[GovernmentShrinker]

The case has raised red flags among some Christians, who say the decision infringes upon the mother's right to freedom of expression and religion.

Sorry, but these particular Christians don't have a right to any say on this case. Remember, according to them, the mother, whose only connection to the child is via a lesbian relationship, isn't really a mother at all and shouldn't have any rights at all to the child. But somehow, when it suits THEIR purposes, they want to forget all that and have the courts order that an unrelated adult participate in raising the child in a way that totally conflicts with the natural mother's beliefs. Can you say "hypocrites"?

[netmilsmom]

>>Remember, according to them, the mother, whose only connection to the child is via a lesbian relationship<<

No you have it backward. The Born Again is the legal mother. She adopted her. The lesbian did not.

[Politicalmom]

WHAT?? That made no sense whatsoever.

There IS no "natural mother" in this case.

There is a Christian ADOPTIVE mother, and a lesbo ex-lover with NO legal relationship to the child.

[ArGee]

Read it again without your agenda glasses on.

Neither woman is the natural mother.

The adoptive mother is the Christian.

The lesbian is totally unrelated to the child.

Shalom.