared parent may assert her rights under various laws such as the Health Care Consent Act").
This last one is particularly important, as it may be invoked in life-or-death situations involving the child.
In fact, the entire judgment proceeded on the parens patriae function of the Court, which justifies direct state intervention when taken in the best interests of a child.
...and no consideration of any inappropriate influences (lesbian parents present as norm for sexual model for this child) has been taken into account in this decision.
Again, the research suggests that these influences are far from "inappropriate," and there is really not much to take into account. Indeed, the American Psychology Association issued a policy statement in 2004 stating that "research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish."
The judgment hasn't overruled or rewritten any existing legislation, though it has pointed out a gap in the CLRA that may lead the Ontario Government to amend it.
And Roy McMurtry had a hand in causing that "gap" in the first place.
Post a Comment