The gay media, following the lead of Democratic activists, keeps repeating the canard about Califronia Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown supposedly "anti-gay" adoption ruling. So I hereby repeat my defense.
In Sharon S. v. Superior Court, a convoluted case in which the biological mother and her partner had broken up and now opposed each other in court, Brown wrote that second-parent adoptions ought to require "a legal relationship between the birth and second parent," or else it would "trivialize family bonds." And, in fact, California's 2001 law affords registered domestic partners the same streamlined adoption process as stepparents. What Brown was saying is that the state need not create another right to adopt for two individuals with no such legal bond, and that legislators recognized this when they allowed registered domestic partners to adopt.
As reported by the American Bar Association Journal (Aug. 8,
2003), one of the lawyers in this case, Charles A. Bird, argued
that same-sex couples "who for whatever reason don't want to
register as domestic partners" should be allowed to enter into
second-parent adoptions. That is the position Brown was rejecting,
which is not the impression given by the gay media attacks, which
follow the talking points of liberal activists who oppose her
nomination to the federal bench.
More Recent Postings
5/22/05 - 5/28/05