Replies

First of all, this was a "civil union", not a marriage. And there have been many cases in many states where an adult who was not biologically related to a child and had never been married or civil unioned to a biological parent of the child, has been granted visitation rights. That's all that would have happened here, if the biological parent hadn't refused to comply with the court's visitation order. The legal basis for these decisions is the best interest of the child, without passing judgement on the adults' religious, political, or other beliefs.

In this case, the biological mother chose to have a child and begin raising the child in a home where the child was taught to regard the partner as a parent. Then the biological mother changed her mind, decided her child's other parent was evil and kicked her out of the child's life. The courts would have reached the same decision if the biological mother had remained a lesbian and the partner became an evengelical Christian. Primary custody would have been awarded to the biological mother, with visitation rights awarded to her ex-partner. And if the still-lesbian biological mother had then refused to allow the girl to visit the now-evangelical Christian ex-partner in defiance of the court order, primary custody would have been switched.

Note that BOTH the Vermont and Virginia supreme courts decided in favor of this change of primary custody switch, even though the Virginia constitution has a provision that bans enforcement of rights arising from same-sex civil unions or marriages. The Virginia decision was based on recognition of the Vermont court's visitation order, and would have been the same for any unmarried/ununioned heterosexual couple in the same situation. This is proper recognition for the laws of other states. If one state's laws explicitly state that grandparents are not entitled to visitation rights by virtue of being grandparents, that state should (and would) still enforce a visitation order from another state whose laws specify that grandparents are entitled to visitation rights.

Homosexual marriage also opens the door to the government sanctioning of just about any other mix-and-match combination. There are polyamorous groupings [those with 3 or more "partners"] out there who would have every reason to justify having their relationships sanctioned by the government also. These would then be protected by the Courts and eligible for taxpayer support as well.

Freedom means not having government dictating that people have different legal rights based on the choices they make in arranging their personal lives. Government shouldn't be recognizing ANY marriages, unions, etc, beyond having courts enforce private contracts that free citizens have voluntarily entered into with each other, just as is done for business-type contracts.

"Freedom means not having government dictating that people have different legal rights based on the choices they make in arranging their personal lives. Government shouldn't be recognizing ANY marriages, unions, etc, beyond having courts enforce private contracts that free citizens have voluntarily entered into with each other, just as is done for business-type contracts."

You know, that perfectly sums up exactly what I feel about the matter.

Although I am married (I got married back in 1985 and am still married) it did seem a bit strange to me to have to go through the process of getting a marriage "license" and then go through the church ceremony of getting married. I figured that the marriage should be done in a church and the government should record and enforce the legal contract between the two parties, but just call it a contract between two persons.

Apparently back a long time ago people thought it was a good idea for the government to issue marriage licenses and approve marriages. I am sure that it seemed like a good idea at the time, collecting a fee for the marriage license and joining the two persons together for legal purposes in one easy step.

But as with all laws when society changes (or when a vocal and determined and activist minority gets into power) the law gets stretched and winds up being used in ways that it was not originally intended.

So not only do actions have consequences, laws have consequences down the road too.

Government shouldn't be recognizing ANY marriages, unions, etc, beyond having courts enforce private contracts that free citizens have voluntarily entered into with each other, just as is done for business-type contracts.

Government has a compelling interest in encouraging heterosexual marriage commitments, as this aids procreation and therefore the propetuation of the citizenry, as well as providing a stable societal unit to raise the next generation, free from burdens on other citizens.

Homosexual unions do not provide this societal benefit, and should therefore not be encouraged. And since biological bonding is the best way to ensure a stable family unit and nurture for the next generation, there is no need to encourage other forms of union where you cannot have biological parents raising the children.