A “divorced” lesbian couple, one of whom was in the military, is now fighting over an unusual issue of child support — the “consent” to having kids.

It seems Wife #1 (females are always wives, males are always husbands, in an atypical continuation of a “gender norm” in the LGBT community) was deployed with the military, and while gone, Wife #2 decided to have a baby — which, biologically, requires no input from Wife #1, but is still legally Wife #1’s child. Now, Wife #1 (who filed for divorce upon returning from deployment) wants to “sever her parental rights” — so she doesn’t have to pay child support:

The woman seeking to end her parental rights didn’t agree to her then-wife getting pregnant through a sperm donor, wasn’t there for the baby’s birth and never had a meaningful relationship with the child, her attorney, Rebecca Copeland, told the justices.

The case is being heard at the Hawaii State Supreme Court. Interestingly, the justices’ primary concern was apparently that homosexuals were being asked to be treated differently than heterosexuals:

The [lower] family court denied her petition [to sever] because it found that Hawaii’s Uniform Parentage Act and Marriage Equality Act presumes that a legal spouse of a woman who gives birth to a baby is the parent of that child, regardless of the spouse’s gender.

It’s an awkward situation. For heterosexuals, were a woman to get pregnant while her husband was deployed, it would be patently obvious the child wasn’t his — you know, biology and all that. But for two homosexuals, there is no natural, biological way to have children.

Since homosexual parentage is essentially academic, it is equally easy to make an “academic” argument that the child isn’t the other person’s child. But even homosexual activists are acknowledging that such an argument undermines the very basis for “equal” treatment between homosexuals and heterosexuals. One cannot claim that the child “of” two homosexuals is “just as much” their child as is the child of two heterosexuals while simultaneously claiming an exception.

The situation is a bit like the explanation Jesus gave for God allowing divorce. It’s not that God wanted divorce — God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). But God allowed divorce because our “hearts [are] hard.” In a manner of speaking, we created the complex and problematic situation by not following God’s plan — God, in His mercy, allowed us a way to deal with it.

These types of questions of morality shouldn’t even exist. We shouldn’t have to argue over whether a woman has to provide child support for the child of another woman. We shouldn’t have to figure out how to deal with frozen children, or when an unborn child can legally be killed, or if men who want to be women should be allowed in a girl’s locker room, or which adults should be on a kid’s birth certificate.

These aren’t hard questions; they have simple, science-based answers that most 4 year olds could give you.  Yet in our depravity and sinfulness — and our rebellion — we’re making it hard.

Because we have freedom — because “we can” — society has decided “we should,” questions of morality notwithstanding.

Potentially the greatest tragedy?  How about the moral welfare of that kid, when he grows up and learns what his “parents” fought over?

Wonder what new moral questions 2018 will have for us — and how society will choose to deal with them.

Wouldn’t a life based on consistent moral principles and the Word of God be so much…simpler?

ADVERTISEMENT

---

---