September 08, 2005
Solomon: Get Your Knife
by Lorraine Berry
Well, I suppose it's progress that behaving like a complete fucking selfish asshole during a custody battle is not the exclusive provence of heterosexual couples. The case of two women who both claim maternal rights have cast a harsh light on the uneven application of human rights throughout our nation. As Jeff and Liza have both eloquently argued many times on this site, gays do not have full human rights in this country, and that should fill all of us with deep, deep shame.
This case has generated a huge amount of attention because the Virginia court's ruling enforces hate as a "family" value. But I want to focus for a minute on the birth mother. It appears that she has an axe to grind, and she's going to use her daughter as the grindstone. This is exactly the kind of behaviour I despise in heterosexual couples who break up and drag their children through the courts. How fucking dare she? Does she give a rat's ass about their child? Or does she honestly believe that her selfish need to claim ownership of their daughter and punish her ex is paramount over the well-being and happiness of their child?
Ms. Miller moved back to Virginia, where Isabella was born, in September 2003. The couple had visited Vermont briefly for the civil union ceremony in 2000 and lived there for more than a year after Isabella was born in 2002."When I left Janet," Ms. Miller said in a telephone interview, "I left the homosexual lifestyle and drew closer to God."
Apparently, when you decide that you're not gay anymore, you also lose your humanity.
Posted by in Accountability, Body, Civil Rights, Culture War, Family, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, Homosexuality, Human Rights, Kids, Law, Motherhood, Parenting, W T F
Permalink |
Comments (8)
| TrackBack (0) | Technorati Cosmos
Trackbacks
Trackback for this post:http://www.culturekitchen.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/3267
The following blogs make reference to this post :
Say it loud, say it proud!
In the case of Michael H. v. Gerald D. SCOTUS ruled (in a decision by Scalia) that it was marriage, not necessarily biology, that created a legal parental bond. In the case, the father of a little girl (mom had an on-again-off-again affair with him) sued for visitation rights (he had been a part of her early life). Dad wasn't the husaband, and the Court upheld the legal notion of marital legitimacy. One of the things that comes with that married parent status is responsibility for the child upon dissolution of the relationship. Those responsibilities are one of the things we're fighting for. When approached responsibly, those responsibilities are in the child's best interest. Such "family values" laws harm families.
This is also where DOMAs at the state and federal level run into Constitutional problems--interstate conflict may be the best means of attacking them.
2
Comment by: lorraine at September 8, 2005 03:14 PM
What angers me most about this case is the absolutely cynical use of Virginia's hate laws to get back at an ex. If she had stayed in Vermont, Vermont would have forced her to allow visitation--as it should, since the two women were both mothers to this child. I can't imagine the heartbreak that the non-custodial parent is going through. Unless there is abuse--of either spouse or child--going on, denying visitation to a parent is cruel.
Jeff, if SCOTUS were to get this case, any idea how it would break down???
3
Comment by: Jeff at September 8, 2005 03:34 PM
Really, I wouldn't have a clue. It brings up so many issues (interstate conflict, transportabililty of contracts, the definition of marriage) that it would depend largely on the constitutional question--I really think that different questions might yield different results--it'd be close, though
4
Comment by: Michael at September 8, 2005 03:42 PM
They'd probably uphold the Virginia decision, citing DOMA as their precedent. By any reasonable construction of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, however, DOMA is unconstitutional on its face and the Vermont laws should trump Virginia's travesty.
(Truth in advertising: I'm not a lawyer, just a well-read layman.)
5
Comment by: Jeff at September 8, 2005 11:00 PM
For some more background on this case, GLAD, who's handling it, has this backgrounder, plus links to some of the court documents.
6
Comment by: Morgaine Swann at September 9, 2005 02:27 AM
As much as I am loathe to defend anyone who is not looking at the best interest of their own child, gay people have to have the right to be just as fucked up as straight people, and that includes knock-down, drag-out fights over custody. The shame here also belongs to the judge. Anyone smart enough to attain a judicial positions should know obvious manipulation when s/he sees it.
7
Comment by: Jeff at September 9, 2005 08:29 AM
Morgaine, you just reminded me of something: I was once having lunch with Loretta Ross and she said, "One thing the Civil Rights movement did was give black people the same opportunity to be stupid that white people had." Equality ain't always practiced prettily.
8
Comment by: lorraine at September 9, 2005 01:17 PM
I'm not disagreeing with you. It's a sign of progress--fucked up progress--that a gay custody battle is being fought as down and dirty as a straight one. Which means that just as I despise straight couples who use their children as weapons, I also feel free to call bullshit on gay couples who do the same thing.
1
Comment by: Jeff at September 8, 2005 02:41 PM