Trump is a Shameless, Anti Gay Bigot and this Crusade by His State Department Proves it

[RodISHI]

Sounds all pretty average to me after reading the requirements.

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)

A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a

www.uscis.gov

Thank you for that research. It raises some interesting issues. I was unable to locate the entire 52 page decision by the judge but I am willing to bet that he focused on the constitutionality of the statue which was written at a time when it was inconceivable that two men could be married and the legal parents of a child.

According to Mize and Gregg–and their daughter who is also a plaintiff–consular staff used the wrong portion of the INA to interpret those original applications for citizenship documents. The State Department felt differently and moved to dismiss for various reasons. Judge Brown agreed with the family.

The decision describes the incongruity of current practice:

[W]hen a U.S. citizen wife acts as a gestational mother for a donor egg fertilized by her citizen husband’s sperm, the State Department now considers that child to have been born in wedlock of two citizens. And, when two married women who are citizens decide one of them will carry an egg donated from the other and fertilized by an anonymous sperm donor, the State Department reaches the same conclusion — that child is considered to have been born in wedlock of two U.S. citizens. In this latter instance, the State Department determines the child has a biological relationship with two women and totally ignores the citizenship of the sperm donor.

Clearly the language of the statue needs to be up dated. It will be interesting to see what the Trump Administration does next . Will they commit additional government resources to push their bigoted agenda to higher courts, or will they let it go? There is no point in this bullshit other than animosity and hate.

Basically it comes down to an issue of discrimination where two married men are being treated differently than a married heterosexual couple and or even a Lesbian couple.

I think the wording is fine. Two men with a child is not natural and should be checked.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sounds all pretty average to me after reading the requirements.

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)

A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a

www.uscis.gov

Thank you for that research. It raises some interesting issues. I was unable to locate the entire 52 page decision by the judge but I am willing to bet that he focused on the constitutionality of the statue which was written at a time when it was inconceivable that two men could be married and the legal parents of a child.

According to Mize and Gregg–and their daughter who is also a plaintiff–consular staff used the wrong portion of the INA to interpret those original applications for citizenship documents. The State Department felt differently and moved to dismiss for various reasons. Judge Brown agreed with the family.

The decision describes the incongruity of current practice:

[W]hen a U.S. citizen wife acts as a gestational mother for a donor egg fertilized by her citizen husband’s sperm, the State Department now considers that child to have been born in wedlock of two citizens. And, when two married women who are citizens decide one of them will carry an egg donated from the other and fertilized by an anonymous sperm donor, the State Department reaches the same conclusion — that child is considered to have been born in wedlock of two U.S. citizens. In this latter instance, the State Department determines the child has a biological relationship with two women and totally ignores the citizenship of the sperm donor.

Clearly the language of the statue needs to be up dated. It will be interesting to see what the Trump Administration does next . Will they commit additional government resources to push their bigoted agenda to higher courts, or will they let it go? There is no point in this bullshit other than animosity and hate.

Basically it comes down to an issue of discrimination where two married men are being treated differently than a married heterosexual couple and or even a Lesbian couple.

I think the wording is fine. Two men with a child is not natural and should be checked.

So much for trying to have a rational and civil discussion with you. You are no authority on what is "natural" Families come in all forms. The issue is that constitutionality of the law and discrimination. Obviously you are unable to address that with any amount of intellegence.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

See post 36 and try to learn what civil discourse means and to see how you might actually learn something here instead of engaging in the usual juvenile pissing match

Referring back to a post that was total bullshit when it was first written does not make it any less so on a later reading.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Gay Couple's Child Born In England Is A US Citizen, Judge Rules

The State Department was ordered to issue a U.S. passport for Derek Mize and Jonathan Gregg's daughter, Simone.

www.huffpost.com

What interest do they have in pursuing this other than a wish to discriminate!?

Derek Mize and Jonathan Gregg filed a lawsuit in July 2019 after the State Department refused to recognize their daughter Simone as a U.S. citizen. Simone was born in July 2018, three years after the couple got married.
Both Mize and Gregg are U.S. citizens and are listed as her parents on the birth certificate, but the State Department treated her as if she was born outside of marriage, since only one of them has a biological connection to her, and that triggered additional conditions for the recognition of citizenship.

This would never happen to a heterosexual couple regardless of whether they are both the biological parents.

You are a very confused fag.

Thank you for that brilliant analysis of an interesting legal question. You must have been trained in constitutional law at the most prestigious universities. As always you raise the bar on the level of intellectual and civil discoursers. You are a treasure to behold and add so much to the quality of discussion on the USMB May the Goddess bless you always

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The fact remains that there is not, and cannot be, any such thing as a “marriage” between two people that are the same sex.

The fact is that there is such a thing. Get the fuck over it already

No, there is not, and will never be.

The insane delusions of sexually-depraved mental cases do not become real, even if they can corrupt a government into giving official imprimatur to these delusions.

 

[RodISHI]

Sounds all pretty average to me after reading the requirements.

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)

A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a

www.uscis.gov

Thank you for that research. It raises some interesting issues. I was unable to locate the entire 52 page decision by the judge but I am willing to bet that he focused on the constitutionality of the statue which was written at a time when it was inconceivable that two men could be married and the legal parents of a child.

According to Mize and Gregg–and their daughter who is also a plaintiff–consular staff used the wrong portion of the INA to interpret those original applications for citizenship documents. The State Department felt differently and moved to dismiss for various reasons. Judge Brown agreed with the family.

The decision describes the incongruity of current practice:

[W]hen a U.S. citizen wife acts as a gestational mother for a donor egg fertilized by her citizen husband’s sperm, the State Department now considers that child to have been born in wedlock of two citizens. And, when two married women who are citizens decide one of them will carry an egg donated from the other and fertilized by an anonymous sperm donor, the State Department reaches the same conclusion — that child is considered to have been born in wedlock of two U.S. citizens. In this latter instance, the State Department determines the child has a biological relationship with two women and totally ignores the citizenship of the sperm donor.

Clearly the language of the statue needs to be up dated. It will be interesting to see what the Trump Administration does next . Will they commit additional government resources to push their bigoted agenda to higher courts, or will they let it go? There is no point in this bullshit other than animosity and hate.

Basically it comes down to an issue of discrimination where two married men are being treated differently than a married heterosexual couple and or even a Lesbian couple.

I think the wording is fine. Two men with a child is not natural and should be checked.

So much for trying to have a rational and civil discussion with you. You are no authority on what is "natural" Families come in all forms. The issue is that constitutionality of the law and discrimination. Obviously you are unable to address that with any amount of intellegence.

Two males cannot reproduce naturally, nor can two females reproduce naturally. That is just the flat out truth whether you like it or not. Any intelligent person already knows this.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

See post 36 and try to learn what civil discourse means and to see how you might actually learn something here instead of engaging in the usual juvenile pissing match

Referring back to a post that was total bullshit when it was first written does not make it any less so on a later reading.

Clearly you have a piss poor understanding of constitutional law, the principle of judicial review and how the law can evolve in relation to changing concepts and understanding of civil right and societal norms. To be blunt, you are stuck in a world that no longer exists and it terrifies you. Have a good evening

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sounds all pretty average to me after reading the requirements.

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)

A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a

www.uscis.gov

Thank you for that research. It raises some interesting issues. I was unable to locate the entire 52 page decision by the judge but I am willing to bet that he focused on the constitutionality of the statue which was written at a time when it was inconceivable that two men could be married and the legal parents of a child.

According to Mize and Gregg–and their daughter who is also a plaintiff–consular staff used the wrong portion of the INA to interpret those original applications for citizenship documents. The State Department felt differently and moved to dismiss for various reasons. Judge Brown agreed with the family.

The decision describes the incongruity of current practice:

[W]hen a U.S. citizen wife acts as a gestational mother for a donor egg fertilized by her citizen husband’s sperm, the State Department now considers that child to have been born in wedlock of two citizens. And, when two married women who are citizens decide one of them will carry an egg donated from the other and fertilized by an anonymous sperm donor, the State Department reaches the same conclusion — that child is considered to have been born in wedlock of two U.S. citizens. In this latter instance, the State Department determines the child has a biological relationship with two women and totally ignores the citizenship of the sperm donor.

Clearly the language of the statue needs to be up dated. It will be interesting to see what the Trump Administration does next . Will they commit additional government resources to push their bigoted agenda to higher courts, or will they let it go? There is no point in this bullshit other than animosity and hate.

Basically it comes down to an issue of discrimination where two married men are being treated differently than a married heterosexual couple and or even a Lesbian couple.

It was the same REGULATIONS under 8 YEARS of Obama. Remind me how you blamed Obama for that?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sounds all pretty average to me after reading the requirements.

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)

A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a

www.uscis.gov

Thank you for that research. It raises some interesting issues. I was unable to locate the entire 52 page decision by the judge but I am willing to bet that he focused on the constitutionality of the statue which was written at a time when it was inconceivable that two men could be married and the legal parents of a child.

According to Mize and Gregg–and their daughter who is also a plaintiff–consular staff used the wrong portion of the INA to interpret those original applications for citizenship documents. The State Department felt differently and moved to dismiss for various reasons. Judge Brown agreed with the family.

The decision describes the incongruity of current practice:

[W]hen a U.S. citizen wife acts as a gestational mother for a donor egg fertilized by her citizen husband’s sperm, the State Department now considers that child to have been born in wedlock of two citizens. And, when two married women who are citizens decide one of them will carry an egg donated from the other and fertilized by an anonymous sperm donor, the State Department reaches the same conclusion — that child is considered to have been born in wedlock of two U.S. citizens. In this latter instance, the State Department determines the child has a biological relationship with two women and totally ignores the citizenship of the sperm donor.

Clearly the language of the statue needs to be up dated. It will be interesting to see what the Trump Administration does next . Will they commit additional government resources to push their bigoted agenda to higher courts, or will they let it go? There is no point in this bullshit other than animosity and hate.

Basically it comes down to an issue of discrimination where two married men are being treated differently than a married heterosexual couple and or even a Lesbian couple.

I think the wording is fine. Two men with a child is not natural and should be checked.

So much for trying to have a rational and civil discussion with you. You are no authority on what is "natural" Families come in all forms. The issue is that constitutionality of the law and discrimination. Obviously you are unable to address that with any amount of intellegence.

Two males cannot reproduce naturally, nor can two females reproduce naturally. That is just the flat out truth whether you like it or not. Any intelligent person already knows this.

What is natural ? What about a male and a female who, for what ever reason cannot have a child "naturally" and must rely on a sperm donner or a surrogate ? Should they have less rights? Is that child somehow less valuable and not deserving of the same rights as other children? Should they be treated differently in any what that a couple who can have a child on their own? In all cases they are parents to the children and that is what maters. Think for Christ sake! Think!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sounds all pretty average to me after reading the requirements.

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)

A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a

www.uscis.gov

Thank you for that research. It raises some interesting issues. I was unable to locate the entire 52 page decision by the judge but I am willing to bet that he focused on the constitutionality of the statue which was written at a time when it was inconceivable that two men could be married and the legal parents of a child.

According to Mize and Gregg–and their daughter who is also a plaintiff–consular staff used the wrong portion of the INA to interpret those original applications for citizenship documents. The State Department felt differently and moved to dismiss for various reasons. Judge Brown agreed with the family.

The decision describes the incongruity of current practice:

[W]hen a U.S. citizen wife acts as a gestational mother for a donor egg fertilized by her citizen husband’s sperm, the State Department now considers that child to have been born in wedlock of two citizens. And, when two married women who are citizens decide one of them will carry an egg donated from the other and fertilized by an anonymous sperm donor, the State Department reaches the same conclusion — that child is considered to have been born in wedlock of two U.S. citizens. In this latter instance, the State Department determines the child has a biological relationship with two women and totally ignores the citizenship of the sperm donor.

Clearly the language of the statue needs to be up dated. It will be interesting to see what the Trump Administration does next . Will they commit additional government resources to push their bigoted agenda to higher courts, or will they let it go? There is no point in this bullshit other than animosity and hate.

Basically it comes down to an issue of discrimination where two married men are being treated differently than a married heterosexual couple and or even a Lesbian couple.

It was the same REGULATIONS under 8 YEARS of Obama. Remind me how you blamed Obama for that?

Did Obama's state department or DOJ try to deny citizenship to a child under these circumstances? Would that have committed government resource in such a hateful way?

 

[RodISHI]

Sounds all pretty average to me after reading the requirements.

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)

A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a

www.uscis.gov

Thank you for that research. It raises some interesting issues. I was unable to locate the entire 52 page decision by the judge but I am willing to bet that he focused on the constitutionality of the statue which was written at a time when it was inconceivable that two men could be married and the legal parents of a child.

According to Mize and Gregg–and their daughter who is also a plaintiff–consular staff used the wrong portion of the INA to interpret those original applications for citizenship documents. The State Department felt differently and moved to dismiss for various reasons. Judge Brown agreed with the family.

The decision describes the incongruity of current practice:

[W]hen a U.S. citizen wife acts as a gestational mother for a donor egg fertilized by her citizen husband’s sperm, the State Department now considers that child to have been born in wedlock of two citizens. And, when two married women who are citizens decide one of them will carry an egg donated from the other and fertilized by an anonymous sperm donor, the State Department reaches the same conclusion — that child is considered to have been born in wedlock of two U.S. citizens. In this latter instance, the State Department determines the child has a biological relationship with two women and totally ignores the citizenship of the sperm donor.

Clearly the language of the statue needs to be up dated. It will be interesting to see what the Trump Administration does next . Will they commit additional government resources to push their bigoted agenda to higher courts, or will they let it go? There is no point in this bullshit other than animosity and hate.

Basically it comes down to an issue of discrimination where two married men are being treated differently than a married heterosexual couple and or even a Lesbian couple.

I think the wording is fine. Two men with a child is not natural and should be checked.

So much for trying to have a rational and civil discussion with you. You are no authority on what is "natural" Families come in all forms. The issue is that constitutionality of the law and discrimination. Obviously you are unable to address that with any amount of intellegence.

Two males cannot reproduce naturally, nor can two females reproduce naturally. That is just the flat out truth whether you like it or not. Any intelligent person already knows this.

What is natural What about a male and a female who, for what ever reason cannot have a child "naturally" and must rely on a sperm donner or a surrogate ? She they have less rights? Should they i=be treated differently in any what that a couple who can have a child on their own? In all cases they are parents to the children and that is what maters. Think for Christ sake! Think!

Those rules I posted apply to everyone the same. Like I said, "The wording is fine". People do not have to bend rules or words to your will just because you are queer.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I do NOT agree with same sex marriage. But this has nothing to do with that actually, the provision does not apply. All that matters for citizenship is that ONE of the Natural PARENTS is a US Citizen at the time of Birth abroad. The State department is wrong.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sounds all pretty average to me after reading the requirements.

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)

A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a

www.uscis.gov

Thank you for that research. It raises some interesting issues. I was unable to locate the entire 52 page decision by the judge but I am willing to bet that he focused on the constitutionality of the statue which was written at a time when it was inconceivable that two men could be married and the legal parents of a child.

According to Mize and Gregg–and their daughter who is also a plaintiff–consular staff used the wrong portion of the INA to interpret those original applications for citizenship documents. The State Department felt differently and moved to dismiss for various reasons. Judge Brown agreed with the family.

The decision describes the incongruity of current practice:

[W]hen a U.S. citizen wife acts as a gestational mother for a donor egg fertilized by her citizen husband’s sperm, the State Department now considers that child to have been born in wedlock of two citizens. And, when two married women who are citizens decide one of them will carry an egg donated from the other and fertilized by an anonymous sperm donor, the State Department reaches the same conclusion — that child is considered to have been born in wedlock of two U.S. citizens. In this latter instance, the State Department determines the child has a biological relationship with two women and totally ignores the citizenship of the sperm donor.

Clearly the language of the statue needs to be up dated. It will be interesting to see what the Trump Administration does next . Will they commit additional government resources to push their bigoted agenda to higher courts, or will they let it go? There is no point in this bullshit other than animosity and hate.

Basically it comes down to an issue of discrimination where two married men are being treated differently than a married heterosexual couple and or even a Lesbian couple.

I think the wording is fine. Two men with a child is not natural and should be checked.

So much for trying to have a rational and civil discussion with you. You are no authority on what is "natural" Families come in all forms. The issue is that constitutionality of the law and discrimination. Obviously you are unable to address that with any amount of intellegence.

Two males cannot reproduce naturally, nor can two females reproduce naturally. That is just the flat out truth whether you like it or not. Any intelligent person already knows this.

What is natural What about a male and a female who, for what ever reason cannot have a child "naturally" and must rely on a sperm donner or a surrogate ? She they have less rights? Should they i=be treated differently in any what that a couple who can have a child on their own? In all cases they are parents to the children and that is what maters. Think for Christ sake! Think!

Those rules I posted apply to everyone the same. Like I said, "The wording is fine". People do not have to bend rules or words to your will just because you are queer.

You clearly have a learning problem and making an assumption about my sexuality based on my politics confirms your abysmal level of intelect

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sounds all pretty average to me after reading the requirements.

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)

A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a

www.uscis.gov

Thank you for that research. It raises some interesting issues. I was unable to locate the entire 52 page decision by the judge but I am willing to bet that he focused on the constitutionality of the statue which was written at a time when it was inconceivable that two men could be married and the legal parents of a child.

According to Mize and Gregg–and their daughter who is also a plaintiff–consular staff used the wrong portion of the INA to interpret those original applications for citizenship documents. The State Department felt differently and moved to dismiss for various reasons. Judge Brown agreed with the family.

The decision describes the incongruity of current practice:

[W]hen a U.S. citizen wife acts as a gestational mother for a donor egg fertilized by her citizen husband’s sperm, the State Department now considers that child to have been born in wedlock of two citizens. And, when two married women who are citizens decide one of them will carry an egg donated from the other and fertilized by an anonymous sperm donor, the State Department reaches the same conclusion — that child is considered to have been born in wedlock of two U.S. citizens. In this latter instance, the State Department determines the child has a biological relationship with two women and totally ignores the citizenship of the sperm donor.

Clearly the language of the statue needs to be up dated. It will be interesting to see what the Trump Administration does next . Will they commit additional government resources to push their bigoted agenda to higher courts, or will they let it go? There is no point in this bullshit other than animosity and hate.

Basically it comes down to an issue of discrimination where two married men are being treated differently than a married heterosexual couple and or even a Lesbian couple.

It was the same REGULATIONS under 8 YEARS of Obama. Remind me how you blamed Obama for that?

Did Obama's state department or DOJ try to deny citizenship to a child under these circumstances? Would that have committed government resource in such a hateful way?

We don't know because no one brought it up. It is a FACT though it is the same regulation. But to the point that regulation is NOT important, all that is required for citizenship when born abroad is that ONE of your Natural parents is a US citizen at birth, the State Department is simply wrong and so long as it is LEGAL in the States for same sex marriage the Judge got THAT issue right.

 

[RodISHI]

Sounds all pretty average to me after reading the requirements.

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)

A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a

www.uscis.gov

Thank you for that research. It raises some interesting issues. I was unable to locate the entire 52 page decision by the judge but I am willing to bet that he focused on the constitutionality of the statue which was written at a time when it was inconceivable that two men could be married and the legal parents of a child.

According to Mize and Gregg–and their daughter who is also a plaintiff–consular staff used the wrong portion of the INA to interpret those original applications for citizenship documents. The State Department felt differently and moved to dismiss for various reasons. Judge Brown agreed with the family.

The decision describes the incongruity of current practice:

[W]hen a U.S. citizen wife acts as a gestational mother for a donor egg fertilized by her citizen husband’s sperm, the State Department now considers that child to have been born in wedlock of two citizens. And, when two married women who are citizens decide one of them will carry an egg donated from the other and fertilized by an anonymous sperm donor, the State Department reaches the same conclusion — that child is considered to have been born in wedlock of two U.S. citizens. In this latter instance, the State Department determines the child has a biological relationship with two women and totally ignores the citizenship of the sperm donor.

Clearly the language of the statue needs to be up dated. It will be interesting to see what the Trump Administration does next . Will they commit additional government resources to push their bigoted agenda to higher courts, or will they let it go? There is no point in this bullshit other than animosity and hate.

Basically it comes down to an issue of discrimination where two married men are being treated differently than a married heterosexual couple and or even a Lesbian couple.

It was the same REGULATIONS under 8 YEARS of Obama. Remind me how you blamed Obama for that?

Did Obama's state department or DOJ try to deny citizenship to a child under these circumstances? Would that have committed government resource in such a hateful way?

We don't know because no one brought it up. It is a FACT though it is the same regulation. But to the point that regulation is NOT important, all that is required for citizenship when born abroad is that ONE of your Natural parents is a US citizen at birth, the State Department is simply wrong and so long as it is LEGAL in the States for same sex marriage the Judge got THAT issue right.

There is a paternity clause in the rules.

Without looking at the entire case file and trying to get people to have sympathy for those poor little queers is bs on the OP's part.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Two freakazoids demanding to be treated as normal. ... ..

2 gays with the same constitutional rights as every one else demanding that those rights be protected

fuk you nazi

^^^ another liberal who doesn't know science, biology or the US constitution

The kid was born on foreign soil. Not a U.S. citizen.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Two freakazoids demanding to be treated as normal. ... ..

2 gays with the same constitutional rights as every one else demanding that those rights be protected

fuk you nazi

^^^ another liberal who doesn't know science, biology or the US constitution

The kid was born on foreign soil. Not a U.S. citizen.

Thank you for dumbing it down . It is just a little more complicated than that but apparently it is beyond your level of intellect

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Two freakazoids demanding to be treated as normal. ... ..

2 gays with the same constitutional rights as every one else demanding that those rights be protected

fuk you nazi

^^^ another liberal who doesn't know science, biology or the US constitution

The kid was born on foreign soil. Not a U.S. citizen.

Wrong, if Born to a US Citizen a child IS in fact a US Citizen at Birth.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sounds all pretty average to me after reading the requirements.

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)

A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a

www.uscis.gov

Thank you for that research. It raises some interesting issues. I was unable to locate the entire 52 page decision by the judge but I am willing to bet that he focused on the constitutionality of the statue which was written at a time when it was inconceivable that two men could be married and the legal parents of a child.

According to Mize and Gregg–and their daughter who is also a plaintiff–consular staff used the wrong portion of the INA to interpret those original applications for citizenship documents. The State Department felt differently and moved to dismiss for various reasons. Judge Brown agreed with the family.

The decision describes the incongruity of current practice:

[W]hen a U.S. citizen wife acts as a gestational mother for a donor egg fertilized by her citizen husband’s sperm, the State Department now considers that child to have been born in wedlock of two citizens. And, when two married women who are citizens decide one of them will carry an egg donated from the other and fertilized by an anonymous sperm donor, the State Department reaches the same conclusion — that child is considered to have been born in wedlock of two U.S. citizens. In this latter instance, the State Department determines the child has a biological relationship with two women and totally ignores the citizenship of the sperm donor.

Clearly the language of the statue needs to be up dated. It will be interesting to see what the Trump Administration does next . Will they commit additional government resources to push their bigoted agenda to higher courts, or will they let it go? There is no point in this bullshit other than animosity and hate.

Basically it comes down to an issue of discrimination where two married men are being treated differently than a married heterosexual couple and or even a Lesbian couple.

It was the same REGULATIONS under 8 YEARS of Obama. Remind me how you blamed Obama for that?

Did Obama's state department or DOJ try to deny citizenship to a child under these circumstances? Would that have committed government resource in such a hateful way?

We don't know because no one brought it up. It is a FACT though it is the same regulation. But to the point that regulation is NOT important, all that is required for citizenship when born abroad is that ONE of your Natural parents is a US citizen at birth, the State Department is simply wrong and so long as it is LEGAL in the States for same sex marriage the Judge got THAT issue right.

That's right. No one brought it up. The Obama Administration had better things to do. But thank you for agreeing with me on the stupidity of this matter, not withstanding your lack of support for same sex marriage.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sounds all pretty average to me after reading the requirements.

Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)

A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a

www.uscis.gov

Thank you for that research. It raises some interesting issues. I was unable to locate the entire 52 page decision by the judge but I am willing to bet that he focused on the constitutionality of the statue which was written at a time when it was inconceivable that two men could be married and the legal parents of a child.

According to Mize and Gregg–and their daughter who is also a plaintiff–consular staff used the wrong portion of the INA to interpret those original applications for citizenship documents. The State Department felt differently and moved to dismiss for various reasons. Judge Brown agreed with the family.

The decision describes the incongruity of current practice:

[W]hen a U.S. citizen wife acts as a gestational mother for a donor egg fertilized by her citizen husband’s sperm, the State Department now considers that child to have been born in wedlock of two citizens. And, when two married women who are citizens decide one of them will carry an egg donated from the other and fertilized by an anonymous sperm donor, the State Department reaches the same conclusion — that child is considered to have been born in wedlock of two U.S. citizens. In this latter instance, the State Department determines the child has a biological relationship with two women and totally ignores the citizenship of the sperm donor.

Clearly the language of the statue needs to be up dated. It will be interesting to see what the Trump Administration does next . Will they commit additional government resources to push their bigoted agenda to higher courts, or will they let it go? There is no point in this bullshit other than animosity and hate.

Basically it comes down to an issue of discrimination where two married men are being treated differently than a married heterosexual couple and or even a Lesbian couple.

It was the same REGULATIONS under 8 YEARS of Obama. Remind me how you blamed Obama for that?

Did Obama's state department or DOJ try to deny citizenship to a child under these circumstances? Would that have committed government resource in such a hateful way?

We don't know because no one brought it up. It is a FACT though it is the same regulation. But to the point that regulation is NOT important, all that is required for citizenship when born abroad is that ONE of your Natural parents is a US citizen at birth, the State Department is simply wrong and so long as it is LEGAL in the States for same sex marriage the Judge got THAT issue right.

That's right. No one brought it up. The Obama Administration had better things to do. But thank you for agreeing with me on the stupidity of this matter, not withstanding your lack of support for same sex marriage.

Ya I personally disagree with it, BUT LEGALLY I support the right of any married couple to have the same laws enforced as every OTHER married couple.