Justices Shy Away From Gay Parent’s Case
May 15 10:32 AM
By GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer
The Supreme Court refused Monday to block a gay woman from seeking parental rights to a child she had helped raise with her partner.
Justices could have used the case to clarify the rights of gays in child custody disputes stemming from nontraditional families.
They declined, without comment, to disturb a ruling of
The case had brought a contentious issue to a court that has shied away from gay rights disputes.
Lawyers for the girl's biological mother, Page
Carvin's attorneys had said the court has never agreed to hear a case involving parenting or visitation disputes arising from same-sex relationships, a recognition "that state courts can best provide the case by case attention these matters require."
The couple broke up in 2001 and the following year, when the girl was 7, Carvin was barred from seeing the girl. After Carvin went to court,
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Interesting this was the same court that couldn’t allow a grandmother in Washington State to have overnight visitation (after her son, the childrens’ biological father, died and the mother married another man) as that was considered to be a real invasion of parental rights (the infamous Troxel case from Washington State) but they don’t think now that allowing a totally unrelated person to have visitation and probably also be eligible for custody, that’s not considered invasive of parental rights…
I think the real issue is the inconsistency of the court in making these rulings. That’s the real issue, but that’s another post.
Anyway, although masquerading as a gay rights parenting ruling, in fact, this case is only incidentally about gay rights.
What it is at it’s heart is an attack on the biological definition of parenthood. In reality it is part of the ongoing and vicious attacks against mothers (as the person’s whose judgment regarding who her daughter associates with, which is being ignored here, is a mother), the primary nature of the mother/child bond, it’s unchanging essense and an attempt by gender neutralized proponents to substitute the opinion of ‘experts’ as to who has a child’s best interest at heart. It’s another spit in the face of God, evolution, human nature itself which has already decreed who is a child’s parent and has selected mothers as the primary caretakers for the children we alone bear and (due to that unique relationship) mother is the one most likely to act in her child’s best interest 99.9% of the time (barring a few misfit mothers who abuse and/or neglect their children).
This is the way it is in every species, as well as our own, and has been since man first crawled out of the primal mists. Yet those who don’t like this reality are attempting to change it by doing an end run around human nature by petitioning a legal forum. Eventually, like most of these nutty social engineeing attempts to change human nature, this one will also fail miserably. The only question will be: how much harm they’ll do to innocent people before it comes to an inglorious end.
AND another important question, for me anyway, how do we punish the proponents of this when it’s over?
As I’m getting a little sick and tired of these social engineering types causing havoc and destroying the lives of millions of people, then being permitted to walk away afterwards with no punishment. Just as these gender neturalized types caused untold misery in the
Anyway, although painted as a victory for this one lesbian, in essence it gives gay parents no new rights they didn’t have before since adoption by a second person has always been allowed. This particular ‘parent’ just chose not to utilize these rights and now wishes to backdate her rights since the relationship has been terminated by the child’s mother.
This will continue the trend of courts (with their hoards of child-free gender neutralized feminsts whose best friend is probably their cat) to cause mllions of mothers to lose custody of their children, 2.3 million at last count and growing…
The only thing good I can see about this ruling is that maybe, just maybe, it will finally stop mothers from moving men into their homes when they have children living with them...Men have been 'free-riding' off this tendency of women to want to be married for almost forty years now. Men obviously aren't as interested in marriage these days and why should they be if women are going to allow men to move into their homes at the drop of a hat? I guess many women hope that if they take these crumbs thrown their way now, they'll be able to negotiate a marriage later. Of course, it makes it that much more difficult for the rest of us women to hold men to any standards in these matters. As if we set limits, there is always another woman out there who has none.
So this has lessened the negotiating ability of ALL women to negotiate a marriage...
So perhaps this risk of mother losing her kids to some defacto jackass, who invested nothing in the relationship intially, but sees a way to either be spiteful or get some financial advantage by having custody of your kids, well this might finally put a stop to women being so careless about who they allow in their homes.
So every cloud has a silver lining.