Children from a gay marriage

[Texashiker]

The women in question has very little legal right to the children,

How is society going to fix that?

 

[BoberFett]

How is this any different than if a hetero couple gets married and the step-parent doesn't adopt the children of the biological parent?

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with gay marriage, except to fools who want to use it to advance an agenda.

Edit: I see this has already been thoroughly addressed...

 

[smackababy]

How is society going to fix that?

Society has already fixed it. They have family courts that decide whether the step parent having parent rights is in the best interest of the child, regardless (in some cases) of the step parents intentions. Fathers who have found out a kid was not biologically their own have still had to pay child support, in the best interest of the child.

This has absolutely zero to do with gay marriage.

 

[lotus503]

Society has already fixed it. They have family courts that decide whether the step parent having parent rights is in the best interest of the child, regardless (in some cases) of the step parents intentions. Fathers who have found out a kid was not biologically their own have still had to pay child support, in the best interest of the child.

This has absolutely zero to do with gay marriage.

exactly

 

[Texashiker]

Society has already fixed it. They have family courts that decide whether the step parent having parent rights is in the best interest of the child, regardless (in some cases) of the step parents intentions. Fathers who have found out a kid was not biologically their own have still had to pay child support, in the best interest of the child.

So your solution is to have people who are not biologically related to the child pay child support and provide health coverage?

I can think of very few cases in which a non-biological parent has been required to support a child. Last I heard some states were moving to prevent non-biological parents from being held responsible for the child.

 

[werepossum]

We can not have one set of laws for one group, and another set of laws for another group.

Agreed. Nor will we have. The question will be more issues on the fringes, such as how the tender years doctrine will work if there are two mothers with equal connections to the child and both work. Interestingly, such doctrines are already being systematically dismantled in favor of a gender-neutral evaluation, so it may be more of an acceleration in that direction than in developing new case law. If not, it won't be greatly different from the changes encountered when women began to enter the workforce in large numbers and the two parents no longer necessarily met traditional roles. Things changes, laws and their interpretations change.

 

[smackababy]

So your solution is to have people who are not biologically related to the child pay child support and provide health coverage?

My 'solution', which it isn't, I didn't have anything to do with it, is that we already have a system in place that determines what is in the best interest of the child. This has nothing to do with gay marriage, but with non biological parents occasionally being viewed as more fit parents, or partially responsible for the upbringing of a child without them taking the proper adoption proceedings.


IF you have a problem with that, I suggest you make a thread about it that doesn't have some anti gay agenda.

 

[werepossum]

So your solution is to have people who are not biologically related to the child pay child support and provide health coverage?

I can think of very few cases in which a non-biological parent has been required to support a child. Last I heard some states were moving to prevent non-biological parents from being held responsible for the child.

Generally speaking, biological relation is one of the smaller parts of parenting regardless of one's genitalia. One could perhaps argue that the biological relationship builds the strongest bonds, and I would not argue that point. But if we're interested in building the strongest possible bonds for the child's benefit, we have to not only support gay marriage but also recognize that the general rule is just that and will often be wrong in a particular case.

 

[Texashiker]

This has nothing to do with gay marriage,

This has a lot to do with gay marriage.

Lesbian wife - I do not want to be responsible for this child my partner had. Can simply walk away.

Biological parent - I do not want to be responsible for this child. State sues, forced to pay support under threat of imprisonment.

And that is somehow fair and balanced treatment?

 

[werepossum]

This has a lot to do with gay marriage.

Lesbian wife - I do not want to be responsible for this child my partner had. Can simply walk away.

Biological parent - I do not want to be responsible for this child. State sues, forced to pay support under threat of imprisonment.

And that is somehow fair and balanced treatment?

A lesbian wife can easily be held financially responsible for a biologically unrelated child of the marriage, or even one predating the marriage, even if she prefers to walk away - just like heteros. Again, this is an argument FOR gay marriage, which establishes the legal bond that makes this practical.

 

[smackababy]

This has a lot to do with gay marriage.

no biological parent - I do not want to be responsible for this child my partner had. Can simply walk away.

Biological parent - I do not want to be responsible for this child. State sues, forced to pay support under threat of imprisonment.

And that is somehow fair and balanced treatment?

There. Exact same situation, except I removed the obvious moronic anti gay garbage.

Guess what? This situation is already addressed by the courts every single day. There is plenty of legal precedent already established. The gender and sexual orientation has so little to do with the case, it doesn't even need to be mentioned.

 

[lotus503]

So your solution is to have people who are not biologically related to the child pay child support and provide health coverage?

I can think of very few cases in which a non-biological parent has been required to support a child. Last I heard some states were moving to prevent non-biological parents from being held responsible for the child.

Then you simple have heard wrong, for at least the last 15 years it has always been the case if the child views you as the parent, relies on you as a parent, you will be held in the eyes of the court as a parent.

If the court deems its in the best interest of the child. in most cases of the non biological parent not having parental responsibility its because paternity was discovered before a real parental bond was formed.

Moral is if you don't want to be reasonable then get that paternity test early on otherwise your going to pay.

 

[BoberFett]

This has a lot to do with gay marriage.

Lesbian wife - I do not want to be responsible for this child my partner had. Can simply walk away.

Biological parent - I do not want to be responsible for this child. State sues, forced to pay support under threat of imprisonment.

And that is somehow fair and balanced treatment?

Are you so dense that you don't understand that hetero couples aren't always both the biological parents either?

 

[Texashiker]

Guess what? This situation is already addressed by the courts every single day. There is plenty of legal precedent already established. The gender and sexual orientation has so little to do with the case, it doesn't even need to be mentioned.

How many womens rights groups are going to demand a woman be held responsible and forced to pay child support? How many feminist groups are going to protest when a woman is not required to take responsibility?

Courts are tilted in favor of the woman. So what happens when both parents are women?

I have been to child support court in Houston 3 times for a review. During those three times I have not seen a single woman arrested, or even threatened with arrest.

On the other hand I saw a man arrested right there in the court room and chained to a bench. I also saw several men put on adult probabtion for not paying support.

When are we going to see lesbians held to the same degree of responsibility as men?

If the court deems its in the best interest of the child. in most cases of the non biological parent not having parental responsibility its because paternity was discovered before a real parental bond was formed.

I have been through this "best interest of the child" meat grinder, it sucks.

As with the opening post, the woman should not even be asking for custody. The state should sue her and force her to take responsibility under threat of imprisonment. Just like the state does men.

 

[smackababy]

How many womens rights groups are going to demand a woman be held responsible and forced to pay child support? How many feminist groups are going to protest when a woman is not required to take responsibility?

Courts are tilted in favor of the woman. So what happens when both parents are women?

I have been to child support court in Houston 3 times for a review. During those three times I have not seen a single woman arrested, or even threatened with arrest.

On the other hand I saw a man arrested right there in the court room and chained to a bench. I also saw several men put on adult probabtion for not paying support.

When are we going to see lesbians held to the same degree of responsibility as men?




I have been through this "best interest of the child" meat grinder, it sucks.

As with the opening post, the woman should not even be asking for custody. The state should sue her and force her to take responsibility under threat of imprisonment. Just like the state does men.

Again, this has nothing to do with gay marriage. If you to argue the gender bias of divorce courts, then make a thread appropriate for that, minus the anti gay crap.

 

[Texashiker]

Again, this has nothing to do with gay marriage.

As with lesbians like in the opening post, where are the womens rights groups demanding the woman take responsibility for the child?

Sure is funny how when it comes to forcing women to take responsibility for their children womens rights groups and feminist are silent.

But when a man is arrested and sent to jail for not paying support he is a dead beat dad. Pictures are posted in the newspaper, the local news station might even be there to video the arrest.

There should be no double standards. Why should the woman in the opening post have to beg to get shared custody?

With equal rights comes equal responsibility. If lesbians want to marry in Texas, then do so. But be ready to have responsibility forced down your throat like everyone else.

 

[smackababy]

As with lesbians like in the opening post, where are the womens rights groups demanding the woman take responsibility for the child?

Sure is funny how when it comes to forcing women to take responsibility for their children womens rights groups and feminist are silent.

But when a man is arrested and sent to jail for not paying support he is a dead beat dad. Pictures are posted in the newspaper, the local news station might even be there to video the arrest.

There should be no double standards. Why should the woman in the opening post have to beg to get shared custody?

With equal rights comes equal responsibility. If lesbians want to marry in Texas, then do so. But be ready to have responsibility forced down your throat like everyone else.

Again, this has nothing to do with gay marriage. I have sour news for you: there are deadbeat moms from hetero marriages!

If this is about the divorce court system being gender bias, then every single post you've made is not about that.

 

[zinfamous]

Are you so dense that you don't understand that hetero couples aren't always both the biological parents either?

I predicted a serviceable answer to your question in post #7:

This Texashiker thread will be like all other Texashiker threads.

 

[zinfamous]

the real problem is that Texashiker and other like-minded cow-tipping aficionados of the country actually place validity on a subject simply because it appears on sites like brietbart.com.

"I read it there, therefore it must be relevant!"

 

[lotus503]

How many womens rights groups are going to demand a woman be held responsible and forced to pay child support? How many feminist groups are going to protest when a woman is not required to take responsibility?

Courts are tilted in favor of the woman. So what happens when both parents are women?

I have been to child support court in Houston 3 times for a review. During those three times I have not seen a single woman arrested, or even threatened with arrest.

On the other hand I saw a man arrested right there in the court room and chained to a bench. I also saw several men put on adult probabtion for not paying support.

When are we going to see lesbians held to the same degree of responsibility as men?




I have been through this "best interest of the child" meat grinder, it sucks.

As with the opening post, the woman should not even be asking for custody. The state should sue her and force her to take responsibility under threat of imprisonment. Just like the state does men.

I have been through it too and if you give a shit about your kids well being in most cases the court is close on determining what that is when two parents cant agree.

I have one case where we fought it out in court for years, I have another where mom and I agreed presented the court with a plan that was adopted and we stick to.

Id say the court given the availability information does a decent job of holding all parties accountable for the child. and I pay a fuckton per month in support, have no problem doing it either, my kids after all its the very least I can do.

 

[bradly1101]

Maybe same sex marriage will bring a sense of fairness to divorce since everyone is the mom/dad equivalent.

 

[shadow9d9]

Do we really need to hear about the fact that all texaswacko does all day is obsess about and jerk off to male on male gay fantasies?

 

[TheSiege]

I am not biologically related to my son and I pay child support. I adopted him and made a commitment as an adult.

 

[TheSiege]

People can protest and stop and prevent marriage equality once opposite sex marriage is perfect and without problems. Until then, straight people need to stop throwing stones.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Two lesbians have filed for divorce in Texas.

One woman says she wants joint custody and access to the child.

The mother of the child says since her partner is not the biological parent, she deserves nothing. The child was not legally adopted by the other parent.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/03/18/First-Lesbian-Divorce-Filed-in-San-Antonio

This case is being used as a tool to justify gay marriages.



How is the child supposed to come from two same sex partners? There was a case in Germany where a woman claiming to be a guy wanted to be listed as the father. But this is not Germany.

100 years from now somebody is trying to trace their family history, comes to same sex parents, what now? Its not like that person will be able to trace a genetic family tree.

The mother get artificially inseminated, gives birth, are equal rights granted to both parents?

Woman has sex with a man just to get knocked up, he finds out she is knocked up and sues for parental rights, where does that leave the other parent?

If we start making people who are not biologically connected to a child pay child support, the states are going to have to rewrite the child support laws. The current laws are written in favor of the woman. Guess something will have to change when both parents are women.

Storm in a tea pot again? What doesn't twist your panties in a knot?