May 15, 2014

CA Dems poised to obliterate the definitions of “mother” and “father” [Darleen Click]

From the Department of I Told You So

In California, it may soon be legal for gay men to list themselves as “mother” on birth certificates, and similarly, for lesbians to cite themselves as “father.” […]

Currently, birth certificate documents in the state have a space for “mother” and another space for “father.” AB 1951 sponsor Jimmy Gomez, a Democrat who represents Los Angeles, says the form is discriminatory and demands revision.

“The definition of a family needs to be more flexible, and same-sex parents should not be discriminated against when filling out a birth certificate.”

A birth certificate is supposed to reflect the birth parents of a child because the registration of live birth is about the rights of the child, not assuaging the feelings of the adults in a “modern family”.

My main objection to the radical redefinition of marriage was never about religion or tradition. I long argued it was about the forced ideology that men and women are fungible and, as such, that “mothers” and “fathers” would be irrelevant.

The mildest retort I received from the Left-fascist “Marriage Equity” mob was that I was making it all up, therefore a hysterical Bible-thumping homophobe who believed humans rode dinosaurs.

Yet, here we are. Again.

Posted by Darleen @ 7:56am

Tags: , ,

Comments (35)

  1. What else can you expect from a world that celebrates historic firsts like faux-men giving birth?

  2. It could be that Americans have already redefined the meaning of “California” into “Aberrationland” though (there goes our crazy Auntie in the attic again), such that any presumed consequences to this goofy mother-father business may not reach all that far, either in space or in time.

  3. before this change one of the same sex parents had to put themselves down on the birth certificate as “mother” and the other one had to put themselves down as “father”

    now they both have the choice of just checking a box what says “parent”

    In other words, it’s ALREADY legal for gay people to be either mother or father on the birth certificate, in fact they don’t have any other choice – they’re forced to be either “mother” or “father.”

    Stay with me now.

    This change makes it LESS likely for gay men to list themselves as “mother” on birth certificates, and similarly, for lesbians to cite themselves as “father.”

  4. If you didn’t give birth or contribute sperm, you don’t belong on a certificate of LIVE BIRTH.

    No one forces a non-parent to list themselves on the birth cert. All non-parents in CA used to have to go through formal adoptions to be considered a parent.

    Stop being anti-science and anti-child, griefer.

  5. this law doesn’t change anything with respect to when or whether biological or adoptive parents are listed on the certificate – whether it’s on the initial form or the amended post-adoption birth certificate –

    it just lets people describe themselves as “parent” instead of the sometimes-inaccurate designation of “mother” or “father”

    It’s not really anything to get excited about that I can see, and it will help make it so that guys aren’t listed as “mother” and women aren’t listed as “father,” which seems like a good direction to go I think.

  6. Pingback: Newslinks | The Common Room

  7. Other than the fact that the state is using semantics to break the linkage between biological parent and child by confusing parent with guardian and child with ward, nothing at all.

    This is a good direction only if you happen to think that an anti-human dystopia is a good place to go.

  8. it’s california lol

  9. Feets, you used to scoff when I said that The Movement intends to break down the very concepts of male/female, mother/father.

    A certificate of live birth is intended to tell the truth, which is why it’s a foundational document to establish identity.

    Every child is the product of someone’s egg and someone’s sperm. THAT should be reflected on the certificate.

    Legal parentage can be identified on a different document, as any adoption is.

    It’s NEVER a good idea to jettison the physical in favor of the conceptual. Reality has the last vote, so it should be reckoned with from the outset.


  10. hmm, I have to research a little before commenting and maybe agreeing some with happy.

    My wife has a birth certificate mostly identical to mine that list her two adoptive parents as her mother and father. I assume somewhere must exists her “real” birth certificate but, the one she uses does not say anything about adoption. It reads like her adoptive parents are her biological parents.

    That was the 50s, maybe things have changed.

  11. but that has nothing to do with this law dicentra

    this law has nothing to do with prescribing who is listed on a birth certificate

    it just helps make it to where a woman doesn’t have to list herself as a father, which is sensible since everybody knows fathers are guys, not womens

  12. Happy, that’s raaaaacist seeeeexist cisheteronormative!

  13. bgbear

    back in the 50s (and earlier) adoption was something to keep secret. Birth parents didn’t want to be found and the state, upon completion of adoption, sealed the original cert & issued a new one.

    Some states still maintain that the original cert cannot be accessed by the adopted child.

  14. I couldn’t find mind. It was handled privately. I ultimately had a private detective track down the identity of my birth parents. My half brothers and sisters, of which there are 8 all-told, want nothing to do with me.


  15. cisheteronormative = there are so many not gay people who agree with their assigned genitalia running around, that it makes a tiny subset of people feel freakish, and therefore it must be a carefully constructed and maintained culture of oppression that should be challenged and dismantled so that all those not gay people who agree with their assigned genitalia don’t get to unjustly decide what they ought to think about their lives as not gay people who agree with their assigned genitalia . 2% needs to make damned sure that the 98% don’t get to decide how the 98% live.

  16. papa laugh with your princess so she will find

    funny princes familiar

  17. What a lovely pattern of chaff and flares from the griefer.

  18. Magic words are but floating turds in the mental punch-bowl, twirling.

  19. yeah we’re proud to be young and we stick to our guns

    we love who we love

    and we wanna have fun


  20. If you stick a lot of greek and latin roots together it makes your crazy made up bullshit reality inverting concept sound academic or even sciency. To idiots I mean. And just clueless folks.

  21. paleoontocracy – a poltical system where ancient things that exist are allowed to vote.

    Malodosceptiarian – a follower of a political philosophy based on a bad stinky infection.

    UrCorporalinguistiphobia – an irrational fear of sounding like the primeval root of all souless corporate jargon

    Eupanetheria – the controversial theory that the placental and marsupial mammals make the best bread of all the mamals and that the monotreme’s baked goods are typically inferior

  22. we love who we love and we wanna have fun

    …with a ton of misogynist and generally vulgar remarks?

  23. Remember folks, if 2% or less of the population doesn’t get everything they want toute suite it’s hateful oppression and probably maybe genocide or rape or something. Micro-aggression is practically murder dont’cha know. Got to stamp it out and bend the words so we can only think good thoughts cleared by our betters. Straight guys had better not be caught sucking any wing-wongs just to show off like some kind of party stunt or whatever because that is cultural appropriation and we won’t be standin’ fer that sort of nonsense me laddie. Nae.

    Also ignore Iran and Afghanistan and such, because pointing out their actual and explicitly legal system of violence against gays the the differently gendered thing whatever is orientalist and white racist imperialism straight up. You get the hard toe o’ the boot, post law law suits, and fired. The rest of the world gets a gentle rain of hash tags n’ aid packages. Because smart. And Forward looking. And chosen by history.

  24. it just helps make it to where a woman doesn’t have to list herself as a father

    Why would a woman who is not the parent of a child list herself as the father? Why would she be on the BC at all? It’s a BIRTH certificate, not a “Who Mommy diddles” certificate.

  25. Oh, wait! We’re redefining the word “parent” for the homo mafia. Silly me, I forgot.

  26. it just lets people describe themselves as “parent” instead of the sometimes-inaccurate designation of “mother” or “father”

    There you go. Leftists want to kick God and spirituality out of families and society, have SCIENCE! overreach it’s capabilities, and now ignore children’s genetic mothers and fathers. IF they decide to let the child be born in the first place.

    Might as well randomly produce kids from sperm and egg banks, grow ’em in vats, and dole ’em out to whatever stands next in the “I’m a PARENT TOO!” line.

  27. Future genealogists will refer to this century as a dark age.

  28. Which will, of course, be raaaaacist.

  29. “Parents” and “birth parents” aren’t interchangeable.

    Sometimes there is just a “birth mother”. Sometimes not even that.

    My kids have no idea, and probably can’t ever know, who the women were that bore them.

    Just when we get to the point of listing genetic parentage, genes will be gathered together from thousands of different sources and swirled together in some biological BlendTek.

    Just when we get used to life the way it is, someone is going to fuck with it. People were doing that a long time before it was cool to.

  30. Thanks, darleen, I figured something like that and am not familiar with recent adoptions.

    My wife’s adoptive didn’t keep any secrets and I believe the kids knew as soon as they could understand. Her bio parents are unknown by name to us. They were a native-American couple in SF bay area with too many little Indians to care for.

    Yeah for pre-abortion obsessed American or I may not have the one of best wives in the world.

  31. I maintain a distinction between “father” and “dad,” and between “mother” and “mom.” I consider myself fortunate that in each case both titles were held by the same man and woman.

    But then, I also am revolted by the use of “parent” as a verb. Fathers father, mothers bear, and moms and dads rear, raise, or bring up.

    And, no dammit, my parents were not a village.

  32. If children belong to everyone, they belong to no one.

  33. That’s only what the state wants you to believe, bgbear. The state knows who those children belong to.

  34. *** In the Symposium, the analysis of eros is modified not only by the command to praise Eros. I refer to the allusions to the year 416, the gross impiety committed at that time and then somehow forgiven in 407. The background of that is the accusation against Socrates, and this means the question of the life of the philosopher in tension with the life of the polis. By the link-up of the years 416 and 407 Plato indicates that in studying eros we must not forget for one moment the highest activities of men — political and philosophic. This raises the question of the relationship of eros to political life on the one hand and to philosophy on the other. As to political life, we have seen in the Republic that in the purely political consideration on the highest level silence is preserved regarding procreation. In the second book, where he gives reasons for the desire of men to form society he mentions food, drink, and shelter but is completely silent about procreation. Later on, in the ninth book, the tyrant, the worst degradation of political life, is identified with eros. Furthermore, in the psychology of the Republic, eros, which is the same as desire — in the Greek epithumia — as we shall see later in the Symposium, is presented as the lowest part of man, lower than spiritedness, to say nothing of reason. The polis, we can say, necessitates law, nomos, and eros is not essentially legal. I think that everyone must admit that — the final and essential concern of eros is not legality. Yet we could say, is not love of country a modification of eros? There is this difficulty: What is the opposite of love of country? Let us say treason. But what is the primary object of high treason? Is it selling out a given country, or is it not at least as much selling out the established order? Political crimes are never really crimes against the country; as political crimes they are directed against the constitution. The polity, however, never lets you meet the country naked. We always meet it clothed in a political form. And the loyalty which is demanded, as every loyalty discussion shows, refers not to the unclothed country but to the country defined in terms of its constitution. Love of country, then, is in a concrete form a love of country as modified and constituted by its polity, and the polity expresses itself in law. This means that the country is unthinkable without the element of compulsion — laws — and therefore of punishment. There is a certain harshness which essentially belongs to political life, which shows the tension between eros and political life. ***

    L. Strauss: On Plato’s Symposium, Ch. 4, Pausanias (1) pp 58-59

  35. “Well, ok, that was sort of interesting (or maybe even weirdly compelling), sdferr, so what does the follow-on paragraph say, and what the hell does this have to do with the whole business in California?”, someone might ask.

    “Oh, that’s a good thing to ask”, says I, “and here you go.”

    *** To take a Platonic example, which is always best when discussing a Platonic problem, the best polity as presented in the Republic stands and falls by the noble lie. The indication is not that in imperfect polities we do not need a lie, but that they are based on base lies. There is an element of the artificial and untruth that is essential to political life. Philosophy, on the other hand, is love of truth. There is an old presentation of this difference: the naked soul confronted with the naked truth, in a gymnasion, the Greek word for gymnasium. In other contexts, this is also taken as a place for intellectual stripping. Eros is connected with stripping. Philosophy is a stripping on the highest level, the mind. The political life is never a life of stripping. I can also state this as follows: political life is, of course, public life. The erotic life is private life, and therefore there is a fundamental tension between the two. I can illustrate this as follows: There was a man who in a way demanded absolute politicization and that was Marx. Marx spoke of the collectivization of man to be brought about by the communist society. All privacy, all private property, as well as all misery, is connected with the division of labor, and therefore the perfect society would be one in which the division of labor is completely abolished. But the same Marx, at least in his early writings, mentions the fact that the root of the division of labor is man’s bisexuality. He says in so many words that the fundamental act of the division of labor is the sexual act. The paradoxical conclusion would be that perfect communism would have to abolish sexual difference and produce men in test tubes. Whether Marx intended this is not for us to investigate here, but it only shows that if you think through the problem of public, publicity, collectivization, you see with the greatest clarity that there is something fundamentally and absolutely irreducible in man on the most massive level — the erotic life, which in this respect agrees with the life of the mind — which is not susceptible of being collectivized. ***

    ibid, pp 59-60