Today I came across a story about an Australian judge having awarded child-visitation rights to two gay men who took turns donating sperm to two lesbians.
The story appeared on the German-language blog http://www.in-australien.com, apparently a gay-rights-oriented blog, at http://www.in-australien.com/baby-mit-4-homosexuellen-eltern-das-gericht-fallt-ein-urteil_103692
The story is dated Sept. 15, 2010 and mentions that the court decision involves a lesbian couple in Melbourne, with no identification of where the two gay men hail from. The judge in the case is ostensibly Linda Dessau, but I have no clue as to which court she resides at.
Although I spent a considerable amount of time searching for English-language verification of the story, I have not been able to find any such thing. Do any of you know anything about this?
Here is a translation of the German-language article into English (it is an edited version of one produced by Babel Fish, but I did not spend very much time in correcting grammar, wording and syntax):
Baby with 4 homosexual parents: The court delivers a decision
In Australia, a lesbian and a gay pair were transformed into four homosexual parents of a cute baby. The Australian court responsible was able to deliver a verdict in this case that awards rights to all parents enabling them to be allowed to care for the baby. Originally, the two lesbian life-partners simply wanted to have a child of their own. A gay couple made itself available as sperm donors, with both men alternating with their sperm donations. The project was successful, and thereby, approximately two years ago, a small boy came into the world. That evoked such great parental emotions in all four parents who had been involved that now none of them can do without the little tyke and, accordingly, wished to spend as much time as possible with the newly-born.
For that reason, with the passing of time ever more disputes developed between the two pairs of parents, so that now a court had to decide in the situation. The four tried to find common grounds on parental responsibility and visitation arrangements, in order to do justice to themselves and to the small baby. However, they could find no agreement that would satisfy all parties. Justice Linda Dessau was therefore to decide what was to be the best for the now already 2-year-old child. Because all four persons love the small one dearly and deal responsibly with him, she decided that all participants should be awarded the right to be allowed to spend time with the boy. The child is to have the possibility in each case of becoming acquainted with all four parents in order to experience their parental love.
The court hands down a clear verdict
The baby was born in Melbourne and lives until today together with his two mothers here. The two men had moved to Melbourne already before the birth of the child, in order to have regularly contact with it. After two years all parents had developed such strong feelings that everyone wanted to spend equal time with the infant. Since the baby had so far lived with the two women and these thus more were involved in its life, the mothers pleaded that the small boy was to live further with them. The judge said, however, that the two men are not just simply sperm donors, but that both feel true feelings for the boy. On the basis of those facts the judge decided that the boy may live further with the women, although the two men should receive regular visitation rights, to see their offspring grow up and to be able to provide him with their paternal support.
Well, I am not an expert in matters of such a confoundedly confusing parental situation in which a judge declares the physically-impossible, that there can be two mothers and two fathers of one child. All I have to go by is my many years of experience with raising sheep. Furthermore, tit-for-tat, I would like to, just as homosexual-rights-activists are fond of doing, project from the parental practices in the animal world to those that come into play in civilization.
Even King Solomon found parental disputes by mothers in such issues extremely confusing but devised a practical solution that enabled him to rule which of two competing “mothers” was the natural one who truly deserved to be the one mother whom the boy in that case was to be assigned to, so as to preserve the standards that made society work well. Judge Linda Dessau appears to have assumed powers of judgment that vastly exceed the wisdom possessed by King Solomon. Nevertheless, my experience in such matters with the sheep that we raised over the years will almost certainly lead to the situation in this case where reality will bite all the participants in the butt.
The hormone oxytocin exerts a powerful influence in such cases, powerful enough to evoke parental influences and feelings for all ostensible parents involved. However, within a relatively short time the confoundedly confusing parent-child relationships always and without fail lead to disastrous outcomes that are often even fatal (most definitely in the case of sheep and especially in regard to “child abuse” by sheep as a result of maternal confusion).
The experimentation with human standards in such matters must come to an end. Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end, most definitely in the animal world in the wild and in husbandry.
Aside from that, I wonder why I can’t find any references to this particular case of the confusion of homosexual-rights with normalcy in civil society. Should one not think that this case should have made the news where it took place?
Can anyone help out with some more information on this case? Is the whole story perhaps just the creation of a new urban myth in the making?