Pro-family groups in Maryland celebrated a court ruling this week that they said strengthened the ties of families and helped stem the tide of powerful pro-homosexual lobbyists.
In a 6-1 vote on Tuesday, the Maryland Supreme Court overturned the decision of two lower courts to grant child visitation rights to a “third-party, non-biological, non-adoptive individual.”
The issue first reached courts in March 2007 after Janice M., the mother of an adopted child from India, broke relations with her former lesbian partner, Margaret K. Margaret subsequently sued, claiming that she was entitled to visitation rights with Janice’s daughter – an assertion denied by the state’s highest court.
In a decision that was commended by pro-family groups, Chief Justice Robert Bell wrote in his majority opinion that Margaret had no legitimate claim to any role as a “de facto” parent.
“Moms and dads should not have to live in fear that the government can start giving other people rights to their children,” the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) said approvingly of the court’s ruling in a statement.
“Permitting third parties to obtain court-mandated interaction with children, contrary to the objections of fit parents, runs counter to basic constitutional principles,” the ADF said.
The Family Research Council, which monitored and brought attention to the case from the start, said the ruling was an important step in the right direction.
“The victory dealt a significant blow to the state's gay and lesbian lobby, who planned to use this case as a legal basis for creating alternative family structures,” the FRC explained.
“If the court had sided with Margaret, the judicial floodgates would have opened to challenges by thousands of ‘de facto’ parents, who believe that they have a ‘right to relationship’ with children to whom they are not legally or biologically bound,” the FRC added.
The pro-family organization further praised the court decision that upheld the traditional family structure.
“As the culture tinkers with the natural definition of the family, the fate of an institution created and ordained by God has been vulnerable to the whims of the courts,” the FRC said. “We are relieved to see that these justices recognized their role in protecting – not rewriting – the definition of the family.”
Comments
Danged activist judgesw at it again!
More comments! :D
Ok, so Dongard, you think that visitation rights should have been granted to Margaret? Even though there was question of abuse?
And what about the homosexual side, you disagree that they were going to use this publically for a plus to make new families?
And what calls you to think that they couldn't make a decision? I was under the presumption that Janet wanted to separate and not give visitation rights to Margaret, but Margaret was the one to fight for visitation rights. Does this mean this article is incomplete?
Does this also mean you're against Christians having freedom of speech to express their opinions on certain matters? Also, what makes you say that we mob and throw nasty comments around?
this is, sorry to say, another human problem, which should have played out in private. but no christians once again want to impose their dogma on others. its bad enough that these two people could not resolve their problems and had to ask the state to make a decision. but now christians have to step in and lob nasty comments from the sidelines. like this doesn't happen to the people sitting next to you in the pew, but you aren't kicking them in the gut and calling them evil. life is more than your narrow minded little world but you christians just don't get it.
well, somebody didn't like what we said, look at 'em thumbs down XD. Thank you for commenting :D
THANK GOD FOR PRAYING PEOPLE TODAY..PRAYER CHANGES THINGS...GOD SAID IF MY PEOPLE WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME WILL HUMBLE THEMSELFS AND SEEK MY FACE I WILL HEAL THERE LAND...PRAYER IS ALL WE HAVE TO A MIGHTY GOD THAT WILL CHANGE THIS SINFUL GENERATION ...BRO.LARRY S.
Amen, indeed! A court finally does something right. Even a stopped clock, as they say...
Sure - I'll comment.
AMEN!
Kudos too. sin is sin.
I pin this as a popular post! I called this one XD
I think the court got this right. Margaret doesn't have any biological ties with the child (neither does Janice but she adopted her legally) nor was she married to her. I also heard stories of abuse, a reason why Janice broke up with so said partner. I don't know how many boyfriends or girlfriends who abused their partners can visit the child, but that doesn't make good sense to me. However, I know that perhaps the homosexual community (the more active ones) will probably pin this as discrimination by the court and a blatant attack towards tolerance. Perhaps there will be homosexuals who see this court ruling as right since they seen this as abuse and even though homosexuality is sin, abuse against a fellow human is definitely uncalled for.
Comments? :D I know I'm gonna get something for saying homosexuality is a sin. o.o
THANK GOD. This went on way too long.