@ antibureaucratic

You asked me a question, and I will give you an answer.  Keep in mind that I do not consider myself an 'expert' on this kind of subject, and that I could surely benefit from more reading and 'research' on these matters.  

I already stated that I believe, in principle, that children are in need of a mother AND a father ( I am reluctant to use the word "moral right" in this context).  It follows that I would NOT approve of legislation that would allow "artificial insemination" in cases of "lesbian couples".  Indeed, I would urge strict limits (make it exceptional) to such insemination in cases of heterosexual couples.  

Again, I think that the primary goal in this area should be to set op norms that are most likely to protect the interests of the broadest number of children in society.  I believe that children are not born for the 'benefit' or 'pleasure' of parents, but rather that all natural parents have a moral obligation to 'help' their children 'survive' and grow up into independent adulthood.  

Thus, your question concerns a hypothetical case which would not occur in my 'ideal' world. It certainly has no bearing for my views on what legal marriage should be.   Again, the law should be primarily concerned with setting proper norms, not with exceptions and 'accidents'. 

Finally, to answer your question, I would have a court decide who should get custody in your hypothetical case, based on the 'circumstances' and guided by the principle of the 'interest of the child'.  But, I repeat, the law should not be concerned primarily with 'accidents' and mistakes.  And allowing artificial insemination in cases of lesbians in my view is a 'mistake' from a societal perspective.

@ antibureaucratic

I am glad we agree to some extent, but it should be clear that 'JordanR's point cannot be "sufficiently" addressed in a few paragraphs.  Let me try anyway.

In my opinion, the very first constitutional principle of 'democratic' politics should be that the law should apply 'equally' to all citizens.  Citizens should, in principle, be equal before the law.  Therefore, any deviations from that principle (i.e. any 'discriminations' in the law) cannot be lightly undertaken, and should be grounded in fundamental 'human nature'.  Marriage law creates such 'discriminations'.  In my view, such discriminations can only be justified on the need to protect children.

I start from two basic propositions.  First, that children need a father and a mother and, second, that children IN GENERAL are best raised by their biological parents.  I fully recognise that these are IDEALS that do not always correspond to specific realities.   But public policy must be governed by ideals or 'best practice' in general, not by exceptions or deviations from the norm.   Just imagine the situation of a society in which children are not generally raised by both their biological parents.  And consider also the enormous benefit that society derives from the selfless efforts of untold parents for their children.

I have sympathy for your predicament in your youth, and I certainly do not deny that there should be room in the law for 'exceptions' (under strict conditions).  But, the situation that you described cannot possibly provide a sensible norm for the law to set up or follow.   It follows, that my view of legal marriage is centered (limited) on the interests of children, and any 'discriminations' in the law should be governed by that principle.         

But what about gayness and the islamisation of Europe?
We need millions of immigrants (and they are by pure accident almost exclusively muslims) , the Left keeps telling us, in order to cope with our ageing population.
If too little children are born, what is the purpose of measures like promoting homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia-also for the young?

@ JordanR

You are certainly correct that "gayness" has nothing to do with "terrorism".  If anything, it would be almost the opposite (in the sense that islamofascists are no friends of gays).  And, you are also correct that all people should have equal access to (political) "freedoms".  

However, one should not downgrade or devalue the concept of "freedom" by confusing it with other things, like government benefits, or legal institutional arrangements like 'marriage', or 'social engineering' to change popular opinions.   There is nothing in the law, at least in most democratic western countries, that prevents gay people from "forming succesful monogamous relationships" or "making meaningful contributions to society". 

From a freedom-perspective, the deeper question is that the law should not concern itself with highly subjective and arbitary concepts such as 'racism, xenophobia, and homophobia'.  Particularly when such concepts are being used in an arbitrary manner to curtail genuine and more fundamental 'freedoms' of all people, such as freedom-of-opinion (or expression) and (in the economic sphere) contractual freedoms.   

It is when governmental authorities abuse 'the law' in such a manner to further ideological agendas that your image of "the canary" and of "eroding freedoms" becomes relevant.

Every time I want to embrace more right-of-center politics out comes the old gay-rights-equals-political-correctness which convinces me that the right, just like the left, are incapable of distinguishing between real threats and absurd illusions.

Gays do not want to terrorize Europe. Gays do not want to hurt innocent civilians in the name of "gayness". They just want the right to freedoms the rest of us enjoy. (aka "gay agenda") The idea that gays should be denied employment opportunities based on the their bedroom habits is contrary to the free and open society the right-wing parties claims to promote.

I hate political correctness as much as the next guy. But gays are not worthy of our fears. They constantly prove they can form successful monogamous relationships and make meaningful economic and social contributions to society.

Unfourtunately, gays also prove they are the classic "canaries in the coal-mine" when it comes to eroding liberties.

The bad part is that both the PM and President have rolled over to political correctness, after the Saeima earned their pay for once.

Incidentally, the bill in its existing edition says discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation : wouldn't that would also make it illegal to refuse to employ a paedophile (perhaps by a school) or a zoophile (an animal shelter) or necrophiliac (the morgue?)?

I wonder at what point the people of Europe gave a mandate to Brussels to fight rascism, xenophobia and homophobia, that is : fight both against us and in our name. And what principles built Europe which demand furthering some gay agenda??? Please, enlighten us Brussels.

http://therearguard.blogspot.com/