christiefan915
Catalyst
PA overturned precedent with this laudable decision.
"In an opinion that at once awarded homosexual parents equal custody rights and criticized a Dauphin County Common Pleas judge for potential gender bias, the state Superior Court overturned a 25-year-old precedent.
The previous precedent, the court wrote in a 7-1 opinion, set a presumption "based upon unsupported preconceptions and prejudices -- including that the sexual orientation of a parent will have an adverse effect on the child."
"Such preconceptions and prejudices have no proper place in child custody cases, where the decision should be based exclusively upon a determination of the best interests of the child."
However, as an aside, the judge's original ruling in 2004 used this logic:
"He based his decision on a 1985 opinion, which found that the burden is placed on the parent involved in a gay relationship to prove that it will have no adverse effect on the child.
"In that case, the Superior Court said that homosexual relationships were not the same as heterosexual relationships. The new ruling described the 1985 opinion, saying that the majority found as a " 'fallacy' the notion that a homosexual relationship could ever be the equal of the traditional family as a suitable family arrangement, and indicated that it was 'inconceivable' that a child could be exposed to a homosexual relationship 'and not suffer some emotional disturbance, perhaps severe.' "
Then the judge went on to say that in 2004: "...he awarded primary custody to the father based on his personal experience as a judge, parent, grandparent and foster parent."
It brought to mind the RW outrage raised over Sotomayor's comment "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Until now, nobody called into question the old white guy's ruling, based on "the richness of his experiences", that continued for 25 years the prejudice against gay couples. Guys like him have been running the system since 1789. But when a Latina woman opined about her background and experiences, all hell broke loose.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10056/1038439-454.stm#ixzz0geo8A7Qi
"In an opinion that at once awarded homosexual parents equal custody rights and criticized a Dauphin County Common Pleas judge for potential gender bias, the state Superior Court overturned a 25-year-old precedent.
The previous precedent, the court wrote in a 7-1 opinion, set a presumption "based upon unsupported preconceptions and prejudices -- including that the sexual orientation of a parent will have an adverse effect on the child."
"Such preconceptions and prejudices have no proper place in child custody cases, where the decision should be based exclusively upon a determination of the best interests of the child."
However, as an aside, the judge's original ruling in 2004 used this logic:
"He based his decision on a 1985 opinion, which found that the burden is placed on the parent involved in a gay relationship to prove that it will have no adverse effect on the child.
"In that case, the Superior Court said that homosexual relationships were not the same as heterosexual relationships. The new ruling described the 1985 opinion, saying that the majority found as a " 'fallacy' the notion that a homosexual relationship could ever be the equal of the traditional family as a suitable family arrangement, and indicated that it was 'inconceivable' that a child could be exposed to a homosexual relationship 'and not suffer some emotional disturbance, perhaps severe.' "
Then the judge went on to say that in 2004: "...he awarded primary custody to the father based on his personal experience as a judge, parent, grandparent and foster parent."
It brought to mind the RW outrage raised over Sotomayor's comment "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Until now, nobody called into question the old white guy's ruling, based on "the richness of his experiences", that continued for 25 years the prejudice against gay couples. Guys like him have been running the system since 1789. But when a Latina woman opined about her background and experiences, all hell broke loose.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10056/1038439-454.stm#ixzz0geo8A7Qi
