>
Two is Company, Three is a Crowd
Your comments about this column are welcome ~ e-mail Laramie at
The Spectator
founded 2004 by ron cruger
A place for intelligent writers
A place for intelligent readers
 by Laramie Boyd
ecrboyd@aol.com
2013 Spectator Ron - The Spectator All Rights Reserved
C
        Well, here we go again. "Evolving" ideas based on changing the meaning of words. Some pretty basic words I might add. The twists and spins being given to the words "marriage", "sexist", "discrimination", "diversity" "equality", and so many more, has now included the word "parent."
        Sen. Mark Leno (D) from San Francisco, introduced a bill allowing for more than 2 legal parents for a child. He would not, I am sure, object to the genders of the "parents". Leno believes this would "bring California into the 21st Century, where families with 3 parents would share custody, financial responsibility and visitation rights." And the law has no maximum on the number of parents allowed. Leno scoffs at the possibility of any family having 5 or 6 parents, for some strange reason, however legal it might be with passage of the bill. So I guess he does see this action as possibly getting a little sticky if more than three people wanted to sign on as a parent to the same child. This bill, SB 1476, has passed in the Senate.
        The Certified Family Law Specialists Association counters Leno's claims, stating that passage of the law would place confusion into the minds of children, and president Diane Wasznicky of the association believes it would conflict with child support laws. Benjamin Lopez, of the Traditional Values Coalition, says the bill is just another new ploy to try to "revamp, redefine and muddy the waters" of attempts to legalize gay marriage. In fact, this legislation seems to be in line with some who believe that marriage, also, should be allowed between more than two people, in any combination of genders. Unbelievable!
        It seems to me that these formats go to the very heart of what "equal rights" was intended to include according to the Constitution. Does "equal rights" mean that if any person, or persons, of either sex, believe they have a right to perform a certain act or function, then all persons should have that same right? Does it mean that there is almost unlimited freedom for any expression of behavior, if you only wait for it to be made legal by claiming that not allowing the behavior would be un-Constitutional according to the Equal Rights Amendment? Can anyone argue that the liberal element of American society does not want just about any kind of behavior to be made legal, and will claim that those against the behavior are "prejudicial" or "racist" or "hateful" or "extremist", or "out of tune with the 21st century?"
        A very recent example of the "anything goes" approach that some liberals cling to is the video on the internet where Albert, a 6-year old boy, sings obviously age-inappropriate lyrics while almost-nude mature girls dance suggestively around him. Is this an example of "equal rights", using the often misused "freedom of speech" card. I believe liberalism is getting out of hand, and America is suffering for it. All you have to do is look around and you will see the erosion of standards of decency and accountability. I see them. Do you?