Presumption of Parenthood. The Spouse of a Lesbian Birth Mother is a Legal Parent!

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I thought that this was quite interesting given the current anti LGBTQ environment instigated by the Trump Administration. While there have been some recent setbacks, this shows that there is still a path forward.

While this issue was previously decided in favor of Lesbian couples in a number of lower courts, this is the first case to reach SCOTUS. In declining to hear the case, they, in effect, allowed the Arizona State Supreme Court's ruling, granting the presumption of parenthood, to stand.

Another LGBT Rights Victory at the Supreme Court, This Time for Parental Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court today let stand an Arizona decision that recognized a woman as the legal parent of a child she and her same-sex spouse conceived through assisted reproduction.

The high court declined to review the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling in the case, issued last September, reports the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which along with the firm of Ropes & Gray represented the mother who sought to be recognized as a parent. The Arizona court had ruled, “It would be inconsistent with Obergefell [the U.S. Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision] to conclude that same-sex couples can legally marry but states can then deny them the same benefits of marriage afforded opposite-sex couples.”

“The U.S. Supreme Court has twice explained in Obergefell v. Hodges and Pavan v. Smith that the U.S. Constitution requires states to provide the exact same rights to same-sex spouses and different-sex spouses,” said NCLR family law director Catherine Sakimura in a press release. “States across the country should take careful note of this decision. Discrimination against married same-sex couples will not be tolerated.”https://www.advocate.com/marriage-eq...arental-rights

This is not an issue that is unique to Arizona. Here is a related article:

Same-Sex Custody Battles Test the Definition of Parenthood

The Mississippi Supreme Court on Nov. 29 heard the case of a woman suing her former lesbian partner for parental rights.

A steady stream of gay custody battles is working its way through the courts in the wake of the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex marriage. More same-sex couples are using donor eggs and sperm, surrogacy, and in vitro fertilization to conceive children, but most state laws regarding parental rights and assisted reproductive technology are based on biological assumptions—granting full parental rights to a married husband and wife, but not to a wife and wife or husband and husband.

However, I have heard this tripe too many times before....

LGBT advocates argue the redefinition of marriage necessitates a redefinition of parenthood. But critics say these cases are further dissolving the link between biology and parenthood and pushing against what social science has continually shown: Children do best when raised by their biological mother and father who are committed to one another in marriage.

There is NO evidence that biology, and having opposite sex parents is more important that having TWO LEGAL parents with all of the legal, financial and social benefits that goes with it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Once again, basic science and biology is set aside to support perversion and degeneration.

The earlier court ruling had it exactly right.

“The court finds two women cannot conceive a child together,” wrote Rankin County Chancery Judge John Grant in his ruling. “The court doesn’t find its opinion to be a discriminatory statement, but a biological fact.”​

There is a longstanding legal principle in which, where a married woman gives birth to a child, her husband is presumed to be the father of that child.

To apply this presumption to a homosexual mockery of a “marriage” between two women is absurd. It is biologically impossible for a woman to be the father of another woman's child.

As later stated in the article…

Strickland’s attorneys are using what used to be legally called a “presumption of paternity,” the assumption that the child of a wife was also the child of her husband, saying it should now be applied to same-sex couples, according to Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council.

“We have gone from the presumption of something that was almost always going to be true in any case to presuming something that cannot possibly be true,” Sprigg said, adding that the argument shows the absurdity of the implications of the homosexual parenting movement.​

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Once again, basic science and biology is set aside to support perversion and degeneration.

The earlier court ruling had it exactly right.

“The court finds two women cannot conceive a child together,” wrote Rankin County Chancery Judge John Grant in his ruling. “The court doesn’t find its opinion to be a discriminatory statement, but a biological fact.”​

There is a longstanding legal principle in which, where a married woman gives birth to a child, her husband is presumed to be the father of that child.

To apply this presumption to a homosexual mockery of a “marriage” between two women is absurd. It is biologically impossible for a woman to be the father of another woman's child.

As later stated in the article…

Strickland’s attorneys are using what used to be legally called a “presumption of paternity,” the assumption that the child of a wife was also the child of her husband, saying it should now be applied to same-sex couples, according to Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council.

“We have gone from the presumption of something that was almost always going to be true in any case to presuming something that cannot possibly be true,” Sprigg said, adding that the argument shows the absurdity of the implications of the homosexual parenting movement.​

Of course a BIGOT would seize on the earlier BIGOTED ruling and ignore the principals established in Obergefell . Why am I not surprised.?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Of course a BIGOT would seize on the earlier BIGOTED ruling and ignore the principals established in Obergefell . Why am I not surprised.?

Nonsense. Exactly as Judge Grant said, it's not “…a discriminatory statement, but a biological fact.” It takes open as f•••ed-up as you are in the mind as well as in the soul, to characterize scientific fact as “bigotry”.

 

[Tilly]

Once again, basic science and biology is set aside to support perversion and degeneration.

The earlier court ruling had it exactly right.

“The court finds two women cannot conceive a child together,” wrote Rankin County Chancery Judge John Grant in his ruling. “The court doesn’t find its opinion to be a discriminatory statement, but a biological fact.”​

There is a longstanding legal principle in which, where a married woman gives birth to a child, her husband is presumed to be the father of that child.

To apply this presumption to a homosexual mockery of a “marriage” between two women is absurd. It is biologically impossible for a woman to be the father of another woman's child.

As later stated in the article…

Strickland’s attorneys are using what used to be legally called a “presumption of paternity,” the assumption that the child of a wife was also the child of her husband, saying it should now be applied to same-sex couples, according to Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council.

“We have gone from the presumption of something that was almost always going to be true in any case to presuming something that cannot possibly be true,” Sprigg said, adding that the argument shows the absurdity of the implications of the homosexual parenting movement.​

Of course a BIGOT would seize on the earlier BIGOTED ruling and ignore the principals established in Obergefell . Why am I not surprised.?

Science cannot be bigoted.

 

[Tilly]

I thought that this was quite interesting given the current anti LGBTQ environment instigated by the Trump Administration

What anti alphabet people environment?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Once again, basic science and biology is set aside to support perversion and degeneration.

The earlier court ruling had it exactly right.

“The court finds two women cannot conceive a child together,” wrote Rankin County Chancery Judge John Grant in his ruling. “The court doesn’t find its opinion to be a discriminatory statement, but a biological fact.”​

There is a longstanding legal principle in which, where a married woman gives birth to a child, her husband is presumed to be the father of that child.

To apply this presumption to a homosexual mockery of a “marriage” between two women is absurd. It is biologically impossible for a woman to be the father of another woman's child.

As later stated in the article…

Strickland’s attorneys are using what used to be legally called a “presumption of paternity,” the assumption that the child of a wife was also the child of her husband, saying it should now be applied to same-sex couples, according to Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council.

“We have gone from the presumption of something that was almost always going to be true in any case to presuming something that cannot possibly be true,” Sprigg said, adding that the argument shows the absurdity of the implications of the homosexual parenting movement.​

Of course a BIGOT would seize on the earlier BIGOTED ruling and ignore the principals established in Obergefell . Why am I not surprised.?

Science cannot be bigoted.

Junk, pseudo science is most assuredly BIGOTED

 

[Tilly]

Once again, basic science and biology is set aside to support perversion and degeneration.

The earlier court ruling had it exactly right.

“The court finds two women cannot conceive a child together,” wrote Rankin County Chancery Judge John Grant in his ruling. “The court doesn’t find its opinion to be a discriminatory statement, but a biological fact.”​

There is a longstanding legal principle in which, where a married woman gives birth to a child, her husband is presumed to be the father of that child.

To apply this presumption to a homosexual mockery of a “marriage” between two women is absurd. It is biologically impossible for a woman to be the father of another woman's child.

As later stated in the article…

Strickland’s attorneys are using what used to be legally called a “presumption of paternity,” the assumption that the child of a wife was also the child of her husband, saying it should now be applied to same-sex couples, according to Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council.

“We have gone from the presumption of something that was almost always going to be true in any case to presuming something that cannot possibly be true,” Sprigg said, adding that the argument shows the absurdity of the implications of the homosexual parenting movement.​

Of course a BIGOT would seize on the earlier BIGOTED ruling and ignore the principals established in Obergefell . Why am I not surprised.?

Science cannot be bigoted.

Junk, pseudo science is most assuredly BIGOTED

Science of any kind is not sentient, therefore it cannot be bigoted.
The junk pseudo science used by the alphabet people is of course a nonsense.