Transgender Case Focuses on How Sex Is Determined

CNSNews.com ^ | 7/24/03 | Lawrence Morahan

[ValerieUSA]

She has a psychological disorder, and has been harmed by physicians who profit from exploiting mental illness as their specialty. The courts need to start condemning sex change operations instead of reinforcing this abusive business practice.

[hellinahandcart]

Why is the mother more qualified and less aberrant in her sexual orientation than the father?

He's not the father. Of either kid. Not until the judge decided to make him their father, by allowing him to adopt them long after the marriage was over.

Why can't you see that this is just an end run around laws against gay adoption in Florida?

[ValerieUSA]

The kids welfare, in that they need to be with one or the other parent, is the most important.

The "father" is only an uncle - the mother is the mother. Unfortunately, as long as these children remain in this family, they, too, shall be freaks born of a terrible social experiment gone awry.

[Dudoight]

"He's not the father. Of either kid. Not until the judge decided to make him their father, by allowing him to adopt them long after the marriage was over.

Why can't you see that this is just an end run around laws against gay adoption in Florida?"

This may well be an 'end run' around the laws. I am sure it will be thoroughly argued in the coming years. There are certainly plenty of cases of people who are not biological parents adopting children. This is not a disqualifier for parenting skills. Based on your presentation, with both parents being non-hetero-sexuals, neither should have the children. The fact that one claims to have been 'saved', holds about much water as the bucket that Karla Faye Tucker was carrying to death row.

[hellinahandcart]

Just out of curiosity, what made the one woman a more "toxic parent" than the other one, who held such delusions and such hatred for her self, and was in such denial of reality, that she found it necessary to mutilate herself surgically?

The mother may or may not be a current or former lesbian. The "father" is never going to be anything more than a woman in an expensive man-disguise, who got rid of her uterus on purpose and now has to steal someone else's children.

And you and the judge think she's the better parent. Go figure.

[hellinahandcart]

There are certainly plenty of cases of people who are not biological parents adopting children

Against the wishes of the natural parents? On what grounds were the mother's parental rights terminated, since I can see no other way to do what you just suggested morally or legally?

[scripter]

Thanks for the ping.

Homosexual Agenda Index

Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search

All FreeRepublic Bump Lists

[Dudoight]

"Against the wishes of the natural parent?" Being a biological parent does not automatically bestow the superior qualifications for parenting. If I am not mistaken there was a battery of pschological testing, witnesses, etc., which went into the selection of which parent would provide the healthier life for the kids. It boils down to excluding BOTH parents because of their sexual choices or selecting the one which would provide more consistant love and caring. I honestly don't know where you are coming from. The sexual orientation of either parent is certainly not traditional. One is no worse nor better than the other if we stand them both up against the heterosexual ideal. Both fail miserably in that comparison. Should we place the kids with heeterosexual strangers? Or do we place them with the more stable, less hysterical adult who 'played' the part of parent for their entire life? It IS a tough case. A super tough job for the judge.

[First Amendment]

Your comments are righteous!!! On target!!

[Dante3]

I recall from the trial that the children preferred to be with the mother. The "father" had deserted the family for another woman and IMHO was truly weird. Then some "expert" (an old guy who seemed a loony to me) testified that "he" should have the children becaue the mother had become relgious and was angry at "him" for being deserted (which surely was a normal reaction).

I did not see the entire trial so there might have been other issues also.

[hellinahandcart]

It's not hard to see where I'm coming from unless you're determined not to look. You said "There are certainly plenty of cases of people who are not biological parents adopting children" and I pointed out that that is only done when the natural parents are dead, have voluntarily surrendered their parental rights, or have had those rights terminated. There is no other basis for simply GIVING one person's children away forever to someone who isn't related to them.

That isn't the case here. How did the judge justify allowing those children to be adopted against the mother's wishes? Did he terminate her parental rights or not?

Those children were not "adopted" during the marriage. The judge allowed the "father" woman to "adopt" them this February, five years after the marriage broke up. I can only assume this was over the objections of the natural mother. Who the hell is the judge to do this?

And you never answered my question about what made the natural mother a less fit parent. You watched the trial, surely you can tell me something as simple as what made her less fit? All you've mentioned is "hysterical and unstable", and boy, I would be too if I had to deal with this judge's warped viewpoint during a custody battle. Sorry, you'll have to give me a better reason than that, and better than "it's for the children", too.

Are you really so willing to submit to rule-by-judge?

[Dante3]

The mother did fight this. And no, she was not less fit. From all I saw she would make a far better parents. However, some creepy "expert" testified otherwise. However, by committing "adultery" and walking out on "his" family Michael surely wasn't much of a parent.

[hellinahandcart]

Wish I'd seen it. Was it on Court TV?

[jimt]

His Ohio birth certificate reflects his 1959 birth as a female named Margo, but an Ohio court ordered the document be changed to show his new gender and new name.

Statements like this, where the press panders to the weirdo by using "his", drive me nuts.

This whackjob can be a "she", by chromosomes, or an "it", by its removal of female organs, but it can never be a "he".

[Dante3]

Yes, it was on Court TV.

[Dante3]

A person can have body modification operations or mutilations but that does not change the gender. This case is all about "me" and "I want."

Michael Jackson wants to be white. If he had children, they would still be black.

[RJayneJ]

Thanks for the nomination! };^D )

[Dudoight]

" How did the judge justify allowing those children to be adopted against the mother's wishes? Did he terminate her parental rights or not? "

I don't know the answer to that. I would assume that he did not terminate her rights, allowed the father legal 'fathership' and custody, with visitation rights to the mother. I am only guessing. As both individuals had been parenting these kids for their entire life, I think the judge wanted to provide continuity for the kids. He side stepped the sexual orientation of either parent as to pertinance and set up the situation so that the 'father' could be the custodial parent. I assume he did this based on the results of the evaluations and testing, etc. of both Linda and Michael AND the kids. In this case, I think the judge focused on the welfare of the kids and that to me is the most important issue.

Michael seemed rooted in supportive extended family (siblings, parents), had a history of stable employment, was respected and liked by his community and work environmnet....was never shrill or tawdry in his presentation. The kids seemed to care for him a great deal...in spite of Michael's identity situation, he seemed the more 'grounded' in traditional values..but then that is my personal opinion, and of course it may be faulty. Toss out the sexual orientation complication, evaluate what you could observe and know from the trial....and that is what I came up with.

[hellinahandcart]

I don't know the answer to that. I would assume that he did not terminate her rights, allowed the father legal 'fathership' and custody, with visitation rights to the mother. I am only guessing.

So it's okay with you if the judge just "assigns" 'fathership' to someone over the wishes of the mother, who's done nothing to have her parental rights terminated. You can't tell me by what RIGHT he does this, can you? But as long as he thinks it's "fair" it's okay with you.

As both individuals had been parenting these kids for their entire life, I think the judge wanted to provide continuity for the kids

Weren't they with the mother for five years after the father left? If the judge was worried about continuity, he would have left them with her. And where does he get off "assigning" custody of a teenager away from his natural mother and onto a person who isn't even remotely related biologically? He is basically saying "I have decided YOU are this boy's father (even though you're a woman), you can adopt him whether the mother wishes it or not, and by the way, you get custody of him too." The parental rights of convicted murderers get more respect.

By the way, you still haven't answered my question. What made the mother less fit? A shrill voice on television?

What makes you assume the judge was thinking of the children rather than a ground-breaking legal precedent?

[Dudoight]

As I said, it is only my opinion and it may be wrong. I don't know that the mother's rights as a parent were terminated. I have no reason to suspect the judge of nefarious purposes. All I have to go by is what I saw in the trial. I honestly evaluated the situation with the children's best welfare in mind. I happen to feel that the demeanor of the father, his family history, etc., influenced me as to my preference for Michael as the custodial parent. I can defend my opinion no further than this. It is just an opinion.