Are they going after Obergefell v. Hodges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would this would apply to all couples who used donor eggs or sperm, not just same sex.

What did the sperm bank contract say? I thought sperm and/or egg donors waived parental rights? How would that be any different than a parent that gives their kid up for adoption waiving their rights?

[Anonymous]

Interestingly, the Pilgrims did not believe in religious marriage. They treated it as a secular matter.

Therefore deeply rooted in history means what? https://www.jstor.org/stable/359877

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would this would apply to all couples who used donor eggs or sperm, not just same sex.

What did the sperm bank contract say? I thought sperm and/or egg donors waived parental rights? How would that be any different than a parent that gives their kid up for adoption waiving their rights?

If you read the story, the birth mother is with the sperm donor now. This seems like an old fashioned donation and not a sperm bank.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More fear mongering.

It is the only way the Dems think they can hold their majority in the midterms.

But, it will not work. The American people can see through their tactics.

You keep saying that and then the Rs do stupid sh*t like gutting Roe, now going after abortion pill, women with dead or dying fetuses who can't get them out...

Get your house in order then lecture us about ours.

[Anonymous]

"stare decisis" my @ss

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would this would apply to all couples who used donor eggs or sperm, not just same sex.

What did the sperm bank contract say? I thought sperm and/or egg donors waived parental rights? How would that be any different than a parent that gives their kid up for adoption waiving their rights?

If you read the story, the birth mother is with the sperm donor now. This seems like an old fashioned donation and not a sperm bank.

+1

After reading the article, it's pretty clear that this isn't a "sperm donation".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would this would apply to all couples who used donor eggs or sperm, not just same sex.

What did the sperm bank contract say? I thought sperm and/or egg donors waived parental rights? How would that be any different than a parent that gives their kid up for adoption waiving their rights?

If you read the story, the birth mother is with the sperm donor now. This seems like an old fashioned donation and not a sperm bank.

+1

After reading the article, it's pretty clear that this isn't a "sperm donation".

Doesn’t matter. If she’d been married to another man and had an affair, then listed the husband on the birth certificate, had him raise the child for 2 years, he’d have rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would this would apply to all couples who used donor eggs or sperm, not just same sex.

What did the sperm bank contract say? I thought sperm and/or egg donors waived parental rights? How would that be any different than a parent that gives their kid up for adoption waiving their rights?

If you read the story, the birth mother is with the sperm donor now. This seems like an old fashioned donation and not a sperm bank.

+1

After reading the article, it's pretty clear that this isn't a "sperm donation".

Doesn’t matter. If she’d been married to another man and had an affair, then listed the husband on the birth certificate, had him raise the child for 2 years, he’d have rights.

… had an affair and then married the bio dad.
This case is a little complicated. Not saying it isn’t troubling, but when I first clicked, I thought some random sperm donor took custody from a nice lesbian couple.
This isn’t that. This is messy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would this would apply to all couples who used donor eggs or sperm, not just same sex.

What did the sperm bank contract say? I thought sperm and/or egg donors waived parental rights? How would that be any different than a parent that gives their kid up for adoption waiving their rights?

If you read the story, the birth mother is with the sperm donor now. This seems like an old fashioned donation and not a sperm bank.

+1

After reading the article, it's pretty clear that this isn't a "sperm donation".

Doesn’t matter. If she’d been married to another man and had an affair, then listed the husband on the birth certificate, had him raise the child for 2 years, he’d have rights.

… had an affair and then married the bio dad.
This case is a little complicated. Not saying it isn’t troubling, but when I first clicked, I thought some random sperm donor took custody from a nice lesbian couple.
This isn’t that. This is messy.

I don’t know how his sperm was inserted, but the lesbian couple wanted to have a child, found a donor on a paternity website, were married when the baby was born, and both moms were listed on the birth certificate. This wasn’t one of the gay moms banging some dude on the side getting pregnant accidentally and deciding to divorce the other mom to move in with her baby daddy.

The judge said that the law doesn’t apply to them because they’re gay, and it would’ve applied if they were Herero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would this would apply to all couples who used donor eggs or sperm, not just same sex.

What did the sperm bank contract say? I thought sperm and/or egg donors waived parental rights? How would that be any different than a parent that gives their kid up for adoption waiving their rights?

If you read the story, the birth mother is with the sperm donor now. This seems like an old fashioned donation and not a sperm bank.

+1

After reading the article, it's pretty clear that this isn't a "sperm donation".

Doesn’t matter. If she’d been married to another man and had an affair, then listed the husband on the birth certificate, had him raise the child for 2 years, he’d have rights.

… had an affair and then married the bio dad.
This case is a little complicated. Not saying it isn’t troubling, but when I first clicked, I thought some random sperm donor took custody from a nice lesbian couple.
This isn’t that. This is messy.

I don’t know how his sperm was inserted, but the lesbian couple wanted to have a child, found a donor on a paternity website, were married when the baby was born, and both moms were listed on the birth certificate. This wasn’t one of the gay moms banging some dude on the side getting pregnant accidentally and deciding to divorce the other mom to move in with her baby daddy.

The judge said that the law doesn’t apply to them because they’re gay, and it would’ve applied if they were Herero.

Yeah ok. That’s f’ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would this would apply to all couples who used donor eggs or sperm, not just same sex.

What did the sperm bank contract say? I thought sperm and/or egg donors waived parental rights? How would that be any different than a parent that gives their kid up for adoption waiving their rights?

If you read the story, the birth mother is with the sperm donor now. This seems like an old fashioned donation and not a sperm bank.

+1

After reading the article, it's pretty clear that this isn't a "sperm donation".

Doesn’t matter. If she’d been married to another man and had an affair, then listed the husband on the birth certificate, had him raise the child for 2 years, he’d have rights.

… had an affair and then married the bio dad.
This case is a little complicated. Not saying it isn’t troubling, but when I first clicked, I thought some random sperm donor took custody from a nice lesbian couple.
This isn’t that. This is messy.

I don’t know how his sperm was inserted, but the lesbian couple wanted to have a child, found a donor on a paternity website, were married when the baby was born, and both moms were listed on the birth certificate. This wasn’t one of the gay moms banging some dude on the side getting pregnant accidentally and deciding to divorce the other mom to move in with her baby daddy.

The judge said that the law doesn’t apply to them because they’re gay, and it would’ve applied if they were Herero.

Yeah ok. That’s f’ed.

Also the mom who is trying to assert her parental rights knew that she'd have to legally adopt the child in order to be the a legal parent and she chose not to.

“Williams, through her testimony and exhibits presented during the trial, admitted she and Wilson discussed adoption,” the ruling said. “Furthermore, Williams admitted she knew that under Oklahoma law she needed to adopt the minor child to establish parental rights. Williams chose not to adopt. Williams testified that she didn’t believe it was fair that she would have to seek court intervention to establish parental rights of the minor child… The reality is that the law provides a legal remedy available to Williams. She knowingly chose not to pursue it.”

However, her name is on the birth certificate. The OK supreme court is going to have to sort this out.

https://kfor.com/news/local/court-rules-in-favor-of-sperm-donor-in-oklahoma-child-custody-case/

[Anonymous]

https://thehill.com/homenews/lgbtq/4482053-tennessee-governor-signs-bill-allows-public-officials-refuse-perform-same-sex-marriages/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

https://thehill.com/homenews/lgbtq/4482053-tennessee-governor-signs-bill-allows-public-officials-refuse-perform-same-sex-marriages/

Wow, the GOP really want to lose. While not a top issue for voters it’s just another data point how out of touch the party has become.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

https://thehill.com/homenews/lgbtq/4482053-tennessee-governor-signs-bill-allows-public-officials-refuse-perform-same-sex-marriages/

Wow, the GOP really want to lose. While not a top issue for voters it’s just another data point how out of touch the party has become.

I seem to recall that the GOP was really happy the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage so they didn't have to address it. Seems like they're again putting themselves in a really uncomfortable opposition to a position that the vast majority of the country supports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

https://thehill.com/homenews/lgbtq/4482053-tennessee-governor-signs-bill-allows-public-officials-refuse-perform-same-sex-marriages/

Wow, the GOP really want to lose. While not a top issue for voters it’s just another data point how out of touch the party has become.

I seem to recall that the GOP was really happy the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage so they didn't have to address it. Seems like they're again putting themselves in a really uncomfortable opposition to a position that the vast majority of the country supports.

They see their window of opportunity closing and they’re going to go for it. The question is can America repudiate the GOP’s hateful and dangerous politics, despite the media pretending it’s a funny horse race.