Weblog Awards
Best Canadian Blog
2004 - 2007
Why this blog?
Until this moment I have been forced to listen while media and politicians alike have told me "what Canadians think". In all that time they never once asked.
This is just the voice of an ordinary Canadian yelling back at the radio -
"You don't speak for me."
homepage
email Kate
(goes to a private
mailserver in Europe)
I can't answer or use every tip, but all are appreciated!
Katewerk Art
Support SDA
I am not a registered charity. I cannot issue tax receipts.
Want lies?
Hire a regular consultant.
Want truth?
Hire an asshole.
The Pence Principle
Poor Richard's Retirement
Pilgrim's Progress
Trump The Establishment
There was a time in Ontario when insane asylums were a refuge for the infirm.
Now its hard to discern the judges who hand down idiotic decisions in Ontario from the former asylum inmates out on the streets.
At what point in time will some sane politician use the “notwithstanding clause” of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to stop looney judges from re-writing Canadian law?
Geez!
wait until the divorce happens . . . there’ll be more lawyers than flies around an outhouse.
It’s a GCF in the making, right before our very eyes
Reality was a Conservative concept, we’ve progressed well beyond that now.
I have applied for parenthood, and sole custody, of Jessica Alba, and since I suspect she may have been bad I’m gonna put her over my knee and……
Oh….you mean you have to actually KNOW the person before you can be declared a parent? No fair!
“The child is a bright, healthy, happy individual who is obviously thriving in a loving family that meets his every need,”
that is the heart of the judge’s decision. end of story.
Jeff, I’m sure that this child would be happy and thriving even if he didn’t have a birth certificate. One has absolutly nothing to do with the other. A birth certificate is nothing more than a piece of paper that says who a childs biological mother and father are. Unles a child is a clone, he will still only have one mother and one father.
mbaron
… political correctness gone mad!
Biological parenthood and socioeconomic parenthood can be two very different things. These changes that we are seeing are symptoms, I think, of a changing socioeconomic structure. I’m not sure of the nature of the society that we are changing into…
The notion of the nuclear family as the basic valid socioeconomic family – made up of a male/female adult set and their direct offspring actually developed in the West, and in particular rose with the market economy.
It was an extremely important development, for it enabled this ‘family set’ to emerge as the basic economic unit – and – because it was small, this family could migrate, could move off the feudal farm to the towns, could move out of farming and into production of goods and services. Could immigrate.
The nuclear family was the socioeconomic ‘set’ that greatly enabled the development of the industrial west. It was flexible and mobile. Its small size also encouraged diversity of thought and individualism. It is disappearing. What’s going on?
But it isn’t the only type of socioeconomic set. There are six basic types: Eskimo, Hawaiian, Iroquois, Crow, Ohmaha, Sudanese. Without going into detail (you can google) – these set up different types of families as socioeconomic units to raise the children and act as the basic economic unit in a society.
The Hawaiian, for example, sets up a ‘family’ where all adults in the extended family, ie our aunts, uncles) are your mother and father, and all children are your brother/sister. No nuclear family. The economic productivity of this family must include everyone, and the authoritative decisions of parenthood also include all the adults. It creates a society with less flexibility, less diversity, and more stability.
So, we are now seeing the disappearance of the dominant socioeconomic role of the nuclear family in our societies. But it isn’t one type of family mode that is emerging to take its place. I’m not sure what is emerging. I’ll bet that polygyny (one man with several wives) will be inevitable. Will polyandry also move in (one woman with several husbands)? Or are we doing that with serial marriages already? Remember, I’m speaking of socioeconomic units.
How does society retain the importance of individualism in a society that rejects that flexible nuclear family?
shit! never even thought of the headaches researching the family tree will have in the future!
yikers!
Yes, Pandoras Box is open now.
The only viable solution left is for the state to get out of the marriage business altogether. Let “marriage” be defined by ones’ church, or customs, and let the state provide the legal framework for civil contract only. We already have firm laws with regard to contract. We already have firm laws with regard to the care of children.
(Remember, lifetime heterosexual monogomany wasn’t perfect either, speaking from experience.)
Yes, the lawyers will swarm like flies… *sigh*
But the last thing to come out of Pandoras Box was – hope.
This decision is insane, but then it comes from a bunch of idiots making up the legal system of liberal Ont. Will those living in toronto ever wake up, or do they get great satisfaction in shocking the rest of the world. Dion and Duceppe have turned cdns into thinking Quebecers are cowards, and now we know now that most of Toronto is made up of idiots.
OT, but there is a poll in the g&m- What do you think of cdn TV and movies. So far, awful and extremely awful are ahead. 11% think it is good.
Ahh, that fabled slippery slope is here. Helped along by a case or 2 of grease.
Anything goes, do what feels good.
enough
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ……..only in Ontario….I agree with nemo2, but I want shared custody of Jessica Alba……LOL
Seriously….where do we find these social revisionists? Is there a special school for these idiots? This is another prime reason to have elected judges in this damn country!
I wanna marry an inflatable girl, just like the one that married deer old dad.
ANDY SUELTO’S DOG
Andy Suelto has a remarkable dog – an amiable big Labrador retriever named Rex.
Last winter, Andy’s rustic cabin in the interior of British Columbia burned to the ground. Andy may have smoked too much hemp that night or consumed too much of the “grape” but, in any event, he was sleeping deeply and would have surely perished if faithful Rex hadn’t made his way through the smoke and flames, dragged the man out of bed and guided him to safety.
Andy loves that dog – loves him and wants to marry him.
Sadly, the Marriage Act implies that marriage may be contracted only between certain two-legged mammals. Andy, with pro bono assistance from a flamboyant lawyer, is contesting this discriminatory situation in court. On the basis of recent judicial decisions, he believes that, when the case reaches the B.C. Court of Appeal, he will prevail.
Meanwhile, Andy and Rex have been appearing before various tribunals to demand that their relationship of mutual dependency be recognized by Andy’s employer for purposes of medical and dental coverage, pension benefits and compassionate leave. They are also pleading with Social Services for the right to adopt children. Almost everyone concerned is confident that the success of their various petitions is inevitable.
Jeff said at 4:07 pm
“The child is a bright, healthy, happy individual who is obviously thriving in a loving family that meets his every need,
that is the heart of the judge’s decision. end of story.”
So who is being “rewarded” here with the declaration that a child can have three parents? Since the child achieved his/her blissful state before having been declared the need to three parents, so that should have absolutely no bearing in the judgement… the real “end of story”.
This is just another case of the perversion of our values by Islam! Clearly, the Muslims are responsible for the decay of our essentially arbitrary social system. Where is Penny when we need her most?
What is next for us? Soon children will find themselves with 17 fathers and 23 mothers, some of whom may be snakes, or dogs, or, perhaps worst of all, cats. Pandora’s box has truely been opened!
Oh, many, many years ago
When I was twenty-three
I was married to a widow
Who was pretty as can be
This widow had a grown-up daughter
Who had hair of red
My father fell in love with her
And soon the two were wed
This made my dad my son-in-law
And changed my very life
For my daughter was my mother
‘Cause she was my father’s wife
To complicate the matter
Though it really brought me joy
I soon became the father
Of a bouncing baby boy
This little baby then became
A brother-in-law to Dad
And so became my uncle
Though it made me very sad
For if he was my uncle
Then that also made him brother
Of the widow’s grown-up daughter
WHo of course is my step-mother
Chorus
I’m my own grandpa
I’m my own grandpa
It sounds funny I know
But it really is so
Oh, I’m my own grandpa
My father’s wife then had a son
Who kept them on the run
And he became my grandchild
For he was my daughter’s son
My wife is now my mother’s mother
And it makes me blue
Because although she is my wife
She’s my grandmother too
Now if my wife is my grandmother
Then I’m her grandchild
And every time I think of it
It nearly drives me wild
For now I have become
The strangest case you ever saw
As husband of my grandma
I am my own grandpa
Courtesy of Dwight Latham and Moe Jaffe
End of story? NOT!
This decision’s all about adult wants, not children’s needs. It’s utterly selfish and delusional. Poor little kid.
So, if this partnership splits up–gay and lesbian relationships are, on average, less stable than heterosexual marriage relationships–I guess we’ll have to re-label “joint custody”: “split” custody? Will the child be required to adjust to spending time with three adults and their possible partners? (That makes 6 “parents”, not three. And what if there’s a further splintering? The possibilities are exponential. The mind boggles.)
But, as the dull, unimaginative mind of the judicial activist judge is already boggled, he/she sees none of this. (Neither, apparently, does Jeff.)
Judges, such as the eejit(s) who made this deplorable decision, should have to read the story of Solomon and the baby: when two women disputed who was the mother of a baby boy, and an agreement could not be reached, King Solomon, in his wisdom, threatened to cut the living child into two halves and give one half to each woman (1 Kings 3:25). When one woman said she would rather give up her claim than have the child killed, Solomon knew that SHE was the mother.
IMO, there are, in reality, no authentic adults here. If there were, this child would not be the pawn of such despicable, short-sighted self-indulgence. And, regarding the soft-headed, hard-hearted judicial decision in this case, doesn’t this just prove the aphorism, “The law’s an ass”?
I actually have a preference for my husband and brother-in-law’s extension of this saying, a perfect description of Canada’s immature, out-of-control, dangerous, unwise judicial overlords (and ladies): “an aggravation of assholes”!!
Gee Zog, I see nothing has changed in Lotus Land, err BC. Trouble is that there are enough lawyers out there that someone will run with this in order to make a name for themselves. The judicial system is also so far from reality that the case will probably expend a great deal of time, money and effort.
“Hi! I’m Larry. This is my mother Mom and my other mother Mom.”
They’re going to have to rewrite the definition of the word “mother”:
– mother (b) = mother, biological & birth
– mother (d) = mother, donor
– mother (s) = mother, surrogate
– mother (o) = mother, other
– mother (i) = mother, inanimate
I won’t bother with the definition of father.
Soon, we’ll have to have a new definition for the word definition. The future is going to be double-plus-good!
What I find most disturbing about this decision is that it was made by a single judge. Should not a situation of this magnitude be made by our elected officials after extensive research and debate?
There is no way anyone can convince me that the charter gives some retarded judge in Ontario the right to make a change of this magnitude. Cannot the government use the notwithstanding clause to tell this judge to fu#k off?
so we can differentiate between each member of the extended family.
okay so there is a mum and a dad and now a mom.
so if it was two male homosexuals and a mum could it be a dad and his lad and a mum? or a dad , his bum and a mom?
just asking.
how many perturbations of this could be had in Bountiful BC?
“So, if this partnership splits up….I guess we’ll have to re-label “joint custody”: “split” custody?”
No, I think joint custody sounds better since it brings up the mental image of a ‘joint’ being passed around.
I’m very disappointed in this judgment. One reason given was that the non-bio parent would have no standing if the bio-mom died and might lose custody of her son. I can’t see that happening if there was a written custody agreement.
I’m wondering how this will affect the child custody dispute out west where the bio-dad can’t get custody because the bio-mom gave the kid away to another couple. The bio-mom lied in the custody agreement and said she didn’t know who the dad was when she really did and test have proven paternity but still the father can’t get any form of custody but is now being sued for child support.
Did anybody here even read the Court of Appeal’s judgment?
mbaron: A birth certificate is nothing more than a piece of paper that says who a childs biological mother and father are. Unles a child is a clone, he will still only have one mother and one father.
Indeed, except that this judgment was never about rewriting D.D.’s birth certificate, which is a legal document reflecting biological parentage. The appellant, A.A., applied for a court order declaring that she is the mother of D.D., pursuant to s.4 of Part II of the Children’s Law Reform Act. The justice who received the application ruled that he had no jurisdiction to grant it, since he interpreted the CLRA as providing for only one father and one mother, which is what led to the appeal.
On appeal, the Court ruled that the applicant judge’s interpretation of the CLRA was indeed correct, but that the CLRA was deficient given changes in medical technology and social conditions and attitudes.
Joe Molnar: At what point in time will some sane politician use the “notwithstanding clause” of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to stop looney judges from re-writing Canadian law?
Fritz: What I find most disturbing about this decision is that it was made by a single judge. Should not a situation of this magnitude be made by our elected officials after extensive research and debate? There is no way anyone can convince me that the charter gives some retarded judge in Ontario the right to make a change of this magnitude. Cannot the government use the notwithstanding clause to tell this judge to fu#k off?
The Court of Appeal’s decision has neither overturned any legislation nor declared any laws unconstitutional, though Justice Rosenberg did note a legislative gap within the CLRA (with McMurtry and Labrosse J.J. concurring). This gap (i) allowed for the Court to exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction–in which it intervenes directly in the best interests of a child–and (ii) is entirely in keeping with the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches. All that has happened is that the appellant, A.A., has been granted her court order legally declaring her as the mother of D.D.–an action entirely supported by the respondents (who were the biological parents of D.D.) , and that a precedent has been established in Ontario case law. Whether this judgment leads to similar rulings in other jurisdictions, or to a revision of statutory law, remains to be seen.
On your concern about the Charter challenge, the Court’s explicitly declined to address the constitutional arguments raised by the appellant. The Charter is hence not relevant in this case. Since they are not bound by the judgment to act, the governments have neither reason nor recourse to invoke the notwithstanding clause.
A:
Thanks much for the explanation.
John: So who is being “rewarded” here with the declaration that a child can have three parents? Since the child achieved his/her blissful state before having been declared the need to three parents, so that should have absolutely no bearing in the judgement… the real “end of story”.
Lookout: This decision’s all about adult wants, not children’s needs. It’s utterly selfish and delusional. Poor little kid.
The Court’s parens patriae function enables it to act in the best interests of the child. In his ruling, Justice Rosenberg cites very real, very practical reasons for extending legal parentage to the non-biological mother in this case, including:
– granting stability to the child (“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 rights (“the declaration ensures that the child will inherit on intestacy”);
– 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 especially important as it may be invoked during a life-or-death situation for the child. Far from being a “short-sighted self-indulgence” by the parents, this case reflects a loophole in the law that has potentially harmful consequences to a child. How can you fault the parents for wanting to obtain the full scope of rights and powers granted under the law to protect the needs and interests of their son?
There is also the matter of the child’s point of view. Whether you approve or not, the child, D.D., who is 5 years old, is being raised by all three parents. This family is, by all appearances, a loving and happy one. One assumes that D.D. identifies both A.A. and C.C. as his “mothers.” In keeping with the principle of protecting the interests of the child, D.D.’s point of view–that he has two moms–should be granted legal weight. Before dismissing this line of argument, consider the following words of a 12-year old girl being raised by a lesbian couple (submitted as an affidavit in the prior case of M.D.R. v. Ontario (Deputy Registrar General) [2006], cited by Justice Rosenberg):
“I just want both my moms recognized as my moms. Most of my friends have not had to think about things like this – they take for granted that their parents are legally recognized as their parents. I would like my family recognized the same way as any other family, not treated differently because both my parents are women.
“Most kids understand that I have two moms. But a few kids are mean or just do not understand. They ask who my “real” mom is. I explain that both of my moms are my real moms. Some adults do not understand either. It would help if the government and the law recognized that I have two moms. It would help more people to understand. It would make my life easier. I want my family to be accepted and included, just like everybody else’s family.
“Imagine winning the case, it would feel amazing. It would feel like we would not have to lie anymore. We would not have to worry about getting in trouble. Nobody could question who my mothers are anymore. I would fee more secure and safer. We could tell the truth. I could just be who I am…”
Doesn’t sound to me like this 12-year old is also “the pawn of…despicable, short-sighted self-indulgence.” Maybe she’s merely been brain-washed by her “utterly selfish and delusional” parents? Or, far more likely, the parents are in fact acting in the best interests of their child.
Lookout: So, if this partnership splits up…[w]ill the child be required to adjust to spending time with three adults and their possible partners?
There’s no evidence that same-sex marriages are any more or less stable than heterosexual marriages, but in any case, the hypothetical situation you present has no bearing on the facts of this specific case. The role of the court is not to rule according to “what if” scenarios, but to rule according to the current circumstances presented before them. This is not unique to “the eejit(s) who made this deplorable decision,” but is a fundamental principle of the justice system.
So if I understand poster A: correctly, a gap in current legislation resulted in the learned judges ruling.
It may well have set a precedent but from a common sense point of view it seems a rather unintelligent decision.
It will be interesting how the polygamists will respond now that a man can get more than one mother declared for his kid.
Joe Molnar: So if I understand poster A: correctly, a gap in current legislation resulted in the learned judges ruling.
It may well have set a precedent but from a common sense point of view it seems a rather unintelligent decision.
It will be interesting how the polygamists will respond now that a man can get more than one mother declared for his kid.
The purpose of the courts is not necessarily to rule according to “common sense,” but rather to weigh the interests and arguments of the appellants, respondents, and other interested parties, and rule accordingly. In this case especially, the judicial panel was particularly bound to rule in the interests of the child.
I can certainly understand how the judgment, especially as reported in the media, (“Boy has three parents!”) might be seen as an “unintelligent decision” from the perspective of those concerned about the politics and social morality consequences of the decision. I encourage you, though, to try to view it from the perspective of the parents and child themselves. There are many rights and privileges tied to legal parental status that are taken for granted by those who already have them. These range from the relatively banal (e.g., signing your son’s permission slip to go on a school trip to the zoo, obtaining a passport for your daughter) to the exceptional and serious (e.g., consenting to high-risk medical treatments for your critically ill child). I understand, Joe, that you have several children of your own–imagine what a devastating blow it would be to your self-identity as a “father” to be denied these basic parental legal powers (to, in essence, not have your parental status fully recognized by the state) despite having devoted one’s life to raising a child. Indeed, in seeking parental status in the first place, the appellant of this case was in fact volunteering to be legally bound to the well-being of her son. This, if anything, is an impressive demonstration of her devotion to the child.
Regarding the polygamy concern, well, it all remains to be seen. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that this ruling was compelled by the unique circumstances of the case, and isn’t actually related to the marriage debate per se (e.g., the female parents in this case were in a long-term same-sex union, but apparently not married). Polygamy advocates will, of course, exploit this ruling in whatever way they’d like, but in my view, a legal judgment stating that a child can have three parents doesn’t necessarily lend argumentative weight to a subsequent claim that those three adults should be allowed to marry each other.
well it certainly is going to fuk up the geneology charts royally.
theyre going to wonder what in heavens name happened in the 21st century.
but this is old news to me, Ive been predicting this since ssm barely hatched out of its reptilian egg.
here it is in a nutshell:
‘marriage’ in future will include huge communal couplings between numerous females ‘married’ to numerous males in the group, not necessarily all to each other and certainly not the polygamous hetros in the group in ssm linkages.
but its going to be there and marriage will be unrecognizable.
it will then expand to include ‘marriage’ to animals, property, favorite possessions, ideas, historical figures with or without their consent, and other great stretches of the imagination.
this of course will all be after the infamous court mandated sodomy date.
p.s., somewhere along the time line a call will have to be made to determine what portion of human dna in an organism is sufficient to declare them human and thus ‘marriagable’. slippery slope part 524.
the mind really boggles on this stuff.
ooyph…
Yes, the mind boggles. Our “brave, new” world of adult-centric, adult toddlers–“I get to have whatever I want because I want it”–seems to be here to stay. Too many kids? Just extensions of the underdeveloped adults in their lives who use them for wish fulfillment. And then, rather like the abandoned Christmas puppies and Easter bunnies, the not-so-cute, not-so-easy-to-care-for older kids all too often become burdensome for the ME generation biological parents–and unreasonable facsimiles–and all kinds of things go wrong.
Our kids are already paying a very heavy price for the foibles of the non grown-ups in this country, including the clowns who masquerade as judges. Canada should be reported to some fictitious child welfare agency for child abuse. Unfortunately, the “real” ones are thoroughly PC and support the present idiocy.
And the UN chastises countries like Canada for spanking? (My definition: slap with the flat of the hand.)
Yes, the mind boggles.
Lest anyone doubt “the mojo” of SDA… in the 8 hour stretch after Kate linked to my post, I got over 1100 hits according to BT Spy.
thx again k.
One of the previous commenters stated that the court found a “deficiency” in the law and used parens patriae in the “best interests of the child”. Is this not simply in the preferred interest of the adult here? I mean, if the child was, by all accounts, happy and well-adjusted, what exactly would make this decision necessary for the “best interests” of the child? Did he need more happiness?
Hooligan: Is this not simply in the preferred interest of the adult here? I mean, if the child was, by all accounts, happy and well-adjusted, what exactly would make this decision necessary for the “best interests” of the child? Did he need more happiness?
Well, everyone could use more happiness, but what this 5-year old needed was a parent who had the legal authority to act on his behalf (on everything from enrolling him in school to making critical medical decisions for him). Arguably, the interests of a responsible, loving parent are identical with the interests of the child (e.g., ensuring the minor’s security, health & well-being, education, development, etc.). In a nutshell, as the court’s view, it was in the best interests of any 5-year old to be in the custody of mature, caring adults who can make those kinds of important decisions for him/her.
Karen Selick, in the NP today, has pointed out the crass political nature of this court case: the two “mothers” could have easily solved their concerns by contracts, e.g., a will, rather than going through a costly show case with serious consequences for the future of the whole country: that, of course, was their point.
The lengths to which our judicial elites will go to promote the homosexual cause is most disturbing. Our courts are no longer impartial in any sense of the word. In fact, such judges as Roy McMurtry don’t even try to be SEEN to be impartial. And, there’s no recourse here: I don’t believe this is a Charter case, so, even if some legislature had the guts to use the notwithstanding clause, it’s not applicable anyway.
A Canadian court could redefine the length of a year–with the arrogance of the Canadian judiciary, I’m surprised our court jesters haven’t tried such a prank yet–but that wouldn’t change the reality. Our courts think they can change human nature by making fools of themselves and others. However, nature will not be mocked for long. We’ll pay–as we already are–the consequences of such hubris.
I’m going to say it, “Roy McMurtry has no clothes.” Not a pretty sight in more ways than one!
I actually posted this at 1:30 today but it doesn’t seem to have “caught”. So, here it is again:
Karen Selick, in the NP today, has pointed out the crass political nature of this court case: the two “mothers” could have easily solved their concerns by contracts, e.g., a will, rather than going through a costly show case with serious consequences for the future of the whole country: that, of course, was their point.
The lengths to which our judicial elites will go to promote the homosexual cause is most disturbing. Our courts are no longer impartial in any sense of the word. In fact, such judges as Roy McMurtry don’t even try to be SEEN to be impartial. And, there’s no recourse here: I don’t believe this is a Charter case, so, even if some legislature had the guts to use the notwithstanding clause, it’s not applicable anyway.
A Canadian court could redefine the length of a year–with the arrogance of the Canadian judiciary, I’m surprised our court jesters haven’t tried such a prank yet–but that wouldn’t change the reality. Our courts think they can change human nature by making fools of themselves and others. However, nature will not be mocked for long. We’ll pay–as we already are–the consequences of such hubris.
I’m going to say it, “Roy McMurtry has no clothes.” Not a pretty sight in more ways than one!
P.S. McMurtry’s daughter is a lesbian, who may still have a partner: she had a few years ago.
There’s no problem with one’s child being a homosexual. However, if one is the chief justice of a jurisdiction dealing with related cases, one should recuse–excuse–oneself from them. Not McMurtry: he seems to have jumped in with both feet.
Lookout: …the two “mothers” could have easily solved their concerns by contracts, e.g., a will
The point of the case wasn’t merely to enable the second mother to step in as a surrogate parent should the birth mother die. The point was for the second mother to fully participate as a co-parent, and be enabled to make parental decisions should the birth mother not be around, for example, if she’s out of town on business, or if her cellphone battery has died and she can’t be reached.
We’ll pay–as we already are–the consequences of such hubris
What, exactly, are these consequences for which we are apparently “already paying”?
Adults before kids, A. I posted about this above.
You mean, where you wrote, “And then, rather like the abandoned Christmas puppies and Easter bunnies, the not-so-cute, not-so-easy-to-care-for older kids all too often become burdensome for the ME generation biological parents–and unreasonable facsimiles–and all kinds of things go wrong”?
Could you be a little more specific about what “all kinds of things” means? Perhaps even cite some non-anecdotal evidence?
A, I’d be pleased to be more specific. Thanks for asking.
Ever since we, as a society, decided to tinker with the traditional family model—married mom, dad, and kid(s)—by giving adults permission and, gradually, legislative or judicial sanction, to make any domestic arrangements they please, our kids have had a particularly tough time.
Think shacking up, sanctioned as common law. Think of “no-fault” divorce. As a result of both, a critical mass of children lives with a single parent—the single most important factor in the child poverty rate. Abuse rates have also increased: Statistics Canada has recently released figures which show that women and children living within a traditional marriage are 4 times more likely NOT to be abused than women and children living in other arrangements, including gay and lesbian relationships, which have high levels of abuse and dysfunction. (Within the home, if it’s not the mom—often a stressed out single one—or step-mom, it’s a fact that most abused children are abused by non related males. Think that string of boyfriends: kids just get in the way.)
The unravelling of the traditional—actually, the natural—family has been an unmitigated disaster for our children, who are simply pawns in the mental, emotional, and physical—multiple homes and complicated schedules—machinations and screw-ups of the multiple adults in their lives. When the state sanctions adult rights (sic) and entitlements—aka selfishness—to arrange their sexual preferences any way they wish—as Canada has done over the past few decades—our kids, who long for their own parents and domestic stability, are the big-time losers. (Statistics also show that, overall, children living in the traditional family do better in a whole range of areas, e.g., health, school performance, etc.)
I’ve taught for over 30 years and have seen the gut-wrenching carnage first-hand. In general, our kids’ mental health is not in very good shape.
Canadian adults, including our court jesters, aka judges, should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. What bloody hypocrites the elites of this society are! While they go on and on about conservation of the physical environment—not a bad idea—they wreak havoc with our personal landscapes by trashing the natural family with gay abandon (pun intended). Of course, the results of this hubris are very damaging and costly to all of us, but especially our children, the most vulnerable members of our society. Isn’t there a maxim that how a society cares for its most vulnerable members is the measure of its compassion? In 2007, I’d give the “enlightened” West a 3 out of 10 on that one.
The latest “three parent” fiction is just one more nail in the coffin of putting children’s needs, not adult wants, first.
Until we, as a society, stop sanctioning the spoiled brat behaviour of the multiple “adult toddlers” in our society, who want what they want when they want it, with no regard for the fallout on others, our—and, in particular, their own—children are going to continue to suffer and to be at a huge disadvantage.
Let’s look at those puppies and bunnies: isn’t it perverse that the “means” tests to access one from the Humane Society are more stringent than those, e.g., none, placed on prospective parents. Home not prosperous and stable? No puppy or bunny.
Our poor kids.
P.S. This is just more anecdotal stuff, but, not to be accused of elitism, I’m a step-daughter and a step-mother, both somewhat uncomfortable roles, which have had a profound–often negative–impact on my life. (I was lucky: without the support of extended family, I, my mother, and siblings would have lived in poverty.)
From personal experience, I know that all family models are not equal: that all configurations are equal is a pernicious myth perpetrated in Canada by legislation and judicial fiat.
Deconstructing nature’s model of the family is dangerous. As I’ve said, we’re paying and will continue to pay a very high price for this errant foolishness. (Actually, it’s more than foolishness: it’s wicked.)
You seem to be pointing the finger at single parenthood (by choice or due to divorce/common law separation) as being a primary cause of harm to today’s children. Fair enough–the research agrees with you on this point–though the specific causal pathways are more complicated than you present (for example, I’m sure you’re aware of the fact that abuse often precedes, and is the reason for, divorce; or the confounding role of socioeconomic status on children’s outcomes, irrespective of whether they live in one-parent or two-parent households).
In any case, you seem to be conflating two separate issues–same-sex households and single parenthood. Single parenthood has been a reality for decades, far preceding the Gay Rights Movement and the legalization of same-sex adoption and marriage. So, the harms towards children that you point out cannot be blamed on “activist judges” who have recently extended civil rights to same-sex couples. These harms are much older than that, and older even than the 1950s, the supposed hey-day of the nuclear family in N. America.
Indeed, couldn’t the advent of same-sex marriage be seen as a benefit to children, since marriage relationships are, after all, more stable than cohabiting relationships? Or do you believe that any household arrangement that diverges from the one-man, one-woman traditional marriage model is necessarily harmful? What do you think of the research data indicating that children raised by stable, long-term same-sex couples–married or otherwise–do not differ from children of heterosexual couples on any development indicators? Indeed, both of these groups of kids also do better than kids raised in single-parent homes, suggesting again that the issue is the risks raise by single parenthood and not the sexual orientation of the parents per se.
Thanks, A, for your response.
You ask, “Or do you believe that any household arrangement that diverges from the one-man, one-woman traditional marriage model is necessarily harmful?” My answer to that would be a definite no. Of course, there are other models which work on an individual basis, no doubt about it.
However, I argue strongly for the traditional model because it places children with their own parents. On a good, better, best scale, this is, in most cases, the best one. If it’s in our power, don’t you think our children deserve the best?
Children are created by one man and one woman. That’s an irrefutable fact of nature. And, over the long run–millenia–this family model, including the extended family, of which it is the basic unit, has proven to be the best there is, in most cases. In general, in the social experiments to which our unfortunate children have been subjected over the last three decades, replications of that model have not worked well. In the case of homosexuals, because there is such a high degree of dysfunction in their relationships, which, generally, are not longstanding, it doesn’t seem to me a good thing to carry out another social experiment with our vulnerable children as the guinea pigs in this particular setting. The adults certainly want it. Will it work for the kids? I really have my doubts. And I think the default position should be on the kids’ side.
Perhaps you could cite the studies you mention in support of same-sex parenting. (That really sounds like an oxymoron to me.) Are they impartial? Do they include a wide, longitudinal sampling? My guess is that your answer will be no on both counts.
As I said, the environmental movement’s very keen on preserving what’s best in our physical environment, with good reason. We’re seeing that trying to over manipulate nature to our own ends simply doesn’t work. Why would we think that undermining the natural family and trying to replace it with facsimiles that aren’t, in my opinion, even reasonable, won’t have the same result?
A, I appreciate your response and have posted a response, caught in the filter. I hope it gets posted.
Some issues I didn’t address: Your contention that single parenthood is not a fairly recent problem is not the case. Yes, in the 50’s and before there were a significant number of single parent families, but they were mainly because of death, not from divorce or families that never formed. (The consequences of single parenthood are quite different, depending on the cause.)
Re single parent families, the relative short term longevity of homosexual relationships is, I believe, quite relevant to this discussion.
Of course, there are other models which work on an individual basis, no doubt about it. However, I argue strongly for the traditional model because it places children with their own parents. On a good, better, best scale, this is, in most cases, the best one. If it’s in our power, don’t you think our children deserve the best?
This is a false argument. Nobody’s talking about taking children away from their biological parents and placing them in the custody of same-sex couples. Consequently, in a real-world setting, the choice isn’t, “Should little Sally be raised in a ‘traditional’ family or a same-sex household”, but rather, it’s “Does society accept that a homosexual couple can be capable parents to little Sally or not.” Once you’re willing to concede that such a model can “work on an individual basis,” then by definition, you must support the right for same-sex couples to co-parent.
In the case of homosexuals, because there is such a high degree of dysfunction in their relationships, which, generally, are not longstanding…
Where is your evidence for this dysfunction and lack of stability? It’s not enough to compare all heterosexual relationships to all homosexual relationships. Since we’re talking about the implications of these relationships on childrearing capacities, you need evidence that specifically compares heterosexual marriages and/or common-law relationships with homosexual marriages and/or common-law relationship.
…it doesn’t seem to me a good thing to carry out another social experiment with our vulnerable children as the guinea pigs in this particular setting.
The use of the phrase “our children” has always bugged me. I find it arrogant and presumptuous for one to presume the ability and right to speak on behalf of other people’s–indeed, all of society’s–children. Your argument also implies that you believe you’re a better judge of what’s good for little Sally than her own biological mother (and her lesbian co-parenting partner).
Perhaps you could cite the studies you mention in support of same-sex parenting. (That really sounds like an oxymoron to me.) Are they impartial? Do they include a wide, longitudinal sampling? My guess is that your answer will be no on both counts.
An American Psychological Association literature review is available here: http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html. A policy statement, drafted in light of this emerging evidence, is available here (3rd one down, “Sexual orientation, parents & children”): http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/pshome.html. Another policy statement, countering the argument that same-sex couples are dysfunctional and unstable, can be found here: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/marriage.pdf.
Similar evidence-based statements in support of same-sex adoption, co-parenting, and marriage have been issued by:
– the Canadian Psychological Assocation: http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20(2).pdf
– the American Psychiatric Association: http://www.psych.org/edu/other_res/ lib_archives/archives/200214.pdf
– the American Academy of Pediatrics: aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b109/2/339
– the Child Welfare League of America: http://www.cwla.org/programs/culture/glbtqposition.htm
– the National Association of Social Workers: http://www.socialworkers.org/pressroom/2004/081704.asp
It’s true that the data is preliminary, but then again, gay/lesbian adoption is a recent phenomenon, and not enough time has elapsed for long-term impact studies to be conducted. The early findings, however, indicate no differences in development between children of same-sex parents and children of hetersexual parents.
A, I’ll check out your sources. As you know, however, this is a very political issue. To my knowledge, the APA, where earlier decisions were made for political purposes, not based on clinical data, is not exactly a reliable source. And, as you admit, the present data on same-sex parenting is in its very early stages and so is incomplete and, therefore, not necessarily accurate. (I know a young woman who grew up in a same-sex setting. Her experience of living in a highly sexualized, multi-partner milieu was deeply damaging to her and her siblings. In fact, she describes her home life as abusive. She is altogether against the idea of sanctioning same-sex, multiple parenting in law.)
You say, “Once you’re willing to concede that such a model can ‘work on an individual basis,’ then by definition, you must support the right for same-sex couples to co-parent.” This is a fallacy. It’s like saying that because some girls can play Olympic hockey , all girls “must” have the right to qualify. There’s no “must” about it in either case. I stick with my argument that deliberately tinkering with the natural model of the family is not wise: nature will not be mocked. I’ll also stick to deliberately choosing what’s best for our kids.
A, they are “our” children. (I’ve taught over 1000 of them.) Sorry you find this arrogant. The post-modern idea that we’re just “atomized”, rights bearing individuals whose choices are entirely our own to make, no matter what the effect on others is false: selfish too.
E.g., Single parenthood has placed huge burdens, not only on the individuals most intimately involved, but on society as a whole. So, citizens, like me, have a perfect right to question experiments we think may be detrimental. As I’ve pointed out, the short-lived nature of a critical mass of homosexual relationships is of real concern here.
I don’t beleive we’re going to convince one another to change our minds, but I’ve appreciated our civil exchange. It’s too bad that this kind of back and forth doesn’t happen more often in the public square. Although you may make your arguments publicly, with impunity, people like me cannot: the spectre of Human Rights Commissions looms large. It’s ironic that some homosexual activists, who demand their rights, seem quite willing to truncate the free speech rights of those with whom they disagree and intimidate them with the possibility of heavy fines or even the loss of their livelihoods. (I’m not implying that you’re in this category. But it’s the ugly underside of the homosexual cause.)
For anyone interested in my appeal to nature, please check out David Warren’s article of today, “Three Parents?” at davidwarrenonline.com
Good stuff.