interesting on-campus findings by former homosexuals

All of these things you are bringing up have nothing to do with whether a person can marry another person or not. All you are discussing here is an issue that happens AFTER marriage has already taken place and plenty of same-sex married couples become the legal parents of their children together.

This is how they do it. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/gay-lesbian-adoption-parenting-29790.html

Even so having kids is not even a prereq to getting married, ever.

 

I have now consolidated all of my posts demonstrating that the courts in Iowa and in California have determined that any child born of any parent of a married couple is the presumed legal child of both parents.

The act of a) being married and b) having a child while married makes both the couple the legal parents of the child.

Its the same in Vermont too, but I am not going to go dig up what you will just ignore anyway.

In 2005, the California Supreme Court had the opportunity to rule on three lesbian assisted reproduction parentage cases. In these cases, the court held that if a lesbian (or gay male) couple had children, while living together that they would both be the parents of any resulting child(Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 2005; K.M. v. E.G., 2005; Kristine H. v. Lisa R., 2005).

By 2005, the California legislature had also passed and enacted a law granting registered domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. This also provided for a presumption that children of registered domestic partners are the children of both registered domestic partners.
**********
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/..._sen_comm.html

Based on the Elisa B. case precedence, any reference to a
"presumed father," or "a man," under this bill or any of the
parentage statutes, can be applied equally to a woman. This
situation will most often arise as it did in the Elisa B. case
which involved a lesbian couple who decided to start a family
together, resulting in both parents being women. Applying the
paternity statutes gender neutrally furthers the public policy
of the state to ensure that all children have two parents.
********

The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that when a woman in a same-sex marriage gives birth to a child, her spouse should be listed as the other parent. The case involved Heather Martin Gartner, who gave birth to her daughter Mackenzie in 2009, but was told her wife Melissa would have to go through the costly process of adoption to be recognized as Mackenzie’s other parent.

At issue is that the language in Iowa’s laws about presumption of parentage are gendered (husband, father, paternity). However, the Court pointed out that the law does assume that the husband of a mother is the father — in fact, if a woman in an opposite-sex marriage were to use an anonymous sperm donor, the state would not even know when it determines her husband to be the father. Thus, the same standard should apply to lesbian couples under the Iowa Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection — the same guarantee the Court used to rule for marriage equality in 2009:
*********
Iowa court: Married same-sex parents must be on birth certificate
May 04, 2013|By Michael Mello




Iowa parents in same-sex marriages must be allowed to have both their names listed on their newborn’s birth certificate, the state’s Supreme Court has unanimously ruled.

Officials with the state’s Department of Public Health have insisted on listing a biological parent on the birth certificate, a practice the high court said last week was unconstitutional

lIn the written opinion, reported by the Associated Press, Justice David Wiggins noted that discrepancy:

“It is important for our laws to recognize that married lesbian couples who have children enjoy the same benefits and burdens as married opposite-sex couples who have children.”

Heather and Melissa Gartner of Des Moines filed the lawsuit that prompted the Supreme Court decision after the department listed only Heather as a parent of their daughter in 2009.

Taylor said hundreds of same-sex couples in Iowa have been denied accurate birth certificates since 2009.

A spokeswoman for the Human Rights Campaign, which works on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues, said the court’s decision brings the state closer to true marriage equality.

“One of the rights of those in a marriage is to be presumed to be the parents of the children,” said Sarah Warbelow, the HRC’s state legislative director.

Before, some same-sex couples had to work through an adoption process to get both names on a certificate.

The previous policy was “really treating same-sex couples unequally under the law,” Warbelow said.

Officials with the health department announced they would abide by the court’s decision.

“The Department of Public Health appreciates the definitive direction from the Supreme Court and it will fully implement the directive of the court to name both married lesbian women as a child’s parents on the birth certificate,” department spokeswoman Polly Carver-Kimm said in an email to the Los Angeles Times.

“The court found that the department’s construction of the presumption of paternity law – which directs the department to name a woman’s husband as the father of her child on the birth certificate – was correct, but the court went on to hold that the statute itself violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Determining whether a statute is constitutional is a decision for the court, not the department.”

From this point on, I will just keep reprinting the facts- they stand by themselves.

 

1) you mean "You're" instead of "Your".
2) a couple that is made up of a man and woman is not indicative of whether they can procreate. Old folks can still get married, as can infertile people. Both of these things can be detected.

 

I call BS.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/u-s-ac...e-over-sperm-donors-parental-rights-1.1408851

 

One issue at a time, dixon. You should know American law/politics by now.

 

Not sure of your point. Nothing there that contradicts a thing Ive said. Why dont you copy and paste a sentence or two from the article you believe does so.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, your point?

 

No one claimed it did. Read the post I was responding to. It had nothing to do with whether a person can marry another person or not.

 

Clearly, given that we already allow consenting adults with no potential for procreation to marry, the lack of potential procreation is NOT why homosexual couples (two consenting adults) are denied the same marriage.

 

Are you not reading that last part?

 

Two court case exerpts addressing and refuting your argument.

 

outdated and overturned.

procreation remains irrelevant to who can marry.

 

Please feel free to elaborate on how you believe these refute my argument.

 

They do too well on there own to do so.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither of those cases have been overturned. Until they are, neither are outdated.

 

both overturned and outdated. procreation remains irrelevant to who can marry.

 

Sooooo link to the case where a higher court overturned the decision. You know, instead of from this point forward, for years, proclaiming that my argument has been refuted, without a shred of evidence.

 

Windsor.

procreation has nothing to do with who can marry.

 

Windsor overturned neither case.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pd

 

both. procreation remains irrelevant to who can marry.

and this is what comes up at your link...............404 - File or directory not found.

The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

 

I have now consolidated all of my posts demonstrating that the courts in Iowa and in California have determined that any child born of any parent of a married couple is the presumed legal child of both parents.

The act of a) being married and b) having a child while married makes both the couple the legal parents of the child.

Its the same in Vermont too, but I am not going to go dig up what you will just ignore anyway.

In 2005, the California Supreme Court had the opportunity to rule on three lesbian assisted reproduction parentage cases. In these cases, the court held that if a lesbian (or gay male) couple had children, while living together that they would both be the parents of any resulting child(Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 2005; K.M. v. E.G., 2005; Kristine H. v. Lisa R., 2005).

By 2005, the California legislature had also passed and enacted a law granting registered domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. This also provided for a presumption that children of registered domestic partners are the children of both registered domestic partners.
**********
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/..._sen_comm.html

Based on the Elisa B. case precedence, any reference to a
"presumed father," or "a man," under this bill or any of the
parentage statutes, can be applied equally to a woman. This
situation will most often arise as it did in the Elisa B. case
which involved a lesbian couple who decided to start a family
together, resulting in both parents being women. Applying the
paternity statutes gender neutrally furthers the public policy
of the state to ensure that all children have two parents.
********

The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that when a woman in a same-sex marriage gives birth to a child, her spouse should be listed as the other parent. The case involved Heather Martin Gartner, who gave birth to her daughter Mackenzie in 2009, but was told her wife Melissa would have to go through the costly process of adoption to be recognized as Mackenzie’s other parent.

At issue is that the language in Iowa’s laws about presumption of parentage are gendered (husband, father, paternity). However, the Court pointed out that the law does assume that the husband of a mother is the father — in fact, if a woman in an opposite-sex marriage were to use an anonymous sperm donor, the state would not even know when it determines her husband to be the father. Thus, the same standard should apply to lesbian couples under the Iowa Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection — the same guarantee the Court used to rule for marriage equality in 2009:
*********
Iowa court: Married same-sex parents must be on birth certificate
May 04, 2013|By Michael Mello




Iowa parents in same-sex marriages must be allowed to have both their names listed on their newborn’s birth certificate, the state’s Supreme Court has unanimously ruled.

Officials with the state’s Department of Public Health have insisted on listing a biological parent on the birth certificate, a practice the high court said last week was unconstitutional

lIn the written opinion, reported by the Associated Press, Justice David Wiggins noted that discrepancy:

“It is important for our laws to recognize that married lesbian couples who have children enjoy the same benefits and burdens as married opposite-sex couples who have children.”

Heather and Melissa Gartner of Des Moines filed the lawsuit that prompted the Supreme Court decision after the department listed only Heather as a parent of their daughter in 2009.

Taylor said hundreds of same-sex couples in Iowa have been denied accurate birth certificates since 2009.

A spokeswoman for the Human Rights Campaign, which works on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues, said the court’s decision brings the state closer to true marriage equality.

“One of the rights of those in a marriage is to be presumed to be the parents of the children,” said Sarah Warbelow, the HRC’s state legislative director.

Before, some same-sex couples had to work through an adoption process to get both names on a certificate.

The previous policy was “really treating same-sex couples unequally under the law,” Warbelow said.

Officials with the health department announced they would abide by the court’s decision.

“The Department of Public Health appreciates the definitive direction from the Supreme Court and it will fully implement the directive of the court to name both married lesbian women as a child’s parents on the birth certificate,” department spokeswoman Polly Carver-Kimm said in an email to the Los Angeles Times.

“The court found that the department’s construction of the presumption of paternity law – which directs the department to name a woman’s husband as the father of her child on the birth certificate – was correct, but the court went on to hold that the statute itself violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Determining whether a statute is constitutional is a decision for the court, not the department.”

From this point on, I will just keep reprinting the facts- they stand by themselves.

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

You can search the text. Not even a mention of either case.

 

both. procreation remains irrelevant to who can marry.

 

Try to focus. We were speaking of your claim that the decisions I quoted had been overturned and your claim that the Windsor case did it. Windsor case didnt even make reference to either case.

 

both. procreation remains irrelevant to who can marry.

 

Windsor case didnt even make reference to either case.

 

both. procreation remains irrelevant to who can marry.