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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

see what I mean,, youre to fucking stupid to understand your own comment,,

Take a fucking hike. I am sick of your childish games.

 

[BlackSand]

Yes it could have been avoided but adoption should not be necessary. It's like telling a father that he should adopt his child that his wife gave birth to

.

There is always a difference in what should or shouldn't be ... And the law.

If you have a problem with the law ...
Quit pretending that the government can protect your desires and quit granting the government the Power to decide what should and shouldn't be.
If that seems to be an impossible task for you ... Then understand that we sometimes are required to do things we have to do whether or not we like them.

.​

 

[Seymour Flops]

Come on! Where have you been. As the spouse, she became a legal parent at the time of birth, just like the birth mother. There is a presumption of parenthood just like with hetrosexual couples

I don't know that Oklahoma applies that to same-sex marriage. The Obergefell decision did not federalize all marriage law. It required that states issue marriage licenses to and grant legal recognition of same-sex couples. Oklahoma does that, so it fully complies with the ruling. On other issues, besides the issuance of licenses and the granting of recognition, the state still has the power to make laws.

The presumption that the man married to a woman who gives birth is the father has long been a part of the Common law on which our federal law and forty-nine of our state laws is based. The woman's husband is presumed to be the father, even if the woman swears on a stack of bibles that she was a skank ho who slept with every man she came across except her husband. That was all part of the patriarchal husband-as-owner model of marriage. He was the only one legally allowed to sleep with her, so he was the biological father by presumption. Common law made it a non-rebuttable assumption. Even if a man brought evidence that his wife was unfaithful and he was impotent when she conceived, he was still on the hook for child support.

But in the case of this same sex couple, there is no presumption that the abusive Ms. Williams is the biological parent of the child. We know for a fact that she is not. Nothing in the Obergefell decision, nor in Oklahoma law requires the judge to document as fact the fiction that Williams is the parent.

Maybe you think that is all very wrong. Maybe there should be a ruling that all marriage laws must treat same-sex partners as if they were heterosexual partners, capable of biological co-parenting. Maybe there should be a federal law laying out marriage and taking all of that power from states. Maybe, but that is not the case.

You seem to believe that this judge is some kind of ignorant bigot, who spends her days trying to circumvent the wisdom of the benevolent and brave members of the USSC. Before becoming a judge, she was head of a non-profit called "Lawyers for Children," and no doubt still sees her role as child advocate. She found a way to limit this child's exposure to an abusive adult, and to allow it a fully recognized family life with its biological parents. I wish all judges in family courts saw that as their role instead of catering to the often selfish and childish couples who choose a public catfight over an amicable separation that benefits their child, or at least harms them the least.

 

[progressive hunter]

Take a fucking hike. I am sick of your childish games.

back atcha buttercup,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Yes it could have been avoided but adoption should not be necessary. It's like telling a father that he should adopt his child that his wife gave birth to

the father was also involved in the birth of the child where this women wasnt,,

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

.

There is always a difference in what should or shouldn't be ... And the law.

If you have a problem with the law ...
Quit pretending that the government can protect your desires and quit granting the government the Power to decide what should and shouldn't be.
If that seems to be an impossible task for you ... Then understand that we sometimes are required to do things we have to do whether or not we like them.

.​

Why don't you just say what you mean? That you have no problem with the unequal treatment of same sex couples and straight couples. In other words discrimination

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

the father was also involved in the birth of the child where this women wasnt,,

That may or may not be the case. Even if he were not the biological father he would still be the presumptive legal father

 

[progressive hunter]

That may or may not be the case. Even if he were not the biological father he would still be the presumptive legal father

but not the birth father,, and thats all the BC lists,,

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Come on! Where have you been. As the spouse, she became a legal parent at the time of birth, just like the birth mother. There is a presumption of parenthood just like with hetrosexual couples

There is no rational basis, here, for any such presumption.

In a genuine marriage, if the wife bears a child, her husband is presumed to be the father of that child. This makes sense, because lacking any evidence contrary to this presumption, it is, in fact, most likely that he is the biological father. For good measure, even if there is substantial reason to doubt that he is the biological father, by virtue of the fact that he is the legitimate spouse of the mother, he gets first claim on the child in any event.

Trying to apply this to a depraved lesbian mockery of a marriage is absurd. Not only is the mother's “spouse” not likely to be the father of the child, but it is, in fact, a biological impossibility.

 

[BlackSand]

Why don't you just say what you mean? That you have no problem with the unequal treatment of same sex couples and straight couples. In other words discrimination

.

I said exactly what I meant.

Sorry it fails to meet whatever nonsense you need to try and make it mean to fit whatever it is you may desire.
Personally, I don't think any of it is the government's business and if you had actually read what I posted, you should have recognized that.

.​

 

[surada]

This case was treated differently because it is different. Are you too obtuse to understand the basic biology?

The child only has one mother and one father.

The child would have more protection under the law if both women's names were on the birth certificate.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Why don't you just say what you mean? That you have no problem with the unequal treatment of same sex couples and straight couples. In other words discrimination

The demand for “equal treatment” is absurd. A homosexual mockery of a marriage is not the same thing as a genuine marriage. Your demand for “equal treatment” dismisses immutable biological and moral elements that cannot be ignored.

 

[surada]

The demand for “equal treatment” is absurd. A homosexual mockery of a marriage is not the same thing as a genuine marriage. Your demand for “equal treatment” dismisses immutable biological and moral elements that cannot be ignored.

The marriage contract is between 2 consenting adults. You want to punish gay people at the expense of their children.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't know that Oklahoma applies that to same-sex marriage. The Obergefell decision did not federalize all marriage law. It required that states issue marriage licenses to and grant legal recognition of same-sex couples. Oklahoma does that, so it fully complies with the ruling. On other issues, besides the issuance of licenses and the granting of recognition, the state still has the power to make laws.

The presumption that the man married to a woman who gives birth is the father has long been a part of the Common law on which our federal law and forty-nine of our state laws is based. The woman's husband is presumed to be the father, even if the woman swears on a stack of bibles that she was a skank ho who slept with every man she came across except her husband. That was all part of the patriarchal husband-as-owner model of marriage. He was the only one legally allowed to sleep with her, so he was the biological father by presumption. Common law made it a non-rebuttable assumption. Even if a man brought evidence that his wife was unfaithful and he was impotent when she conceived, he was still on the hook for child support.

But in the case of this same sex couple, there is no presumption that the abusive Ms. Williams is the biological parent of the child. We know for a fact that she is not. Nothing in the Obergefell decision, nor in Oklahoma law requires the judge to document as fact the fiction that Williams is the parent.

Maybe you think that is all very wrong. Maybe there should be a ruling that all marriage laws must treat same-sex partners as if they were heterosexual partners, capable of biological co-parenting. Maybe there should be a federal law laying out marriage and taking all of that power from states. Maybe, but that is not the case.

You seem to believe that this judge is some kind of ignorant bigot, who spends her days trying to circumvent the wisdom of the benevolent and brave members of the USSC. Before becoming a judge, she was head of a non-profit called "Lawyers for Children," and no doubt still sees her role as child advocate. She found a way to limit this child's exposure to an abusive adult, and to allow it a fully recognized family life with its biological parents. I wish all judges in family courts saw that as their role instead of catering to the often selfish and childish couples who choose a public catfight over an amicable separation that benefits their child, or at least harms them the least.

That is a pretty long winded fail
Oaklahome-as I believe is the case in Oaklahoma- recognises presumption of paternity

The Presumption Of Paternity In Oklahoma - The Law Office of Carlos L. Williams

The term ‘paternity’ refers to the legal determination of fatherhood. Paternity must be established for legal rights and responsibilities to extend to the father. In Oklahoma, paternity can be established

www.cwilliamslegal.com

You said: "Maybe there should be a ruling that all marriage laws must treat same-sex partners as if they were heterosexual partners, capable of biological co-parenting. "

Well, there was........

The Obergefelle decision states :

The Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision states that same-sex couples deserve all the same marital rights as opposite-sex couples. This implies that marital presumption of parentage should be available to married couples regardless of biology. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have clarified and reinforced this right.

Is Marital Presumption Of Parentage Being Applied Unequally?​

Therefor, the presumption of parenthood applies to this case.

As far as protecting the child from an abusive parent, that is of course a concern, but there are better ways of going about it. A CPS referral would have been appropriate to determine what risk if any she posed to the child. We know very little about the dynamics of the family. Was she a habitiual abuser or an isolated incodent? Did she ever harm the child? What is their relationship. CPS would answer those question and submit a best interest report to guide the court. I maintain that here actions were inappropriate and illegal,

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The marriage contract is between 2 consenting adults. You want to punish gay people at the expense of their children.

By definition, a marriage always has been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.

A sick homosexual mockery of a marriage will never be comparable to a genuine marriage, no matter how the laws may be corrupted to try to make it so.

And it is you and your kind who want to “punish” children, by putting them under the control of depraved sexual perverts.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The demand for “equal treatment” is absurd. A homosexual mockery of a marriage is not the same thing as a genuine marriage. Your demand for “equal treatment” dismisses immutable biological and moral elements that cannot be ignored.

Get over it Bobby Boy. You are a relentless bore

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

but not the birth father,, and thats all the BC lists,,

So? What is your point?

 

[surada]

By definition, a marriage always has been, and will always be, between a man and a woman.

A sick homosexual mockery of a marriage will never be comparable to a genuine marriage, no matter how the laws may be corrupted to try to make it so.

And it is you and your kind who want to “punish” children, by putting them under the control of depraved sexual perverts.

So mind your own business and don't punish children in your righteousness.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There is no rational basis, here, for any such presumption.

In a genuine marriage, if the wife bears a child, her husband is presumed to be the father of that child. This makes sense, because lacking any evidence contrary to this presumption, it is, in fact, most likely that he is the biological father. For good measure, even if there is substantial reason to doubt that he is the biological father, by virtue of the fact that he is the legitimate spouse of the mother, he gets first claim on the child in any event.

Trying to apply this to a depraved lesbian mockery of a marriage is absurd. Not only is the mother's “spouse” not likely to be the father of the child, but it is, in fact, a biological impossibility.

See post 114

 

[progressive hunter]

So? What is your point?

its a birth certificate so she doesnt deserve to be on it,,,