California Court Declares One Child Can Have Two Moms
Pro-Family Advocates Call Rulings Nonsense, Harmful to Kids
Jenni Parker
August 23, 2005
(AgapePress) – A spokesman for a leading West Coast pro-family organization says his group is shocked and saddened over an August 22 ruling by the California Supreme Court abolishing the traditional definition of parenthood. In three separate cases that raised fundamental issues as to the definition of family and parent, the court decided in each case that a child may legally have two mothers.
In the case of Elisa B. v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that a lesbian who had agreed to raise the children born to her partner, but who then split up with her partner, was required to pay child support for the minors as a parent. And in K.M. v. E.G., the court held that the existence of a written waiver of rights did not prevent a lesbian woman who had donated ova to her partner for in vitro fertilization from asserting rights as a parent. Meanwhile, in Kristine H. v. Lisa R., the court found that a stipulation signed by the natural mother conferred a legal right to her lesbian partner to exercise the role of a parent over the child.
This trio of decisions by the state high court means that parenting, custody, and child support laws in California will now apply to homosexual couples who conceived through artificial insemination. And according to Steve Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, the rulings clearly point to the increasingly egregious judicial activism of liberal, pro-homosexual judges.
“The California Supreme Court is determined not to be outdone in the aggressive fashioning of new social policy under the guise of deciding legal cases,” Crampton says. “These cases, read together, demonstrate beyond question the social and political agenda of the court. They have little or nothing to do with law.”
The AFA attorney says the California court’s arrogance in attempting to redefine the family with the mere stroke of a pen is “nothing short of extraordinary,” and it is time this “runaway judiciary” were reined in. But if pro-family citizens fail to stand up and let their voices be heard, he warns, “the courts will continue to take over every aspect of our lives.”
Activist Says Truth is Self Evident: Kids Need a Mom and a Dad
According to California activist and Campaign for Children and Families president Randy Thomasson, what the state Supreme Court has done is to improperly “reinterpret” parenting and egg donation laws to equate two women with a mother and a father. But he maintains that the court’s rulings go against nature.
“Despite junk science and frustrating rulings like this,” Thomasson contends, “children still need a mother and a father. A child does not have two mommies or two daddies; a child comes into this world because she has a mother who have her egg and a father who gave his sperm.”
The state Supreme Court’s decision “ignores the self-evident truth that God designed a man and a woman to fit together and participate in the miracle of procreation,” the California pro-family spokesman asserts. And now that “the definition of parenthood has been thrown out the window,” he asks, “what’s next?” Lest they find out, Thomasson is telling California citizens that the court’s decision gives them more reason than ever to support the Voter’s Right to Protect Marriage Initiative, a ballot measure being circulated next year in support of an amendment protecting traditional marriage. (See related story)
That initiative, the pro-family activist notes, defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman and as “the basic family unit in the California Constitution.” And, although the measure will not affect state adoption and child custody laws, he emphasizes that it will at least establish that “marriage rights are for one man and one woman, as it was, is, and always should be.”
Another supporter of the ballot measure is the pro-family legal organization Liberty Counsel, whose president and general counsel Mat Staver suggest that the Voter’s Right to Protect Marriage Initiative may be the only antidote to the “nonsense” of the California Supreme Court’s August 22 decision. “This ruling defies logic and common sense,” he says.
“By saying that children can have two moms, the court has undermined the family,” Staver says, and it has meanwhile established “a policy that essentially says moms and dads are mere surplus.” But the Liberty Counsel spokesman points out that thousands of studies have concluded otherwise, finding that children need mothers and fathers, and not two of either but one of each.
“Gender does matter to children,” Staver insists. And the California high court’s “nonsense” ruling, he adds, only serves to underscore the importance of amending the state constitution to preserve marriage as being between one man and one woman.