What Rights (If Any) Should Be Awarded To Homosexual Couples? Part 3

Nope. Precisely the opposite. He will be presumed to be the father by law until HE proves he is not. Thats what legal presumptions do. He is PRESUMED to be the father. Doesnt matter if he actually is or not. After two years, in many states the presumption becomes irrefutable. Meeaning even if he can PROVE he is NOT the father, the law will nonetheless obligate him to support the child.

 

You aren't discussing THIS particular topic then. You're off on your own tangent.

 

You are confusing presumption of paternity with paternity by estoppel. The presumption of paternity is a benefit of marriage not an obligation imposed because you married. The presumption allows the married couple to be presumed to be the parents for the purpose of defending the marriage.

Estoppel is the doctrine that if someone acts as if something is true for long enough, they can not later claim it's not true. In this case, if you act as a child's parent for years the law assumes you have asserted that you are his parent and doesn't let you change the assertion your actions have demonstrated years later.

Paternity by estoppel is the legal theory that “because of a person’s conduct…that person, regardless of his true biological status, will not be permitted to deny parentage, nor will the mother who has participated in this conduct be permitted to sue a third party for support, claiming that the third party is the true father.” J.C., 826 A.2d at 3-4​

If a couple has a child and the man chooses to act as the child's parent for years, his actions are interpreted as the assertion that he is the child's father and is obligated to that child's well being. The paternity can become irrefutable by estoppel, regardless of whether the couple were ever married. The obligation is a result of being a father not of being a husband, that it is irrefutable is because of the mans continued assertion that he is the father not because he may have been married.

 

Taxpayer, Columbine and I. You are in your own little world.

 

You dont have a clue. Presumption of paternity most frequently arises in actions seeking child support from the father, AFTER the marriage has been dissolved

 

Stop trying to bend reality toward your model of foolishness.

 

If a man acted as the father of the child for two years after it was born, then his actions show he accepted the presumption of paternity and asserted himself the father. Because of estoppel he might not be able to retract his assertion years later. *shrug* The obligation comes from his choice to assert himself the father, not from being married.

 

Still a paternity law, not a marriage law. Once again refuted

 

Still a paternity law, which isn't binding. Which makes it utterly irrelevant, and useless in your argument

 

Paternity isn't assumed.

The friend of the court routinely requires DNA testing before ordering child support.

Sorry paternity doesn't add anything to your arguments here.

Back to topic? Anyone?

 

Wouldnt even be admissable as evidence after 2 years.

 

How many states have the two year rule? I don't think it's anywhere near a majority.

 

The two years is irrelevant. The point is, it only applies in the case of a man, married to a woman. Gay men dont give birth and women dont become fathers, Its biology.

 

I can think of at least once incidence where legal "presumption of paternity" could apply to two men - it is possible in Connecticut to exclude the donor/surrogate mother from the birth certificate.. In which case both men could have an equal presumption of biological paternity since they may either not know (in the case of a "mixed" insemination)(*)or simply not willing to disclose who's sperm was used.

Other that though, the entire point is irrelevant since paternity law, while obviously connected to marriage law, isn't strictly the same thing. Marriage can and does exist between two people without the couple meeting the potential "criteria" - as with elderly couples. It is simply a practical way of addressing an outcome that potentially applies to the majority who enter the contract - it is NOT indicative of any requirement to be able to procreate, so it does nothing to help your argument.

 

Has nothing to do with marriage and is instead because of the donner/surrogate agreement. Just like if two married gay guys adopt a kid, their marriage didnt create any parental obligations, the adoption did. If they were unmarried, the parental obligations would be identical.

 

I'm still not getting the argument though. What relevance does a legal presumption related to marriage have on same-sex couple's right to marry?

 

Other poster was going on about marriage creating "legal families". I pointed out that any two consenting adults could form such a legal family. Gayness isnt required. And then I pointed out that only when a man is married to a woman, does marriage create a legal family including children. Only a husband is presumed to be the father of any child his wife gives birth to. Lesbian lover isnt presumed to be a father becuase she is married to the woman eho gave birth and of course, in the case of two gay guys, no children are born.

 

But children aren't a requirement to make a couple a family under law, a marriage license is.

A couple with a marriage license is a family as long as far as the law is concerned even if they never have any children by any means.

 

I never claimed children were a requirement, soooo not sure of your point. Any two consenting adults could form such a family soooooo the fact that they happen to be gay is irrelevant

 

dixon, what's YOUR problem with homosexual people?

 

Well you've just made it for me so perhaps you do get my point after all?

 

You are not making any sense. I say your sexuality is irrelevant while you and johnny whine

and like I said

You two want special treatment for homosexuals. Two 18 yr old gay boys, young, dumb and full of cum get a constitutional right to marriage while the single mother and grandmother down the street raising their children/grandchildren for nearly a decade have no such right .

All of this based upon the judicial fiction that the 1000s year old institution of marriage has not been limited to heterosexual couples, to include those couples that have the potential of procreation, but has instead been a nefarious plot to exclude homosexuals, based purely upon animus towards homosexuals. When in fact, both the mother and grandmother, AND the 18 yr old gay boys are excluded because neither has the potential of procration. And if it was instead a mother and grandfather raising the kids down the street, they are and always have been excluded from marriage BECAUSE OF the potential of procreation and genetic defects.

 

No problem at all, until they start to think that rights need to be "Awarded To Homosexual Couples" because they are homosexual.

 

I've told you, I don't know how many times, that I'm not gay. You got a memory problem?
That said it's pure luck so I don't see heterosexuality as some kind of honour badge or homosexuality as anything more than a statistical normality.

How about bright, intelligent and full of prospects for a happy life together, that can happen too (but probably not in your world).

There are restrictions against the previously related which aren't the same as the non-related. As I've said for about the last three years, those restrictions could be lifted but would need to be examined on a case by case basis.

That may not have been the intent but it's certainly been one of the outcomes and that's an outcome which can be easily changed. So far no-one has presented a valid reason why it shouldn't be.

Nonsense you yourself have said you would not exclude sterile heterosexuals even if that sterility could be tested for with 100% accuracy. The substance of your argument ended there.

Well that's one class for which a continued exclusion may be wise and for a very good reason; whereas if your were talking father and grandfather that objection would not exist. You've handed yourself a perfect example of why each class needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis if your argument is to be supported. On the other hand same-sex couples have been proven to be similarly situated to the majority of heterosexual couples (except they can't bear children together) and IDENTICALLY SITUATED to sterile heterosexual couples (because they can't bear children together either).

This goes round and round...........................

 

No one is requesting special rights for anyone, while you have a "point" with the mother and her mother you fail to realize they already have a legal kinship which automatically awards them rights to each other. A better example would be two female heterosexual friends that are raising children together. These two individuals would be able to obtain the same union that a homosexual couple would have.

If you want incest laws changed then, for the 16th time, feel free to create your own thread about the subject instead of hijacking a every same sex marriage thread you see.

The ability to procreate is not a requirement or even a reasoning for marriage as elderly, sterile, and non-sexual couples are currently allowed to marry - many of them do so multiple times.

As for the institution of marriage being 700 quadrillion years old (this is irrelevant btw) - you would have a case if it was not a government benefit - unfortunately the government has taken it over and removed the tradition of the union. Once they put automatic benefits and protections into the mix they changed the whole issue.

Feel free to carry on with your 3 talking points - over and over and over again. Let us know if you find something that holds water...