02 January 2007

I'm no lawyer, but...

If we're tossing out the sole "two people... one man, one woman" legal definition of parents... doesn't this mean that any number and combination of people can apply to be the "legal parents" of a child... and if not, why not?

-- TORONTO -— An Ontario boy can legally have two mothers and a father, the province's highest court ruled Tuesday.

The same-sex partner of the child's biological mother went to court seeking to also be declared a mother of the boy.
It's hard to imagine that the courts could now, similarly but reciprocally, rule against, say, Muslims in polygamous marriages... or even a group of people in a commune wanting to be collective parents of all the kids in their self-defined group.

Not that there's anything wrong with 7 dads and 15 moms...

UPDATE: Liberal Attorney-General Michael Bryant is M.I.A.

Smells like... no new taxes, Hydro payoff, Caledonia...
“The government was not a party and did not intervene in this case, but the Ministry of the Attorney-General is reviewing the decision,” he said Wednesday. “And while we are reviewing the decision, we won't be making any further comment.”

Technorati Tags: , ,


19 comments:

Anonymous said...

You *ADMIT* to not being a lawyer.
Maybe these asshole judges should show the same honesty and admit it too.

The legal community in this country is so far out in their little legal dream world they'll never see reality again.

The silence on the part of the so-called "conservative" lawyers is quite telling.

Joanne said...

Now if Mom & Mom get divorced, then all 3 would get shared custody, right?

Then if they all remarry, and want their partners made legal parents too, what happens then? And does the little boy get bounced between three different families?

Alberta Girl said...

and the slippery slope begins.....

And "they" said it would never happen.

Anonymous said...

What the judge has done is create a legal fiction that is in blatant opposition to natural law.

A child can only have one mother and one father.

The judge is trying by legal dictate deny the truth of conception.

Not only is there two tier justice in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario, the legal system is making a mockery of itself.

The emperor has no clothes.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Where I'm confused is how does this all relate to adoption?

These three people planned this birth from the start. How does this differ from a situation where two heterosexuals are married, have a child, and then divorce, and say Mom takes up with another woman who wants to adopt the child?

I think we need a legal expert here.

Neo Conservative said...

joanne... unfortunately, it's the "legal experts" who are most intent on building this crazy quilt of rights and priviledges.

what we need is someone who will cut through the nonsense... someone who can just "do the right thing" instead of catering to every whining, bitching group of "self-selecting victims" of our "outrageously unjust" canadian society.
*

Anonymous said...

what we need is someone who will cut through the nonsense... someone who can just "do the right thing" instead of catering to every whining, bitching group...

...he whined bitchily.

Neo Conservative said...

so, so clever... but how about speaking to the issue?

i trust you approve of a multiplicity of parents. please share.

Anonymous said...

"...he whined bitchily."

[he whined bitchilly]

Neo Conservative said...

yeah... that's what i thought.
*

The Strong Conservative said...

As far as being a conservative lawyer, I posted my thoughts on the issue: http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2007/01/ludicrous-results-of-gay-marriage.html

somehow the legal community seems to be losing its grip on common sense for the sake of "progress", ie relativism.

this is what you get with a generation of liberal appointees to the court.

Shaken said...

I expect soon we will have someone attempt to adopt themselves, thus plunging our judiciaries in a Godels' Theorem of geneological vexation from which they will never emerge.

So says son of I, father of Me, and brother of Myself.

Neo Conservative said...

there are millions of pet lovers around the world... when are those darn conservative speciophobes gonna stop opposing intra-species marriage?

Christian Conservative said...

Yep... the slope get more slippery.

So then, based on this ruling, what's wrong with having ONE dad and, say, 15 moms?

The folks in Bountiful BC will be loving this ruling.

Oh yea... didn't most people say that the SSM debate would NOT lead to this sort of thing?

Yea, they did... so far, it looks more any more like they're going to be proven wrong... which means we're going to be proven correct.

But by then, it will be too late for Canada.

Jason said...

Joanne wrote:

Then if they all remarry, and want their partners made legal parents too, what happens then? And does the little boy get bounced between three different families?

Joanne, please stop using logic and common sense. It is cruel and unusual punishment to the leftists because it confuses them.

Dean P said...

I love how everyone descends into the ridiculous. "15 moms and 20 dads!" Right. Come on. What sort of mad reality do you live in.

First, I agree with Joanne. My mom remarried. My dad is my dad. My stepdad is my dad. What's wrong with that?

But the ridiculous argument of 20 moms and 17 dads or whatever ignores something pretty basic: Though you think we homos are all out to drink kids' blood and feed them to feral cats, parents care about their children. They're not going to go out and marry 25 people each.

Don't you people have better things to do?

Neo Conservative said...

dean p said... "the ridiculous argument of 20 moms and 17 dads"

granted, dean... the 20 moms thing was hyperbole, but the question is still valid... where do you draw the line... 3 people, 6 people?

and that's not a rhetorical question.

as for homo public relations... maybe sticking naked guys with feather boas and squirt guns up on parade floats in the biggest cities in the country every year... isn't one of the brightest things the gay community has ever done.

maybe the not-so-secret proclivities towards reckless promiscuity and drug use could stand a little tweaking as well.

or screaming homophobia at the drop of a hat, while contemptuously referring to straight folk as "breeders"...

or maybe it's just uptight, conservative me? whaddaya think?
*

Mark said...

The legal mess around custody, adoption and the like are intended outcomes of the SSM ruling; the intent is to arrive at a place where a marriage and a family "unit" is whatever the hell we want it to be; the intent is the abolition of the traditional concept of family and marriage.

Oh, and Alberta girl, I don't mean to nitpik but we've been on the slippery slope for a decade or more. We have just now reached terminal velocity.

Joanne said...

the intent is the abolition of the traditional concept of family and marriage.

Mark - So true.


Michelangelo Signorile, homosexual activist and writer, says the goal of homosexuals is to “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution…. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake…is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”