08 September 2005

Things I Don't Understand

The New York Times has an article today about the arguments in the Vermont Supreme Court about a custody dispute between two lesbians, one of whom still lives in Vermont and the other now in Virginia. As the New York Times reports, both women are asserting their parenthood, but the one in Virgina asserts that she is the child's only mother. (GLAD also has a good information up with links to some of the briefs filed.)

I don't understand how lesbians who split up and end up in legal disputes about custody can take the position that non-biological mothers aren't parents to children who were clearly conceived or adopted within an intentional family. I know, rationally, that the arguments are made because they can be made. The ways in which US law is blind to the realities of gay and lesbian life means that there are gaping holes in the legal understanding of our lives. But how people can make arguments that undermine the parenting rights of the rest of us gay and lesbian parents really eludes me. These arguments are so dangerous.

The Times quotes Adam Koppelman (apparently from his recent book on gay marriage) saying "If the Virginia court is correct...then no parental right arising out of a same-sex marriage is secure anywhere in the United States." Scary, scary stuff.

2 comments:

tonyyy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Elizabeth said...

Well, the woman living in Virginia no longer considers herself a lesbian and obviously doesn't give a f--- about the case's effects on other people's lives.

This story just makes my blood boil.