What if straight people had civil unions?

You do the same thing. Your "evidence" isn't absolutely 'conclusive' either.

You've also been challenged by some very fine arguments and evidence.

Let's just say, the JURY is still out.

 

Compared to your and Rahls personal proclamations and nonexistant evidence, it does just fine.

 

Be that as it may, you are participating just as others do. Live with it.

 

From the uniform parentage act, adopted in similiar form in most every state.

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

Only a man, can father a child with a woman. Only two people in the world with parental rights and responsibility when a child is born is the woman who gave birth and the man who fathered the child. All because of the biology of procreation. If sexual contact between any two people had the potential of procreation, marriage would have evolved to include both opposite sex and same sex marriages. It doesnt and it did not. From BC Roman law

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")....

 

No. Responsible procreation is a legitimate governmental interest. Helping you feel better about being gay is not.

 

nope. I and others continue to refute your idiotic procreation argument.

Federal courts disagree

those are 30+ year old state court decisions, which have no relevance on a national level. you continue to lose in FEDERAL court.

 

paternity law, not a marriage law. having no relevance to the topic, and has long ago been refuted.

flat out laughably false.

and because no requirement of procreation exists, marriage has indeed evolved to include same sex marriage. that's why dozens of countries have it, including this one.

idiotic. BC Roman law has no relevance to 21st century american law.

 

the govn't doesn't care about responsible procreation, that's why they haven't outlawed divorce, nor required the ability to procreate in order to marry.

 

As demonstrated for you many times before, the presumption is just a presumption, it can be challenged and often is. It's a presumption made out of convinience, and it does not have the final say in who does or does not have parental rights and responsibilities. the husband or wife can challenge the paternity, overriding any presumption.

Parental rights and responsibilities are created by acting as the parent.

And no, not even the mother is certain these days, as a woman can carry the egg of another woman. Your quotes from roman law are insufficient and inaccurate representations of the way the law works today.

Lastly, may I say it's odd you keep speakin of biology, as though the presumption of paternity has anything to do with it. Your view of the presumption of paternity would require parental rights and responsibilities for the husband regardless of if the child is really his or if it's from another man. That has nothing to do with biology, it's a social construct.

 

Thats nice. STILL, because of biology, only a man is presumed to be the father of the children his wife gives birth to. And after 2 years in many states the presumption becomes irrebuttable

 

There is a lot about 'biology' to know/learn, I would surely agree. And people can/do conceive children in various ways in this era; not always in the standard manner.

But as far as gay marriage and the right to be recognized by the State goes... that is largely irrelevant. If that isn't clear (in the legal sense) now... it eventually WILL BE. It is merely a matter of time.

 

Yes, "PEOPLE" can conceive children in various ways and their gayness is irrelevant to that process.

 

You are saying NOTHING; you realize that right?

 

The point is that it's the act of being the parent, de facto, regardless of marriage status or actual biological relation that creates parental rights and responsibilities. Whether it's 2 years after being born to your wife, or 2 years after being born to your 1 night stand, the effect on creating parental rights and responsibilities is the same. You don't have to be married for parental rights and responsibilities to become unchallengeable, even without biological relation. In other words, the presumption has nothing to do with it.

My roommates sister just gave birth to her 4th child, fathered by her non-married boyfriend. The father has been acting as the father for his oldest child for 12 years. Do you think he can challenge paternal responsibilities at this point, even if the child is not biologically his (which they are)? No. Can he challenge it for his youngest even though it has not been 2 years? He could try but would be on the hook if he's the biological father.

What changes so dramatically if they were married in this scenario?

And why is this the only thing about marriage that matters?

 

Nope. My dads 2nd wife acted as my parent for 5 years. This created no parental rights and responsibilities. When they divorced, she had no obligation of support to me. No parental rights to determine any aspect of my upbringing.
When a married lesbian give birth, her spouse has NO parental rights and responsibilities in the child. Only the man who fathered the child has such parental rights and responsibilitieses.
And a man, married to the woman who gives birth will be presumed to be the father of the child even if he is over seas and hasn't even met the child.

 

He likely is the legal father because he put his name on the childs birth certificate. Government doesnt encourage marriage because of fathers like the childs father above. It is for the millions of other fathers who do not live with the child and mother, do not voluntarily step forward and claim paternity and fulfill their parental responsibilities, frequently they arent even known let alone identified on the birth certificate.

 

Most of these matters are issues of common law, and certainly step-parents are a common exception. And the common law can and does override any presumptions when challenged.

These are all social constructs, not laws of biology. The presumption alone does not create paternal rights or responsibilities. Even biological relation doesn't create rights and responsibilities. They come from a complicated mess of common law.

 

In the case of a step parent there is no such presumption. Marrying someone who already has children, creates no parental rights or responsibilities. Just as a married lesbian whose spouse gives birth, has no parental rights or responsibilities regarding the child. And of course, with two gay guys, nobody gives birth to anything

Marriage is a social construct, in a very real world where only women give birth and only men father the children of those births.

And
§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;
Is a staute, not common law.

 

marriage is not bound to religion. There was marriage before there was religion and there will still be marriage after all religions end.

 

What would be the problem? Afraid people might be having fun without you?

Personally, libertarian here, I only have enough energy to run my own life, so I'll let you run yours.