TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Canada says a child can have 3 parents...have we gone too far?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Canada says a child can have 3 parents...have we gone too far?
Ok I'm all for equal rights and all for gays getting married but this is just getting kind of weird. Probably because it seems so unnatural in our society based on our psychological programming...but still.
| quote: |
| Canadian province says child can have 2 mums By Leah Schnurr Wed Jan 3, 5:40 PM ET TORONTO (Reuters) - A five-year-old Canadian boy can have two mothers and a father, an Ontario court ruled this week in a landmark case that redefines the meaning of family and examines the rights of parents in same-sex relationships. Another tie? Get what you really wanted. In a ruling released on Tuesday, the Ontario Court of Appeal said the female partner of the child's biological mother could be legally recognised as the boy's third parent. The biological father, named on the boy's birth certificate, is a friend of both women and is taking an active role in the child's life. "It is contrary to (the child's) best interests that he is deprived of the legal recognition of the parentage of one of his mothers," Justice Marc Rosenberg wrote in the ruling, which did not name the three parents or the child. "Perhaps one of the greatest fears faced by lesbian mothers is the death of the birth mother... Without a declaration of parentage or some other order, the surviving partner would be unable to make decisions for their minor child." The two women, who have been together since 1990, told the court they did not want to adopt the child because it meant the father would lose his status as a parent. "It's an important precedent because the legislature has not kept the legislation up to date," said Peter Jervis, one of the lawyers for the applicant, referred to only as "A.A." "The court has basically said that it would step in to recognise this woman as the mother of her child ... and would treat her equally," said Jervis. He added that the court found the family to be a very loving one and that A.A. had met all the criteria of being a loving mother. "She read the bedtime stories, put the Band-Aids on his fingers, cleaned his runny nose, had taken him off to school," said Jervis. The Alliance for Marriage and Family, a coalition of several groups that promote a traditional family structure, had filed as an intervenor in the case. "We think there are many good reasons for continuing to uphold the definition of family as two parents," said Joanne McGarry, executive director of the Catholic Civil Rights League, one of the groups represented by the alliance. "Once you remove it from the realm of nature and the realm of traditional moral and religious teachings, who's going to decide how many parents a child can have? What's so magical about three, maybe there could be more." McGarry said the Alliance had not decided if it would appeal the decision. The Institute for Canadian Values, which opposes a 2005 law allowing same-sex marriage in Canada, dismissed the ruling as an act of "naked judicial activism". "The court saw this case as an opportunity to entrench so-called alternative family structures in law without submitting the idea to the rigours of the legislative process," Executive Director Joseph Ben-Ami said in a statement. However, Laurel Rothman, Director of Social Reform at the Family Services Association of Toronto, which worked with the applicant's legal counsel during the case, applauded the decision. "The situation basically recognises the changing face of families in Canada in the beginning of the twenty-first century," said Rothman. "The law is catching up to the reality of families in modern-day Ontario." Same-sex marriage has been legal in Ontario since 2003, and across Canada since 2005. The latest judgement overturned a 2003 ruling by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in which the judge found that he did not have jurisdiction to declare the woman a mother. |
unleash tha Shadowolf
hey man im all down for bitches with 2 milfs for moms, thats like triple the trouble triple the fun, triple the nipple and triple my name taattooed on buns
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Misanthrope |
I was just going with the flow.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by geroin |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Misanthrope I was just going with the flow. |
ok this thread has gone no where as you can tell by the rolling eyes in the last 6 or so comments.. lol
| quote: |
| Originally posted by 2famous4u ok this thread has gone no where as you can tell by the rolling eyes in the last 6 or so comments.. lol |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Zeidoo Not really. I was in nowhere on Monday night. It doesn't look like this, it's significantly darker. |
The only real concern I now have with this law is how this may affect parents in the future in regards to step-parents. In one sense now a non-biological parent of a child may want to pursue the parental status of the child with the person they newly married. If they then get divorced it could continue on and on.
i.e. Mr. Smith and Ms. Brown are married and have a baby. They divorce and Ms. Brown marries Mr. Black who now is helping to raise the child and files to adopt the child...I see no real difference here between him wanting to be a parent and the two lesbian mothers. What if Mr. Black and Ms. Brown then divorce (does the parent ruling go too)?
Just a thought. I haven't had a coffee yet so keep that in mind 
Too much social experimentation based on political correctness in Canada IMO
I don't know...I guess I just think of it in a somewhat old fashioned type way perhaps...but each person has a mother and a father - that's just biological, social norms and everything else aside. I guess adopted kids can call their parents moms and dads even though they are not biological...but i think that legally having 2 moms and a dad or 2 dads and a mom is kind of strange...socially I see nothing wrong with it I guess, but the fact that it's a law makes it more serious.
Edit
And more headaches for the poor kid 
...hard enough to deal with 2 parents now he'll have 3 lol
| quote: |
| The biological father, named on the boy's birth certificate, is a friend of both women and is taking an active role in the child's life. ... The two women, who have been together since 1990, told the court they did not want to adopt the child because it meant the father would lose his status as a parent. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MarkT Those two lines spell it out quite clearly...this is ALL about child's well being AND protecting the parental rights of all three parents. I think there is too much focus on the gay/lesbian angle in this case, which is why it feels "weird" for some people. If people are *truly* concerned about what is best for a child, while respecting the rights of both biological and non-biological parents, it strikes me as rather odd that they would not wholeheartedly support this decision. |
just because it's "hard" doesn't mean it's not what's best for the child.
is it better to have two caring gay parents or to grow up in a single parent family...or one where the parents are in a loveless (perhaps abusive) relationship?
is it better that the non-biological mother not have any legal decision-making authority over the child, if something happens to either/both of the natural parents?
is it better if the non-biological mother simply decided to adopt the child and strip the biological father of his parental status?
I can't say *for sure* either...but this decision seems to make a lot of sense for that particular family.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by starsearcher I'm not a psychologist though so I can't really comment professionally |
ya thats pretty fucked up
i don't know if this goes to far, cause i dont really understand it or how it would affect the kid. But its typical of north american values that we have to allow everything or else we are bigots.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.