Posted on 05/24/2005 2:33:24 AM PDT by Crackingham
If you're a kid who has two moms instead of a mom and a dad, what happens to you if they break up? Does one pay child support? Does she also get visitation rights? The answers might be clear if your parents were a man and a woman who weren't married. But if your moms didn't register as domestic partners, what are everyone's rights in the eyes of the law? That will be determined by the California Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear oral arguments Tuesday in three child custody and support cases involving lesbians who parted ways acrimoniously after becoming mothers.
All center on whether laws crafted to shield children from the stain of illegitimacy by establishing clear parental rights and responsibilities for absent fathers apply when the estranged couples consist of two men or two women. Gay rights and children's advocates say the answer is simple: Adults who help bring children into the world with the intent of raising them should be regarded as parents, regardless of sexual orientation, marital status or blood ties. Yet, lower courts - absent adoption papers or a formal domestic partnership - have shied away from recognizing the nonbiological parent in a broken, gay family.
"To the child, a parent is parent because that is the person who got up in the night and held them and put Band-Aids on their knees," said Deborah Wald, a San Francisco family law attorney with a large lesbian clientele.
"California is so clear about that when we are dealing with a mother and father, but when it comes to lesbian couples the courts have been the scalpel to remove children from the parents they deeply bonded to."
This is my major objection to gay "marriage".
The children.
(steely)
NO. There is no DNA, it will go to the Supremes, and the bill will be paid by TAXPAYERS. Simple and easy. Another mess that people make of things when we don't follow the RULES that are Natural, Creator Given and need to be protected and handed down to the next generation.
If there is no domestic partnership and the non biological parent did not adopt, obviously the child stays with the biological mother. If a person wants parental rights she or he should adopt. It's a shame we have to clean up the mess these liberals make. This is going to get worse when cloning comes into play. Sooner or later, someone will figure out a way, if not already, where a child can be the biological product of two women.
just thought those words needed more highlghting
This is going to be painful for the libs as their hypocrisy will be on display
Homosexuals have no "rights" to other people's children, regardless of whether or not they ever had a sexual relationship with one of the parents.
Unless the non-biological partner has adopted the child or children. Then it's a bit stickier.
Custody battles usually turned on who was the 'nuturing' parent or most able to fulfill that role, especially with young children. The female of almost every species usually fills that role and the law usually came down in favor of the female 'mother' unless there were exceptional circumstances.
Now, with two females involved for example, the role of the court is much more difficult in trying to decide which is the most likely to be a nurturing parent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.