Court: Lesbian must support adopted kids

fortwayne.com ^ | 02/19/05 | CHARLES WILSON

[Mad Mammoth]

Wellllll now, isn't this interesting? :)

[FormerACLUmember]

Sweet. Behavior has consequences.

[JusPasenThru]

I sometimes think that allowing gays to marry would be the nastiest thing we could do to them. It certainly would be a growth industry for the lawyers.

[lawgirl]

excellent. you want to act like a married family, then you take the consequences when you divorce.

[Fan_Of_Ingraham]

Hmmmm, I wonder if her wages will be garnished. :)

[curmudgeonII]

The solution to prevent lesbians from ever having to pay child support in a case like this is simple enough.
Don't let homosexuals adopt.

[NonLinear]

The ruling is part of a growing and sometimes contradictory body of family law grappling with gay and lesbian relationships.

The appeals court ruled in November that a person may adopt the children of a same-sex partner and retain parental rights, such as visitation privileges, following a breakup. Yet last month, the court found that state law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

I fail to see the contradiction. One ruling is regarding "partners" and one is regarding "marriage". These are not synonyms.

[buccaneer81]

HA, HA, HA, HA! FemiNazis get a taste of my medicine! I love it!

[OldFriend]

I don't really care how adversely gays are affected, it's a darned shame that they have been allowed to adopt children.

The same way society disapproves of trophy wives is the same way society ought to disapprove of gays adopting children.

[Ellesu]

Exactly. They want to be able to marry, but not pay alimony in a divorce, they want to adopt, but not have to pay child support. Can't have it both ways.

[inquest]

The contradiction is that the court considered gender relevant when it comes to marriage, but not when it comes to adoption. It shows that it was trying to use whatever excuse it could to advance the homosexual agenda while staying just under the radar. Pursuing a strategy like that often leads to inconsistent rulings.

[McGavin999]

What is contradictory? Adoption has nothing to do with marriage. That woman signed a legal contract when she adopted the children. Breaking up with her "lover" has nothing to do with the children, she still has that legal obligation to those kids. She will have to pay child support for them until they either reach 18 or get out of school (if they decide to attend university) and she will also have to contribute toward their higher education should they so decide.

[longtermmemmory]

The term the homosexual use is "second parent" adoption. IOW recreational sex partner adoption.

Unlike normal adoption, these children are NEVER going to have a normal life. Their imprisonment in an alternative lifesyle of their mother is open for all to see.

Under no circumstance can anyone argue these are "in the best interest of the child".

Fortunatly, since the 11th upheld preventing homosexuals adopting children more states have rumbled about adopting a ban.

[Valpal1]

Many states specifically allow adoption by homosexual partners so that ruling would have simply been enforcing the law.

A legal adoption makes you a legal parent with a legal obligation to support your legal children.

You can't shed children like you do lovers.

It's a shame they allow these adoptions given the instablility of the relationships.

[CzarNicky]

The woman adopted her partner's children in 1997. A few years after their breakup, she tried to vacate the adoption. Around the same time, the children's biological mother, who had remarried and divorced a man, filed for child support.

I thought the homos said that you can't stop being a homo. Why did the homos lie to me?

[Smarti Pants]

Well, now....we hear "I'm gay, I have special rights"...and they fight & get them.

THEN, they say "I'm gay, why'd you be so stupid as to give me these "rights"?" or "I'm gay, I shouldn't have to do that."

Frankly, I could care less - just want those kinds of people to grow up & accept responsibility they asked for - no, wait, they DEMANDED. *sigh*

[inquest]

Many states specifically allow adoption by homosexual partners so that ruling would have simply been enforcing the law.

If it's true that Indiana is one of those states, then I'd agree that there is no inconsistency in the rulings. That's not the impression I get from the article, though. If Indiana had such a law, then I think the article would have stated just that, instead of saying that an appeals court had to rule that same-sex partners can adopt.

[poinq]

I don't see the contradiction. If you adopt a child you have an obligation to the child. That has nothing to do with marriage, same sex or not.

Lesbians think that they can end their commitment to their adopted children just as fast and as cleanly as they end their "partnerships". But being lesbian does not mean you don't have parental responsibilities.