Presumption of Legitimacy-Gay and Lesbian Parenting and their Rights

You might recall this thread.http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...on-procreation-argument-against-equality.html

Procreation is dead a buried as far as the courts are concerned. Opponents of equality don't even dare to bring it up any more

 

http://www.divorceny.com/custody-and-visitation/same-sex-parents/

The non-biological spouse in a same-sex marriage is a parent of the child under New York law as much as the birth-mother. So held Monroe County Supreme Court Acting Justice Richard A. Dollinger, in his May 7, 2014 opinion in Wendy G-M v. Erin G-M.

The birth mother and her spouse were married in a civil ceremony in Connecticut, before New York enacted its Marriage Equality Act (“MEA&#8221. The couple decided to have a child and in October 2011, they both signed a consent form agreeing to artificial insemination procedures. In the consent form, the birth-mother authorized the physician to perform artificial insemination on her, and the spouse requested the doctor to perform the procedure, declaring “any child or children born as a result of “ pregnancy following artificial insemination shall be accepted as the legal issue of our marriage.”

This court will not stop that march to greater equality for all lawfully married couples. The pervasive and powerful common law presumptions that link both spouses in a marriage to a child born of the marriage – the presumption of legitimacy within a marriage and the presumption of a spouse’s consent to artificial insemination – apply to this couple. This court holds that the non-biological spouse is a parent of this child under the common law of New York as much as the birth-mother.

http://divorcelawlongisland.com/2014/07/08/ny-courts-extend-parental-rights-sex-partners/
The court relied on case law to decide this case, specifically Laura WW v. Peter WW, which held that that a child born during a marriage makes each spouse a legally recognized parent to that child. The main distinction between that case and this one is that in Laura WW the spouses were in a heterosexual marriage, whereas in Wendy G-M, the spouses are in a same-sex marriage. The Marriage Equality Act eliminates many of the past sex-based distinctions in New York’s Domestic Relations Law, thus the court found that they should apply the holding of Laura WW to this case and find the non-biological spouse to be considered a parent of the child.

 

Even the UN declaration of Human rights understand that the right to marriage is limited to "men and women"

Article 16.
•(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
•(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

BECAUSE

•(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

 

Actually it is an individual right- not a couples right.

- - - Updated - - -

Bet you wish the U.S. followed UN rules rather than the Constitution when you quoted that.

 

As Dixon said, the UN says marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

You don't get to decide that. Another appeal to ignorance. You proclaim that as a fact when it is nothing more than a bigoted opinion. Sadly, you not even aware of how absurd you sound

 

Marriage yes, government recognition, no.

- - - Updated - - -

The UN did.

Article 16.
•(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
•(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
•(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

 

As of course you are aware, but instead chose to pretend you are not, I would argue marriage limited to men and women is in accordance with our Constitution.

 

Procreation is irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

Demonstrably false

- - - Updated - - -

Your argument depends on a requirement in order to be valid. No requirement exists which is why your argument is invalid and why you keep losing in court.

- - - Updated - - -

Repeatedly refuted.

 

Procreation is not relevant. There needs to be a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples marriage. Heterosexual marriage being "good" is not an argument. It's why you keep losing.

 

Yup it sure did! Now show us where it says that men can only marry women and that women can only marry men?

 

Because procreation is irrevant. The states must demonstrate a compelling state interest being served by denying same sex couples marriage. You can't name one and neither can the states. It's why you keep losing.

- - - Updated - - -

Demonstrably false.

- - - Updated - - -

Not one word in there about opposite sex marriage. This has been pointed out to you dozens of times.

- - - Updated - - -

Or that there was any kind of limitation to opposite sex marriage anywhere in there.

- - - Updated - - -

They don't.

- - - Updated - - -

And..........no limitation to opposite sex couples anywhere in there. Lol

- - - Updated - - -

And you are of course incorrect. That's why you keep losing.

 

I support gay marriage because it will ultimately bring about the rise of the single father. Gay marriage, like all leftist ideas, is designed to break the morale of society. My state fairly recently made laws about surrogacy. The government is very conservative.

They made it illegal for anyone who is not in a defacto relationship for more than two years or married or in a same sex couple to pay for surrogacy services.

Since lesbians can get sperm from anywhere, the only people this discriminates against are men: Gay men and single men cannot have children by this law unless they are dependant on women. They can't hire the services of fertility clinics or of sole operating surrogacy services {womb rental}.

It's pretty hilarious the lengths that conservative males will go to to disempower men.

 

I would think that if the father was interested in the child, he wouldn't have impregnated a lesbian that was already coupled with a woman.

Plus in most cases the father would have to sign over his rights.

It really wouldn't be too make homosexuals feel better about their sexuality. What a stupid thing to say. It would be to structure a family without interference with an egg/sperm donor.

You will stop at nothing to marginalize that, but you aren't going to pull that fast one on me.

 

Seriously you need to stop parroting Dixon and think for yourself.

Riddle me this Sam:

Do we in the U.S. follow the U.S. Constitution or U.N/ declarations?

 

I find it amusing to see a Conservative citing the UN as law.

 

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you say that?

 

But but but...according this the UN believes brothers and sisters can get married. And no apparent limits on how many men and women can be joined in marriage.......

 

Since when has the government been concerned with unmarried women procreating??? If they are so concerned why not create an incentive to get couples to marry and have kids within marriage. Puh-lease, government doesn't give two crackers about that.

 

How do you know the government doesnt care about that?

 

The question is whether or not there could potentially be three parents. In the case of a lesbian couple is the male still legally obligated to pay child support. There was a case a couple of years ago where a lesbian couple broke up and the guy who provided a sperm donation to help them was sued and was required to pay child support. Can't remember where the case was from but I am sure that he lost.

 

I'd love to see the proof that they do, if they do.

But as far as it goes the government seems more interested in growing corporations pockets than with the nuclear family, otherwise they'd have more incentives for people to get married and have babies and take maternity leave to be with their babies and time off to be with their families, etc.

 

I agree with you. Unmarried women procreating is irrelevant to this issue. Why do you think users are bringing this issue up?

 

Why don't you ask Dixon?

 

No idea.