That's it, now homosexuals understand one of the many reasons people like Dr. James Dobson and Gary Bauer were adamant that queer unions were a bad idea.
Think for a moment what you are reading: "six women," thus three unions; "to claim or renounce," meaning at least one of two want to "own" something while perhaps one or two want nothing to do with "owning" the same thing; and "unions," like factory worker associations. Sadly, legal disputes take all the softness and affection out of relationships.
Now notice where the children are ... they're the property being fought over. Only there is a problem.
In spite of being warned about these problems, the social-engineering whackos went ahead and re-engineered the human race and now discover the courts have their shorts tied in knots because they aren't up to the challenge.
The California Supreme Court struggled Tuesday to define parenthood for an age when technology permits two women to have children without a man in sight. The state's parenthood laws, with references to "paternity," give no clear answers. Prior court decisions de-emphasizing the role of biology in determining legal parenthood don't go so far as some of the women would like.
What they're struggling with is the definition of parent. As time goes on what they'll discover is that the old definitions are best:
- marriage = one man + one woman
- husband = the male partner in a marriage relationship
- wife = the female partner in the same
- parent(s) = either (or both) of the biological sources of offspring; the male and female progenitors of offspring
- paternity/maternity = biological responsibility for the offspring of a marriage
The narcissistic self-absorption of these women resulted in these issues. The issues certainly were and are difficult enough for the children of traditional "unions," without complicating it to the extreme.
Let's look at some of the extremes resulting from these three unions:
- Shelly Hanke, who is representing a former El Dorado County woman being asked to support her ex-partner's twins said, "It would be stretching to the absurd to say a woman can be a father."
Both women bore children, conceiving them about the same time using sperm from the same donor. Both breast-fed all three children and raised them together until the couple split up.
- The state's Attorney General is force to argue the absurd, "in determining parental responsibilities, the intent and conduct of people who form families are more important than biology."
an egg donor asserts she is a parent of twins to whom her former partner gave birth.
- A woman seeks to enforce a court judgment she and her female ex-partner obtained prior to the birth of a child. They stipulated at the time that the child would have two legal mothers.
Courts later declared the prenatal agreement invalid. (Aw, gee!)
The backwash of all this will affect judicial decisions concerning traditional families and traditional paternity for decades ... if we survive.
In a scene from the theatre of the absurd the court was forced to ask the absurd:
What if two mothers were recognized as parents and then the sperm donor asserted parental rights, asked some justices. Would the child have three parents?
If a mother can be forced to share custody with a biologically unrelated former female partner, asked Justice Janice Rogers Brown, could a former boyfriend also assert parental rights, intruding on a mother's right to parent?
And for a real gut wrenching laugh, how about this humor ...
Other members of the court, including Chief Justice Ronald George, questioned whether granting new rights to nonbiological mothers would mean rewriting statutes that now refer to men and "paternity."
Rewriting legislation is something that conservative judges hesitate to do.
Whoa, do the idiots at the Ninth Circuit or the Massachusetts Supreme Court know this?