|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the "father lesbian" had been a man who was not the biological father of the child and had never adopted it, he would in all likelihood not be legally responsible.
If it was a case of two men, it would obviously be an adoption situation, because neither man can give birth. Both men would be legally responsible only if the adoption was in both their names.
Seeing discrimination where it does not exist delegitimized vast sections of the feminist movement, and I would hate to see it here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not entirely true. There are many instances where a man had a relationship with a woman who had kids, and when he left her years later the courts stuck him with child support. Seems they felt that by living with the woman he had established himself as a "father figure."
It is definitely a gender double standard when a woman can duck out of responsibility for a situation which through mutual agreement she helped create.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have found a couple of those in last few days...
I am inclined to support this judgement though, because this arragement is wildly out of line with what a definition of a family should be. This is clearly a back door effort to redefine the family to mean, any damn thing they want it to mean.
While we dont go from here to people getting married to horses, or some dumb shit conservative talking point, I can see this expanding into little collectives of lesbians (or whatever) without any clearly defined parents at all. All for the sake of, its easy and feels good, and we are feminists, so we are superior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its very telling that all the "marriage protection" furor starts and stops with homosexual marriages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unless the US allows Gay marriage, there is not standing for the woman to be forced to pay child support. Naturally a step-parent could be (under current law as I understand it), but since there is no marriage, there is no step-parent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But it really is all about the money grubbing... Isnt it?
Im sorry, this is the most irresponsible thing I have ever seen, I mean what do you know, women ARE just like men, the first chance the non-uteral (is that a word?)parent got, she was out of there, just like men are accused of.
And holy crap, at the center of this fantastically selfish endavor is some poor child.
Am i being too judgmental here? It seems to me the issue here is SPERM BANKS. I dont have anything against people who might have some fertility issue using a sperm bank, but here is a child who is basically been abandoned by a faux parent, a selfish mother with poor decision making skills, and the State for allowing this sort of thing to happen(ala volentary fatherless paternity).
Correct me if i'm wrong, but feminism is grounded in the idea that women are more moral than men right? Well here is all the evidence you need to prove that ideal is a steaming pile of horse @#$@.
Excuse me please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Westlaw Link
Yeah, this is bad news. The SJC decided that 'parenthood by contract' is not the law in Massachusetts, which I believe means that in this state you don't become a parent by agreeing to be a parent, but rather you're a parent if the courts judge your circumstances to make you a parent. So this is another anti-choice decision if you happen to be the non-womb using partner.
On a positive note, this court decision has created some precedence for men whose partners bear unrelated children and who don't immediately abandon them and run for the hills. Assuming the same standard gets applied to cuckoled live-in boyfriends, it should be safe to give your ex some cash after she gives birth or even help her pick a name without becoming trapped into 18 years of payments.
Also on a positive note "Contracts between unmarried same-sex couples concerning the welfare and support of a child stand on the same footing as any other agreement between unmarried cohabitants" so lesbian partners who don't bear their children are in the same boat as hetero fathers.
But of course "... when a contract violates or conflicts with public policy, we treat it as void and will not enforce it." So it still doesn't matter what you agree to with a woman before she has a child, the courts can throw all that out in favor of your worst interest.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
