California Supreme Court Rules Gay Parents. . .

[GoPackGo]

Must Pay Child Support

I think this is great. Equal rights also means Equal responsibility.

The right is already upset by this motion...I wonder how the left is feeling?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

"Today's ruling defies logic and common sense by saying that children can have two moms," said attorney Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel. "That policy establishes that moms and dads as a unit are irrelevant when it comes to raising children."

Wow . . . talk about defying logic and common sense.

Ever heard of step-parents?

Technically, if either your mother or father isn't in the home or lacks regular contact with their children . . . they are pretty much irrelevant when it comes to how (or if) they are raised.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

I 100% agree. She donated her eggs, her partner had the child. It's an interesting way of doing it.
But can it be upheld with homosexual male couples?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Must Pay Child Support

I think this is great. Equal rights also means Equal responsibility.

The right is already upset by this motion...I wonder how the left is feeling?

Personally quite satisfied, thanks. Kids are not a joke.

 

[T3C]

its only fair

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Must Pay Child Support

I think this is great. Equal rights also means Equal responsibility.

The right is already upset by this motion...I wonder how the left is feeling?

my right one is numb, and my left one is soft and fully descended.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Must Pay Child Support

I think this is great. Equal rights also means Equal responsibility.

The right is already upset by this motion...I wonder how the left is feeling?

I recall that in California a man was ordered to pay child support. He apparently had a one night stand with the woman and she claimed he was the father. Later he found out that she, uh, slept around a LOT.

She wanted an increase in child support and he fought it by getting a DNA test and proved the child was not his.

The courts said that is nice. Child support increase granted.

Moonbeam says "Personally quite satisfied, thanks. Kids are not a joke. " Too bad so many parents consider kids so worthless they can be made and aborted on convenience. Even stabbed to death or drowned because they became inconvenient.

If they were not considered a joke then healthy enviornments would be preferred for the rearing of the children rather than social engineering by giving preference to abnormal households.

If childeren were not considered a joke we would actually educate them rather than indoctrinate them.

Too bad the liberal agenda has to abuse the children in order to engineer utopia.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Must Pay Child Support

I think this is great. Equal rights also means Equal responsibility.

The right is already upset by this motion...I wonder how the left is feeling?

I recall that in California a man was ordered to pay child support. He apparently had a one night stand with the woman and she claimed he was the father. Later he found out that she, uh, slept around a LOT.

She wanted an increase in child support and he fought it by getting a DNA test and proved the child was not his.

The courts said that is nice. Child support increase granted.

Moonbeam says "Personally quite satisfied, thanks. Kids are not a joke. " Too bad so many parents consider kids so worthless they can be made and aborted on convenience. Even stabbed to death or drowned because they became inconvenient.

If they were not considered a joke then healthy enviornments would be preferred for the rearing of the children rather than social engineering by giving preference to abnormal households.

If childeren were not considered a joke we would actually educate them rather than indoctrinate them.

Too bad the liberal agenda has to abuse the children in order to engineer utopia.

It's rather disturbing to realize that there are those who believe this nonsense.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Must Pay Child Support

I think this is great. Equal rights also means Equal responsibility.

The right is already upset by this motion...I wonder how the left is feeling?

I recall that in California a man was ordered to pay child support. He apparently had a one night stand with the woman and she claimed he was the father. Later he found out that she, uh, slept around a LOT.

She wanted an increase in child support and he fought it by getting a DNA test and proved the child was not his.

The courts said that is nice. Child support increase granted.

Moonbeam says "Personally quite satisfied, thanks. Kids are not a joke. " Too bad so many parents consider kids so worthless they can be made and aborted on convenience. Even stabbed to death or drowned because they became inconvenient.

If they were not considered a joke then healthy enviornments would be preferred for the rearing of the children rather than social engineering by giving preference to abnormal households.

If childeren were not considered a joke we would actually educate them rather than indoctrinate them.

Too bad the liberal agenda has to abuse the children in order to engineer utopia.

It's rather disturbing to realize that there are those who believe this nonsense.

Yes, somehow he went from not being a joke as a child to being one as an adult.

 

[5LiterMustang]

Why are conservatives upset about that? I think thats a good idea if Gay folks are going ot raise kids they must face the responsibilities...however I dont think they should be allowed to raise kids.

 

[piasabird]

Child support has nothing to do with being Gay, it is all about paternity and guardianship.

Whether gays should be foster parents or be allowed to adopt is another issue entirely.

 

[engineereeyore]

I also think it's great that they're passing such laws. As Moonbeam said, children are not a joke. Did anyone else catch this though?

"The court followed its 2002 decision in which it said men who establish themselves as parental figures may become legal fathers even if they did not help conceive the child."

I don't live in California, so could someone explain this? Does this mean that if a man starts a relationship with a woman that has children, he could be responsible for child support even if they never married? I mean, if my wife died, I would think the world of any woman willing to jump into a relationship with a man that already has three children, both very young. I think those type of people, male or female, should be idolized or frozen in carbonite or something when they die. It just seems this law would almost punish someone for being nice enough to want to even try such a relationship.

So, am I misunderstanding how this works? Could someone explain if I am? Thanks.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Must Pay Child Support

I think this is great. Equal rights also means Equal responsibility.

The right is already upset by this motion...I wonder how the left is feeling?

I recall that in California a man was ordered to pay child support. He apparently had a one night stand with the woman and she claimed he was the father. Later he found out that she, uh, slept around a LOT.

She wanted an increase in child support and he fought it by getting a DNA test and proved the child was not his.

The courts said that is nice. Child support increase granted.

Moonbeam says "Personally quite satisfied, thanks. Kids are not a joke. " Too bad so many parents consider kids so worthless they can be made and aborted on convenience. Even stabbed to death or drowned because they became inconvenient.

If they were not considered a joke then healthy enviornments would be preferred for the rearing of the children rather than social engineering by giving preference to abnormal households.

If childeren were not considered a joke we would actually educate them rather than indoctrinate them.

Too bad the liberal agenda has to abuse the children in order to engineer utopia.

It's rather disturbing to realize that there are those who believe this nonsense.

Yes, somehow he went from not being a joke as a child to being one as an adult.

:laugh:

 

[jackschmittusa]

I have always felt that rights and responsibilities are opposite sides of the same coin. I am all in favor of equal rights for homosexuals, but believe they have equal responsibility as well. Sounds like a fair deal to me.

And how can anyone call a household run by gays "abnormal"? It has been estimated that 10-12% of the population is gay. If the same percentage is African-American, are households run by black people "abnormal"? Different is not abnormal. It would be a dull world indeed if we were all alike.

 

[Orsorum]

Good.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Moonbeam says "Personally quite satisfied, thanks. Kids are not a joke. " Too bad so many parents consider kids so worthless they can be made and aborted on convenience. Even stabbed to death or drowned because they became inconvenient.

Right. This is typical behavior by parents who get tired of their kids. Must happen millions of times a year. At least.

If they were not considered a joke then healthy enviornments would be preferred for the rearing of the children rather than social engineering by giving preference to abnormal households.

I don't have a clue what this means.

Edit: Oh, I get it. ExpertNovice thinks that chidren of gay couples should be yanked from their homes and forcibly placed in "normal" households. Yeah. Let's have Child Protective Services be there in the delivery room, where a lesbian mother is giving birth, and just take that baby away and place it in a "good" household. Can't let those preverts get away with having kids.

If childeren were not considered a joke we would actually educate them rather than indoctrinate them.

I don't have a clue what this means, either. Oh, maybe when a child is raised in a liberal household, that's "indoctrination". But when a child is raised in a good, fundamentalist Christian household, that's "education."

Too bad the liberal agenda has to abuse the children in order to engineer utopia.

Exactly. We liberals just get off on abusing children. That's why liberals have fought for the exapansion of childhood vaccination and school-lunch programs over the objections of conservatives. Feeding children and protecting them from disease is abuse, clearly. Righties know where it's at.

 

[0roo0roo]

Right. This is typical behavior by parents who get tired of their kids. Must happen millions of times a year. At least.

no..trillions!

Exactly. We liberals just get off on abusing children. That's why liberals have fought for the exapansion of childhood vaccination and school-lunch programs over the objections of conservatives. Feeding children and protecting them from disease is abuse, clearly. Righties know where it's at.

yea..taxes are bad, funding schools are bad, health care for children is bad, family planning is bad, but paying for orphanages let alone help to higher education or transition to jobs of kids kicked out of the wonderful foster system at 18 is bad..... only thing conservatives are for is cheap labour and the jails to house the inevitable washout of their irrational system