Replies

Ah, on closer reading I see that. Same basic point, however. These "Christians" are the same ilk that loudly hold forth that lesbians shouldn't be allowed to adopt children, so this adoption shouldn't have been allowed in the first place.

I wonder though about Clark's assertion that McLeod "was not interested in the adoption while it was taking place and that it was never their intention that she would act as a parent." I can't quite imagine any adoption agency and court approving an adoption by anyone who is cohabiting with another person who has "no interest" in the adoption or in parenting the child! And if this really was the case, why would the court now be awarding essentially equal custody rights to the non-parent who had no interest in adopting or raising the child?? Strongly suspect that this is revisionist history on Clark's part, and that they were both very much interested in the adoption, but forced by laws prohibiting adoption by two same sex parents, to have just one of them formally adopt the child.

I feel sorry for the little girl. Joint custody arrangements between warring parents of any sort do serious harm to the child. I remember a little girl in a gymnastics class I taught many years ago. She was 4-5 years old and spending alternate weekends with each parent. So after class every Saturday, all the little kids would eagerly line up to get their little smiley face or teddy bear stamps on their hands -- except this little girl who, every OTHER Saturday had to pretend to have no interest and to disapprove of the whole thing, since her Jehovah's Witness father would have gone ballistic if she got a little stamp on her hand. Who knows what else this poor little girl had to keep track of to keep her parents pacified?