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

[Bob Blaylock]

That is a pretty long winded fail
Oaklahome [sic]-as I believe is the case in Oaklahoma [sic]- recognises [sic] 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 :

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 [sic] abuser or an isolated incodent [sic]? 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,

As pointed out repeatedly, it is absurd to apply a principle that, in the case of a genuine marriage, presumes something to be true that is most likely true, so that in a homosexual mockery of a marriage, it presumes something to be true that cannot possibly be true.

The husband of a married woman is nearly always the biological father of any child that woman bears, so it makes sense to presume him to be the father of every child his wife bears, unless there is very good reason to presume otherwise.

In a lesbian mockery of a marriage, the “wife” of the mothers cannot possibly be the father of any child born by the other participant in that mockery. It is biologically impossible.

 

[progressive hunter]

See post 114

a child doesnt come from two mothers so presumption of paternity doesnt apply

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

.

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.

.​

Whether or not you think that it is the governments business, the fact is that it is. See post 114

 

[progressive hunter]

Whether or not you think that it is the governments business, the fact is that it is. See post 114

114 doesnt apply here,,

 

[Bob Blaylock]

See post 114

A post that is complete bullshit when first written, is still complete bullshit if you refer back to it later.

See, also, post 315, post 125, and post 126.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Whether or not you think that it is the governments business, the fact is that it is. See post 114

See post 126.

 

[BlackSand]

Whether or not you think that it is the governments business, the fact is that it is. See post 114

.

As long as you insist it needs to be the government's business ...
Then there are things the government is going to make you do ... See life in general.

You cannot have one without the other.
Sorry if you put your faith in government and chose a losing horse out of the gate.

As far as the topic is concerned ... There was a legal way the person complaining could have avoided the complications they are complaining about.
If you want to argue with the idea her steak wasn't cooked to her desire ... You can take it up with the chef.

.​

 

[Seymour Flops]

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 :

That was well thought out and well researched. But, before I even respond to that, let me be clear: Are you claiming that a woman is capable of "paternity" defined as "fatherhood?" From your linked article:

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 in one of four ways: a presumption of paternity, acknowledgment of paternity, adjudication of paternity, or adoption. In this blog post, we will discuss the presumption of paternity in Oklahoma.

If you are claiming that, I'm not dealing with a rational individual and may be wasting my time, here.

Obergefell may have stated as an aside that same sex couples deserve all the same rights, etc., but that was not the governing ruling, which was simply that states have to license and recognize same-sex marriages. It does not give a woman the right to be a father, that would be impossible.

Is Marital Presumption Of Parentage Being Applied Unequally?​

Therefor, the presumption of parenthood applies to this case.

Your link about marital presumption of parentage is about California, not Oklahoma. The Obergefell decision did not invalidate every state marriage law, you're reading too much into it.

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,

Maybe the judge is aware of CPS's history of abusing children, interrogating children without parental notice or consent, denying parental rights for petty reasons and no due process, and trafficking children to sexual abusers. In fact, she must be. As a lawyer for children, she would have seen that a lot.

Can I just ask: does your computer show red underlines when you misspell a word? If not, I'm sure there is a way to turn that feature on. Thanks.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That was well thought out and well researched. But, before I even respond to that, let me be clear: Are you claiming that a woman is capable of "paternity" defined as "fatherhood?" If so, I'm not dealing with a rational individual and may be wasting my time, here.

Of course not! It's about parenthood. , not biology . Two moms

 

[Seymour Flops]

Of course not! It's about parenthood. , not biology . Two moms

Well, as I said in my edit, the article you linked to show Oklahoma law talks specifically about "paternity" and "fatherhood." So it would not apply to the Williams vs. Wilson case.

 

[BlackSand]

Of course not! It's about parenthood. , not biology . Two moms

.

There weren't two moms ... Because the complainant had not legally adopted the child as required by law and not gender specific in custody cases.

It doesn't make a difference if they were a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple.
If a parent in a divorce involving custody has not legally adopted the child in question and is not a birth parent, they have no grounds for custody.

.​

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Obergefell may have stated as an aside that same sex couples deserve all the same rights, etc., but that was not the governing ruling, which was simply that states have to license and recognize same-sex marriages. It does not give a woman the right to be a father, that would be impossible.

Wrong Obergefell did much much more than that. First of all Justice Kennedy was very concerned about children and parenting

OBERGEFELL v. HODGES

www.law.cornell.edu

As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples. See Brief for Gary J. Gates as Amicus Curiae 4. Most States have allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, either as individuals or as couples, and many adopted and foster children have same-sex parents, see id., at 5. This provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families.

And he made it clear that same sex couple SHALL have all of the rights of opposite sex couples as per their respective state laws

For that reason, just as a couple vows to support each other, so does society pledge to support the couple, offering symbolic recognition and material benefits to protect and nourish the union. Indeed, while the States are in general free to vary the benefits they confer on all married couples, they have throughout our history made marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evidence; hospital access; medical decisionmaking authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workers’ compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visitation rules. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 6–9; Brief for American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae 8–29. Valid marriage under state law is also a significant status for over a thousand provisions of federal law. See Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___ – ___ (slip op., at 15–16). The States have contributed to the fundamental character of the marriage right by placing that institution at the center of so many facets of the legal and social order.

And goes on to say

There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle. Yet by virtue of their exclusion from that institution, same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The Obergefell decision did not invalidate every state marriage law, you're reading too much into it.

I never said that it did. The only laws that it invalidated were those prohibiting same sex marriage

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Your link about marital presumption of parentage is about California, not Oklahoma.

There is also an article about Oaklahoma

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Can I just ask: does your computer show red underlines when you misspell a word? If not, I'm sure there is a way to turn that feature on. Thanks.

Actually, that was working and now it is not. Don't see how to turn it on

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Maybe the judge is aware of CPS's history of abusing children,

She still went about it in the wrong way

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

.

There weren't two moms ... Because the complainant had not legally adopted the child as required by law and not gender specific in custody cases.

It doesn't make a difference if they were a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple.
If a parent in a divorce involving custody has not legally adopted the child in question and is not a birth parent, they have no grounds for custody.

.​

You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Well, as I said in my edit, the article you linked to show Oklahoma law talks specifically about "paternity" and "fatherhood." So it would not apply to the Williams vs. Wilson case.

Yes it would! I have demonstrated why. Paternity is parenthood

Here is more

Parental rights for same-sex parents survive Supreme Court challenge

This preserves a landmark case in Arkansas

arktimes.com

In 2014, the lesbian couples sued the state to place their names on their children’s birth certificates. A federal judge sided with the plaintiffs in 2016, but Indiana appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. After a mysterious 32-month delay, the 7th Circuit affirmed the judge’s decision. It noted that the Supreme Court already settled this issue twice. First, in 2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges, the court compelled states to provide same-sex couples with the “constellation of benefits” linked to marriage, explicitly mentioning birth certificates. Then, in 2017’s Pavan v. Smith, the court reiterated that states must place same-sex parents on their child’s birth certificate if that benefit is provided to opposite-sex parents who lack genetic ties to their child.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yes it would! I have demonstrated why. Paternity is parenthood

Paternity is the state of being a father. Only a man can be a father. A woman cannot be a father, so it is absurd to speak of a woman as having any status of paternity with relation to a child.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Paternity is the state of being a father. Only a man can be a father. A woman cannot be a father, so it is absurd to speak of a woman as having any status of paternity with relation to a child.

Geeeezus fucking christ. I said that she is a PARENT

See post 138 You are one hysterical fucker Bobby Boy