A polyamorous relationship involving three men in California has resulted in all of them being listed as the ‘father’ on a child’s birth certificate.
No, this is not a case of confused paternity. The ‘throuple’ of men have managed to convince a judge to make a mockery of a fundamental legal document and then released a book to gloat about it. Forgotten in this is the little girl (and presumably her half-sibling brother) who has been denied access to her biological parentage.
Birth certificates are meant to be a legal document for a child to identify their biological parents so that they know who is genetically responsible for creating them. They are not a toy for woke activism or a mechanism to score political points in the arms race of ‘virtue’.
Click here to support Alexandra Marshall’s work.
Despite the social engineering and propaganda rife on the left, human beings have an entrenched desire to understand their biological heritage. As a society, we have observed this through the distress and longing exhibited by adopted children, regardless of how happy their adopted family life is. Finding out where you come from, genetically speaking, completes a piece of our psyche. This is why there is a legal distinction between an adoptive parent and a natural parent.
The importance of these legal documents goes beyond the emotional. In the case of medical emergencies, parentage helps to connect relatives with genetic matches for life-saving treatments or to identify hereditary conditions. They are also the primary document of a person’s identity, used to underpin all other forms of identification.
Articles 7 and 8 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child state that:
“The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality […] States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations…”
By artificially corrupting a child’s birth certificate, the courts are allowing a violation of the human rights of the child as laid out by the UN.
Birth certificates are also used by the state to track the progress of society. From these records, they keep an eye on gender split, ethnic mix, and age of the population. These are essential data points that have been used for hundreds of years to earmark issues on the horizon such as the catastrophic gender disparity that China is currently facing. Mind you, the West has done away with any sensible notion of ‘gender’ to the point where we will soon live in the most highly monitored technological society and yet know nothing useful about ourselves.
Obviously, there are accidents of fate that prevent a child from knowing their parentage, but deliberately depriving a child of their biological heritage is cruel for it is not only their immediate parents that the child loses, it is their entire historical linage. Biology is a non-negotiable gateway to history. It is a factual connection to a network of relatives that no government, regardless of how powerful, can take away. A child with a fictional birth certificate is no longer able to trace their family roots through the ages and discover the story of their ancestors. It leaves them historically stateless – grounded only in the thinnest veneer of family ties instead of protected by an extended family tree.
Click here to support Alexandra Marshall’s work.
Early versions of birth certificates have formally been around in England for over five hundred years (when churches recorded births to conform with tax requirements), but humans have kept tight control over family bonds since the beginning of recorded history, particularly for matters of inheritance which the socialists are constantly trying to stop.
Europeans are lucky in the sense that they are able to track their history further back than other nations whose purges and poor record keeping has left hearsay as the major format of family history. Often families have no idea where they originated, after being moved multiple times throughout the centuries. They look on us with envy knowing that there is no remedy for lost ancestry once it is destroyed.
Why would the West, blessed with one of the strictest record keeping systems and most powerful ancestral data bases in the world, deliberately pass laws to erode records?
We return to Globalism.
In order to install a global socialist state – a borderless world of ‘one people’ united by an unelected bureaucracy – you first have to destroy the family unit. Language is being used to erase the roles of mother and father, with medical institutions replacing these biological relations with an array of ludicrous terms such as ‘chest-feeder’ and ‘non-birthing parent’ – anything to deny the natural construct of a family unit.
Without a strong family environment, the state steps in to become the child’s parent. The love that should be directed toward a family is then redirected as absolute loyalty to the state.
The second threat to Globalism is the memory of sovereign nations and their thousands of years of cultural heritage that makes populations resistive to a foreign government. Modern courts destroy birth certificates for the same reason that inferior dictators burn books. When children are robbed of their heritage, they are forced to cling to the state and its propaganda while being ignorant of what should have been their birthright (that has been stolen by the dictatorship).
The only two names that belong on a child’s birth certificate are those of its mother and father.
In the specific case of the three fathers, there is no reason why the other two men could not legally adopt the child, giving them legal status as parents. After all, the crux of their argument revolves around the legal rights to the child and being recognised as a ‘family’.
Click here to support Alexandra Marshall’s work.
We shall hope that their pursuit of fame generated by their unusual circumstance is not the reason they have trashed their child’s legal documents.
After all, this information ultimately belongs to the child. Not to the parents, and certainly not to the courts.
