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

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?
.

I am not the desperate one trying to argue that somehow two women should be listed as biological parents on a Birth Certificate ...
When in reality there is no possible way it could be true ... :auiqs.jpg:

There are no varying versions to reality, and it doesn't matter how passionately you want to disagree with it.

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


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.
I am not sure what this is supposed to "clear up for me"I was already clear.

There is mention of a loophole in that law that allows for Williams to be removed from the birth cirtificate. It mentions an Oaklahoma law that applies to paternity when an opposite sex couple is involves, but claims that it does not apply to same sex couples.

But AS I HAVE ESTABLISHED thofat all flies in the face Supreme Court case law that says otherwise. That superceeds state law.

As far as bonding goes, I think that the child was 2 years old when the shit hit the fan. Pleant of time for real bonding
 
I am not sure what this is supposed to "clear up for me"I was already clear.

There is mention of a loophole in that law that allows for Williams to be removed from the birth cirtificate. It mentions an Oaklahoma law that applies to paternity when an opposite sex couple is involves, but claims that it does not apply to same sex couples.

But AS I HAVE ESTABLISHED thofat all flies in the face Supreme Court case law that says otherwise. That superceeds state law.
How do you know more Oklahoma law than that family law expert?
As far as bonding goes, I think that the child was 2 years old when the shit hit the fan. Pleant of time for real bonding
Well, yes. I'm sure in between beating up the kid's mother, Williams took time to bond with the kid. My point was her insane ranting about bonding with a non-person, a clump of cells. A zygote, an embryo, a fetus? Bonding? You do agree that this is a little crazy, do you not?
 
How do you know more Oklahoma law than that family law expert?
.

In the article the family law folks warned her that she needed to legally adopt the child ...
Which she didn't do, and if she had, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

.
 
Maybe I can. Not all "experts" actually know what they are talking about
.

First you throw the judge under the bus, and then you throw the law experts under the bus.

All in attempts to suggest that because you agree with a bunch of whining about nothing the complainant couldn't have avoided
somehow means you are correct, and no one else who's job it is to know and administer the law, has a clue what they are talking about.

Then you make comments about other people being desperate and clinging onto something that might not be reality ... :auiqs.jpg:

.
 
Apparently you don't understand basic biology. Everyone has a father and a mother. Not multiple mums and dads, and its their father and mother who belong on the birth certificate.

BTW, this is for the protection of the lesbian who had no part in this birth.

Suppose the dame decides to renounce Lesbianism, so needless to say doesn't want to be involved with an unrelated kid. Her name on the b/c could be a real obstacle to doing so.
 
.

First you throw the judge under the bus, and then you throw the law experts under the bus.

All in attempts to suggest that because you agree with a bunch of whining about nothing the complainant couldn't have avoided
somehow means you are correct, and no one else who's job it is to know and administer the law, has a clue what they are talking about.

Then you make comments about other people being desperate and clinging onto something that might not be reality ... :auiqs.jpg:

.
Read the damned Suprememe court decision that I posted. That is the final word. Apparently you do not understand how things work
 
.

I am not the desperate one trying to argue that somehow two women should be listed as biological parents on a Birth Certificate ...
When in reality there is no possible way it could be true ... :auiqs.jpg:

There are no varying versions to reality, and it doesn't matter how passionately you want to disagree with it.

.

You're arguing with a creature that believes that Bruce Jenner is a woman. Science and reality are anathema to it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top