Just Plain Strange

[bustr]

LAW OF THE LAND
Lesbian declared 'psychological parent'
State's high court favors dead mom's lover over mother, father

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 22, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has removed custody from the maternal grandparents of a child in favor of the lesbian lover of the child's deceased mother.

According to a statement from the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, the court declared Friday the lesbian partner the "psychological parent" of the child, who is referred to only as Z.B.S.


The case arose when Tina B. fell asleep at the wheel on the drive home from an all- night party at a "gay" bar in Charleston, W.Va., and she crashed head-on into oncoming traffic, killing her lesbian partner, Christina S.

While custody initially was given to Christina's parents, a two-parent family that raised five children, the court's decision gave custody to Tina.

According to the law center's statement, the child was fathered by Tina's half-brother, a convicted felon who worked for Tina and agreed to have sex with Christina to provide a child for the same-sex couple.

" This court has once again demonstrated the lethal effects of judicial activism on the nuclear family, which is the cornerstone of our civilization," said Stephen M. Crampton, chief counsel for the AFA Center for Law & Policy, which authored a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of two legislators in the case. "While the court pretended to limit itself to interpreting the laws passed by the Legislature, in reality it made law and acted as a superlegislature.

"West Virginia's creation of a new 'right' for a same-sex partner to obtain custody of her deceased lover's child without any written agreement, a will or any attempt at adoption is but a stepping stone to recognition of same-sex marriage."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok this is strange......................

[Chairboy]

Nice neutral POV on that article.

If the two women raised the kid together, and then one of them died, then obviously the remaining one would be the one who should keep the child.  That's how it would work with a hetero couple, why would it be different for this?

This article is trying to create a gay Willie Horton.

[rpm]

Originally posted by bustr
The case arose when Tina B. fell asleep at the wheel on the drive home from an all- night party at a "gay" bar in Charleston, W.Va., and she crashed head-on into oncoming traffic, killing her lesbian partner, Christina S.

While custody initially was given to Christina's parents, a two-parent family that raised five children, the court's decision gave custody to Tina.

I have to agree.  Just plain strange. The woman caused the death of the mother. Why wasn't she charged with vehicular homicide instead of given custody of the child who's mother she killed?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by rpm
I have to agree.  Just plain strange. The woman caused the death of the mother. Why wasn't she charged with vehicular homicide instead of given custody of the child who's mother she killed?

Oh hell yeah... why not make a bad situation worse? I'm sure she fell asleep on purpose.

[rpm]

Sandy, I was taking into consideration the part where she was returning from an all night party at a bar. Maybe her BAC was 0.0, I don't know. I do know that if you have ANY BAC reading you are at fault in the death. 0.08 is just a guideline for DWI. My source? DWI education class.

[Chairboy]

Consider it this way, if a male/female couple have kids, and the dad falls asleep at the wheel and the wife is killed in the accident, is that automatic disqualification for him to be a father?  What about an automatic charge of manslaughter?

I'd like to argue that the same standard should apply to anyone.  Justice is supposed to be blind, which means that it shouldn't matter if the person is gay or not.

[rpm]

If the male of a male/female couple was returning from an all nighter at a bar, I'd still have the same opinion. High risk behavior resulted in the preventable death of a parent.

[Chairboy]

How is going to a bar high-risk?  My wife and I went to a bar last week for her signing contest.  We had the kids at a sitters while we were there.   Being too tired to drive has killed plenty of people all over the social spectrum.  It's regrettable, and most accidents are preventable, so I don't get the difference.

I'm not sure I see your point, but I'm willing to listen.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by rpm
If the male of a male/female couple was returning from an all nighter at a bar, I'd still have the same opinion. High risk behavior resulted in the preventable death of a parent.

That's fine, but if the two were good parents, charges of vehicular manslaughter aren't punishing the surviving parent so much as punishing the children.

People make mistakes. Even good parents do.

[rpm]

Originally posted by Chairboy
How is going to a bar high-risk?  My wife and I went to a bar last week for her signing contest.  We had the kids at a sitters while we were there.   Being too tired to drive has killed plenty of people all over the social spectrum.  It's regrettable, and most accidents are preventable, so I don't get the difference.

I'm not sure I see your point, but I'm willing to listen.

Going to a bar and chosing to drive afterward is high risk behavior in the eyes of the law. I am talking from first hand experience. Not as a victim, but as reformed perpetrator.

It's true we do not have all the facts of this case, but from the information we do have available it states they were at an all night party at a bar. Driving with any BAC above 0.00 makes you liable in the death. It also is a contributing factor to sleepyness. True, I am quoting Texas law and this didn't happen in Texas. I got this information from a Texas mandated DWI driver education class. Different states have differentstatutes and precidents.

Driving when too exausted to safely drive or stay awake also demonstrates poor judgement, especially when the cause of the exaustion was partying. They could have easily called a cab and everyone would still be alive.

Sandy, you are correct that even good parents make mistakes. They are also subject to the concequences of their actions.

[Chairboy]

Ah, so you're assuming they were drinking?  I've been the designated driver plenty of times, which means no booze.  

If this were court, I think the phrase applicable would be 'assuming facts not in evidence'.

Let's cut to the chase.  Would you be as adamant about this if the couple were not gay?

[rpm]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Ah, so you're assuming they were drinking?  I've been the designated driver plenty of times, which means no booze.  

If this were court, I think the phrase applicable would be 'assuming facts not in evidence'.

Let's cut to the chase.  Would you be as adamant about this if the couple were not gay?

Originally posted by rpm
If the male of a male/female couple was returning from an all nighter at a bar, I'd still have the same opinion. High risk behavior resulted in the preventable death of a parent.

Originally posted by rpm
Driving when too exausted to safely drive or stay awake also demonstrates poor judgement, especially when the cause of the exaustion was partying. They could have easily called a cab and everyone would still be alive.

Remember Chairboy, I am the uberliberal. Just ask Nuke, lazs, Toad, ect. I have no problems with gay parenting.

[FUNKED1]

Just Plain Disgusting

[Seagoon]

Hello All,

In one sense the fact that "Tina B.'s" negligence resulted in the death of the child's mother is a secondary issue. What is of far more profound importance is the precedent that this case sets for future custody cases.

Consider this, had Tina merely lived in the same apartment with Christina as her friend she would have had no legal standing to claim custody of Christina's child. She is not directly related to the child while the child's grandparents manifestly are. In fact Tina had no legal relationship to the child or even to Christina at all. In comparable cases, live-in boyfriends who are not biologically related to the child and who have not formerly adopted the child prior to the mother's death have no chance of gaining custody because they have no legally recognized relationship to the child.

In this case, the appeals court (no big surprise there) created precedent by determining that a sexual relationship between the deceased mother and Tina constituted a stronger legal claim to custody over the child than that of her blood relatives and therefore ended the existing custody relationship and transfered custody.

This is pure political pandering and fundamental redefining of family law sans legislation. At no point were the previously existing laws of West Virginia or the desires of West Virginian voters allowed to determine the outcome. This is good news only for those who are in favor of unelected judicial oligarchs mandating their own preferences to the American people.

- SEAGOON

[SOB]

The local authorities didn't see fit to charge her, so that's good enough for me to believe she wasn't breaking the law.  Two adults got in that car, and presumably they were both at the party, and a tragedy occured.  Charging the lady for making a reasonable mistake would be another tragedy, despite the horrible consequences of her reasonable mistake.

As to custody, she was the parent before the accident, and there's no reason she shouldn't be the parent after the accident.  I find the new trend to call every judge to doesn't rule to your liking an "activist judge", just disturbing and pretty retarded.