So, after learning this (I apologize for my lack of full knowledge) the Supreme Court makes even less sense from a gay rights perspective.

Yes Joe, but the difference being, gay couples are prevented from marrying and therefore becoming eligible. If a straight roomate wanted to fight for visitation the court would just say “Hey, you should have gotten married” that reasoning can’t be used with a gay couple because they are prevented, therefore the court has to treat them differently int his case because the remedy available to all others wasn’t available to them. I get that you have somehow determined that you will see this as a bad thing, and as “The Gay Numbers” accuratly pointed out I am most likely pissing in the wind, but this case does not weaken parental rights, because the situation in this case would have been different if marriage was available to the two women.

Queerty, you might want to edit the title and tone to reflect the reality here rather than your current misinterpretation. Getting false hopes up for people in the future as they find this via google isn’t good.

In the other, Cam tries to debate a logical fallacy.

The basis of Kulstad’s parental rights as outlined by the lower court and affirmed by the Supreme Court is the “psychological connection” between Kulstad and the children. The rights of the child is the basis for this decision in the majority opinion, and only in the concurrent opinion is the same-sex issue mentioned.

Point being, if the Justice’s wanted to limit the scope of this decision to same sex couples they failed. Even if they had limited it to same sex couples I would worry about our ability as adopted parents to both maintain parental rights of our children and carry out “intimate relationships” without fear that a jilted lover might try to take our kids.

But I agree the easiest solution is gay marriage.

___________________________________
Joe, look here at the wording of the concurring opinion

Justice James Nelson concurred with the decision, but added: “Maniaci and her defense team attempt to avoid the one issue that makes this case uniquely important — the elephant in the room: whether homosexuals in an intimate domestic relationship each have the right to parent the children they mutually agree that one party will adopt (or, presumably, conceive.) The District Court and this Court have properly answered that question in the affirmative…”

Joe, do you see the wording, especially in the phrase “whether homosexuals in an intimate domestic relationship each have the right to parent the children they mutually agree that one party will adopt”

The court is acknowledging that the two had an intimate relationship and MUTUALLY AGREED that one would adopt since Montana law PREVENTS them both from adopting. This isn’t going to have an effect on roomates, etc.. because roomates don’t have an intimate relationship, and they aren’t prevented from adopting because a hetrosexual couple can get married, then legally adopt. It is in the case of a homosexual couple, who are prevented from getting married that this will apply. The easiest way to solve this problem will be for Montanna to legalize gay marriage….which, after reading this opinion I think this court would be very open to.

The problem Cam is that there are lawyers lining up to take cases of palimony under this ruling, let alone all the lovers that can now threaten to take their significant others kids away. While the opinions call for equality of gays under the law – the result of the ruling means that gay parents in fact have less protections under the law, their parental rights are no longer absolute, and it is this that the lower courts are looking at.

It would be very hard for anyone to use this ruling to sue for gay marriage since there is a constitutional amendment in MT against gay marriage. This is a matter for the legislature or the public, and another reason why gay marriage laws should be passed.

Joe, no it doesn’t, it said that they adopted the kids together. A roomate etc… doesn’t get to adopt children with their roomate.

Additionally, the langugage in court opinions can be used in subsequent cases, i.e. somebody now suing in Montana for gay marriage can point to the language from the Supremem court in this case and say “In the case of Kulsted v. Maniaci the court stated that gays should have complete equality under the law, that would logically extend to marriage” etc… lower courts don’t like to be overturned and such direct language from the State Supreme court could absolutly lead to favorable decisions about a host of other issues in Montana.

Oh and now there is palimony in MT because of this ruling.

And one clarification – MT law doesn’t prohibit same sex couples from adopting, it prohibits any non married couples (gay or straight) from adopting. What should be done to avoid these cases in the future is to institute gay marriage in this state.

Because religion continues to teach the traditional Christian belief that homosexuals are wrong, sinful and deviant we will continue to suffer discrimination. No “law” will make that go away. We need to fight the “source” of our discrimination and Religion needs to grow up and end those lies about us, or suffer the consequences.

Still, this is a very good case for us.

*Checks outside for winged swine.