Here’s why we need gay marriage: “Lesbian Breakup Raises a Child-Support Issue” (emphasis below mine):
The highest court in Massachusetts met Thursday to consider a child-support case involving a lesbian couple and their 3-year-old son. The dispute turns on whether one woman must make support payments to the other, even though the couple broke up three months before the child — conceived through artificial insemination — was born.
[…] If the case heard Thursday by the high court had involved a husband and wife who had used artificial insemination, “it would be a clear case, open-and-shut, in 50 states” — and the man would be considered the father, Bartholet said.
“What makes this complicated is that you have a lesbian couple that is not allowed to get married,” she said. “So we are seeing all kinds of law developing that treats couples who look like a marital couple like a marital couple. What has been happening in the law generally is to treat same-sex couples as if they were married.”
[…] In the case argued before the Supreme Judicial Court, the women allegedly agreed in 1999 that T.F. would undergo artificial insemination with the intent of bearing a child. The women had lived together for 3 1/2 years in western Massachusetts and had gone through a commitment ceremony in 1998.
The couple had pooled their finances, named each other as beneficiary on life insurance policies and retirement plans and become part of each other’s extended families, according to a brief filed by Bennett H. Klein, the lawyer for T.F. Klein said the pair also agreed to jointly raise the child, identified as D.
The women’s relationship deteriorated, however, and B.L. moved out two months before T.F. went into premature labor. D. was born nine weeks early and was treated at a neonatal intensive care unit. The lawsuit contends B.L. made one payment of $800 when the boy was born but has not contributed to his support since then.
“This case is about one of the fundamental principles of our child welfare law, and that is that individuals are responsible to support the children they bring into the world,” Klein said.
But Sibbison told the court that the case revolved around contract law, not parental responsibilities. She said B.L. was “vulnerable” and under treatment for depression when she gave in to T.F.’s entreaties to have a child. “I think the responsibility [for support] is on the mother, who went ahead and got pregnant,” she said.
Sibbison dismissed the spousal consent forms B.L. signed at the fertility clinic and at the hospital where D. was born. “These papers at the hospital, they say, ‘Sign here, sign here,’ ” she said. “Do you want to be responsible for everything you sign?”
While the story notes that law has generally been interpreted to treat this sort of thing between gay couples under existing support rules, there’s still an element of uncertainty (as shown in the statements of the defense counsel). Establishing gay relationships as something beyond simple “contract law” (which, it sounds like, can be trivially discarded if the contract signee was simply having a bad day) and civil unions seems to be essential, if we’re going to allow gay couples to adopt or have kids “together” — for the sake of the children involved, if nothing else.
(via Joe Kelley)