Posted on 02/18/2003 8:30:41 AM PST by new cruelty
Donna Colley and Margaux Towne-Colley, a lesbian couple bringing up a son in Omaha, face an ongoing dilemma.
They could stay in Nebraska, where Colley has a satisfying job as a lawyer, the couple own a home and are close to their neighbors. It's also where state law does not allow both women to be legal parents to Grayson, a blond, blue-eyed toddler who was delivered by Towne-Colley after she was artificially inseminated with sperm from an anonymous donor.
That leaves the couple with another option: Leave Nebraska and build a new life in one of about a dozen states that recognize same-sex couples as parents.
Such legal status isn't just symbolic. Because Colley can't be a legal parent to 16-month-old Grayson under Nebraska law, the child would not be entitled to government benefits if Colley were to become disabled or die. The boy would not be guaranteed support payments from Colley if the two women were to split up. And if Towne-Colley were to die, Colley wouldn't automatically receive custody of the boy.
Legal analysts say the choice they face is typical of the forces that are transforming family law across America. Gay and lesbian couples increasingly are going to court seeking to adopt children, acquire rights as parents, take on shared last names and secure a range of benefits similar to those enjoyed by heterosexual couples.
Nearly three years after Vermont approved civil unions for homosexual couples, the evolving acceptance of such couples nationwide is reflected in recent court decisions in which judges have looked not only at biology when determining who is a ''parent,'' but at the roles people play in households. Many judges are saying sexual orientation shouldn't matter in deciding what makes a family. A few conservative groups are fighting the tide, without much success.
Recent cases in Pennsylvania and Delaware symbolize the new age in family law, and judges' increasing flexibility in defining parental roles. Courts in those states ordered lesbians to pay child support for children they had been rearing with their partners before the couples split up.
''People are recognizing that these non-traditional families are here to stay, and courts are finding ways to support the children,'' says Susan Becker, professor at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law at Cleveland State University.
But as Colley and Towne-Colley's situation suggests, the rules aren't the same for everyone.
State laws -- and local attitudes -- vary widely when it comes to adoption, child support, domestic partnerships and other issues that affect same-sex couples. Courts, laws and government policies in conservative states in America's heartland and in the South generally are less tolerant of efforts to give gay and lesbian couples the same rights as heterosexuals:
* Last year, Nebraska's Supreme Court refused to allow a lesbian to formally adopt the boy whom she and her partner (the birth mother) are rearing. Such ''second parent'' adoptions, which allow a second adult to assume responsibility for a child without the biological parent losing any rights, are legal for gay and lesbian couples in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont and the District of Columbia. In a dozen other states, some local courts have backed such arrangements.
* Four states -- Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri -- still ban sex between consenting homosexual adults, although the laws are rarely enforced. The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) on March 26 will consider a challenge to Texas' law.
* Eight states and about three dozen cities and counties -- mostly on the East and West coasts -- provide benefits for the partners of their gay and lesbian public employees, gay-rights advocates say.
No group tracks all cases involving gay and lesbian family issues. But those on both sides agree that homosexuals' increasing aggressiveness on family issues has won them gains in courts and beyond.
''In the past, when gay and lesbian couples tried to adopt, they really couldn't identify themselves as gay,'' says Michele Zavos, a Washington, D.C., lawyer who specializes in gay family law. ''Now, they can, either when going through a second-parent adoption or with an agency.''
The rising number of same-sex couples seeking family rights has been a call to action for some conservative groups. And some judges express disdain for same-sex parents. They say that homosexuality is reason enough to keep someone away from a child.
''Homosexual conduct of a parent . . . creates a strong presumption of unfitness that alone is sufficient justification for denying that parent custody of his or her own children,'' Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote last year, when his court agreed with a lower court's decision to limit custody for a lesbian mother.
Overall, however, even some groups that oppose expanded gay rights acknowledge that the trend in state family courts is running against them.
''It's becoming a tougher battle each day,'' says Peter Sprigg, senior director of cultural studies at the Family Research Council, a Washington, D.C., group that wants the law to recognize only marriages between men and women. ''We're probably losing ground.''
Gay-rights advocates say it's all a reflection of the rising profile of gay men and lesbians in politics, the workplace and everyday life. ''People know now that gay and lesbian relationships are not exceptional,'' says Patricia Logue, a lawyer for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. ''Now, we're seeing what the political winds will bear in each state.''
'I am a stranger to my child'
Same-sex couples and their families have become hot topics for TV shows, movies and media reports in recent years. The increasing openness of same-sex couples, fueled by the successes of the gay-rights movement, has made it seem as though there has been an explosion of such families.
But firm numbers are difficult to come by. The U.S. Census Bureau (news - web sites) did not collect figures on same-sex couples until 2000, so there are no reliable statistics on the growth in such households. The 2000 Census found 1.2 million people living in households with unrelated adults of the same sex, but analysts say that figure is low because it was derived from a part of the Census form that some people ignored.
Similarly, estimates of children of gay or lesbian parents vary widely. Judges have cited various reports that put the number of children living with at least one gay or lesbian parent at 6 million to 12 million.
''The sheer number of support groups, magazines and Web sites for gay and lesbian parents suggests that the number is significant,'' says Denver lawyer Kim Willoughby, who specializes in issues regarding same-sex couples.
Advances in reproductive technology, including artificial insemination, egg donation and in-vitro fertilization, have given gay men and lesbians ways to become parents beyond adoption.
Although it has become easier for same-sex couples to work with private adoption agencies, they sometimes do not disclose their sexual orientation, making reliable statistics about such adoptions difficult. Gay men or lesbians who adopt foreign children typically have one partner adopt as an individual, and the other partner initiate a second-parent adoption later.
After Towne-Colley, 38, got pregnant two years ago, she and Colley, 43, planned to return briefly to Vermont, where they had a civil union ceremony in 2000. (Towne added Colley's name to hers that year.) They wanted Grayson to be born there because the state would allow both women to be listed as parents on his birth certificate. But they were still in Nebraska in October 2001, when Grayson was born nine weeks early.
Working around Nebraska law, the couple drafted wills, a parenting agreement and other papers that spell out their responsibilities for Grayson. ''We are trying to do everything we can to tie ourselves together legally and bind me to our son,'' says Colley, whose salary and benefits provide for the family.
Still, Colley says, ''under the law, I am a stranger to my child.'' For now, she and Towne-Colley are staying in Nebraska and not challenging its parenting laws. They are mindful of last year's state Supreme Court decision against a lesbian couple and say they don't want to risk an adverse ruling.
Amy Miller, a lawyer for the ACLU of Nebraska, represented the lesbian couple whose case went to Nebraska's high court. The court said state law forbids a second adult from adopting a child unless the birth mother (in this case, one of the partners) gives up her rights to the child.
Miller says her unidentified clients wanted to make sure that if the birth mother died, their 3-year-old son, Luke, could receive Social Security (news - web sites) and other benefits tied to her partner. After they lost in court, they moved to Portland, Ore. Thanks to a second-parent adoption there, Miller said, they both are Luke's legal parents.
In Cincinnati, Cheryl, 41, and Jennifer, 36, are rearing a 2-year-old boy who is the product of an egg harvested from Cheryl, fertilized by sperm from an anonymous donor, and implanted in Jennifer.
The couple, who agreed to be interviewed if only their first names were used, say they might seek shared parental rights. But they know that Ohio courts often reject such efforts. They say moving out of state is not an option. ''This is just as much our state as anyone else's,'' Cheryl says.
Focusing on 'functional' parents
Ohio has been a battleground for the new generation of family law cases. The state Supreme Court has handed victories to those on both sides of the issue.
During the past year, the court endorsed shared last names for gay and lesbian couples but rejected second-parent adoptions for homosexuals. In Cleveland Heights, voters gave health benefits to gay and lesbian partners of city employees. An effort to reverse the move through a referendum failed.
''I think you're going to see a backlash soon,'' says Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute at Concerned Women for America, a Washington, D.C., group that opposes rights for same-sex couples. ''Their movement is displacing marriage as the gold standard in family law.''
But Duke University law dean Katharine Bartlett says judges have struggled with nontraditional families since divorce rates jumped three decades ago. ''Courts aren't trying to contribute to the demise of traditional families. But they recognize the reality of families today and 'functional' parents.''
That was evident in a Pennsylvania case in December. The state Superior Court affirmed a trial judge's order that a lesbian should pay support for five children she had been bringing up with her ex-partner. That case followed one in Delaware in which a judge ordered a woman to pay support for a son that her former partner had through in-vitro fertilization.
But providing for children isn't always the overriding factor in such cases. Last year in Idaho, a local magistrate denied a gay man, Theron McGriff, custody of his two children from a marriage to a woman. The magistrate said McGriff, 38, couldn't visit them if he continued to live with another man. Idaho's Supreme Court agreed to hear McGriff's appeal.
''Sexual orientation should be irrelevant,'' says Shannon Minter, McGriff's attorney. ''Unless you're living under a rock, you know the way people live has changed.''
The elements to indecent exposure are simpler to prove. If you caught a heterosexual couple in the act of sodomy, then you could charge the felony.
If you caught them in the act of regular intercourse, then you could charge only the misdemeanor.
You seemed quite proud about never cutting any of them any slack, disecretion, benefit of the doubt, or ability to plea to a lesser charge.
You viewed you job as a personal Mission from God to stop any sex act that didn't measure up (to coin another phrase ;^)...) to the standards set in Leviticus.
You seemed genuinely disappointed that we just don't stone 'em to death anymore...
Do I recall correctly?
You have an OPTION of charging indecent exposure, a misdemeanor, OR Crimes Against Nature A Felony.
Soooo, just out of curiosity have YOU that's Y-O-U personally ever failed to exercise the option of charging it as a felony?
God destroyed two entire cities over this wicked sin.
The Bible is clear The homosexual act is what is to be hated, not the person behind the act.
Homosexuality is a sin just like murder. Homosexuality is also a choice, just like murder. Liberals have brainwashed Americans, that it is not, but they cannot change fact.
Let me ask another question -- my nieghbor has a better snow-blower than mine, yet my walkways are longer, as is my driveway. Yet he will refuses to lend or rent it to me.
Do I have a claim to just up and borrow it when he is not using it, as long as I return it in the same condition. Clearly he wouldn't be using it then, and has no loss, eh?
The idea that children should be placed and supported in situations which deliberately endanger their healthy development is heinous and callous. And I don't care about all the noble anecdotes about "caring for children with special needs". The fact remains that the family is the primary method of socializing the next generation, of developing new human beings. As such, families demanded and were given protections by law to enhance and support their development and to assure that the family survives.
There is nothing inherently moral about the stance. It is a codification of "natural law" that the family unit is at a minimum one man one woman and one child. Enabling such "unnatural" systems to exist weakens the future generations by promulgating and creating segments of the population averse to propagation.
No, I do not want the government to snoop in my bedroom or anyone else's. But defending the "rights" of homosexuals to warp the minds of children is not the direction we should be taking either. The same arguments could be made for the "rights" of pedophiles or junkies or anyone else...after all they are people, too.
I agree. I have never supported "state recognized" marriages of two people of the same sex. You are correct, it is not marriage.
I do not support adoption by two persons of the same sex either. One reason is that I do believe that "homosexuality" is a mental disorder. You have two people who have chosen a relationship that children can not result from, but they want children anyway. An obvious sign of a mental disorder.
Sorry, not familiar with that word.
Their actions, activities and lifestyles harm children.
Two people engaging in sex hurts children? Not in the world I live in.
Securing "rights" only exacerbates that harm, imho.
That's funny.
Being enabled by willing jurists who ignore the law, the intentions of the law and the traditions of the culture will create more problems than it solves.
Ignore the law? Hilarious. We are compelled to ignore the law when the "law" ignores individual rights.
I think you inferred that I support state recognized same-sex marriages and same-sex adoptions. I do not. My #91 explains why.
I am simply against laws that make consentual behvior "illegal". Nothing more, nothing less. No one has a "right" to be the guardian of children they did not produce. The State does have a compelling interest, as you state, to protect children. While I am not saying 100% of "homosexuals" are pedophiles, they certainly do have a mental disorder. The nature of the mental disorder makes them unfit to raise a child, IMO.
While I will not go as far to call the Bible "Superstition" and "fable", I will say(and always do) that many people in their zeal confuse Old Testement(Old Covenant) laws handed down to the Israelites with New Testement(New Covenant) teachings by Christ. Old Covenant laws such as stoning homosexuals, idolaters and aldulterists had reasons. Those reasons passed away, according to the Bible, when Christ died. Such laws as "death to sinners" were no longer applicable to people who would now be called "Christians".
You've observed correctly.
Ah! That explains our tax penalties on married couples!
It also explains why the rules developed by the "Great Society" forbid welfare moms from having a male role model in the house.
It fails to explain why so many elderly couples need to get divorced so the state wont sieze all their savings and the very roof over their heads to pay medical bills.
Thanks for playing. Try again.
In his case, that's a weak argument...
;^P
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.