There are many wedge issues you can count on the Republican Party exploiting yet again in the 2006 mid-term elections. One of these concerns the rights and responsibilities of gay parents, as recently laid out in a series of court cases, in particular in the state of California.
In one of these cases, involving the lesbian parents who had recently split up, the courts decided that both parents retained their parental rights and responsibilities, even though one parent had previously signed away these rights. The court reasoned that this parent had been the donor of the egg by which the child had been born to the other lesbian parent. She therefore had an inherent responsibility for the child's welfare, thus correspnding rights as well. If I understand the case correctly, I disagree with the decision, as I think it sets a horrible precedent for all parents, including heterosexual adoptive parents in regard to the rights and repsonsibilites of birth parents.
On the one hand, a birth parent could in effect make null and void any previously agreed upon contract with the adoptive agency and parents, if he or she so sees fit, on the grounds of having entered into the contract while in a state of duress, for one example, whether the claim was valid or not. On the other hand, a birth parent can also find themselves in the position of being faced with responsibilities he or she has in good faith attempted to extricate themselves from.
It is all ready to the point where if a woman retrieves semen from a discarded condon, and manages to impregnate herself with it, the unsuspecting biological "father" is legally bound, in at least some jurisdictions, with the same responsibilities as any other biological father or mother. Ther has actually been a court decision to this effect. It is unfair, of course, and a ridiculous travesty of justice. Such laws cry out, in fact, to be broken, even if extreme measures are necessary.
Unfortunately, such extreme judicial rulings may inadverdantly hand the Republican Party yet more cannon fodder, but the Democrats should not allow themselves to be sidetracked by yet another unreasonable push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Yes, it will cost some votes, but there are times you have to stand up for what is right when faced with the rising tide of extremism. Such a constitutional amendment would unfairly target a class of Americans for legal discrimination and serve to negate the spirit of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Yet, it is that same Equal ProtectionClause which is precisely a big part of the problem. If gay couples can marry, according to such an interpretation of the clause, then that same clause could easily be interpreted as giving them the same rights to legal adoption of children as any heterosexual couple. And that, more than anything, in my opinion, is what drives the far right bonkers over the prospect of gay marriage, which the recent California court rulings is seen by many as serving to advance.
A logical and rational compromise would be the institution of domestic partnerships for gay couples, one which would preclude such adoption rights. But the most progressive gay activists aren't going to accede to this, and it is a stop-gap measure anyway, as it would itself eventually come to be vieweed as being itself against the spitit of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Like the cum in the condom, it is a messy, sticky situation and the far right is not going to drop it, nor will the far left. And the country as a whole will be held hostage to it, or would be, except that it isn't really that serious an issue in the grand scheme of things. It is, again, a diversionary wedge issue, but it is one that has so far worked to the Republicans advantage. I have no doubt they will utilize it yet again, and with a fury.
