Snapshots from Green Victoria (tedwords) wrote,
Snapshots from Green Victoria
tedwords

Today on NPR they had a story about a gay couple from Vermont who had committed to each other in a civil union, but then split apart after only about three years. During that time, one of the partners had a child, and the intent was for the two to raise the child together. However, after they split, the birth mother moved to Virginia, and is now resisting a Vermont order giving parental rights to her former lesbian partner. The two states' courts have issued conflicting rulings on the custody case.

Now, please keep in mind, I'm not an attorney, I'm not going to argue the finer points of the law, and I don't know anything about the case, other than what I heard on the radio. There could be much more to the story than I know, and I'm fully aware of this. However...

The facts, as I understand them, are that the birth mother is denying her former partner the right to help raise this child, citing Virginia law (as opposed to Vermont law, where they were married) that defines marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman. This, despite the fact that her partner made the decision to help her raise this child, was there with her all through the pregnancy, and was the actual person who cut the umbilical cord.

See, this here is a perfect example of where, when it all comes down to dust, when that biological mother winds up at whatever exists on the other side of death, this is one lady that's really going to have some major 'splaining to do to the Big Guy (or Alanis Morrissette...whoever's up there).

I mean, talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. This woman decides to take advantage of the law in one state, but suddenly, when that law is no longer convenient for her lifestyle, she decides to hop over to Virginia and, for whatever selfish reason she has (and there's no indication that the other partner was abusive, from what I can tell), take advantage on conflicting state law in order to deprive her former "partner for life" of a relationship with the child that they intended to raise together.

Why?

Because she can, of course! Because she can hire a nice atorney to argue her side in court, no matter how stupid or hypocritical that side is.

See, my friends, marriage, or, excuse me, a civil union, isn't supposed to work like that. And I'm not even talking about the whole concept of being with one person "til death do us part." That section gets broken all the time, and you know what? Mistakes happen. Suddenly forever seems like an awful long time. Okay. I get that. I've lived that. And I've still tried to keep as much of it intact as I can.

But one thing that I never could get out of my head is the "love, honor, and obey" section of the vow. Call me crazy. I just don't see how people can be so vindictive and so mean that they suddenly wake up one morning and decide that, hoo boy, was this a big mistake, and maybe I'll just do whatever litle vindictive thing that I can to make the other person's life a living hell.

You know what? It's a mistake YOU MADE. YOU brought another person into the equation. And now YOU need to live with that decision by dealing with the other partner fairly, and decently, and taking ownership and displaying maturity and not trying to duck through some stupid loophole that you clearly didn't believe in, at some point in your life.

And of course, there's that other nasty consequence of utterly selfish acts of cruelty such as this. Because we all know who really pays for things like this in the end.

Okay, I'm geting melodramatic. I'll get of my soapbox, now.
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 10 comments