Supreme Court Voids Alabama Ruling Against Gay Adoption

Court Reverses, Then Reverses Again

The two women decided to sever their relationship, and the non-biological parent asked an Alabama court to grant joint custody of the children and the court agreed that the Georgia adoption would be honored.

The decision was appealed, and  the Alabama Supreme Court tossed out the order, concluding that Georgia law barred adoptive mother from adopting unless the biological mother had relinquished her parental rights. The Alabama justices ruled that the Georgia court that awarded adoption rights in the first place misinterpreted Georgia law.

On Monday, in an unsigned opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Georgia decision must be honored, reversing the Alabama Supreme Court.

In urging the court to take the case, the non-biological mothers lawyer, Paul Smith of Washington, D.C., said the Alabama ruling “places at risk numerous other families in which parents have relied on the stability of adoption judgments issued by the courts of sister states.”

Advocates of gay rights had been watching the case closely.

“This case is a part of our continuing national conversation about legal respect for the relations formed by and between same-sex couples, including those who raise children.”

“I am overjoyed that the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Alabama court decision,” said the adoptive mother. “I have been my children’s mother in every way for their whole lives. I thought that adopting them meant that we would be able to be together always. The Supreme Court has done what’s right for my family.”

There are many other issues that will arise from the ill-begotten decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to dissolve centuries of law and societal norms and to allow same sex marriage to go forward in all fifty states. The statistics in other countries where same sex marriage has been legalized for some time suggest that the fight was less about marriage and more about normalizing same sex attraction, and expanding the number of potential participants in that behavior.

In this particular case, however, it appears the decision was proper in that it retained the relationship the non-biological mother had with the children, though it is not clear what caused the breakup of the couple and if there were other non-reported concerns about an ongoing relationship with the children that we are unaware of. Our society is unfortunately not very selfless, and where possible, the first consideration should be how decisions will affect those who cannot defend themselves. That would certainly include minor children who cannot choose who will parent them.




  1. Fush Yumeng

Leave a Reply

Pin It on Pinterest