Apropos to our conversation since the NJ Supreme Court found the NJ marriage statutes as they exist, don't go far enough. The following story from Canada shows why court-mandated extension of marriage won’t work. No one has been able to make a logical principaled argument that the logica to extend marriage to homosexuals should not ALSO allow the extension of marriage to polygamists. Polygamy has been around for centuries; is an accepted form of relationship in many societies; is entered into by adults of their own free will, etc.

Also, note that many in the media and elsewhere confuse one point of this subject, and the plaintiffs in the NJ Supreme Court case didn't realize it but they actually sought more than they know in terms of the difference between the right FOR marry and the rights OF marriage.

As a matter of principle, if you extend marriage to non-traditional (can I use that word without being accused of being discriminatory?) relationships, where does it end? Why can’t you extend marriage to polygamists? Why deny these adults in loving relationships that they entered of their own free-will, the same “right”?


==========
ONTARIO COURT's PERILOUS DECISION RECOGNIZES THREE PARENTS

In a unanimous judgment written by Justice Marc Rosenberg on behalf of Chief Justice Roy McMurtry and Justice Jean-Marc Labrosse, the Ontario Court of Appeal chose to exercise it's parens patriae jurisdiction to "fill a legislative gap" and extend a child's parentage to three individuals — the biological mother and father as well as the mother's lesbian partner. This court has now recognized a "three-parent family" and opened the way to introduce many legal variations of the family unit.

Ruth Ross, Executive Director of Christian Legal Fellowship, a member of the intervenor Alliance for Family & Marriage, states, "There remain outstanding questions as to whether a family comprised of three legal parents is in the best interests of the child. The full implications of this major, precedent-setting change have not been thoroughly examined. Historically, policy decisions have been left to legislators who are charged with this responsibility."

This decision has international significance as it takes the lead into unstable territory most other countries have not ventured into — redefining the family as we know it to include three parents.

While the court exercised its discretion in this case, other jurisdictions, such as France, chose to investigate thoroughly the social science data through its legislative arm, and found one mother and one father to be in the best interests of children.

There is no doubt that this decision will cause a whole new vista of legal issues and many new court actions as it impacts parental rights and obligations particularly in marriage breakdowns or situations where one or more members of three parent families part company. Deciding what is in the best interests of the child in those circumstances will prove extremely complex, costly and potentially chaotic.

What will prevent this ruling from having similar application to heterosexual marriages upon breakdown and subsequent remarriage? Can one or two step-parents now apply for legal status as a parent and ultimately lead to four or even six parents being recognized by the courts as having say over the child's upbringing? Will the third or fourth or fifth or sixth parent be afforded equal say? What about the child? What say will he/she have in terms of which parent or sets of parents they choose to live with?

The court asserted that present social conditions and attitudes have changed, however, a societal shift of this magnitude may not be as clear as the courts would have us believe. This judgment warrants action from provincial and federal governments to examine the social data