Mother fights against ban on sleeping with lesbian partner

[NorthCarolina]

Mother fights against ban on sleeping with lesbian partner

Divorcee and mother of two Angel Chandler has approached the Tennessee Court of Appeals to allow her to have her female partner stay overnight.

Ms Chandler, who has been with her partner for almost a decade, is appealing against a child custody restriction known as a paramour clause, in which she is not permitted to have her lover stay overnight if her children are present.

Ms Chandler claims that Chancellor George Elliss of the 28th Judicial District in West Tennessee imposed the restriction, despite this not having been requested by the children's father.

Her appeal also claims there has been no assessment of whether Ms Chandler's relationship with her partner could harm her children in any way.

Her partner has moved to another residence.

<snip>

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) spokesman Paul Cates said that paramour clauses such as these often affect gay and lesbian parents because same-sex civil unions are not permitted in the state.

Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee, said:

"Unfortunately, this case is an all-too-familiar example of how unfairly lesbian and gay parents are treated in custody and visitation proceedings.

Read the entire article here: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-10155.html

[ZombieHorde]

1. Fucked up. I felt weird rec'ing this, but it needs to be seen.

[babylonsister]

2. Ridiculous! And insulting. The father had nothing to do with this?

That chancellor needs to go asap, or be denied his rights to his family. :grr:

[saracat]

3. This is what comes of marginalizing this issue. Gag. But hey ,

as long as others have their rights whats the big deal?:sarcasm: As a straight person, I find this indefensible and sick! First you prevent folks from marrying then enact a "paramour" clause? This is just as bad as the miscegenation laws prior to "Loving". I just don't get how some refuse to see the correlation. :grr:

[The Brethren]

12. Thank you!

I wish more straight people thought like you do. Then this wouldn't even be an issue. My straight friends and most of my family members are very supportive to gay people as well and they get why this kind of garbage is wrong.

But so many other straight people out there don't. Even when the straight person is a good person at heart, many don't see why any of this is a problem. And as one straight person once put it to me when I was talking ot her about it: "Gays have made so much progress why do you need more? Why do you have to keep pushing things?" Anotehr straight lady simply put it - "why do you (gays) have to keep making everything into issue?"

No matter how much I keep trying to make bigoted straight people see why gays not only need more, but deserve more, the one thing I have found that seems to help them connect the dots is when I turn it around. I then ask them would they be asking for too much if someone took their rights away....or never even allowed them in the 1st place?

[saracat]

18. This is exactly what they said to African Americans! And what they still say to women!

[1776Forever]

4. My sister lives in rural TN & the things she told me about racist remarks are awful!

Now I am learning about how they unfairly treat GLBT people.

This is why Dr. Martin Luther King's remarks ring true: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." MLK - Says it all!

[Fran Kubelik]

5. How did the judge even know???

[TheWraith]

10. Article says they've been together ten years, so probably no secret really. nt

[Zuiderelle]

6. It was NOT requested by the child's father?!?! Seriously fucked up.

And heartbreaking too. How dare a judge decide this? Holy shit.

[Creideiki]

16. Hey, the judge just has a difference of opinion

We need to respect these opinions! Maybe he can administer the Oath of Office on Jan. 20! Rise the dialogue pie higher! :sarcasm:

[LostinVA]

7. It's just a two-minute prayer -- it doesn't affect anything

[bluedawg12]

8. At first I thought of Lawrence v Texas but...

That decision seemed to hinge on this phrase: >>"Holding that "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,"<<

This judge has not yet said how there is a legitimate State interest, the implication being that the State's interest is the good of the child and an overnight stay by the partner is somehow damaging to the child.

Which is why the ACLU rebuttal speaks of the, " appeal also claims there has been no assessment of whether Ms Chandler's relationship with her partner could harm her children in any way."

That is the question about State's interest that was not present in Lawrence that they will probably fight in this case.

It's also a warning shot across the bow to our community, echoing a recent CWA spokesbigotpundit who promised that gay parental rights are next on their agenda - same sex marriage already being damaged by them, they are spreading further their "love for us."

"The majority decision found that "the intimate, adult consensual conduct at issue here was part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process protections." Holding that "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," the court struck down the anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional. Kennedy's opinion crucially grounded the right of consenting adults to have sex on how intimate and personal the conduct was to those involved, not on the conduct being traditionally protected by society (as in Bowers), procreative (as in Eisenstadt and Roe), or conducted by married people (as in Griswold). This opened the door in theory to protection of a whole host of sexual activity between consenting adults not protected by other decisions. Kennedy was careful however not to extend the opinion to include governmental recognition of such relationships."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

[TheWraith]

9. Stupid law intended to moralize against straight people harms gay couple. Double threat.

Remind me why we let Tennessee back into the Union?

[Maven]

11. Another reason marriage is a CIVIL RIGHT.

Period.

[DarkTirade]

13. Damn activist judges...

[Fearless]

14. Absolutely disgusting predicament.

[Withywindle]

15. They need to move the fuck out of Tennessee.

Seriously. Can you imagine if all the creativity and intelligence of GLBT people were just drained right out of the states that were so pettily and viciously hostile to us? They'd be sunk even further into the brain-drain morass of ignorance and poverty than they already are.

(I say this as a Virginian who left and is glad of it, BTW)

It is good for children to be raised by two loving parents. Gender doesn't matter; it's just common sense that two can do better sharing living expenses and homecare duties and bringing in two incomes and providing two perspectives.

(I'm single and I hate just having to pay the rent and utilities all by myself, now that I've known how much easier it is with a partner. I can't IMAGINE raising a child alone with no other adult to kick in.)

I imagine these children asking why Mommy's friend can't live with them. I'm sure they wish she could.

[donco6]

25. What do you mean?

Don't you know how God would bless a state that got rid of all it's gays? People would be farting rainbows and rivers would run with milk and honey.

:sarcasm: in case you needed it.

[Kixel]

17. Question...

Is this a good thing? NOT in the anti-gay way, but in the pro-gay way. There is NO way this stands up in court. This law will be struck down and it will become precedent in future court proceedings.

I feel horrible for the family in having to deal with this, please don't get me wrong. But it is obvious that if left to "the will of the people" ignorant idiots get to determine what equal rights are. That's not how our system works. The Constitution gets to dictate our rights as a people.

My thoughts used to be that I didn't care if we allowed civil unions or marriage for the gay and lesbian crowd as long as they had equal rights. Now I realize how important it is that marriage is an across the board right. The more this kind of thing comes out, the more it becomes apparent that these laws are ridiculous. At least that is my hope. Obviously equal rights are never an easy fight to win-there will always be those who have to suffer for the cause. It sucks, but it is reality.

Perhaps its just easier from someone from the outside looking in-the correct viewpoint but none of the personal anguish. I don't know. Maybe I am too optimistic that the change is coming? It is horrible that these women have to go through this, but it is my hope that their anguish isn't in vein. Maybe I just have too much faith in the legal system. The wheels of justice do see to slowly be turning, even if public opinion blows.

Regardless of my thoughts on this, I just want to let the GLBT community know that there's another activist on their side. You guys have had some difficult blows, and I am sorry for that. You deserve way better.

[LostinVA]

19. Of course it can stand up in court -- there's already case law

Sharon Bottoms, for starters.

No, something like this is NEVER a good thing. I'm sure Mildred Loving and her husband wish they could have just gotten married and lived a nice life.

Not snarking at all, I'm just saying that taking away someone's rights to live and love is never a good thing -- I'm not an "end justifies the means" person at all.

[Kixel]

22. I get your view

I tend to be more pragmatic-probably because I don't have my rights questioned on a daily basis and don't have to go through what GLBT folks do. I'm also in kind of a limbo state-we haven't been as horrible to the GLBT community but we haven't been as progressive as others. Not having that kind of hate in your face makes it easier to look at things from a broader (and possibly historical?) setting.

Or perhaps it is because I am where I am that I can't imagine anyone being cruel enough to try and take away a child from what I would assume is a loving home. Those people are whack-jobs. I'm sick of the hate and want to see some silver linings.

[bluedawg12]

20. This will go to the discussion of gays being fit as parents.

I don't wish that on this family.

BTW- last week a woman from CWA dropped the clue on national TV that the extreme right wing activists plan on taking up this issue next: gays as parents and fitness for parenthood.

Talk about striking at the very heart of "family."

The right will argue that the State has a compelling interst in protecting children.

This is an endless war with the right. I had hopes with this election. One can now see why any concessions to the right, honorary or otherwise are dangerous.

Thank you for your support and open mind on this.

[Kixel]

23. This annoys the shit out of me

There are tons of kids in real crisis and we want to take the kids out of (what I am assuming) are healthy homes. These people don't make any sense.

Oh-and I should say my mind isn't open anymore. Gay marriage is the only way to go!

You have my full support. I think a lot of people support equality. We just need to figure out how to tell these sick people to go away. Maybe we should start sending them to de-fundamentalist camps? If they think de-gaying works, it may be time to reverse the conversation.

[TEmperorHasNoClothes]

21. so are heterosexuals allowed to live together or have lovers sleep over?

This needs to go to the supreme court, IMHO.

[Lyric]

24. No, they aren't allowed to have lovers sleep over. BUT

heterosexuals have the option of getting married, which changes everything. If a woman marries her lover, then he can be at the house full-time, no problem.

GLBT people do not have that option--therefore, their partners are NEVER allowed. It's the worst sort of institutional discrimination.

[Deep13]

26. Dear TN: please explain how this is REMOTELY harmful to the child.

What reason could their possibly be to tell adults what they can or cannot do in their personal lives? What is the public policy basis for this?

Let me take a wild guess. God cares about what primates do in bed together. Is that it? If you allow unmarried people to share a roof, god will strike you down with plagues and what not, right? GROW THE FUCK UP!