Secondly, all Western law is based on God and nature. You've taken love of "the law" (which is almost always a good thing) put it above God and nature, turning the very concept of law on its head. Hence, when your respective states create a law that compels you each must mate with giraffes, I expect you both to comply.
Law means nothing if it simply eminates from the "bright ideas" of men, detached from truth and TRUE justice. Chaos and devolution then become inevitable.
The natural mother doesn't want the child she loves, her own flesh and blood, taking baths with a non-related lesbian the child barely knows. Yet we're being told the only choice the judge had was to tear the child from the mother and give her to the lesbian.
This is collective insanity.
Absolutely. And speaking of natural law, I just came across an excellent brief discussion elsewere on FR. The analysis is perhaps more relevant to this thread than to its original target, which was Øbumblercare. See:
If you read the history of the case, you would find that the judge has already imposed fines several times in this case, finding the woman in contempt. She has had assets seized, lost her car.
Putting her in jail is not the "next step", because if you do that, you have to put the child with the other woman anyway, so swapping custody WAS the next rational step. Under the arrangements being discussed, the visitation rights would have still existed for the mother, she simply would have lost the custody which she was using to defy the court order.
Secondly, all Western law is based on God and nature. You've taken love of "the law" (which is almost always a good thing) put it above God and nature, turning the very concept of law on its head. Hence, when your respective states create a law that compels you each must mate with giraffes, I expect you both to comply.
If you are arguing that no child should be adopted by a non-biological parent, that would at least be based on God's law and nature. But we regularly allow non-biological adults to adopt children. And we allow single adults to adopt children (I don't like it, but that's what we do, and I guess having a single parent is better than none at all).
We also allow single women to have children, and we allow men to keep their children if the mothers die, even if the men were originally adoptive parents.
So we don't like the woman's lifestyle. I agree. I would also argue that we shouldn't let an adulterous woman adopt a child, or a non-christian woman. But those are moral standards that we do not regularly enforce in our adoption procedings.
In this case, the mother of the child entered a legal arrangement with another woman, binding her child to that other woman. She is not smarter, wiser, but she and unfortunately her child will live with the consequences of her actions.
Remember that if the woman got her way, the child would still be forced to live in a fatherless house, because the mother is single. That isn't all that good for a child either -- and if the mother marries, the child will still be without her BIOLOGICAL FATHER, which we also know is bad for the child.
That was the choice of this woman -- to deprive her child of her biological father, and any father at all.