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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What's your take on it Hartley.? How am I wrong? Surly you have something intelligent to contribute. Or not

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

More bigotry and hate from the neo-fascist authoritarian right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"What's your take on it Hartley.? How am I wrong? Surly you have something intelligent to contribute. Or not."

Not.

 

[TNHarley]

Ive said my peace, boomer.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Ive said my peace, boomer.

Thanks for confirming what I already knew about you

 

[BackAgain]

I forgot how stupid you are. Thanks for reminding me

Your such a cockbite, an imbecile like you probably thought I was being literal. Gfy.

I need no reminders that you’re a waste of oxygen.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Go back and read the OP Bobby Boy. It is not about biology. It is about the law and legally two women married to each other are the same as a man and a woman .

There is no such thing as a marriage between two people of the same sex. By definition marriage always has been, and always will be, between a man and a woman.

This is established by a higher power than any man-made government, and no government has any power or authority to override it.

The legalities that try to establish a sick homosexual mockery of marriage as being in any way comparable to a genuine marriage are as nonsensical as a law trying to declare that two plus two equals ten. It's just plain bullshit.

When one party to a marriage has a child, there is a presumption of parenthood of the other party regardless of whether or not that person is a biological parent(Pavan v. Smith as per the OP link)

More bullshit.

If a married woman bears a child, it is presumed that her husband is the father of that child.

This reflects the biological reality that he most likely is the father of that child, because the only way he wouldn't be is if his wife committed adultery.

If woman in a sick mockery of a “marriage” to another woman, becomes pregnant, the presumption that the other woman to whom she is “married” is the father of that child is not only •NOT• a realistic likelihood, but, in fact, a biological impossibility. To apply that presumption in this case would be absurd. Very clearly, the absolute reality is that it is a man who is that child's father, and not the other woman to whom the mother is “married”.

So, who is the father of the child in this case?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What's your take on it Hartley.? How am I wrong?

It would be far easier to quote all the times that you have ever been right…

·

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There is no such thing as a marriage between two people of the same sex. By definition marriage always has been, and always will be, between a man and a woman.

This is established by a higher power than any man-made government, and no government has any power or authority to override it.

The legalities that try to establish a sick homosexual mockery of marriage as being in any way comparable to a genuine marriage are as nonsensical as a law trying to declare that two plus two equals ten. It's just plain bullshit.





More bullshit.

If a married woman bears a child, it is presumed that her husband is the father of that child.

This reflects the biological reality that he most likely is the father of that child, because the only way he wouldn't be is if his wife committed adultery.

If woman in a sick mockery of a “marriage” to another woman, becomes pregnant, the presumption that the other woman to whom she is “married” is the father of that child is not only •NOT• a realistic likelihood, but, in fact, a biological impossibility. To apply that presumption in this case would be absurd. Very clearly, the absolute reality is that it is a man who is that child's father, and not the other woman to whom the mother is “married”.

So, who is the father of the child in this case?

Holy shit Bobby Boy. There is just too much inane equine excrement to unpack here. Give your hysterical bullshit a rest. You are making a fool of your self.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This reflects the biological reality that he most likely is the father of that child, because the only way he wouldn't be is if his wife committed adultery.

No it would not be the only way. They might have used a sperm donor

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There is no such thing as a marriage between two people of the same sex. By definition marriage always has been, and always will be, between a man and a woman.

Get over it Bobby Boy. That is just an appeal to tradition logical fallacy, and in fact the one man and one woman thing is not even real

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is established by a higher power than any man-made government, and no government has any power or authority to override it.

The legalities that try to establish a sick homosexual mockery of marriage as being in any way comparable to a genuine marriage are as nonsensical as a law trying to declare that two plus two equals ten. It's just plain bullshit.

So you think that everyone should believe as you do, and live by your law? Are you fucking serious?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If woman in a sick mockery of a “marriage” to another woman, becomes pregnant, the presumption that the other woman to whom she is “married” is the father of that child is not only •NOT• a realistic likelihood, but, in fact, a biological impossibility. To apply that presumption in this case would be absurd. Very clearly, the absolute reality is that it is a man who is that child's father, and not the other woman to whom the mother is “married”.

So, who is the father of the child in this case?

No one is assuming that the other woman is the father. There is no legal father. Regardless of what you think is absurd, the law says differently. Get over it Bobby Boy

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No one is assuming that the other woman is the father. There is no legal father. Regardless of what you think is absurd, the law says differently. Get over it Bobby Boy

It's a hard biological reality.

No child comes into existence without the joint involvement of both a father and a mother.

So who is this child's father?

 

[meaner gene]

Bullshit. There is no such thing as “marriage” other than between a man and a woman.

And no child comes to be except by a father and a mother. One of each, not two (or any other number) if one and none of the other.

Only one of these women is the child's mother, and a man is the child's father.

That's hard science.

But in our world of modern science you have many biological possibilities that would defy your idea of marriage. Take an egg from a woman, add the sperm from a man (sperm donor), fertilize in-vitro, and implant into a third female. Does gestation override genetics or does genetics override gestation?

 

[meaner gene]

It's a hard biological reality.

No child comes into existence without the joint involvement of both a father and a mother.

So who is this child's father?

You raise a tricky legal question. Does a sperm donor retain parental rights, and the theory under which they do, begs the question, does an donor, retain recall rights to the donated organ? If I donate a kidney, can I take it back?

 

[Vastator]

There is no such thing as a marriage between two people of the same sex. By definition marriage always has been, and always will be, between a man and a woman.

This is established by a higher power than any man-made government, and no government has any power or authority to override it.

The legalities that try to establish a sick homosexual mockery of marriage as being in any way comparable to a genuine marriage are as nonsensical as a law trying to declare that two plus two equals ten. It's just plain bullshit.





More bullshit.

If a married woman bears a child, it is presumed that her husband is the father of that child.

This reflects the biological reality that he most likely is the father of that child, because the only way he wouldn't be is if his wife committed adultery.

If woman in a sick mockery of a “marriage” to another woman, becomes pregnant, the presumption that the other woman to whom she is “married” is the father of that child is not only •NOT• a realistic likelihood, but, in fact, a biological impossibility. To apply that presumption in this case would be absurd. Very clearly, the absolute reality is that it is a man who is that child's father, and not the other woman to whom the mother is “married”.

So, who is the father of the child in this case?

Who knew...That you'd present yourself as the champion, for Cuckoled fathers...

 

[BackAgain]

Go back and read the OP Bobby Boy. It is not about biology. It is about the law and legally two women married to each other are the same as a man and a woman .

When one party to a marriage has a child, there is a presumption of parenthood of the other party regardless of whether or not that person is a biological parent(Pavan v. Smith as per the OP link)

This divorce judge in effect terminated the parental rights of Kris Williams. YOU CANT DO THAT in a divorce proceeding. End of story

It is not I who is the obtuse one here

It is not you who composed grammatically correct posts.

You is the obtuse one.

 

[BackAgain]

You raise a tricky legal question. Does a sperm donor retain parental rights, and the theory under which they do, begs the question, does an donor, retain recall rights to the donated organ? If I donate a kidney, can I take it back?

I don’t know about “tricky.” But I am astounded to see you posting a point of actual interest. Bravo.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

because she had no biological relationship to him — being the “non-gestational” caretaker — and because Williams hadn’t formally adopted the child. Williams’ name should be replaced by the name of the sperm donor who was now petitioning the court for custody of the child, McGuire decided.
Color me shocked a lying federal supremacist left out the most important piece of the puzzle.

By contrast, if a woman has a child from Man A, but is married to Man B, and Man B claims the child and the woman professes her husband as the father, the law will recognize him as inherently the child's lawful father, irrespective of biological relationship to the child.