BOSTON (AP) - A woman who agreed to have a child with her lesbian partner, but split up with the mother before the baby's birth, cannot be forced to pay child support, the state's highest court ruled Wednesday.
I thought we were striving for equality here, people! Where's the term "deadbeat"? Where's the wage garnishment?
Hey, I'll be glad to say "Welcome to the wonderful world of legalized marriage." Just be careful what you wish for. You can't just cherry-pick the institution. That's why people talk about the "sanctity" of marriage and the "family values." Because there's a responsibility involved. You can't call the whole thing off just because you had a fight over who left the toilet seat up.
Okay, I'm being facetious. But this woman makes me angry. And she ought to make those of you out there who support legalizing same-sex marriages furious. Women like B.L. do nothing but prove the point for the other side.
And the wackiest thing about this whole case is when you look at it in relation to the post I made a while back. In this present case, the agreement between the two women to raise a child is not considered an "enforceable contract."
In the other case,
Despite an agreement that appeared to be a binding contract, the father is obligated to provide financial support, the court decided.Right.
"It is the interest of the children we hold most dear,'" wrote Senior Judge Patrick Tamalia.
So, in the case of the lesbians, "B.L.", despite having made an agreement to raise the child, gets to skip town. But according to the logic of the other case, the guy who ponied up the man-juice for B.L and L.T. could find himself having to pay for the next 18 years.
It's sooo overused...But sometimes "What the Fuck?" is just right.