HIGHLIGHTS
" The most practical is a "know it when you see it" definition: One adult - or two adults in a loving and committed relationship - raising one or more kids"
" widespread social change has eluded the Maryland Court of Appeals, "
" General Assembly, which has demonstrated an inability to tackle such controversial issues as capital punishment and same-sex marriage."
"Maryland's highest court to ignore the evolving notions of the modern family"
Don’t forget from the original article that the Lesbian is charging that the mother is unfit because she is a Christian.
Looks like the court said there is more to being a parent, than looking like one.
COME ON GAY “MARRIAGE” ADVOCATES,
tell us again how the goal is NOT to destroy the concept of the nuclear family, and thus the society that’s based on it.
Isn't this the purview of the legislature and not the court? So in fact the court showed wisdom in saying "this isn't up to us, your remedy is in the legisalture". Yet the editors of this paper show their stupidity and true colors.
So obviously this woman was not in on the adoption. I am wondering how old the child is? IMHO, if the child is old enough to verbalize some coherent opinion on the matter, I think it should be taken into consideration. The same is already going on with visitation rights....especially grand-parents.
Reading the post over, I see that there may be an issue that the parent who has custody may be unfit. Sounds a little deeper than plain old visitation rights. Does this woman want custody?
Oh yes, let’s allow anyone who wants to claim parental rights. The claimant here apparently never adopted the kid herself. Was that legal in Maryland? Could she have done so? I think a lot of this began when abortion decoupled the rights of the father from that of the mother. That is, it was entirely up to the mother to decide the father’s rights. If she had the baby, the father was on the line for support. If she didn’t have the baby, it was entirely her choice. So this is the logical extension of that philosophy: unmarried partner who didn’t adopt child demands rights of parent even though she retained throughout their relationship the right to legally walk away without paying child support. She wants the right without ever having accepted the risk of responsibility.
Of course the focus is supposedly on the bond between the child and partner but this is a red herring in my mind. If the child is old enough to truly bond with the partner, the relationship will continue even without rights being granted. But if the child is too young to continue the relationship without court coercion, then it is likely the so-called bond isn’t that close and need not be protected by destroying the concept of parenthood.
"...evolving notions of the modern family..."
So civilization has been wrong for millenia, and only now are we getting things set right? Thank goodness for the guiding lights at the Baltimore Sun.
It’s almost a fad for single women to skip the husband and start a “family” by adopting a child. I don’t think it’s a healthy trend but I seem to be in the minority on that.
Was she ALSO court-ordered to pay child support?
“it’s difficult to define a family with children. Most people understand this.”
They do? I guess I’m not most people.
This is insane. She's saying that any adult who ever lived in a household with a child could claim the "rights" of a parent or be on the hook for the responsibilities of a parent. Insane.
This kind of stupidity really ought to be painful.
Barf-O-Rama!
Maryland “Freak State” PING!