http://www.mombian.com/2005/11/04/new-non-bio-mom-rights-in-washington-necessary-but-not-sufficient/ Sustenance for Lesbian Moms Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:39:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.mombian.com/2005/11/04/new-non-bio-mom-rights-in-washington-necessary-but-not-sufficient/comment-page-1/#comment-25 Mombian: Sustenance for Lesbian Moms » Blog Archive » A Mom by Any Other Name Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:38:36 +0000 http://mombian.com/?p=103#comment-25 [...] Interestingly, when we petitioned the state of New Jersey to put us both on our son’s birth certificate without an adoption (which they did), they would only do so if we were both listed as “parent,” not “mother,” since this would open a can of worms in other cases. For example, in the case of a straight couple using a surrogate, the surrogate and the mom wishing to raise the child could then both claim they were her/his mother. In the well known New Jersey case of Baby M, the state maintained that the surrogate, if she wanted to keep the child, would be its only legal mother. The state therefore feels it has a valid reason to claim that there can’t be two legal “mothers,” though there can be two legal “parents.” I can understand that, although I’d like to think the state can distinguish cases of two lesbians who want to raise a child together from those of two women competing over a child. (For that matter, let same-sex couples marry and solve the whole problem.) [...] [...] Interestingly, when we petitioned the state of New Jersey to put us both on our son’s birth certificate without an adoption (which they did), they would only do so if we were both listed as “parent,” not “mother,” since this would open a can of worms in other cases. For example, in the case of a straight couple using a surrogate, the surrogate and the mom wishing to raise the child could then both claim they were her/his mother. In the well known New Jersey case of Baby M, the state maintained that the surrogate, if she wanted to keep the child, would be its only legal mother. The state therefore feels it has a valid reason to claim that there can’t be two legal “mothers,” though there can be two legal “parents.” I can understand that, although I’d like to think the state can distinguish cases of two lesbians who want to raise a child together from those of two women competing over a child. (For that matter, let same-sex couples marry and solve the whole problem.) [...]

]]> http://www.mombian.com/2005/11/04/new-non-bio-mom-rights-in-washington-necessary-but-not-sufficient/comment-page-1/#comment-23 Mombian: Sustenance for Lesbian Moms » Blog Archive » Follow-up on Non-Bio Moms in Washington Fri, 04 Nov 2005 23:49:37 +0000 http://mombian.com/?p=103#comment-23 [...] The Seattle Times has a good editorial reinforcing what I said in my previous post about the recent Washington state ruling giving a non-bio mom the right to seek parental rights. The key point: This dispute could have been avoided if the Washington Legislature had given the two women the ability to get married. The argument over same-sex marriage has been too much focused on social acceptance of homosexuals. That is part of it, but the more urgent part is in defining the rights and responsibilities of adults who already are rearing children. [...] [...] The Seattle Times has a good editorial reinforcing what I said in my previous post about the recent Washington state ruling giving a non-bio mom the right to seek parental rights. The key point: This dispute could have been avoided if the Washington Legislature had given the two women the ability to get married. The argument over same-sex marriage has been too much focused on social acceptance of homosexuals. That is part of it, but the more urgent part is in defining the rights and responsibilities of adults who already are rearing children. [...]

]]>