The Death Of Two Parent Families? Or The Rights Of The Child?
FEATURES
- Protecting the Symbols of Christ’s Church: How a Trademark Lawsuit Aligns with Prophetic Guidance by Steve Densley, Jr.
- 746 Times: What a Word Cloud Revealed About the April 2026 General Conference by Patrick D. Degn
- Who Is a Mormon? by Christopher D. Cunningham
- Broadway’s Last Acceptable Bigotry by Joel Campbell
- Currents: Church Trademark Lawsuit; Missionary Hero in Samoa; Ben Sasse on Dying and More by Meridian Magazine
- The Physical Resurrection of Christ: Why Should Christian Theology Rely on Antiquated Views About Matter? by Jeff Lindsay
- What Joseph Smith Saw in Exodus That We’ve Been Missing by Alvin H. Andrew
- An Experiment in Prayer: Ocean to Ice by Mike Loveridge
- Eggshell Relationships: Walking Gently, Standing Firm by Paul Bishop
- (Re)Discovering Lorenzo Ghiberti’s “Gates of Paradise” at the BYU Museum of Art by John Dye
















Comments | Return to Story
Yvonne RussellFebruary 28, 2014
Passing the Parental Rights Amendment here on the US week go a long way to maintaining our sovereignty should the Convention on the Rights of the Child ever be afopted and ratified by our government. Bill Clinton was close to sending it to the Senate in 1995, so this has been a long time coming. You can learn more at parentalrights.org
Stephen JanickyjFebruary 28, 2014
I think this article is a little misleading. The US played an active role in drafting the UNCRC and though they have not ratified it (only two countries in the world have not ratified it) they have signed up to it. The UK government (which includes Scotland) signed and ratified the UNCRC in 1991. Because Scotland now has its own government as well as being part of the UK they have ratified it in their own right. As a parent in the UK I can reassure you it has caused no major issues and many welcome it as children throughout the world often don't enjoy the same rights they do here.
TimFebruary 27, 2014
Interesting article, and disappointing that the legislators in Scotland cannot see what seem to be self-evident truths demonstrated in this article. But I do take issue with the penultimate sentence. Surely, if a right can be taken away it is, by definition, not inalienable.
ADD A COMMENT