Printer Friendly

Judicial lunacy: three parents are now legal.

Toronto -- On January 3, 2007 Justice Marc Rosenberg, joined by Chief Justice Roy McMurtry and Justice Jean-Marc Labrosse, ruled to accept "a lesbian woman's claim for full parenting rights as a third legal parent for her partner's child" with a male friend (LifeSiteNews, Oct. 19, 2006; Jan. 3, 2007).

The case involved a lesbian couple which chose a male friend to impregnate one of the pair, and subsequently involved him in the life of his son, now five. The other member of the pair had the option to adopt the child, but to do so would exclude the father; thus, she requested that her status be legally added to that of the biological parents. The case was appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, because the original judge had rejected the claim. He correctly argued that to accept the third parent "would involve stepping into a legislative role" and risk harm to other children (CCN, Sept. 10, 2006).

The Alliance for Marriage and Family-which includes the Catholic Civil Rights League, REAL Women, the Evangelical Fellowship, Focus on the Family and the Christian Legal Fellowship--filed a factum in the case "to protect the 'traditional family unit in Canadian society and law.'" And "McGill professor Douglas Farrow ... argued that these changes represent an intrusion of state power into the biological family that has totalitarian implications (CCN, Sept. 10, 2006)."

The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada and three other conservative groups called for a five-year moratorium on the redefinitions of family structure and parenthood, noting that adult self-indulgence is trumping children's rights as constant change and the use of artificial reproductive technology are increasing. Their report noted that if three parents were accepted, group marriage and unlimited numbers of parents will follow shortly (Edmonton Sun, Oct. 2, 2006).

Comment: This is another lunatic ruling of a judiciary increasingly out of touch with reality.

A child has a right to he conceived from an act of intercourse between two married (one man, one woman) parents; so this little boy's right was violated from the beginning. Now he has become just another domino in this county's losing same with marital stability. Just like Louise Brown, remembered as the first 'test-tube baby,' eventually this boy's name will be known and remembered as the first 'multiple-parent' child

The names of the "three parents" will all appear on the child's birth certificate. The legal notion that a child has two parents has been ended in Ontario, and like-in Canada. Any random Stoup can now get together to push For recognition as "parents" of a child. This "three-parent" ruling has laid the groundwork for the emergence of a whole class of children raised by multiple parents--legally endorsed chaos. The road to polygamy is open.

As Judge David Aston had written in his (now overturned) 2003 lower court ruling: "If a child can have three parents why not four or six or a dozen? What about all the adults in a commune or a religious organization or sect? Quite apart from social policy implications, the potential to create or exacerbate custody and access litigation should not be ignored (LifeSiteNews, Jan. 3, 2007)."

For the sake of the lesbian partner who claimed parental rights, this boy's family was re-defined, and so was everyone else's. The case is ostensibly about what is in the best interest of the child; but once again, it was a carefully-chosen test-case, really about the desires of the adults: 1) recognition for combinations of "parents" numbering more than two-any number more than two; and 2) further legal groundwork for the abolition of marriage, which is the foundation of our society. The victim of these shenanigans is the little boy.

Conflict of interest

There is a further aspect to this case. Last September, McMurtry stepped in to replace one of three judges assigned to the "three parent" case (LifeSiteNews, Oct. 19, 2006). McMurtry is one of the pro-'gay' activist judges who overturned Ontario's traditional definition of marriage in June 2003. McMurtry is already the subject of a formal complaint by REAL Women for hearing the 2003 same-sex 'marriage' case, notwithstanding his conflict of interest as the parent of an active lesbian, who ought to have recused himself. McMurtry even celebrated 'Gay Pride' with activists and other judges after that decision. McMurtry also gave a eulogy at the funeral of 'gay-activist' Ontario Attorney General Ian Scott (C.I., Dec. 2006, p. 37).
COPYRIGHT 2007 Catholic Insight
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2007, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Canada
Publication:Catholic Insight
Geographic Code:1CANA
Date:Feb 1, 2007
Previous Article:Suicide-murder: act of compassion?
Next Article:Proposed changes to judge-selection process draw fire.

Related Articles
There should be a law.
Meaning of "conservative".
Unions want equality for trans-sexuals.
A faithful chronicler of the higher madness.
Child support payment can be changed retroactively--Supreme Court rules.
Proposed changes to judge-selection process draw fire.
The Charter and the judicial assault on the family.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters