Last week a Massachusetts’ court ruled against a non-biological lesbian partner who was seeking child custody rights. The courts stated that during the year and five month relationship the plaintiff did not file for adoption of the child in question. Also, the court ruled that the non-biological partner was not present enough at home to establish an emotional bond that would merit court-ordered visitation rights. The plaintiff argued that she had been away from the child in order to support the family financially. It is important to ask that if this couple had been heterosexual would the court have ruled in favor of the defendant, or would the fate of the child have been different? The lawyer for the defendant stated that the ruling proved that the court was fairly applying child-protection measures to all couples, independent of sexual orientation. However, views of the court are still heterosexist. If the plaintiff had been a man the court may have taken more time to pause and reflect on his role in the child’s life. Male influence is traditionally viewed as vital to the healthy development of a child. The court system would like to believe that it is unbiased and that justice is blind, however, the court is still rooted deeply in heterosexist culture, especially when dealing with the welfare of children.

In a landmark event, Deputy President Phumzile Miambo-Ngcuka signed the civil union act into law, granting civil marriage rights to the South African Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) community. South Africa is the first country in Africa to grant LGBTs the right to join together under civil law. It is interesting that a country which only just recently ended apartheid in 1994 has advanced civil rights for its LGBT citizens beyond anything that the federal government in the United States has even considered. Perhaps America should take cues from international policies implemented by socially advanced countries.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061130/lf_afp/safricapolitics_061130174543