The SJC Again

Well, another split decision from the SJC in a case somewhat related to the same-sex marriage issue. Except this one goes the wrong way, IMHO. The case, in a nutshell, involved a lesbian couple, one of whom had a child through artificial insemination with the other's consent and financial support. But, they broke up 2 months before the child was born. And, because of this, and because the two had not been married (this was also before the two could have been married, that is, before the Goodridge decision) the woman who did not give birth is not obligated to pay child support. This is wrong on so many levels. The court sites the fact that the non-biological-mom was ambivalent about having the child. And her lawyer thinks that if you're ambivalent, you can back out before the child is born. She contrasts this with having unprotected sex which ends up in a pregnancy. I think there is little, if any contrast here. If anything, the non-bio-mom has at least the same responsibility as an unwed dad who didn't use a condom. She couldn't donate a sperm, so she helped pay for some, twice. And, they were in a committed relationship when she did it. This emphasis on biology (that is, she is not biologically related to the child) is outdated. Many people are ambivalent before they have children, even when they intend to get pregnant. But, what's done is done. You facilitate the conception of a fetus and that fetus is born you have a responsibility to that human being until he or she grows out of those ugly teenage years and even beyond. I applaud the justices who dissented but I'm saddened because this decision is bad, bad for gay and straight alike, and, worst of all, bad for children. (The Globe Article)