The Supreme Court has again deflected the issue of gay parental rights and adoption.
In short, two women were married, one of the women gave birth to two children during the relationship. The non-birthing mother officially adopted the first child and was in the process of adopting the second child when the couple separated. The birth mother tried to block this second adoption on the gounds that her ex-partner cannot adopt the second child without her permission.
The non-birth mother is seeking a second-parent adoption. This type of adoption does not deny the other parents rights, and insures that the child receives financial support, medical coverage and inheritance rights, even if the caregiver couple separates. The parents also share in joint decisions over medical care, education and automatic custody if one partner dies.
The California high court sided with the non-birth mothersaying second-parent adoptions are permissible. The justices concluded, "California adoption statutes have always permitted adoption without regard to the marital status of prospective adoptive parents."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/22/scotus.adoption/index.html
It seems that even a majority conservative court can appreciate that the non-birth mother has rights as far as these children are concerned. These children were created in the context of a loving relationship, that has since expired, but the children and their needs obviously have not. I agree with the decision. Every child needs all the help they can get from their parents regardless of the parent's sexual orientation or biology.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Children have enough baggage already. I don't think children need more legal baggage, which is what it sounds like, only inviting fights over medical decisions, etc..
Also, since when was the California court system conservative?
No- the Supreme Court is conservative at the moment -- they declined to take the case decided by the California high court. Sorry for any confusion.
How is having two parents who love you and want to make the right decision for you baggage? I don't quite understand your logic here.
And why is this adoption any different than a heterosexual couple who has a child with a sperm donor. Before the adoption is final, the couple splits and the mother decides she no longer wants her ex-husband to have say concerning a child that they wanted decided to have together. That isn't exactly fair to the father. That is the issue at the heart of this case -- not the sexual orientation of the parents.
The reason is it notable is that we would all expect a conservative court to oppose gay adoption rights (even if straight persons are garnered the same rights). It turns out that this is not necessarily true. And that at least a few conservatives can appreciate the love of a parent (despite biology) and the need of the child to have two loving parents (despite sexual orientation).
This is no different than any other custody issue in which two people end up having equal say in the raising of a child, so why is it "inviting fights over medical decisions, etc."? If a heterosexual married couple were in the exact same situation with a child they both parented biologically, the exact same situation with shared input would have resulted. It's no different than any other situation a child of a divorce is in.
they shoudl teh same rigt as teh rest of us