Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Protect families!

The California Supreme Court has ruled that homosexual partners can carry legal responsibilities as parents. Tony Perkins has this completely misleading thing to say:
The further we move from nature's own definition of family and allow the state to define "parenthood" without reference to biology, marriage, or even legal commitment, the more we invite endless meddling by the courts. And when the California Supreme Court decides that a child doesn't need both a mom and a dad, it is the children who ultimately lose.
In fact, the cases are all about legal commitment, and one of them does involve two biological mothers. And they are clearly designed to protect the children. This is clear even from reading Focus on the Family's description of the cases. Here's the NYT story. The short version is, in each case, homosexual partners promised to one another to play parenting roles, then split. And one partner wants out of the deal, on the grounds that they're not really parents. California says no, you promised to be a parent, so you incur legal responsibilities. In what twisted world are these anti-family decisions?


  1. I guess I need to reread the quote because I didn't read it as saying the decisions were anti-family. (But I could be reading my own beliefs into it.) I read it as saying it is not the place of the courts to define family, which I believe is true. The courts are there only to interpret and apply law and legal definitions, not to make such laws and definitions themselves. The laws and legal definitions should be written by the voters through their representatives.

    But either way, holding someone responsible for their children is a good thing. I don't really see the children as losing out when a parent is held responsible.

  2. Okay, rereading the quote, I agree that courts meddle. That's about my only agreement with Tony Perkins.