This is from the Associated Press, I hope I get the link right.

AP Article

Basically, two women entered into a civil union in Vermont (closest thing allowed to a marriage) in 2000. One of them was artificially inseminated and gave birth to a daughter in 2002.

Then, in 2003 the couple broke up because the birth mother renounced homosexuality and became an evangelical Christian.

The birth mother will not let the other mother see the child, and the other mother took her to court and now has been awarded custody. The supreme courts of VA and VT said it was a custody dispute just like any other heterosexual couple. It has gone to the supreme court and they won't hear the arguments.

Personally, I am a Christian, but I resent when the government legislates morality. I don't think that is a solution to behavior problems that do no harm to the general public. So I think it's great that the rule of law has won the day here. I can't recall hearing about a custody issue with a same sex marriage before.

The sperm donor should be rewarded custody.

HA HAAAA!

Excellent point Pariah.

But here's the funny thing - we hold SUCH regard for who the genes actually come from. Some of the Xs out here are basically sperm or egg donors and did little in contributing to the development of the kids. But when divorce time comes, they have "rights" simply because of a genetic link. Since the courts like to hang a lot of credence on the power of the biological parent, without regard as to whether or not they ARE the parent, I think you may be right.

They should show up at the sperm donors doorstep and say "Here's your kid...."

Unless the lesbian mother donated her egg, she has NO biological connection with this child, and I'm of the opinion that if she was the egg donor, it would probably have been so stated by now. In that case, the court would be ruling that the birth mother was, in essence, a surrogate, with severely diminished rights to the child she bore. In so many other cases, biology was the trump card that determined custody, even when the child had been adopted and with another family for years. I'm at a loss to understand how biology has now become completely irrelevant.

tl

One of the lesbian mothers was artificially inseminated, so she is the biological mom, carrying the child and giving birth. She renounced the homosexuality and is not letting her partner, to whom she was married and they agreed to do this together, see the child.

The courts have given custody to the partner - the one with no biological connection saying that that would ensure both parents would get to see the kid.

If for some reason I was "shooting blanks" and my ex and I went to a sperm bank to have our three kids, I would, having raised them as long as I did, consider them "mine" whether they were genetically mine or not.

Some what of a T/J but Cat Cora from the Iron Chef show is gay and with her partner, both are or were pregnant with each others egg.

Now what will happen if, they break up (given I think) since basically they each had each others child.


I hate the Big Brother/Gorverment thing, but I think the court missed on this one, the partner really have no claim on the child, and it's not like when at the end of a marriage the husband finds out that he is not the father, which he presumed he was (who wouldn't) the partner really has no legal rights.

That being said the re-nouncer of her gay life style should have let her former partner have visitation just like any other person in a failed relationship.


I'm a Christian and I really do hate it when people like the former lesbian changes their mind about their life style and go all militant with their views it's almost like tunnel vision.

Its just another ugly custody battle.

The woman in VT, who is not the birth mother, but I will concede, probably held the syringe, is being supported in her court battles by lobbies that want equal rights for homosexual relationships.

This is just the first. In a few years, there will many more, because marriage it tough, and kids are forever.

The birth mother can say she ran because she is "Christian" but it is just an excuse. She ran because she is like every other mother or father that does not want thier children to see thier other parent. Selfish.

This case has been in the Washington Post every couple of weeks since 2004. That is some of the reason that they highlight so much that the birth mother has renounced homosexuality and turned into a "strident" or "extreme" Christian. She can't be someone who doesn't like the other person anymore.

Yes, it appears I am talking out of both sides of my mouth. But its just another sad custody case. Both sides are to blame.

LG

I wonder if they think God is a man. I read "God is not a man that he can lie..." but I guess that the morals the child will grow up with will be genetically twisted too huh?

What's missing in this article is the legal status of the partner's parenthood of this child. For example, did she adopt the child at birth? Is she registered on the birth certificate as a parent? How does that work when there is a sperm donor? Honestly, I'm not sure how this works even in heterosexual marriages so there's a lot of info missing. In any event, from the child's point of view if she had an attachment to both "mothers", why should one be taken away based on a unilateral decision by the other?

I have this opinion of the gene pool issue. If you have a child and they inherit some of your traits, tendencys, etc. then considering that you have gone though puberty and learned how to PROPERLY deal with your emotional tendencies you will be the better choice as a parent then a stranger to deal with those issues. This is such a small area of guidance that it is pretty much drownedout by someone who is qualified

Then of course we have ppl who aren't grown up and have children.

Those children are better off being loved by a responsible person.

Who is the most qualified is the real issue here.

The trouble is, this is an awefully huge assumption. There are many people out there breeding who shouldn't look after a goldfish, let alone raise a young human being. But that's a whole n'other issue.

Actually, I have suspicions that one of the players in this drama is actually a former Marriage Builders member who is no longer active here. I just remember J being so very sad about losing her daughter when her partner had an affair with a man, began following a new religious path, and left with the baby.

(And yes, gay people have used MB)

Mojo I remember them sad tale and the outcome not good nor fair to the left behind partner, and small child.

I'm glad I am not the only one who remembers her. I still think of her often and when this story hit, I felt heartbroken and angry for j. And because acess to the child was restricted as much as possible by the partner who left her, the child now has to handle a stressful situation of getting to know a new household... well, on top of the stress of being on the run.