Same-sex parents' rights expanded

  • Thread starter Thread starter JMJ_Pinoy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JMJ_Pinoy

Guest
Same-sex parents’ rights expanded

California court says both partners are considered moms

By Adam Liptak

New York Times News Service
Published August 23, 2005

The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that both members of a lesbian couple who plan for and raise a child born to either of them should be considered the child’s mothers even after their relationship ends.

The court, stepping into largely uncharted legal territory concerning same-sex couples and parenting, issued decisions in three cases, ruling that women whose partners gave birth had parental rights or obligations in all three.

The cases involved a request for child support, a petition to establish parental rights, and a challenge to a lower court ruling issued before a child’s birth that the child should have two women listed as parents on her birth certificate.

“We perceive no reason,” the court ruled, “why both parents of a child cannot be women.”

Courts in about half the states have allowed members of same-sex couples to adopt their partner’s children. Monday’s decisions considered the separate question of whether the law could require former members of such couples to assume parental rights and obligations.

Being a legal parent “brings with it the benefits as well as the responsibilities,” said Justice Joyce Kennard, according to The Associated Press.

The cases all involved unorthodox conceptions, and the Supreme Court struggled to apply sometimes inapt state laws to them.

“While scientific advances in reproductive technology now afford individuals previously unimagined opportunities to become parents,” wrote a dissenting justice, Kathryn Werdegar, “the same advances have also created novel, sometimes heartbreaking issues concerning the identification of the resulting children’s legal parents.”

The decisions broke new ground, advocates on both sides of the gay parenting issue agreed.

“It is unprecedented around the country to have a state’s highest court recognize that in the absence of an adoption and even in the absence in some instances of a domestic partnership agreement that two men or two women could be the full legal parents of a child born through assisted reproduction,” said Joan Hollinger, who teaches adoption law at the University of California, Berkeley.

Hollinger submitted supporting briefs on behalf of the children involved.

But the rulings troubled lawyers for groups defending what they called traditional values.

“You’ve essentially begun to undermine and unravel the family,” said Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel, a law firm that submitted briefs arguing against the recognition of two same-sex parents.

“Today’s ruling defies logic and common sense by saying that children can have two moms,” said Staver. “That policy establishes that moms and dads as a unit are irrelevant when it comes to raising children.”

The decisions may have implications for same-sex marriage in California. The question of whether the state constitution requires the recognition of such marriages is before a state appeals court.

“If these cases are any indication,” Staver said, “it makes it look like they’re tending toward recognition of gay marriage.”

The only one of the three decisions that provoked dissents, and the only one that seemed to leave open the possibility of an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, involved a woman identified as K.M., who provided an egg to her lesbian partner. The partner, E.G., gave birth to twin girls. K.M. had signed a form giving up her claims to any child at the time of the donation but, after the couple broke up, filed a lawsuit to establish her parental rights.

CONTINUED ON NEXT POST…
 
The California Supreme Court, in a 4-2 decision, ruled for K.M. notwithstanding a state law that says a man who donates his semen to impregnate a woman who is not his wife is not a legal father. Werdegar, dissenting, suggested that treating the donation of sperm differently from the donation of an egg “inappropriately confers rights and imposes disabilities on persons because of their sexual orientation” and so “may well violate equal protection.”

The U.S. Supreme Court does not ordinarily hear cases considering questions of pure state law. But it could hear a claim under the federal Constitution’s equal protection clause.

Diana Richmond, who represented E.G., said her client had not decided whether to appeal.

K.M., who declined to give her full name “to protect the privacy of my children,” said in an interview arranged through her lawyer that she welcomed the decision.

“Next to the day my daughters were born,” she said, “this is the happiest day of my life.”

The other two decisions on Monday did not involve donated eggs.

In one, the court ruled that a woman identified as Elisa B. must pay child support to her former partner, identified as Emily B., who gave birth to twins while the women were a couple. The court made its determination based on commitments the women had made to each other and their treatment of the children each of them had while they were together.

In the third decision, the court ruled that a woman identified as Kristine H. did not have the right to challenge an earlier decision that granted her former lesbian partner parental rights, including putting her name on the birth certificate of Kristine H.'s child in the space provided for “father.” The court based its decision on Kristine H.'s participation in the earlier proceeding.

Lawyers on the losing sides of the decisions said that the rulings would give rise to confusion between competing state laws, with someone said to be a parent in California, for instance, not considered one if she moved to Texas.
 
:bigyikes:

Sorry I still can’t get over the concept there is such a thing as “same-sex parents.”

Friend moves in with a widower to help with the kids? Yes. That would be same-sex guardians. We might even affectionately call them both “dad” I don’t know.

But same-sex parents? Sorry. No compute.:whacky:

Alan
 
Sorry I still can’t get over the concept there is such a thing as “same-sex parents.”

Friend moves in with a widower to help with the kids? Yes. That would be same-sex guardians. We might even affectionately call them both “dad” I don’t know.

But same-sex parents? Sorry. No compute.:whacky:

Alan
[/quote]

Is being a parent solely dependant on what is between a persons legs? :ehh:
 
40.png
soulspeak23:
Is being a parent solely dependant on what is between a persons legs? :ehh:
Male and female have different roles. Yes, parents are one man and one woman. Two males or two females, pretending to be parents, cannot properly raise a child. In fact, it is a grave disservice to the child and should be illegal.
 
40.png
soulspeak23:
Is being a parent solely dependant on what is between a persons legs? :ehh:
No I think there’s stuff attached that go inside the body that’s also necessary for two people to become parents. The stuff between the legs is just the “tip of the iceberg” of the differences between men and women that make the combination necessary for reproduction.

That is, until cloning gets into Full Production.

Don’t sweat it; ever since there were man-woman relations there have been those who refuse to marry someone different than themselves because a “diverse” marriage is better since it has two people exactly alike. That is as opposed to a “diversity-unfriendly” marriage where the two people are as different as, well, as man and woman.

Frankly, with some of what I’ve heard about my friends’ wives, I can see how a guy might be tempted to just “hang out” with another guy rather than try to go out and learn how to Get Along With A Woman.

In the book by Scott Adams The Dilbert Future: Thriving on Stupidity in the 21st Century, and he points out with prediction 30 where technological developments will go: “Most scientific and technical breakthroughs in the next century will be created by men and directed at finding replacements for women.” This is after he predicts that women will run the future based on two undisputable facts: 1) they already do, and 2) who’s going to stop them?

He even reveals the “real” reason female voices are used for most voice mail systems. The given reason is that they are easier to hear, but insiders know it was really so men can have a woman’s voice actually asking to be touched. “Press one if you’d like to leave a message. Press two if it’s the only action you’ll get this month.”

Alan
 
40.png
fix:
Male and female have different roles. Yes, parents are one man and one woman. Two males or two females, pretending to be parents, cannot properly raise a child. In fact, it is a grave disservice to the child and should be illegal.
Good idea… let’s let the government decide who is “fit” to be a parent.
 
Bella3502 said:
Good idea… let’s let the government decide who is “fit” to be a parent.

Funny you mention that. Scott Adams also discusses licensing for parents in the book The Dilbert Future from which I earlier quoted. I don’t remember his conclusion, and the book is in the other apartment so if it’s funny enough maybe I’ll find his comments and post them.

Alan
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
Funny you mention that. Scott Adams also discusses licensing for parents in the book The Dilbert Future from which I earlier quoted. I don’t remember his conclusion, and the book is in the other apartment so if it’s funny enough maybe I’ll find his comments and post them.

Alan
🙂
I think I shall get a copy of this guy’s book… sounds very interesting.
 
Bella3502 said:
Good idea… let’s let the government decide who is “fit” to be a parent.

Bella:

Hillary Clinton suggested just that in, It Takes a Village, and Margaret Sanger suggested licensing combined with mandatory sterilyzation of the "unlicensable ".

It’s also been suggested by other public figures, most of them highly educated and liberal.

These are the people who think it’s OK to pick your daughter up from jr. high or high school and take her to the Abortionist’s office for an ABORTION without telling you what they did or where they took her, even if you go to the school and ask them directly.

According to them, at least in the State of CA, you have NO right to know.

Now they are trying to tell us that it’s just as good for the child to raise a child with one parent or with two parents of the same sex as it is for the child to be raised with a father and a mother who are married to each other.

Now, please don’t tell me about abusive parents… But this is one area where common sense and studies agree. All things being equal, it is better for the child to be raised by a mother and a father who are married to each other. That is borne out by grades, achievement tests, personality inventories and achievements in life.

This issue has become highly politicized, with a lot of politically correct nonsence about equal rights used to silence those who try to speak out in defense of the above… But, shouldn’t the interests and needs of the child come first? Isn’t that the reason people become parents? or, Is this still about fulfulling selfish desires even at the child’s expense?

I think if we put the child’s needs ahead of those of the prospective parents’, we’ll put an end to most of this P.C. nonsense.

Blessed are they who defend the most powerless of all, Michael
 
Traditional Ang:
Hillary Clinton suggested just that in, It Takes a Village, and Margaret Sanger suggested licensing combined with mandatory sterilyzation of the "unlicensable ".

It’s also been suggested by other public figures, most of them highly educated and liberal.
I found the Dilbert book where it talks about this. I wonder if this comic strip was actually inspired by those two, or if it’s just so obvious to the stupid maybe Adams came up without their help:
http://wordsfree.org/DilbertParentLicenses.jpg

Alan
 
Bella3502 said:
Good idea… let’s let the government decide who is “fit” to be a parent.

That is not my position. The government has a duty to protect children’s rights. Children have a right to authentic parents. Their rights are violated if they are subjected to faux parents such as same sex couples, or triples, or whatever is in fashion at the moment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top