Our Worst Enemies

Let me set the scene for you.....

Two women, Sheryl Rose Erez and Aviva Shira Starr lived together in the State of Washington. Erez gave birth in 1993 and Starr used a co-parent adoption process to adopt the child the following year.

In 1995 the family moved to North Carolina. Mother, mother and child.

In 1996 the couple separated, Erez moving to another state to take a new job. Erez left the child with Starr. (Remember, Erez is the biological mother, Starr the adoptive mother). Starr then went to court to make her custody of the child official, and Erez contested it.

Okay, so far nothing more than your everyday "normal" battle over custody.

Except....

Erez isn't asking the Court to look at "The best interests of the child." or any of the other typical claims when one is contesting custody of a child.

No, Erez is claiming:

The underlying adoption is void

The grounds? Oh, very simple, the adoption is void because it was obtained unconstitutionally and because it violates "a decided public policy against protecting homosexual 'families' " in North Carolina.

Erez is also claiming that she didn't realize that by "allowing" Starr to co-adopt the child that she might be giving up her unilateral right to custody.

Pardon me.

What a total crock!

When one goes through an adoption proceeding it is made very clear that the adoptive parent is assuming all rights and obligations of a parent related to the child. I've never read a Court Order for adoption that reads, "You have the responsibility of a parent until the other parent decides you don't. You have no rights of a parent unless the other parent says you do."

But let's put aside the obvious memory failure on Erez' part.

We've seen that co-parent adoption is not available in all states. We're all aware that co-parenting by gay and lesbian couples, while not a new occurrence is still new enough that anybody choosing to go through the process has some awareness that they're doing something special - obtaining a right previously and generally granted only to different gender couples. In most cases they had to work extra hard to procure that right, so readily available to same-gender couples. They knew how hard it was, yet they so easily and eagerly resort to the arguments of the people who would have denied them this right in the first place.

Now, my better half says, "That's always the way it is in divorce situations, the acrimony, the grabbing onto anything one can." and unfortunately she's right, at least in most cases. Yet, my rose-colored glasses fit sufficiently well to hope that one day people will be more willing to look at the larger picture, and think of somebody beyond themselves.

Extending the Theory

Let's assume for a moment that it does become possible to marry in Hawaii, and gay/lesbian couples flock there in great numbers to do so. Down the line, some of them will, sadly, wish to dissolve their unions. With so many states having "no-fault" divorces, will a couple need to say, "Well, my marriage shouldn't have really happened in the first place. It wasn't a real marriage because it's not recognized in [their current state]." How will they feel when/if they choose to remarry, and their very own words, and the words of those like them, return to haunt them?

How about the day when gay men and lesbians are welcomed into the armed services with open arms. Will the GLBT person who decides that the military is not really for them after all go to their commanding officer and say, "Well, I think I don't belong here, I'm sure I'm ruining unit cohesion and I keep sneaking peaks at all the guys in the showers."

In Conclusion

We cannot treat those inroads we make lightly, our actions affect more than just ourselves. It's that simple.

In pride,
Deborah

Best Dating Site
Free Trial!

Adult Personals - looking for the perfect adult dating site? sexsearch.com is the perfect stop for online adult personals. search thousands of cities for adults looking to meet you.