It boggles the mind sometimes....

[tallguy]

The Supreme Court of Alabama on Friday overturned a lower court ruling that had recognized the 2007 adoption of three children in Georgia by one partner in a lesbian couple that has since split up.

The couple, who live and work in Alabama, had taken up official residence in Georgia to take advantage of its adoption laws.

After breaking up in 2011, one woman in the relationship, referred to as V.L., filed a petition in Alabama in 2013 saying she was being denied parental rights by her former partner, referred to as E.L., the biological mother of the children.

In a seven-to-one decision, the court said "the Georgia court was not empowered to enter the Georgia judgment declaring V.L. to be an adoptive parent of the children. ... The Georgia judgment is accordingly void, and the full faith and credit clause does not require the courts of Alabama to recognize that judgment."

The U.S. Constitution's full faith and credit clause says each state must respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

"What is so distressing about the opinion is for a second state to do this and void an eight-year-old adoption because it doesn't agree with the interpretation of the law of the original state. That is a terrifying prospect for all adoptive families, especially for same-sex parents," said V.L.'s lawyer, Cathy Sakimura.

So..., the Alabama Supreme Court has decided that a Georgia court was not empowered to follow Georgia law?  And that they in fact have the power to overrule another state?

I guess it's not that surprising, considering who leads the Alabama court:

Signing onto the majority opinion was Chief Justice Roy Moore, who in an unrelated 2002 gay parenting case wrote that "common law designates homosexuality as an inherent evil" and renders that person an "unfit parent."

Moore earlier this year ordered the state's probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June ruled gay marriage legal in all 50 states.

link

[Tennesseer]

Time for another case to go up to SCOTUS.  Expect rulings and challenges to the rulings like this for a while.

[jkapp]

Sept 18, 2015 23:52:09 GMT -5 tallguy said:

The Supreme Court of Alabama on Friday overturned a lower court ruling that had recognized the 2007 adoption of three children in Georgia by one partner in a lesbian couple that has since split up.

The couple, who live and work in Alabama, had taken up official residence in Georgia to take advantage of its adoption laws.

After breaking up in 2011, one woman in the relationship, referred to as V.L., filed a petition in Alabama in 2013 saying she was being denied parental rights by her former partner, referred to as E.L., the biological mother of the children.

In a seven-to-one decision, the court said "the Georgia court was not empowered to enter the Georgia judgment declaring V.L. to be an adoptive parent of the children. ... The Georgia judgment is accordingly void, and the full faith and credit clause does not require the courts of Alabama to recognize that judgment."

The U.S. Constitution's full faith and credit clause says each state must respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

"What is so distressing about the opinion is for a second state to do this and void an eight-year-old adoption because it doesn't agree with the interpretation of the law of the original state. That is a terrifying prospect for all adoptive families, especially for same-sex parents," said V.L.'s lawyer, Cathy Sakimura.

So..., the Alabama Supreme Court has decided that a Georgia court was not empowered to follow Georgia law?  And that they in fact have the power to overrule another state?

I guess it's not that surprising, considering who leads the Alabama court:

Signing onto the majority opinion was Chief Justice Roy Moore, who in an unrelated 2002 gay parenting case wrote that "common law designates homosexuality as an inherent evil" and renders that person an "unfit parent."

Moore earlier this year ordered the state's probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June ruled gay marriage legal in all 50 states.

If they took up official residence in Georgia to get the adoption, then why would she file the petition in Alabama?

[tallguy]

Sorry, the link didn't take before.  It was on MSN's page last night.  I think this is the same story reposted on another site.  I've added it now.

It says that they live and work in Alabama.  I'm not sure if they moved back or if they ever actually lived in Georgia.  It's not clear from the article.  Regardless, states are bound by the Constitution to respect the proceedings from another state.  Alabama has no right to declare a valid Georgia proceeding void under any idea of law and the Constitution that I am aware of.   

[Deleted]

This is just one more example of when the constitution has it right about rights.  The problem with the Alabama ruling  is that it runs counter to your wants.  If it ran alongside what what people want, many would have no problem with it.  Rights, in my opinion, should be based on some principle beyond, "it is what I want".

Many so called "rights" you favor are nothing more then what you want.  I agree with you pretty often that the world would be a better place if people lived according to you ideas,  But I disagree that people do not have rights that lead to ugly outcomes and those rights should be protected just as much as the rights you or I think conform to morality or whatever term you like.  Again, just my view and understanding of what a "right" is and where they come from.

I agree it is clearly unconstitutional, but the supreme court is political and often sides on politics, not the constitution.  I think they will probably side with your and my views on this.  Who knows though.

I do not know how to tag, but this was addressed to TallGuy.

[tallguy]

My biggest disagreement with you on the subject of rights (in at least one other case) is not necessarily about the nature of rights in general, but on whose rights are actually being infringed.  The specific right to not be infringed upon trumps anyone else's "right" to infringe.  

We agree here, but it is not in my case a matter of what I "want" in regards to any particular group.  I have no interest here in anything other than equal treatment and equal protection under the law for all.  That is what forms the basis for my arguments.  Pretty much always.     

[Deleted]

Sept 19, 2015 13:36:57 GMT -5 tallguy said:

My biggest disagreement with you on the subject of rights (in at least one other case) is not necessarily about the nature of rights in general, but on whose rights are actually being infringed.  The specific right to not be infringed upon trumps anyone else's "right" to infringe.  

We agree here, but it is not in my case a matter of what I "want" in regards to any particular group.  I have no interest here in anything other than equal treatment and equal protection under the law for all.  That is what forms the basis for my arguments.  Pretty much always.     

You disagree with me on where rights come from, or so I understand.  I think rights cannot contradict.  There are some pretty far out cases where I am more for pragmatism over rights but not on anything discussed here.  I think no one has a right to make someone 'do' something. I think our rights protect us from having others do something to us.  I guess you defined 'discriminate' as doing something to someone. I do not.  I think it needs to be a physical act.  Not making a cake, not serving a preferential class etc does not constitute doing something against someone,  to my way of thinking.

I very much agree with you when you say the government has no right to discriminate.  The marriage liscense woman, for instance is working against some of those who pay her. This case, the couple in Alabama pay taxes and in part pay the salary of the court.  Maybe they pay against their will and would rather keep that tax money.  Since they cannot opt out, they should be treated equally.  The couple wanting the cake were owed nothing by the baker, unlike the couple wanting something from the govt.

If sometime I say you think this or think that and you don't, let me know and I will delete that part. Or if I am not around, tell a moderator I asked for that part to be deleted.

[billisonboard]

A woman had children.  She invited another person to become intimately involved in parenting those children. Now she is attempting to un-invite the person.  The person calls foul.  I side with the person who wants to stay involved in the children's lives.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Sept 19, 2015 15:06:57 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

A woman had children.  She invited another person to become intimately involved in parenting those children. Now she is attempting to un-invite the person.  The person calls foul.  I side with the person who wants to stay involved in the children's lives.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure how adoptions generally work in terms of divorce.  I highly doubt the courts usually side with the adoptive parent over the biological one.  As far as visitation, again I don't know how the generally works in that case. 

[NastyWoman]

Sept 19, 2015 15:53:10 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Sept 19, 2015 15:06:57 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

A woman had children.  She invited another person to become intimately involved in parenting those children. Now she is attempting to un-invite the person.  The person calls foul.  I side with the person who wants to stay involved in the children's lives.

I highly doubt the courts usually side with the adoptive parent over the biological one.. 

And here I always thought that after an adoption is finalized in the courts the rights and obligations of the adoptive parent are identical to those of a bio-parent, provided the bio-parent is still part of the parental "package".  I have to wonder what would happen is, a few years down the road, this bio-parent needs to go on welfare? Would Alabama just "shrug its shoulders" and pay up, or would they then go after the adoptive parent to pay for these kids? I'm not so sure they would forgo the chance to go after this "inherently evil" person and stick it to her

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 19, 2015 9:29:11 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Sept 18, 2015 23:52:09 GMT -5 tallguy said:

So..., the Alabama Supreme Court has decided that a Georgia court was not empowered to follow Georgia law?  And that they in fact have the power to overrule another state?

I guess it's not that surprising, considering who leads the Alabama court:

If they took up official residence in Georgia to get the adoption, then why would she file the petition in Alabama?

That's my question. The answer of course is that the plaintiff wants her cake and eat it too-- they both do. They "live and work in Alabama".  You know, if you declared your "official residence" in Florida for the favorable (none) state income tax laws- your ass had better be here 181 days a year-- and they check.  So, my guess is that the Alabama Court, having been petitioned, decided it was time to see through their scam and apply Alabama law. Don't like it? Leave.