A custody battle in Florida between two lesbians could fuel the growing national debate over the definition of motherhood.
... The women, now in their 30s and known in court papers only by their initials, were both law enforcement officers in Florida. One partner donated an egg that was fertilized and implanted in the other. That woman gave birth in 2004, nine years into their relationship.
But the Brevard County couple separated two years later, and the birth mother eventually left Florida with the child without telling her former lover. The woman who donated the egg and calls herself the biological mother finally tracked them down in Australia with the help of a private detective.
Their fight over the now 8-year-old girl is before the state Supreme Court, which has not announced whether it will consider the case. A trial judge ruled for the birth mother and said the biological mother has no parental rights under state law, adding he hoped his decision would be overturned.
... in a blistering dissent, Judge C. Alan Lawson said the trial judge got it right. A child can have only one mother, he wrote.
The court shouldn't recognize two mothers "unless we are also willing to invalidate laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, bigamy, polygamy or adult incestuous relationships on the same basis," Lawson said.
22 Comments
Huge thanks to the two lesbians who totally screwed up this kid's life! Brava!!!
The child is nothing more than property in the eyes of the marriage corruption movement. Property that is governed by the terms previously agreed upon as noted in the Bill of Sale. My wife and I had a similar arrangement with our pure bred poodle.
Isn’t it ironic that the marriage corruption movement insists on referencing the civil rights movement when defending their demands for special consideration; while simultaneously touting their personal property rights over children.
This is the type of scenario that plays itself out on a daily basis across the country. Two lesbians decide to play house and pretend to have a baby together. And they're insane enough to believe their own little fantasy.
Children aren't pets, and these two crazies aren't qualified to adopt a puppy.
Did anybody see the TV show, "Mobbed" in which a 35-year old man sought out his estranged father who he had never met?
The union between father and son and the tears between them was joyous and heart-wrenching at the same time. All of those years, a son knowing that he had a father but never having the opportunity to meet him.
The intentional orphaning of children to satisfy the selfish desires of adults is tantamount to child abuse.
What about this girl's right to have a father?
Although we must fight against the redefinition of marriage, we should also keep an eye on legal developments of this sort. In addition to the type of situation laid out in this article, another one I've always wonder about is what happens if a same-sex male couple "mixes sperm" to inseminate a surrogate for the express purpose of not knowing which one of them is the father. What would happen if they split? Would it matter which one of them is the biological father with regards to parental rights? I'd welcome folks from either side to help me out with that one.
The idea that parenthood should be determined apart from biology or adoption is replete with problems; but, unfortunately, that's where we are headed, and fast.
"Huge thanks to the two lesbians who totally screwed up this kid's life! Brava!!"
Comments like this always make me sad. This may come as a huge shock to many of you, but homosexuals are people too. As such, they are liable to do really stupid things.
"Two lesbians decide to play house and pretend to have a baby together. And they're insane enough to believe their own little fantasy. Children aren't pets, and these two crazies aren't qualified to adopt a puppy."
And this is even worse. You are trying to assign blame to the whole of the LGBT because of the actions of a few. If that where the case, and you accept this, why are you not condemn all straight couples for child abuse, domestic abuse and so on?
But of course you wouldn't do this right? You prefer to live in your own little fantasy where only you are right.
Somewhere this little girl has a father who is not doing his duty.
Great posts in #1 and #2 as Davide and Barb said it perfectly. We can clearly see that the homosexuals pu their lustfull sexual desires over the interests of what is best for children.
Besides treating an 8 year old girl like she is a pet they are also treating this poor child like she is some sort of a trophy to be won in a fight.
This just shows the worthiness of our cause and why we are right in this fight. For those who care about children and believe in children's rights this hurts us all.
If homosexuality was natural, don't you think that the couple would accept that they can't biologically reproduce? That they would use adoption at most? I agree with France. Children have the right to a mother and father. Your rights to reproduce do not trump their right of a mother and father.
John Noe: "Great posts in #1 and #2 as Davide and Barb said it perfectly. We can clearly see that the homosexuals pu(t) their lustful sexual desires over the interests of what is best for children."
http://world.einnews.com/pr_news/84305892/religious-and-educational-institutions-cover-up-sexual-abuse-of-children
Clearly we can see from this story that all Religious and Educational Institutions (and the people who are part of them) are sexual abusers of children.
Do you see what I did up there? See how completely silly it is it assign blame to the many for the actions of the few? If we actively do such, eventually every person would be blamed and found guilty of everything.
Splitting motherhood is contrary to the rights of the child.
http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=1772
Austrian law puts it like this: “medically assisted procreation should take place similarly to natural procreation, and in particular that the basic principle of civil law – mater semper certa est [the mother is always certain] – should be maintained by avoiding the possibility that two persons could claim to be the biological mother of one and the same child and to avoid disputes between a biological and a genetic mother in the wider sense.”
Completely off the mark Hank.
The issue is that appointed attorney's are beeing tasked with deciding what constitututes a mother:
"AP: Same-Sex Custody Battle Could Redefine Legal Motherhood"
The fact that these two women are wrong headed is obvious on its face. If there is a silver lining to be found its in the fact that even a marriage corruption supporter such as yourself is capable of recognizing depravity when they see it.
Hank and Randy, this is much more than an issue of two people behaving badly. The problem is inherent in the concept of "gay parents". Each child has two parents. One is the mother and one is the father. Denying that reality inevitably causes harm regadless of how otherwise kind and well behaved the people who do it might be. There is a void in a child's life when their parent is absent. To deliberately create that void is inherently selfish. All the band aids a person might put on that wound will not justify having created the wound in the first place.
Well put, Anne.
The travesty here is the intentional creation of a child without a father. It's also a travesty when a single woman does the same thing. Probably the most selfish act I can think of.
But selfishness is the essence of homosexuality, isn't it? They have all of the rights that heterosexual people have, but insist upon changing the rules so that they can participate in their sordid sexual behaviors rather than participate in the existing paradigm that has thousands of years of proven success.
You want a family? Get married an make a family; it's yours for the taking.
"Each child has two parents. One is the mother and one is the father. Denying that reality inevitably causes harm regadless of how otherwise kind and well behaved the people who do it might be."
Except these particular individuals are not, in this instance, being particularly kind or well behaved. I fully support same sex marriage, but I'm sad to say that same sex parents sometimes use their children as pawns during a break-up, just as some opposite sex parents do. As unfortunate as this argument is, it's no argument against same sex marriage.
I love people who say "what about this child's right to have a father?"
There is no right to having two opposite sex biological parents in your life. If there were, adoption would be illegal. How many children waste away in foster care because their parents gave them up for adoption, died, or weren't capable of raising them? Imagine two young parents taking a baby to an adoption agency saying "we want to give up full parental rights of our child, we aren't capable of raising it and we don't want it" and the person there saying "nope, sorry, this child has a right to two biological parents"? If you think a child has a "right" to two biological parents being ever present in their life, I suggest you take it up with the men who bail on their pregnant girlfriends, the mother's who leave their children in the care of their grandparents or siblings, or the parents who have the audacity to die.
Having two loving, committed parents (or hell, even one loving, committed parent) is not a right - it's a luck of the draw that many children don't have. This child has two women who probably love her to pieces and have raised her and been part of her life since birth. And just like you'd tell a child in the middle of a straight divorce, her parents love her very much, even if they don't love each other anymore.
This is such a rare occurrence in the LGBT community, yet you at NOM act like this is an everyday norm. If you're so hell bent on making sure this doesn't happen to children, why don't you petition laws to make divorce illegal, or petition a law that would make it a RIGHT of a child to have a father and a mother?
Hank: The difference is this is an isolated case whereas what I said about the homosexuals is true. They all put their lustfull sexual selfish sexual desires ahead of children because they all PURPOSELY DENY THEIR CHILDREN A PARENT OF THE OPPOSITE SEX!!!!!!!!!!!
I'd have to disagree with the opposition when they suggest that children have no rights. Of course, I can understand why they would make this argument. As Randy mentioned in comment #2, the opposition views children as property, much like a car. And no sane person would argue that a car has rights.
The opposition argues that an ugly same-sex breakup is a rare occurrence. Who are they trying to kid, themselves? And another thing that is equally certain: any same-sex couple who manufactures a piece of property they call "baby" has ripped that child away from at least one of her natural parents.
It's a twisted set of morals, truly mind boggling.
Randy E King:
"The fact that these two women are wrong headed is obvious on its face. If there is a silver lining to be found its in the fact that even a marriage corruption supporter such as yourself is capable of recognizing depravity when they see it."
-Any two parents that would fight over a child as if it where a pet is indeed wrong, but to try to make it out like only homosexuals do this, is not only silly, but grossly untrue.
Anne:
"Hank and Randy, this is much more than an issue of two people behaving badly. The problem is inherent in the concept of "gay parents". Each child has two parents. One is the mother and one is the father. Denying that reality inevitably causes harm regadless of how otherwise kind and well behaved the people who do it might be. There is a void in a child's life when their parent is absent. To deliberately create that void is inherently selfish. All the band aids a person might put on that wound will not justify having created the wound in the first place."
- And saying that all a child needs is one mother and one fathers is also very selfish not to mention not always true. While many many family's do indeed have this, what of the ones that have child and domestic abuse? I know you like to ignore such things because in your view homosexuality is a "great evil" but us in the real world are still concerned with it. You also ignore the many many family's that are in "unions" (that do not give the same rights as a marriage btw) that are perfectly happy and safe.
John Noe
Hank: The difference is this is an isolated case whereas what I said about the homosexuals is true. They all put their lustfull sexual selfish sexual desires ahead of children because they all PURPOSELY DENY THEIR CHILDREN A PARENT OF THE OPPOSITE SEX!!!!!!!!!!!
- Not only is this line of thinking untrue, but it is rather silly. To blame all for the actions of the few is very destructive (ex: one hetro couple beats their children, so all do), yet you still do it. You need to realize that everyone is different. Some heto couple are very nice people while other homo couple need to be sent to the moon. There are some heto couples who are the scum of the universe just as there are some homo couples that would do anything for their children. You really need to stop putting up so many walls in your life, or else you will find the only one inside your house of discontent.
- Not only is this line of thinking untrue, but it is rather silly.
My line of thinking is entirely true and their is nothing silly about it. EVERY SAME SEX COUPLE HAS DENIED THEIR CHILD A PARENT OF THE OPPOSITE SEX. This was no accident as they did this on purpose. Putting selfish sexual desires ahead of children.
You really need to stop putting up so many walls in your life, or else you will find the only one inside your house of discontent.
There are no walls in my life when I speak of what is best for children. There is no discontent when you feel that the children's rights supercedes selfish adult sexual desires.
Each child is born equal, of a man and a woman. Each has a birthright to know and to be known by the mom and dad who co-created that child. Responsible procreation is a two-sided coin: on one side is the child's birthright which society is duty bound to protect as best we can even in the face of tragedy or dire circumstances; on the other side is the duty of society to honor the obligation of the mom and dad to be responsible for the well being and education of the children they bring into this world -- again, barring tragedy or dire circumstances.
The notion of doublemoms or doubledads begins with brushing aside what is owed the child. It begins with an adultcentric view of family formaion and the demotion of procreative justice to a pesky urdle to overcome on the way to a supposed right to attaining a child.
There is no such right ... not based on justice and certainly not based on sexual orientation ormembership in an identity group. Two hwterosexual women do not have such a right so why would tw homosexual women expect to merit an exception?