This Wednesday, the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a case involving child support obligations in same sex relationships.
This is a memo issued to the press by the office of California Attorney General, Bill Lockyer.
**Notice how they equate “Same Sex Relationships” to “Marriage” **
To: Interested reporters
Subject:CA Supreme Court to Decide On Children’s Rights in Same-Sex Marriages
On Tuesday, May 24th the California Channel will televise oral arguments in a landmark California Supreme Court case that will determine the rights of children in same-sex marriages.
At issue is whether children of same-sex couples can be denied the opportunity to receive child support from two parents, and whether a person can be allowed to avoid child-support responsibility merely because his or her former partner is the same sex.
Lockyer’s office will argue that same-sex couples have the same legal duty to financially support the children they bring into this world as those of opposite-sex couples, because when only one of two people is required to provide support, it’s the children who unfairly bear the burden.
On behalf of the public, California Bill Lockyer has invoked his authority to challenge a Court of Appeals ruling, Elisa Maria B., v. Superior Court of El Dorado County. The appeals court ruled that one of the parents in a separated same-sex couple does not have child-support obligations.
Oral arguments in this and two other same-sex parent cases will be televised live on the California Channel from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Tuesday, May 24th. To determine local channel listings, or to view the proceedings via webcast, visit http://www.calchannel.com.
Background: Two women, Elisa and Emily, were in a long-term relationship and each assisted the other in bearing children by using the same anonymous sperm donor. Both held themselves as the children’s parents, and Elisa agreed to financially support the entire family. The two eventually split up. The Court of Appeal held that Elisa had no responsibility to provide child support for the children borne by Emily, even though such responsibility would have been imposed if Elisa were a man.
Am I the only one who finds it sad that someone who equates uncommitted relationships (same sex in this case) to marriage is tasked with defending Proposition 22, which defines marriage in California as being between one man and one woman?
Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…