A handful of philosophers through the years have trotted out the idea that parents should be required to get a license to raise their own children. After all, doctors and plumbers get licenses. Why not license the most important job of all: Parents. But Connor Kianpour, a doctoral candidate at the University of Colorado Boulder, has just taken the idea a bold step further.

In his article, in the latest issue of Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, “The Kid’s Aren’t Alright: Expanding the Role of the State in Parenting,” Kianpour cuts to the chase. He writes: “Individuals have no right to rear their biological children, nor do they have any interests weighty enough to justify a right to rear children generally. Since these rights do not exist, regulated parenting policies cannot be said to jeopardize them.”

He explains that since there is “no fundamental right” for parents to raise their children, then “no special justification needs to be offered to permissibly enforce a parental licensing scheme.”

Kianpour reaches this eyebrow-raising conclusion based on a line of logic that an acrobat would have difficulty manoeuvring. But having reached this conclusion, he is unabashed in his near-total disdain and disregard for parental rights (though he does grudgingly concede that parents could be offered visitation rights to their children after they are given to more suitable people).

Kianpour claims that children’s rights are inherent but parental rights do not exist. While most of modern humanity agrees that children do indeed have rights, most people believe (based on reams of social science data, common sense, and the experience of billions of people) that the best way to maintain children’s basic rights is to maintain their parents’ stewardship over them. This does not protect every child in every situation, but evidence shows that children do best when raised by their own parents. Our laws not only recognize parents’ rights but require parents to care for their own children.

But Kianpour insists some parents must be excluded from their child’s life (possibly from birth!) even if they love the child, can afford to support the child, and have exhibited no violent tendencies whatsoever. What is it, then, that would disqualify parents from claiming and raising their own children?

Unfit to raise children

Kianpour explains, “Certain individuals are unfit to rear children because they are objectionably intolerant of certain backgrounds and ways of life.” He then gets more specific: “Strongly homophobic individuals are unfit to rear children.” He says, “Parental licensing offers the best solution to the problems that befall children who are victims of a distinctive, insidious form of bad child-rearing—childrearing by those who are strongly homophobic, racist, sexist, and the like.” According to Kianpour, any person who is “objectionably intolerant” to certain lifestyles and characteristics should be barred from raising children.

“Strong homophobia”, according to Kianpour and his colleagues, “consists in belief in the moral wickedness or depravity of gay sexuality and identity” which “gives rise to attitudes of contempt, disgust, disrespect toward gay people.” He says the reason “strong homophobes…are unfit to rear children is that they would be unlikely to provide affective care to gay children, and there is a nontrivial chance that a homophobe’s child could be gay.”

Who decides?

So, who would get to decide which parents qualify as “objectionably intolerant” and should be denied a parenting license? Kianpour says “public officials” should “determine standards for parental competency, evaluate whether particular individuals meet these standards, and prevent those who do not meet these standards from rearing children.”

And how would a public official correctly diagnose parents as homophobes?

Kianpour suggests they use an instrument called the “Index of Homophobia.” This psychological assessment invites test subjects to answer statements like, “I would feel uncomfortable if my neighbour was homosexual.” Subjects are given a score between 0 and 100 and those who receive a score of 75 or above are classified as “high grade homophobics.”

He also suggests background checks be conducted “to determine whether prospective parents have been…convicted of a hate crime or successfully sued for employment discrimination.” He adds, “Background checks might also be used to determine if prospective parents are affiliated with organizations that would give us reason to believe they are objectionably intolerant.”

One begins to wonder if people of religious faith might be singled out disproportionately as unfit parents due to their affiliation with certain organizations.

But wonder no longer because Kianpour then drops this bomb: “An example of a proverbial ‘red flag’ in this regard would be prospective parents who are active members of the Westboro Baptist Church.”

Wow, that’s specific. Anyone who is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church should be flagged as a potentially unfit parent? I wonder if my church or your church is on the list.