Lesbian 'parents' given status under law
By The Associated Press
November 28, 2004
INDIANAPOLIS - Lesbian partners in Indiana who agree to conceive a child through artificial insemination are both the legal parents of any children born to them, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.
In its unanimous ruling, the court chided state lawmakers for being slow to deal with advances in reproductive technology and urged the General Assembly to address the "current social reality" of unconventional families.
"No (legitimate) reason exists to provide the children born to lesbian parents through the use of reproductive technology with less security and protection than that given to children born to heterosexual parents through artificial insemination," Judge Ezra H. Friedlander wrote in the ruling issued Wednesday.
"Our paramount concern should be with the effect of our laws on the reality of children's lives."
The court's decision overturns a ruling by a Monroe Circuit Court judge who found that a Bloomington woman, Dawn King, had no legal standing with the girl born to her former partner, Stephanie Benham, because King was not a biological parent.
Fran Quigley, executive director of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, called the ruling "an important first step" in providing legal protection to parents and children of nontraditional families.
Courtney Joslin, an attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, said appellate courts in about a dozen states have issued similar rulings.
The decision is likely to have an impact on future custody and child support cases, and issues such as access to health insurance and inheritance through the non-biological parent, said Joslin and Quigley.
Previously in Indiana, the only way for same-sex partners to each attain legal parent status was through a "second-parent adoption" - a costly undertaking that grants parental rights to a non-biological parent.
However, some judges in Indiana have refused to allow the second-parent adoptions for same-sex partners.
This week's ruling does not address a challenge to Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage that is pending before the state Court of Appeals. But Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana, a group that promotes the traditional concept of family, said "this essentially renders marriage and fathers meaningless."
Fishers attorney Sean C. Lemieux, who represented King, said the case is about the rights of parents and children and was based on a state Supreme Court ruling involving a married heterosexual couple that had a child through artificial insemination.
Lemieux said the court stopped short of setting a standard for what constitutes a nontraditional parenting partnership, something that still must be resolved.
In King's case, he said, the existence of a partnership was clear, he said.
King and Benham shared their home, lives and finances for nine years. Benham was impregnated with semen donated by King's brother and King was present and participated in the child's birth.
The little girl, now 5 years old, recognized both women as her mothers, calling King "momma." After the pair split in January 2002, King paid child support and had regular visits with the child until July 2003, when Benham stopped accepting the support and denied King visitation.
Gay rights aside, the interest of the child should be paramount, and in this particular case it seems they were.
See? We're not all part of a torchbearing lynch mob here in Indiana.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
So a court made a decision for which they will undoubtedly be attacked as "activist judges". Why do you feel that this should be perceived as a collective decision of the people of Indiana?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Interesting. They are right that the extent of the relationship is the most important thing. This case is also important because if it had been found negative, that could be later justification for removing parental rights from step-parents, as they were not biologically involved in conception either.
Stanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
Darth Wong wrote:So a court made a decision for which they will undoubtedly be attacked as "activist judges". Why do you feel that this should be perceived as a collective decision of the people of Indiana?
It shouldn't.
My comment was addressed to those who say that the 'Red States' are populated by homophobic bigots who hold daily prayer sessions for GWB and go 'fagbashing' on weekends, and as such, wasn't meant to be taken entirely seriously.
And in this particular case, you really can't call them 'Activist Judges' because they didn't create new law out of whole cloth or issue a ruling that flies against the language of the state constitution or state law.
Instead they took the well recognized prinicple of 'the best interests of the child' and extended it to the kids of so-called 'nontraditional' relationships.
Overdue, IMHO.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
And that's exactly what the so-called "activist judges" do every time they rule against one of the Bushies' little family values ideas. They say that such ideals are not compatible with the Constitution.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
Glocksman wrote:And in this particular case, you really can't call them 'Activist Judges' because they didn't create new law out of whole cloth or issue a ruling that flies against the language of the state constitution or state law.
Obviously, you haven't yet clued into the fact that the term "activist judge" is nothing more than empty political rhetoric.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
It may be vastly overused and exploited political rhetoric, but there are really 'Activist Judges' whose rulings fly into the face of precedent, the legislative history of the laws, and the plain language of the laws and the constitutions they are supposed to follow.
One good example would be the 19th century Plessey decision that legalized segregation despite both the plain language of the 14th amendment and the various civil rights acts that Congress passed right after the Civil War.
In other words, there are 'activists' on both sides of the aisle.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
Forgot to mention that all too often, an 'activist judge' is merely one the person making the accusation disagrees with.
This simply isn't so if the judge can make a logical argument that the decision stems from either the law, the legislative intent of the law, or the intent and wording of the constitution if the decision overturns the law in question.
If the judge can't do that, then it sure looks like he or she is merely imposing a personal POV rather than interpreting the laws.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
Glocksman wrote:And in this particular case, you really can't call them 'Activist Judges' because they didn't create new law out of whole cloth or issue a ruling that flies against the language of the state constitution or state law.
Obviously, you haven't yet clued into the fact that the term "activist judge" is nothing more than empty political rhetoric.
I find it curious you decide to dismiss the possibility of activist judges. You mean to tell me that there are NO activist judges out there? That there terms is mere "political rhetoric?" I would like to point out those that interpret the laws of the land (i.e. those laws that say marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN) to be literal, have all the right in the world to believe a judge is being activist if he is actively construing the law to make it whatever he deems necessary.
I find it amazing that people have taken the observation that this ruling will be decried as yet another example of "activist judges" eroding traditional American values and turning it into "So you're denying that activist judges exist?!?!?!?!"
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
Durandal wrote:I find it amazing that people have taken the observation that this ruling will be decried as yet another example of "activist judges" eroding traditional American values and turning it into "So you're denying that activist judges exist?!?!?!?!"
Mike stated that the term was no more than empty political rhetoric.
While it's very overused, it's not mere empty rhetoric.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
Durandal wrote:I find it amazing that people have taken the observation that this ruling will be decried as yet another example of "activist judges" eroding traditional American values and turning it into "So you're denying that activist judges exist?!?!?!?!"
Mike stated that the term was no more than empty political rhetoric.
While it's very overused, it's not mere empty rhetoric.
It's become another "politically correct"-type deal. While there are genuine cases of political correctness being forced on the American people unjustly, the term is now used to demean any movement that is geared toward racial or religious equality. Both have been so overused and abused that, at this point, they are nothing more than buzzwords used to poison the well of the opposite side of issue at hand.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
Durandal wrote:I find it amazing that people have taken the observation that this ruling will be decried as yet another example of "activist judges" eroding traditional American values and turning it into "So you're denying that activist judges exist?!?!?!?!"
Mike stated that the term was no more than empty political rhetoric.
While it's very overused, it's not mere empty rhetoric.
It's become another "politically correct"-type deal. While there are genuine cases of political correctness being forced on the American people unjustly, the term is now used to demean any movement that is geared toward racial or religious equality. Both have been so overused and abused that, at this point, they are nothing more than buzzwords used to poison the well of the opposite side of issue at hand.
Only problem being that this is not racial and it is not religious.
Want to bet if this was posted on a site like RR, people would say "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" showing they didn't even read the article?
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest "Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
DPDarkPrimus wrote:Want to bet if this was posted on a site like RR, people would say "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" showing they didn't even read the article?
