Lesbian Custody Rights Upheld on a Technicality
A Virginia appellate court ruled Tuesday that the biological mother in a lesbian custody dispute must abide by the laws of Vermont, where she and her former partner entered into a civil union.
The ruling avoided the more important question: whether Virginia can be forced to recognize a same-sex union sanctioned in another state.
The Los Angeles Times reported the decision was still celebrated by gay and lesbian groups. Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called it a "big deal."
"The fact that the court would apply that rule of law objectively and fairly to a lesbian plaintiff is an enormously important victory," she said.
Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, which represented the biological mother, called the case "the tip of the iceberg of what's to come if one state cannot define its own marriage policy and must be subservient to the same-sex marriage policy of a sister state."
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the case may have had a different outcome if the mother had moved first and then filed to dissolve the civil union.
"This decision was really not about the state of Virginia being forced to recognize a Vermont civil union," he said.
"This was a custody/visitation-rights case that was decided by a federal statute originally passed to handle disputes like this involving multiple state-court proceedings."
The ruling avoided the more important question: whether Virginia can be forced to recognize a same-sex union sanctioned in another state.
The Los Angeles Times reported the decision was still celebrated by gay and lesbian groups. Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called it a "big deal."
"The fact that the court would apply that rule of law objectively and fairly to a lesbian plaintiff is an enormously important victory," she said.
Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, which represented the biological mother, called the case "the tip of the iceberg of what's to come if one state cannot define its own marriage policy and must be subservient to the same-sex marriage policy of a sister state."
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the case may have had a different outcome if the mother had moved first and then filed to dissolve the civil union.
"This decision was really not about the state of Virginia being forced to recognize a Vermont civil union," he said.
"This was a custody/visitation-rights case that was decided by a federal statute originally passed to handle disputes like this involving multiple state-court proceedings."
posted by Michael Burns at 8:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home