Judge orders lesbian mother removed from her child’s birth certificate

[BlackSand]

You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about

.

Read the article you posted and you may get a better idea.

.​

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

.

Read the article you posted and you may get a better idea.

.​

You need to read post 138.

 

[BlackSand]

You need to read post 138.

.

I understood what you posted, and the article you posted.
You were the person crying about not knowing or understanding what was being posted.

The easiest way to understand would be to stop trying to fight the obvious.

.​

 

[justoffal]

This case was treated differently because it is different. Are you too obtuse to understand the basic biology?

The child only has one mother and one father.

But....but...you're not a biologist...and...and...and you're a Pooh Pooh Head!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

.

I understood what you posted, and the article you posted.
You were the person crying about not knowing or understanding what was being posted.

The easiest way to understand would be to stop trying to fight the obvious.

.​

Oh Stop! Just stop. You are making a fool of yourself. I made my case for presumpyion of parenthood. You are the one fighting the obvious by obfuscating the issue with convoluted bullshit
You seem to think that you can gaslight me by making doubt that I know what I posted. No working You're not that smart

 

[Bob Blaylock]

See post 138…

See post 125.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You need to read post 138.

You need to read post 125.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Wrong Obergefell did much much more than that. First of all Justice Kennedy was very concerned about children and parenting


And he made it clear that same sex couple SHALL have all of the rights of opposite sex couples as per their respective state laws

For that reason, just as a couple vows to support each other, so does society pledge to support the couple, offering symbolic recognition and material benefits to protect and nourish the union. Indeed, while the States are in general free to vary the benefits they confer on all married couples, they have throughout our history made marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evidence; hospital access; medical decision making authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workers’ compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visitation rules. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 6–9; Brief for American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae 8–29. Valid marriage under state law is also a significant status for over a thousand provisions of federal law. See Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___ – ___ (slip op., at 15–16). The States have contributed to the fundamental character of the marriage right by placing that institution at the center of so many facets of the legal and social order.

Yes, and under Oklahoma law, a man has a right to establish paternity by demonstrating that he and his spouse were married at the time of the birth. If a gay man marries a transman who is capable of giving birth, he can claim the child as his own and establish paternity, even though it is a same-sex marriage. Doesn't mean that a woman can do that.

So, Williams is not denied any of the rights I colored red. In the state of Oklahoma, the right to be put on a birth certificate applies to fathers and their right to establish paternity by virtue of being married. You agreed that this right to paternity cannot apply to a woman. If Oklahoma chooses to codify such a right, they will.

Yes it would! I have demonstrated why. Paternity is parenthood

Are you backtracking on your previous claim that paternity is fatherhood?

Here is more

Parental rights for same-sex parents survive Supreme Court challenge

This preserves a landmark case in Arkansas

arktimes.com

In 2014, the lesbian couples sued the state to place their names on their children’s birth certificates. A federal judge sided with the plaintiffs in 2016, but Indiana appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. After a mysterious 32-month delay, the 7th Circuit affirmed the judge’s decision. It noted that the Supreme Court already settled this issue twice. First, in 2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges, the court compelled states to provide same-sex couples with the “constellation of benefits” linked to marriage, explicitly mentioning birth certificates. Then, in 2017’s Pavan v. Smith, the court reiterated that states must place same-sex parents on their child’s birth certificate if that benefit is provided to opposite-sex parents who lack genetic ties to their child.

There is a clear difference in those two cases. In the Indian a case, the couple were in full agreement, they were married or in a relationship analogous to marriage, and they both wanted to have both names on the birth certificate.

In the Oklahoma case, the couple were estranged and divorcing, the biological mother wanted the biological father to be on the birth certificate, and the biological parents are trying to establish a family unit. Therefore, they do not want an outsider forever on their biological and custodial child's birth certificate, but rather the real and true father in all respects.

She still went about it in the wrong way

You suggested that the right way would have been to turn the family over to CPS, so their lives could be turned upside down even more. That is absurd. As a child advocate, the judge must have seen a lot of CPS-driven tragedy in children's lives, so she would have to have been a sadist to bring them in.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Oh Stop! Just stop. You are making a fool of yourself. I made my case for presumpyion [sic] of parenthood.

Your “case” is entirely depending on presuming that something that is biologically impossible is true; simply because in a completely different situation, a similar presumption is made based on that presumption being very likely to be true.

A man, married to a woman who gives birth is presumed to be the father of the child, because in most situations, he biologically is; a woman in a mockery of a marriage to another woman who bears a child, cannot possibly be the father of that child, therefore it is absurd to presume that she is.

 

[BlackSand]

Oh Stop! Just stop. You are making a fool of yourself. I made my case for presumpyion of parenthood. You are the one fighting the obvious by obfuscating the issue with convoluted bullshit

.

The complainant was never a parent of the child, because she never did what was suggested and necessary to have any parental rights.

The judge sent the Birth Certificate back to be corrected, because two women cannot be listed as biological parents to a child.
It doesn't matter if the people are married or not, if two people are listed as biological parents ... One is a man and the other is a woman.
Both biological parents were known at the point of birth and should have been listed as such.

The fact the couple was in a same sex marriage has absolutely nothing to do with it.
If a woman is married to a man that isn't the child's biological father ... He is not listed as such on the Birth Certificate (unless the woman lies).
He doesn't have parental rights and privileges either until he legally adopts the child ... Which is the same thing the complainant was required to do.

There is no discrimination when you require the same thing of everyone.

.​

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes, and under Oklahoma law, a man has a right to establish paternity by demonstrating that he and his spouse were married at the time of the birth. If a gay man marries a transman who is capable of giving birth, he can claim the child as his own and establish paternity, even though it is a same-sex marriage. Doesn't mean that a woman can do that.

Common Dude! We have been all through this. Now your throwing trans into the mix. The fact is that I have established to presumption of parenthood for ALL married couples. It's time that you face up to it and stop throwing dung at the wall in thehope that something sticks.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

.

The complainant was never a parent of the child, because she never did what was suggested and necessary to have any parental rights.

The judge sent the Birth Certificate back to be corrected, because two women cannot be listed as biological parents to a child.
It doesn't matter if the people are married or not, if two people are listed as biological parents ... One is a man and the other is a woman.
Both biological parents were known at the point of birth and should have been listed as such.

The fact the couple was in a same sex marriage has absolutely nothing to do with it.
If a woman is married to a man that isn't the child's biological father ... He is not listed as such on the Birth Certificate (unless the woman lies).
He doesn't have parental rights and privileges either until he legally adopts the child ... Which is the same thing the complainant was required to do.

There is no discrimination when you require the same thing of everyone.

.​

Holly shit ! You don't know when to quit. ! There is so much wrong with this screed that I don't know where to begin so I am not even going to bother with it. I will just say that Williams was the legal parent by virtue of the fact that she was married to the birth mother and I had established that by citing the court cases. Give it up

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So, Williams is not denied any of the rights I colored red. In the state of Oklahoma, the right to be put on a birth certificate applies to fathers and their right to establish paternity by virtue of being married. You agreed that this right to paternity cannot apply to a woman. If Oklahoma chooses to codify such a right, they will.

OH good grief! What are you trying to do? Stop with the games! Yes I agreed that this right to paternity cannot apply to a woman. But I also established that in the eyes of the law, "paternity" translate to "parenthood" in the case of two married women. Oaklahoma need not codify anything

 

[BlackSand]

Holly shit ! You don't know when to quit. ! There is so much wrong with this screed that I don't know where to begin so I am not even going to bother with it. I will just say that Williams was the legal parent by virtue of the fact that she was married to the birth mother and I had established that by citing the court cases. Give it up

.

No she wasn't ... And the article states that she was warned she needed to legally adopt the child.
The same thing applies to heterosexual couples who are married but not the biological parents.

Read the article you posted.

You can call parenthood anything you want but understand you are just making it up ...
and it has nothing to do with legal parental rights nor is it restricted to marriages.

.​

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Are you backtracking on your previous claim that paternity is fatherhood?

No, but as I said, the issue is PARENTHOOD

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

.

No she wasn't ... And the article states that she was warned she needed to legally adopt the child.
The same thing applies to heterosexual couples who are married but not the biological parents.

Read the article you posted.
You can call parenthood anything you want but understand you are just making it up ...
and it has nothing to do with legal parental rights or same sex marriages.

.​

None of this changes the fact that Williams was a legal parent as per case law and that the judge acted improperly. And birth cirticicates not not reflect the biological status of the person , It is about legal status

 

[Seymour Flops]

It is hard to believe that 7 years after the Obergefell decision that established the right to same sex marriage, and the Pavan v. Smith case that same-sex parents of children conceived by a sperm donor and/or birth surrogate should both be listed on the child’s birth certificate, just as is done for different-sex couples who have kids the same way, we have this sort of inhumane treatment of a lesbian.

Where is the equality established in 2015 by the two aforementioned cases? This would never happen with an opposite sex couple. The fact that the sperm donor subsequently petitioned the court for custody does not change that.

Judge orders lesbian mother removed from her child’s birth certificate

Same-sex parents are being encouraged to legally adopt their own children in order to prevent a court from revoking their custodial rights.

www.lgbtqnation.com

Here is an article that might clear some of this up for you:

Sperm donor petitions court for custody of baby boy - trendeepro

OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) — LGBTQ+ experts around the country are closely watching a divorce child custody case in Oklahoma County, because it could have implications in other states. This is a complicated legal battle between a lesbian couple and a sperm donor who is now asking the court to be the...

trendeepro.com

According to Oklahoma State Statute Title 10, a child born to a married couple is presumed to be the baby of the mother and father, regardless of biological connection.

The problem is, this isn’t a case of mother and father, it’s a case of mother and mother.

A three-sided battle over parental rights is being waged in Oklahoma. KFOR
In Oklahoma, many consider it a gray area of the law.

“The statute is written relating to mother and father, and so that’s part of the reason why this mother was unable to be successful in her initial claim with the court,” said family law expert Stacey Wiebelt. “In this instance, I’m not sure that the judge had any other choice but to enter the ruling that she did.”

Look how crazy the woman wanting to force her name onto the child's birth certificate is:

“I spent over two years of my life with my child, bonding with him even when he was inside (Wilson) and growing. There is a connection there, and for the courts not to respect that and honor that is mind blowing to me,” Williams said.

"Bonding" with a non-person clump of cells? Any liberal should have their head spinning around to read that.

In court filings, Rebekah Wilson claims she is now living with Harlan Vaughn, co-parenting the baby boy for the past six months.

I get that it is sad for Williams. Maybe she even regrets her abusiveness now. If so, she can somewhat show her remorse by not trying to bully her way between a mother and father trying to make a life for their child together.

 

[BlackSand]

None of this changes the fact that Williams was a legal parent as per case law and that the judge acted improperly

.

No she wasn't ... She never legally adopted the child ... Read the article.

There is nothing wrong with a judge sending a incorrect record back to be corrected when
it is known to be incorrect.

In any case ... Two women cannot be listed as biological parents on a birth certificate,
because regardless of what nonsense you may want to express, two women cannot be biological parents of one child.

.​

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

.

No she wasn't ... She never legally adopted the child ... Read the article.

There is nothing wrong with a judge sending a incorrect record back to be corrected when
it is known to be incorrect.

In any case ... Two women cannot be listed as biological parents on a birth certificate,
because regardless of what nonsense you may want to express two women cannot be biological parents of one child.

.​

Are you are realy that obtuse? Or is it that you are just so desperate to be right that you will cling to your version of reality in the face of all facts to the contrary?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Common Dude!

Hey! HEY! I may be a dude, but I am in no way "common."

We have been all through this. Now your throwing trans into the mix. The fact is that I have established to presumption of parenthood for ALL married couples. It's time that you face up to it and stop throwing dung at the wall in thehope that something sticks.

I through trans in the mix as a way to show that it isn't about opposing equal rights for same sex couples. In a same sex couple in which on is a transman who is able to get pregnant, Oklahoma law gives the father, who is male, the right to presumptive paternity.

OH good grief! What are you trying to do? Stop with the games! Yes I agreed that this right to paternity cannot apply to a woman. But I also established that in the eyes of the law, "paternity" translate to "parenthood" in the case of two married women. Oaklahoma need not codify anything

The right that you claim for the Williams woman specifies "paternity."

What law establishes that "paternity" and "parenthood" are interchangeable?