News-Record.com

Its preamble mentions last year’s ruling by the California Supreme Court, then says:

“Whereas the threat of similar lawsuits in North Carolina increased significantly in 2008 when the North Carolina Court of Appeals granted visitation rights to the estranged same sex partner of a lesbian woman who conceived a child through artificial insemination (Mason v. Dwinnell). In the introductory remarks to the opinion, Judge Martha Geer writes, 'It is important to first observe that the factual context of this case — involving same sex domestic partners — is immaterial to the proper analysis of the legal issues involved.’ ...

“This rationale is strikingly similar to that used by the California Supreme Court when they said, 'Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation ...’ ”

In other words, this bill — for which a majority of representatives have indicated support — paves the way for legal recognition of same-sex marriage in North Carolina.

Except it doesn’t.

When I called Judge Geer last week to ask about this interpretation (she had not yet heard about the bill), she was incredulous.

“It’s not apples and oranges,” she said. “It’s apples and cows.”

Mason v. Dwinnell deals with child visitation and custody, not marriage. The relevant issues are the rights of the natural parent and the best interest of the child. The law was applied exactly the same as if Mason and Dwinnell had been an unmarried heterosexual couple where the man was not the biological father but had helped care for and support the child from birth and even for several years after the couple moved apart.

In this case, the court found that Irene Dwinnell had encouraged Joellen Mason to play an equal parenting role, and that they even signed and notarized a “parenting document” outlining their mutual rights and responsibilities. This and other evidence meant that Dwinnell, the natural mother, had voluntarily given up her “paramount parental right.” In that event, the only question remaining was whether it was in the child’s best interest for Mason to be allowed to maintain a supportive, loving presence in his life. The trial court said yes, and the appeals court affirmed.

In a similar case issued the same day, Estroff v. Chatterjee, incidentally, the same appeals court panel denied a claim for visitation rights because the natural mother had not so explicitly granted a parenting role to her former same-sex partner.

I didn’t take Geer’s word alone that these cases aren’t connected to the issue of marital rights for same-sex couples. Suzanne Reynolds, a law professor at Wake Forest and the state’s foremost expert on family law, confirmed that conclusion. Furthermore, Reynolds said, North Carolina courts have issued no decisions that could serve as legal “building blocks” to a California-type ruling on marriage.

The reference to Mason v. Dwinnell in this House bill could be intended to raise alarm. I suspect it also might be someone’s attempt to target Geer, who comes up for re-election next year. Portraying her as a California-liberal kind of judge could provide an avenue for attack by an aggressive conservative challenger (even though Geer was joined in her opinion by conservative Judge Sanford Steelman).

The public should rest assured. Left Coast (or Northeast) thinking hasn’t infiltrated our judiciary just yet, and Mason v. Dwinnell does not justify a constitutional amendment on marriage.

Thanks for reading. You can call me at 373-7039, email me at dgclark@news-record.com or post a comment here.