Redstate

They totally punted in last night's episode.

de facto law,why not de facto parents.  Let's not stop there,let's pay de facto taxes.  Eliminate legal rates,pay what we want,and let custom and pratice decide de facto.  Hell,if they can make it up as they go along why can't we?  As activist judges don't exist under what category would this magicians hat trick be placed?

Is the objection here that the court can declare "de facto" parents, or that in this case the person in question happens to be a lesbian?

For example, if the case involved an infertile man, who decided with his female partner that they would have a child by in-vitro fertilization using an anonymous sperm donor.  The man was to be the "stay-at-home dad" while the woman worked full time.  After 6 years, the woman leaves him and shacks up with someone else.  Would the man here have any claim for parental rights?

But illustrates precisely why gay marriage is needed.  The idea of "de facto" parentage is appalling.  There needs to be a clear definition and understanding of these relationships under law.

First, in vitro would be unnecessary.  Presumably the sperm and egg and mother would all be viable.  Artificial insemination would be the course.

In Florida, if he were married to her, then, he would be the father, assuming they followed the statute on sperm or egg donation.  Nothing de facto about it.  Similarly, a birth mother who receives a properly (legally) donated egg is the legitimate mother . . . nothing whatsoever de factor about it.

I've not read the Washington case, but it appears that the two women were not married (nor could they be in Washington, as I understand it) and I suspect the jilted partner had not adopted the child.  Whether gay adoption is permitted in Washington, I do not know (it is not in Florida).

Thus she was not the mother.

I have no problem with the legislature creating such a right (I might or might not vote against those who support it, but it is the appropriate venue).  For a court to discover such a right  without a marriage or a statutory mechanism or biological connection is very unusual.  IMHO, it is strikenly inappropriate.

that the gay rights lobby will get this shopped to the 'right' lawyer and get the best decision for 'the cause'.

Whatever happens, I'm sure that whatever is the worst thing for the child shall come to pass.

Some sort of legally binding contract would solve this.

In this case, specifically, the woman who has been granted the right to seek parental privledges has been the primary caregiver for the child's first 6 years.  She has stayed at home raising the child, while her partner (the biological mother) was pursuing a career full time.  The child, of course, sees the woman as her "Mommy".  

It seems the worst thing for the child would be if a person she considers a parent was denied the chance to present her case for partial custody.

I can see your point about presaging trouble for DOMA, but that's not completely determine from this case.

Here, the court relied strongly on common law:

"Specifically, we are asked to discern whether, in the absence of a statutory remedy, the equitable power of our courts in domestic matters permits a remedy outside of the statutory scheme, or conversely, whether our state's relevant statutes provide the exclusive means of obtaining parental rights and responsibilities. "

Too, the court said:

"Specifically, the legislature established that questions of parentage are to be considered without differentiation on the basis of the marital status or gender of the child's parent.  See RCW 26.26.106"

Two issues then, regarding DOMA:

Is it a definition of parentage?  No, so perhaps this holding will be restricted in application.

Does the statutory scheme of DOMA provide a means of obtaining [marital] rights and responsibilities?  I think so, since it clearly defines marriage.  If it was ambiguous, then perhaps the court could define a de facto marriage.

I think if the court is hostile to DOMA, then it'll be on different grounds.  The court won't be able to rely on the "de facto" crutch, because that rationale should only apply in the absence of a statutory definition or scheme, if I'm thinking through that correctly.  I have yet to wade through the whole opinion.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=756261MAJ


http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=756261DI1

A state amendment will never get out of the state legislature in such a politically liberal state.  If they can't even get it out of the state house in Idaho, then what chance is there in Washington?

Washington will soon join Mass as a lost cause.

It seems to me that this is a very similar issue to grandparent custody, in which a grandparent who has been acting as a caregiver to a child can get custody rights from a court.  No, the grandparent is not the parent of the child, as in this case.  Nobody can argue that they are.  And yet, they are granted custody or partial custody if it is in the best interest of the child.

I see two differences in the lesbian-parent scenario: first, there is no blood relation between the "mother" and the child (I don't know whether or not a grandparent-custody case is still valid if the grandparent is a step-grandparent).  Second, there was obviously a verbal agreement or understanding between these two women in the beginning of this arrangement that involved both of them acting as parents to this child.  I think that is an important distinction.

The fact is, there are already cases where a "de facto" parent has been named for a child.  This is not a novel case.  I don't see how it is a shocking case of judicial activism.  It only draws attention because it involves lesbians.

in Californa gets beaten badly (and he will...the initiatves he's proposing are dying out here in sunny CA), CA will join ranks as well

The republican party once stood for the principal that returning power to the states was a good thing.  

If the people of Washington state want gay rights and the right to die, thats no one business in DC.  If the people of Alabama want to ban those things, thats ok too.

Once you start imposing values at a national level everybody loses.  Our values don't all agree.  We will all have values we don't like imposed upon us.

The problem is that we are not for judges declaring themselves dictator by creating new rights.  If Mass. had passed a law creating gay marriage I would have thought that was a poor choice but it is a free country and people can make a poor choice.  But when courts start creating new rights to fit how they would like the law to be written they have betrayed their judicial oath to become dictators by committee.

when state courts overstep it's up to the people of that state to rectify the matter, not the rest of us.

Moreover before jumping on the bandwagon we shoudl be careful to actually read the state constitution in language. Unlike the wonderfully minimal federal Constitution many state constitutions contain some astonishingly leftist provisions that practically demand the judicial rulings that seem so outrageous.

And we all now know that because of the "Massachusetts Experiment," civilization as we know it has collapsed...Better yet, let's put your right to post here to a public vote. I mean it's only fair right? Since you're a propoonent of putting other people's private decisions up for public consideration. And, yes, States Rights Rock. But only if my tax dollars from Califorinia don't go to Wyoming, the second highest recipient of federal dollars and the second lowest contributor. Or to Alabama, Mississippi or South Carolina - states that have the some of the most illiterate and unproductive citizens in the country.

is the assertion that you, me or anyone else here has a "right to post" on this board.

You seem to have lost sight of the fact that when certain people are seeking public permission for getting something (as in, a government-issued license to marry), it does seem rather clear to those of us not in the Reality Based Community® that said public should get a say as to whether or not they approve in the granting of said thing.

Now, if you think 4 folks with lifetime tenure sitting on a court in Boston are smart enough to know what's best for the people of the Commonwealth and therefore qualified to make that decision for them, you're of course entitled to that opinion.  Just don't be shocked when you find more than a few people put-off by that suggestion - particularly when it has been the job of the state legislature and not the court to regulate marriage since before the founding of the Republic.

As to the rest, well start pushing for a repeal of the federal income tax and then we can start talking.

Seems like you have mistaken the purpose of this sight and are having some literacy issues of your own.

Nice pointy sticks you are slinging around there.  Given that this is your third counterproductive and insulting post, I'd say Nick Danger needs to roll in here and call your third strike.  BTW-baseball rules do apply.

I feel compelled to puncture your self-righteous superiority by noting that California has the lowest literacy rate of any state west of the Mississippi, and the rate in CA falls within the confidence interval of the literacy rate in South Carolina.

Have a nice day.

Alabama, Mississippi or South Carolina - states that have the some of the most illiterate and unproductive citizens in the country

Fie wazhou, I'd lose that talking point. Elitist granfalloonery will get you nowhere.

Or to Alabama, Mississippi or South Carolina - states that have the some of the most illiterate and unproductive citizens in the country.

Please, please, please tell me you're someone important in the Democratic Party...  Maybe Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, or Howard Dean's right hand manofcolor....

-TS

As another said, if the people of Washington (or any state for that matter)chose this radically leftwing course, then so be it.  When you lose the people, then you've lost the battle.  I may not like it, but I can accept it.  What puts an itch in my crawl (and I'm sure many agree) is when the decision is made by judges who abuse their power by usurping power from the proper authorities and who justify their constitutionally unjustified decisions with fantasy emanantions and penumbras from the Constitution.

Though I would support a Federal Marriage Amendment if for no other reason than as a punitive measure against the Left's arrogance, I would also be perfectly content to let the matter remain in the purview of the states because I believe that is what the Constitution mandates, and because, as you say, values are not uniform across the nation.  The problem is that the Left has no intention of letting that happen, no matter what disingenuous politicians like John Kerry and Harry Reid say.  They are the ones seeking a national solution, not through a legitimate, democratic process (as the Right tried with an Amendment), but through judicial imposition.  

But getting back to the state level; to me, 'letting the states decide' does not mean letting state courts decide, as that will still be to the Left's inherent favor.  The amendment process varies from state to state, but in those states where an amendment requires super-majority approval from the state legislature before going to the people, the Left has an advantage because it allows majority opinion to be disregarded by prventing the majority from ever having a say.  A marriage amendment has been unable to get out of the Idaho senate of all places!  And I think it just barely got out of the Texas state senate.  So I think its chances of ever getting out of the Washington legislature are very low, because while the pro-marriage sentiment is a force that cuts across many demographic lines (party, race, etc), I doubt that it is powerful enough to compel those Democrats who oppose gay marriage to vote for Republican assemblymen; therefore the people will probably never have a direct say in Washington state, which means the Left wins.

I am going to forget all this nonsense about "Troll of color" and "reality-based." These are silly epistolary inventions and name calling. I'm trying to raise valid points. So here it goes:

TO: docj...no, of course I don't think you need a "right" to post here. I am being facetious in much the same way I think you have yet to put forth a compelling argument about why homosexuals need permission for a civil license to marry. We certainly don't need permission to pay our taxes, fund our military, etc. You may have some religious/moral/something unknown aversion to homosexuals and, frankly, that's okay. But to deny someone something other than you don't approve of it strikes me as intellectually disingenuous. If you want "marriage" to be the exclusive domain of heterosexuals, fine. I could care less what you call it. Just don't abrograte my rights because you don't approve.

to: c17wife...I'm not sure if this is my third post but how is being honest about how I choose to frame an issue "insulting" or "counterproductive?" Is it because you don't agree?

to: lockestep: when you consider what each state pays into the Federal trough and what they get back I'd say California more than gets short shrift. I'd be curious what sources you use to make that assertion about literacy, btw. And by the way, I'm from South Carolina. I'm not quite sure how you determined or, more importantly, why you determined I'm a bigot?

To Nick Danger: By all categorical measures, it's fact. Not elitist granfalloonery (whatever that is.)

To The Sophist (btw, I love that name! Seriously!)No, I'm not anyone of these people. I think Hillary Clinton's a hypocite and I'm not even a man a color.)

I am going to forget all this nonsense about "Troll of color" and "reality-based." These are silly epistolary inventions and name calling. I'm trying to raise valid points. So here it goes:

TO: docj...no, of course I don't think you need a "right" to post here. I am being facetious in much the same way I think you have yet to put forth a compelling argument about why homosexuals need permission for a civil license to marry. We certainly don't need permission to pay our taxes, fund our military, etc. You may have some religious/moral/something unknown aversion to homosexuals and, frankly, that's okay. But to deny someone something other than you don't approve of it strikes me as intellectually disingenuous. If you want "marriage" to be the exclusive domain of heterosexuals, fine. I could care less what you call it. Just don't abrograte my rights because you don't approve.

to: c17wife...I'm not sure if this is my third post but how is being honest about how I choose to frame an issue "insulting" or "counterproductive?" Is it because you don't agree?

to: lockestep: when you consider what each state pays into the Federal trough and what they get back I'd say California more than gets short shrift. I'd be curious what sources you use to make that assertion about literacy, btw. And by the way, I'm from South Carolina. I'm not quite sure how you determined or, more importantly, why you determined I'm a bigot?

To Nick Danger: By all categorical measures, it's fact. Not elitist granfalloonery (whatever that is.)

To The Sophist (btw, I love that name! Seriously!)No, I'm not anyone of these people. I think Hillary Clinton's a hypocite and I'm not even a man a color.)

"Just don't abrograte my rights because you don't approve."

Why not?  The approval of the public is the foundation of democracy.  "Consent of the governed" is perhaps the most fundemental concept in American democracy, is it not?

The question is will Americans accept having public policy dictated by various juntas in black robes, acting like high priests interpreting sacred text?

Or will we insist on governing ourselves via our elected representatives?  It is the core question in American political history, one that is still unanswered to this day.

Along with much else in your post, your figures are wrong.  Wyoming ranks 24th, and has never been "second", even using skewed $ per capita data to take advantage of the small population and large interstate highway budget.  Looking at raw dollars, Wyoming netted about 875 million in fiscal year 2003.  Blue State Maryland netted around 20 billion.  

For literacy data, I already provided the link.  And the bigotry of the comment about the people of South Carolina, etc. should be obvious.

I'll stop feeding the trolls now.

It was your third comment.

Your first two are here-

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/9/29/123049/672/7#7

and here-

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/11/2/14256/5460/61#61

Both are chock full of dem talking points and pointy sticks, just as your third one was.

To me, you've had your time at bat.  However, since Nick hasn't sent you packing, he must be finding some entertainment value in your self-righteous display of bigotry.

Since lockstep has set you straight on the numbers, I'll end my pig wrestling session.

That is all.

By all categorical measures, it's fact.

It is an irrelevant fact. You will find no one on this web site who is illiterate. You will, however, find many people from the states you mentioned. Your 'fact' may therefore be reasonably construed, especially now that I've told you this, as you poking them with a pointy stick. This is a Republican community. Liberals who poke our members with pointy sticks get tossed on The Pile™. Tonight I am being the Good Cop. Tomorrow we enter the phase of the waxing Moon, which is when I become the Bad Cop.

Well, since "Root" seems to be one of the few people here who wants to engage me at an intellectual level - I can't explain the unjusitifiable labels of "bigot" or "liberal" and you have all really failed to explain them - I will say this to you...Why is IT that they are activist judges when they rule against your notions of morality? There have been plenty of rulings that have bothered me and they appear to be just as activist. Everyone has an agenda. Secondly, I thank those of you who have backed up your claims on statistics. I am currently doing some more research and will provide you with my statistics as they become available.As for c17wife...well, since you haven't really added anything to the debate all I can say is you remind me of a character from Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" -- You are part of a groupthink and kind of just tow the official line even though in the end your actions are indefensible. I guess what I'm saying is...Say something! And to Nick Danger. FOR THE LAST TIME I'm not attacking people in South Carolina or anywhere else, I'm pointing out that there is a correlation between illiteracy and the Southern States which, if you read my earlier post and what this was all based upon I stated that I'm all for states rights meaning I shouldn't have to help fund states who enact policies I don't agree with. This would force its citizens to become more economically aggressive, if you will. If Kansas wants to outlaw abortion, homosexuality, etc FINE but please don't ask me to pay federal taxes for programs I don't agree with. Or is that simply the purview of the pro-Abortion lobby? And, finally, believe it or not, I like posting here but YOU STILL HAVEN'T INTELLECTUALLY JUSTIFIED YOUR STANCE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE.

that yet again, you post with no links to sustantiate your bigotry, yet you expect us to say something.

Look, here's the deal, we don't feed the trolls and we don't wrestle with pigs.  Well, at least most of us don't.

And believe me, we've debated your blue state producer/red state user meme ad nauseum.

so you are fine with medical marijuana in California and believe that the administration is wrong to take Gonzales V Oregon to the Supreme court?