"Protect?" Somebody Help Me With This...

Calif. Court Protects Kids of Gay Couples

by David Kravets
Associated Press
August 23, 2005

Read this article, and explain to me the word "protects" in this headline. It seems to me this case is not about 'protecting kids' as much as it is about letting homosexuals know they can't be deadbeats any more than heterosexuals can be.

This is being heralded by local San Francisco media and this particular AP reporter as some sort of breakthrough for same-sex couples; in fact, if the law is going to allow homosexuals to create children from artificial methods (which I disagree with but can't do anything about), this ruling is consistent with common sense.

Well...it's consistent, anyway.

Update: At the prodding of KNEW talk show host Jeff Katz, I have re-examined this story, and note that nowhere does it mention that the woman who gave birth to the disputed children had to receive sperm in order to fertilize the eggs donated to her by her partner.

For those uninformed about in-vitro fertilization -- most likely, children who are just beginning to cultivate interest in current events -- it is dishonest for this AP writer to pretend that a donated egg and a uterus can produce a child without fertilization from sperm.