Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Iraqi Consititution Failure, California Courts' Success

A couple of things to pay attention to here, one good and one very, very, very bad. The bad news first. It appears that the democratic experience that we have begun for Iraqis will either turn into a out and out civil war among the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds or will result in a Theocratic, Islamic state, in which women who have enjoyed freedoms for the last 40 years will be stripped of the right to profession, property, etc.
See Elise's post at Bitch, Phd, Shakespeare's Sister, Amanda at Pandagon , Digby, and Pepper.

Now, for the good news. The California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex parents have equal rights to children from their union, even when they are no longer together. The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

The California Supreme Court broke new legal ground for same-sex parents Monday by ruling that lesbian and gay partners who plan a family and raise a child together should be considered legal parents after a breakup, with the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual parents.

Three weeks after issuing a precedent-setting decision banning business discrimination against domestic partners, the justices took another step toward equal treatment for the tens of thousands of California households headed by same-sex couples. The court became the first in the nation to grant full parental status to same-sex partners regardless of their marital status or biological connection with their children.

"We perceive no reason why both parents of a child cannot be women,'' said Justice Carlos Moreno, writing for the majority in three related rulings issued Monday.

It was a bold statement by a normally cautious court -- although, as Moreno pointed out, the Legislature said essentially the same thing in a new law that gave domestic partners most of the same rights as spouses, including parental rights. Monday's rulings went a step further and granted parental status to members of couples who had separated before the law took effect in January.

In each of the three cases, the court said, lesbian partners had cooperated in conceiving and rearing children in a family setting and, thus, were both legal parents -- entitling them to visitation over an ex-partner's objections and requiring them to pay child support. The ruling would apply equally to gay men who agreed to raise a child together.

The WaPo (like many other newspapers) ran this quotation from Matthew Staver:

"Today's ruling defies logic and common sense by saying that children can have two moms," said attorney Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel. "That policy establishes that moms and dads as a unit are irrelevant when it comes to raising children."

There's that blasted "common sense" and "logic" stuff again. What on earth is "common sense" for these wing-nuts? What exactly is embracing traditional family values? Should we take a look at what the Iraqi Constitution is threatening to do to women as a clue to what they consider logical and common sense approaches to raising children?

3 comments:

  1. Anonymous10:15 PM

    NPR did a great piece a few weeks ago with an interview with an Iraqi woman. The woman (her name I have sadly forgotten) is a woman's rights "lobbyist" in Iraq and fighting the new government as hard as she can. The interviewer was in disbelief as the woman asserted time and time again that women were better off under Saddam Hussein. She recounted on how successful protests had led to leniency under Hussein which had enabled women to break from the traditional religious laws. Now that there is an "elected" legislature, they are looking to use the inhumane religious laws as not only a basis but almost a word for word copy for the new constitution. She said that the legislature is NOT a representative body, and most Iraqi's are in fact missing the "good old days" of Saddam Hussein.

    As for California- one small step!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Penny Lane--

    I heard another interesting debate on the issue of women's rights on the Diane Rehm show yesterday. Amb. Rend al-Rahim, who is a female Iraqi, was discussing in a more nuanced way how women fared under Saddam's rule. She pointed out that he did, in fact, pass a law that made "honor killings" legal in Iraq. Nonetheless, Iraq was not governed (when it was governed by the rule of law?) by Shariah (sp?) law.

    al-Rahim also pointed out the looming threat of the change in family law if the constitution embraces Shariah law. There is a pretty good article on the issue of women's rights in the NYT today (front page, no less).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous12:14 AM

    I had also found this article on NYTimes and was interested in what it had to say about Islamic Laws. I have always been interested in the religious laws presented by all religions, pertaining to women and everything else. In terms of the new constitution using Sariah law as its basis, I am not surprized. It is not as if the new legislatures would have much to gain by granting women better rights. Under Shariah law women were considered 1/2 a man, and in many cases 1/5 of a man. Sadly I think that only time will aid the women of Iraq. For now the legislature has "bigger" things to worry about (like getting the OK from the US) than womens rights. So let the protests begin! The woman of Iraq, and those who support them, have their work cut out for them.

    ReplyDelete